Republicans - If we lose...

[Brittain33]

I think suicide might be an option, per your lens. I am trying to reduce the importance of politics in my life. It is not good for my health.

After the 2002 wipe-out of the Democrats, I nearly got a subscription to People Magazine to get my mind off of it. You get pulled back in. Landrieu helped, and if this year is a Democratic wipe-out, there will be a Republican victory of some kind sooner rather than later.

[Brittain33]

I just don't think Palin will be anywhere near talks for this.  If you lose this year, it will largely be blamed on her. 

Was Ferrarro ever mentioned for 88?

Quayle certainly tried to make a comeback in '96.

[Brittain33]

I also don't understand how he can laugh off Santorum (I guess he's "too controversial") but we can go with a total blast from the past, just as controversial person like Gingrich (if he wasn't too old).

Gingrich can't win, but unlike Santorum, he never got completely and personally repudiated at the polls and left Washington on his own terms.

Seriously, I thought it was getting old for people to make fun of you for thinking Santorum would win in 2006, but to continue as if that loss doesn't mean anything and he or anyone of his ilk has a future in national politics is obtuse.

[Brittain33]

Frankly, your "know it all" attitude is getting a bit irritating. I asked Republicans who they thought they'd like in 2012 and asked people not to do what you're doing. Not only did you have to get your jab in here, you had to create another thread which personally mocked me on this very topic. You disagree with me? Great. I think saying it once was enough.

I've started threads like this. The only time they stay restricted to one party is when the interesting part of the subject is what that party thinks. Asking Republicans how they feel about the election when McCain is doing well--there's no point in asking Democrats for their opinions, because there is literally nothing they can say that will contribute in any way to an understanding of what Republicans think. If Democrats joined in, they'd look like they were interrupting and get ignored.

This is about gaming the 2012 election. It's what we're all here to talk about. There's no way people can stand aside and ignore gaming of an election. You could ask who they want, but that's different from asking who it's going to be. And if you say "I think Rick Santorum is a great candidate for 2012," you don't have to be a Republican to respond to that.

You'd also have more standing to ask people to hold off of sarcasm if you were some superhuman who has never engaged in that kind of sarcasm, yourself, but you have, and you don't see it because in your mind it's purely defensive and in response to others. You need to get thicker skin or, frankly, put me on ignore if your political views are such hothouse flowers that they can't withstand disagreement.

[Brittain33]

If I'm asking to keep my comments to myself in a thread titled, "Democrats only" or something like that, I do. Again, I'm not purely defensive when it comes to this stuff. I just don't like your personal attacks. You did it once here and then that wasn't enough. You still didn't tell us why two comments (one being in your own thread on the subject) was necessary.

I think you see a vigorous contest of your statements as a personal attack. Maybe you don't believe me, but I started that other thread with two thoughts in mind.

1. Look, supposition about Santorum is ridiculous. I think it deserves its own thread.
2. I can frame this as "isn't Phil stoopid LOLZ" but that's not the point, it's not how I want to engage with people except for those who are truly beyond the pale, and it conflicts with #1.

So, I framed the question as fairly as you can, and included a poll answer for people who want to recuse themselves from voting without looking like they endorse one of the answers.

The issue, Phil, is that I am struggling with how to speak with someone who holds a particular view that I find frankly ludicrous and not grounded in reality, and who brings it up again and again. This view is informed by the fact that I found the defeat of Santorum a gratifying end to one particularly nasty and obnoxious tendency in Republican politics which deserved to be purged from the system, as with George Allen. Read those sentences, that's the clearest statement I can make of where I'm coming from.

If any Democrat proposed a senator who had been so thoroughly defeated as a national candidate--and if that senator had been nationally divisive and obnoxious on the scale of Rick Santorum--every Republican would have the same view. You don't see Santorum as the tarbaby, but he is. The best analogy I can come up with is a Democrat who believes Howard Dean or Chuck Robb is not only a great politician, but the kind of politician who can unite his party and the country and win.

I don't know why you are so loyal to Santorum, but yes, I admit that I can't respect your political opinions as long as you cling to this idea that someone with Santorum's record has a future. I'm practicing tough love by getting this issue out in the open and discussing it. You insist on seeing it as a personal attack because, I guess, your attachment to Santorum is part of your personal identity, your faith, your sense of self. That is I get this reaction from you. I don't know what to say, because this is where the tension between psephology as a science and politics as a passion collide. I've managed to do it with gay rights, listening to Biden's statements as a political calculation and not a personal attack. But when I was 20... no way.

