Talk Elections

This is yet another exhibit (http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/03/santorum-obama-has-embraced-radical-islamic-groups-118507.html) as to why I think Santorum is totally unelectable, and, more importantly, unfit to be POTUS. His rhetoric is just over-heated for starters:

(emphasis added)

I mean it is one thing to say (even though putting aside the ethics of the matter, it may not be wise, and indeed counterproductive, for the US to be so heavy handed in messing with the internal affairs of another nation), that Obama should be doing more to limit the influence of "Islamic radicals," and give some plausible examples of how Obama might do so; it is quite another to seemingly oppose their very "presence."  Are they all to be exterminated or something? And Obama has "embraced" them - as in endorsed them or something?  Really?  That sounds like hyperbolic infraction point rhetoric to me.

Yes, I know, many of you will not share my little opinion. You go to your church, and I will go to mine.

expect the rhetoric to escalate as the cause becomes more dire

That's a really excellent use of vague buzzwords there. I'm impressed.

The hilariously ironic thing is that Rick Santorum has, quite openly, embraced radical Christian groups.

P
There's nothing of politcal opportunism is the True Believer's words.

And that's what's scary.

And the Opus Dei?

Santorum IS embracing radical Christian groups, right now.

Not just embraced. He is the personification of radical Christianity. He wants to knock down the wall between Church and state, so that he can dictate his religion to the entire country. In short, he wants America to look like Iran.

This man never ceases to amaze me, and not in a good way.

...I'd still vote for him before i'd vote for Mitt Romney. Atleast I know Rick's crazy.

???

CONGRATS PHIL!

Yes, what you see, is what you get, with Rick. He I think does really believe this stuff. He is not just pandering. That is where his passions lie. Of course, we can't be certain. But it just seems that way. He will trim like most politicians trying to carve out a career, as to that which is secular, just not that which isn't. He's a quite hard wired man as to matters that involve more a priori assumptions and leaps of faith.

Uh huh. Good one.

More to the point, by Santorum's reasoning, one could argue that FDR embraced the gulag, Nixon embraced the Cultural Revolution, and Reagan embraced the Evil Empire, offering to disarm America in the process.

You doubt that he wants to impose a religion based government?

I don't know that a crazy person is that much worse than a serial liar. At least I know where Rick stands (in crazyland).

My point exactly. At least you know you'll get a crazy president with Rick. Etch-a-sketch Mitt could be just as crazy for all we know. Who knows what lengths he'd go to in order to keep the base happy.

Religious influence (no different than your personal take on issues affecting your position on issues) on policy making =/= theocracy/anything like Iran


You know this though. Just had to get some of your trolling in.

Was Santorum living in a cave in May 2011?

Sewers don't have caves, silly.  ;)

Care to defend his original statement here?

You would only need to change a few words here and this criticism would apply to Ronald Reagan (more so than it does to Obama, actually):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

       A more generalized problem that I have is that the entire GOP field, save Paul, engages in this type of rhetoric to varying degrees of subtlety.  They all invoke, to steal phrase from G Carlin, spooky language to paint the entire Arab and Muslim world as a sinister force hell bent on destruction.  There is no room for nuance or subtlety.  To listen to Mitt speak at AIPAC you would think the Obama Administration were faxing centrifuge designs directly to Tehran. Santorum, well see the above and thousands of other examples. And Newt refuses to recognize that one of the parties to the conflict even exists. How the heck can such people be expected to be arbiters and promoters of Middle East peace?  

       Now I guess you can try to divine who is for real and who is just pandering to the lobby but I'd rather not take that chance.  The downright dangerous foreign policy laid out by these candidates is the main reason I will pull the lever for a Democrat for the first time this fall.

I don't really find this to be SO out there. One can legitimately make the case that Obama has taken a more concilliatory stance towards global islam than the previous administration and than what Santorum would like. And there are legitimate grounds for being worried about the Muslim Brotherhood and similar movements taking over in Arab Spring countries.

Don't get me wrong, I side with Obama over Santorum by a wide margin on these issues but I don't think it's particularly more unfair or crazy than most stuff that goes down in politics.

What this shows is that Rick Santorum is a ruthless opportunist and demagogue whose sole claim to being any better than "Islamic extremists" or "secularists within the Islamic world gone awry" (like Saddam Hussein and Moammar Qaddafi) is extent and that he is a Christian (and that is only a cultural prejudice).  He is the True Believer of Eric Hoffer. He is also a liar. He has begun to show why he lost his last election in 2006, the difference now being that until 2006 he was an enforcer for the Bush Administration and this time he wants to be the most powerful person in the world. 

