See:

Devil in the details

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/22/10478701-devil-in-the-details-santorum-hardly-alone-in-belief-in-satan

Click on the link, scroll down and listen to the video

Or just click here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n4jopm7hYFk

The election looks like being a circus anyway so it may as well be an entertaining circus. Obama vs Romney would be soooo boring.

But Obama vs this guy – now that's the stuff of dreams

Is this another of your satires Steven? This guy is a religious nut that wants to expand military spending and sees China as being the new axis of evil.

Israel can protect itself Steven,it has over 200 nukes.The USA needs to set Israel free to grow up and suffer the consequences of it's own actions.

Spot-on, Arjay ! You'd expect some right-winger like Steven to support a neo-con like Santorum. They probably both believe in 9/11.

And what sort of name is 'Santorum', anyway ? Sounds a bit Swedish to me.

That would be right :(

The devil's in the detail and I'm unsure about the Swedishness... but it does provide the delightful Spoonerism -

Sick Rant orum

Dear stephenlmeyer,

It has become a little hackneyed but the Chinese curse ’Many you live in interesting times’ and the proverb ’Be careful what you wish for’ seem quite apt here.

That is not to say I haven't been thoroughly enjoying the Republican primaries my self. They have been great theatre. I could have worn Huntsman at a pinch but the rest? Total coo-coo land. There were some parts of Ron Paul’s campaign I liked but the rest is just insane. However even at his worst he is better than vapidly shallow, totally corrupt or unrepentantly hypocritical that seems to be the best description of the other three.

I did like the definition of Santorum that some gay activists managed to massage google into displaying when you typed in his name.

However I'm not above feeling my pleasures and yours come at the expense of what once was a great nation and perhaps the wellbeing of the rest of the world.

Arjay,

Rick Santorum is beyond my power to satirise. In fact I do not think even Monty Python could have come up with a Rick Santorum.

Oh, and, by the way, my post has nothing to do with Israel.

WmTrevor

I believe the Santorum name is of Italian origin.

BTW, like Rudd, Santorum seems to have exaggerated the extent of his working-class origins.

csteele

I take your point. But perhaps what America needs is a showdown.

My hope would be that, were Santorum the nominee, he would suffer a monumental defeat dragging a sizeable portion of the Republican Party down with him. That kind of shock therapy might be just what the Republican Party needs to rebuild itself.

Of course there is always the chance that he could win – especially if the economy goes south. In that case we may be in for interesting times. Or, more likely, Santorum will be revealed as just another opportunist who talks the talk while on the campaign trail and then governs like any other president.

What is remarkable about US politics is just how rare discontinuities are. I don't mean that changes of direction never occur. They do. But it's usually a slow bending of the curve that lasts over many administrations rather than a sharp change.

Loudmouth

I am not sure what you mean by "believe in 9 / 11."

Do I believe it happened?

Yep. I do.

Do I think it was some sort of {delete what is not applicable) Bush / CIA / Mossad / Zionist / Cheney / neo-con plot? I have never seen a scintilla of credible evidence to support that and I'm not going to bother reading any more of that recycled garbage.

Steven,I don't want to turn this into a 911 debate but if you can disprove the scientific facts here http://www.ae911truth.org/ I'll pay you as much as you want.I've met Prof Steven Jones,Richard Gage,Prof Niels Harritt and many others who have real credibilty and integrity.

Do you want to put your money where your mouth is?

A guy that felt like puking at John.F.Kennedy's speech?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTCCeXGxn_w

Obomber is just as bad, as bad as those from the ALP camp that created the embassy saga here in Aus just recently.

Low life pieces of dung who are only interested in stealing the fruits of other peoples hard work! And doing it by deception.

Dear stephenlmeyer,

I don't want you to think I am in Arjay’s camp, and his post was off topic, but I must pull you up on your statement;

"Oh, and, by the way, my post has nothing to do with Israel."

The only reason Gingrich is still in the race is because he performed his master’s bidding with his quotes about the Palestinians. But leaving him aside the issue of Israel weighs heavily on any US presidential election especially as the US is usually standing alone with them against world opinion.

