Rick Santorum says Republicans offer nothing to blue collar workers

[IGIT]

I would guess the same. regardless of whether he means it or not, he is correct. GOP will wither on the vine with their current strategy

hi 7437,

they will and they won't.

they'll do fine in the House, due to the crazy, bizzaro world of gerrymandering.

they'll have a bit of a harder time in the Senate, because you have to poll well across a broader spectrum - and this is where the right wing of the GOP becomes a liability.
Democrats don't have this problem, because there is no "left wing" of the Democratic party that has any legislative power.

the same problem exists, on a more magnified scale, for the skipper's seat. the GOP get's hampered by its base to a degree that Democrats are free of. Clinton solved that problem be effectively co-opting GOP positions, triangulating to the point where the Democrats became indistinguishable from Republicans - a tradition continued by Mr. Obama.

i don't know what the GOP will do. you're right, they have to broaden section of the population that they cull votes from....i just don't know how they do it.

go take a look at Santorum's record in the Senate and tell me he was a "man of the people".

i don't see it, and i definitely don't see it in his post congressional career.

he certainly didn't say a damn thing about this issue when he was running against Romney in the primary and he had PLENTY of opportunity.

when did Santorum have this enlightenment, then, i wonder? he's probably thinking of the best way to position himself, rhetorically, for the next presidential race. i don't buy it.

- IGIT

 

[7437]

hi 7437,

they will and they won't.

they'll do fine in the House, due to the crazy, bizzaro world of gerrymandering.

they'll have a bit of a harder time in the Senate, because you have to poll well across a broader spectrum - and this is where the right wing of the GOP becomes a liability.
Democrats don't have this problem, because there is no "left wing" of the Democratic party that has any legislative power.

the same problem exists, on a more magnified scale, for the skipper's seat. the GOP get's hampered by its base to a degree that Democrats are free of. Clinton solved that problem be effectively co-opting GOP positions, triangulating to the point where the Democrats became indistinguishable from Republicans - a tradition continued by Mr. Obama.

i don't know what the GOP will do. you're right, they have to broaden section of the population that they cull votes from....i just don't know how they do it.

go take a look at Santorum's record in the Senate and tell me he was a "man of the people".

i don't see it, and i definitely don't see it in his post congressional career.

he certainly didn't say a damn thing about this issue when he was running against Romney in the primary and he had PLENTY of opportunity.

when did Santorum have this enlightenment, then, i wonder? he's probably thinking of the best way to position himself, rhetorically, for the next presidential race. i don't buy it.

- IGIT

there are plenty of positions that the GOP could use to attract new voters. simply not acting hostile to New groups would be a great start. net neutrality could help with young people. young people hate social security, another thing in common with GOP. focusing on how the GOP is good for these groups instead of using fear to rally elderly white men would put them in a much better position.

 

[James Keith]

hi 7437,

they will and they won't.

they'll do fine in the House, due to the crazy, bizzaro world of gerrymandering.

they'll have a bit of a harder time in the Senate, because you have to poll well across a broader spectrum - and this is where the right wing of the GOP becomes a liability.
Democrats don't have this problem, because there is no "left wing" of the Democratic party that has any legislative power.

the same problem exists, on a more magnified scale, for the skipper's seat. the GOP get's hampered by its base to a degree that Democrats are free of. Clinton solved that problem be effectively co-opting GOP positions, triangulating to the point where the Democrats became indistinguishable from Republicans - a tradition continued by Mr. Obama.

The left wing of the Democrats are the liberals. And they have been pretty much dominant in the party, just smarter about broadcasting their unpopular ideas. Their guy is in charge so they will forgive a lot more stuff done in the name of politics too.

Clinton was a "new democrat". His appropriation of conservative economics was the whole point of the split between liberals and new democrats.

I think Obama is just a lawyer-style compromiser who will get as much as he can for his side (liberalism), without sticking his own neck out very much, and call it a win.

 

[IGIT]

heya James,

The left wing of the Democrats are the liberals. And they have been pretty much dominant in the party, just smarter about broadcasting their unpopular ideas. Their guy is in charge so they will forgive a lot more stuff done in the name of politics too.

i have no doubt that the left wing (whomever they are) of the Democratic party has liberals in it. i am just pointing out that they have no legislative power, and they haven't for quite a long time now. and remember, Elizabeth Warren is singular, not plural. there's just one of her.

Clinton was a "new democrat". His appropriation of conservative economics was the whole point of the split between liberals and new democrats.

i don't care what the labels are, i am just looking at legislative history. President Bill Clinton (by most accounts a well remembered man here on Sherdog) governed as a moderate Republican. he drove Richard Reich (the lone actual liberal in his cabinet) more or less insane.

the two words "Dick Morris" should tell you all you need to know about Mr. Clinton, philosophically.