If anything, President Obama has sought out the good and decent people in the Islamic world as partners in change where change is necessary.  That is by far the safest course of action, and it is best done with integrity and decency. That is tricky, but when dealing with a religious world full of dangerous rifts and whose worst characters seek to impose their pathologies elsewhere, what else is there?

Yeah, there's nothing "crazy" that I have to "defend" here.

Well, as long as we all agree that Nixon "embraced the Cultural Revolution."

That wouldn't be extremely unreasonable, but what Santorum said was that Obama embraced radical Islam, so I don't see the relevance of constructing an argument that vaguely resembles a much less inaccurate version of what Santorum said and defending it.

That's not far afield from J.J. defending Sarah Palin's talking about sitting down with the Queen to discuss British military policy because one could make the argument that "the Crown" is the government.

We have a saying in the U.S. that ends, "and if my aunt had a dick, she'd be my uncle."

Ok, so you believe that Obama has embraced radical Islam, or think that's an acceptable description of events?

I blame Palin and McCain for this crap. Once they opened the "Obama pals around with terrorists" crap in 2008 it opened the door to stuff that has no place in a real presidential campaign.

Santorum cant say sh**t like this and be so shocked when someone yells out "pretend it is Obama" when he is on a shooting range.

Right. Rick Santorum's views are totally in the mainstream. They are totally not alarming or at the very least, insensitive. He's totally the kind of person I want representing America on the world stage.

Uh huh.

That formulation is hyperbolic, but that seems to be standard for American politics. In context it's clear what he's trying to say and that doesn't seem crazy to me.

I think it's different from the Palin thing because it was obvious in that case that she didn't mean what JJ tried to argue. In this case it IS clear what Santorum means. Sure, he twists that with some pointed wording but that doesn't upset me all that much, to be honest.

So you didn't refute or even address anything I said. Typical.

I don't know how to disagree more that a statement that begins "Obama embraces radical Islamic groups" is a reasonable statement that can be redeemed within context. You have to strip that statement of its xenophobia and misrepresentation to get at the nugget of fact there, which is that by supporting democracy in the Middle East Obama is supporting an atmosphere that lets Islamist groups achieve power they couldn't have under the previous dictatorships, but to make this a criticism of Obama or a functional criticism of American policy (what would Santorum propose we do about the Islamic brotherhood in Egypt? Bring back Mubarak's son as Pharoah? Republican growling and talking tough on Fox News doesn't actually change how Egyptians vote, and usually makes things worse) from this is very difficult.

And the context is about saying Obama and radical Islam together and sustaining the base's prejudices against Obama, Islam, and the Democrats.

I'm sorry, Gustaf, I respect your willingness to try to see Republican rhetoric in the most generous light possible and to gently correct "your fellow red avatars" but I can't reach that far with Santorum's statement. If 99% of the audience doesn't reach the conclusion you did, and if Santorum wanted the audience to end up in that hateful, ill-informed place, I don't see the relevance of a sympathetic, educated person deciding he could land in a different place as if it has more value than the conclusions drawn by Republican voters.

Phil, do you think Obama has embraced radical Islamic groups?

Well, I see your point and I'm not really claiming that it's a reasonable statement. It's more like everyone going all "OMG" on it seems like an overreaction. He's attacking Obama for something that I do think is legitimate grounds for debate. He is exaggerating the situation considerably, true, but that is rather common.

I'd agree that if one thinks that he is doing Muslim scare-mongering it's a lot worse. But I was thinking that Santorum IS a neo-conservative who actually believes this.

Aha, I see.

What would you see as the terms of debate? I ask because I feel as if the option of propping up dictatorships in Egypt was dismissed pretty soundly last year. And I don't think Santorum would have supported Mubarak, which would have been a tough policy to support - what I hear is him complaining it's too wet when it's rainy and too hot when it's sunny and blaming the President. If you support democracy in Egypt, you get an opening for the Islamic Brotherhood. But I don't hear Santorum advocating for... what would it take?... ending democracy in Egypt. I hear him attacking and slurring Obama because moderate Islamists are winning elections and that's scary to his voters. I see no constructive debate there.

I grant that Santorum likely does believe the ridiculous things he says, more than Gingrich or Romney does, but I don't see that as a defense. I'm glad that he's disqualified himself as a nominee because his views are so far outside the pale.

Stop trolling me. I've addressed this already.