November 3, 2006
The 2006 elections are coming down to the wire and things don't look good for Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA). The two-term incumbent trails Democratic challenger Bob Casey, Jr.So how desperate is the Santorum campaign?
The New York Daily News notes that a new TV spot ("Wrestling", fourth down on left) shows the arch-conservative touting his cooperation on video game legislation with Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), a longtime liberal icon. The commercial takes place in a wrestling ring. As combatants battle nearby and the crowd cheers, Santorum says:
To get things done, you've got to work together. I'm even working with Hillary Clinton to limit inappropriate materials in children's video games.
Asked about the ad, political analyst Terry Madonna of Franklin & Marshall College said:
This is the oddest campaign in the country right now. I don't know why anyone is surprised at what Santorum does anymore.
The Daily News notes that Sen. Clinton has donated the maximum allowable - $10,000 - to Santorum's opponent.




Comments
Just goes to show how ignorant people are about video games, thinking they're just for kids.
By far the funniest comment
And this is obviously a desperate attempt by Santorum to keep his Senate seat.
Pathetic.
This is basically "I shot my self in the foot with a .22 pistol and can still limp away with dignity. I guess I'll try a RPG now..."
Er... pwned?
(
There isn't any inapropriate material in children's games. The "inapropriate material" is in adults games. It irratates me when people try to put laws on something they know nothing about.
For the record, it was the Democratic Party that pressed to kick the Green candidate off the ballot. Not only were the Republicans in favor of Romanelli's candidacy, his entire campaign was funded by Republican supporters (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001256.php), because they knew a Green candidate would help Santorum's chances. And that's my whole point: the notion that third parties are viable under our current system is a charade. The Pennsylvania Republicans knew this, and they exploited the broken system (not that I can blame them).
A system that was truly functional would not reward a major party for the presence of a minor one. I would love to have the luxury to vote my conscience, and you can be damn sure I will when we finally demand electoral reform, but until then, -the way we vote only supports a two-party system-, and to pretend otherwise is to deceive yourself.
If only that would shut these insane jackasses up.
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Good luck. JT doesn't seem to realise that we have regional ratings boards up here that review ESRB ratings, and clearly all of them agreed with a "T" rating, or they would have changed it.
Sorry JT, you can't stir up anti gay kissing sentiment up here. You'd be laughed out of town.
So was he implying that "real" wrestling was ok, because there was like an 8 year old girl in the audience with her father... Or was he just going for the "I'm appalled at such an irresponsible parent, clearly the rating are broken!"
http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/sodomy/santorum/
Check out the "Liberal Hall of Fame" ad. Santorum included a framed painting of Hillary in that ad as a way to show how much of a crazy liberal his opponent is. They both share the same opinion on taxing the middle class that Santorum opposes, so that makes them Liberal Hall of Famers!
So on the one hand, he's trying to show that he can work together with Democrats like Hillary. On the other, he's trying to say that anyone who shares an opinion with her is a crazy liberal. Can you really blame Hillary for trying to get this two-faced backbiter out of office?
Great sentiment, but I can't advocate voting against a candidate. A vote counts for whomever you cast it for. Quite frankly, Santorum's only balloted opponent isn't grand either. We have Rick "I hate gay people" Santorum, and we have Bob "I'm a wishy washy career politician" Casey.
Personally, I was pissed the day the Green Party candidate, Carl Romanelli, was kicked off the ballot on a (bullshit) technicality. He was/is a closer candidate to my views than the other two.
Unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of voting for third parties in the U.S., not with our ill-conceived "vote-for-one" system. If we could rank candidates by preference (instant runoff voting) we could afford to vote our conscience and still get a winner who represented the people's preference, but until that day, there aren't third parties, there are just wasted votes. (If I'd only realized that I'd been lied to my whole life and our electoral system was archaic and broken, I might not have thrown away my vote on Nader in 2000.)
Unless you were in Florida, I doubt it was throwing your vote away. Nothing wrong with voting your conscience, people ought to do it more often.
