Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Santorum Suspends Presidential Campaign

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the no-longer-his-primary-concern dept.

Republicans 577

bobwrit writes with this excerpt from CNN: "Conservative challenger Rick Santorum announced Tuesday that he is suspending his Republican presidential campaign after a weekend of 'prayer and thought,' effectively ceding the GOP nomination to front-runner Mitt Romney. Santorum made his announcement after the weekend hospitalization of his 3-year-old daughter Isabella, and in the face of tightening poll numbers in Pennsylvania — the state he represented as a U.S. senator — ahead of the April 24 primary. 'Ladies and gentlemen, we made the decision to get into this race around our kitchen table, against all the odds,' Santorum told a news conference, flanked by emotional family members. 'We made a decision over the weekend that while the presidential race for us is over, and I will suspend my campaign effective today, we are not done fighting.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

News for Nerds? (-1, Flamebait)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39637957)

Nothing so see here, move one. This is on every media outlet.

Re:News for Nerds? (4, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39637981)

Nothing so see here, move one. This is on every media outlet.

Because nerds are somehow immune to the outcome of a national election such as a presidential race.....

Re:News for Nerds? (2, Insightful)

Kittenman (971447) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638211)

Nothing so see here, move one. This is on every media outlet.

Because nerds are somehow immune to the outcome of a national election such as a presidential race.....

Certainly the ones outside the States (or at least, mostly immune).

Re:News for Nerds? (4, Informative)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638301)

Slashdot is a US-oriented site. It's in the FAQ.

Re:News for Nerds? (4, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638325)

Certainly the ones outside the States (or at least, mostly immune).

Not for as long as ICANN is in U.S. jurisdiction, you're not.

Re:News for Nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638241)

Well, we are. We're fucked whether we get Kodos or Kang.

And so's everyone else.

Re:News for Nerds? (1, Flamebait)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638291)

Because nerds are somehow immune to the outcome of a national election

Because Santorum never had a chance. His backers were the same ones who pushed Gingrich and Bachmann; trying to make the Republicans attack each other for as long as possible before the one candidate who has a chance against Obama is nominated. Hey, it worked back in 1992, it might work again.

He was backed by the Christian Right. (0, Redundant)

apparently (756613) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638473)

That is, people who view Mormanism as an anti-Christian cult, and thus, distrust Romney. Romney's pledge to "Say whatever it takes to agree with the crowd I am currently speaking in front of" has only fueled this distrust.

That is to say...

His backers were the same ones who pushed Gingrich and Bachmann; trying to make the Republicans attack each other for as long as possible

...is an idiotic belief* not grounded in any sense of history or reality.

* In other words, 'the belief of an idiot'.

Re:News for Nerds? (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638437)

Because if 'News for nerds' is 'News every nerd might be interested in, it becomes meaningless.

Might as well just read CNN.

Re:News for Nerds? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638513)

Because nerds are somehow immune to the outcome of a national election such as a presidential race.....

It's inappropriate because this is a site for news as it relates to technology, not general interest news.

Re:News for Nerds? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39637983)

I agree, let's take a quiz - Which kind of Libertarian are you?

(multiple choice)

A) Pot-smoking College Republican who isn't quite down with Santorum
B) John Bircher concerned about the impending UN/NWO takeover
C) Mad Max-wannabe survivalist
D) Ex-Southern Democrat who wishes Negros were a 'local issue'
E) Believes Ayn Rand was a serious philosopher

Re:News for Nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638077)

Those are the options? Then C I guess. Less Mad Max and more Tallahassee from Zombieland though.

Re:News for Nerds? (5, Insightful)

C0R1D4N (970153) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638103)

F) Penn Jillette style atheist nerd free love libertarian

Re:News for Nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638171)

Mod up!

Re:News for Nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638185)

That's my favorite option too, guaranteed to piss everyone from BOTH parties off.

Most likely to actually believe in a Constitutional government as well.

Re:News for Nerds? (2)

Mean Variance (913229) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638207)

F. I liked that last alternative and Slashdot got mad at me for giving a single character answer.

So again I say ....

Eff (for the most part, PJ has his annoyances, but high-level, I'm on his side).

Re:News for Nerds? (1, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638385)

F) Penn Jillette style atheist nerd free love libertarian

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

Re:News for Nerds? (1)

C0R1D4N (970153) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638491)

I obviously think so or I wouldnt label myself such.

