The Other Stupid "Rick": "Middle Class" = "Marxism Talk"

[newyorkguy]

Are you counting Bush? Doesn't his win sort of counter the idea that the "correct ideology" candidate can't win?

....

His win? I thought George Bush lost the election?

 

[elbe]

His win? I thought George Bush lost the election?

Now I know my memory isn't that great but I seem to recall 8 years under Bush 43. Something about him winning that pesky electoral college.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Now I know my memory isn't that great but I seem to recall 8 years under Bush 43. Something about him winning that pesky electoral college.

Having the spouse of people who work for you on the court deciding the case helps too.

 

[elbe]

Having the spouse of people who work for you on the court deciding the case helps too.

He was still president and it was a pretty close race. I don't think, however, that it defends the position that Bush was a "correct ideology" candidate who couldn't win. Even if you believe he was "put" into the office he still won reelection, something Ford couldn't do.

 

[Ladewig]

For a millionaire, to deny existence of classes and to claim "We are all in this together!" is not bizarre at all. Self-serving and blatantly false, but quite rational. It is in millionaire's interests for proles to see him as "just one of us". (Whether he succeeds in it, is a different question.)

But I am pretty sure Santorum is not a millionaire, or at least was not two years ago. I recall reading about candidates' net worth during Republican primary. Santorum's net worth was the lowest of the bunch -- he was one of very few Senators (ex-Senators by then) who are not millionaires.

I apologize for citing Wikipedia on a skeptics board.

Santorum's net worth has been estimated between $880,000 and $3 million,[232] which mainly comes from five rental properties around Penn State University,[233] two personal homes in Great Falls and Penn Hills,[234] and some IRA accounts.[235] In 1997, Santorum purchased a three-bedroom house in the Pittsburgh suburb of Penn Hills. In 2001, he bought a $640,000 house in Leesburg, Virginia,[127] sold it in 2007 for $850,000,[236] and purchased a $2 million home in Great Falls, Virginia.[237]

So my final answer is "I do not have enough information to make a statement about his net worth with certainty. I also do not have enough information to disprove those who assert he is a millionaire."

 

[newyorkguy]

He was still president and it was a pretty close race. I don't think, however, that it defends the position that Bush was a "correct ideology" candidate who couldn't win.

I don't agree that Bush was a correct ideology President who couldn't win, either.

But I still maintain that the primary process pushes GOP candidates to the right. In fact, Santorum has been credited with doing just that:

Although his departure meant that Mitt Romney’s nomination goes from assumed to certain, Santorum has had a meaningful impact on the course of the Republican primary. He revivified the religious right and pushed his opponents to extremes on a host of issues...It was hard to imagine, even when staunch social conservatives such as Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry led the Republican field, that the primaries would become dominated by contraception.

Link

 

[gnome]

The thing that's been switching up lately, by my reckoning, is that the nominated GOP candidate now FAILS to go for the middle after being nominated, and often enough doubles down on the far right rhetoric, sometimes even breaking from their established record to do so.

So far, it's been a losing strategy. I hope they will learn from it.

 

[Trakar]

He was one of the last Republican's standing during the 2012 primary. He is a mainstream Republican and very much in touch and supported by a significant number of Republicans.

"Mainstream Republican" as in mainstream Americans who self-identify as Republicans, or as in the mainstream (less than one standard deviation) portion of the Republican party?

 

[Trakar]

For a millionaire, to deny existence of classes and to claim "We are all in this together!" is not bizarre at all. Self-serving and blatantly false, but quite rational. It is in millionaire's interests for proles to see him as "just one of us". (Whether he succeeds in it, is a different question.)

But I am pretty sure Santorum is not a millionaire, or at least was not two years ago. I recall reading about candidates' net worth during Republican primary. Santorum's net worth was the lowest of the bunch -- he was one of very few Senators (ex-Senators by then) who are not millionaires.

Fox Business news Santorum = $1,000,000
http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2011/10/04/net-worth-gop-presidential-candidates/

WIKI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum

Santorum's net worth has been estimated between $880,000 and $3 million,[232] which mainly comes from five rental properties around Penn State University,[233] two personal homes in Great Falls and Penn Hills,[234] and some IRA accounts.[235] In 1997, Santorum purchased a three-bedroom house in the Pittsburgh suburb of Penn Hills. In 2001, he bought a $640,000 house in Leesburg, Virginia,[127] sold it in 2007 for $850,000,[236] and purchased a $2 million home in Great Falls, Virginia.[237]

Certainly not a titan of finance, but 1-4 million seems reasonable.

