« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Hey Stupid Party Candidates, the Answer to Every Question is: Jobs, Energy, Spending, or ObamaCare

By: Brookhaven (Diary)  |  March 16th, 2012 at 05:14 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Did Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum just go back and forth over Puerto Rican statehood and English as America’s official language?

Did Rick Santorum actually say that he would crackdown on hardcore pornography?

Did the GOP candidates actually allow themselves to get bogged down in a debate over…birth control pills?

The GOP has been called the Stupid Party by even its most ardent supporters, because it has a history of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.  This election should be a landslide for the GOP, if it will just stay on target and focus on the issues that will decide this election?

The target is Obama, and the issues that will decide this election are: jobs, energy, spending, and ObamaCare.

Every time the GOP candidates allow themselves to get sidetracked away from these four issues, it helps Obama. And, it’s pretty obvious that the Democrat’s plan (along with their willing partners in the mainstream media) is to keep the GOP candidates talking about anything other than jobs, energy, spending, or ObamaCare–absolutely anything else.

C’mon guys, don’t be the Stupid Party candidate. The next time someone dangles some bait question hoping to get you sidetracked, don’t take it. No matter what the question–no matter what–answer it by talking about jobs, energy, spending, or ObamaCare.  Stay focused and stay on target.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    but 53% of the people who bothered to vote pulled the lever for the Marxist. Including some “conservatives.” And many conservatives just couldn’t bother themselves to vote for McCain.

    This video was made two years ago. Still pretty good.

    I hope our candidates will “pivot” to attacking Obama and his stupid, dangerous, unconstitutional policies as you have laid them out.

    Thank you.

    CW

    • acat

      IIRC, and AceInTx was the one who showed me the numbers, the “moderate nominally GOP voters” were the ones Obama won (and McCain lost) in 2008.

      I’d been guilty of swallowing the media story that conservatives had stayed home and appreciate Ace’s clue-by-four.

      Mew

  • rednation

    Santorum did NOT say this over porn, and it’s a very instructive little diddie about your larger argument.

    The media in a\large part manufactures these distractions, practically forcing reaction, which then we never stay on message in consequence.

    Santorum had comments simply arguing for enforcement of current (not future plans for new laws) obscenity statutes over internet porn.

    The same position is held by Romney and Gingrich, but Santorum was singled out, and now CNN is running with this deliberate distortion, following TDCs’s hit piece aided by Romney shill Matt Drudge.

    They do this all the time, especially to soc-cons, who they hate most, to pick our candidates for us in the primary process when rank and file GOP voters will fear him being painted as a religious nut trying to enforce his values in a general, so that they run to a Romney, whom the press holds its fire on UNTIL he’s nominated and then they start calling HIM the racist, homophobe,etc.

    So, it’s no so much that Santorum is not talking jobs, energy, Obamacare. In fact, HE IS DOING THAT nearly ALL the TIME on he stump. But the press digs, then manufactures these “controversies” and makes them talk to defuse them, taking the candidate off message, Constantly.

    It’s deliberate.

    And the blame is not all on the Stupid Party…

    • rednation

      Santorum had them up on his web site running for prez, for like 4+ months, and the press said nothing. Now, on the heels of the huge IL primary, suddenly they warn people that “Pope Rick” wants to take their internet porn away.

      Santorum has never mentioned this on the trail.

      The fact that you seem unaware of this is even more telling as to our prospects of fighting this propaganda war…

      • rednation

        …that the media manufactures to distract, over “religious submission” and then every article will point to it, and claim he hates and controls women, and the reporters will ask him if his wife asks permission to use the toilet or some such garbage, seriously, to force Santorum to “answer the charges” and to distract from his message on Obamacare and the like.

        See how this game is played? He does not have to mention anything about JFK throwing up, the media will make sure he has to answer for whatever they make up and throw at him non-stop to prevent issue discussion.

        Liberals do that now with Fluke and the Rush affair, where they constantly distract on issue substance and analysis with side issues, and conservatives all too often play along and start investigating liberal talk hosts, instead of reminding people these are not the core issues of the publicly funded contraception issue.

        Property rights and the constitutional right of free exercise and expression of religion and religious conscience, are….

    • Finrod

      No one twisted Rick’s arm to put on his own website for his own political campaign the whole treatise against pornography that he put up there.