So on the one hand, he’s trying to show that he can work together with Democrats like Hillary. On the other, he’s trying to say that anyone who shares an opinion with her is a crazy liberal. Can you really blame Hillary for trying to get this two-faced backbiter out of office?
I'll just go ahead and say it... FLIP FLOP!
Third parties are also getting more attention because sometimes two major candidates for the same office, in an effort to both appeal to the same moderate voters, begin to sound identical. Jeffy, I heard about the Green candidate being booted and also thought it was crummy, espeically since I thought I heard accounts that they could have gone to court to defend themselves but it would have been prohibitively expensive - the major parties basically spent enough to torpedo the guy. Maybe true, maybe not, but a shame nonetheless. And what was worse is that supposedly the two that are left aren't all that different -least that's what I read in passing, though I'm not a PA resident and haven't paid too much attention.
Also, look at how many races are actually close. This election year there's quite a few more than usual, but I think out of 435 less than one hundred are questionable, and that's a very VERY conservative guess. I live in MA, and last I checked Ted Kennedy is up for re-election to the Senate and will win handily. One might therefore argue that my senate vote will be wasted no matter what. It won't change the outcome of the election. So I might as well vote for the person whose views I agree with.
Anyhow, people, if you like the third parties, vote the third parties. No, they probably won't win any big offices, but those votes still count. Parties that pull enough of the vote qualify for government funding that can help in the future. It also sends a message to the eventual winner. If 10 or 20% of voters vote Green, the winner might realize that issues important to the Green party are important to a lot of voters, and will begin to act accordingly. And if they don't, their inability to listen to constituents might drive more voters away to vote third party.
And it also means that you're not voting for someone you don't agree with. Borrowing from Jeffy's post again - anyone who hates Rick Santorum and votes for Bob Casey for that reason alone is not allowed to ever complain about Casey's stance on any issues - he might prove to be a joke, but he's a joke that YOU helped into office.
http://gaygamer.net/index.php?id=1761
Not only were the Republicans in favor of Romanelli’s candidacy, his entire campaign was funded by Republican supporters
Although I suppose it's telling that no-one outside of the Rep vote-splitting committee thought the Green party was a viable alternative (the only non-Rep donation was from the candidate himself..). Maybe you guys aren't ready for more than 2 parties yet...
I love how he complains about inappropriate violence in video games as he smashes a wrestler in the face towards the end of his announcement.
Don't forget the 10 year old girl in the audience that he does nothing about, implying that he feels it's ok for kids to watch "real" wrestling... Or mabye he was implying that parents shouldn't be allowed to decide what's right for their kids... Hmm....
There's a huge amount of momentem in favor of the two party system, both culturally and legally. While what I said previously is perhaps overly idealistic, that doesn't change the fact that we as voters must do something to bring about change. If all that happens is that we gripe about the system but play along anyway then nothing will ever change.
I agree that members of the two major parties are unlikely to propose the idea on their own. While I think supporting third-party candidates is unfortunately self-destructive (in the current system), a grassroots, cross-ideology effort to build support for election reform could be successful, something along the lines of the campaigns to build popular support for/against same-sex marriage, except without the fractious divide. It would be harder for politicians to ignore the issue if it were on the people's and the media's radar.
"Great sentiment, but I can’t advocate voting against a candidate. A vote counts for whomever you cast it for. Quite frankly, Santorum’s only balloted opponent isn’t grand either. We have Rick “I hate gay people” Santorum, and we have Bob “I’m a wishy washy career politician” Casey."
Damn dude, you just described why I don't vote. As I look at it, no matter who you vote for, you vote for some asshole that will eventually screw you. I remember standup prop comic Gallagher (melon smasher) once did a special where he had a charicature prop of a politician and he turned the nice smiling face on one side of the prop to the audience and said "This is the face you see when they want to get into office and...", and after turning it around to the ugly face, says "This is the face you see when they get in there". Classic and explains US government officials perfectly.
All in all, I hope Santorum gets his but kicked out of office.
LAFFO
Whew, sorry. I had to get that out. Feel better now.