Re:News for Nerds? (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638387)

What?!! no F) Two or more of the above...

Re:News for Nerds? (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638479)

I demand a Cowboy Neal option!

"Nerds don't care about politics" -- tomhath (5, Funny)

apparently (756613) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638033)

To my dearest Thomas,
The results of elections affect the entire world. Please instruct your ignorance to go fuck itself, and please take time out of your day to send Mr. Frothy-Mix a letter asking him how he thinks people without insurance deal with the hospitalization of a 3-year-old.

Yours,

yours.

Re:"Nerds don't care about politics" -- tomhath (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638213)

>> The results of elections affect the entire world.

I know many Americans are too arrogant to grasp this, but most of the world's population don't actually know let alone care about most things that happen in the USA. Just like most Americans are ignorant of, say, Danish politics.
Its only when the US goes fucking up in other countries (which seems to be quite often lately) do we notice, mostly because we have to go in and help clean up your mess.

Regardless of your personal view of how important US politics may be, even on a global scale, Slashdot is meant to be a Tech. news site. Lets keep it that way please.

Re:"Nerds don't care about politics" -- tomhath (-1, Troll)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638223)

Sorry it makes you sad, but this is just click whoring by Slashdot editors.

I read today's news headlines in various media outlets. Based on your childish and homophobic post I'll assume you get your news from the blogosphere. To each his own.

Re:"Nerds don't care about politics" -- tomhath (0, Troll)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638233)

Frothy-Mix? Don't like his politics or values? Fine! We can debate that on its own merit. But fuck you and your new vernacular of his name, Santorum.

I personally can't stand Obama's ideology, but you don't see me making personal insulting comments about the man. And yet, the "Left" is supposed to be so intellectually superior. Or so we're led to believe by the mass leftist media and academia. Whatever.

Re:"Nerds don't care about politics" -- tomhath (4, Insightful)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638343)

Right, I never see "No-Bama" bumper stickers, or this charming one http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/dont-re-nig-in-2012-maker-of-racist-anti-obama-sticker-shuts-down-site/ [go.com]

Get off your high horse.

Re:"Nerds don't care about politics" -- tomhath (0)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638375)

But it wasn't ME, and I don't approve of such crap.

Re:"Nerds don't care about politics" -- tomhath (5, Insightful)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638391)

and it wasn't the entire "left" making the Santorum comment was it?

Re:"Nerds don't care about politics" -- tomhath (2, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638351)

In case of Santorum, people can't stand the bigotry of the man himself, not his ideology per se. I mean, we are talking about a politician here who is basically saying that gays are some kind of spawn of Satan that should be banned from doing icky things now and forever. There's no room for rational argument here.

Re:"Nerds don't care about politics" -- tomhath (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638421)

Sure. Ok. Then let the man fail. But when people start throwing around insulting rhetoric, it's no longer a debate. How is any of that civil? And why on Slashdot is that behavior encouraged? Perhaps I'm just to idealistic to think we have a civil forum here. No... In fact I am too idealistic. Back to reality for me!

Digishaman checks himself.

Re:"Nerds don't care about politics" -- tomhath (4, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638403)

Left? Where? Certainly not anyone who supports Obama. His policies are center, at most.

Re:News for Nerds? (1, Troll)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638035)

Yes, but think of all the tech implications.

Such as, uh...

Didn't Santorum want to censor porn online? So I guess our porn is safe. Also, Google can now safely restore "santorum" to its original forthy meaning, and we can stop hearing about some candidate no one cares about when searching for it.

That's seriously all I've got for why this would be "news for nerds" in any way.

Re:News for Nerds? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638043)

Nothing so see here, move one. This is on every media outlet.

Just drudge-dot pandering to their conservative base. In other words, it's Tuesday.

Re:News for Nerds? (3, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638149)

"Nerds" to me implies some degree of intelligence and knowledge. Thus, many nerds DO have an interest in seeing a politician who was running on a campaign of ignorance and hate go down in flames *

The second part of the statement is "News that matters," and this definitely does.

Lastly, there's nothing in the statement along the lines of "News that has not been covered everywhere else."

Thus, I'm declaring this one fair. Not that anyone was asking.

(* Though it is somewhat a shame he didn't fall much much harder. I would have preferred him to call it quits after a report that he was paying for male prostitutes and meth with a check from the Koch brothers and the Focus on the Family group, or maybe running in a general election against Neil DeGrasse and getting 0.1% of the vote, but this is better than nothing.)

