Internet Hitler No Fan of Paul Ryan, But Rick Santorum Is

Tuesday, August 14, AD 2012

The usual caveats as to language applies to the above Internet Hitler video.  (What else can one expect from internet Hitler?)  Taking a momentary pit stop in my vacation traveling.  I note with bemusement the debate that has erupted on the blog in regard to Paul Ryan and the attempted questioning of his Catholicism.  I find that utterly bizarre.  In the primaries I supported Rick Santorum.  Santorum has enthusiastically endorsed Romney’s pick of Ryan. 

Here is a video below from earlier this year in which Santorum praised Ryan’s budget, with the caveat that it did not go far enough in cuts:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

21 Responses to Internet Hitler No Fan of Paul Ryan, But Rick Santorum Is

  • Pit stop eloquence:

    ” Taking a momentary pit stop in my vacation traveling. I note with bemusement the debate that has erupted on the blog in regard to Paul Ryan and the attempted questioning of his Catholicism. I find that utterly bizarre. In the primaries I supported Rick Santorum. Santorum has enthusiastically endorsed Romney’s pick of Ryan.

    I find it difficult however to see how anyone could view Santorum as a reasoned proponent of conservatism and a champion of Catholic positions on the social issues, and also view Ryan as anathema. That simply does not make any sense at all.”

    Thank you, Donald McClarey, for helpful, prioritizing, and clear (Clar?) words with talking pictures at this point – and so soon after Sat. 8/11 at 9:00 and so sadly balloons popping during vacation.

    Enjoy. Stay out of the Klingon place. I liked your Vacation 2012 cartoon.

  • He also said the bishops were wrong. He also was supporting a bill that was on the table at the time for passage, while his own plan as a presidential candidate was much different. He didn’t want to just cut taxes on the wealthy because they are wealthy. He had a zero rate for manufacturers so there would be incentive for job creation. Unfortunately, the Randians in the party believe that to be “unfair” (to whom? the wealthy?) and opposed it.

  • PM, the social issues are now off the table with the blessing of Paul Ryan.

  • To Lisa Graas et al concerned with the Social Issues:

    Social issues have never and will never be on the table for those that favor the current administration. The ObamaCare cop-out by Catholic Democrat Congressman was the final proof of that.

    For those opposed to the current administration who keep social issues as a top priority, we need to remind ourselves that if we don’t rescue the republic from this administration, which is openly hostile to the U.S. Constitution, then there won’t be any country left to convince about social issues. Like Merry said to Pippin in The Lord of the Rings – if we don’t win this fight, “there isn’t going to be a Shire.”

  • “He also said the bishops were wrong.”

    They are. That earns him points in my book.

  • I second the motion by Bonchamps!

  • Anyone who votes for Obama is a “useful idiot”.

  • Anyone who votes for either party is a useful idiot.

  • @CHRIS IN MARYLAND- the progressives in the democratic party have proven that social
    positions ARE important to them, everything from open gays in the military, gay marriage,
    unlimited abortion on demand and stricter gun control. that’s what makes this choice so difficult. Mitt Romney is NO social conservative and for that matter, neither is Paul Ryan.
    But this should be clear to anyone who follows politics. There is a split in the Rebuplican
    party, between CINO (conservative in name only) aided and abetted by liberterains. and social conservatives. It doesn’t take a Dick Morris to see which faction controls the Republican party. It is time for a more conservative socially and more financially responsible third party.

  • Sorry Edmund – Paul Ryan has a 100% rating on Pro-Life issues AND the liberal Bishops came out against his budget.

    Jeb Bush = RINO/CINO…YES. Ryan…please… Come to think of it…maybe you work for Jeb Bush?

    On the other hand, its always in season to encourage liberals to vote again for Ralph Nader.

  • Paul Ryan abstained on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

  • I think Lisa is really David Axelrod…sorry David…I’ve had enough of Chicago.

  • Calling me names, questioning my intentions, etc., really helps to shore up your reputation for being a charitable person. No, wait…

  • “There is a split in the Rebuplican party, between CINO (conservative in name only) aided and abetted by liberterains. and social conservatives. It doesn’t take a Dick Morris to see which faction controls the Republican party. It is time for a more conservative socially and more financially responsible third party.”

    Oddly, we Liberterains are haltingly trying to create a third party ourselves, present crisis notwithstanding, that looks forward to a time when the Federal government returns to its proper, Consitutionally-defined role of limited and enumerated oversight of specific areas of the nation’s business, leaving the rest to states, municipalities and we the people ourselves.

    Such a party has a slim chance of ever becoming an effective body, though, in that its raison d’etre is its own obsolescence, a cause that’s unworkably oxymoronic in a political sense.

    Just remember that there is a world of difference between Liberty and license. While neither desire to be externally governed, that is where the similarity ends and the paths diverge in diametrically opposite directions. Liberty informs the individual person with self-government whereas license negates government of any sort. Liberty and The Church are essentially consubstantial because they both require and reinforce correct personal action without coersion. Where The Church leads, Liberty follows; where Liberty thrives, The Church is a City on a Hill. The fascist Left uses license as its primary weapon to create the vaccum of chaos which then necessitates corecively imposed order; it must nullify The Church in order to achieve its goals. Liberty is sine qua non to our nation’s continued existence. License is the poison that will destroy us. Know the difference.

  • Lisa continues with her false witness against Paul Ryan. And I continue to say shame on Lisa for distorting the record and character of a faithful, practicing Catholic. Go off with your friend George Soros into the political wilderness and leave us alone.

  • I see on Lisa’s website that Lisa is a big supporter, or something, of Sarah Palin. Palin holds the EXACT SAME viewpoints on fiscal policy as Paul Ryan. In fact, she was one of the FIRST politicians in the ENTIRE COUNTRY to endorse Paul Ryan’s Roadmap to fix Social Security and Medicare.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009322838245628.html

  • I guess Sarah Palin hates the poor and wants to gut all welfare programs, too. What a Randian!

  • Bonchamps says:
    Tuesday, August 14, 2012 A.D. at 3:29pm (Edit)
    “He also said the bishops were wrong.”

    They are. That earns him points in my book.

    Agreed.

    The USCCB– which is usually what folks mean by “the Bishops,” even though it’s not exactly right– being wrong in their totally non binding ideas isn’t exactly news.

    Same way I like GK Chesterton, but I’m not sure I’d dive right into the financial philosophies of someone who the only thing I know of his economic powers is rumors he was so bad he had to wire for money to take the train. Doesn’t make him a bad Catholic, just not someone you want to follow blindly for budget stuff.

  • Foxfier: Exactly!! How much training in economics or budget issues have the Bishops had? For that matter, does anybody posting here have one tenth of the knowledge Ryan has about the federal deficient and the economic disaster that is right ahead of us?

    Lisa, you don’t seem to grasp that if the entitlement programs are not reformed, there will be nothing for anybody when the government runs out of money. And stop this business about the “poor.” Yes, there are genuinely needy and we should help them. There are also people scamming the system for every cent they can get. (A well-known scam around here involves people using food stamps to get bags of frozen lobster tails and shrimp and other expensive items and then selling the lobster tails at half market price.) Is that “social justice?” Does Catholic charity demand that I be OK with that? Are only rich people capable of the sin of greed?

39 Responses to Assertion without Evidence

  • Wow. Well, where do I begin? How about removing the word “warpath” to describe what I’m doing? http://catholicbandita.com/romneys-ryan-pick-drives-the-wedge-between-catholics-deeper/

    Can we start there? Remove “warpath”? Thanks.

  • Ryan’s pick divided Catholics because Catholics like you choose to distort Ryan’s record and turn him into something he is not. Therefore your post is something of a tautology.

  • I don’t know what Lisa Graas said, but are there any major thinkers, pundits or experts who have expressed silly reservations like the ones you describe?

    Charlie

  • Will you not remove the word “warpath” in reference to what I am doing?

  • Well, it depends on how you define “major.” Truthfully, this is probably not a major concern outside of the Catholic blogosphere, and even then only a certain subset of it. In fact, that’s part of why I find the claim that he’s being disingenuous about his feelings with regard to Rand to be a little perplexing. Of all the things a politician is going to lie about, why this? Somehow I don’t think Paul Ryan is so concerned with how a subset of a subset of a subset of the population feels about Ayn Rand that he would feel the need to change his tune.

  • I guess you are not going to remove the word “warpath” you use to describe what I am doing so I am going to give this post the attention it deserves. None.

  • I’m sure it won’t ultimately matter, but edit made.

  • Some people like to be naysayers. There is not a single politician in the country who is as smart and as good on economic and social issues and no slouch on national security.
    I don’t know anyone who represents a cause or a base who is criticizing this pick.

    Check out this piece from Viguerie’s newsletter:

    Social Conservative Leaders Laud Paul Ryan’s Pro-Life Record
    By CHQ Staff | 8/13/12

    Paul Ryan’s 100% right-to-life voting record and his strong and principled opposition to the abortion drug and contraception mandates in President Obama’s health care law are encouraging signs for social conservatives that with Ryan on the ticket a Romney/Ryan administration will be strongly pro-life and pro-family.

    Pro-lifersMarjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, told LifeNews that, “By selecting Congressman Ryan as his vice presidential running mate, Governor Romney demonstrates his commitment to protecting American women and unborn children. A longtime pro-life advocate and a strong fiscal conservative, Congressman Ryan has insisted that there can be no ‘truce’ when it comes to advancing the rights of the unborn and achieving fiscal responsibility. He has a pristine pro-life voting record and will be an asset to Governor Romney’s campaign.”

    The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins released a statement praising Ryan saying, “As a member of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, he has been a defender of religious expression in the public square. Paul Ryan has spoken out strongly against President Obama’s abortion drug and contraception mandates as an affront to religious liberty. He has articulately described how the President’s government takeover of health care has pushed aside our First Amendment right of religious freedom.”

    Gary Bauer, chairman of Campaign for Working Families praised the choice of Ryan saying, “I congratulate Paul Ryan and look forward to the policy debates. This is a selection that sends a strong, clear, unambiguous message of a conservative vision for America, from ending the explosive growth of government, reducing the explosive growth of the debt and instead committing to the explosive growth of the American economy. This shows the kind of talented and experienced team Governor Mitt Romney will put together that will work for American exceptionalism.

    Americans United for Life Action President Charmaine Yoest called Ryan’s selection “a bold choice of an unambiguous defender of the need for a pro-life vision for America.”

    Ryan has a 100% pro-life voting record on all roll call votes scored by National Right to Life throughout his entire career in the U.S. House of Representatives. Since being sworn-in in 1999 he supported the pro-life position on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and most recently the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, among others.

    As a principled supporter of pro-life legislation Congressman Paul has co-sponsored numerous pro-life bills, including the D.C. Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, and the Protect Life Act.

    Senator Rick Santorum, the strongly pro-life candidate Romney drove from the primaries, summed-up the impact of Paul Ryan’s addition to the Republican ticket saying, “In addition to Congressman Ryan’s stellar fiscal conservative positions, he is indeed a full-spectrum conservative. He is solidly pro-life, pro-family, and will be an advocate for our military and our national-security priorities.”

  • Thank you sooooo very much Dr.Charles Kenny! The choice of Paul Ryan for VP brings a much needed ray of Hope!!!! There are many people who recognize the great peril this nation is facing, and they have responded with prayer and fasting. Blog posts are all well and good, but when I read the silliness of the above, I feel fear. Now is the time for all people of good will who love this country to UNITE. Let go of the ego already…what is the objective?…four more years of Obama. Look around. Pay attention to the voices which advocate for more and more government. Who are we serving? Please read Pope Benedict XVI Encyclical “Charity in Truth,” as well as Pope John Paul’s teaching on authentic solidarity and justice.

  • Perhaps, we should recall the words of a great 20th century Thomist, “Integral political science . . . is superior in kind to philosophy; to be truly complete it must have a reference to the domain of theology, and it is precisely as a theologian that St. Thomas wrote De regimine principum . . . the knowledge of human actions and of the good conduct of the human State in particular can exist as an integral science, as a complete body of doctrine, only if related to the ultimate end of the human being. . . the rule of conduct governing individual and social life cannot therefore leave the supernatural order out of account” (The Things that are not Caesar’s, p. 128, Jacques Maritain).

    As another Catholic philosopher of the same period, Maurice Blondel, explains, “Material things become the support of economic phenomena; economic facts, even those that appear to relate to entirely physical needs, are already pregnant with moral and social relationships. One cannot legitimately and with impunity enclose oneself in any one order; there is action from the top down and from the bottom up” (Catholicisme Social et Monophorisme).

    Contrary to the prevalent economic liberalism and sociological positivism, they recognized that a self-contained socio-economic order is an abstraction that falsifies the actual supernatural destiny of the concrete person.

    It is from this perspective that Ayan Rand’s philosophy must be judged; one cannot argue that her political and economic views can, somehow, be detached from her religious and philosophical deficiencies.

  • Paul Zummo (per his article): Does it really matter if Paul Ryan doesn’t ape Catholic theology students word for word if the end product is something is properly within Church teaching on economic matters?

    I agree with Zummo that Paul Ryan need not quote Aquinas or any Catholic theologian to make a substantively or even authentically Catholic economic argument. Ryan’s economic arguments, as found both in his budget and in his personal economic philosophy, are still in development. It’s important for all voters from both sides of the aisle to realize that the Ryan the Republican veep nominee and Ryan the possible veep-elect now face (and might eventually face) different realities based on a wide variety of variables. It’s quite possible that Ryan might grow towards a less atomistic view of individual economic relationships towards a preferential option for the poor, or the opposite. Improbability still admits possibility, however remote.

    I disagree partially, however, with Zummo’s assessment of Lisa Graas’s observation on class warfare. Zummo states that “[t]his doesn’t really sound like Ryan is blaming the poor at all.” [my addition in brackets] Indeed, Graas per Zummo’s quotations does not provide direct evidence that Ryan’s deficit reduction plan causes class warfare. Still, Graas’s statement points indirectly towards an undeniable aspect of Aquinas on distributism: class distinctions do matter. Question 61, art. 2, objection 3 and its corresponding reply rely on class distinctions to fine-tune distribution versus commutation. If, as Aquinas asserts in the reply to objection 3, distribution relies on class as a description and not an individual attribute, then drastically cutting Medicaid funding is “class warfare” so far as one aggregate group (those who depend on Medicaid, often poor persons) suffer deprivation for the benefit of the “wealthy” (the “ordinary rich” as well as those whose income is mostly dividends). Per Aquinas, this is different than a “poor person” who wrongs as “wealthy person”, as in this case the circumstances of individuals and not classes influence the morality of an action.

    One difficulty in applying Aquinan social moral theology to modern day circumstance is the reality of our postindustrial society. Nevertheless, the reality that persons act as moral groups as well as moral individuals also implies that the structure of state itself can influence moral behavior. The pitting of one class against another is itself still quite morally problematic per Aquinas.

  • Let’s make this more simple. My question is for everyone who has thus far commented, but anyone else may answer, yes or no. Do you believe that assistance is “due” to the poor simply because they are poor and with no conditions attached to the assistance? I am not referring to whether it is through government or not. Just a simple question. Do you believe that assistance is “due” to the poor simply because they are poor?

  • Pingback: Our Lady of Walsingham Ordinariate | Big Pulpit
  • Poverty is relative. Who gets to decide how poor is poor enough? Materialists who don’t believe life is worth living if it isn’t physically comfortable? Christians, who know that there is more to life than material comfort?

    These questions are far more complex than you seem to appreciate. Like a lot of leftist ideologues, you puff yourself up on abstract ideology, failing to clearly define terms and account for cost limitations. No, all that matters is that your claim “sounds” moral, so moral that it doesn’t have to account for any real-world circumstances at all.

    This is precisely why Christian morality mostly focuses on the responsibilities of the individual. The individual can sacrifice himself for an ideal. He knows the costs and can decide that they are worth paying for his ideals. But individuals like you, who presume to dictate what other people ought to sacrifice for the sake of your ideals, can’t possibly know what the consequences of your policies will be, and whether they will do more harm than good.

    If someone meets a reasonable criteria for poverty, they are due to assistance from the community. If the argument is that this necessarily comes in the form of federal welfare bureaucracies, and that any opposition to these is opposition to Catholic teaching, I call you a charlatan and a fraud – or a fool who is completely out of his or her depth.

    I’m not saying you were ever that specific, Lisa. So lets see your hand. What concrete, specific forms of “assistance” do you believe are due to the poor? How do you define poverty? Who counts as poor? Who is responsible for providing this assistance? What level of government?

  • I don’t know much about this Lisa Graas, but since reading this, I have looked a bit further at the net, and found that she seems to freely bash Republicans. Is she a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, pro-socialist Democrat voting Catholic? I seriously ask this question.

  • No, James, she is a pro-life Catholic. She is independent minded, and as such often disagrees with the Republican party, particularly on economic matters. Often I agree with her criticisms of the GOP, though in this case I think her particular argument is without merit.

  • Do you believe that assistance is “due” to the poor simply because they are poor and with no conditions attached to the assistance?

    Yes.

    Ryan may talk about individuality versus collectivism in a way that makes you nervous that he doesn’t believe in the Catholic vision, but his budget plan specifically protects – and funds – programs for the poor.

    Part of the problem is in our political rhetoric. The current battle line is between a more collectivist vision versus a more individualistic vision. So the politician has to deal with the crisis at hand. He doens’t necessarily get to pick his battles. If the primary feud was between some social programs and no social programs, I imagine that he’d be defending social programs and articulating the policy issues according to the dominant themes.

    When Reagan said that government is the problem, he wasn’t embracing an anti-Thomist vision. Based on the decisions he made, he would have been comfortable with a smaller safety net. You could take his comment about government and argue that he was calling for anarchy, though. He was addressing the political issue of the time in a way that was understandable.

    And that’s the key thing. A politician has a responsibility to make his proposed policies understandable to the people. Part of that involves sound bites and signals. I suspect that Ryan would be as happy as Santorum was to articulate his entire viewpoint, but as we saw with Santorum, that doesn’t make good copy. And as much as I like it when politicians elevate the conversation, they do have to make copy, because most people consume their politics in small portions.

    As an aside, I think that Ryan would be more successful politically if he’d balance the Stark Differences rhetoric with more Common Ground rhetoric. It’d comfort the people who, like you, are nervous about him. It would also risk alienating the tea party types who are opposed to any kind of moderation. It’s a tough path to find.

  • I’m not just one of the usual suspects; I’m Keyser Söze, baby.

    My sense of Congressman Ryan is that he genuinely believes his path to property is in line with Catholic social teaching. I’m dubious given his misunderstanding of terms such as subsidiarity and solidarity and also given the simplistic ways in which he frames the moral/political conflicts, but I don’t question his sincerity of fault his fellow Catholics for supporting him. As for Rand’s influence, Paul’s been repeatedly open about this, despite rejecting her atheism and epistemology, and while he’s no Objectivist or Randian, his rhetoric and framing of the issues make evident that, like her, he’s something of an individualist and to some extent sees the world accordingly.

  • Kyle Cupp:
    “…and while he’s no Objectivist or Randian, his rhetoric and framing of the issues make evident that, like her, he’s something of an individualist and to some extent sees the world accordingly.”

    What is the intent of this diagnosis of yours? Is it supposed to be an indicator of future behavior? Is it supposed to identify and include/disqualify him in one group or another? Is it praise by you? Disparagement?

    It seems to me you think he doesn’t quite cut the mustard. Just asking.

  • Ryan’s individualism (which is not nearly so radical and Rand’s) doesn’t disqualify him from being VP or from being supported by Catholics, but it does seem to shape his understanding of Catholic social teaching: his definitions of subsidiarity and solidarity, while partially correct, miss the fullness of the terms as taught by the Catholic faith precisely because they’re too much informed by an individualism vs. collectivism binary. The Church envisions the human person both in terms of his being an individual and as part of a collective: it rejects both collectivism and individualism.

  • Bonchamps, poverty is how the government defines poverty. Is Ryan advocating to change the poverty line?

  • James, I think you have me mixed up with someone else. I do not “bash” anyone, least of all Republicans.

  • I am a former crisis pregnancy counselor for the Archdiocese of Louisville. I have personally witnessed how giving charity to the poor transforms the poor. One will not know charity if one never receives it. While Republicans would argue that charity causes dependency, I would argue that true charity causes one to know what true charity is, and one cannot know true charity without knowing sacrifice for others, and one cannot know resentment and dependency if one knows sacrifice, and that joy that is in that sacrifice. That’s where Jesus is, not in making demands of the poor as if they are doing something wrong by being poor.

