Topic: 2012 election

[cupper]

It's all in the argument, but as I said, they are "anti" stuff that someone else is "pro" and is also pushing.  So, same coin, just a different side is all.

How about this: Pro Socially conservative agenda?

po TAE to vs po TAT o

[Bird_Gunner45]

If there are real issues to be dealt with, why then has the GOP put forth from DAY 1 of this congressional session anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage, anti-healtcare bills. The first bill put forth by the GOP majority in the house included an amendment to strip funding from Planned Parenthood.

Please read above- I stated definitively that BOTH sides refused to address real issues equally.  I would suggest that it's not "if" there are real issues to be dealt with than "There are". 

GOP= Right wing fools who refuse to do anything important or useful and focus on sideshow social issues that play well on TV;
Democrats= Left wing fools who refuse to do anything important or useful and focus on sideshow social issues that play well on TV.

As for why aren't they doing anything about it? Probably because the real solutions required to fix the debt problem would require actual leadership, actual vision, and actual backbone to do.... meaning that NEITHER party will do it.  Sort of why Canada maintains its grossly inefficient and ineffective health care system... most reasonable people realize it needs significant changes, but god (or whoever you want) bless the person who actually tries to fix it.

Finally, your discussion of Virginia, as TV notes, I guess it's "only worse" if you're pro-abortion, pro-gun control, and pro-gay marriage.  If you're anti, which I ASSUME that the majority of the electorate that elected their government, than you probably consider it a good thing.

As for blocking Obama and trying to make him a 1 term president, it would be the same if it were a GOP president with democrats as the opposite.  If you dont think that, you're crazy. 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I got the pro and anti sides backwards for Virginia, but you get the picture.

Besides, who cares if Virginia wants to be a socially conservative area? If it's the majorities will, and constitutional, than so be it.  If someone doesn't like it than they can;

A) Run for government, win, and change the laws;
B) Deal with it, living in the state and accepting that if they want to get an abortion for their lesbian partner after their gay marriage than they'll probably need to go out of state for it; or
C) Just move.

It's a free country.

[cupper]

I got the pro and anti sides backwards for Virginia, but you get the picture.

Besides, who cares if Virginia wants to be a socially conservative area? If it's the majorities will, and constitutional, than so be it.  If someone doesn't like it than they can;

A) Run for government, win, and change the laws;
B) Deal with it, living in the state and accepting that if they want to get an abortion for their lesbian partner after their gay marriage than they'll probably need to go out of state for it; or
C) Just move.

It's a free country.

The problem with Virginia is that the GOP gained control of the Senate based on a manipulation of the rules. The Senate is evenly split 20 seats each. However the Lieutenant Governor casts the deciding vote in all matters except budgetary. As such, the Dems pushed for a co-operative situation, where committees were put together with even numbers, and co-chairs, or split the committees between the two parties, some with Dem control, some with GOP control. But the GOP balked, forced a vote, and since the Lt. Gov. cast the deciding vote, Bob's your uncle.

The voter breakdown doesn't support a majority stance in either case. For the most part it is a state in flux, but the socially conservative agenda is only coming forth due to playing with the rules, not because the voters want it that way. A tale of two states, the conservative south, and the moderate north.

But Virginia does matter, because it is a swing state. For years it was a certainty that it would put forth a GOP win. But in 2008, due mainly to the shift in demographics Obama was able to swing the vote. And if the GOP wants to play the social conservative agenda, alienating the moderates, then they are shooting themselves in the foot while stepping on a land mine.

I really have no use for either party, as neither can focus on what needs to be done. I watched the Dems piss away every opportunity to succeed during the Bush Administration, I've watched the Obama Administration underachieve, given the historic nature. And I've watched teh GOP get hijacked by a vocal minority of extreme right, giving up the center where any party needs to build support in order to get elected. 

[ModlrMike]

You know, I find it amusing that the left here will twist themselves into knots to portray Mr Harper as a "George Bush clone" or "Republican stooge". If truth be told, the Republicans could learn a thing or two from Mr Harper when it comes to turning the tide.

[Brad Sallows]

>And by doing something about it, I don't mean obstructing the Obama Administration at every step so the electorate will make him a one-term president. I mean putting forth actual, real solutions to the problems that they know will pass both the House and Senate, with bipartisan support.