I'm still thinking Jeb Bush might be a long but not totally impossible shot for the Republican nominee.

Watch this space. 

Rawmustard,good post.Obummer in the short term may be the lesser of many evils.They are going to starve Ron paul of oxygen via the media and poll rigging.

Obummer does not like Netenyahu,he wants to spend the money on attacking China in Africa.This is the oil wars and the big four,BP,EXXON Mobil,Royal Dutch Shell and Caltex want it all.They are also mostly owned by the big banking interests and Wall st.This is what Kennedy warned us about in 1961 just before he was assassinated.

The neo-cons in the West are trying to blame it all on Israel and get off Scott free.More precisely this is the BIG MIC = BMIC,the Banking Military Industrial Complex.They own and control just about everything in the West but China and Russia are resisting their totalitariarn New World Order.

csteele

For once I am wondering about a conspiracy.

Sheldon Adelson is a shrewd businessman. I find it hard to believe that he expects Gingrich to win. He must know Gingrich is a no-hoper.

So why fund him?

Why give him $10 mn or so?

Why waste that money on a lost cause?

Well, it turns out that Romney's wealthy friends are funding a "super PAC*." The super PAC enables Romeny to get around the funding limits imposed by campaign finance laws. Romney's friends use the Super PAC to run attack ads on their fellow millionaire's rivals.

However, even with the help of the super PAC, Romney has never been able to achieve an absolute majority among Republican voters. To win he relies on the so-called "conservative" vote being split.

Bottom line: Romney needs Gingrich to stay in the race to stop Santorum winning runaway victories in the primaries.

Without Gingrich to siphon votes away Santorum may be unstoppable.

So is Adelson really funding Gingrich?

Or is he helping his wealthy friend, Mitt, split the "conservative" vote?

The $10 million or so Adelson gave Gingrich is a lot of money to you and me. To Adelson it's chump change. By helping Romney he can extract favours that will benefit his business empire if Romney wins the election. Such favours would be worth many times the $10 mn he gave Gingrich.

From Adelson's perspective this could all be a worthwhile little flutter.

Frankly it's the only explanation that makes sense.

Romney also seems to have come to some sort of arrangement with Ron Paul. Paul cannot win but may accumulate enough delegates to put Romney over the top. Maybe Paul is hoping for a cabinet position or ambassadorship in a Romney administration.

Always remember these guys do not necessarily mean what they say. It's all theatre.

*See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

Steven,

I apologise for diverting this thread by implying that Colin Powell might have fired a missile into Rumsfeld's HQ and ordered a plane to fly into the White House, and ordered other planes to fly into those iconic buildings, the Twin Towers, killing many thousands of people. [Or was it all orchestrated by Bush ?]

Yes, the Republican Nomination Show is terrific entertainment ! I celebrated Obama's last inauguration in Hanoi, knocking back a bottle of their best Vinh Dalat @ $ 6.00. I look forward to celebrating his next inauguration, but perhaps at home.

And maybe Michelle's inaugurations, in 2016 and 2020, in equally exotic locations :)

Wouldn't be dead for quids !

Joe

American Republicans frighten me.
As much as their pup Abbott's Australian branch.
So like loudmouth/Joe I am loving it.
Fight you sons of unwed parents.

Dear stevenlmeyer,

I hear you and my conspiracy theory is only a little less Machiavellian I suppose.

Remember some of those ads funded by Adelson and directed at Romney were brutal.

To me Aledson is basically forcing Romney to sing for his supper. A little over a month ago Romney started to really mimic Gingrich’s rhetoric on Israel such as agreeing to move the US embassy to Jerusalem if elected. There will come a time when Romney needs to see the back of Gingrich and Aledson holds that key. He is showing quite bluntly that he is ready to pay to get what he wants. Gingrich, who has the morals of an alley cat and desperately needed a backer, was an easy mark.

Romney is tougher because of large donations from elsewhere and is being left to stew a little but is sure to come around. Aledson is just after the best deal for his dollars as possible and the crazy Super PAC system allow him to do just that.