      If you don’t like people taking note of it and asking questions, then maybe you should ask your candidate why he put it there in the first place.

      • rednation

        Really disheartening and just as vast as on the left.

        This was a HIT PIECE.

        Got it?

        You are blaming Santorum over the left and the faux right with this diatribe over a position that is IDENTICAL to Newt’s and Mitt Romney’s.

        Rick Santorum is the one here being non-hypocritical and supportive of the rule of law, regardless of how he feels about it, pending any alteration in statute.

        You have the rule of man by choosing to pick and choose which laws you want to observe and that of which you do not.

        That’s Obama and the left’s view, not OURS. He chooses, by not liking DOMA, to ignore it. If he does not like it, he needs to change the laws, not fail to uphold his duty to follow them impartially pending judicial review if that is deemed imperative.

        What I do not like is the timing of the question, when he had this info on his site for 5+ months, with the same position at core level exactly as Newt’s and Mitt’s, but the rules are apparently different for HIM. What I do not like is the brainwashing tool to make it look like he was stressing this in VERBAL stumping, to build the idea that Santorum has this at the top of his list in office, and began “talking about divisive social issues again” when in fact nearly 100% of his speeches are on the economy and such.

        It’s incredible how you fail to get the point here about the manipulation of public opinion by an enemy on the left and fauz right that is incredibly serious and must be dealt with forcefully to educate voters to make informed decisions.

        • Finrod

          You can keep SAYING that Santorum’s position is identical to Gingrich’s and Romney’s, but it’s NOT. Only Santorum is worried about porn on the Internet. Show me evidence to the contrary or I will keep repeating this until you accede.

          And cry me a river about hit pieces, if Santorum can’t weather this one he’s useless as a candidate. Republicans ALWAYS get hit by hit pieces from all sides, quit your whining already.

          • rednation

            Do some research.

            Begin by reading Robert Stacey McCain’s post on this claptrap. Then pick up the phone and call Newt.

            Your argument about whining, and Santorum’s weakness show you also do not get it there, either.

            First of all it’s NOT whining one iota for Santorum to expect ethical treatment, and for conservatives to stand up to the media and point this out, for us to go after SANTORUM is idiocy.

            It does not mean if Santorum is weakened, he’s useless in a general, survival of the fittest, etc.

            That’s false logic. The problem is with how the rank and leadership of the GOP REACTS to this kind of “defining strategy” and does not educate voters to not fall for tricks.

            Ask 20 people after CNN and other outlets ran with this story, if they think Santorum just a day ago or so talked up a storm on this in his speeches, or made it a clear priority. They will assume he did.

            Do you know WHY?

            Because the left is very good at “moderating” ideologically our candidates through these devious methods, and if not exposed, all the “weathering” in the world will not save us from certain loss in the cultural and financial wars with progressives.

            The left is a lot smarter on these tactics than we are, sadly.

            If informed, people realize this FACTUALLY was a hit piece, with a different, agenda driven standard applied ONLY to Santorum.

            Once they see they were misled, it becomes a different game, but with conservatives throwing their hands up and arguing this like you do, we are certain to lose over time the battle for perception.

            All 3 have the same vigorous enforcement standard for all practical purposes, which is hardly a surprise, BTW:

            Former Senator Rick Santorum in a written statement:

          • Finrod

            .

          • rednation

            You are making an emotional argument about an effectively identical position by arguing perhaps that Newt somehow did not address INTERNET porn in applying Obscenity statutes, though one can assume lawyers such as Santorum will argue application is possible, if not easy to enforce (in which case one might not have to worry about keeping one’s porn access online) using said obscenity laws to regulate *online* porn.

            The key here is the problem is with us, not Santorum. We want politicians to tell us only what we want to hear, and not otherwise. If we have laws we do not want enforced, we expect that those will be disregarded, not removed first, hypocritically and selectively.

            The other problem with us is we do not appreciate how important it is to not allow the left to define our candidates, using hit pieces designed to frame them and debate terms, misleading the ignorant…

          • Finrod

            The Internet is an international network not controllable by US law. The reason I pointed out the Internet specifically is because you keep claiming that Newt’s and Mitt’s position is the same as Rick’s when they are not. Calling it ‘hair-splitting’ and using weasel words like ‘effectively’ means you recognize this but just don’t want to admit it.

