Handshake bet you are wrong. Anybody but Newt. Even Santorum is more likely than him. I know the national GOP has been trash, but I just can't see them going this far. I must say Romney's tax returns leave me smh.
Not me. I have no problem with what he posts outside of D&D, but what basso posts here is simply trollish crap. You're on. Just for "bragging rights." -
if newt has the backing and desire to take mitt down, he will, but something tells me that the dogs (newt) will be called off. my guess is that romney wins by default.
The GOP could trot out Jerry Sandusky against Obama and still receive 40% of the vote. This ain't your father's GOP anymore,
It was an awful question. But I think he could've handled it with grace instead of blowing up in anger and COMPLETELY evading the question. something like: "wow, you think you could come up with a more pertinent question? i'd love to talk about the actual issues, but this isn't daytime television. i'm sorry john, i can't even justify answering a question laden with gossip and hearsay, it's simply wasting my time. let's get onto something that affects the american people." instead of WAHHHHH WAHHHH PERSECUTION DESPICABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
I think humor is off the table. If he went for chuckles, he'd get roasted, because it's a pretty serious subject because of the nature/severity of his transgressions. Plus I don't think the "family values" party likes to take those things lightly. His righteous indignation/anger and victim mentality probably played pretty well with the base. I haven't seen the question, nor his response, but I was just honestly curious how he could possibly turn lemons into lemonade there. I think, no matter what, he was going to alienate some people. Might as well alienate the people who were't going to vote for him anyway, right?
yeah, i took out the "humor" part of my post because the answer wasn't really humorous, just more light-hearted. whatevz, i'm sure his response worked best politically, i just can't muster a modicum of respect for the sleazebag. and that's not even referring to the open marriage thing, or leaving a sick wife, or cheating on two women, or the fact that he's a fat gross corporate p***y. i loathe righteous indignation.
I've not finished the book so subtomic would be a better person to ask, but the book Touched by Fire does study the correlation between bipolar and creativity.
As you already posted below, it was a good move politically and it probably won him SC and changed the race. I disagree it was a bad question. I think it ought to have been married with a request to address the hypocrisy in preaching one thing and living another, but the question was certainly reasonable given all his family values talk and his position on 'the sanctity of marriage.' I think he could have given another answer that might not have propelled him to victory (as his did) but would have been more appropriate: I'm a sinner, we're all sinners, God forgives, blah blah blah. I think that would have been a crap dodge too but at least it wouldn't have made a monster of someone for simply doing his job.
My favorite Santorum story is supposedly he claims to be so "pro-life" that when his wife had a miscarriage they took the dead fetus home and had their children play with it before they buried it. What is more he tells audiences about it. Also weird is that his wife was previously married to a much older doctor who had delivered her many years before. He provided abortions in the years he was married to her. Weird. Just to think he won the Iowa caucuses and is one of the last men standing. What a motley crew the GOP has fielded.
The last time someone evoked a biblical morality rule in the debates he got roundly booed. See-- Paul, Ronald. I think giving himself up to the court of public opinion, admitting mistakes, and asking for forgiveness would've sank him with the base. They don't want someone to show any sign of weakness. Plow full speed ahead, even if you know you're full of s**t. Accuse your accusers. Play the victim. Act offended at everything. That's the kind of hyper-sensitivity and fighting spirit they're looking for. Not a thoughtful, honest, considerate, wise person with good ideas. They want a sanctimonious blowhard pugnacious snake-oil salesman. It reflects the worst of their nature... mean-spirited, intellectually vapid, morally bankrupt hypocrites. That is their man of choice, they've made that abundantly clear.
Funny pic, Rashmon. Axelrod said that but it wasn't an original quote. I believe it's an old proverb from somewhere or other. It's also a lyric in a Tom Waits song off of the Woyzeck-related album whose name escapes me now. Certainly it applies in this case.
Paul was telling a hostile audience to feel 180 degrees differently than they do on fighting wars. Gingrich would have been going Jerry Falwell. And as a great portion of the reason Christians are Christians is that they'd like to be forgiven for everything, it has some appeal. Of course the other half is so they can feel holier-than-thou and that appeal, you're right, is a greater one. But yes, I absolutely agree with everything you say here, and like I said I don't think there's any doubting he did the best thing he could politically and it paid off like a mother.
She wasn't married to the 60-something abortion doc when she was a 20-something. They were "living in sin."