  • Most of the young women I ministered to had been kicked out of their home by their parents or otherwise had no support from their families. Every one wanted an abortion because of despair of not knowing how to support the child. Every one had to have every need taken care of (rent, food, etc.). Every one chose life for her child. Every one got a job to support her child. All of them would be appalled by some of the comments on this Catholic blog.

  • Kyle, how’s that barbershop quartet?

    Matt Archbold has a post up that provides pretty good insight from someone who, like many others, was inspired to conversion by Ayn Rand but who ultimately rejected most of the foundational aspects of her philosophy.

    I read Rand at a later age than many young conservatives when they first encountered her writing, and was already familiar with the works of Hayak, Sowell, and so many others. Therefore I had little use for even the positive aspects of her work because I saw them better articulated by more well-rounded writers. But I don’t think there’s necessarily anything pernicious with having been inspired to some degree by her works, nor do I think it necessarily taints one’s overall philosophy having bitten the apple, so to speak.

  • More singing of the praises of Ayn Rand? How about this? Ayn Rand is featured in this very popular book from Ignatius Press: Architects of the Culture of Death I strongly recommend the book.

  • Lisa, I don’t think that last comment was fair. No one’s singing the praises of Ayn Rand. On the points where her writing conflicts with Catholic teaching, Ryan (and Zummo and I and probably everyone else here) rejects Rand. On the points where her writing can be reconciled with Catholic teaching, Ryan recognizes its merits. And there isn’t much of it that can be reconciled – just some of her economics, which is largely cut-and-pasted from her Enlightenment betters.

  • “[P]overty is how the government defines poverty.”

    Such an assertion is difficult to take seriously.

  • Pinky is right. Lisa, you are taking very unfair liberties with some comments, which does expose you to the accusation of dishonesty.

  • No, it is very serious.
    It is called an operational definition in science.
    In this case it is a bureaucracy that defines it in measurable terms that apply to everyone.
    The standard of living of upper middle class Americans at the turn of the century is lower than that of people whom the government calls poor today. And the standard of living of middle class Americans at the end of WWII is lower than the poverty line as defined by the government.

    Charlie

  • Agree, Charlie. And my point is that such a bureaucratically created operational definition is of no practical utility when it comes to a serious and sincere discussion the meaning and application of Catholic social teaching.

  • More singing of the praises of Ayn Rand?

    Remember, you (rightfully) don’t like the tone jvc takes with you in another thread. Saying that Paul’s comment praises Ayn Rand also coarsens the tone.

  • Yep, bureaucratic definitions of poverty may obscure more than reveal:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/07/poverty-american-style.php

    Which is not to say that all of the poor in America have all of the things noted in the article. But it is accurate to say that you can have all of the amenities listed and still be considered “poor” by the federal government.

  • Wow. Well, where do I begin? How about removing the word “warpath” to describe what I’m doing? http://catholicbandita.com/romneys-ryan-pick-drives-the-wedge-between-catholics-deeper/
    –Lisa Graas 9:08pm

    Ha ha. Someone who styles herself “Catholic bandita” cries over the word “warpath” being applied to her course of action. A bandita is a female thief armed with a gun; the bandolier she wears – from which the word “bandita” is derived – carries her bullets.

    Let’s make this more simple. My question is for everyone who has thus far commented, but anyone else may answer, yes or no. Do you believe that assistance is “due” to the poor simply because they are poor and with no conditions attached to the assistance?
    –Lisa Graas 5:15am

    An interesting question. Let’s see, if Lisa herself answers “yes” then she’s stuck paying for abortions on demand – no conditions meaning exactly that. So, if she wishes to be a faithful Catholic, Lisa must herself answer her own question “no” just as, presumably, Ayn Rand would.

    I have personally witnessed how giving charity to the poor transforms the poor.
    –Lisa Graas 12:29pm

    Don’t confuse ‘charity’ with ‘government handouts’. I have personally witnessed how giving government handouts to the poor destroys the poor both physically and spirtually.

    If you hear anyone arguing that “charity causes dependency”, you’re hearing someone who is making the same error of confusing ‘charity’ with ‘government handouts’ – even if they are Republicans.

    And furthermore, don’t overlook that sometimes the greatest charity is tough love. Jesus, you may recall from one of the recent daily Mass readings of the Gospel, did not repeat the miracle of the multiplication of loaves just because the crowds were expecting that. From this and other examples, we can conclude that charity includes the responsibility of sometimes saying “no”.

  • Since charity is not to be confused with government handouts, why is the government’s assessment of who are “the poor” relevant?

  • Thomas Aquinas talked about “distributive justice”. The difference between Distributism and distributive justice is a recognized need of the other person, the neighbor and loving the neighbor for the love of God. The “JUSTICE” part comes in when man acknowledges that God is the Creator of all creation and especially man. “Distributive justice” acknowedges God as the Creator , endower and distributor of all. Distributive Justice is the working of Divine Providence. Distributism is the working of usurpation of private property and the refusal of the acknowledgement of man as a sovereign person created by the Supreme Sovereign Being.

    When the atheist denies the existence of God, the Supreme Sovereign Being, does the atheist really exist and does the atheist really have sovereign personhood when he, the atheist rejects his sovereignty from God? A good question for Ayn
    Rand

  • In addition: Distributive Justice is the practice of the virtue of CHARITY. Distributism is the practice of tyranny, communism, Marxism, totalitarianism, and utilitarianism. The practice of the virtue of Charity is voluntary. The extortion of taxes for distributism without assent and consent by the owners of the property of taxes is stealing against the Seventh Commandment.

  • “[P]overty is how the government defines poverty.” “… because poverty is what I say what it is.” And who are you who is saying it is what it is? Taxes belong to the taxpayers even while being administered by the administration. It is assumed that the consent and informed consent, of the citizen is granted across the board by the election, but the item must be put on the ballot for the will of the people to make itself known to those who serve in the public sector.

  • Pingback: A Ryan Roundup | The American Catholic

Happy Birthday Bella!

Sunday, May 13, AD 2012

 

 

Elizabeth Santorum at Hot Air reminds us that the Santorum household has a double reason to celebrate today:

Sunday is an important day in the Santorum house. On May 13th, we’ll be celebrating a birthday. My little sister, Bella, is turning four. As some of you can imagine, having seven kids in my family, we do a lot of birthday parties. Various sweets, party hats, and re-used gift bags are always floating around the house, waiting to be used in the next celebration. Our house is a happy one, full of life. That being said, Bella’s birthday is always uniquely joyful and the cause of grateful reflection. I say this because every year with Bella is a gift. Bella was born with a rare genetic condition called Trisomy 18. Of the 10% of babies with Trisomy 18 who survive birth, 90% won’t make it to their first birthday. When she was born, the prognosis was bleak. The odds were simply stacked against her.

 

Ten days after she was born, Bella came home from the hospital. As doctors explained to us how to best prepare for her death, we chose to celebrate her life. And we did, every, single day. I remember when we first brought Bella home; we hung a sign in our living room. It read, “Happy 1-Week Birthday Bella.” As the weeks went by, we changed the sign from 1 to 2 to 3 weeks. Eventually weeks turned into months and now, thanks be to God, years. We fought for her each step of the way, giving her every opportunity to do well. She beat the odds and has been doing so ever since.

 

As I reflect on this last year of her life, it has been amazing to see how many people Bella has touched and the issues that have been discussed in the public sphere as a result of her condition. In the middle of winter, when the world found out that Bella had been hospitalized, the response was overwhelming. Our inboxes and mailboxes were flooded with notes of encouragement, prayer, and support. People in all walks of life from around the country united around the witness of a three-year-old little girl. We even got notes that said, “I don’t agree with you politically, but thank you for being a voice for the special needs community.” She brought unity and refocused us on what was really important in the midst of a heated primary season.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

4 Responses to Happy Birthday Bella!

  • Naturally Bella was born on the feast of Our Lady of Fatima! She is such an inspiration to our family who have been blessed with our daughter Christina, age 10 who has Down syndrome. Rick was kind enough to allow me to use his essay written on the occasion of Bella’s second birthday, “Two Years Worth Every Tear” in my book, “A Special Mother is Born” a collection of 34 stories from Catholic parents of special needs children.

  • because God wants unconditional love

  • Mary, God does not want unconditional love because the only way you can love him is by loving him above all things because he is all good, all powerful, and all knowing and he is our Creator so any true love for God is both required by us but also completely righteous.

  • I believe that people who are retarded are saints because of their goodwill despite the hard time they have figuring out what is going on.

President Obama Must Be Defeated: Rick Santorum Endorses Romney

Tuesday, May 8, AD 2012

 

 

Rick Santorum, the candidate who I supported in the primaries, has endorsed Romney in an e-mail to his supporters.  I agree with every word of his email:

Thank you again for all you did as one of my strongest and committed supporters. Your belief in our campaign helped us start a movement of Americans who believe deeply that our best days are ahead as long as we fight to strengthen our families, unshackle our economy and promote freedom here and around the world. Karen and I will be forever grateful for the support, kindness and commitment you showed us, as well as our children, over these last months.

On Friday, Governor Romney came to Pittsburgh for an over-hour long one-on-one meeting. The conversation was candid, collegial and focused on the issues that you helped me give voice to during our campaign; because I believe they are essential ingredients to not only winning this fall, but turning our country around.

While the issue of my endorsement did not come up, I certainly have heard from many of you who have weighed in on whether or not I should issue a formal endorsement. Thank you for your counsel, it has been most helpful. However, I felt that it was completely impossible for me to even consider an endorsement until after a meeting to discuss issues critical to those of us who often feel our voices are not heard by the establishment: social conservatives, tea-party supporters, lower and middle income working families.

Clearly without the overwhelming support from you all, I never would have won 11 states and over 3 million votes, and we would not have won more counties than all the other candidates combined. I can assure you that even though I am no longer a candidate for president, I will still continue to fight every day for our shared values – the values that made America the greatest country in the history of the world.

During our meeting I felt a deep responsibility to assess Governor Romney’s commitment to addressing the issues most important to conservatives, as well his commitment to ensuring our appropriate representation in a Romney administration.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

29 Responses to President Obama Must Be Defeated: Rick Santorum Endorses Romney

  • Thanks, Donald, for posting this.

  • Sounds like damning with faint praise or praising with faint damns. As a Libertarian who believes a choice between Obama and Romney is a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, or to be less charitable, between Dumb and Dumber, I’m rooting for Ron Paul to stay in and play spoiler. Neither Obama nor Romney will drastically change the way America is run — business as usual.

  • Your vote to re-elect Obama is duly noted Joe.

  • Don, given Romney’s flip-flopping and inability to state any position clearly, I would welcome any clarification of where he stands on any given issue. It’s fair to say that Mr. Etch-A-Sketch is trying to conjure up a new image but it has yet to emerge as one that I can discern. I welcome any enlightenment you can shed as to how a President Romney would be markedly different than a President Obama on foreign policy, health care and the economy.

  • President Romney would not be waging a war against the Catholic Church for starters Joe. In regard to the economy we would have no further talk of trillion dollar stimulus bills. In regard to ObamaCare it would be dead, as President Romney would effectively cut off funding for its implementation. In regard to foreign policy President Romney would cease the Obama policy of alienating our allies and mistaking our allies for enemies.

    As my previous posts on the Weathervane amply indicated, I have no illusions about Romney and I hate that he is going to be the standard bearer of the GOP. However, compared to Obama Romney is the reincarnation of Reagan. Defeating Obama is my top priority in this election cycle and Romney is the only candidate who can do that.

  • Don, I likely will hold my nose and vote Romney but only because I agree that he is the lesser of two evils. Now that Joe Biden, a professed Roman Catholic, has come out for homosexual ‘marriage’ and Obama is “evolving” toward that view, that further tips the scales. I know you take a dim view of Paul, and I would agree he has his defects — mainly age, in my view — but gutting or eliminating the Fed and returning to the gold standards, disentangling ourselves from foreign alliances and other Jeffersonian principles — limited government, states rights and less intrusion into individual freedoms — all resonate within this true conservative’s heart. What worries me about Romney is the likelihood that the neocon hawks like Newt will have his ear and goad us into more foreign misadventures with disastrous results. If Romney sides with Bibi and supports a military attack on Iran, the game is up and WWIII is assured.

  • My husband and I have been struggling with voting for Romney.
    We got this note from Rick whom we supported financially prayerfully and oh so hopefully… Rick is trying to work within the framework of traditional party politics and be a team player, keeping the end goal of greater good in mind. It looks like Paul is going outsides those bounds…
    Voting for Romney may be The Right Thing To Do but golly, I don’t want to.
    Maybe it is exactly the wrong thing to do .. in some way enabling a broken system.
    I don’t know what I am going to do but pray for wisdom for Romney in his appointments and the people he surrounds hinself with. God can make good come out of this mess.

  • “It looks like Paul is going outsides those bounds…”

    I doubt it. Paul will keep hinting that he is going to run third party to keep getting the media coverage, but I think he will due not. Senator Rand Paul likely has a big political future ahead of him and I suspect that Ron Paul will do nothing to hinder that.

  • Good point about Rand P.
    and I think that is one of the things that irks me about the Paul campaign — this idea I have heard of setting up the son. doesn’t seem American does it?
    Although Paul the dad comes across as above playing politics, a wisp of a fellow from the countryside of Texas who squares his thin shoulders to do battle with the pork barrelers and sausage makers — that guy still manipulates manfully.

  • Ah, the true conservative mentions nothing about the protection of marriage.

  • Considering that Romney is on record against gay marriage, I find the omission insignificant. Anyone who suggests that Santorum is soft on the issue of gay marriage simply isn’t inhabiting the same frame of reality as the rest of us.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/no-comparison-between-obama-and-romney-on-same-sex-marriage/2012/05/07/gIQAVvsn8T_blog.html

  • Be afraid. Be very afraid.

    What is frightening is that such a dull and illogical nobody like Obama became president.

    What is more frightening is that any American spends one breath or thought on anything other than the horrid economic conditions Obama’s anti-private sector policies have wrought.

    Give Obama four more years and he can completely ruin America.

  • I really doubt Ron Paul would run third party this time. His son Rand’s political career could be tarnished by such a run. And as Don says, Rand has a bright future (and I personally find him more palatable than his father). I really don’t know how much of a spoiler he could be in the general election. His support is pretty loyal, and likely a large chunk of that support will abstain, write-in, or go Constitution party. Of course, I base this on the Ron Paul supporters I know up here in Seattle. The question is, in my mind, how many delegates does Paul amass prior to the convention and what sort of havoc does that cause. I.e. Does he get enough to deny Romney the nomination on the first vote? Time will tell, I suppose. But now that Santorum has endorsed Romney, that equation now has shifted. Where’s my popcorn?

  • “Mitt Romney is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Obama.” — Rick Santorum in Wisconsin just before primary. This will no doubt be used constantly in Democratic ads from now on.

  • He clearly understands that having pro-family initiatives are not only the morally and economically right thing to do, but that the family is the basic building block of our society and must be preserved.

    Well unless those of us who supported and voted for Santorum think he is a big phony we need to take him at his word.

    I for one feel much better about Romney with Santorums endorsement.

  • Deleted your last comment Joe. I will tolerate no bashing of a man for following the faith of his ancestors.

  • Don, I think Romney’s religious beliefs are on the minds of many but understand your reluctance to go there.

  • At some point we are going to have to state that this is a country of religious freedom where LDS members are entitled to every bit of the same respect that we would give Catholics, Protestants, Jews or Muslims; and that this is NOT a country of sexual libertinism where abortion on demand and homosexual marriage may be considered civil rights.

    An LDS member has as much right to run for and serve in the Presidency as any Catholic or Protestant. However, a person who supports the murder of the unborn or the unholy union of man with man or woman with woman is not entitled to sit in that august office regardless of whatever pretense of religious belief he may offer.

    But we need to think through our principles to their logical conclusion. If one may not be discriminated against on the basis of religion (e.g., being an LDS member) to run for President, then that principle of non-discrimination extends to Shiite and Sunni Muslims as well.

  • If Romney does what is wise and chooses Rand Paul as his running mate, I will endorse him, support him, and campaign for him, and gosh darn it, I’ll like every second of it, as you will tell by the grin on my face.

    If he picks someone like Rubio, whose views on foreign policy I find reckless and irresponsible, I’ll do what I’ve always pretty much planned on doing: reluctantly slogging my way to the polls and holding my nose as I vote for him.

    If Obamacare is nullified by the SCOTUS, however, and Obama’s contraception Kulturkampf fizzles out, I’ll strongly consider voting Constitution Party.

  • Bonchamps, with whom I disagree on most things “Ron Paul”, is being reasonable (though I don’t necessarily share his view of Marco Rubio, yet I don’t know enough about Rubio’s views to dispute him).

    PS, what about Colonel Allen West as a running mate? All the race baiters wouldn’t know what to do, then! Just fantasizing.

  • West is worse than Rubio in my book on foreign policy.

    He is right, however, about communist infiltration of the Democratic Party.

  • Col West was in the Army serving overseas. 20 years of active duty service if memory serves me correctly. Therefore, he probably knows more about foreign affairs than Rubio, Bonchamps and Primavera all put together. Another reason perhaps for Romney to consider him!

    😉

    Sorry. can’t help myself. Yeah, I know! Don’t goad the Ron Paulists.

  • Please stop talking about us as if we’re dangerous animals. As long as you have a valid point to make, I don’t care what your position is on anything.

  • Bon, as much as I like Paul, Romney won’t pick him. They are oil and water on so many things.

  • Paul P – yes we need to think it through; what is good for the goose etc. If we ask for completely equal treatment- as my Dad used to say: “Then what?”

    To me it is important what a person believes– so I can’t say that a candidate’s religion doesn’t matter– some are more amenable to our American Traditions than others.

    I happen to hold Catholicism to be True religion– and the others some shade short of that… some religions are just plain false. So it is hard to think we have to treat all religions equally since they have such a potent effect on our behavior and choices.. and they are not all Good.

    At the same time, it is hard to really understand the shades of each person’s faith– some Catholics are more Catholic than others– perhaps some Sunni’s may take their faith more to heart than others ( I don’t know any Sunnis) — some Mormons etc… so I try to honestly look at the candidate, his professed beliefs and his record of integrity — what else can I do?

  • Pingback: LCWR Rick Santorum Mitt Romney Thomism Pro-Life Academy | The Pulpit
  • Thanks, Anzlyn!

    Coincidentally two LDS missionary girls canvassing the neighborhood stopped by my apartment last night after work. We talked from 5 till 7:50 pm about the Scriptures, our different beliefs, some LDS history, etc. They were really very nice and my two cats just loved the both of them. But we did part ways agreeing to disagree.

    Truthfully, I have met more LDS folk qualified for public office than I have met Catholic folk. I suspect the reason is the loss of morality on the part of too many Catholics that comes with the embrace of the false gospel of social justice and the common good from Caesar’s hand. But while that explains Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, it does nothing to explain Harry Reid. I once joked with an LDS friend of mine, saying that the Pope should publicly excommunicate Pelosi at the same time as the Quorum of Twelve excommunicates Reid. We both had a good laugh over that.

    Frankly, Romney being LDS is not an impediment to me. Being a Weathervane, however, is. But better him than Obama any day of the week.

  • Mormon or Marxist? I’ll be voting for the Mormon on Nov 6th 2012

The Crusades and Historical Ignorance

Saturday, May 5, AD 2012

The above video is a salute to Rick Santorum, former candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, for understanding the essential nature of the Crusades as a defensive reaction to Islamic aggression.  In the video below we have a rather mindless reaction to the same quote from a talking head from the liberal group Young Turks, who, judging from his comments, gained his knowledge of the Crusades from the laughably ahistorical crusader bashing flick Kingdom of Heaven (2005).

Ignorance of the depth displayed in the video above is always to be lamented, and is not unusual, as noted by Dr. Thomas Madden, one of the foremost of the scholars of the Crusades, who, over the past 40 years, have revolutionized our knowledge and understanding of that epoch:

 

The crusades are quite possibly the most misunderstood event in European history. Ask a random American about them and you are likely to see a face wrinkle in disgust, or just the blank stare that is usually evoked by events older than six weeks. After all, weren’t the crusaders just a bunch of religious nuts carrying fire and sword to the land of the Prince of Peace? Weren’t they cynical imperialists seeking to carve out colonies for themselves in faraway lands with the blessings of the Catholic Church? A couch potato watching the BBC/A&E documentary on the crusades (hosted by Terry Jones of Monty Python fame no less) would learn in roughly four hours of frivolous tsk-tsk-ing that the peaceful Muslim world actually learned to be warlike from the barbaric western crusaders. No wonder, then, that Pope John Paul II was excoriated for his refusal to apologize for the crusades in 1999. No wonder that a year ago Wheaton College in Illinois dropped their Crusader mascot of 70 years. No wonder that hundreds of Americans and Europeans recently marched across Europe and the Middle East begging forgiveness for the crusades from any Muslim or Jew who would listen. No wonder.