            Also, quit claiming I’m making emotional arguments I’m not, for that is another form of lying. My argument is based on the Constitution that Rick and you both seem to be clueless about. The federal government does not have the authority that you and he want to give it, and it never should. Leave the regulation of vice to the states and municipalities where it belongs under the Constitution.

          • rednation

            Mitt Romney has called for internet regulation of Porn as far back as 2007. Please do some research. He also is directly quoted in text in another statement known by January to the same effect.

            Newt is on record as being for enforcement of Obscenity laws, in that statement he did not SPECIFICALLY SINGLE OUT any source of it aside from availability in the country, but there is little doubt as to what he meant and its extent if possible to enforce.

            You are hair splitting, there positions are the same. Stacy McCain has this correct, you do not.

            Your argument about an interpretation of the Constitution is irrelevant to my critical point about not picking and choosing to ignore statutes you dislike and arguing law must be followed when you agree to it.

            It’s extremely clear what obscenity laws were aimed at, and no, liberals cannot claim conservative speech text about non-prurient issues are obscene and not have it laughed out of court.

            As for understanding, I think Rick has more legal training than you do, Since he’s one of the few persons ever to run for the presidency on the Republican side familiar with the errors of the 1949 Everson case, I’d say your opinion of his knowledge of the Constitution is not worth listening to.

          • acat

            …

  • annie54

    Enforcing laws against illegal pornography

    America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography. A wealth of research is now available demonstrating that pornography causes profound brain changes in both children and adults, resulting in widespread negative consequences. Addiction to pornography is now common for adults and even for some children. The average age of first exposure to hard-core, Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking.

    Every family must now be concerned about the harm from pornography. As a parent, I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture.

    For many decades, the American public has actively petitioned the United States Congress for laws prohibiting distribution of hard-core adult pornography.

    Congress has responded. Current federal

    • Finrod

      (Thank you, Neil, for that phrasing.)

      If you’re willing to use the power of the Federal Government for pornography control despite that power not being one delegated to the federal government or denied to the states, then you are nothing more than a Big Government Conservative, and the only difference between you and the liberals are the things you want to unconstitutionally use the power of the Federal Government for.

      • rednation

        It has nothing to do with “being a big government conservative” it has everything to do with not picking and choosing which statutes you will obey and not obey, without changing those laws.

        That’s what liberals do. It’s what Obama has done with DOMA, being in contempt of court on enacting NHC while in review, not enforcing immigration laws, etc.

        Obscenity laws, do not like them, change or dump them, but you will follow them until then, just like you pay taxes.

        And since you likely support Newt, or perhaps but less likely support Romney, you will be elated to hear they hold an IDENTICAL position to Santorum.

        I guess that makes them big gov conservatives, too?

        You only are worried because you think Rick MEANS IT and you feel Newt or Mitt will look the other way as most have, and not enforce current obscenity laws.

        That’s even worse…

        • acat

          (original)

          Politically, this is

          • acat

            (cat taps claws on his desk)

        • Finrod

          Furthermore, I do not believe that either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich have expressed support for cracking down on pornography on the Internet. Since you claim that they do, the burden of proof falls on you to link to your sources.

          Only Santorum is concerned about the Internet and wants to regulate it as he sees fit. Well, congratulations, you want ‘obscene’ material off the Internet? What happens when Democrats get control of the Presidency and Congress again and define conservative thought as obscene? They’re already trying to get Rush Limbaugh kicked off the airwaves, if you don’t think they’d do that, then I have news for you: the word ‘gullible’ isn’t in the dictionary.

          • rednation

            1st, you d@mn well know trying to split hairs over online vs not-online is trickery.

            2nd, it’s a FACT both Newt and Mitt did so, google it.

            You cannot pick and choose which laws you like and will obey, and ones you do not and will not obey. You repeal ones you do not like.

            Or, perhaps you agree with Obama on not enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act since he ideologically disagrees with it? How about immigration laws that he also has instructed his goons to ignore, since he’s an open borders leftist? How about his contempt of court defiance over implementing NHC?

            Your argument over the libs defining obscene non-prurient spheres as being our fate shows a lack of legal understanding, and is a weak red herring.

          • Finrod

            I demolished your argument up the screen, and here you are saying the same stupid things.

            Furthermore, you’re dragging strawmen into this debate (who the heck is even talking about the Defense of Marriage Act?), which shows even further that you’re following the old defense attorney maxim– if the law is on your side, pound the law; if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if neither are on your side, pound the table.