Actually, it is the Obama Administration and Democratic-controlled Senate which obstruct the Republican-controlled House.  The House has put forth, even passed, several bills to address various matters including budgetary; however, Obama and Reid either announce in advance their obstructionism or execute it on the rare occasions bills arrive.  How many budgets has Obama submitted that he knows will pass House and Senate with bipartisan support?  How many real solutions have Reid and his gang put up that will pass Congress with bipartisan support and be signed by the president?

Works both ways, you see, except the president and Senate's record for proposing and passing budgetary legislation that will be seriously considered is worse - Obama's budget proposals don't always pass muster with his own party's Senate.

[cupper]

Actually, it is the Obama Administration and Democratic-controlled Senate which obstruct the Republican-controlled House.

That's laughable when you consider that the GOP House Speaker can't even exert enough control over his own members to close a deal which even the Senate GOP leader is willing to sign off on. The tea party tail ends up wagging the dog.

[Thucydides]

The issue of controlling the narrative is very important, hence the great deal of time and attention devoted to "side issues". I will note the issue of contraception and abortion was raised by the moderator (a member of the media) during a Republican candidates debate just in advance of the Administration putting forth their position that even Catholic institutions must provide birth control and abortifacts. Coincidence? It is hard to prove but it is awfully convenient to derailing discussion of other issues.

The establishment Republicans (whatever name you give them) are not willing to come down hard on such issues as tax reform or spending cuts because they also benefit from the current system. In one sense, we are seeing the Reform/PC battle of the 1990's being replayed, only due to the two party system that has evolved in the United States, the battle is taking place within the body of one of the political parties, with the TEA Party movement being the rough analogy of Reform. AS the TEA Party movement burrows deeper into the body of the Republican Party by taking over wards (similar in effect to taking over riding associations here), the establishment in Washington becomes more frantic, as their grip on party apparatus and ultimately the ability to milk the system becomes compromised.

Given the time and resources available, the TEA Party movement will probably win the battle in the Senate and House, as well as further downline in the State Houses and Governor's mansions. They can and should also start working on civic government at the municipal and county level as well. The current crop of Republican contenders for President represent powerful interests with resources the TEA Party can't match (yet), and probably not for another electoral cycle. If President Obama loses (and an economic hiccup in Europe or China might be all it takes), the new President will be facing some active opposition of his own from the Republican Senate and House.

[Jim Seggie]

Yeah? Well Obama is a better singer than Romney!!

[recceguy]

Round and round it goes. Same rhetoric for the last 30 pages. Same arguements. Same partisan swipes.

I'll revisit is November. There might be something new by then............maybe.

[Brad Sallows]

Evidently the irony of one side claiming that obstructionism originates with the other, and that all the bipartisan reach-around reach-through must originate with the other, is lost on some people.

[Haletown]

Round and round it goes. Same rhetoric for the last 30 pages. Same arguements. Same partisan swipes.

I'll revisit is November. There might be something new by then............maybe.

Yup . . .

[E.R. Campbell]

A somewhat different take on Santorum in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/canadians-thinking-santorum-means-obama-would-win-need-to-think-again/article2347158/

Canadians thinking Santorum means Obama would win need to think again

JOHN IBBITSON

Globe and Mail Update
Published Thursday, Feb. 23, 2012

Canadians hoping that Barack Obama will be re-elected president may be cheering the astonishing resurgence of Rick Santorum in the Republican primary campaign. They should stifle their enthusiasm.

Many believe the former Pennsylvania senator is such an extreme social conservative that should he win the Republican nomination it would guarantee a Democratic victory in November.

But one wise sage observed that a smart lawyer always tries to settle a case before it goes to trial, because once a jury gets involved, anything can happen. Elections are like that too. You just never know for sure how they will turn out. If Mr. Santorum wins the Republican nomination, he could become president. And that would lead to the deepest chill in Canada-U.S. relations in the two countries’ history.