Re:News for Nerds? (3, Insightful)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638409)

Now that you mention it... why doesn't Neil DeGrasse Tyson run for President? I mean, he can explain the tides; a phenomenon previously only describable by gods!

Re:News for Nerds? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638499)

Should they post stories about a cat climbing up trees? I mean, some nerds like cats, therefor it's news for nerds.

Re:News for Nerds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638221)

This is the kind of shit that greases Soulskill's wheels.

Re:News for Nerds? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638263)

Dear slashdot. Please dispense with the politics and irrelevent social issues. Thank you for listening.

PS while I still have your ear how are those quad A's going?

Color me surprised. Or not. (4, Interesting)

TriezGamer (861238) | more than 2 years ago | (#39637979)

I have a hard time believing that Santorum actually expected to have a chance at this stage. My mother is a Neo-conservative Christian party-line voter, and even she is considering voting for Obama again; and not because she likes him. The entire GOP lineup is a mess.

Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638095)

Ron Paul is the best candidate America had in over 50 years.

Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (1, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638193)

If you're an idiot or insane. For normal functional human beings who are not either semi-retarded or sociopaths, he's what you might call a very dangerous, foolish, ignorant man.

Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638381)

Indeed dangerous as he threatens the high life due to the nation's continued parasitic existence. The other guys that seek to start a global conflict against the BRICS nations and whoever else falls on their side for geopolitical reasons are a far better prospect for president surely. Let's ignore the fact that the US dollar effectively functions as a global tax via your quantitative easing and enforcing use of it via your military and the fact that the rest of the world is getting sick of that. Doesn't he realise that his policies mean a minimum wage worker will no longer be able to afford the latest shiney electronic gizmo every 5 months!? We shouldn't care that this is possible due to the exploitation of human beings elsewhere, just so long as we're all right Jack! Just how long do you think you can continue to subjugate a massive proportion of the human race in this way? Surely it's better to put a stop to it before the resistance reaches critical mass and 9/11 is a fond memory in comparison to the new reality you suffer.

Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (4, Insightful)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638425)

If you're an idiot or insane. For normal functional human beings who are not either semi-retarded or sociopaths, he's what you might call a very dangerous, foolish, ignorant man.

This has been a case study in ad-hominem attacks. Thank you for reading.

Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638537)

The line between ad-hominem and actually thinking somebody represents a dangerous, foolish and ignorant position is a fine one, especially when explaining the depths of ignorance is so futile, but it does exist.

Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (1)

evil_aaronm (671521) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638431)

I'm not trying to troll, but I'm curious why you think this. I voted for Obama last time, but I'm having a hard time justifying his Bush-in-all-but-name policies and would like an honest alternative. Romney's not it. What's wrong with Paul?

Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (3, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638503)

Ron Paul wants to take away their play pretties and pay the bills instead of pissing Trillions away. The left wants to piss it away on people who are "disadvantaged" and the right wants to piss it away on wars. I saw Ron Paul in one debate get booed because he said we couldn't afford to continue being the world's policeman even though it should be obvious to anyone that can do arithmetic. I'm thoroughly convinced that both the democrats and republicans are seriously math challenged.

Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (-1, Troll)

hldn (1085833) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638173)

My mother is a Neo-conservative Christian party-line voter, and even she is considering voting for Obama again

looks like your mom is a double idiot.

Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (1)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638443)

My mother is a Neo-conservative Christian party-line voter, and even she is considering voting for Obama again

looks like your mom is a double idiot.

Because she is a Christian voting for Obama, or because she is party-line voter voting against her party line, or because she is a party-line voting Christian.

Let me guess... all three.

Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638267)

I have a hard time believing that Santorum actually expected to have a chance at this stage. My mother is a Neo-conservative Christian party-line voter, and even she is considering voting for Obama again; and not because she likes him. The entire GOP lineup is a mess.

At a conference of social conservative groups a couple of months ago, they anointed Santorum their choice. He may have figured the righteous right could trump the plutocrats.

But yeah, it has been becoming increasingly obvious that he wasn't going to be able to pull anything out of his, uh, hat.

Gingrich claims to be sticking it out, despite reports that his campaign is deeply in debt. I wonder if he's angling for a VP spot, or a Cabinet position.

Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638485)

but he did as he was meant to: plumb the waters with some outrageous-sounding statements.

now, the R machine knows exactly how far they can push social conservatism with their serious contender, the nexus-6 model Mitt Romney.

Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638517)

Gingrich is filled with spite. I actually like it though. I can't stand Romney and while Gingrich is no prize either I do like that he's spitting in the eyes of the Republican leadership.

Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638525)

The GOP does not actually want to win this election. Just like they did not want to win the last election. Why? They want the other side to take the blame when the economy really turns south. So far the Obama Administration has managed to float the economy through massive QE and letting the stock market continue to be an HFT gambling hall. Eventually though, it will reach a tipping point where no amount of government tricks can keep the current system alive.

Good riddance (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39637993)

Santorum pulls out after repeatedly coming in number two

Re:Good riddance (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638159)

I LOL'ed.

Re:Good riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638175)

Santorum pulls out after repeatedly coming in number two

Got a frothy problem? Become a Mormon and Turn it off! [youtube.com] :)

Re:Good riddance (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638177)

That's some funny shit...

Christian Taliban (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638243)

Santorum pulls out after repeatedly coming in number two

And Good Riddance!

That Sum bitch is nothing but Christian Taliban.

And for those of you who want a Theocratic States of America, let me point out two things:

1. Every theocracy on this planet is a Third World Shit Hole. Yes, Correlation IS causation in this case.

2. We Catholics have over a millenia or two of controlling governments. Do you and your Christian based cult (Episcopalians, Baptists, Morons[Church of Later Day frauds], and whatever ) think you have any chance against us? If you're not Catholic, you're not Christian - according to one of our Bishops. Do you really think you have a chance?

Just saying.

Christians who think that everyone else believes the way they themselves do are fooling themselves and we wouldn't be "one nation under God" - we'd be a balkanized pseudo Christian shithole. But you can't tell that to Fox News and their moronic watchers!

Anyway, I'd be more than happy to have a Christian States of America - I can get rich! fucking the moronic followers of our religion.

(Jesus never said he was THE son of God. Ever. And that's assuming he actually existed.)

He pulled out (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638001)

He tried to come from behind.

Tap, Tap, is this thing on?

Good riddance (3, Funny)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638003)

Good bye crazy douche-bag, you will not be missed.

Signed, Someone with a college degree a.k.a a snob.

Re:Good riddance (4, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638297)

Good bye crazy douche-bag, you will not be missed.

According to conventional wisdom, the Republicans always nominate their runner-up next time around. I saw a couple of sites predicting Romney on this basis, long before the primaries started shaking out.

If the CW is right, Santorum will be their next nominee.

Mitt Romney suspends... (2)

gatfirls (1315141) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638011)

...campaign to prove he is not part of the social elite!

Keep 'em coming (3, Funny)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638055)

"Santorum Wiped Out"
"Santorum Expelled"
"Santorum Voided"
"Santorum Discharged"
"Santorum Creamed"

Re:Keep 'em coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638225)

The best thing about Santorum leaving the race is that we'll no longer have to endure these juvenile unfunny "Santorum" jokes.

Re:Keep 'em coming (5, Funny)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638333)

Santorum.com [santorum.com] was registered nearly 11 years ago. You're full of crap if you think that the stain on his name can be wiped out in a single spurt. The seminal example of search bombing coming out in a single wash is a little hard to swallow.

Prayer and Thought (1)

Sigvatr (1207234) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638067)

Thought is a first for Santorum. Hell, he might even have won my vote if he kept that up.

The White Hats Report (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638091)

They're all scum. Supporters are either stupid, or corrupt take your pick.
http://tdarkcabal.blogspot.com/2012/04/april-7-2012-white-hats-report-39.html

GOP lineup -- same prob as 2004 Dem ticket (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638099)

The GOP lineup has the same problem as the 2004 lineup that failed to defeat GWB. I took one look at that ticket and said: A Massachusetts old money man + a slick trial lawyer. That was everything the moderate GOP voter hates about the Dems, and wouldn't make anybody switch. They finally realized they needed something different and went with Obama.

The GOP is making the same mistake. The fact that the front runner is from MA is pure coincidence. It's wealthy businessmen, religious fanatics, and a guy who was fresh in the 90s.