Jonah Goldberg, in his just released book Tyranny of Cliches, demonstrates that he is aware of the current scholarship on the Crusades:

The great irony is that the zealot-reformers who want to return to a “pure” Islam have been irredeemably corrupted by Western ideas. Osama bin Laden had the idea that he was fighting the “new crusaders.” When George W. Bush once, inadvertently, used the word “crusade,” jihadists and liberal intellectuals alike erupted with rage. It was either a damning slip of the tongue whereby Bush accidentally admitted his real crusader agenda, or it was a sign of his stunning ignorance about the Crusades. Doesn’t he know what a sensitive issue the Crusades are? Doesn’t he know that the Crusades belong alongside the slaughter of the Indians, slavery, and disco in the long line of Western sins?

After all, it’s been in the papers for a while. In 1999, Muslim leaders demanded that Pope John Paul II apologize for the Crusades. “He has asked forgiveness from the Jews [for the Church’s passivity in the face of the Holocaust], so he should ask forgiveness from the Muslims,” Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, told the New York Times.3   Across the country sports teams have been dropping their crusader mas­cots because they’re offensive to . . . someone. Wheaton College changed their seventy-year-old team name from the Crusaders to the Thunder (no word from Thor worshippers yet as to whether they are off ended). Even Campus Crusade for Christ opted to change its name to Cru partly be­cause the word crusade has become too radioactive. “It’s become a flash word for a lot of people. It harkens back to other periods of time and has a negative connotation for lots of people across the world, especially in the Middle East,” Steve Sellers, the organization’s vice president told Christianity Today. “In the ’50s, crusade was the evangelistic term in the United States. Over time, different words take on different meanings to different groups.”4

I’ll say. Until fairly recently, historically speaking, Muslims used to brag about being the winners of the Crusades, not the victims of it. That is if they talked about them at all. “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual re­sponse to the jihad—a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war,” writes Bernard Lewis, the greatest living historian of Islam in the English language (and perhaps any language).5 Historian Thomas Madden puts it more directly, “Now put this down in your notebook, because it will be on the test: The cru­sades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West’s belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world.”6

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

37 Responses to The Crusades and Historical Ignorance

  • I just finished Goldberg’s book. Not quite as good as Liberal Fascism, but still very enlightening as he takes hammer to a bunch of trite cliches that rule our political discourse. The Crusades extract taken above is part of a larger chapter about the Catholic Church and the bone dry ignorance that persists in certain quarters about it.

  • All lies. All the time.

    You can detect when a liberal is lying: his lips are moving.

  • i, as may be noticed, tend to be naive– thinking if those other guys just really UNDERSTOOD, were really educated on the subject, they would change their behavior… like on the issue of Georgetown and Sebelius (isn’t there a great composer with that same name?)
    … if the Young Turks, and Shepard Smith (who has also made remarks about the Crusades on air) and those priests at Georgetown just really UNDERSTOOD I can’t imagine they would do what they do.
    but sadly I am forced to see that they do understand, and this is just what they choose. God gives us an Intellect and a Will and puts the choice before us. Those of the Other Side do have their Intellect engaged– and are making their choice.
    yes, the war of ideas precedes other wars on this plane… the efforts to discredit Santorum, to occupy wall street etc., all use useful idiots…. and it is important to educate them about the truth of history.. but our concern about the truth of the Crusades goes beyond judging them fair or foul– but joining them. The devil is NOT an idiot..

  • For them the truth is that which serves the cause.

    It is easy to exaggerate, distort, fabricate, omit aspects of major events that occurred 1,000 years ago.

    Lying about history serves the narrative and the agenda.

    Students are indoctrinated not educated. Taught what to think, not how to think.

    The narrative: Western European institutions, economics, men are essentially evil, in fact, the source of all evil. The agenda: it must be destroyed. America is the primary target.

  • Ah, the Crusades. Along with their slightly taller cousin the ‘Dark Ages,’ both seem to be the favorite historical trump card to be played, well, whenever.

    Fortunately, in some ways both have undergone a sort of rehabilitation within the academic world. Many of the more recent books I have read on the Crusades take a far more moderate approach- at the very least the chronological snobbery is held to a minimum.

    I thought The First Crusade: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam by Thomas Asbridge was a decent read- unlike many historical works, he is a good writer and crafts a stirring account. The Battle of Antioch chapter could actually be considered a page turner. Granted, the subtitle kind of gives away where it ultimately ends up, but his concluding thesis is more nuanced than the title (no doubt foisted upon it by the publisher) might lead one to believe.

    As far as the ‘Dark Ages,’ Barbarians to Angels by Peter Wells is a good read, dealing more with the archaeological evidence. I’ve also written briefly about it on my blog.

    One of things I appreciate about this blog is the attention given to history and the care and sobriety with which it is handled. I’m not Catholic, (yet) but I am thankful for voices such as these, since so many authors are far more tempted to be lazy with the material and parrot the more popularized narratives, especially when it comes to Christian history.

    Thanks.

  • “One of things I appreciate about this blog is the attention given to history and the care and sobriety with which it is handled. ”

    A high compliment indeed Jason, and we thank you for it!

  • I am always happy to see history put in the correct context. Cultural Marxism has corrupted our view. So many subscribe to the materialist fallacy of the long march of history, as if history is sentient and fatalistic. Removes responsibility of the individual I guess-somehow that must be ‘comforting’ to some.

    Ah, for the sake of accuracy, Rick Santorum is not technically a FORMER candidate, he is a current candidate with a suspended campaign. Same applies to Speaker Gingrich. Until delegates vote at convention, there is no nominee and Mitt is incapable of securing 1144 prior, less so to defeat Obama. If we get another four of him thanks to a weak liberal GOP candidate like Romney, then we may need to launch a Crusade because Catholics (at least if you are ‘one of THOSE Catholics) will face pogroms (perhaps not violent, but legal and psychological pogroms can be just as bad.)

  • American Knight,

    “Cultural Marxism” is excellent short-hand for it, but it really goes back long before Marx…and, in fact, a case might be made that Marx could only have written his theories because for a long time intellectual adherence to truth had been fading. Not to try and start a fight with anyone, but when our Protestant brothers and sisters set about justifying their break with Rome its not like they could rigidly adhere to truth, now could they? It became a necessity, as it were, to re-cast the past in a manner which justified the desires of the present. Do that for a few centuries and it becomes rather easy to do what has been done to the Crusades – simply make up a fairy tale about them and call it “history”.

    It is quite daunting when one thinks about it – how the heck can we get the truth to be widely accepted when a gigantic series of inter-locking lies have been deeply ingrained in our society? I don’t know how to do it – but I suspect that only a revival of Catholic militancy will ever do it.

  • Pingback: The Crusades and Historical Ignorance | The American Catholic | Catholic Canada
  • Right on Mark. I was attempting to cast it in light of an ‘acceptable’ villain (Marx, despite the current occupant of the WH), but Protestantism, although not today’s adherents, certainly is a significant contributor. We can lay blame at Machiavelli and Wesihupt, et al. as well. Of course the father of lies is the ultimate culprit. But I think you identified the most blameworthy human culprit: You and me. Yes, brothers & sisters, it is our fault for as Mark pointed out we are not behaving as the Church Militant. This, I suspect is the reason God is allowing the present and intensifying persecution of the Church and Obama’s attempt at setting up an anti-Church.

    On this ‘Mexican holiday’ perhaps we should recall the bitter history of our southern neighbor with the Church and get busy. Viva Cristo Rey!

  • The Enlightenment cast religion as the villain, didn’t it?

    Given three big cultural revolution type examples like that, I think we can put it down to the human love for obvious villains.

  • @ Jason: “One of things I appreciate about this blog is the attention given to history and the care and sobriety with which it is handled. ”

    Here! Here!

  • One thing that is frequently left out of the placing of the Crusades in it’s fitting historical context is the important fact that… these battles were fairly insignificant affairs. The numbers involved and the cities at issue were both small. The population density of that region was negligible, conditions were inhospitable, and resources for extended campaigning in short supply and difficult to impossible to replace. That the Crusades have any significance at all is entirely as a result of the cultural residue of the real estate it took place on. The Byzantines had been campaigning, often very successfully, against various iterations of Islamic challengers for hundreds of years. Christian vs. Muslim, but w/o the cultural cache.

    The Crusades happened not even 1000 years ago, and yet it is separated from our understanding by a gulf so deep and wide as to be impassable. I hold that historical research has done the best it can, given what is available, in attempting to make sense of near antiquity. Far off or deep antiquity might as well be another planet altogether. The reality is that there is so precious little available that a frank admission of almost total ignorance is the order of the day. Unfortunately, the Crusades can be just about anything you want it to be.

  • Lepanto is in the Holy Land?

  • “The reality is that there is so precious little available that a frank admission of almost total ignorance is the order of the day. Unfortunately, the Crusades can be just about anything you want it to be.”

    Actually our knowledge of the Crusades has been expanding rapidly in the past few decades. A good starting point is to read some of the numerous works of Dr. Riley-Smith.

    http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/jonathanrileysmith.html

    Here is a link to a First Things Article in which Riley-Smith explains what the Crusades were:

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/rethinking-the-crusades-35

    The Crusades are not something that “can be just about anything you want it to be”, but rather historical events that we can know much about if we have the determination to make our way through the mountains of good scholarship available.

  • I’ve been told by folks who actually study the “dark ages” that anyone who talks about the “dark ages” and doesn’t qualify it should be looked at with a bit of suspicion…. they’re “dark” because of the lack of data, not because of some inherent characteristic.

    Which I am thankful for, since it gave me a big flashing WARNING sign when a friend from high school that’s into anthropology started going on about how horrible the middle ages were.

    Want something really funny? Watch Terry Jones’ series on “Medieval Lives.” The conflict between offending modern assumptions and being pissed at the Catholic Church is hilarious! (If you’ve got Netflix, I suggest a drinking game for “The Hidden History of Rome.” Every time you recognize a phrase from modern political arguments, take a half-shot of beer. I can’t suggest anything stronger because being drunk is sinful….

  • Pingback: Crusades SSPX Pornography Dan Savage Pope Benedict XVI | The Pulpit
  • Foxfier- excellent points.

    The perception of the ‘dark ages’ comes both from a lack of data and a residue of cultural snobbery (for lack of a better term) left over from the Renaissance. (which, in many respects, was not really much of a renaissance at all.)

    The interesting thing is that many of the writers/thinkers/whatever of the renaissance period shared similar perceptions towards the culture of the early Middle Ages as those whose writings from that era are still extant- namely, if the cultural or societal artifact under consideration didn’t have a decidedly ‘golden age of Rome’ quality, then it was somehow inferior. (I’m making broad strokes here, of course.)

    Never mind that none of the writers/thinkers/whatever from either period had ever experienced such a thing or that such a thing probably never existed. (sorry Gibbon…) Never mind that technological innovation (such as advances in agriculture that brought about the (probably) first time in human history where physical development wasn’t hampered by malnutrition) and cultural production and creativity flourished. If you’re not writing Ciceronian Latin or sculpting Phidian Amazons it’s simply barbaric, damn it! Your exquisitely ornamental fibulae just don’t have that Roman seriousness!

    As far as the lack of data- one of the problems of earlier studies of the ‘dark ages’ that led to its equivalence with ignorance, lawlessness and the like was that archaeological knowledge was scarcer than today, combined with a tendency to harbor a favorable prejudice towards literary evidence. Even in this respect there are different categories of literary evidence- those of a more narrative nature (like Gregory of Tours, Bede, etc.) are more scarce than evidence from land purchases and disbursements, legal proceedings, etc.

    Additionally, as with the Crusades, computers have been instrumental in recasting the way in which these events and periods are perceived, as they can correlate data more easily and systematically. For example, one common misconception about the Crusades is that many of the Crusaders went off to the Holy Land in hopes of striking it rich. No doubt some did, but on the whole the opposite is actually the case, as crusading was horribly expensive. Even the wealthy often had to sell off land or take loans against them to fund themselves and their entourage.

    Sigh. Now look what you’ve made me do. Apologies for the verbosity. 🙂

  • Apologies for the verbosity.

    In the words of my generation– dude! That ain’t verbose for the amount of actual information conveyed!

    Watch what I say for a notion of verbose minus data conveyed!

  • Thank you for the links.
    I am glad to see that you feel that after some 900 years we are finally getting some proper perspective on the matter! “Make haste slowly” if ever I saw. Please, don’t get me wrong. The prospect of making my way through a mountain of good scholarship wets my whistle. It is just a question for me of pay off. In weighing my time commitments (active practice of the Catholic faith already generates a lot of reading commitments) I’d much rather explore Cluny as an expression of the Catholic theoarchy, aka Christendom, than the relatively small potatoes of the Crusades, except in so far as it relates to the former. Acknowledgment: it is a significant relationship.

    Seeing as you take exception to my “can be whatever you what it to be” stance, what are the Crusades to you? A forgotten-at-best or abused-at-worst historical period that is only now getting the valiant defense it needs or a relishing at the prospect of smacking the anti-historical socialist/leftist/anarchists on the snout? If you don’t like my proffering, feel free to complete this sentence: “The Crusades, to me, represent _____________.”

    Eh? What’s that? You know I’m right? Yes you do.

  • If you don’t like my proffering, feel free to complete this sentence: “The Crusades, to me, represent _____________.”

    I wish I could put this better, but….

    Grow up.

    History isn’t about you, or anyone else.

    History is about what was.

    If you can’t accept that, it says something about YOU, not about then.

    We may not know this-and-that about some other time, but that doesn’t mean that it’s about us. “Then” is ALWAYS about then.

  • The bees fly in swarms, and do not begrudge each other the flowers. It is not so with us. We are not at unity. More eager about his own wrath than his own salvation, each aims his sting against his neighbor.

    St Basil the Great.

  • Good men and women must confront it or evil prevails.

    The issue is that jihadis, liberals, progressives, and other assorted evil persons distort history to support their vile agendae.

    In the case of the Crusades: OBL, et al use the lies to recruit mass murderers. Liberals use the lies support the memes that we deserve to be massacred and that all things Western Civilization must be destroyed.

    I studied the Crusades, particularly the military orders, for edification: try to understand the men and women, and the world views, of the age; and to understand how we got here.

    That was years before Lockerbie and the Beirut bombing. In the 1950’s, NYC Catholic parish schools taught fifth graders that the Crusades also served as an opening of exchanges on various levels of the West to the East . . .

  • Disco is a western sin in a class by itself. Maybe joined by polyester leisure suits.

  • We can never repent too much for those sins cmatt! 🙂

  • All this erudition makes my head hurt. However, I do wish people would check the spelling of their comments. Saying “wets” instead of “whets” completely changes the meaning of the sentence. By the way, the Battle of Lepanto was fought in a strait between the Bay of Corinth and the Ionian Sea. I apologize, but as my old aunt used to say “It’s the little things in life that make it beautiful.”

  • Are we talking all Crusades? What about the Fourth Crusade? (1201-1204). This group of Crusaders were supposed to go directly to Cairo, leaving Europe in June of 1202. They changed course from the Holy Land and took Constantinople on April 12, 1204. Pope Innocent III had issued a solemn ban on attacks on Christian states. The Crusaders were asked for help by members of the feuding Angelos Dynasty. In exchange the Crusaders were to receive land and money. After defeating Alexius V Angelos (who had usurped the throne from his predecessor Alexius IV Angelos, put in power by the Crusaders) they sacked the city desecrating the Most Holy Eucharist, profaning Hagia Sophia, pillaging churches and monasteries, violating nuns, killing priests, raping women and children, stealing countless ikons, relics and manuscripts.
    Bishops and priests were among the Crusaders, none were documented as trying to stop the destruction of the city.
    In mercy and Christian charity, please, please no one say that these sins were brought on by a Byzantine leader or because Latins considered the Byzantines schismatics and therefore somehow justified in this sacrilege. I have heard these pathetic excuses before.
    The Crusaders could recognize the image of our Lord or His all pure Mother in the ikons. The churches of the city were familiar enough to Western eyes to be recognized as churches. What else could be in the golden artophorions on the altars other than the Holy Gifts of the Eucharist? Could the Crusaders not recognize the image of the Lord in those they killed, raped or used as slaves? The defeat of Byzantium, already in great decline, was accelerated so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey of the Muslims. The Fourth Crusade resulted, in the end, in the victory of Islam, which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention of the Crusades.

  • The best work I have read on the Fourth Crusade is Donald Queller and Thomas Madden’s The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople:

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Fourth-Crusade-Conquest-Constantinople/dp/0812217136

    Pope Innocent III of course condemned this misuse of the Crusade. Byzantium was already well on its way to being a military nonfactor before the Latin Empire, created by the conquest of Constantinople, occupied Constantinople until 1261. The recreated Byzantine Empire then endured until 1453, courtesy largely of Turkish internecine conflict and support from the West, most notably the sea power of Venice and the other Italian city states with merchant empires in the east. The popes of course continually called for assistance to the Greeks and other Christians in the East throughout this period, calls which were increasingly ignored as the centuries rolled by.

    The sacking of Constantinople is considered a cause celebre to this day by the Greek Orthodox. I would have more sympathy for this attitude of perpetual high dudgeon if Byzantine armies hadn’t been besieging and sacking cities in the West, including Rome, for many centuries. Internecine strife among Christian polities was never a one way street, and the sack of Constantinpole is usually considered some sort of unique crime and that is simply not the case.

  • (Guest comment by Don’s wife Cathy:) It happened back in the 6th century, Fr. Philip, when Justinian was trying to reconquer Italy back from the Ostrogoths (through generals such as Belisarius and Narses). It’s the backdrop against which L. Sprague de Camp’s alternate history novel Lest Darkness Fall is set (and SF author Harry Turtledove has credited that book with getting him interested enough in Byzantine history to get a Ph.D. in it).

  • Hi Cathy! I have found nothing that states that Justinian or Belisarios sacked Rome. While the war against the Ostrogoths brought suffering to the people of Italy, I cannot find any historical information stating the Imperial forces during battles desecrated churches or violated monastics. I can’t find any reference regarding forces of the Empire of stealing ikons, manuscripts and sacred vessels. I do know that the Ostrogoths were Arians and that Justinian was concerned not only about his control of Italy but also the spread of heresy. War and slaughter are always counter to the mercy of God so Justinian’s way was not good, no question there. But war unfortunately seems to be part of human sinfulness. Still, I find no reference to the type of sinfulness shown by the forces of the Fourth Crusade to people, places and things consecrated to the Lord.
    Regarding alternative history novels, I have read many the works of L. Sprague de Camp, Harry Turtledove and S.M. Stirling. They are, as you said, “alternative history.” When Darkness Falls offers de Camp’s sympathetic view of the benevolence of the Ostrogoths, while that is fine it is not reality. Here is another alternate history option; if Justinian had not fought against the Ostrogoths would Western Christianity be Arian?

  • “if Justinian had not fought against the Ostrogoths would Western Christianity be Arian?”

    Probably not because the war with the Ostrogoths opened the door for the conquest of most of Italy by the Lombards who were also Arian. They were peacefully converted by the Church in the seventh century. Addditionally the Franks had already been converted to the True Faith under Clovis and were quickly becoming a secular mainstay of the Church in the West.

    Rome surrendered during the siege because the Byzantine army brutally sacked Naples in November 536 and the Romans rightfully feared similar treatment. Justinian of course fell into heresy during his reign and had absymal relations with the popes of his time.

  • I was responding to the mention of “alternative history” regarding the Ostrogothic Arianism and the Orthodoxy that Justinian promoted. Cathy mentioned alternative history in response to my earlier post. In the realm of alternative history the Lombards might have never gotten an ascendency. So much for alternative history!