            All you’re doing is table-pounding here, and repeating to yourself “Dead men DO bleed!”.

          • rednation

            You know full well you appear to have been clueless about whether or not either Mitt or Newt held “essentially” (and no that’s not a wiggle room term, since there is no way they have the exact SAME statement, only the gist) the same position, that of vigorous enforcement of obscenity laws (currently on the books) that are being ignored as of now.

            Again, Finrod, the issue here to focus on was the advocacy journalism and Drudge shilling and its dimensions…

          • aesthete

            It’s the whole d*mned issue!

            See, we don’t have a ban on pornography, hardcore or otherwise — though from a theological, Christian standpoint, looking at either involves the same sin. We have certain regulations regarding obscenity, which are largely “time, place, and manner”-style restrictions, not outright bans. In the US, you cannot have obscenity in a public fora: whether this means pornography on the internet or not is an open question legally. First of all, obscenity laws have never applied to all forms of nudity, and more specifically have never applied to all pornography. Playboy-style centerfolds, “tasteful nudes” and several other forms of pornography have been considered protected speech in the past; IIRC, even some cases involving genital penetration has been protected. Suffice it to say, there is no hard and fast definition — meaning that “enforcement” of this law is almost entirely arbitrary.

            Santorum isn’t just interpreting a law to the letter — he wants to appoint an AG who shares his views on pornography, and which will use some old law on the books to criminalize these views to the extent possible. Since the law in question is very broad, it gives Santorum wide latitude on what he can criminalize — but that doesn’t mean that the law was intended to ban pornography, or that the public fora it refers to encapsulates the whole internet.

          • garfieldjl

            I’m not convinced that Santorum wants to necessarily go that far, however that’s not what matters in this case.

            What matters is how easy would it be for the media to get people to believe that’s what Santorum wants. My problem with Santorum is he keeps walking right into these obvious traps.

            He keeps playing right into Obama’s hands, which is why I don’t think he can win in November.

            We need someone that can put Obama on the defensive, not someone that will continually be put on the defensive by Team Obama.

          • aesthete

            I’ll assume that his op-ed is still his position on the subject.

            His position is that the AG can ban “hardcore” online pornography based on obscenity laws, and that he’s going to appoint an AG who will make this a priority and prosecute accordingly.

          • rednation

            http://www.politicususa.com/ban-porn-gingrich-santorum-romney/

            Let’s see if you guys learn the right lesson from this, which I hope is not to act like a little girl and blame Santorum!

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            So hell yes it’s his fault. Mitt and Newt may be opposed to porn and may even want to do something about it, but they’re not the ones on some half-assed moral crusade. That would be sweater boy.

  • annie54

    because he included “Enforcing laws against illegal pornography” as one of his issues on his website.

    I resent your lack of respect.

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      Check out Tech at Night today on the front page. Neil takes this stupidity down pretty well.

      Santorum doesn’t know any more about how to ban porn than he does about manufacturing and tax policy. Let’s be clear, we can’t legally stop the sale of pornographic magazines in convenience stores. Best we can do is put them behind the counter and hide most of the cover. Actually, the cover of Cosmo, sold in grocery stores at the checkout lanes, is probably more provocative than the “porn” of the 60s when I was growing up.

      And Santorum is talking about the internet, and international enforcement of US porn laws that aren’t currently designed to enforced cross-border – with the exception of child-porn, and we can’t enforce those laws effectively.

      This is complete and utter rank stupidity on his part, won’t bring down the price of gas or food, and, it won’t touch porn purveyors either. I can’t wait until the Hollywood porn industry, by some estimates a billion dollar US based industry, starts on this one.

    • elizaliza

      “because he included

      • Ausonius

        :)

        Snooki and Company?

        A biography of Bill Clinton?

        Maybe..

        The Roe vs. Wade Decision?

        MAObama’s Hell-th Care Bill?!

        The Dems Budget for 2013?

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          Obamanations

      • aesthete

        under current law — what is banned under Federal law is obscenity. There is no objective definition of either obscenity or pornography, and the difference between erotic art and pornography is entirely subjective. How these are interpreted varies wildly throughout the US, and always has.