Mr. Santorum debated Mitt Romney – who has been the nominee presumptive for months, but who just can’t seem to close the deal – and the other GOP contenders in Arizona Wednesday night. At times it felt as though Mr. Santorum were the clear frontrunner and Mr. Romney the scrappy underdog, when it should be the other way around. Polls have them running neck-and-neck in Michigan. If Mr. Romney can’t win in his home state, it may be impossible for him to secure the nomination.

Of the three most-possible outcomes – a victory by Mr. Obama, by Mr. Romney or by Mr. Santorum – Stephen Harper would much prefer the status quo. Granted, there is considerable tension between the Prime Minister and the President over Mr. Obama’s decision not to approve the Keystone XL pipeline that would bring Alberta oil to American refineries.

But the Harper government is reasonably confident that Mr. Obama will give Keystone the go-ahead once he is safely re-elected. And the two leaders have worked well on other files, including fighting the recession, navigating the recovery and pushing forward the Beyond the Border initiative to improve border security and ease obstacles to crossing.

Mr. Harper knows he can get more done with Mr. Obama in the White House than he could with a Republican president, simply because most Canadians still like Mr. Obama a great deal, even after four contentious years as president. There could be no Beyond the Border agreement between a Conservative prime minister and a Republican president. Too many people would suspect a sell-out.

Nonetheless, a Romney presidency could also work for Canada. He’s a Michigan boy whose family summered in Grand Bend, Ont., and who served as governor of Massachusetts, which has close ties to the Maritimes. And he’s a free trader who would certainly approve the Keystone pipeline.

But Mr. Santorum would be a non starter. No Canadian prime minister, Conservative or otherwise, could afford to get close to him. As president, Mr. Santorum would seek to make abortion illegal even in cases of rape and incest. He would discourage contraception. He believes Satan has corrupted American universities and mainstream Protestant churches. He embodies the vast gulf between American social conservatives and the overwhelming majority of Canadians. Any prime minister would try to keep any associations to a minimum, beyond what is essential between the leaders of two closely allied nations.

But really, it’s foolish even to imagine such things. A Santorum White House is so improbable that the idea borders on speculative fiction.

Just ignore that Gallup tracking poll from Tuesday that has him ahead of Mr. Romney nationally by eight points.

Actually, I am not certain that the moral position of the POTUS has any measurable bearing on Canada/US relations. While some of Sen. Santorum's positions are anathema to many Canadians it is likely, in my opinion, that most Canadians will hold their noses and look for our PM to make the best deals possible for our national interests - harmonizing e.g. product standards has nothing to do with abortions; thinning the border is unrelated to gay marriage.
 

[Technoviking]

Actually, I am not certain that the moral position of the POTUS has any measurable bearing on Canada/US relations. While some of Sen. Santorum's positions are anathema to many Canadians it is likely, in my opinion, that most Canadians will hold their noses and look for our PM to make the best deals possible for our national interests - harmonizing e.g. product standards has nothing to do with abortions; thinning the border is unrelated to gay marriage.

Mr. Ibbitson's article has a bit of soft prejudice in it, but I think you hit the nail on the head.  The PM, no matter who it is, will attempt to further our national interests irrespective of Mr. Romney's (or whoever's) moral code.  We deal with China, for heaven's sake, and though many will beat the drums that we ought not to deal with China for their humans rights conduct, those same people still buy "Made in China".

[Brad Sallows]

Ibbitson should know better.  Look at all the things Obama outright said he would do, few of which have come to pass.  It is unlikely Santorum is single-handedly going to turn the US into a Puritan colony.

[Thucydides]

An interesting poll, with really counterintuative results. The authors promise more detailed analysis in the days to come, so there should be a better understanding of these results:

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2012/02/23/santorum-rice-excel-in-pj-media-presidential-poll/?print=1

Santorum, Rice Excel in PJ Media Presidential Poll
Posted By Roger L Simon On February 23, 2012 @ 9:48 am In Uncategorized | 71 Comments

PJ Media doesn’t get frequently into the polling game, but slightly more than two years ago we commissioned polls in the Massachusetts senatorial race and were the first to show a growing gap in favor of Republican candidate Scott Brown.

Now, given the so far indeterminate nature of the Republican presidential contest, we decided to poll again. This time, mindful of the interest of some in a brokered convention, we extended the number of potential candidates beyond those presently competing, pitting all of them against President Obama. (For this polling we added Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Sarah Palin, and Condoleezza Rice. Others may be added subsequently.)