    Objective history (see the only exception I can find below) seems to show that Justinian was a firm proponent of Orthodoxy; he condemned and worked to stamp out heresy during his rule. He made belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation part of the law of the Empire and he stated that the heterodox were to be deprived of due process of law. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was made the only creedal symbol of the Church in his reign and he gave legal force to the canons of the first four Ecumenical Councils. He called the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553, condemning the teachings of Origen and affirming the definitions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon. Justinian also took a very firm stance in his support of Orthodoxy; he fought different heresies throughout his rule. He built churches, including Hagia Sophia and showed a tender devotion for the Mother of God. He lived a moral and pious life.
    The only primary source I can find regarding an accusation of heresy against Justinian is in The Life of St. Eutychios of Constantinople. The hagiographical document accuses Justinian of subscribing to the asartodoketai/aphthartodocetist heresy which taught that the Incarnate Word could not suffer in the flesh. Evagrios the Historian states that Justinian issued a decree imposing this heresy on the Empire. No copy of this decree has been found, nor did any hierarch or Council other than St. Eutychios denounce Justinian for holding this heresy. That St. Eutychios and Justinian were at odds was obvious through other events. Justinian ordered St. Eutychios deposed; there is no mention in primary documents as to why this was done. An accusation of heresy by a hierarch was a good way to denounce an Imperial opponent. Deposition from an episcopal throne by a ruler was a good way to remove an annoying hierarch.
    Justinian and the bishops of Rome did have many serious disputes, though none of the popes ever accused him of heresy.

  • Justinian towards the end of his reign adopted a policy of conciliation towards the Monophysites. Towards the end of his life he adopted aphthartodocetism which is simply Monphysitism under another name. Many Greek Orthodox writers, to whom Justinian is a great champion of Orthodoxy, dispute this but as this passage from J.B. Bury’s History of the Later Roman Empire indicates, I believe the historical record is clear on this point:

    “The Three Chapters was not the last theological enterprise of Justinian. In the last years of his life he adopted the dogma of aphthartodocetism, which had been propagated, as we have seen, by Julian of Halicarnassus, and had sown strife among the Monophysites of Egypt. This change of opinion is generally considered an aberration due to senility; but when we find a learned modern theologian asserting that the aphthartodocetic dogma is a logical development of the Greek doctrine of salvation,we may hesitate to take Justinian’s conversion to it as a sign that his intellectual power had been enfeebled by old age. The Imperial edict in which he dictated the dogma has not been preserved. The Patriarch Eutychius firmly refused to accept it, and the Emperor, not forgetting his success in breaking the will of Vigilius, caused him to be arrested (January 22, A.D. 565). He was first sent to the Island of the Prince and then banished to a monastery at Amasea. The other Patriarchs were unanimous in rejecting the Imperial dogma. Anastasius of Antioch and his bishops addressed to the Emperor a reasoned protest against the edict. Their bold remonstrances enraged Justinian, and he was preparing to deal with them, as he had dealt with Eutychius, when his death relieved the Church from the prospect of a new persecution.”

  • Donald, I know of the recent scholarship that states that Justinian was a heretic. However, there is no statement by the Church that he was. Analysis of writings and documents of Church documents contemporary to the subject do not support the premise that Justinian fell into heresy. The supposed decree ordering the Empire to accept Monophytism either did not exist or cannot be found.

    You state that the Orthodox dispute that Justinian was a heretic and this is true. Does the fact that many Orthodox writers believe Justinian was Orthodox make it untrue? Is this debate about Latin claims versus Orthodox claims?

    You states that many, “Orthodox writers, to whom Justinian is a great champion of Orthodoxy, dispute this but a passage from J.B. Bury’s History of the Later Roman Empire…” proves your point.

    Here is the “other side.”

    Father Asterios Gerostergios (yes, he is one of those Orthodox folks) in his book Justinian the Great, refutes the assertion that Justinian succumbed in his last years to the heresy of aphthartodocetism. The depositions of both Eutychius and Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch cannot be proven to be related to their opposition to the supposed edict.

    “That they were deposed because of their refusal to accept the edict we do not believe to be true because of the following reasons:
    1. The bishop of Northern Africa, Victor, an enemy of the Emperor, mentions the deposition of Eutychius in his Chronicle, but does not give any reasons for the deposition. If he really knew anything about a new edict, and if, further, he knew of Justinian’s acceptance of the aphthartodocetistic heresy, not only would he certainly have mentioned it, but he would also have emphasized the event, in order to defame Justinian’s exiling and imprisoning him.
    2. If Eutychius had been deposed for this reason, his successor, John the Scholastic, would have had to accept such a decree. We have absolutely no information concerning his acceptance of the edict, nor any testimony that he accepted aphthartodocetism. On the contrary, Pope [Saint] Gregory the Great, who was then the papal representative in Constantinople, praises the new patriarch, John, for his holiness and Orthodoxy.
    3. The same Pope Gregory praises Justinian for his Orthodoxy and he makes no mention of the edict. He says that Patriarch Eutychius was an Origenist. For this reason, W. H. Hutton and A. Knecht have stated: this was the cause for Eutychius’ deposition.
    4. When Patriarch Eutychius returned to the throne of Constantinople in 577, he did not mention the reasons for his dethronement.
    5. Bishop John of Ephesus, contrary to Evagrius, makes no mention of what transpired in Antioch concerning the deposition of Anastasius. … For all the above reasons, we can only conclude that Justinian never issued or planned to issue an edict imposing aphthartodocetism. Such an act would have been in antithesis to his whole previous theological work, and it is clear that it would not have helped the overall purpose of unification. Moreover, such a complete change at such an advanced age, we believe to be a totally unnatural thing. With regard to the deposition of the two mentioned Patriarchs, we believe that it was not related to such an edict, because there is no basis for such a conclusion from the contemporary sources. We are of the opinion that their deposition was due to other reasons, probably to their failure to obey the old Emperor.”

    The sad claim that “…aphthartodocetic dogma is a logical development of the Greek doctrine of salvation…” by Bury does not stand up to the reality of the Orthodox view of salvation. Aphthartodocetic heresy is found nowhere in the writings of the Eastern Fathers, later writers, canonical writings, the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy or the lives of the saints. Bury shows his ignorance of Orthodox soteriology and faith. I know of no contemporary Roman Catholic theologian who would hold this view, including the current Pope Benedict. His writings only show admiration for Orthodox soteriology.

Santorum Suspends Campaign

Tuesday, April 10, AD 2012

Well, Mr. Inevitable is indeed inevitable now.

Kudos to Rick Santorum on a race well run.  It is amazing that he managed to accomplish what he did considering his financial resources and his standing at the outset of the race.  Unfortunately it wasn’t enough to overcome Mitt Romney’s considerable resources.  Santorum would have had to run a perfect campaign to win the nomination, and he didn’t.

It is unbelievable to me that Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee.  After the remarkable victories in the 2010 mid-terms and the rise of the tea party movement, this is the best the Republicans can do.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

41 Responses to Santorum Suspends Campaign

  • Well, Gingrich is next to drop out.

  • Santorum came a lot closer to winning the primary contest than today indicates. If Gingrich had dropped out after Florida, the Weathervane might well have been the one tossing in the towel today.

  • This really is the bottom line of it all…
    It is unbelievable to me that Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee. After the remarkable victories in the 2010 mid-terms and the rise of the tea party movement, this is the best the Republicans can do.

    I would add the train wreck that is the state of the nation the incumbent has created. They are being lobbed a ball, and the best they can do is hit a single?

  • I was a Santorum supporter, but I will now campaign hard for Mitt. Obama must go. I cannot wait to see the look on Hussein’s face when the moving trucks pull up.

  • “I cannot wait to see the look on Hussein’s face when the moving trucks pull up.”

    Thank you for that image daledog! I will be working hard also to bring that about!

  • “…this is the best the Republicans can do.”

    My father in law was once Mayor of our town. That was, oh gosh, quite possibly before I was born actually. He retired after two years, a kind of self-imposed “term-limit” way before the term was even invented. According to the well-yellowed news clipping we have, he said he wanted to make sure others had a chance to run and do the job, since he didn’t think city government was that big a deal (meaning, that hard or complicated) a job. The people needed to get involved.

    As I said, that was way back when. Things have changed. I certainly lack the confidence
    to run the town. And running for President is quite a bit different than running for city government (we have had the same group of people for quite some time now in our town), or for Representative (either State or Federal level) or for Senator (State of Federal.)

    There ARE a lot of good, competent, smart people out there, who have no interest in having their lives savaged in the media in order to govern the country. I think Romney may be doing as well as he is doing in the GOP primaries is because people don’t see him as a politician or political insider as much, as say, Gingrich or Santorum. They see him as a business man. Does Romney have a “conservative core” (or any “core” for that matter)? From what I have seen in my own supposedly conservative town, it seems that a lot of people don’t really have a core, or aren’t even necessarily paying attention to what is going on. Some don’t even know who our elected representative is, and he has one of the more powerful governmental positions in DC.

  • I wish he would have stayed in. I hope he will be VP.
    You can say that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.

  • As I said in another forum, this allows me to view the rest of the cycle with a sense of bemused detachment.

    I put Mitt’s chances at no better than 45%, assuming the economy continues to, at best, tread water.

    The press assault on his LDS beliefs is underway. Of course, the elite media will be careful to couch it in terms of “educating the public” about “this mysterious and not well understood religion.” And not, say, as part of a smear job conducted on behalf of their boyfriend on Pennsylvania Avenue. But origins, polygamy, blacks in the priesthood, secret temple ceremonies–all will be played to the worst possible effect.

    In short, it will be effective at turning off independents in the same way that Al Smith’s Catholicism was used against him in 1928. A damnable shame given how fundamentally decent and patriotic your average LDS is. Frankly, I’d take your average Mormon chosen at random from the closest LDS church in favor of Mitt, but…

    All told, Mitt’s electability has always been more far more apparent than real.

  • It is too bad that Santorum couldn’t quite do it – but he does have a future in politics, if he’s so inclined.

    That said, it is time to rally ’round Romney – certainly, not the best possible candidate, but someone who, as the campaign has unfolded, has shown an ever clearer understanding of what is at stake. I still have grave doubts that he understands the revolution which is needed to fix our country, but it could be that events will force him in to a revolutionary path once he takes office – and you can rely on it, Romney will be sworn in on January 20th, 2013. Obama is doomed – don’t believe the stories in the MSM as they are all in the tank for Obama and will just keep churning out the “Obama is going to win” stories until November 2nd or 3rd, when they’ll start to allow a few bits of reality to be quietly reported so they can claim they reported the truth all along.

  • Mitt doesn’t have a prayer no matter who he picks as VP. This will be a rerun of McCain-Obama 2008. Santorum, who has no choice but to back Romney, will find his earlier criticisms used in Obama ads over and over. No matter how hard he tries, Mr. Etch-a-Sketch cannot erase his past.

  • “All told, Mitt’s electability has always been more far more apparent than real.”

    There we will have to agree to disagree Dale. I expect Romney, or almost any other Republican for that matter, to cream Obama around 54-46. I expect the appeal to religious bigotry will be in the Obama arsenal and will be as futile as the other smear tactics that the Southside Messiah will bring to the fore as he flees from his record.

  • D.J. Hesselius: A statesman is imbued with our founding principles and lives for them. A politician learns where the people are vulnerable (abortion, contraception, healthcare) and takes advantage of the people and the situation. (Never let a good crisis go to waste.) The young are intimidated and fear being ridiculed by a militant evil, an atheism that will suffocate freedom in the public square, and with freedom will go Justice. Never before has such evil eliminated our freedoms. Intolerance of evil has become a hate-crime. Disguised as freedom, vice has supplanted virtue, revelry has replaced reverence, pseudo-sophistication has replaced common sense. It is the administration that has become corrupt and is using our freedom to enslave us. If 79 people could foment the Bolshevic Revolt in Russia, 79 good people on the ground level in America can restore constitutional and principled government. We do not need to support golf-playing princes on the backs of our children. We need patriots and statesmen .

  • What makes me so darned mad is that another Primary season passes with Pennsylvania’s views meaning nothing. Perhaps we wouldn’t be in the political mess we are in if our national contests were decided nationally rather than by far Left midget states inYankee land and rural towns in Iowa.

  • AMEN G-Veg…seems that when it comes to May and the Primaries we sit back doing something with our thumbs, twiddling specifically. This is a real disappointment. I am almost discouraged enough with the field of candidates and what appears to be the final choice that has been dropped on us Pennsylvanians to NOT vote…yes that’s what I said. HOWEVER I have a moral and civic duty to vote for the best candidate. Oh how I dread the lines to pull this lever for Mitt “Mr Wrong” Romney!!!

  • It’s times like these I wish I was able to leave the US (if this is the best we can do…)

  • G-Veg What are you talking about?—-are you looking for some national format for primaries? or just for Pennsylvania to be moved up–
    I wish he would have stayed in and PA had voted for him– I think there was a concern that PA was going to go for Romney. I think if he could have stayed in for Texas things could be a lot different.
    I believe the idea of taking our time and going to lots of different states over time to air out the issues is still a good idea.
    If Iowa really had decided the national nominee, Santorum would be the candidate. Another concern for me is that it seems some Powers That Be wanted Romney no matter what the rural towns of Iowa or Pennsylvania want or would want..

  • What I’m not saying is that the race should be decided by PA or any other state alone or in concert with a few. What I am saying is that the flow of the GOP primary has been all wrong for some time and we had better fox it or we’ll continue to select nominees under the “electability” mantra that are as comfortable in the Democratic camp as ours. The center is a losing position if it is already held by a proclaimed centrist.

  • The reason you all are so dang disappointed with Romney and the abismal choice of him or The President is that there is no viable 3rd party and of course because $ dictates. I work hard to be a true centrist and love the definition of statesman Mary De Voe provided.
    We cannot expect much from either side if all we hear as voters is the hatred, anger and immature rhetoric uttered to the other side by everyone not on your side.
    I was for and still am for Ron Paul. I hope his son is more appealing in looks and voice.
    I also hope that we get more statesmen/women instead of politicians to represent us.

  • And by “fox it” I mean “fix it,” not whatever “fox it” might mean. (I don’t do well with the I-Pad hunt and peck.)

  • I agree with you about the flow of the GOP primary– but I don’t think it is structural– or the order of the states primaries as much as it is the seeming unwillingness of Republicans to be positive and supportive and cheerleading for their own candidates– We RUIN OUR OWN FLOW our own mojo, our own momentum… why can’t Republicans just be enthusiastic once!!– always so sour dour pickle face about GOP candidates –and the pickle face that starts in the GOP makes it easy for the D’s . We shoot holes in our own guys constantly saying things like “is this the best we can do?” well that really helps.
    These are actually smart stalwart good men and woman running and we always knuckle under the Ridicule used by the D’s- that is what they are good at and we are vulnerable to.. let’s find the way out of that pattern-or lose.

  • I kind of liked your “fox” it because I’m still miffed at FOX’s systemic support of Romney

  • We loved Palin. We loved Santorum. We love Rubio and Jindal. We are quite enthusiastic about candidates calling us to great things. We just can’t seem to get one of them into the White House.

    I think we are properly cynical and milktoast in our support for candidates that are shoved down ur throats by those claiming great electoral wisdom. I’ll vote for Romney this time with a sour face. Who knows, he might be as conservative as the President is Socialist when he gets in office. If so, I promise to enthusiastically support a second Romney term.

  • I for one am Catholic and tired of being R, D, I or whatever. Romney seems like an elitist and one of the establishment.neither of which I want anymore of. If I don’t like someone I will not be forced to like them even if they (on paper) stand for what we all as Catholics are looking for in a candidate…and no I don’t want Barabas either.

  • OK, longer post.

    Since Perry bowed out and Gingrinch went moon-crazy, I was really hoping (against hope?) for Santorum to come up from behind and get the GOP nomination. (If, hypothetically, Newt dropped out and endorsed Rick, would the Pennsylvanian be able to beat “The Weathervane”?) His current campaign suspension is due primarily to his daughter getting ill, which is perfectly human and understandable.

    Of course, this leaves the nation with two main options for leadership:

    Obama, under whose second term things will be as bad, if not, worse, than his first. An unapologetic liberal whose spending habits, by most accounts, will cause the US economy to cease to exist sometime in the 2020s. As someone who will probably still be alive by that time period, I really, really don’t want that to happen.

    Romney, a.k.a. “The Etch-A-Sketch” and “The Weathervane,” whose primary talent is telling the audience what they want to hear, no matter what that is. On social issues he’s wiffle-waffly at best, a pro-choice liberal at worst. I can count on one hand what might be his (politically) redeeming features – he might be willing to respect the conscience rights of non-liberal types (I think the “taxpayer-supported abortion” part of Romney care was passed by the legislature after he vetoed it), he might try and prevent all of Europe east of Germany and Austria from falling under Russian domimation again (something which Obama, it seems, is all too willing to let happen) and the Pacific Ocean becoming a Red Chinese lake, and maybe, just maybe, he could actually cut the government spending enough so that the US still has an economy while I still live. However, given his support for an ObamaCare-style health plan on the state level back in Mass., I’m still skeptical on that last point.

    Sigh … I really don’t look forward to the 2012 elections now … anyway we can legally, morally work that “line of succession” to get Speaker Boehner in the White House? 😉

  • sorry about all my huffing and puffing– I am just really sad and upset about this
    I don’t think I can come up with any enthusiasm for Romney, and I have never knowingly voted for a pro-abort, which I am afraid he really is….
    I’m the pickle face now

  • Our Republic survived the Depression and FDR’s administration. We really will be OK?

    The President seems more and more like Mad King George every day. He is utterly delusional. His Justice Department is getting spanked again and again. The Pine case is just the latest, but by no means the last beating, Holder will suffer. His signature legislation is coming apart and the far lefties are jumping ship like stoned rats. The Quakers want us out of Afghanistan, the law schools want Guantanamo closed, and California will settle for nothing less than full immigration amnesty.

    President Nero isin deep trouble.

    Even if he wins reelection, he will be so badly damaged that he will have to tinker at the edges of Democracy. So Santorum isn’t the guy… Let’s hold our collective noses, vote Romney, and, win or lose, turn our attention to a GOP landslide at the next mid-term.

  • Paul Ryan/Marco Rubio 2016…Hey why wait?!

  • And by “fox it” I mean “fix it,” not whatever “fox it” might mean. (I don’t do well with the I-Pad hunt and peck.)

    A “foxed” book is one that’s worn on the edges, bent binding, etc. I’d say that things have been quite solidly foxed already….

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • I held my nose and voted for Bush.

    I stuck my finger down my throat and voted for McCain.

    What will I have to do to vote for Romney? I don’t want to know.

    I am done with the whole Lucy and Charlie Brown football game with the elephant party. At least with King Barry, the country gets destroyed quick, and we can rebuild. The elephants are slowly killing us instead.

  • I am convinced that Ryan and Rubio sat this one out solely because conventional wisdom holds that a sitting president is nearly unbeatable. I’m sure they are kicking themselves now.

  • Well, the Republican party did it, and now we will all suffer for it. I, like many people I have talked to, will not vote for Mitt Romney. Since the Republican Party manipulated the primaries and purchased this ticket for Romney against the wishes of the people, they will get what they justly deserve — a brutal beat down. I can’t in good conscience vote for Obama, either. So, I will stay home this November. May God have mercy on us all.

  • How the world is going to survive to another four years of Obama?

    I will pray.

    Romney depends on the economy. He does not have charisma and conservative record. If the employment continue to improve even that gradually, Romney is finished.

    ABO is not enough to win.

  • I don’t know that much about the System– but is there any way the unrest among R’s can grow enough before summer that Santorum could still be tapped for the nomination?

    I do not have as good a feeling about Rubio as some of you apparently do…

  • “Whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.”

    If we poor, exiled children of Eve are happy in this vail of tears, we might not be happy in the Hereafter.

    Bill G: You may have it correct. One may defy the “Gods of the Copy Book Headings” only in the short term. In the long term, we are all dead.

    Obama will use the (open mike) flexibility to finish the job – destroy the American Dream to control we the serfs.

    The main hope is the GOP takes the Senate and keeps the House majority.

  • Folks,

    There is good commentary on Romney at the Crisis Magazine web site:

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/romneys-good-enough

    Hey, Romney IS better (or less bad) than Obama (can’t believe I wrote that, but it’s true).