[Brittain33]

Here's where you're coming from: Your a bitter person who actually isn't satisfied with just beating the guy. It's one thing for me not to be over because, after all, my guy lost! But with you, you can't be happy with winning. You have to take even more personal joy in his defeat.

Phil,

   This is exactly how your side has treated anti-gay politics and amendment for years. Not only do you win, taking away benefits from people, but you celebrate those wins and talk about how great they are for motivating voters, and what smart politics it is, and how moral you are for doing so. When you celebrate Santorum's wins, you celebrate the negative acts he has committed against people he built a career out of bashing.
   Except in my case, I'm celebrating the end of one man's career, while in your case, you celebrate the taking away of health care benefits and legal rights from committed couples.

So, no, I don't feel any shame about it. I'm glad Santorum lost, and if he ran for election in 2012, I'd be glad to see him go down in flames. No shame at all.

[Brittain33]

Totally uncalled for considering I support those rights under civil unions and I'm pretty sure you know that but you'll still say that that's not good enough and I'm a bigot.

No, I do appreciate that you support that and meant "you" in a collective sense. Santorum doesn't. Neither did most Republican elected officials who push the maximal impact on amendments, not just banning marriage, but also setting rules to the point that universities in Michigan and Ohio have to cancel domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples and in Virginia, a will can be invalidated because legal contracts between same-sex couples may be discarded by the vague and extremely broad amendment written by the Republican assembly.

I can distinguish between amendments like Oregon's, which banned gay marriage but allowed civil unions, from the policies pushed by Republicans like Rick Santorum to hold the line on anything that approximates rights for same-sex couples, and where Democrats on a federal level have chosen to fight their ground.

Perhaps Santorum would have moderated on this since 2004, as many Republicans have. I recognize that for most Republicans, gay-baiting is a tool used cynically to rally voters and they don't personally care. The effect can be the same, and the real danger is when those Republicans are partnered with true believers like Rick Santorum and the SoCons in Virginia and Ohio who add the extra punitive measures that effectively ban every legal right that a same-sex partner might have. As with any party, it's the extremists who ruin it, and I put Santorum in that column based on how he behaved as a Senator.

How should I deal with people who are not in the vanguard of anti-gay politics, but who actively support candidates who are? What is the answer to that? The problem I have, Phil, is I don't understand how someone can be so supportive of and loyal to Santorum as a national candidate when his extremist approach is what defined his career and his appeal. It creates a disconnect. It's not something I can understand and see around. People voting on an anti-gay-marriage amendment that also bans health care visits, ok, they were given a single choice and didn't or couldn't consider the implications. But advancing the career of people who force things into that choice is different.

[Brittain33]

Phil,

   This is exactly how your side has treated anti-gay politics and amendment for years. Not only do you win, taking away benefits from people, but you celebrate those wins and talk about how great they are for motivating voters, and what smart politics it is, and how moral you are for doing so.
   Except in my case, I'm celebrating the end of one man's career, while in your case, you celebrate the taking away of health care benefits and legal rights from committed couples.

Totally uncalled for considering I support those rights under civil unions and I'm pretty sure you know that but you'll still say that that's not good enough and I'm a bigot.

To be more concise: no, I really couldn't imagine someone being a big fan of Rick Santorum and supporting civil unions that are roughly equivalent to marriage. I won't dispute what you say, but it is unexpected.

[Brittain33]

I'm sorry but I've discussed Santorum's personal views on homosexuality enough around here and elsewhere. We're just not going to see eye to eye.

I don't disbelieve you, but I honestly don't remember. I haven't been here that long and I don't read every forum.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think there could be some data out there for this, although I don't feel like looking it up and I doubt you do after this morning, either. I think a rough rule of thumb is that 1/3 of people support gay marriage, 1/3 oppose everything associated with gay rights, and 1/3 are uncomfortable in the middle, not liking gay marriage, but are turned off by anything that seems punitive. The actual location of those dividing lines varies a lot by state and by year. I think the hard core of voters who oppose all recognition of gay rights is larger than you do, and that Santorum is seen as a national hero by them.

However, I also must recognize that people within Pennsylvania will support him for reasons other than those that draw conservatives from Georgia and Arizona to him, and that is something I have lost sight of with you this morning, to my discredit.

[Brittain33]

I would love for a surprise 2012 candidate, like Judge Alito

What. The. Hell.

rotfl.

That's one way to change the subject from Santorum.