This poll, like the Massachusetts poll, was conducted for us by CrossTarget [1] using Interactive Voice Technology (IVR), the same method used by Rasmussen and now widely adopted. The poll was of 800 registered voters and was held on February 21 and 22, largely before the most recent debate. The margin of error is +/-3.46%.

What follows here are topline results. The detailed cross tabs from the poll are quite interesting and we will publish and analyze them starting tomorrow.

What’s interesting on quick evaluation is that no Republican seems to have made his or her way to a substantial lead. Rick Santorum and Condoleezza Rice are the only candidates, potential or otherwise, narrowly defeating Obama at this moment.

But the news is not good for the President either. Besides the fact that several candidates (Romney, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush) trail him only within the margin of error, as you will see in the cross tabs tomorrow, Obama scores abysmally among independent voters.

Article printed from Roger L. Simon: http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2012/02/23/santorum-rice-excel-in-pj-media-presidential-poll/

URLs in this post:

[1] CrossTarget: http://www.crosstarget.com/
[2] Image: http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/files/2012/02/Topline-Results1.jpg
[3] Image: http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/files/2012/02/Topline-Results2.jpg

Some of our American members can help here; isn't Dr Rice ineligable to become President since she has never held elective office?

[Thucydides]

You think?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/24/dem-pollster-warns-that-voters-will-scoff-at-claims-of-recovery/

Dem pollster warns that voters will scoff at claims of recovery
posted at 11:00 am on February 24, 2012 by Ed MorrisseyBarack

Obama wants to ask for a second term as President on the message that “America is back,” claiming that he has pulled the nation into a path for prosperity and job creation.  That will come as a big surprise to American workers, who have not seen any improvement in their job situation or economic position, warns Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg:

Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg is out with a must-read polling memo this morning, which offers some eye-opening advice to President Obama and his re-election team.  After testing several of the president’s economic messages, he finds the argument that the economy is back on the right track polls miserably – and “produces disastrous results.”

“It is weaker than even the weakest Republican message and is 10 points weaker in intensity than either Republican message,” Greenberg wrote. “A third said this message made them less likely to support Barack Obama. Alarmingly, this message barely receives majority support among self-identified Democrats – and even less support among all other groups.”

The memo reads as a glaring wake-up call to the White House, which has been trumpeting improving economic figures lately.   Greenberg notes that voters are reporting “no improvement” in their job situation since last June, and have experienced reduced wages and benefits and health insurance coverage.  The picture Greenberg’s polling paints is an America public still deeply pessimistic about their future, and skeptical of Obama’s handling of the economy.

Even Democrats scoff at Obama’s claims on job creation, Greenberg warns in his analysis:

One of the President’s weakest operative frameworks highlights recent progress on job creation.  This message is potentially dangerous for Democrats.  During the State of the Union, we watched the dial lines go flat, with even Democrats peaking below 70 when the President highlighted recent jobs numbers.

In post-speech focus groups, respondents explained why this part of the speech did not resonate for them: first, and most importantly, they have not seen these jobs or felt the effects of job creation.  But they are also deeply concerned that these jobs are not permanent, that these new jobs belie much deeper structural problems in the economy, and that the new jobs that have been created are far inferior to the more stable, full-time, well-paying middle class jobs that have been lost over the last decade.  One Democratic-leaning participant said, “Just pouring sugar on the thing to create a few temporary jobs is going to get us no place.” Many told us that these statistics were meaningless because they are still just numbers to them. One Republican-leaning participant was incredulous: “I don’t see the kind of jobs numbers that I hear about from him.”

In other words, Obamanomics and its gimmicky, temporary nature and its short-term distortions in statistics don’t even fool Democrats who are inclined to believe Obama.

The “America is back” claim in Obama’s SOTU speech didn’t actually relate to economics but to foreign policy.  That didn’t matter in Greenberg’s message testing:

Claiming that “America is back” is by far the weakest operative message and produces disastrous results.  It is weaker than even the weakest Republican message and is 10 points weaker in intensity than either Republican message.  Overall, less than a third of all voters said this message makes them more likely to support the President and a third said this message made them less likely to support Barack Obama.  Alarmingly, this message barely receives majority support among self-identified Democrats—and even less support among all other groups.  Less than a quarter of independents say this message would make them more likely to support the President and no independents said that it would make them much more likely to support him.