  • here’s Tony Perkins take on Santorum’s suspension of his campaign –

    http://www.frcaction.org/get.cfm?i=MD12D02

  • “And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
    When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
    As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! “

  • Excellent recap and basic analysis of the Santorum campaign by Mr. Bill O’Reilly. There are a number of lessons to be had from Santorum’s run:

    http://fxn.ws/IGNpGp

  • Mr. Bill O’Reilly’s idea that Santorum failed because Santorum answered questions only go so far- Santorum could have joked the questions off a few times and the press would have mocked that– for not answering.
    Whatever he answered would have been wrong according to them.
    O’Reilly, in effect, piled on by blaming Santorum.
    O’Reilly repeatedly said that most of the candidates should get off the stage. After people complained about lack of respect and recognition of the other candidates he included Santorum and Gingrich just barely– His look-down-his-nose attitude about Santorum continued though, even when he was obligated to cover him after Santorum had some success (even without FOX kingmakers)
    He smiles genially while letting the whole audience know that Santorum is really not quite Big Time, explaining to us about the rookie mistakes, generously adding that he Himself has also made rookie mistakes.

Louisiana Loves Rick

Saturday, March 24, AD 2012

Santorum needed a big victory today in Louisiana, and he got it.  The polls closed at 8:00 PM and the networks called the Pelican state for Santorum immediately.  According to the exit polls Santorum won every demographic except those earning over 200k who went for Romney.  Vote percentages look like they will be in the range of 46-28, with Romney taking the 28.  As in Illinois, Gingrich was a non-factor. This race is supposed to be all over according to most pundits, but I guess someone neglected to tell the good voters of Louisiana.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

64 Responses to Louisiana Loves Rick

  • Romney will still likely be the nominee, but maybe this will signal to him that conservative values do matter.

  • Hey, but Newt did beat Ron Paul out for third place. So at least he’s got that going for him. Which is nice.

  • Just more proof that the South is full of anti-Mormon h8ters!

    /typical Romneybot

  • Camp Romney, so full of class:

    But Romney aides were on the job Saturday night. In Green Bay, a Romney spokesman, Ryan Williams, showed up at the bar where Santorum was holding his election-night event, to make a few disparaging comments and put the Romney campaign’s spin on events. “This is the saddest, most pathetic victory party I’ve ever seen,” an AP reporter quoted Williams saying. “Where are all the supporters?”

    Yeah, they are so unconcerned about Santorum that they are now crashing his events in an effort to belittle him. Sure signs of a confident frontrunner.

  • God bless you Rick!

  • Still holding on to the barest of hopes. Hang tough Santorum. Some of us dissident Catholics, from the right, are pulling for you.

  • The hope and a likely one is that Romney will be blocked from 1,144 and this goes to Tampa. However, the question remains, Rick or Newt?

    Rick Santorum is happy that the Republican Party violates the principle of subsidiarity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-WezrKqUBQ&feature=player_embedded

    One Catholic wants to oppose those who want to reign in the profligate spending; the other Catholic wants the spending reigned in. What is the Social Doctrine about stewardship again? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8smmN5QWf8&feature=related

    How Catholic is it to frivolously spend other people’s money when in a position of trust? It seems the only time Rick was against spending was when Newt was Speaker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd_2E4ILxPw&feature=related

    Private manipulation of the money supply at a whim based on nothing is usury. What does the Church teach about usury? This video is hard to hear, but Rick says that we want inflation!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9l124ellWdY

    Voting for Title X may not be avoidable because it is embedded in larger bills; however, should a Catholic be proud of funding contraception, especially through the largest abortion provider? This is on Tom Woods’ website (although it is a clip from Fox News.) Woods is a libertarian, which is a problematic materialist ideology for Catholics; however, Dr. Woods is a faithful Catholic and as regards this issue there is no conflict with CSD. http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/santorum-boasts-of-funding-planned-parenthood/

    Me thinks perhaps Rick’s personal Catholic faith does not translate into his politics. This is probably a lack of aptitude; rather than a flaw in principle. Do you want a candidate who lacks capacity as a leader? Rick seems to be easily swayed by Washington politics. I think we may be better off with proven leadership. Newt has the record, the capacity, the leadership and since his last time in office, he has come into full communion with the Church. Think and pray hard, before supporting Santorum.

  • The media have already explained that this victory in Louisiana doesn’t mean a damned thing. They’ll say the same thing about any other electoral success Santorum may have.
    And if, God forbid, his campaign ever does show signs of growing vitality, they will ask him about abortion or some such thing. He will answer honestly, and they will then jump all over him for lack of focus, for not giving proper attention to the Real Issues that Concern the American People.

  • AK, your dedication to Gingirich is admirable. The man has won two states, and is basically battling Ron Paul or third place in most of the rest. He set up camp in Louisiana for a week, and he won about 16% of the vote. He has as much of a chance to be the nominee as I do. Even if it comes to a convention battle, the rules would actually prohibit Gingrich (and Paul) from being on the the ballot, and I doubt that a guy who won 2 states during the entire process is somehow going to come out of a brokered convention as the nominee.

  • Paul, there is no need to admire my dedication, as a Catholic I am committed to lost causes, after all, at the request of the Sanhedrin, the Romans killed my God – what could be more hopeless than that?

    Newt needs to win three more states and we are only at half-time – it is possible, although not in the primary, but at Tampa. The fact is that until he is out, he’s the one. I will consider Santorum (despite the problems I posted above) and then I may have to move on to Goode, assuming he wins the CP nomination. I pray it does not come to that. Stranger things have happened in past conventions.

    Nevertheless, no one can discount Newt’s commitment and service to this country and as long as he fights for us, I will support him. My naturally skeptical temperament, leads me to think voter manipulation is going on. Why are Romney and Santorum so afraid to debate Newt? Why should I have confidence in either of them to debate and defeat Obama when they cannot even stand on a public, unscripted stage with a colleague?

    I fear Santorum is being set-up as a patsy and for that matter Romney is probably just another Dole/McCain. As Obama sets-up an anti-Church, it seems those who fear organized religion have never been Catholic, we are far from organized.

  • There is a lot of interest in the Republican primary. Although turnout was very low (at my polling place, the workers were delighted to see someone show up), it was in fact a record turnout for a Republican primary in the state. If voter interest remains this high, and turnout follows, I don’t see how Barack Obama will win.

  • Romney’s turnout is less than McCain’s.

    Santorum’s turnout is 20% Democrats (op: hilarity)

    Newt’s turnout, when he is given a chance to speak, is high.

    If we want to beat BHO, we need to have more debates and let Newt speak to the people instead of hearing him on the Mitt Romney News Network formerly known as Fox News.

  • Santorum’s turnout is 20% Democrats (op: hilarity)

    ….Kinda like Limbaugh’s?

  • I didn’t know Limbaugh was in the race.

  • I didn’t know the race was won by who put on the best show when he talks.

  • Newt needs to win three more states and we are only at half-time – it is possible

    Newt is not going to win three more states. He’s not going to win one more state. His main base of support was in the southeast, and he has now failed even there with two exceptions.

    If a man walks into the convention having won two states and somehow is selected as the party’s nominee, then the primary process should be disbanded post haste. I say this as someone who far prefers Gingrich to Romney. But Gingrich has shown absolutely no ability actually win votes. It would be a grave injustice for him to be the nominee barring a miracle comeback, a comeback that would merely distance him from Ron Paul.

  • Paul, you have a right to political pragmatism, I am far more hopeful and I know the outcome is God’s, but I have to account for my actions in this moment. I don’t know that Romney will win, reason indicates that is likely, but not inevitable. If I relied on reason alone – I’d have a tough time being Catholic.

    Newt is right and he’s in the fight – I will support him until there is a winner. Victory or death!

  • Wow. The overall sarcasm and ignorance that permeates this site is astounding. Santorum is by no means a “perfect candidate.” It seems to be that the consensus here is: “Oh, look. Santorum. He is Catholic. He prays. He has seven kids. He goes to Church and receives the sacraments. He is a homeschool daddy. Hey, we want him running our country.” Oh yes, these are the necessary qualifications for a presidential candidate.

    It appears as if there is an unwillingness to look at our options on the other hand. Here we have two candidates, both are Catholic. Neither one of them is lily white. Everyone has their own collection of weaknesses and flaws for every person is human, and last I checked, no such being is perfect (Blessed Mother aside, dear Catholics). Sure, it just so happens that Gingrich’s past has the appearance of being quite contrary to the ideal moral code as projected so wonderfully by Mr. Santorum. Sure, he has had a number of wives and perhaps a few mistresses. But who said that there is no forgiveness for sinners? Are any of you, dear Catholics, aware of the fact that Gingrich has repented of his past and his marriage is validly sanctioned by the Church? When questioned on the issue of gay marriage, Gingrich was the FIRST and ONLY candidate to say that marriage is a SACRAMENT between a man and a woman. Hey, and aren’t there two Catholic candidates out there? Hmm… Last I checked there was.

    The mere fact that a man is Catholic, has a large Catholic family, and a lovely Catholic wife does not make him the ideal man for the job as President of the United States in 2012 when the world is in this state of turmoil. And yes, dear Catholics, there is more at stake in this insane world at this insane time then prolife issues (of which, by the way, Gingrich also has proven to be a valiant defender). The world looks to the United States for its leadership, and we need a man of character who is not afraid to stand up for Liberty and Justice for all.

  • American Knight, well said. Kudos!

  • I continue to support Romney for President as do many of my fellow Catholics. Obviously as a Catholic, I wish Romney would convert to Catholicism. And as a hard-working American, I wish Rick Santorum would find some honest work that he can do well and go do that.

  • , you have a right to political pragmatism,

    If this were about pragmatism, I would not be voting for Rick Santorum and refusing to support Mitt Romney.

    The overall sarcasm and ignorance that permeates this site is astounding.

    Followed by an endless stream of sarcasm.

    Newt’s previous marriage peccadilloes are not the main reason I have chosen to support Santorum, and certainly not the reason he’s being rejected by 80+ percent of the GOP electorate. So that entire paragraph is rather beside the point.

    The mere fact that a man is Catholic, has a large Catholic family, and a lovely Catholic wife does not make him the ideal man for the job as President of the United States in 2012 when the world is in this state of turmoil.

    That’s true. It’s a good thing that’s not the principle reason people are supporting Santorum.

    And as a hard-working American, I wish Rick Santorum would find some honest work that he can do well and go do that.

    Ah, the arrogance of Romney supporters. Totally working to change the minds of would-be Republican voters across the land. Maybe one day one of you guys will provide an actual, substantive reason to support this man in the general. Until then, yawn.

  • Geeze, Paul, don’t you realize the only possible reason folks would pick Rick over Mittens is religious bias? It can’t be that folks actually agree with Santorum, or think Romney would lose, is unreliable or doesn’t really believe a lot of what he claims…..

    Also, it’s very unkind of you to ignore the hard work that so many of our commenters put into making their strawmen! Like they say… it’s not so much what folks don’t know, as what they know that just ain’t so.

  • To support Romney for President is to tell your only daughter that her $15,000 wedding dinner is Wonder Bread and mashed potatoes.

    It’s like saying “We went on the celebrity-spotting vacation of a lifetime to North Dakota (with apologies to that fine, booming, independent state.)

    It’s like saving up to get the car you’ve wanted ever since you were a kid – an ’86 Buick Regal.

    It’s like believing that Barbie and Ken really are the representation of what ideal neighbors should be, anatomy and all.

    Enough with all this Bald Eagle business! The national symbol is The Sheep! See how powerful our nominee is!

    “Well, Bob, who’s our guy?” “Well, Bob, we can’t have anybody who doesn’t walk, talk, comb, smell, spend or dress exactly like we do, eh?” “Well, Bob, that’s right, because difference is bad.” “Well, Bob, truer words were never spoken, because being different and thinking indpendently lead to questions of authority.” “Well, Bob, you got that right, and we sure don’t want our authority questioned.” “Well, Bob . . .”

    The reason Romney supporters like his press so much is because they and newspapers are basically informed the same way. Copy after copy after copy after copy after copy . . .

    Vote Romney, because thinking is for wigged-out non-conformists!

    The nominee should be Romney. After all, the current White House occupant is the exact opposite of what all moral, freedom-loving Americans would want as the chief executive, and the GOP still believes in a fair fight.

    Ahh. That’s better.

  • True, Foxfier. Perhaps if I just blamed the media they would understand my point better.

  • Paul, I figured sarcasm would convey the message effectively as it seems to be the language used here.

    Although you claim not to vote for Santorum based on his Catholic background, the truth is that Santorum uses his “Catholicity” as a primary reason why America should elect him. Listen to what he says. Tell me this not so.

    80+ percent of the GOP electorate has rejected Newt? Gee, I wonder why. The media has been trashing Gingrich from the start. Voters have been convinced that the only way to not get Romney as the nominee is to give Santorum their support. And it is not just the media, but the Republican establishment as well.

  • When asked, most people state they would love to see Gingrich bring truth and clarity to debate Obama, exposing the lies and hypocrisy of this Administration. it seems to me that Gingrich is doing just that…speaking truth directly to the Obama Administration and exposing their tactics and lies. Gingrich has been given talents and gifts from God to use for Gods’ glory. Often, though not perfectly, Gingrich anticipates the direction of the Left. (I think he has learned from the sitting on the couch with Pelosi incident). Two recent examples are energy and Trayvon Martin. Gingrich began articulating the facts about the current energy supply situation and followed with providing a clear plan about how to change direction resulting in decreased energy cost. His speaking Truth to Power brought President Obama out of the White House on a Green Energy Speaking Tour to defend his position. Newt then goes to expose the falsity of the Presidents’ position with FACTS…history. “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it,”- Winston Churchill. The second example pertains to the tragic Trayvon Martin death. The President stated that if he had a son he would look like Trayvon Martin. Gingrich immediately responded recognizing that the agenda of the White House was to exploit this tragedy in the name of Racism. (Remember how the word racist was used to describe those who would not vote for Obama. In fact, many Catholics also used the racist label.) Gingrich stated that the President is trying to make this into a racial incident. He further added “It is not a question of who the young man looked like….any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified, no matter what the ethnic background.” Santorum before knowing the facts (which is not acceptable for a Presidential Candidate in this stage of the game) stated of Zimmerman that he “has a very sick mind” and a “malicious” motive. More pandering? More superior rhetoric? (Santorum has a history of pandering and of compromising life positions to be a team player.) Has any one viewed the recent comments by the Black Panthers? Please do, it will send chills down your spine. The Black Panthers are now calling for the death of Mr. Zimmerman and Presidential Candidate Santorum played right into the set-up. (Remember the incident in on Election Day when the Black Panthers were involved in voter intimidation through violence?) I wonder if that is why Obama needs 1 Billion dollars to spend on his re-election campaign? Perhaps Acorn needs a little financial motivation to ensure Obama has another 4 years in the White House? THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES! Wake up Catholics!!! Examine all the facts and examine current behavior. If you don’t, we are doomed to repeat history at the cost of liberty and lives.

  • Although you claim not to vote for Santorum based on his Catholic background, the truth is that Santorum uses his “Catholicity” as a primary reason why America should elect him. Listen to what he says. Tell me this not so.

    It’s not so.

    He’s a SoCon/FisCon that seems to truly believe his own rhetoric, is idealistic without being unwilling to try to be realistic, and isn’t willing to disavow his religion just to get votes.

    Heaven forbid we have an unapologetic believer– must attack, claim that the only reason people support him is the religion! Even though, oops, Newt is Catholic as well….

  • Yeah…

    Foxfier, it is so nice to know that you “agree” with Santorum. And yeah, I guess when a post makes sense it has to be the result of “hard work.”

  • …and oops! The world knows Newt is Catholic. He just runs on more substance than this mere fact.

  • Don’t worry, Boston, when you start making good sense, we’ll let you know. Try making arguments with facts and avoid making up stuff about why others would support a candidate you don’t prefer.

  • Perhaps if I just blamed the media they would understand my point better.

    80+ percent of the GOP electorate has rejected Newt? Gee, I wonder why. The media has been trashing Gingrich from the start

    Yup.

    Voters have been convinced that the only way to not get Romney as the nominee is to give Santorum their support.

    Yes, Santorum is just loved and revered by the establishment and the media.

    Look guys, is it time to consider that maybe, just maybe, the reason that voters have rejected Gingrich is because they have evaluated him and found him wanting? I know it’s easier to just chalk Gingrich’s failure – and yes, with 3/5 of the primaries in the books, we can call him a failed candidate – up to media negativity or some dark conspiracy, but the fact is the man just has failed to demonstrate that he is more than just a one trick pony.

    By the way, I say this to Santorum supporters as well. If Mitt Romney wins the nomination he will have done so with the aid of establishment support, of course. But at some point we actually have to hold voters themselves to account for their decisions, and a plurality (though nowhere near a majority) of GOP voters have expressed their support for Romney. There’s no use throwing a hissy fit about it. Accept it, though we don’t have to accept the candidate they give us.

  • By the way, Gingrich fans have officially become as shrill as Paulistas.

  • Foxfier,

    Ha… Oh of course I don’t make sense. I’m presenting another point of view. We must dismiss people who disagree as…well…stupid people who “make stuff up.” Haha hey, sorry, I’m laughing at you.

  • No Boston, you’ve just failed to offer any substantive rebuttal to anything anyone has said.

  • Hey, Beantown:

    It seems to be that the consensus here is: “Oh, look. Santorum. He is Catholic. He prays. He has seven kids. He goes to Church and receives the sacraments. He is a homeschool daddy. Hey, we want him running our country.” Oh yes, these are the necessary qualifications for a presidential candidate.

    Next time you want to discuss the merits of a particular candidate, how about letting the proponents of that candidate explain why they support him? Instead of, say, handing them risible talking points that you think *really* explain why they want to vote for him?

  • I like that some state that Boston makes no sense and fail to state why. Brilliant! Boston seems quite cogent to me. Of course, I am Newt-bot in the mold of Paul-bots. Right? Could it be that those with no moral grounding and a natural thirst for liberty are attracted to Dr. Paul because he presents a consistent, principled position (despite that it is strictly materialist and therefore flawed). Could it be that those of us with a moral grounding support Speaker Gingrich for the same reason? May we be wary of flexible candidates and yes, I include Rick, although not as significantly as the snake-oil salesman Myth RINO-Money.

    The fact is that Romney is a terrible candidate and the only chance he has of winning is because BHO may be his own worst enemy. Good job Republicans put up a milquetoast, deceitful candidate and hope that Obama’s ineptitude takes on Bidenesque proportions (needs be in order to overcome the Fourth Estate’s commitment to severe progressivism.) The same media that is tuned in the other direction against Newt (that may tell you something if you think about it, especially when you throw in the Mitt Romney Network formerly known as Fox News.) Speaking of Biden, no not Joe ‘BFD’, Rick ‘right-wing Biden’ Santorum. He is almost as terrible a candidate as Romney, in a different way.

    I do not call into question Mr. Santorum’s faith or the personal practice of it, I am merely saying that he may have failed to discern his true vocation because he is an awful public representative. The record is clear, he is not very effective at accomplishing authentically conservative policies without glaring compromise and he actually articulates strong and proud support for policies contrary to Catholic Social Doctrine. Newt on the other hand, before he came into communion and while he was a vile sinner (like most of the rest of us) was more effective at actuating Catholic Social Doctrine in public policy and now he is a proud defender of Holy Mother Church and quite pithy and articulate (No BS.)

    There are two Catholic men in this race – there is only one Catholic candidate and his name is Newt!

  • The record is clear, [Santorum] is not very effective at accomplishing authentically conservative policies without glaring compromise and he actually articulates strong and proud support for policies contrary to Catholic Social Doctrine. Newt on the other hand,

    Welfare reform rebuts the first half, and rather thoroughly.

    With respect to the second, what was Newt’s record on Title X, and if he voted in favor of it, has he repudiated it?

  • And to call Rick a “right wing Biden” is…well, it refutes itself.

  • I refer to Santorum’s Bidenesque gaffes, most recently Bovine Scatology.

    Welfare reform was part of the Contract with America and that was clearly a Gingrich-lead initiative and in some ways against the party that ousted him shortly after the success. Title X is an insidious evil and I think most pro-life reps have had to vote for it within the larger appropriations bills; however, Newt has never said he is proud for having done it, Rick has (rather Bidenesque, no?)

    Again, Rick may be a moral guy and faithful Catholic, I have no reason to suspect otherwise, but as a candidate he is sorely lacking and his victories are coming from blind support due to his religiosity, Democratic sabotage and a natural impulse for traditional people to strongly dislike Myth RINO-Money, but the media/pundit bombardment has convinced them that Newt can’t win. The fact is that Romney and Santorum can’t win, else why are the both afraid to debate Newt?

  • I refer to Santorum’s Bidenesque gaffes, most recently Bovine Scatology.

