The "other candidates" & does sexism benefit Bachmann and Palin?

Which Republican presidential candidate (and noncandidate) dominate the news currently?  Does Palin, who is barely newsworthy these days, except as a novelty act, benefit from the fact that the news concentrates on her and not on, say, that guy who just quit CNN?  (You know, the nicely dressed blond guy with the butch haircut...).  And are Bachmann's views really more newsworthy than those of other declared candidates?  And while it may look like sexism, what is the value in name recognition for being constantly in the news?


Who are the others?  What are their views?  Are they worthy or scary?  Have they said or done anything interesting?


There is John Huntsman, "Huntsman was invited to speak at the Kent County Republicans' Lincoln Day Dinner, but then was dis-invited by then-Party Chairwoman Joanne Voorhees when she learned Huntsman had supported civil unions for gay couples in Utah."  By the way, Huntsman is "the other Mormon" on the list.


There is Herman Cain "  He also pledged to cut corporate tax rates, make permanent the Bush tax breaks, and said he would pursue tougher immigration policies to secure American borders."  By the way, he's antigay. just like Bachmann.  Also, "He credits the Bush doctrine with making the Mideast revolutions possible, faults the Obama administration for being unprepared to handle them, and voices strong support for "helping Israel defend itself, whatever that takes."  Is a Pizza magnate who has never held public office more or less qualified than, say, a partially one-term US senator and former state senator from Illinois, or a partial term Alaska governor?


Newt Gingrich, altulterous hypocrite who is antichoice, antiunion, and suggests that there is a plot out there to kill old people (see his link) and wants religious expression in public places.  (it wasn't hypocritical of him to lead impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton in the 1990's, even hough he was having an extramarital affair at the time...)  Well, actually it WAS hypocritical of him.


Rick Santorum, proudly sanctimonious - you name the issue, he's probably as opposed to the humanist point of view as you can get.  Fervently antichoice.  Loved by catholics and evangelicals.  Wants to tie aid to african countries to stopping abortions.


There's Ron Paul, the libertarian favorite.  "We cannot talk about fiscal responsibility while spending trillions on occupying and bullying the rest of the world."


There's Mitt Romney - Not very exciting, but maybe he has the gravitas that others lack.  Whatever that is.  Is Romneycare really different from Obamacare? "The U.S. economy and joblessness are considered among Obama's main weaknesses in his re-election effort. Romney is leading in opinion polls among the candidates seeking the Republican 2012 presidential nomination to face Obama."


There's Tim Pawlenty, who really knows anything about him? 


Mitch Daniels.  Who?


Despite voices decrying the sexism of singling out Bachmann and Palin, those politicians currently have a podium that the others would envy.  The exposure is both beneficial and harmful.  At this point, Pawlenty could probably say we should farm out defense to little green aliens from Mars, and no one would notice, while Bachmann could say the sky is blue and people would start arguing about what she meant by that, it's not "blue" it's "azure", and anyway it's cloudy, and god made it blue, but the discussion gives her more press regardless.


I would like to see issues and honest discussions, rather than personalities, gotchas, word games, ad hominems, etc, in election politics.  I would also like to see everyone join hands and sing "We are the world"......  Damn.








Views: 105

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Oh, OK.  Still, the comment prompted me to look further into his philosophy.  He seems to be so "states rights" that it negates his ideas about personal freedoms.  If there were slave states, his philosophy would seem more heinous.  This "states rights" philosophy is contrary to individual rights, so he must not really be a libertarian even if he claims to be.

A lot depends on who can earn the most money for their campaign.  I'm not sure Ron Paul has the fund raising ability to stay in the race.  Every four years these campaigns get more and more expensive.  I think Palin and Bachmann, as much as I don't like them, maybe can draw in the dollars to stay in the race.  It all boils down to who can attract the most money.  A lot of these folks will drop out due to lack of funds. 


I don't think I could look a President in the face if his name meant santorum ( ).  I know it started out as a joke, but it stuck.

You are right, dollars buy elections, or come close.  Now that corporations are "people", it will be interesting to see who they go for.  We may never know, but I would put my nonexistant $$$ on the one who looks the most corporation friendly, regardless of how they feel about religion.  This might be the most pro-war as well, given the trillions in that business.

You omitted some stuff that's pretty important in clarifying his view:

Paul believes that prayer in public schools should not be prohibited at the federal or state level, nor should it be made compulsory to engage in.

In 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have life defined as beginning at conception at the Federal level.[151] However, he believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".[152][153][154] He believes that according to the U.S. Constitution states should, for the most part, retain jurisdiction.

In the first case, he's saying that kids in homeroom, for example, should be allowed to pray or have a prayer meeting if they so choose.  It also says that those who do not wish to pray should not be made to.  He also believes that the state should not author, sanction, or enforce any type of prayer in school. He simply want to make sure that believers have the right to pray and non-believers have the right not to.

In the second case, he's drawing a line as to where the federal government's powers end.  He doesn't seem to agree with prohibiting abortion in medically emergent cases, for example.

  Furthermore, Ron Paul was the author of the Cures Can Be Found Act of 2007. This is a bill "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide credits against income tax for qualified stem cell research, the storage of qualified stem cells, and the donation of umbilical cord blood".

  It seems to me that he's keeping his religious views out of the Constitution.  You have to listen to all of what he says.  He doesn't want to cut funding somewhere unless it's Constitutionally illegal funds that shouldn't have been given in the first place.

I would like to hear why Mitt Romney isn't getting scrutinized more about the type of business ventures he was involved in... I think if the 'average Joe' republican read a bit more of Romney's bio, his waxy veneer would start rubbing off.   He wasn't so much of a job creator as he was a business collector...he'd gather them up when they were faltering, get them running nicely, then sell them off and pocket the profits.  And, from what I heard about this process, people lost their jobs. 


And the bible belt folks aren't big fans of Mormons, are they?  I had a discussion with my dad over the weekend and he seems to think that, even though they're protestants, Mormons are still on the fringes.  So, evangelicals probably wouldn't vote him in... but his corporate connections seems to be strong and he has that soothing voice and a 'Ken-doll' look about him.  

Bonus: My dad told me a funny story of having a Mormon come to his front door and my dad sent the guy off with a comment about Mormonism being a cult, giving him back his pamphlet and saying that he'd stick to his Lutheran faith, thank-you-very-much.  My dad usually enjoys a good debate with them...not THAT time.

Here, check some of this information out about good old Mitt and Bain Capital: 





It appears in the web at least that no one in a firmly secular camp can pull enough electoral votes to reach the presidency. I've maintained for a while lawyers at least can address the legislature and the courts imperatives in a manner that does not require war to make Congress ammenable to unending presidential executive orders and other nonsense such as the line item veto and the patriot act. Why should we trade off sound science for sound economics in a candidate? Doesn't seem to be any MBA holders with law degrees either. You need the feduciary plank in a lawyer as well as the business savy of the MBA to work backwards from the finantial cliff hanger our financial narrative has taken (record unemployment & down graded 10 year treasury bonds). Stagflation is only a moment away. Can default be avoided by a military base fire sale or are pawn shops able to take 700 + of such cumbersome assets in hock?




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service