        Simply put, Santorum can not call out anyone for improper enforcement, and claim to be merely for proper enforcement: obscenity statutes have *never* been interpreted consistently, there has never been an objective definition or standard by which to differentiate between protected speech and obscenity, and they have never been broadly or consistently enforced. There is no way to do so — this is, in my opinion, a prime characteristic of bad law. Santorum is misleading when he implies that his view of “enforcement” is any more valid than what was done under either the Clinton, Bush, or Obama administrations. Quite frankly, I think the conservative position in the face of a vague and poorly-defined law is to write a tight and well-defined one and repeal the poorly defined law — as a libertarian-conservative I would prefer that we do away with the statute outright, but there it is. Santorum’s approach is for his AG to engage in shenanigans under the guise of “enforcing” the law, and is no less repugnant than when the Obama administration asserts that it is “enforcing” US law when it raids Gibson using some obscure legislation which does not justify the action.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          Of course Kos and Obama might see it differently.

          This crap is exactly why Santorum is on the very bottom of my list.

  • Common_Cents

    and let themselves get sidetracked. When is the GOP going to label the obama propaganda media as hostile and start a coordinated effort to combat it?

    • garfieldjl

      He is horrible at setting the agenda.

      If it was an honest debate and not a bunch of Obama shills in the media, Santorum would clobber Obama easily.

      Newt Gingrich has been the only one that has thrown this back in the media’s face on live TV. He’s the only one that can set agenda despite the media’s attempts to protect Obama.

      Newt is the only one that can beat Obama in November.

      • rednation

        Newt is too unpredictable and too unpopular with high negatives and looks angry to undecideds. He’s too far back in states won (though not in delegates, it’s perceptual, admittedly) to recover, so Santorum has to be picked to have any shot at stopping Romney.

        Honest debate is what you make it.

        It’s not Santorum at fault, it’s the GOP establishment that gives up fights before they are waged by backing Romney, and our fault we allow the left to define our guys and back away for fear of looking “extreme” on social issues, etc.

        The left moderates our candidates in the primary, and gets rid of the Bachmann’s, then it plays nice on the Romney’s UNTIL they are locked into the nomination, then they turn on the Romney full force in the general election and he is made to look as bad as they can make him.

        Come fall, Romney will be called a racist, too…

        • garfieldjl

          There is an excitement with Newt supporters you don’t see as much with Santorum supporters, and you certainly don’t see with Romney supporters.

          We are facing Barack Obama here, and Obama has negatives too.

          Newt’s “angry guy reputation” can work just as easily for Newt, particularly when he is going after Washington with the I had everything fixed and am pissed off that you managed to turn surplusses into record deficit attitude.

          Newt’s behavior in the debates has also deflated a lot of the “angry guy” reputation as well.

          Because Obama will have the money advantage, a lot more will be focused on the debates.

          Obama would be at a serious disadvantage fighting with Newt, because Newt’s “baggage” like what we’ve seen in the primary would be insanely difficult to attack from the left.

          Bain Capital is Romney’s weakness, Obama can easily attack this from the left (which is what Gingrich tried to warn us about).

          Santorum is both incredibly strong and incredibly weak on social issues. Obama knows how to turn Santorum’s biggest strength into a serious weakness.

          Gingrich’s weaknesses that people keep on siting here would be total lunacy for Obama to go after for the most part, because it would call attention to his own baggage, and people would get more upset over Obama’s baggage than Newt’s.

    • rednation

      The media sets the agenda not by what issues WE talk about, but how WE react to the issue framing tricks and hit pieces. We cannot avoid talking about cultural issues, or we lose without a fight over time the whole enchilada.

      Social issues do not lose, it’s many on the right’s views of dealing with them and responding to to leftist framing tactics that’s to blame.

      Starting with John McCain recently, but it’s obvious the right is light years behind the left in understanding how to fight for what one believes in without fearing public backlash, etc.

      The left wins even unpopular social issues time and again in a few years, from LOSING positions, because they do not care what has to be done to win, and stand up for their views, and they are better at issue framing and term definition, etc.

  • Pingback: Nick Carnes

  • Pingback: Alexis Fyler

  • annie54

    the most conservative acceptance speech believed ever uttered included the following:

  • aesthete

    I haven’t heard any of the major news networks say with a straight face as part of their news programs that any of the Republican candidates is an honest-to-God Nazi, as CBS did on the same week that Goldwater announced his campaign.