Office by Alex Penny
Objective & Subjective, but always Respective of the Collective
Read it and weep be confused.
“You win by giving people a choice. You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If you’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate of the future,” Santorum told a crowd at USAA. (ABC News)
I wonder if this is more of a ploy to convince people to vote for him over Mittmentum. Truth be told Mitt has his problems, but fiscally speaking he isn’t anywhere near Obama.
Rick right now is coming off as a sore loser, as he probably realizes his chances of victory are slim to none (despite the fact that he’s predicted to win Louisiana on Saturday). Hat tip: Hot Air
Someone wants to thin the GOP herd. Obviously the longer Newt and Santorum stay in the race, the more likely Mitt will be the GOP nominee. It will be interesting to see how Newt responds to this attack.
It’s like Virginia all over again except…not as bad. It looks like Rick didn’t qualify in every county which means Romney could win by default.
Rick Santorum may share my faith, but his theocratic interpretation of the Declaration of Independence is ridiculous (hat tip: The Atlantic)
“…..’Happiness’ actually had a different definition, ‘way back at the time of our founders. Like many words in our lexicon, they evolve and change over time. ‘Happiness’ was one of them. Go back and look it up. You’ll see one of the principle definitions of happiness is ‘to do the morally right thing.’ God gave us rights to life and to freedom to pursue His will. That’s what the moral foundation of our country is.” (Political Insider)
Let’s say (for the sake of argument) that “happiness” meant “to do the morally right thing” hundreds of years ago.
Problem with that definition is that everyone has their own version of what “to do the morally right thing” which at the time could mean owning slaves (or not), allowing women to speak and or preach in church (or not), the right to drink alcohol (or not), or to marry your cousin (or not).
And these were some of the larger controversies “back in the day” (with the exception of the last one which I threw in for fun).
Satisfying ones ethics/morals can make an individual happy (or not), but from my ever so inferior position happiness=happiness, not religion.
Rick would be better off not trying to reinterpret the Declaration of Independece as holy scripture.
After all the last thing America needs is a few good men attempting to judge on the behalf of the Devine to rule as devils upon the Earth (as human led theocracy has always led towards an abuse of power).
I’m not sure if I can vote for Santorum in the upcoming election.
He has the ethics to be President for sure, but I’m nervous about theocrats running the country (even ones from my own faith).
I doubt the US will abandon Afghanistan anytime soon as the country is home to $1 Trillion (yes, a trillion!!) worth of lithium and other resources.
Mitt has already apologized for this apathetic statement for the poor, but the fact that this is on video means it will be used against him in the general.
(Source: CNN)
I wish @Gmail had an all inclusive anti-political filter feature available!
I’m tired of politicians and PAC’s emailing me why they think they’re awesome while everyone else sucks.
Worse, I haven’t signed up for ANY of their silly newsletters, yet they keep emailing me as of I was their greatest fan.
Yeah, I could create a filter for each one, but creating dozens of new filters every year for each national, state, and local campaign (not to mention PACs, political organizations and political endorsers) is not the answer.
If Google Voice can save me from annoying politicians, surely Gmail can do the same. At least I hope they can. :-/
They may drag out the race with their PAC’s, but if Romney wins in SC their candidates may drop out.
Apparently he only likes “real Republicans” and blames his loss on a caucus full of…fake GOPers. (via the Blaze)
“This is a quirky place, a quirky process, to say the least, and we’re going to go into places where they have actual primaries and there are going to be real Republicans voting,” he told reporters. “Not that there aren’t real Republicans here in Iowa, but the fact is, it was a pretty loosey-goosey process, and you had a ton of people who were there that admitted they were Democrats voting in the caucuses last night.”As much as I like Perry due to his record, his sore loser man attitude sucks (and that’s putting it here mildly). If Perry only values GOPers then libertarians like me can always find another candidate to support in the upcoming primaries. He needs to be a little bit more humble especially as he campaigns in South Carolina (whose governor has endorsed Mitt Romney).
