Casual oversimplification. As distinct from the witch doctor the cause has impact, but is not the entire cause. Sure cutting the tax may cause it, but there are other causes as well, e.g. the growth of the economy, for example, or a change in another tax that may make certain other types of investment more rewarding. For example, suppose you cut capital gains at the same time the states are raising property taxes. It makes more sense to invest in stocks and pay the capital gains than to own real estate and pay a higher property tax. That would be hidden by Morris' argument, hence causal oversimplification.

I couldn't get the link to work. There's an interesting article at realclearpolitics.com called "Five myths about conservatives." Worth reading.

First of all, Ed, that was a good, insightful analysis that you did a few posts back in this thread in the post where you talked about what "did in" Santorum in the Republican primary race, and, also, where you talked about how that four types of Republicans were represented by the four candidates, (Gingrich, Paul, Romney and Santorum), that were left in the race before Santorum dropped out.

Again, Ed, that was a good, brief, insightful anaysis that you did there.

However, I want to respond very briefly to the following quote of yours from that same post:


The reason you say that that is strange, Ed, is because you seem to not fully understand that we evangelical, born-again believers in Jesus Christ have a lot of reservations about voting for a man who belongs to a non-Christian cult, (Mormonism), which is a cult that **denies** that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God.

While we evangelicals ALSO have a lot of disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church, (with their works-based salvation, their worship of the virgin Mary, their belief that the Pope is infallible, etc.), at least the Roman Catholic Church DOES also believe that Jesus Christ IS the eternal Son of God.


Chess Fan

You miss my point, CF. I find it strange that Roman Catholics did not vote for Santorum, not that evangelicals voted for Santorum.

If he didn't miss your points, how else could he draw attention to himself? Certainly not by contributing to the conversations...

Once again, (and how VERY MANY times now have I said this before??!!), I find it to be **extremely comical** that while Petrosianic SAYS that he is ignoring me, he also just can not seem to stop talking about me!!

Hey Petro, that is funny, funny, funny!!


Chess Fan

Santorum is the strange guy on the street corner ranting about conspiracies. If evangelicals were voting for him, that certainly doesn't reflect well on evangelical thinking processes (or perhaps it doesn't reflect well on their ability to use Google to find out more about a candidate).

It is a shame he had to terminate his candidacy prematurely and couldn't bring it to full term. Live Funny or Die tells the sad tale.

I guess it's just classic partisan politics. Many evangelical Christian leaders (and their followers, I'd guess) seem to think Christians ought to vote for the Christian candidate, with no consideration of any other factors. Santorum was the most evangelical Christian of the candidates therefore he is the candidate for true, God-fearing Christians...

As for why Catholics didn't vote so much for Santorum, maybe they tend to put aside partisan considerations to a greater extent than evangelicals?

I think Roman Catholics didn't vote for Santorum because he dissed JFK. Never, in politics, attack a myth.

But at least Santorum wasn't a LibDem.

Just remembered that Santorum had called Obama a snob because Obama had encouraged young people to go to college. Maybe he should have stayed in the race to ensure he could keep America's youth from becoming snobs. We'll always need to outsource our unskilled labour jobs so why not have the U.S. with their newly minted non-snob high school diplomas do it?