    How is that a gaffe? Or is it that only Newt is permitted to express contempt for the media?

    Welfare reform was part of the Contract with America and that was clearly a Gingrich-lead initiative

    Speaking of bovine excrement, the Gingrich hagriophers would have you believe that Newt single-handedly carried the day on this issue, and no other Republicans had any input. Not exactly the case.

    but as a candidate he is sorely lacking and his victories are coming from blind support due to his religiosity,

    He’s sorely lacking as a candidate? Unlike your guy, he’s actually winning elections. He’s connecting with the voters in a way that Gingrich has been unable to. And it’s not his religiosity so much as the fact that he’s the only candidate to present a consistent conservative platform – not just fiscal, but social issues as well.

    but the media/pundit bombardment has convinced them that Newt can’t win

    Could be that the fact that he hasn’t, you know, actually won anything (other than SC and GA).

    The fact is that Romney and Santorum can’t win

    Yes, except for the 25 of 27 states that they’ve won between them, there’s no way these two could win.

    else why are the both afraid to debate Newt?

    You mean other than the 30+ times they’ve debated him?

  • The fact is that Romney and Santorum can’t win, else why are the both afraid to debate Newt?

    Yeah, why won’t they go up against the third place guy who’s really good at talking?

    If they lose, they’re hurt, and if they win… um… who cares?

    I like that some state that Boston makes no sense and fail to state why.

    Really?

    1) I’m the only one that mentioned sense and Boston, and I said he didn’t make good sense, in direct response to his unsupported claim that making sense is why we don’t like his claims. (Part of his attempt to put his own arm out of socket while patting himself on the back. Complements really should be offered by others….)
    2) If you read back, you should find that the stated problem is he makes flatly false claims and doesn’t bother to use facts or good arguments.

  • You mean other than the 30+ times they’ve debated him?

    I took it to mean a one-on-one event.

    Because “Newt can’t argue his way out of a paper bag” is part of why folks don’t like him. *cough*SARCASM*cough*
    Most folks I’ve heard talk about Newt will even specifically mention how good he is at talking, and especially admiring that he challenges the assumptions that the overwhelmingly liberal debate leaders offered.

    And it’s not his religiosity so much as the fact that he’s the only candidate to present a consistent conservative platform – not just fiscal, but social issues as well.

    Ding ding ding.

  • No, Santorum wrote the welfare reform bill.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/rick-santorum-and-welfare-reform-fact-checker-biography/2012/01/12/gIQAmmUTtP_blog.html

    And, seriously–blowing up at an Obama suck-up (this is the same guy who asked the President what he found “enchanting” about the job) reporter at the NY Times is disqualifying now? Bush called Adam Clymer an “a–hole”–quite accurately. Recognizing that the media is not your friend is a good attribute in a GOP candidate.

    his victories are coming from blind support due to his religiosity

    Repeating this over and over doesn’t make it true.

    Finally, the splinter of Title X support is rather less than the beam of supporting embryonic stem-cell research:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/283696/gingrichs-stem-cell-history-ramesh-ponnuru

  • They won 25 of 27 states amongst themselves, not against Obama – that’s like winning in a team scrimmage, and expecting that to be a predictor of your chances at the Super Bowl.

    Right now, it seems the best thing the GOP has going for it is Obama, and Obama the GOP. How that will play out, who knows (my guess is it depends upon the price of gasoline in October).

  • Why do you assume that Boston is a woman?

    Santorum the consistent conservative, hmmm?
    He is proud that the Republicans moved away from smaller government that does less. That sounds pretty progressive, not very conservative.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-WezrKqUBQ&feature=player_embedded
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8smmN5QWf8&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpy9BqEoi64
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv_Fp8tSlVs&feature=endscreen&NR=1

    Newt is not winning because he fails to connect, but we are accused of having Paul-like support for Newt. Whatever you think of that, it is a strong connection. Of course with no more debates (hey do you think new information has come to light, new issues, new problems since the last debate that we may want to know where the future president stands before we put him up as the standard bearer), the entire media establishment and 15-1 spending against, that it may be a little difficult to win with an electorate that thinks with its feelings, rather than seeking facts – not to mention the organized (DNC Chair) Democratic support for Santorum? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NapDB_lwv9U

    The Cheerful Warrior has been fighting on principle for over years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhm6-NSk92k&feature=related

  • Did Newt’s position on embryonic stem-cell research change after he came into full communion with the Church?

    Me thinks some people are behaving like the prodigal son’s older brother.

  • It is important for us to have vigorous debate, but let us remember that on the following we can all agree:

  • Why do you assume that Boston is a woman?

    ???
    That’s left-field… I was expecting the usual “what makes you think Boston is a man” response, since I only said “he” about five times in a single sentence, since the name “Boston” doesn’t indicate a sex and there’s no icon or link to a bio. Even had the quote from the Iron Lady about ‘in language, as in life’ ready.

    Interesting how when claims are refuted, they just get dropped for a new target, eh?

  • I mistyped, I meant to write, “what makes you think Boston isn’t a woman?” It is an aside, I wasn’t deflecting. Feel free to ignore, but the rest of my post, that is a little more difficult to ignore.

  • Feel free to ignore, but the rest of my post, that is a little more difficult to ignore.

    Not really, I never watch videos when folks can’t be bothered to state exactly what they’re trying to show. It requires first having the time to set and watch, then figuring out exactly what they’re targeting, then researching the context, and then laying it all out. No, thanks, not building someone’s argument for them just so I can then do the work of responding to it.

    Speaking of showing, interesting that before the block’o’vids you mention sounding conservative or progressive.
    Talk is cheap, especially with politicians, and it’s rather funny for someone supporting Newt to say he wants to be sure where a politician stands.
    (Or should that be sits, and next to Pelosi?)

  • It is your prerogative to prevent those inconvenient facts from getting in the way of your preconceived notions. I think this discussion is over.

    Pray for guidance before blindly supporting a candidate. I am glad most are supporting Santorum over the others; unfortunately, I think he is a bad candidate, but at least he is a good man. I can’t say that about the others (save perhaps Dr. Paul.)

  • It is your prerogative to prevent those inconvenient facts from getting in the way of your preconceived notions. I think this discussion is over.

    That is quite a dishonest take-away from my refusing to watch a bunch of out-of-context clips a that you couldn’t even be bothered to do more than link to, figure out what argument you’re trying to make– “he sounds progressive!” isn’t an argument– find out the context, and then refute whatever argument I just read out of your vague claims.

    Pray for guidance before blindly supporting a candidate.

    You go ahead and blindly support a candidate– I prefer to take things in context, with information and good arguments, and support the one that I think is the best of what’s available.

    Have fun playing martyr, though.

  • Did Newt’s position on embryonic stem-cell research change after he came into full communion with the Church?

    If you’d read the link, apparently not.

  • AK–great links. Santorum, God bless him, he is in no way as articulate as Newt, nor is he able to speak truth to power with the same clarity as Newt. Yesterday he even was caught going on and on accusing a reporter of playing “got ya politics”. In my view it was Santorum trying to play “got ya politics” – knowing full well the cameras were rolling he wanted to prove he is a man and can handle the media with his daughter snickering in the background.

  • Thanks Tess. It is sad but true about Rick. God guy, bad candidate. He probably did not discern the right vocation for his talent. I’m thinking prize fighter or attorney, oh wait.

    I find it so odd, that Catholics, especially at a time of persecution, are so easy to dismiss the guy who has been leading the charge for decades.

    Tweet #250gas #withNewt and get as many people as you can to give something. $2.50 and prayer – there are allegedly 65 million of us. Just dump your anti-marriege Starbucks that costs $4.05 and give to Newt. Come on people.

  • Santorum, God bless him, he is in no way as articulate as Newt, nor is he able to speak truth to power with the same clarity as Newt.

    Hogwash. Long before I supported Santorum and had decided which candidate to support, I found Santorum to be a much more persuasive speaker. Newt is good at bluster, and therefore I understand why he appeals to who he appeals to. But in terms of going beyond the surface and explaining first principles, Santorum is far preferable to Gingrich.

    By the way I find it hysterical that Gingrich supporters are calling out Santorum for his treatment of the press when the only reason Gingrich ever rose in the polls in the first place was because he berated the media. When it’s not your guy doing it, suddenly it’s unprofessional. Right.

  • Better than Gingrich—are you serious? The confederacy of dunces has risen against us all!!!!!!!

  • “How is it that so many persons, even Catholic persons, are now clairvoyant, able to read the heart of of others?”

    By their actions Tess. Anyone who seriously contends that Newt does not have a giant ego simply has not been paying attention to his career.

    As faithful readers of this blog know, I have written several posts praising Gingrich for his attacking the media and highlighting their double standards. I am not blind to either Newt’s considerable strengths or his considerable weaknesses. In regard to the campaign he had his moments and now his time as a serious candidate has ended. He is doing nothing of a positive nature now by staying in on what has become a pointless vanity tour.

  • Better than Gingrich—are you serious? The confederacy of dunces has risen against us all!!!!!!!

    Ah, that delightful go-to– “nuh-uh, you’re a dummy!”

  • Donald M. Thank you for your polite response. Agreed , each candidate possesses strengths and weaknesses. Your characterization of Newt’s continued candidacy as being merely a vanity tour both saddens and complexes me. Am I to understand that if a person is endowed with intelligence and has the experience and skill set to lead, then that person should pretend he doesn’t ? Aren’t we instructed by Christ Himself to use our God given talents and gifts for the glory of the Father? Pretending one does not possess certain talents, isn’t that false humility?

    Newt realizes he is not able to obtain the required delegates. His intention it appears to me is to keep bringing the debate to Obama, thereby helping the Republican cause whomever the nominee may be. With the current Obama media bias and blackout, Newt is bringing out into the open things the media and Obama would rather be shrouded in confusion and darkness. Also, are you really sure Santorum is ready for prime time considering his recent gaffes?

So Which Is It?

Wednesday, March 21, AD 2012

In light of yesterday’s post about Morning Minion’s challenges to Rick Santorum’s authentic Catholicity, I found this column at the Huffington Post to be quite interesting.  (Vox Nova and Huffington Post mentioned on the same blog post?  Please, do not panic.  You eyes will not explode.)  If you recall, this is one of the claims that Tony made about Santorum:

Santorum defines his theology as stemming from the bible (Protestant) as opposed to the single sacred deposit of the Word of God comprising sacred scripture and sacred tradition (Catholic).

On the other hand, Professor Howard Schreber observes:

Rick Santorum is a case in point. Santorum’s is a specifically Catholic form of faith. The recent flap over contraception is only an example of a much deeper phenomenon. As observers have noted, he talks frequently about natural law, but rarely quotes the Bible directly — his arguments draw on a theologically informed view of the nature of the world, not a personal relationship with the text.

Indeed, in the past Santorum has been quite forthright about the fact that he does not look to the Bible for guidance, he relies quite properly on the guidance of the Church. There is obviously nothing wrong with that … but it sits very curiously with traditional Evangelical Protestant attitudes.

Now, one of these individuals sounds more intimately familiar with what Rick Santorum has actually written and said in his life.  I’ll leave it to you to guess which one.

I think that Shreber both overstates the connection between conservative Evangelicals and Catholics and understates the broad schism that still lingers at the heart of their respective philosophies (both theological and political).  But his post is worth a read.

Less worthy of your time – this screed by Daniel Nichols, which concludes thusly:

This is a man [Santorum], in the final analysis, despite his piety, is willing to contradict what his Church teaches to serve America.

This, my friends, is idolatry.

To choose Rick Santorum for president is to choose Nation over Church, this world over heaven, and Mammon over God.

When the secular left has a less unhinged view of Catholic candidates than the Catholic left, and is more willing to engage in actual analysis of what Catholic candidates stand for, we’re in for a world of trouble.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

8 Responses to So Which Is It?

  • Daniel’s gold standard is actually recriminatory pseudo-pacifism, conjoined to a loathing of the State of Israel.

  • For some reason, I failed to recognize myself or other Santorum supporters in Nichols’ hatefest.

    Probably because I’m so tired from constant prostrations before statues of Uncle Sam and Ayn Rand.

  • It’s either lies or nonsense.

    Sacred Catholic tradition only applies when convenient to liberal liars (I repeated myself again).

    I remember before becoming completely hateful, A. Sullivan wrote this of Pope John Paul II’s opposition to the US/UK invasion of Iraq: He called the Pope’s stand, ” . . . traditional Catholic anti-semitism.”

  • One liberal criticizes Santorum one way. Another liberal accuses Santorum of being just the opposite and uses that to criticize him. But liberals of course are never wrong even when one says one thing and the other the diametrically opposite.

    BTW, liberals are never right, either. Why? Because they are left! Ha! Ha! Ha!

    I just can’t bring myself to read either the Huffington Post or Vox Nova or anything liberal. Putting feces back intio my brain after God took out so much feces out simply seems counter-productive (and an insult to Him).

  • “When the secular left has a less unhinged view of Catholic candidates than the Catholic left, and is more willing to engage in actual analysis of what Catholic candidates stand for, we’re in for a world of trouble.”

    Paul Z., you’ll have to excuse the catholic left for its unhinged views in toto. Can you just imagine the cognitive dissonance you would have trying to be catholic and anti-Catholic simultaneously? The secular left has a much easier job by comparison.

  • Oddly, Morning Minion would not have followed Catholic tradition (which he praises really only in its modern socially active forms) from 1253 A.D. when Pope Innocent IV made burning heretics mandatory on secular rulers til about 1816 when Pius VII stopped torture in the papal states. On the internet, all things papal- tradition are mistakenly infallible…like the most fleeting intellectual foray into the death penalty issue by two recent Popes.
    Morning Minion would have been Quaker in the 18th century on slavery rather than tolerating the four exceptions that Catholic theologians of the time permitted to Catholics (hence the Jesuits had 500 slaves in the US in 1836 despite bulls which only seemed to be absolute on slavery).
    Morning Minion would not have been criticizing pick and choose Catholics in 1520 when Pope Leo X supported burning heretics nearly 300 years after Innocent IV made it mandatory on seculars. For those unused to me, I do not support burning heretics. Christ made a point to twice praise the Samaritans for actions despite their rejection of the OT canon. I do support Catholics using their brain when the non infallible papal thoughts are present. Thankfully no Catholics right or left have taken to their heart Benedict’s odd love of a world authority in Caritas in Veritate:
    “for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago.”.
    Thanks…but no thanks…what if Obama or the like rises to its apex.

  • While Daniel Nichols has the underlying kneejerk sensibilities of the typical american liberal, but that is where the similarity to him and morning minion ends.

    Daniel Nichols sees the world through traditional Catholic eyes, abeit eyes clouded by his kneejerk liberalism.

    For all practical purposes Santorum and morning minion are cut from the same cloth. In fact morning minion has far more in common with those who write on this blog, American Catholic, than he has with Daniel Nichols.

    Daniel is correct in his depiction of Santorum because he actually recognizes Santorums feet of clay for what they are, and names those errors. Where as morning minion detests Santorum because morning minion is a democratic shill.

  • Daniel Nichols sees the world through traditional Catholic eyes, abeit eyes clouded by his kneejerk liberalism.

    I’ve been arguing with Daniel Nichols for five or six years now. The most salient aspect of his utterances cannot be characterized as ‘traditional Catholic’ or ‘liberal’. Words like ‘spite’ and ‘animosity’ would have to be employed to describe things.

Pope Tony Excommunicates Santorum

Tuesday, March 20, AD 2012

Well that’s certainly how I read this screed by Morning’s Minion.  It seems that Rick has offended the Magisterium of Vox Nova.

I get annoyed by silly media talk of Santorum’s connections to Opus Dei, everybody’s favorite dark and sinister Catholic cloak-and-dagger society.

Such a promising beginning.  Then it unravels.

The underlying assumption is that Santorum is a deeply orthodox Catholic, with a whiff of old-school authoritarianism about him. But this is nonsense. Opus Dei is a traditionalist Catholic group, heavily influenced by Spanish spirituality. It’s not my cup of tea, but it puts strong emphasis on fidelity to Church teachings, and I assume that means all Church teachings. Santorum, on the other hand, is a classic American right-wing liberal, picking and choosing his Church teachings, and with a spirituality that seems far more evangelical than Catholic. It is no accident that Santorum’s core support comes from right-wing evangelicals, not Catholics. Opus Dei has a vaguely “foreign” feel in the United States. Nobody could possibly say that about Santorum!

Goodness gracious.  My favorite part is where MM describe Santorum’s spirituality as “Evangelical,” whatever that means.  It’s the usual litany of cliches from Tony: right-wing liberals, scary Evangelical bogeymen, accusations of cafeteria Catholicism.  Honestly at this point you can play the Morning’s Minion drinking game and you’d be drunk by the second paragraph.  As for the astute observation that Santorum polls better with Evangelicals than with Catholics – well, I’m not sure if that fact reflects poorly on Santorum or on other Catholics.  Considering that many Catholics share Minion’s, umm, unique perspective on the faith it’s not surprising that Santorum is not doing so well with his co-religionists.

As for the specific charges that Morning’s Minion lays out against Santorum, I’ll link to Lisa Graas’s blog post here, and paste her responses after the jump.  She does a good job dismantling every claim laid against Santorum, and so I have nothing else to add.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

19 Responses to Pope Tony Excommunicates Santorum

  • Who brought popcorn? This could be entertaining…

  • Many of MM’s points are over the top, but some, at least, do require more careful consideration.

    American Exceptionalism

    Well, it depends upon what MM means by American Exceptionalism. I can’t venture over to VN without my blood pressure rising to unhealthy levels, so I can only guess that he does not mean it is anti-Catholic to love one’s country or be proud of its achievements, but rather American Exceptionalism is the belief that America is somehow exempt or “excepted” from moral standards that pertain to other countries. The attitude of “when other contries do it, it’s wrong; but when America does it, it’s ok.” E.g., torturing is wrong when Iran does it, but not when we do it.

    Rick Santorum supports the use of force against prisoners, not to extract confessions to crimes or to intimidate the individual, but to save lives.

    But you do the same thing the pro-choicers do – that is, you leave off what is implicit in the action. Pro-choicers always talk about freedom of choice, but rarely say the freedom to choose what? To murder.

    Likewise, you say Rick supports the use of force, not to intimidate the individual, but to save lives. But how does he save these lives? By intimidating (if not worse) the individual. You can say this is not “ends justifies the means” but that’s exactly what it is. Even just war doctrine does not support torture. Just war doctrine relates to two things – having a just reason to go to war (which is what Grass is probably alluding to) and conducting the war in a just manner. One can be justified to go to war, but conduct the war in an an unjust manner (e.g., by torturing prisoners) and thereby still transgress just war teaching.

    It is also very vague on what is meant by force in this context – how much? Whatever it takes? Are there any limits? If so, what are they? If enemies did the same action to our citizens, would it be different (eg, if Japanese forces captured one of the Enola Gay pilots before the bombings, would they be allowed to “apply force” to find out the intended targets?).

  • By the way, his screed does seem to offer at least a “left-handed” compliment to Opus Dei. Maybe he’s getting soft.

  • All you need to know about Tony A is that he has now on at least 2 occasions (and I’m sure there are more) made his stand with the most anti-Catholic administration in this nation’s history and against the Bishops of his own Church on matters of utmost importance: (1) the Stupak Amendment, which would have clearly and unequivocally included Hyde Amendment type language in ObamaCare; and (2) the HHS mandate. Tony routinely on these matters disparages those Bishops as out of touch and ignorant and partisan, while pretending that Obama is the embodiment of Catholic Social Teaching.

    Tony says Santorum is “anti-Catholic”? Then let’s be honest about Tony: he’s not a Catholic at all – he’s a Democrat first, last, and always. He’s a hard-core, left-wing statist hiding behind a fascade of Catholicism as a means of pushing what is at its core a secularist, anti-Catholic agenda that sees the government picking winners and losers in internal Church affairs, and determining Church doctrine and which Church activities constitute the practice of “religion” and which do not.

    Following Santorum’s preferred agenda would not threaten the Catholic Church or the Catholic faith in the least. Following Tony’s preferred agenda has brought this country as close to the precipace of anti-religious tyranny as we’ve ever been.

    NOW tell me who’s “anti-Catholic”?

  • , but rather American Exceptionalism is the belief that America is somehow exempt or “excepted” from moral standards that pertain to other countries.

    Tony doesn’t explain what he means by this, but this is certainly not what Santorum believes.

