Don't Fuck Santorum

[Nordic]

That's fucking awesome.

[Simulist]

I knew something had to be missing with that guy.

But I'd just assumed it to be limited to those things above the bible belt: things like compassion and brains.

[Allegro]

.
Letting Santorum off easy?
— A reader doesn’t think a Times editorial hit Santorum hard enough for his comments on JFK’s church-state speech.
— Los Angeles Times | Postscript | March 3, 2012

Several readers responding to our editorial Wednesday on Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s “throw up” reaction to fellow Roman Catholic John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech supporting church-state separation criticized The Times for being too soft on the former Pennsylvania senator. Richard C. Armendariz of Huntington Beach wrote:

“There is no way that you can soft-soap Santorum’s remarks that JFK’s speech regarding the separation of church and state made him want to throw up. To argue that Santorum was not completely at odds with the Kennedy statement smacks of an attempt to appease his supporters.

“Santorum’s statement on JFK — in addition to his prior ramblings that President Obama is a “snob” because he wants everyone to go to college, that the president has a phony theology and his view that the free distribution of birth control will lead to increased promiscuity — is sufficient to conclude that Santorum is not fit for any elected office.”

Times editorial writer Jon Healey responds:

The Times’ editorial board looked at Santorum’s comments about the Kennedy speech in isolation because they were emblematic of a more broadly held view among Christian conservatives. Whatever else you may think of Santorum, he is hardly the only person in America complaining that the government has pushed the notion of church-state separation too far.

It’s true that Santorum tried to draw a sharp contrast between his stance on religion in politics and Kennedy’s remarks. In the editorial board’s view, however, Santorum so misconstrued Kennedy’s speech that he missed the common ground the two men occupy. Bear in mind that Kennedy gave the disputed speech to a group of Protestant ministers in Houston, not a gathering of atheists in San Francisco. He was trying to reassure people of faith that their religious liberties would not be diminished if a Catholic became president.

The Christian right talks about religious liberty in a different context today, asserting that Washington is aggressively anti-religion. But even if you hold that view, hostility toward religion isn’t what Kennedy advocated. As The Times noted, Kennedy’s strong stance against the president taking marching orders from the pope, and Santorum’s argument that Washington shouldn’t exclude religious viewpoints from the debate, are opposite sides of the same coin.

[Bruce Dazzling]

[Simulist]

I wish her brain were as functional as her voice.

[Searcher08]

I wish her brain were as functional as her voice.

I think I'm in love.

[brainpanhandler]

Maaaaan ...

http://www.firstloveband.com/FirstLove/Welcome.html


They could probably be reasoned with though.

[Simulist]

From their About Us page:

We've never been to public school. We've switched between homeschool and Christian school.

Really? Because... I never would have guessed.

[compared2what?]

At utter random, I'm going all in on no brokered convention for....

Romney/Santorum 2012
____________________

Pretend there's a balloon drop here.

[lupercal]

At utter random, I'm going all in on no brokered convention for....

Romney/Santorum 2012
____________________

Pretend there's a balloon drop here.

Agree with you there. I figured Newt would clean up tonight but it looks like insantorum is the man of the hour:
Santorum sweeps Alabama, Mississippi primaries

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/art ... primaries/

Alabama and Mississippi, who'd a thunk it. Still if there's one ticket that could make this a real fight, that's it.

[compared2what?]

I know, right? I actually had the thought for the first time this afternoon, prompted by the way tonight appeared to be shaping up. And the moment I did, I thought: You know, due to some kind of obscure and occult non-logical logic, that's a ticket that'll actually get the base out.

So it just might be. (A real fight.) Or not. It's really, really not easy to make that kind of call this year. Too crazy.

[lupercal]

that's a ticket that'll actually get the base out.

Yep, that's what worries me, not that they'll get their own base out so much as the Dem base, all those disgruntled Clintonistas who never trusted Obama to begin with and only came on board after he appointed Joe. Now they've got Santorum who's probably more to their taste anyway, and Romney, who is going to appeal to the rest of the mushy middle who might not like Santorum but like Obama less.

All in all, not good, because this is a fight that can only be won by moving ever rightward and Obama has proven time and again that there's no constituency he won't toss under the bus. So a tough race is going to leave a lot of roadkill.

[jingofever]

If it comes down to Romney/Santorum versus Obama/Biden then it will be a Morman and a Catholic versus a Muslim and a Catholic. This could be the first time there are no Christians on the ballot.

[Nordic]

What's the point? Elections are bogus anyway:

http://cryptogon.com/?p=28047

U.S. E-Voting System Cracked in Less Than 48 Hours

March 14th, 2012
Via: H-Security:
Researchers at the University of Michigan have reported that it took them only a short time to break through the security functions of a pilot project for online voting in Washington, D.C. “Within 48 hours of the system going live, we had gained near complete control of the election server”, the researchers wrote in a paper that has now been released. “We successfully changed every vote and revealed almost every secret ballot.” The hack was only discovered after about two business days – and most likely only because the intruders left a visible trail on purpose.
In 2010, the developers of the municipal e-voting system that enables voters living abroad to vote via a web site, invited security experts to conduct tests. The university researchers say that the project was developed in cooperation with the Open Source Digital Voting Foundation (OSDV) and that other US states have also worked on services similar to Washington’s “Digital Vote-by-Mail Service”. They also praise the system’s transparency as exemplary but point out that its architecture has fundamental security weaknesses and was not able to withstand a shell injection and other common hacker techniques.

[justdrew]

What's the point? Elections are bogus anyway:

http://cryptogon.com/?p=28047

U.S. E-Voting System Cracked in Less Than 48 Hours

March 14th, 2012
Via: H-Security:
Researchers at the University of Michigan have reported that it took them only a short time to break through the security functions of a pilot project for online voting in Washington, D.C. “Within 48 hours of the system going live, we had gained near complete control of the election server”, the researchers wrote in a paper that has now been released. “We successfully changed every vote and revealed almost every secret ballot.” The hack was only discovered after about two business days – and most likely only because the intruders left a visible trail on purpose.
In 2010, the developers of the municipal e-voting system that enables voters living abroad to vote via a web site, invited security experts to conduct tests. The university researchers say that the project was developed in cooperation with the Open Source Digital Voting Foundation (OSDV) and that other US states have also worked on services similar to Washington’s “Digital Vote-by-Mail Service”. They also praise the system’s transparency as exemplary but point out that its architecture has fundamental security weaknesses and was not able to withstand a shell injection and other common hacker techniques.

that doesn't sound so bad actually, they can just re-implement on a secure architecture. Doesn't sound like the application software itself was cracked, just the server it was running on.