Today's installment of campaign-related news items that won't necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:
* Based on the latest data, Nate Silver's forecast model now shows Mitt Romney edging ahead of Rick Santorum in Michigan. The primary is four days away.
* The main Romney super PAC has recycled a 2007 Romney campaign ad, which wouldn't be especially interesting were it not for allegations that this violates campaign-finance law.
* In advance of Ohio's Super Tuesday presidential primary, the Romney campaign has reserved another $150,000 in ad time, on top of the $1.3 million Romney's super PAC has already invested in the Buckeye state.
* As Republican policymakers in Virginia continue to pursue an aggressive culture-war agenda, Senate candidate Tim Kaine (D) is going after George Allen (R) for being too far to the right on social issues. It's an unusual change of pace -- a Democrat in a Southern state going on the offensive on the GOP's culture-war overreach.
* Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky said yesterday it would be "an honor to be considered" as the Republican Party's vice presidential nominee.
* Craig James, a former ESPN analyst running for the U.S. Senate in Texas, argued this week that sexual orientation is a choice and gay people are "going to have to answer to the Lord for their actions."
* In Wisconsin, a Marquette Law School poll shows Santorum with a big lead in the Republican presidential race, but the state's primary isn't until April 3.
* Also, the latest Tulsa World poll also shows Santorum cruising past his GOP rivals in Oklahoma, and its primary is a week from Tuesday.
Leave a Comment:
I would be REALLY interested in an exit poll that asked Michigan republicans some variation of the following: Did you change your mind in the past two weeks about whom to vote for? (or did you just decide?) If so, what was the deciding factor in that decision?
Curious to know if Santorum's riffing on social issues/birth control cost him Michigan republican voters, especially women... also if anything Romney said caused them to switch the other way.
Note to Craig James: people who are @!$%#s in the name of the Lord are really going to have to answer to him. The Gospels are quite clear on this.
Nobody is going to have to answer to the judeo/islamic/christian/mormon God. He's fictional.
Too many people get away with this kind of insane rhetoric, because they don't get called out on it. And yes, this person's language is in direct contradiction with the source material for his religion,
But more importantly, it's nuts. Asking people to take you seriously while invoking God, is like if I asked you to take me seriously while condemning a whole demographic saying that they will have to answer to Darth Vader.
Anti-psychotic medication stops people from thinking like this.
If god didn't want LGBT he would stop making them without our assistance.
Also, last night Bill Maher donated one million dollars to a pro-Obama super-PAC. The message was, and I'm paraphrasing, "Obama CAN lose because half the country is crazy. Giving a million dollars to help Obama win is better than living in the Republican's world." He said it much more eloquently though.
"Do it in the name of heaven, you can justify it in the end..."?
Religion is a Tupperware party belief is opinion handed out to sheep by power hungry groupies, faith is false hope reinforced by such bull as "you prayed for the wrong thing" or "God is testing you" and as our founders knew religion has no place in Government since every religion thinks theirs is the only true religion.
Of course when the Church is allowed to buy in and gets matching funds from Corporations and one percenters for preaching vote republican...
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”
Seneca - (Roman philosopher, mid-1st century AD)
Have they forgotten that Jesus was a liberal?
Craig James is from Texas, where everything is bigger (including the delusions).
Why is everybody blasting Romney for being honest?
When he was asked what the biggest misconceptions about him were he answered that these were that he would create jobs and reduce the deficit.
Why doesn't the Lamestream Media give him the benefit of the doubt?
I've never seen that quote. Do you have a source? Honestly curious.
I guess Craig James will have to answer to the lord for taking money and defrauding the NCAA en route to having his school's football program get the death penalty. I'm pretty sure lying is a sin.
I meant to ask this yesterday and by this time on a Friday not many will see it, but with regard to Santorum's explanation for his support of No Child Left Behind: he voted in favor of it, even though he said it went against his principles. He said he was being a team player in supporting it.
Never at any point did he say anything about his support being because that's what the people he represented wanted, nor did he say his opposition to it was based on what his constituents had told him.
Basically, he wants to be elected so that he can decide policy based on his own view of the world, regardless of what the people want. I realilze this is nothing new, but wouldn't it be refreshing to hear a politician say for once that he or she supported or opposed a bill because that's what the majority of the people they represent wanted? We never hear that, and that's what their answer should be every time.
Never mind.