That creates a conundrum for Obama.  Incumbents have to have a positive reason for a second term in office, especially Presidents.  If he can’t claim to have improved the economy or America’s standing in the world, exactly what basis can he use to ask for another four years?  The only argument Obama is likely to have is that Republican meanies will be so much worse, extreme, etc etc etc — which more or less describes the messaging that Greenberg recommends.

In other words, buckle your seatbelts, because it’s going to be a very bumpy ride.

[E.R. Campbell]

A perspective, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, on the challenges that face the eventual GOP nominee:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/us-election/it-will-take-a-leader-to-reassemble-the-gop/article2349275/

It will take a leader to reassemble the GOP

WALLER NEWELL

From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Published Saturday, Feb. 25, 2012

Canadians following the Republican race for the presidential nomination might well be puzzled: the party of big business and free enterprise savaging its front-runner as a heartless capitalist exploiter, sounding more like the Occupy Wall Street protesters than Republicans; the party of the American Empire and the interventionist foreign policy of George Bush and Dick Cheney with a candidate (Ron Paul) who fires up his followers with a defence of isolationism that Michael Moore joked sounded like it was lifted from him.

What happened to the Republican Party we thought we knew?

Actually, all of these positions – and contradictions – go back to the American Founding. Thomas Jefferson fervently wished America to avoid foreign entanglements, restricting its contact with the outside world to trade. But he avidly sought America’s own internal empire through westward expansion. The tension between Main Street (the small-town world of agriculture and local business) and Wall Street (high-stakes investment) was etched in the American psyche early on. And both Republicans and Democrats have embraced one or the other tendencies.

By the time of Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency, many believed America’s international trade should be accompanied by the projection of military power abroad – in America’s self-interest and to spread the ideals of American liberty. Both Republicans and Democrats have embraced an interventionist foreign policy.

Beginning with Woodrow Wilson, then from FDR through Harry Truman down to JFK and LBJ, the Democrats were the party of hawkish interventionism. When the debacle of Vietnam spiralled the Democrats toward hair-shirt pacifists such as George McGovern and Jimmy Carter, those who remained hawks began gravitating toward the Republicans, joined by younger neo-Wilsonian idealists such as Elliot Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz. The neo-conservatives, as they came to be known, found in the presidencies of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes vehicles for the interventionism that the Democrats had abandoned. Only with Bill Clinton did the Democrats return to the foreign policy hawkishness they had once dominated.

During the FDR-LBJ period, the Republican Party had increasingly become the home of the old isolationist streak that wanted to avoid involvement in what George Washington had called “foreign wars,” crystallized in Dwight Eisenhower’s warning about the “military-industrial complex.” Even under hawkish Republican presidents from Mr. Nixon onward, that isolationism never went away. Similarly, when Mr. Clinton intervened in Kosovo, Republicans began complaining – as Mr. Paul does now – that America should not be the “world’s policeman.” When George W. Bush invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq, many heartland Republicans followed him only reluctantly, mainly out of their personal affection for him.

In the realm of economic policy, there has been a similar back and forth between the two parties. It was Republican Theodore Roosevelt who decried “the malefactors of great wealth,” favouring the break-up of monopolies and stealing the populist thunder of William Jennings Bryan for his own party’s advantage. With FDR and the New Deal, help for the little man moved over to the Democrats. Neither party ever truly turned its back on Wall Street in favour of an exclusive concern with Main Street. But in general tone and temperament, it’s fair to say that Mr. Nixon, Mr. Reagan and both Bushes were more Main Street presidents, while the Clinton and Obama administrations have been intimately connected to Wall Street.

In the current Republican presidential primaries, in the absence of a strong and effective leader such as Mr. Reagan or George W. Bush, all of these differing policies have come flying apart. Mr. Paul’s isolationism appeals to a long-standing constituency in the party. The savaging of Mitt Romney as a corporate raider and high-finance shark taps into the party’s deep ambivalence about “New York” venture capitalism and its preference for rural and small business Main Street populism. The fundamentalist Christian strain of that heartland leaning – a powerful base of support for both Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush – has propelled Rick Santorum’s candidacy.

