« Those entertaining Iranians | Main | Rich bourgeoisie vs. not-rich bourgeoisie »

February 15, 2012

Comments

The most mindless political chart I've ever seen, unless there's supposed to be some kind of irony here. Even if that's the case, it's childish. You're referencing politics according to the MSM? Sorry, but you don't even earn snark points.

[HS: Just the opposite, the MSM perpetuates the belief that there is a singular thing called conservatism.]

OK, so it's mapping/deconstructing the MSM. Fine. Romney's still no conservative by any credible definition. MSM thickheadedness does not make it so.

Can't handle a rebuttal, HS?

Love the logic, HS. Your fellow East Coasters in the NYT and the WP give you a paradigm that you get to embrace, reject, critique, and parody all at once. Four cardinal points, just like your map. So which one is it, HS? You can play the irony card at any time, as is your culture's wont.

The press knows there are social, fiscal, Paleo- and Neo- conservatives. However the truth is quite different. Just like "progressive" is a code word for socialist or softcore communist, "conservative" in its modern political sense simply means a reactionary corporatist.
Calling any of the candidates conservative in its real sense would be like painting stripes on a horse and call it a zebra. You are only seeing the illusion. And it is perception that wins elections.

Santorum proves the adage that you should never judge a book by its cover. He has shown to be very clever pandering to the core crowd of Republicans. Especially on social matters that causes them to become more emotional, and hence more fervent in their support. He managed to do a lot more in the primaries than Rommey, even without the millions and support of the GOP establishment.

Santorum is surging because he is a rightwing populist whereas Mitt Romney, by definition, is truly elite -- in wealth, in education, in background, and most noticeably, in persona.

Santorum is a conservative in the mold of George W. Bush except that he's more rabidly anti-abortion, anti-gay, and doesn't come from a family of high prestige. But that's a good thing in today's Republican party which has undergone a high degree of reactionary radicalization in the wake of the 2006-2008 electoral defeats and the failure of the Bush presidency.

Think of Santurum as a Tribune of the Proles to Romney's obvious Patrician status. Santorum has the politics as well as the heart of a rightwing populist -- he's for the welfare state as it benefits poor whites, a return to the cultural values of the 1950s, and militarism in service of the aforementioned.

Moreover, while he's a Catholic, he's a politically fundamentalist Catholic, who aligns well with evangelicals. Romney, by contrast, the Mormon. While the LDS church also politically aligns well with evangelicals, it cannot be excused for its dogmatic heresies from mainline Christianity the way the Roman Catholic Church is, especially in the eyes of evangelical protestants. The claimed infallibility of the pope is less of an issue than the prophethood of Joseph Smith and the existence of Kolob, for instance.

In evangelical eyes, Catholics are just unsaved Christians; Mormons aren't even Christian.

This simple difference will pay huge dividends to Rick Santorum.

If he wins Michigan he'll have serious momentum carrying him into Super Tuesday, at which point Gingrich's position in the race become more critical as he could limit Santorum's delegate gains, if not outright spoil it for him. Romney's hoping for this, of course.

As for your "politics chart," I concur with the thorough trashing it has received so far. You know, Half Sigma, arrogance is much more entertaining and tolerable when one has a real reason to be arrogant. Citing your own shoddy thinking isn't impressive.

You should be very worried for Mitt Romney at this point. At best he's looking at emerging from a long, exhausting GOP primary a poorer, less-liked, and severely compromised candidate in the general election. That's if he's lucky.

Again, the problem with Romney is not that he is Mormon, but that he is a liberal. If he were a *conservative* Mormon then evangelicals would eagerly embrace him and the media would despise him. That the media eagerly embraces him and evangelicals mistrust or despise him should tell anyone without HS's invincible powers of self-delusion that Mitt is no conservative.

I heard Romney on TV this morning at a rally, trying to be "just folks." Making jokes about "all the pretty ladies here," and "oh, I'm going to get into trouble for that. Har-har."

It was truly painful.

Santorum (who is not my first choice by any means) represents the "forgotten man" -- white proles if you will. And that is who has gravitated to the Republican party in recent years.

I also think that in the end, the elite Republicans will vote for Santorum, but I don't think the prole Republicans will vote for Romney.

Obama now leads both Romney and Santorum by several to ten points. Why? White women and their need to abort beta babies.

http://whiskeysplace.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/obamas-abortion-gamble-catholics-vs-women/

Your thinking is really shambolic here.

In any case liberals WANT to run against Romney. He's a weak, wooden, out-of-touch, awkward elite candidate in the mold of Gore and Kerry whose only strength is the perception that he's "electable." Take that away and there's really nothing left. The left wants to go full Occupy Wall Street against the rich, and Mitt Romney and his sub-15% tax rate fit into that perfectly.

Santorum is the dangerous candidate. He can turn the election back to culture war, where it's much more even ground and where Obama may overreach or blunder. For example, offending Santorum's base of Catholics with the birth control mandate.

The comments to this entry are closed.