Mad_Machine76
Mad_Machine76's JournalI think that I heard somebody on some news show (Smerconish?) suggest that
Santorum may be a strong contender for 2016- assuming that Romney loses this year (and Smerconish seems to think he will). It will certainly be interesting to see what the GOP is going to look like in 4 years. If Romney loses, I imagine that that is only going to push the GOP further to right (how much further can they go before they fall off the map?) and, in that case, Santorum might be more "viable" next time.
What I find interesting
is that prior to this trip, there were articles out about how this trip may benefit President Obama politically and then after this scandal broke, there were articles about how this scandal was overshadowing the President's trip. Without knowing all the facts, I'm not prone to make any suppositions about all this coming out but.......................
So
what exactly are we supposed to believe are Romney's actual views on things? Aren't we, as citizens of a Democracy supposed to be able to know what our would-be leaders actually believe so that we can make a truly informed decision when we enter the voting booth? Or has it simply become acceptable to allow candidates seeking public office to hide/obfuscate their views until the election is concluded and they have been elected, in Romney's case, potentially to the highest office in the country?
I read about this yesterday as well
Thought it was kind of odd but then again this is RICK SANTORUM we are talking about. Seems pretty consistent with what we've come to expect of him. Seems like a pretty shameless political ploy involving his ailing daughter if you ask me.
esp. what is going on in Michigan right now
I'm glad that Maddow is keeping an eye on what is going on up there. It's not enough to just let the Republicans completely self-immolate themselves. We need to be fighting back against some of the stuff that right-wing is cramming down OUR throats and telling people what WE plan to do to if elected back into power as well.
Wonder
how the right-wingers will somehow implicate President Obama in this? Because you know they will (try).
Not AFAIK
but now we will have to hold her and her husband and the rest of the GOP to the same (very) high standards that they have demanded IMHO. Also, since Ann Romney has announced her support for "freedom of choice" for women, we'll have to ask what their view is on the next law(s) gets signed that takes away more "freedom of choice" for women IMHO. When they try to squirm out it, we can remind them that "Ann Romney says she is for freedom of choice for women, so what's up with this?" The Republicans are going to have to do a LOT of work before they can credibly claim that they're not waging a war on women.
No
If Zimmerman is duly acquitted in a court of law that is managed appropriately, then justice will have been served IMHO. The point of seeking "justice" via a trial is not to necessarily convict somebody. It's to examine the facts in a given case in order to determine whether or not a crime was committed and judge accordingly.
Faux outrage from the Republicans
is as certain as the sun rising every day. I heard about this last night and figured that it would be all over the news today and the Republicans and their allies would be in full-blown "outrage" mode all day long. I am owed a Coke. That being said, in regards to the OP, you are exactly correct. The Republicans knew they fumbled badly yesterday and jumped all over Rosen's comment for an attempted recovery. It will, however, by no means change the Republican war on caterpillars.....er.....women. Rosen's comments won't suddenly erase the existence of reams of legislation nationwide attacking abortion rights, birth control, Planned Parenthood, and everything else that they are doing to humiliate women, etc. Plus, now that Ann Romney is out there saying that she believes in "freedom of choice" for women, we can now expect her and/or the Romney campaign to have to repudiate every piece of anti-choice legislation that pops up wherever instigated by Republicans.
I have a problem
with people (not here) whom suggest that having one parent stay-at-home with the kids instead of working is a simple matter of foregoing expensive things like vacations and other "luxuries". From my perspective (please correct me if I'm wrong), being a stay-at-home requires either a very high income or EXTREMELY low expenses, neither of which are a very likely situation for most people even if they were to cut their household budget down to the bare bones- without vacations and other "luxuries". This is the biggest problem I have with people like the Romneys and Republicans in general. They only seem able and/or willing to respond to others through the prism of their own experiences and seem incapable and/or unwilling to see through other people's lives and experiences.
Profile Information
Name: Mara Alis ButlerGender: Female
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 01:13 AM
Number of posts: 24,406