    As for the bullet about torture, this is admittedly one area where I have some quibbles with Santorum (and thus with Lisa’s defense of him). I won’t go into further detail because I really don’t want Catholic combox discussion #9235029554222 about whether or not the use of waterboarding is intrinsically evil.

  • Here are a few more targets for Pope Tony to excommunicate on the charge of American Exceptionalism:

    “Nor, perchance did the fact which We now recall take place without some design of divine Providence. Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you; and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church. The well-known friendship and familiar intercourse which subsisted between these two men seems to be an evidence that the United States ought to be conjoined in concord and amity with the Catholic Church. And not without cause; for without morality the State cannot endure-a truth which that illustrious citizen of yours, whom We have just mentioned, with a keenness of insight worthy of his genius and statesmanship perceived and proclaimed. But the best and strongest support of morality is religion.”

    Pope Leo XIII

    “Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience – almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one’s deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate. In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good (cf. Spe Salvi, 24). Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows, time and again, that “in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation”, and a democracy without values can lose its very soul (cf. Centesimus Annus, 46). Those prophetic words in some sense echo the conviction of President Washington, expressed in his Farewell Address, that religion and morality represent “indispensable supports” of political prosperity.”

    Pope Bendict XVI

    “Respect for religious conviction played no small part in the birth and early development of the United States. Thus John Dickinson, Chairman of the Committee for the Declaration of Independence, said in 1776: “Our liberties do not come from charters; for these are only the declaration of preexisting rights. They do not depend on parchments or seals; but come from the King of Kings and the Lord of all the earth.” Indeed it may be asked whether the American democratic experiment would have been possible, or how well it will succeed in the future, without a deeply rooted vision of divine providence over the individual and over the fate of nations.”

    Pope John Paul II

    “A few days after the liberation of Rome, Lieutenant General Mark Clark, Commander of the Fifth Allied Army, paid his respects to the Pope: “I am afraid you have been disturbed by the noise of my tanks. I am sorry.” Pius XII smiled and replied: “General, any time you come to liberate Rome, you can make just as much noise as you like.””
    Pius XII

    Then we have Pio Nono who contributed a block of marble for the building of the Washington Monument.

    Pope Tony had better buy his bulls of excommunication by the gross.

  • The comments are hysterical, as Tony is being chided for being too soft on Opus Dei.

  • Well, I went too far in saying that Tony is not a Catholic at all, and for that I apologize. I certainly don’t want to be in the business of excommunicating those with whom I have philosophical, theological, and political differences. That’s a bit above my “paygrade”.

    But the rest of my comment stands. Tony is FAR more guilty of promoting an “anti-Catholic” agenda than Santorum is.

  • Does Vox Nova generally lend itself to be nothing more than liberal propaganda with strategically placed Catholic fig leaves?

    Santorum is one of the most pro-family, pro-life, faithful to the Magisterium Catholics we’ve seen run for the highest office in the land and they deign to attack him?

  • “Does Vox Nova generally lend itself to be nothing more than liberal propaganda with strategically placed Catholic fig leaves?”

    When it ventures into the political realm, with certain honorable exceptions among their writers, yes.

  • Jay, the only — ONLY — evidence for Morning’s Minion’s Catholicism is his own insistence upon it. He’s one of those I’ve been saying that bishops need to bring into line. He needs to get with the Church, or get out of it.

  • One commits a horrid error when one equates big-government socialism with the Gospels . . .

    VN needs to read and believe the Gospels, not Marx and Lenin.

    Someone tell them their definition of “social justice” is not the alibi for every mortal sin in the Book.

    Gospel “Planks in their eyes” – hundreds of aerial drone murders; 45,000,000 abortions; hundreds of millions of contraceptions; endless aggressive wars; every day fomenting mass class envy/hatred; gay privileges; etc.

    Speck – three mass murderers water-boarded; tax cuts for the hated rich; what-have-you; trying to keep it so as working class Americans can afford food and fuel; and etc.

    Capital punishment hasn’t been outlawed by Uncle Joe Biden’s boss, either.

  • Lisa is outright wrong about the torture issue. No need to rehash the arguments for the regular readers here. Newcomers can google ‘catholic waterboarding’ to get what they need.

  • There are quite orthodox thinkers who do not believe every act of coercive force is torture. Some very good ones outside the self-appointed, non-trained “experts.”

    Some intelligent and non-inflammatory discussion of the topic:

    http://www.aina.org/news/20090430085120.jsp

  • Water-boarding is so last administration. That was then.

    This is now. The Obama regime savagely (human dignity! Veritatus Splendor!!) ) kills them with unmanned aerial drones.

  • I, too, have tangled with Tony before over multiple issues. I am happier to report we have come to an amiable truce. While Tony’s critiques of American Catholicism’s tendency to see the faith through an overly-American prism can be over-the-top, they also can be a helpful corrective.

    The problem, I think, comes from the fact that I think it can be fairly said likewise that Tony sees the faith through lenses that are too uncritical of continental European assumptions and concerns.

    Also, it would help if Tony would read Santorum’s “It Takes A Family.” Santorum’s conservatism is a lot more solidarity-oriented and less-atomistic individualist than the standard American conservative template.

  • Pingback: So Which Is It? | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Santorum and Catholic Italian Politics « Michael D. Driessen

The Ballad of Jennifer Rubin

Tuesday, March 20, AD 2012

Jennifer Rubin sent a strong message today.  She wants Mitt Romney to know that she’s got his back every bit as much as Ann Coulter.

Rubin makes a lot of hay over the fact that Rick Santorum never visited Afghanistan, and has not said that he would go to Afghanistan were he the nominee, a promise that Mitt Romney made a few days ago.  Santorum made a pretty compelling case as to why:

And I’m not too sure making the trip Afghanistan is necessarily anything other than what it looks like: a show. And what I’m looking at is trying to, you know, make sure that we successfully win this nomination

Sounds right to me.  There is nothing to be gained for anyone by the candidates flying to Afghanistan for some pr stunt.  But that’s not how Rubin sees it.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

8 Responses to The Ballad of Jennifer Rubin

  • Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post’s tame conservative, is precisely the ideal conservative for the Post. She spends most of her time attacking real conservatives like Santorum on behalf of fake conservative Romney, and her columns are often vacuous and fact allergic. The powers that be at the Washington Post got a real bargain when they hired her: a token conservative who attacks conservatives!

  • She certainly fills the David Brooks role at the Post rather nicely – albeit with about 1/4 of Brooks’ wit.

  • Who is this Jessica Rubin of whom you speak?

    Is this Washington Post something to which to tie your horse and buggie?

  • a token conservative who attacks conservatives!

    You’ve confounded her with Kathleen Parker.

    I believe her principal employment is with Commentary, who are a fairly trenchant crew. I think the problem here is not the striking of poses but an excess of intramural factionalism and the stupidities you find in commentary about the day’s political ephemera (which is why one should not comment much about what one reads in the newspapers).

  • Nah Art, I am very clear on who she is, and she isn’t a conservative:

    “As for his comments on prosecuting abortion doctors, this would, I assume, concern the death penalty in states that impose capital punishment for murder. After all, it would be contrary to his views (that unborn children are people under the Constitution) to decide for criminal law purposes that an unborn child is any less a person, and deserving of less protection, than any other person.

    Moreover, if Santorum is going to prosecute doctors for murder there is no logical reason to exempt women from prosecution for conspiracy to murder, right? If she conspired with a doctor to kill a live child, she would not be spared (“otherwise if there’s a law when there’s not an enforcement of the law”). So what exactly is the rationale — that it would be too outrageous to articulate this legal predicament? Well, that’s where his reasoning leads us.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/santorum-adds-fuel-to-the-culture-wars/2012/02/18/gIQA3v1NMR_blog.html

  • She is part of the Commentary crew. For the most part, they are concerned with questions of foreign affairs, aspects of the eduction system, and the doings of the media. Some of the folks from that stable are very uncongenial to social conservatives, and some are not.

    Of course, she is not discussing issues abstracted from political competition. Which is to say she expects the red-headed step-children to vote for her boy in November while submitting to serial displays of disrespect from her (among others). You’re right. Flip her the bird.

  • “if Santorum is going to prosecute doctors for murder there is no logical reason to exempt women from prosecution for conspiracy to murder, right?”

    If I’m not mistaken that WAS the common practice when abortion was illegal prior to Roe — it was the doctor, not the woman, who was prosecuted, and who was subject to losing his license to practice medicine. The woman was seen more or less as a second victim of the crime and the doctor as someone willing to exploit her desperation for his own gain.

    But, it’s also my understanding — and someone with more knowledge can correct me if I’m wrong — that abortionists in the pre-Roe era were NOT prosecuted for murder. An illegal abortionist might be prosecuted for manslaughter or negligent homicide or something similar if the WOMAN died as a result of a botched procedure, but performing an illegal abortion was a stand-alone crime in a class by itself. It was not legally a form of murder or homicide.

  • Pingback: The Value of Well-Paid Advisers | The American Catholic

The Land of Lincoln Votes

Tuesday, March 20, AD 2012

 

By thy rivers gently flowing, Illinois, Illinois,

 O’er thy prairies verdant growing, Illinois, Illinois,

 Comes an echo on the breeze.  

Rustling through the leafy trees,

 and its mellow tones are these, Illinois, Illinois,

 And its mellow tones are these, Illinois.

From a wilderness of prairies, Illinois, Illinois,

Straight thy way and never varies, Illinois, Illinois,

 Till upon the inland sea,

  Stands thy great commercial tree,

 turning all the world to thee, Illinois, Illinois,

 Turning all the world to thee, Illinois.  

When you heard your country calling, Illinois, Illinois,  

Where the shot and shell were falling, Illinois, Illinois,

 When the Southern host withdrew,

 Pitting Gray against the Blue,  

there were none more brave than you, Illinois, Illinois,

 There were none more brave than you, Illinois.

Not without thy wondrous story, Illinois, Illinois,

 Can be writ the nation’s glory, Illinois, Illinois,

 On the record of thy years,

 Abraham Lincoln’s name appears,

 Grant and Logan, and our tears, Illinois, Illinois,

 Grant and Logan, and our tears, Illinois.

 

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

15 Responses to The Land of Lincoln Votes

  • (Guest comment from Don’s wife Cathy:) The robocalls have come from even lower levels of government than Don has noted. I’ve answered at least one robocall from someone running for our local County Board, for example. Last night was especially bad for robocalls; it seemed one couldn’t go more than 15 minutes (if that) without yet another one. Such a relief when a real person making a non-political call would contact us instead!

  • Your comments about robocalls give me pause. We’re set to kick off the campaigning in Maryland, and of course making phone calls is part of our itinerary. I suppose calls from live human beings are not as annoying as robocalls, but I still worry that it’s overkill.

    As for IL, as is the case with just about all the states, the delegate allotment is proportional, so Santorum should be able to win a fair number of delegates if he takes the more conservative congressional districts.

  • True Paul. I am in the 15th Congressional District and I expect that Santorum will prevail here. That will be doubly sweet for me as we have some local politcos as Romney delegates, including one that I have long nicknamed “THE EMPTY SUIT”, and it will put a smile on my face to see them deprived of their delegate slots!

    As to robocalls Paul I have always hated them. I hang on long enough to hear who it is from before slamming down the receiver. I think when all campaigns are using them, and calling the same household multiple times, it diminishes whatever effectiveness they had when they were a relative novelty and merely serves to exasperate most of the recipients of the calls.

  • Vote early, vote often.

  • Santorum is starting at a disadvantage in Illinois in that he failed to submit names for 10 of the 54 delegates selected tonight.

  • Yep BA that is what happens when you start out as a presidential candidate on less than a shoestring and with apparently a zero chance. It is a tribute to Santorum as a candidate, and to the vast unpopularity of Romney with much of the Republican base, that Santorum is now slugging it out toe to toe with Romney and turning what Romney expected to be a coronation into a real contest.

  • My law partner, whose astuteness apparently exceeds Dave Hartline’s expectations, just emailed me the following: “I spent a few minutes scanning through the exit poll data from Illinois. Romney increased his lead over Santorum in the Catholic vote compared with prior primaries, gaining 53% to 30%. He also won the sub-stratum of Catholic voters that attend service every week, 48-39% (contrary to claims by some in the Santorum camp that Romney doesn’t fare well among practicing Catholics). As expected, Santorum won the Evangelical vote, 39% to 48%, but that is a lower margin than elsewhere. Generally speaking, Romney won every possible demographic except unmarried males between 40-49, those with no education beyond high school, and those who make less than 30k. Interestingly, it looks like Santorum and Hillary share much of the same base, just in different parties.”

  • We’re talking ILLINOIS here, right? My bet would be that every demographic in Illinois – the state which, along with Massachusetts, showed a remarkable immunity to the GOP gains in 2010 – is further to the left than similar demographics in every other state. I would bet that practicing Catholics and Evangelicals in Illinois, though perhaps conservative, are less so than practicing Catholics and Evangelicals in other states.

    So, those figures quoted above give me absolutely no pause whatsoever. Illinois is arguably one of the two most liberal states in the union. It gave us Obama. It would be tragic if conservatives and Republicans allowed yesterday’s results in a liberal state that Republicans have absolutely NO CHANCE of EVER winning in a presidential election to give us Obama Lite (aka Romney), as well.

  • Jay nailed it–I mentioned on another blog this morning that “it appears Mitt Romney has carried yet another state he has no chance of winning in November.”

  • Actually Jay in 2010 the Republicans in Illinois picked up four congressional seats, made gains in the legislature and almost took the governorship. Illinois is not Massachusetts and given a well funded GOP candidate, it is a pretty 50-50 state at the polls, except at the presidential level where the Democrats have dominated since 1992. Obama in 2004 replaced a conservative Republican senator who decided not to run for re-election. The main problem in Illinois is that terrible corruption runs rampant throughout both parties, and that conviction politicians of a conservative bent have difficulty gaining any support from the GOP establishment.

  • In regard to Santorum’s loss I attribute it almost entirely to Romney’s overwhelming spending advantage, lockstep support of Romney by the corrupt GOP establishment in this state, and the fact that Santorum did not spend enough time in the state to start a grass roots movement to compensate for those disadvantages.

  • “…and the fact that Santorum did not spend enough time in the state to start a grass roots movement to compensate for those disadvantages.”

    That’s an excellent point. I didn’t get Santorum’s decision to go to PR, of all places. His campaign discipline still needs some work.

  • Jay,
    Unfortunately, I agree with your assessment of my native state. That said, Dave and others have been pretty emphatic in pointing out that the GOP base in IL is quite conservative and that this would be demonstrated by success for Santorum in the primary. My take is that Dave et al are right that the IL GOP base is plenty conservative notwithstanding the liberal bias of the state, but they were wrong in assuming that that this would translate into success for Santorum. Romney’s difficulties are concentrated in a few key demographics, but these demographics are not directly related to one’s degree of conservatism.

  • “Actually Jay in 2010 the Republicans in Illinois picked up four congressional seats, made gains in the legislature and almost took the governorship.”

    I stand corrected then, Don, on Ilinois’ immunity to the GOP tide in 2010. I suppose I was basing my assessment almost entirely on the state’s electing a hardcore anti-Catholic “Catholic” leftist Democrat as Governor even after the whole Blago imbroglio.

  • I can tell you exactly how that occurred Jay. Personal Pac, a pro-abort lobbying group run by a personal nemesis of mine from college named Terry Cosgrove, ran endless internet ads attacking pro-life Bill Brady. Brady made the mistake of ignoring them, due to almost every poll showing him winning comfortably. Bad mistake. It stampeded enough suburban women into voting for the worst governor in the country, Quinn, who is now immensely unpopular in the State due to the tax hike he rammed through the legislature in a midnight session. Quinn’s margin of victory was 0.9%.

A Few Thoughts About Last Night

Wednesday, March 14, AD 2012

As was tweeted by a few individuals, it is remarkable that a conservative, Catholic, Republican – who largely rejects JFK’s sentiments on religion in the public square to boot – won primaries in Alabama and Mississippi.  It’s also becoming evident that exit polling means squat with regards to Rick Santorum.

Mitt Romney continues to be the weakest front-runner imaginable.  It was funny to listen to John Batchelor and his parade of insiders smugly dismiss Santorum’s victories and chat away about the inevitability of Romney’s nomination while Santorum was winning two southern states in which Romney finished third.  Yes, Romney still has an edge, and with victories in American Samoa and Hawaii Santorum’s delegate edge last night was minimal.  But Romney has far from sealed the deal.

Speaking of Romney, his gaggle of supporters truly marked themselves by their utter gracelessness in defeat.  As Mark Levin said, Romney supporters are quickly becoming as obnoxious as Ron Paul supporters.  It’s true that partisans of all of the candidates can be particularly blind to their own candidate’s faults and to exaggerate the foibles of the others, but Romney supporters in all corners of the internet have been particularly bitter and have done little to actually sway others to their side.  What might explain this phenomenon is that unlike the others, Romney voters aren’t particularly enamored with their candidate and are instead motivated by either dislike of the other candidates and/or fear that any other candidate would lose the general election.  So they don’t really have any convincing arguments to make on behalf of Romney, but instead they kick and stomp their feet every time Romney fails to win a primary.  I would suggest that calling those of us who don’t vote for Romney a bunch of hayseed hicks, and suggesting that social cons be banished from consideration this election might just not be a winning strategy.  Just saying.

As for Newt, there is absolutely no compelling reason for him to stay in this race.  He won his home state, the state neighboring his home state, and has otherwise been a distant consideration save for the states he lost last night in the south.  Rick Santorum already had a slight lead in Louisiana, and I think that last night’s victories just about clinches the state for him (though that’s a rather dangerous prediction considering the wildness of this primary season thus far).  That being said, his reasoning for staying in is not all that outrageous.  He suggested that he didn’t want Romney to concentrate all of his fire on Santorum, something I said not that long ago.  And while he has no realistic shot to win the nomination before or even during the Republican convention – is a brokered convention really going to nominate the guy with the third most delegates coming in? – he might be able to prevent Romney from securing the necessary number of delegates, and that seems to be his primary goal.  After all, not all of his supporters will switch to Santorum.  By staying in the race he is hurting Santorum, but he’s also hurting Romney by picking off a few delegates.  Take away Gingrich from last night, and both Santorum and Romney would have won more delegates.  That would have inched Romney closer to the nomination.

On the other hand, I don’t suppose Gingrich contributors are going to be all that enthused to continue propping up a candidate who has no intention of actually winning, and is instead motivated by nothing more than spite.  Also, as was discussed last night, even if Romney fails to secure the precious 1,044 delegates by the time Tampa rolls around, he’ll still be the favorite at a brokered convention if he is significantly ahead of Santorum.  There is no magical candidate that will emerge from the ashes of a brokered convention.  It’s either going to be Romney or it’s going to be Santorum.  Every delegate that Santorum doesn’t win from here until the convention is just as good as a delegate for Romney under a brokered convention scenario.  If Santorum remains fairly close in the delegate count while neither candidate has the necessary majority, then Gingrich can play kingmaker at the convention.  He would be well-advised to drop out sooner than later if he wants to achieve his twin objection of derailing Romney and having a hand in deciding the eventual nominee.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

59 Responses to A Few Thoughts About Last Night

  • The electablility argument is getting pretty thread bare for Romney, which has been the only selling point of the Weathervane’s campaign. There is a poll out today showing Romney getting trounced by Obama in Pennsylvania by six points with Santorum trailing Obama by one. Plus, as Paul points out, polls routinely understate Santorum’s actual vote totals, usually by three-four points. We are beginning to see a “Reagan Effect” in Santorum’s numbers, Reagan consistantly doing better on election day than his polls indicated.

  • As that commenter at Paul’s blog noted the other day, Romney must be the most unelectable candidate in history whose most compelling argument in his favor is “electability”.

    Larry Sabato seems to get what we get and what so many GOP Establishment types (see, e.g., Pawlenty’s gawdawful and pathetic shilling last night) just can’t seem to grasp:

    “Yes, he’s constructed a solid organization, but it cannot hide Romney’s unappealing inadequacies. Maybe a bad economy will elect him anyway, but without pure luck tossing the White House into his lap, he needs Rick Santorum’s challenge. Santorum is forcing Romney to earn the nomination every step of the way, and maybe, just maybe, he’s making Romney face up to his severe shortcomings on the campaign trail before it is too late to do anything about them.”