The only "something different" candidate is Ron Paul; but he's too different. The GOP needs something fresh. I'm not sure where it'll come from, but these guys are not fresh. Really, for someone like myself with weak party affiliation the GOP is dead after GWB. The organization itself is defective. Not to say that the Dems are much better. It's the slightly less evil party.

I think we need just a bit more time for things to get so bad that sane people with the capability to lead will want to run on a 3rd party ticket. The two main parties are rapidly on their way to ruining their respective reputations. Not this time though. Not. Ready. Yet.

Re:GOP lineup -- same prob as 2004 Dem ticket (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638315)

Look. Anyone with any sense knew that the Tea Party was going to hamstring the Republicans in the 2012 race. The Democrats knew it, which is why Obama isn't sweating, and hasn't been since he saw how the Republican True Believers all fell in love with a moron (namely Sarah Palin). For the core Republican leadership and strategists, it was equally clear. The Tea Party wasn't some general movement, no matter how much its advocates stated, it was a Libertarian populist movement that was sucking the blood out of the Republican party.

The only thing that was going to cure that was to let the lunatics run the asylum for a while. Everyone knew Romney was going to get the nod, but would be badly damaged in the process. By having the likes of Santorum and Gingrich, men who never ever ever ever ever ever had even the slightest chance of becoming President, cut him to pieces, all that happened was the Tea Party movement managed to hamstring the whole party. But by November of this year, the Tea Party and a goodly chunk of the retrograde social conservatives will be utterly discredited. Romney will limp through to a loss, but the message will be clear; "America does not want extremists, or even people who play extremists on TV."

After this year, the sane candidates will come out of hiding, they're careers and reputations not utterly savaged like Romney's. The next GOP candidate won't have an incumbent to deal with and won't have the Tea Party cancer eating away at the party's strength. I think this whole race has been nothing more than a tactical day at the nut house, and the Republicans will have learned their lesson.

I mean, the Republicans came back from Goldwater. Of course, it was with Nixon, so maybe they don't want to have it map that closely to elections past.

Re:GOP lineup -- same prob as 2004 Dem ticket (1)

evil_aaronm (671521) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638551)

America does not want extremists, or even people who play extremists on TV

Would you call Bush, the W, a moderate? I don't know that we can leave aside the questionable manner in which he "won" both elections, but, certainly, after the first four years, no one could say he wasn't an "extremist." Objectively, anyway.

Re:GOP lineup -- same prob as 2004 Dem ticket (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638617)

GWB won his second term because the Democrats threw in an unbelievably weak candidate, sort of like what the GOP are doing now. Ultimately the Republicans paid for it with the 2006 mid-terms.

Re:GOP lineup -- same prob as 2004 Dem ticket (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638619)

The Tea Party wasn't some general movement, no matter how much its advocates stated, it was a Libertarian populist movement that was sucking the blood out of the Republican party.

No, it was (mostly) a bunch of middle- and working-class retirees, unwittingly carrying water for billionaires.

And after the first few weeks, only "populist" if being funded by the usual Republican operatives counts as being populist.

I think this whole race has been nothing more than a tactical day at the nut house, and the Republicans will have learned their lesson.

It will be interesting to see if they learn the appropriate lesson, but I don't expect it.

They had a good scam that served them well for half a century: pretend to be conservative rather than plutocratic, and lure people to vote against their own self-interest by playing on their fears, intolerance, and bigotry.

But they've had to keep narrowing that "base" (as the media insists on calling them) by ever more radical rhetoric against everyone else, and now it's getting so narrow that the coalition of plutocrats + bed wetters + social conservatives + bigots doesn't add up to enough people to reliably win elections anymore.

Plus, the plutocrats been appealing to those groups so long that the nutters are starting to run the nuthouse.

But where can they turn? The plutocrats (the real Republican base) certainly aren't going to give up their desire to enrich themselves at public expense, and the nutters aren't going to give up their nuttery.

I suspect the actual lessons to be learned are:

a) the plutocrats will realize they need to divorce the others, and will start looking for a new scam to replace the old one

b) the nutters will conclude that they weren't nutty enough, and crank it up two notches next time around.

The party's civil war will continue, because there's no exit strategy for when the nuts start taking over the nuthouse. Some chance the party will fall apart and be replaced by a new one, as has happened before in the USA, but I expect that to take years, if it happens at all.

2004 also before katrina, 2008 crash, etc etc etc (2)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638335)

and one year after the war in iraq had started, but before it had gone completely to hell in a handbasket.