I think Obama is just a lawyer-style compromiser who will get as much as he can for his side (liberalism), without sticking his own neck out very much, and call it a win.

Mr. Obama, excuse me, President Obama, has governed as a moderate conservative, James. just look at the man's record and try to ignore the rhetoric.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

there are plenty of positions that the GOP could use to attract new voters. simply not acting hostile to New groups would be a great start. net neutrality could help with young people. young people hate social security, another thing in common with GOP. focusing on how the GOP is good for these groups instead of using fear to rally elderly white men would put them in a much better position.

hi 7437,

sure.

no doubt the GOP could do those things, but first they'd have to say "adios" to their base.

i just have a very hard time seeing that happening.

if the GOP lays just one pinkie on Social Security, they'll probably just vanish as a party.

*poof*

no more GOP.

- IGIT

 

[Kitafuji]

his daughter is smokin hot.

 

[James Keith]

heya James,



i have no doubt that the left wing (whomever they are) of the Democratic party has liberals in it. i am just pointing out that they have no legislative power, and they haven't for quite a long time now. and remember, Elizabeth Warren is singular, not plural. there's just one of her.



i don't care what the labels are, i am just looking at legislative history. President Bill Clinton (by most accounts a well remembered man here on Sherdog) governed as a moderate Republican. he drove Richard Reich (the lone actual liberal in his cabinet) more or less insane.

the two words "Dick Morris" should tell you all you need to know about Mr. Clinton, philosophically.



Mr. Obama, excuse me, President Obama, has governed as a moderate conservative, James. just look at the man's record and try to ignore the rhetoric.

- IGIT

Moderates and conservatives are two different wings of the Republican party.

Anyway I'm sure I could find fault with most of the specific claims of Obama's "conservatism". But either way, politics is the art of the possible, it's a conservative country. And rhetoric from the bully pulpit is not irrelevant, it is how he tries to sway the country towards his actual ideology, when he's not engaged in the compromises and sausage-making.

 

[IGIT]

evening Mr. Keith,

Moderates and conservatives are two different wings of the Republican party.

okay.

still, there are moderate conservatives. Mr. Obama has governed as one.

regarding whether the US a conservative country or not, i'm never sure what that means. the country is constantly changing, and it's hard not to argue that the cultural changes have all been a shift to the liberal, not the conservative.

for all the talk i've heard about the smaller government side of conservatives, the GOP sure has show a propensity over the last four decades to spend with a kind of abandon that liberals would envy.

when i think of a Tea Party caliber conservative, i can't help but see a white person, yet the nation is becoming less white, not more so.

if you say this is a conservative country....ok, i guess. i just don't know how you define that.

- IGIT

 

[James Keith]

evening Mr. Keith,



okay.

still, there are moderate conservatives. Mr. Obama has governed as one.

And I say there aren't and this statement is a misuse of terminology. Sounds like something a person on the far left would say, implying that people to the right of moderate republicans are not just conservatives but immoderate conservatives.

regarding whether the US a conservative country or not, i'm never sure what that means. the country is constantly changing, and it's hard not to argue that the cultural changes have all been a shift to the liberal, not the conservative.

for all the talk i've heard about the smaller government side of conservatives, the GOP sure has show a propensity over the last four decades to spend with a kind of abandon that liberals would envy.

when i think of a Tea Party caliber conservative, i can't help but see a white person, yet the nation is becoming less white, not more so.

if you say this is a conservative country....ok, i guess. i just don't know how you define that.

- IGIT

So you think Obama's behavior is irrational? Or is his long-kept secret ideology coming out?

And it means there are more conservatives now and those conservatives are more conservative.

The median age of the country keeps rising. When the baby boomers were young, it was a period called the liberal consensus, where presidents from both parties governed as liberals. Now that huge generation is much older and pulls the country the other way. And more generally the place doesn't suck as much as it did back then, so there's more to be conservative about.

 

[7437]

hi 7437,

sure.

no doubt the GOP could do those things, but first they'd have to say "adios" to their base.

i just have a very hard time seeing that happening.

if the GOP lays just one pinkie on Social Security, they'll probably just vanish as a party.

*poof*

no more GOP.

- IGIT

Maybe. These were jusr examples though. Target groups to assimilate into the GOP, instead of targeting groups to exclude.

 

[computer fogie]

So Rick Santorum has decided to be a populist conservative for 2016? He's not wrong, but I'd be shocked if it got him anywhere. And he's way too religiously oriented for most on the left and many independents to consider voting for him.

This. Santorum is truly scum and should not be allowed to hold any public office. Plus he's weird as fuck.

 

[jackietreehorn8]

Santorum: The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.

I wish I had never discovered this back when he was running for pres. I swear to god I get nauseous every time I read anything about the guy because of this double meaning of his name. I hope he never makes his way back to the national sphere, my stomach can't handle it.