Can anyone put these pieces together again? Only an effective leader will be able to reunite them in such a way that all groups will feel they’re getting something of what they want. But that leader has yet to emerge. Mr. Reagan ran to the right and governed from the centre, uniting Main Street rhetoric with Wall Street backing. Mr. Bush was perhaps more truly Main Street in both rhetoric and policies but was also the biggest interventionist hawk of them all. His popularity based on a heartland constituency that remained deeply ambivalent about “foreign wars,” he used his presidency after 9/11 to allow the neo-con firebrands previously restrained by his father and Mr. Reagan to have complete sway.

This capacity to combine contradictory values and policies into a coherent political coalition bridging the divisions between Main Street and Wall Street, isolationist and hawk, is the sign of real leadership. The current factions have spun off, uniting only to savage Mr. Romney. Should he be the nominee, it will be a long and slow haul for him to rise above the fray and bring the squabblers into a big political tent.

Waller Newell is a professor of political science and philosophy at Carleton University.

I'm not sure any of the candidates has the leadership skills Prof. Newell things are necessary to unite the Republicans. Perhaps the GOP is destined to spend a time in the political wilderness while it reconnects with its own country.

[Thucydides]

Informal campaign. Will the administration be taken down by Samizdat?:

[E.R. Campbell]

A premonition, of sorts, about the 2012 election in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from then Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/us-election/as-gop-race-drags-on-republicans-see-white-house-slipping-away/article2352074/

As GOP race drags on, Republicans see White House slipping away

KONRAD YAKABUSKI

WASHINGTON— From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Feb. 27, 2012

Republican establishment types, watching the party’s White House chances shrink with each additional day the ugly GOP nomination race endures, pray for the fat lady to sing.

Sadly for them, she’s barely warming up. In the meantime, the GOP candidates are inflicting so much damage on each other as to make them all unelectable in November.

Mitt Romney seems headed for a convincing victory in Tuesday’s Arizona primary, giving him all of the state’s 29 delegates. But he will be lucky to finish the night ahead of Rick Santorum in Michigan, a state the Detroit-bred Mr. Romney ought to sweep.

A strong showing by the ex-Pennsylvania senator in Michigan, where he could get a majority of the state’s 30 delegates based on that state’s complicated formula for awarding them, would buttress his campaign as he heads to Ohio for its March 6 primary.

And as if that does not give Mr. Romney enough to worry about, a week from now Newt Gingrich could be back from the dead with a Super Tuesday sweep of the South.

In short, the longer Mr. Santorum, Mr. Gingrich and Ron Paul continue to rack up delegates in states that award them based on their share of the vote, the longer it will take Mr. Romney to accumulate the 1,144 delegates he needs to clinch the nomination.

It is now conceivable that no candidate will have met the magic number by the time Republicans gather for their August convention. It could be a disaster in the making.

“The general election prospects for Republicans certainly would be better served if more focus was spent on Obama’s policies and the failure of those policies,” former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour said on the weekend.

Mr. Barbour, an ex-chairman of Republican National Committee, may have knowingly doomed his future nomination prospects with a slew of controversial pardons before leaving the governor’s mansion last month. But he knows what it takes to win elections.

“Our side might not offer a bold enough and specific enough and constructive enough – and I would say inclusive enough – alternative” to President Barack Obama, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels added on Saturday.

That amounted to a blanket condemnation of Mr. Romney (neither bold nor terribly specific) and Mr. Santorum and Mr. Gingrich (neither of whom are very inclusive).

Still, you do not need to be bold or specific to become President.

Mr. Santorum disqualifies himself with his antagonist approach to every problem. If he is not alienating centrist voters with his extreme views on contraception and abortion, he downright scares them with his call for a marriage of church and state.

“What kind of country do we live in that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?” Mr. Santorum told ABC News on Sunday. “That makes me throw up.”

A day earlier, he called Mr. Obama a “snob” for suggesting every American get some postsecondary education.

“There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day, that put their skills to test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor,” Mr. Santorum said at a campaign stop in Michigan.