 

[DavidJames]

"Mainstream Republican" as in mainstream Americans who self-identify as Republicans, or as in the mainstream (less than one standard deviation) portion of the Republican party?

My comments says it all. Trying to quantify the term "mainstream" is an unnecessary academic exercise. Choose whatever word you want, the man was almost the Republican presidential candidate. If you think fringe candidates or candidates that a don't reflect a large chunk of the Republican voters can get that far, be my guest.

 

[Trakar]

My comments says it all. Trying to quantify the term "mainstream" is an unnecessary academic exercise. Choose whatever word you want, the man was almost the Republican presidential candidate. If you think fringe candidates or candidates that a don't reflect a large chunk of the Republican voters can get that far, be my guest.

I think the modern Republican party is predominantly a fringe political movement.

 

[ehcks]

I think the modern Republican party is predominantly a fringe political movement.

Fringes don't normally account for 47% of the popular vote.

 

[Trakar]

Fringes don't normally account for 47% of the popular vote.

Perhaps, but I do not see anything normal about political perspectives and considerations in the current US political situation. Roughly 25% of the US population is under 18 (ineligible to vote) giving a voting population of around 230 million. Out of that ~61 million voted for the Republican candidate, or roughly 1/4 of the voting age population. Even within the Republican party itself only a small minority of the party actually holds the extremist positions of the party leadership. Shaken through a sieve, we have a political party controlled by and espousing fringe political rhetoric.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Fringes don't normally account for 47% of the popular vote.

And why we can consider the idea that Saddam was behind 9/11 a fringe republican belief.

 

[Spindrift]

Fringes don't normally account for 47% of the popular vote.

Registered Republicans are 28% of the electorate. But it's still bigger than a fringe.

 

[Trakar]

Registered Republicans are 28% of the electorate. But it's still bigger than a fringe.

The beliefs expressed and supported by the majority of the elected R office holders and party leadership (AKA the Republican Party), are not of the same magnitude as the number of registered Republicans. "Fringe" is probably a bit hyperbolic, but not nearly so much so as what passes as "mainstream" in the Republican party these days.

 

[Mister Earl]

I think the important distinction is that what used to be the fringe of the Republican party has captured the center and now has control.

 

[DavidJames]

The beliefs expressed and supported by the majority of the elected R office holders and party leadership (AKA the Republican Party), are not of the same magnitude as the number of registered Republicans.

What makes you say that? The Republican office holders campaign as hard right candidates and the voters elect them. Pretty simple really. What your suggesting is just not supported by reality.

I hope you're not using Republicans on this forum as any basis for your thinking.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I think the important distinction is that what used to be the fringe of the Republican party has captured the center and now has control is out of control.

FTFY.

 

[Trakar]

What makes you say that? The Republican office holders campaign as hard right candidates and the voters elect them. Pretty simple really. What your suggesting is just not supported by reality.

I hope you're not using Republicans on this forum as any basis for your thinking.

I'm a Republican on this forum, so I'm sure this is an accurate point.

Most voting Republicans do not vote in the primaries. In 2012, roughly 20 million Republicans voted in the Republican primary, and over 60 million Republicans voted in the general election, so a plurality (in 2012 roughly 10 million Republicans who voted for Romney in the Primary) selected the Republican candidate for president who then got the votes of the other 50million Republicans who cast their ballot in the general election.

Choosing to vote for the (R) candidate in a general election does not often mean agreeing with the full range of policies that the particular candidate is espousing. Many if not most modern, voting Republicans, vote their decision based upon one or a very few issues, and the belief that alternative candidates ((I) & (D)) will not favorably address their issues. Some don't even get that far in their electoral considerations (the letter following their name is good enough for them). Not that the same isn't true of most voters in general, not just the Republican electorate, but we were discussing the Republican party so that was the focus of my discussion. Thus when looking at the range of Republican Party Planks, it is very easy for a large number of narrow focus voters with different pet issues, to elect candidates and leadership that really do not represent their opinions, beliefs and considerations about issues beyond their narrow focus.