 

[IGIT]

'afternoon James,

And I say there aren't and this statement is a misuse of terminology. Sounds like something a person on the far left would say, implying that people to the right of moderate republicans are not just conservatives but immoderate conservatives.

it's not a left or right thing though. it's not unusual for someone to eschew core principles of a particular ideology, yet moderating their stance on some of the particulars - that's how i define a moderate.

IE - let's say you embrace gay rights, a robust and active Federal Government in our K-12 schools, but you're a devout Catholic and you're uncomfortable with the Democratic party's position on abortion. you'd be a moderate liberal, to me.

let's say you are a strict constitutionalist, you're troubled by the strength of the UAW and teacher's unions, you're alarmed by the fact Roe vs Wade hasn't been struck down, yet you're a booster of stem cell research and feel Americans should be able to earn a living wage - well, you'd be a moderate conservative to me.

i just don't see things as black and white as you do, maybe. i'm not saying i'm right and you're wrong....just that we apparently see things differently.

So you think Obama's behavior is irrational? Or is his long-kept secret ideology coming out?

hmm?

i think in some ways, Mr. Obama is being exactly who he claimed he was going to be when he was running for POTUS. he said numerous times that there would be instances that he made the right unhappy, and there would be also be instances that he was going to upset the left.

Mr. Obama himself had always admired Bill Clinton's triangulating, and it shows in his tenure as President.

if you follow left learning journalism, it doesn't matter if its Slate.com or Salon.com or Ms. Maddow on MSNBC, or Paul Krugman at the NYT, it's really clear that that Mr. Obama is to the right of most liberals.

i never thought Mr. Obama was some nutter liberal, and he certainly hasn't governed as one, at all.

And it means there are more conservatives now and those conservatives are more conservative.

ok. sure. if you say so.

The median age of the country keeps rising. When the baby boomers were young, it was a period called the liberal consensus, where presidents from both parties governed as liberals. Now that huge generation is much older and pulls the country the other way. And more generally the place doesn't suck as much as it did back then, so there's more to be conservative about.

hahaha, alrighty. that's not how i see it.

now that huge generation is much older and pulls the country towards protecting the true landmark legislation that liberals passed, namely social security and medicare.

*cough*

- IGIT

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

LMAO. Right on cue, the GOP jumps into action:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/gop-minimum-wage-increase_n_2884912.html

House Republicans Unanimously Vote Down Minimum Wage Increase

 

[Toastytoy]

Santorum: The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.

has this every actually happened to any of you? i have forked a good number of butts and never noticed a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter. once in a while a little poop comes out but it doesnt froth into a mixture in my experience.

 

[7437]

LMAO. Right on cue, the GOP jumps into action:

this is exactly the kind if thing he was talking about. there is little upside to voting republican for low income people

 

[Its Me Austin]

LMAO. Right on cue, the GOP jumps into action:

What about the CBO report that said raising it could eliminate 500k jobs?

 

[VulcanNervPinch]

What about the CBO report that said raising it could eliminate 500k jobs?

You could increase jobs by dropping the minimum wage, too. What if it was $5? Or $2? Or none at all?

You'd have more people offering work at those rates...but what good would those jobs do the employees? A job that pays so poorly the employee can't get by on it and they have to supported by supplementary government assistance isn't a very valuable job, to the employee or to society. It's just a way for businesses to pass a cost they ought to be shouldering on to individual taxpayers, so that their bottom line is nicer.

 

[IGIT]

What about the CBO report that said raising it could eliminate 500k jobs?

hiya Austin,

The CBO report also said the minimum wage rise would increase earnings for more than 16.5 million people by 2016 and lift 900,000 people above the poverty line.

But its unexpected conclusion that a $10.10 minimum wage would lead to half a million fewer people working has received more coverage than any other finding, and provided Republicans with what they believe is a strong economic case for blocking the increase.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/30/us-senate-republicans-block-minimum-wage-senate-bill

so, you'd have a half million more people on government safety net programs, but you'd also have almost a million people lifted above the poverty line (so you're getting a net gain of a half million folks off the dole) in addition to raising the incomes of 16.5 million people.

seems like a sensible trade off, even if 500k jobs were lost, no?

- IGIT

 

[7437]

hiya Austin,

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/30/us-senate-republicans-block-minimum-wage-senate-bill

so, you'd have a half million more people on government safety net programs, but you'd also have almost a million people lifted above the poverty line (so you're getting a net gain of a half million folks off the dole) in addition to raising the incomes of 16.5 million people.

seems like a sensible trade off, even if 500k jobs were lost, no?

- IGIT

I would be willing to bet a large part of the people on minimum wage are also working more than 1 job. people need less jobs if they can survive on just 1