Santorum gains popularity. Could be next commander and chief. (Pittsburgh: foreclosure, loan)

[BrianTH]

Obama's "extremism" takes the form of promoting policies long supported by moderate Republicans (which is a bit of a problem for Romney specifically, who once used to be such a moderate Republican).

Anyway, long primary contests don't always weaken the eventual nominee, but it depends on the nature of the contest. The thing to watch for is whether the main candidates are holding steady in terms of approval/favorability with their own party and with independents--if not, then the long primary contest is likely hurting their general election chances.

[jay5835]

Originally Posted by Love2Golf09

it should be Romney's election to lose. I hope he brought his magic underwear.

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

While I do concur that Romney will likely be the GOP nominee can you please elaborate upon your final sentence?

Mormon "garments":

Mitt Romney's magic underwear Joe Donatelli (http://joedonatelli.com/mitt-romney%E2%80%99s-magic-underwear/10/10/2011/ - broken link)

Mormon Underwear

[Aqua Teen Carl]

I honestly have no idea how our country hasn't lost all faith with both Democrats and Republicans. Somehow we keep voting them in again and again and laugh at the possibility of a legit third party. We'll seriously never learn that the illusion of choice is not a choice at all.

[UKyank]

I'll vote for the candidate that doesn't think a budget that's over a trillion dollars in the red is a good idea once they take office - sadly, I don't think such a candidate exists among either of the 2 major parties.

[gg]

Originally Posted by HeavenWood

Our current economic mess dates back to the tail end of the Carter administration. Dubya is just as complicit as Clinton, HW, and Reagan.

This is really false. The blame is on bush and here is why. Normal expansions and contractions ARE going to occur. What needs to be done is softening the downside times. It is just normal peaks and valleys of the global economy. What happened was while bush was in office, he tried to extend the peak, by allowing real estate cash outs. He lowered regulations on banks and they could loan money to anyone with a pulse. This did extend the economy, but it enhanced the collapse, with countless foreclosures and people walking away because the debt ratios weren't even close on their homes. I blame bush for trying to extend the good times. A contraction or correction in the economy needed to happen while bush was in office. Sure it wouldn't help his popularity, but it shouldn't be about that. It should be about long term goals.

Anyway, I posted the article on Santorum because he has ties to Pittsburgh. I don't understand how anyone could really like that guy, but it seems in the south he is well liked. Sure is a different culture down that way.

[gg]

Originally Posted by UKyank

I'll vote for the candidate that doesn't think a budget that's over a trillion dollars in the red is a good idea once they take office - sadly, I don't think such a candidate exists among either of the 2 major parties.

The only person running on what you say, is Paul, but he has no chance. We are stuck with huge military spending for the next 5 years no matter what. I wish there was a way of knowing what the actual military budget was, but much of that is hidden with inflated prices for items. You know, the $200 Coke or $100 bolt that both cost a nickel.

Ah well, it is what it is. They have us in fear and they can spend as they like on defense. We need to feel safe.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

This is really false. The blame is on bush and here is why. Normal expansions and contractions ARE going to occur. What needs to be done is softening the downside times. It is just normal peaks and valleys of the global economy. What happened was while bush was in office, he tried to extend the peak, by allowing real estate cash outs. He lowered regulations on banks and they could loan money to anyone with a pulse. This did extend the economy, but it enhanced the collapse, with countless foreclosures and people walking away because the debt ratios weren't even close on their homes. I blame bush for trying to extend the good times. A contraction or correction in the economy needed to happen while bush was in office. Sure it wouldn't help his popularity, but it shouldn't be about that. It should be about long term goals.

Anyway, I posted the article on Santorum because he has ties to Pittsburgh. I don't understand how anyone could really like that guy, but it seems in the south he is well liked. Sure is a different culture down that way.

To be fair the policies you noted were put in place prior to the Bush presidency, now he obviously had ample time to remedy the particularly egregious ones and you can accuse him of being a captain on a ship headed for an iceberg and taking no corrective action but you can't put the total blame on Bush for setting the reckless course to begin with.

Santorum seems to be liked in the Midwest, not so much in the south thus far anyways.

[sheena12]

Originally Posted by Geeo

I don't think there's been much, if any, national coverage of Santorum's more extremist views especially when it comes to social issues and personal liberty. Plus the people who go to these caucuses are the most conservative of the conservative. He'll be toast.

This is my hope.

Santorum's draconian views and unethical practices will be abhorrent to most Americans.

I hope that he runs so that he will lose. He is a conservative with no respect for individual liberty or rights.

More accurately, this man wants a Theocratic Dictatorship that would permit him to function in his own little warped world.

[UKyank]

Originally Posted by sheena12

This is my hope.

Santorum's draconian views and unethical practices will be abhorrent to most Americans.

I hope that he runs so that he will lose. He is a conservative with no respect for individual liberty or rights.

More accurately, this man wants a Theocratic Dictatorship that would permit him to function in his own little warped world.

I will reiterate my question about the extreme hatred of Santorum by some. I don't support him nor think he has a real chance of winning either the nominatin or a general election unless something drastically changes. That being said I dont see much on the crazy extreme side - his economic policy is at least coherent; his gay marriage stance which keeps popping up is in line with the current president; his abortion stance is the same as every GOP member since roe v wade; he seems keen on continuing foreign military adventures but the current administration doesn't seen to balk much at those either. Is Santorum on the right side of the right spectrum, most definitely, above & beyond that I don't see where the vitriol towards him comes from.

[SteelCityRising]

His disdain towards women daring to leave domesticated duties to work outside the home in any capacity is well-known. Just the other day he caused a firestorm with a comment about how he doesn't support having women in the military because they'd serve as an emotional distraction for men while in combat. Perhaps the real problem, then, is having STRAIGHT MEN in the military if they're going to be "distracted" serving beside women and gays?