If his tactic is transparent – appealing to the extreme evangelical and anti-intellectual wings of the Republican base that turn out in GOP primaries – it is also short-sighted.

His traction with the hardliners may give Mr. Santorum the power to drag out the GOP race for months, but it will doom him and the party once the Republican race is over.

When the fat lady sings in November, she risks sounding an awful lot like Al Green.

The Tea Party is a minority, not just within America but even within the GOP. The religious right is also a minority. The two overlap to some degree which means that the whole is lesser than the parts. The Santorum/Gingrich "base" is a minority within the GOP; so is the Romney "base" of establishment Republicans.

The Democrats, united though they (temporarily) may be, are also a minority in America but, being a large and, temporarily, united minority they have the best chance of winning the hearts and minds of enough independent voters to secure the White House, retain the Senate and maybe even take back the House: all because most Republicans cannot agree to put the good of the country ahead of ideological purity.

[Technoviking]

I hadn't heard Mr. Obama suggest that every American go get some post-secondary.  I agree with Mr. Santorum in that it's not for everyone.  I don't know if I agree with the suggestion that it makes him a "snob", however. 

...he downright scares them with his call for a marriage of church and state.
“What kind of country do we live in that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?” Mr. Santorum told ABC News on Sunday. “That makes me throw up.”

I don't see this as a call for marriage of church and state.  I see this rather as a call to not ignore those people "of faith". 

[Thucydides]

Separation of Church and State is being woefully misread. It does not exclude people of faith from partaking in public discourse, or making public displays of faith, rather it prevents the State from establishing a church or religion of its own (like the Church of England).

[E.R. Campbell]

Separation of Church and State is being woefully misread. It does not exclude people of faith from partaking in public discourse, or making public displays of faith, rather it prevents the State from establishing a church or religion of its own (like the Church of England).

That's very true, Thucydides, but the "founding fathers," men of their times, were also concerned about the "power of the pulpit," which they knew could - recently had been, in America, and would be again - used for foul ends. They were "god fearing" men who fully expected to create a "godly," indeed Christian country, but they shared Elizabeth I's view, they wanted no "windows into men's souls." That is changing in 20^th and 21^st century America ~ some political leaders want to impose their spiritual beliefs, their "holy writ" onto society at large. Reasonable, thinking Americans will resist this, knowing that no religion has all the "answers" for all people and the societies they make for themselves.

[Redeye]

That's very true, Thucydides, but the "founding fathers," men of their times, were also concerned about the "power of the pulpit," which they knew could - recently had been, in America, and would be again - used for foul ends. They were "god fearing" men who fully expected to create a "godly," indeed Christian country, but they shared Elizabeth I's view, they wanted no "windows into men's souls." That is changing in 20^th and 21^st century America ~ some political leaders want to impose their spiritual beliefs, their "holy writ" onto society at large. Reasonable, thinking Americans will resist this, knowing that no religion has all the "answers" for all people and the societies they make for themselves.

That they were "god fearing" or intended to create a "Christian" country seems to be a bit of canard. Several founding fathers expressed dismissive views of religion, and the Treaty of Tripoli explicitly stated "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." (Article 11 - and yes, there was a context for this being included in the treaty, but it still makes a fairly clear statement) Recall that those initial founders were fearing oppression by a state armed with religion.

I do agree though that the concept in the Establishment Clause is pushed to extremes that seem ridiculous. I don't care if people of faith express that in public. All that matters is that religion shouldn't steer politics.

[Jed]

That they were "god fearing" or intended to create a "Christian" country seems to be a bit of canard. Several founding fathers expressed dismissive views of religion, and the Treaty of Tripoli explicitly stated "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." (Article 11 - and yes, there was a context for this being included in the treaty, but it still makes a fairly clear statement) Recall that those initial founders were fearing oppression by a state armed with religion.

I do agree though that the concept in the Establishment Clause is pushed to extremes that seem ridiculous. I don't care if people of faith express that in public. All that matters is that religion shouldn't steer politics.

I hilighted your above statements that I wish to take issue with. I believe you made an unsubstantiated jump in logic with respect to the importance of freedom of religion within the constitution.

Also, I don't care if you express your non belief in public either. In fact I insist you have the right to do so just as I insist others of faith also have that right.