2004 was in the middle of the housing boom, when every fucking idiot thought they had $500,000 in equity in some piece of shit mcmansion that was in reality just a game piece so that some hedge funder could pump and dump another Mortgage Backed CDO on the widows and orphan investors of the planet.

"ask yourself, are you better off now than you were 4 years ago, using the fake paper accounting that is full of shit and will probably collapse before the next olympics"

News for turds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638119)

Shit that splatters

Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638135)

I highly doubt he could have won after his racially charged slur, But it's interesting to hear that he's quitting. As far as I knew, he had plans to continue in spite of the massive defeat by romney.

well, im reading this from a computer (1)

alienzed (732782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638157)

so I guess it is sort of related to /.

Ron Paul (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638191)

Okay, so now will republican voters maybe start paying attention to Ron Paul? He's the guy who is ACTUALLY in favor of smaller governments and the constitution.

You guys still claim to like those things, right?

Re:Ron Paul (5, Insightful)

quangdog (1002624) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638311)

I actually really like about 80% of what Ron Paul claims he'll do. The other 20% scares the living heebie-jeebies out of me though.

Re:Ron Paul (5, Insightful)

Tassach (137772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638317)

Ron Paul's strength is that he accurately identifies a lot of problems.

Ron Paul's weakness is that his "solutions" to those problems are dangerously naive, based on long-discredited theories, or are just downright crazy (or all of the above).

Any enthusiasm about RP has to be tempered with the realization that even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.

Re:Ron Paul (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638321)

Okay, so now will republican voters maybe start paying attention to Ron Paul? He's the guy who is ACTUALLY in favor of smaller governments and the constitution.

You guys still claim to like those things, right?

Politicians *claim* to like a lot of things. But if you want to know what they really stand for, ignore the speeches and watch what they do.

Re:Ron Paul (2, Informative)

Khith (608295) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638583)

Of course politicians claim a lot of things, which is why you look at their records. Ron Paul has been consistently for small government and Constitutional principles for decades. I encourage people to look into his voting records! You'll find that no lobbyists have been able to touch him and that Ron Paul really is what he says he is. Dr. Paul is also the only true conservative running now, and if you look into things you'll find that he's actually got a real chance of winning. The media is practically crowning Romney as the victor, but Ron Paul is winning a majority of delegates in several states. (Don't believe the delegate counts the Associated Press gives. They have little basis in reality since they're guesses based on the popular vote.)

Re:Ron Paul (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638323)

What would Ron Paul say after winning election?
"Oh .. F!@#.. "
His ideas sound good only after 4 beers. All his ideas are half baked but he is safe as he would not be elected anyway.

Re:Ron Paul (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638373)

No way. He doesn't hate gays and atheists, says marijuana should not be illegal, and blames Rs for excessive war spending. In other words, some kind of a pinko commie terrorist.

Bring out the Etch-a-Sketches (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638209)

Now all the Republicans who were whining about what a horrible candidate Romney was and how he wasn't any better than Obama get to shake, shake, shake etch-a-sketch and pretend to love him.

Re:Bring out the Etch-a-Sketches (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638347)

Now all the Republicans who were whining about what a horrible candidate Romney was and how he wasn't any better than Obama get to shake, shake, shake etch-a-sketch and pretend to love him.

Queue some of Colbert's "Countdown to loving Mitt" videos.

Goodbye and good riddance (0)

Tassach (137772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638239)

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, Frothy.

Now all we need is a promise from Romney that you won't hold any position of authority in his administration if he's elected. You're unfit to hold any public office.

Re:Goodbye and good riddance (2)

javascriptjunkie (2591449) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638405)

Damn right. Nobody in their right mind would vote for him. What scares me is how many people are not in their right minds.

Prayer and thought (2, Insightful)

GrahamCox (741991) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638245)

"Prayer and thought".

There's your problem. How about more thinking and less appealing to a non-existent sky-fairy? I truly look forward to the day when politicians can safely declare some sort of rationalist-based intellect instead of this, but I expect it's a long way off.