I tend to think money in politics serves two types of function for the donor. One is the help it gives to the campaign effort of the candidate you are supporting, the second is to gain access and influence. The first is the provence of you and I, the second is afforded those in Aledson’s position.

So in a sense I agree his funding of Gingrich must give him a stronger hand over Romney and is probably very good value for money.

CSteele !

Oh ye, of little faith ! Obama will win the election, regardless of whatever oaf the Republicans put up. Sit back and enjoy the show !

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth

Tom Hanks is not really the dimwit he played in Forrest Gump.

Russell Crowe is not really the schizophrenic mathematical genius he played as John Nash in "A beautiful Mind."

Obama is not really the liberal-leftie he played when running in 2008.

And the Republican candidates are not "oafs." They are smart men playing the parts that they believe give them the best chance of winning the nomination.

It's theatre Loudmouth.

And, BTW, Julia Gillard is not the wicked witch of the west and Tony Abbott is not a mad monk. That too is theatre.

csteele,

Adelson's support of Romney may have caused the latter to ratchet up his pro-Israel rhetoric and Adelson may regard that as a bonus. However presidential candidates have been promising to move the US Embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem for decades. I think it's about as likely to happen as the swift closure of Guantanamo or the end of drone strikes.

Adelson knows that any president, whether his name be Gingrich, Obama, Romney, Santorum or Ebenezer Schlipperdillerich, will ditch Israel in an instant if he perceives it in his interest, or in his party's interest, to do so.

To repeat, it's theatre. It is very hard to discern what is real and what is part of the show.

Who will win in November?

Generally the voters will give a new party in the White House another go unless the economy tanks or there is some kind of foreign policy disaster. As the saying goes, you cannot win on foreign policy but you can lose.

I think that may actually be the problem, stevenlmeyer.

>>...the Republican candidates are not "oafs." They are smart men playing the parts that they believe give them the best chance of winning the nomination<<

Unfortunately (for them) there is a massive difference between winning the nomination for the Republican Party, and going on to win an election against the Democrats. Barry Goldwater's experiences should be front-and-centre of the Republican backroom boys' calculations - remember these famous words from his acceptance speech...

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

What a wally! His "extremism in the defense of liberty" included initiating nuclear conflict ("Let's lob a nuclear bomb into the men's room at the Kremlin"), and I'm sure Obama's staff will come up with some equally exciting defences as Johnson's did, back in 1964:

"In your guts, you know he's nuts"

Yep. It's theatre all right.

Eugène Ionesco springs to mind...

How is it that America with a population of 300m*, manage to get such a bunch of imbeciles as president. My adult life spans the presidency's from Nixon to Obama, that is 8 different men. Besides all being male they all have been fairly mediocre individuals. Particularly on the Republican side they have been mostly a mundane collection of clowns. A couple of presidents I single out as the dopiest of the dope's staring with Richard Nixon, a boozing fool who was drummed out of office, they got that right. Jimmy Carter, what can I say, a peanut of an intellect. No sooner had Jimmy departed than the fool of fools Ronnie Reagan lands in the oval office. The Bush boys, a pair of jerks. If George W learned anything from daddy it was how to be a bigger dumbo than dad. Clinton, the bloke who never had sex, surprisingly one of the better ones , not that hard when you appraise the other contenders. Some are not even worth a mention Ford, oh no! Obama, running second on my list as not the worse. Overall winner for me getting the Bedtime for Bozo award is Ronald Regan, I still believe John Howard is the love child of Ronnie and Margie Thatcher. Coming a close second would have to be George W Bush a supreme fool amongst fools.
I/m also interested in how they get these fools to run. They conduct this crazy show call 'The biggest Jerk' sometimes refered too as the primaries and the 2 dopes with the most votes from all the little dopes get to go head to head to see which dope will sit in the White House for the next 4 years. What a system! It seems any president that shows any potential at all, Kennedy, Lincoln, they shoot, that keeps the strain pure.