Something like this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638383)

"My fellow Americans, let me begin by saying that I am an atheist. I do not believe in the existence of God, the soul, the afterlife, or the supernatural. Instead, I believe in the supremacy of Science as a right and logical worldview. I believe that we are biological machines that are eminently programmable given the right kind of inputs and genetic engineering. Furthermore, I believe that instead of a non-existent "creator" that the universe came into being on its own, and will gradually dissipate into an eternal, endless heat death without recursion based upon immutable laws of physics that cannot and will not change. I believe that there is no such thing as conscious thought, and I will base my administration on moral, humane standards as set forth by Hitchens, Dawkins, Darwin, and the latest research from behavioralist-based neuroscience. I will not support any notion of faith, or belief in the hereafter, and I will not support or condone who do. In fact, I believe religion is a virus that needs to be eradicated from the minds of men and my administration will set forth priorities to rid our nation and our world of anything remotely resembling faith in anything except for logical empirical conclusions that agree with what Science has found. I ask you all to leave behind your befuddled illusions of what you hold dear and join me in the clear light of Truth and Unity, and to vote for me."

anti-science (2, Interesting)

khipu (2511498) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638273)

I guess it's kind of relevant to Slashdot because of Santorum's strong anti-science stance.

a blow for true followers of Christ everywhere (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638281)

now, there is no chance that we will be able to pass a constitutional amendment banning masturbation. with santorum gone, the only bulwark against the slaughter of the billions of semen is a man from whom I would not buy a used car - Mitt Romney.

"Suspends"? (1)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638307)

When did "suspend" take the place of "quitting"? "Suspends" just seems to imply that he's gonna be back......
......somehow
......I hope not.

Re:"Suspends"? (5, Informative)

jdeisenberg (37914) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638359)

If you end your campaign (quit), you can no longer raise funds. If you suspend the campaign, you can continue to bring in money to lower any debts your campaign might have. For more details, see this: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/04/why-santorum-merely-suspended-his-campaign/50982/ [theatlanticwire.com]

Why Do They Say "Supended" Campaign? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638327)

If the campaign is over, why do the candidates always say they have "suspended" it? Saw the same thing when Pawlenty, Bachmann, and the Godfather's Pizza Guy dropped out. The campaigns aren't coming back, so why are they saying they are only "suspended"?

Herp, ah, derp. (2, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638345)

"We made a decision over the weekend that while the presidential race for us is over, and I will suspend my campaign effective today, we are not done fighting.'"

Fighting for what? Against the ideals of your own Church that basically came out and said that universal health care is a right? That evolution is just fine? That women don't have to be barefoot and in the kitchen? That the world is older than 6000 years? That social justice is a good idea?

Keep fuckin' that chicken, Rick.

--
BMO

Do the republicans even stand a chance? (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638389)

Anyone who has even casually been following the republican primaries can see how incredibly twisted and corrupt the party is. How could anyone still think voting republican is a good idea? Not saying democrat is a great way to vote either, but there are other parties and it's about time for some fresh parties and directions. The old has not served us well for the past 20+ years.

Thank god (0)

javascriptjunkie (2591449) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638393)

I was really worried this guy was going to try to keep going. The way he speaks reminds me of Hitler, in both subject matter and candor. This whole business of fighting the good culture warrior fight makes me very nervous. I don't like Romney either, but he doesn't scare the bejeepers out of me the way Santorum did.

Who was the babe behind him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638397)

The hot brunette in the electric blue blouse? Very bang worthy.

Message from God (4, Insightful)

Spiked_Three (626260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638427)

God told him to run.

Then, God told him to quit.

Maybe God should be Romney's running mate.

This just in...Romney's out too. (5, Funny)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638521)

In a surprise announcement, Mitt Romney announced that he too is suspending his campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination.

In his shockingly candid speech, Romney said "I only stayed in the race this long to ensure that Rick Santorum didn't get the nomination. Now, with Santorum out of the race, it's time for me to withdraw and leave the contest to the two candidates whose beliefs actually differ from those of Barack Obama".

"The American People deserve a choice of candidates who actually have differing beliefs. The only differences in belief between myself and Barack Obama, is that I'm a Mormon, and he is not. My policies when I was the governor of Massachusetts were virtually identical to President Obama's policies. If I were elected, you would be hard pressed to find anything that I would do differently. Therefore, I'm stepping down to ensure the voters have an actual choice in November."

When asked who he was going to endorse, he declined comment. This story may contain factual errors, and was, in fact, entirely made up. However, as making up facts and reporting on whatever we want is now commonplace, we figured you wouldn't notice.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?