    I doubt it, if the oh-so-inspiring delegate-math talking points the Romney sycophants are spouting is any indication. They JUST DON’T GET IT. Romney has run the sort of campaign an incumbent runs – the sort of campaign Bush ran against Kerry in 2004 – that focuses on the negatives of the alternative and relies on superior organizational infrastructure to ensure the votes are there when and where they are needed. But Romney is NOT an incumbent, and, at any rate, this type of strategy will NOT work against Obama in the fall.

    What he has utterly failed to do is provide a compelling reason to vote FOR him. He has offered no compelling conservative vision for the GOP or for the nation. And he has never provided a satisfactory narrative explaining how a life-long self-described “progressive”/”moderate” Republican and a supporter of the “pro-choice” viewpoint suddenly at the age of 60 decided that he could be be the “conservative” standard bearer. And he can’t provide such an explanation because we’d all know it to be complete crap. Just look at who those supporting him are today. Just look at his discomfort in trying to sound like a “severe conservative”. Just look at how easily and with such flair he gets into his comfort zone in going to his opponents’ left.

    Quite honestly, Romney offers nothing to the GOP electorate other than a warm body and nice hair to put up as an alternative to Barack Obama. Sorry, but given his ACTUAL track record, that ain’t enough to get me to pull the lever for him.

  • I’m not as sanguine about Santorum’s prospects. The following is this morning’s take from one of my politically astute partners:

    The upcoming calendar will be much more favorable for Romney. (Even last night, he gained more delegates than Santorum with his wins in Hawaii and Samoa.)

    Here are the upcoming races with number of delegates:

    March 17 Missouri (52) Expect Santorum to win here
    March 18 *Puerto Rico (23) Romney
    March 20 Illinois (69) Romney
    March 24 Louisiana (24) While the south, very different than SC, GA, AL, MS with the very heavy Catholic vote
    Apr 3 *Wisconsin (42) Romney (although Gingrich claims he will win because wife no. 3 is from here)
    Apr 3 *Maryland (37) Romney
    Apr 3 *DC (19) Romney
    Apr 24 New York (95) Romney
    Apr 24 Pennsylvania (72) Bet it is close
    Apr 24 Connecticut (28) Romney
    Apr 24 Rhode Island (19) Romney
    Apr 24 *Delaware (16) Romney

    I have marked with an * those primaries that are winner take all. That has been a huge plus for Romney so far. He has won most of those states so far. And the calendar is shaping up well for him going forward on those. I really can’t see him losing any of the upcoming five—Puerto Rico, Wisconsin, Maryland, DC, or Delaware.

    Because most of the other primaries, until you get to California, will be some sort of proportional award of the delegates, it is very hard for the others to catch Romney. Right now, he has the pretty commanding lead and more than everybody else put together. And he is entering a much more favorable calendar for him. The worst is behind him. He should have a big day on April 24. If he does not, then he is in trouble. But I really can’t see Santorum winning New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, or Delaware. He will have lot of pressure to win in Pennsylvania. If he loses there, then I think it is over.

  • Actually, I’d rather argue with Ron Paul fans.

    The Romney bots are becoming indistinguishable from progressives in their hatred for Santorum. And their inability to recognize the slightest of flaws in their guy is on the verge of sending me into a cricket bat flailing frenzy. One bot tried to chalk up Santorum’s margin entirely to evangelical bigotry.

    Because, as we all know, southern evangelicals are renowned for their love feasts with the Roman Church.

  • Maryland is not winner-take-all. Three delegates from each congressional district are awarded, and ten delegates go to the overall winner. Romney will likely win here (though I am gonna be doing my best for Santorum), but there are several districts where Santorum will do well and likely win.

    Other than that, you are correct that we are entering a slightly tougher portion of the contest for Santorum, though I think you are slightly over-rating Romney’s chances in some of the states. My guess is is LA and PA are safer for Santorum than you suggest, and Wisconsin could be in play. If he survives this, then we are back to states that would seem to favor Santorum.

  • Mike, I think your analysis is pretty sound. It’s definitely an uphill battle for Santorum, especially since Gingrich is determined to stay in. Even without him, though, it’s not easy to see RS’ path to victory.

    Romney needs to wake up and see that he’s not entitled to the GOP vote in November just because he gets the nomination. Right now, he seems determined to keep the base at arms length, and he just might get that in return come November 6.

  • Thanks, Dale. Just a few more thoughts: Plainly one cannot assign Santorum’s success with evangelicals exclusively to anti-Morman bigotry, but as a resident of the capital of the South, I think it is a surprisingly significant factor. I have many friends who are evangelicals, and they uniformly report widespread discomfort with Romney’s Momanism. In the end, this discomfort is not likely to hurt Romney too badly in the general election because the evangelical vote is concentrated in states that GOP is almost sure to win regardless. Regarding the South and Catholics, I can confirm that things have changed dramatically in the 30 years I’ve resided here.

    In addition, I don’t see Romney as distancing himself from the base. What he is doing is concentrating on the issue that is most likely to get him elected: the economy, which is also the issue his resume suggests he is most competent to address (i.e., his strong suit). While this may frustrate social conservatives (like myself), I don’t think there is any intention to keep the base at arm’s length — instead he is staying on message. Time will tell whether that works.

    Finally, regarding social issues, I predict Romney would do fine as president. I worry Santorum’s passion would backfire. I do yearn for a president who would replicate W’s consistency and passion for the pro-Life cause, etc., but to be effective that president needs to skilled in persuading others. Santorum has a tin ear for this in my view, and badly so. His election could actually hurt the pro-life cause simply due to the clumsy way he tends to express himself or frame the issues. This is one reason I believe that Romney would be more successful than Santorum in appointing conservative jurists, and this is the single most important role the president plays with respect to abortion and other issues of importance to faithful Catholics.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’d vote for Rick over Obama in a NY minute, but I think Romney would be the better President. I realize mileage varies on this assessment.

    Finally, I would note that not all politicians are particularly ideological or interested in abstract things such as the role of government in matters of social policy as it effects either personal behavior or the economy, especially Republicans who typically are not products of political science schools and career politicians. Romney, like many Republican candidates, is a man of conserative sensibilites and impulses, but he is mostly a practical problem solver, more technician than ideologue. I know many good and solid Catholics like this — we are not all policy wonks.

  • “Romney, like many Republican candidates, is a man of conserative sensibilites and impulses, …”

    I’ll ask again: On what basis can anyone confidently and credibly make this claim on Dullard Flip Rino’s behalf?

    His rhetoric before he decided to run for President at age 60 gives no indication that he is anything other than a self-proclaimed “pro-choice progressive”. His ACTUAL governing record indicates that he is a slightly left-of-center big-government technocrat. When he decided to seek the GOP nomination, suddenly a lifetime in the progressive wing of the GOP gave way to a “conservative” Romney who seems ill-at-ease talking like a conservative and right at home talking like a progressive, big-government technocrat.

    Based on those measures, Romney is easily the least conservative (i.e. most liberal) candidate likely to win the GOP nomination since Gerald Ford.

  • Mike Petrik, I don’t want to cast aspersions on your politically astute partners; however just because a state tends to vote liberal in general elections doesn’t mean the GOP primary will be filled with moderates and liberals. For example in Delaware the establishment Mike Castle was beat by Christine O’Donnel. One would think in the land of DuPonts and Big Bank headquarters Governor Romney would be a natural, don’t bet on it. Don’t believe me, ask Mike Castle.

    In Illinois the adult home of President Obama, he lost more counties in 2008 than he won outside the Chicago Metroland Area (where few Republicans live in the first place.) The bulk of the GOP is in the downstate area and they are hardly the Romney type. Senator Santorum was only by 4 points behind in Illinois, and that was even before he won Alabama and Mississippi.

    Finally New York and California, surely one would think listening to the mainstream media that Romney would win at least 2-1. However, remember that Carl Paladino won the New York GOP primary (for Governor) and he was hardly a moderate (talk about firebrand language.) As for California again like Illinois GOP voters don’t live en masse in the liberal enclaves of San Francisco and Hollywood. GOP numbers tend to cluster in Orange County and San Diego where Romney should do well, but Santorum could equally do well in the Valley outside LA as well as Central California in places like Bakersfield and Fresno. Even if Santorum lost but the loss beat expectations in Illinois, New York and Califorina, there would be more whispers about the Romney candidacy than already exists.

  • Dave,
    Time will tell who is astute or not, but my understanding is that Romney is running very well with suburbanites, and it is those suburbanites who deserted the GOP in 2008, including Chicago suburbanites. You may be right regarding NJ, NY, CA, etc. We’ll know soon enough. In the end, it is a matter of delegates, not whispers.

  • Here’s a story on Hot Air alluding to Gingrich’s big donor possibly cutting him off. This paragraph struck me:

    The question will be whether Adelson himself acknowledges that. He’s already been rumored to have pledged to support Romney if Gingrich didn’t win the nomination. He might just decide to move his very large fundraising capability to Team Romney now and focus on defeating Santorum in the primaries. That would make more sense than keeping Gingrich on life support at this point in the nomination process, especially since the primaries will be shifting away from states where social issues carry as much sway as they do in the Deep South, at least after Louisiana. If Adelson really does decide to move onto the next phase, then Gingrich’s campaign will become moribund whether he suspends it or not.

    It’s possible that Gingrich believes his big donor will move to Romney if he bows out, and that’s what’s keeping him in the race. Gingrich may have made a strategic decision that he’s ultimately be helping Romney, not Santorum, if he quits the race.

    Just something to chew on.

  • I am a Santorum supporter but to call it straight he needs to win Pa like Gingrich needed to win Georgia and Romney Michigan. I have not heard anyone talk about it yet but not sure he can pull a win in Pa.

    The sooner Gingrich gets out the better it is for Santorum.

  • Just to follow-up on an earlier point, there are in fact no winner-take all primaries. Several states allot a chunk of delegates based on the overall winner, and there are several party delegates awarded, but they all basically use a system where delegates are awarded based on congressional districts (three for each c.d. in the state).
    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R-Del.phtml?sort=t

    Okay, I have to amend this, because that link just showed how the state is awarded the number of delegates it has. This link shows how each state awards its delegates. Again, though, it looks like Utah is the only state with a true winner-take-all primary. I really don’t know why NJ, MD, and CA are listed as winner-take-all when clearly they are not.
    http://www.soarclub.com/2012/02/how-delegate-apportionment-works-state-by-state/

  • Mike, you certainly are right Governor Romney does well in traditional suburban areas as he did in Ohio and Michigan. However, California, New York and Illinois are a little different. It is my understanding that the Chicago Metro Area as well as the vast Los Angeles and New York metro areas has many more Democratic suburbanites than do most places. Therefore, the GOP is concentrated in other areas of those particular states as I outlined in my previous post, which is why I don’t believe one can say that Governor Romney will win by a hugh margin in those states. Paul, good point about the former Speaker and Sheldon Adelson. Newt seemed to go out of his way to compliment the former Pennsylvania Senator. I read somewhere that Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich shared a very pleasant phone call last night after the primary results.

  • I have not heard anyone talk about it yet but not sure he can pull a win in Pa.

    I believe he was up by a considerable margin last time they released polling numbers, but that was a while back.

  • Just read this so not sure it was such a bad night for Romney:

    However, despite the disappointing results in the two southern states, Romney ended up winning the night anyway — at least in delegates.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/14/just-a-reminder-romney-won-the-delegate-haul-last-night/

    I believe he was up by a considerable margin
    Glad to hear Santorum is up!

  • Santorum is up by 14% over Romney in PA according to Quinnipiac survey dated today. Now I’m going more carefully through the states, and I guess Delaware is also winner-take-all, as is DC. PA is tricky – it looks like it’s basically winner-take-all as well.

  • Chris, I just checked Real Clear Politics and the RCP average for Pennsylvania through the month of February (including one poll which included Monday) has Santorum up by 15.5%. Of course, as has already been said elsewhere, this primary season is about as unpredictable as they come.

    I am encouraged by Santorum’s run thus far and if he can do well and stay standing after April 24th (which is a long way off), he will have a very strong case for the candidacy come the convention.

    In the end, I’m not sure that this whole primary season is really hurting the eventual candidates chances at beating Obama. I don’t see any of the problems being brought up concerning who is more conservative being a problem come November. The distinctions will likely be very clear and can be easily made by either candidate. Then again, I am still a rookie when it comes to discussing politics, so feel free to correct me.

  • I’m not exactly one of those Ron Paul fans you were talking about earlier, however I work at being a true centrist, because I’m sick of the civil war (ineffective government) of the left and right.
    I believe Ron Paul is the best candidate based on his consistent record throughout the years and what he stands for.
    Less government (the government out of our homes and businesses), the constitution, no FED, improve our foreign policy, he believes in liberty and justice and fiscal responsibility, less taxes, etc.
    Obama, Newt, Santorum, Romney…pound for pound are not as good of a candidate as Ron Paul.

  • There is no reason for Newt to get out. The Republican establishment wants Romney, who is perfectly situated to lose to Obama, when gas hits $5.00+ and then suddenly drops to the low threes, high twos following the Republican convention. If Romney manages to pull it out, then we’ll get a new boss, the same as the old boss – Bush!

    Santorum is only winning because he keeps taking words and ideas from Newt. If Newt wasn’t driving the conversation, Santorum wouldn’t have much to say. Additionally, the Democrats are salivating at a Satntorum candidacy, which is why 20% of Santorum’s numbers from last night came from Democrats at the request of Debbie Wasserman-Shultz. Santorum is the Democrat’s patsy. Wake up people.

    Newt may not be able to win, neither can Santorum and Romney is limping because he’s an empty suit. Newt ensures that Romney can’t gain 1,144 and this goes to convention. After Newt pulls Paul’s people because of his stronger stance on the Fed vis. a vis. the other two, then we’ll have the right ticket. Gingrich/Santorum – the senior and the junior. Rick will be a very effective President of the Senate and can pick up the conservative Catholic mantle in 2020.

    I am hopeful that Newt will win, I am mildly comfortable with Santorum, but I fear that as we approach 40 years of a self-inflicted holocaust, God will give us over to Moloch and Ba’al and we’ll see 4 more years of Obama and an overt persecution of the Church in America. Grab your rosaries, we’re in for a bumpy ride.

  • Newt has no chance. Zero. And I am glad for that because I think the man is ill-suited to be president. Romney has more in common with Bush I than II, but really is different from either. Bush I’s experience and accomplishments were public sector, unlike Romney’s. And Bush II is much more ideological, whereas Romney is more of a pragmatist. Gingrich’s strong suit is that he is thoughtful, insomuch as he is full of thoughts.

  • Yeah, that’s the problem. Why would we want a president who can think? The only one of all five in the race with not only the ability to think strategically, but a record of actuating those strategies is Newt. Of course, I suppose we have to acknowledge that BHO has been effective in bringing Christian persecution to America; however, even principled atheists agree that he has gone beyond the pale.

    Newt rising – just wait and see. If not, get on your knees and beg for Mercy.

  • Santorum is only winning because he keeps taking words and ideas from Newt.

    Amusing, but no.

    Santorum is the Democrat’s patsy.

    Rick Santorum continues to poll evenly with Obama, as does Romney. Even Ron Paul polls well against the President. You know the one candidate that lags all others in head-to-head matchups with Obama? Newt “29% favorability rating” Gingrich. And I say that as someone who far prefers Newt to either Mitt or Paul.

    After Newt pulls Paul’s people because of his stronger stance on the Fed vis. a vis. the other two, then we’ll have the right ticket.

    Yes, their whopping 200 delegates and collective 25% of the vote are gonna take the Republican convention by storm.

    Newt has no chance. Zero.

    This.

  • Why would we want a president who can think?

    Oh, no one doubts Newt can think. He’ll give you 15 different solutions to 10 different problems. I’m just not sure we necessarily want one with ADD.

  • I’m not voting for a dictator, I want a president who can put forth a strategy, articulate it to the people and get Congress to debate it and send him a bill. Does that require 15 different solutions? Perhaps. Better than a one-trick pony.

    Paul – End the Fed, end the wars.

    Santorum – Rebuild the factories and behave like a Catholic while being casual about the Natural Law.

    Romney – Big Business, just be a good consumer and let the adults run the show.

    Obama – There is nothing we can’t solve by killing more babies.

    Come on, you all know that Newt is the right man at the right time. The clock is ticking and when 40 years are up – so are we.

  • you all know that Newt is the right man at the right time.

    According to the polls, no, we don’t. But we’ll let you know as soon as we need a guy to berate the press and bluster during a debate.

  • “Come on, you all know that Newt is the right man at the right time.”

    I have praised Newt several times on this site AK for his elequent denunciations of the manifest bias of the Mainstream Media, and I would certainly prefer him to Obama or to Romney, but he would be massacred in a general election due both to his messed up personal life and to his unerring ability to cut his own throat whenever he appears to be riding high. Newt is one of the most imaginative politicians of our day, and he would come up with a 100 new ideas a day, five of which would even have some merit, and 25 of which would land this country in deep kimchi if ever implemented. He should stick to retirement and writing imaginative alternate histories with William Forschten.

  • The beautiful thing about our Republic (its still a Republic right?) is that we can each make our choices and God decides the outcome. Sometimes it is good, when I was young and first made it to these shores, it was morning in America. Four years ago we were duped into placing an incompetent man who hates our country in charge. Out of the five choices we have I like Dr. Paul because he brings issues to the table that are too often ignored; unfortunately, he’s a libertarian and that may look good at first, but eventually it leads to disaster and probably along the scale of the death knell of the ancien regime. I like Santorum, but I’ve only met him once and he got pissy and flustered because I accused him and his fellow Republicans of losing site of authentic conservatism and especially their profligate spending (which began as soon as they ditched Newt.) I fear that he is unprepared to defeat BHO and is likely to be managed by the Washington-Wall Street establishment. Nevertheless, he is a strong second choice for me.

    The other two, BHO and Romney, will most assuredly be a disaster and we may not survive.

    Newt can do it. Does he even have a chance of winning? Sure, why not. Stranger things have happened. The fact is that we are, at core, a conservative and Christian people. The last time we ran two conservatives against each other was at the end of the first Progressive experiment – in 1924. Reagan was never ever supposed to happen – but, he did. Newt is not Reagan, he’s Newt and in all reality, Reagan could not secure the Republican nomination today. We are a mess and a bold visionary is what is needed to institute a major course-correction.

    Either way, he needs to stay in the race because he makes all the others, even Romney, better. As far as Santorum supporters go, Newt is helping Rick and hurting Romney. That is a good thing. We cannot see tomorrow. This is a strange primary. The rules are quite different, the lay of the land has never been like this and the insider manipulations have never been worse. I want Newt not only because I think he is the best suited, but also just to upset the current order of Demopublican management of America’s decline.

    This should be a two man race – Gingrich and Santorum. The winner of that contest would obliterate Obama.

  • This notion that Newt is a man of ideas is rubbish, but his supporters have said it enough that even his critics have begun to believe it. It’s fundamentally baloney, as Newt would say.

    What are his grand ideas and bold vision?

    A flat tax?

    Henry Hyde said it best about Newt, “Him and his new ideas—there are no new ideas!”

    I don’t know who to support between Santorum and Romney, to be honest. Santorum is such a bad campaigner I have my doubts regarding his ability to beat the president, despite what polls right now say. Romney’s marginally better.

    I despair of democracy.

  • Francis, I pretty much agree with your take, but try to avoid despair, even of democracy — it is still the best form of government save all the others. It’s a fallen world, and we won’t fix that in 2012.

  • “In Illinois, the adult home of President Obama, he lost more counties in 2008 than he won outside the Chicago Metroland Area (where few Republicans live in the first place.) The bulk of the GOP is in the downstate area and they are hardly the Romney type. Senator Santorum was only by 4 points behind in Illinois, and that was even before he won Alabama and Mississippi.”

    This analysis appears to be accurate. Republicans in Cook County or any of the close-in suburbs have been scarce as hen’s teeth for years, though there were and are exceptions (for example, Rep. Henry Hyde came from a suburban Congressional district).

    Meanwhile, Democrats south of I-80 are becoming an increasingly endangered species; Gov. Quinn and, more recently, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (with his proposal that ALL guns owned by state residents should be registered and the owners charged $65 a pop for that dubious privilege) have succeeded in alienating many of the downstate working-class voters that used to be reliably Dem. And voter registration overall in the Chicago area has dropped precipitously in the last few years.

    I think Santorum COULD pull off a win in Illinois if the more liberal/RINO leaning suburbanites north of I-80 decide to sit out the primary because they like none of the candidates being offered, while the more conservative and motivated downstaters turn out in droves.

  • I’m currently reading a Romney bio, and based on that I am pretty confident in the sincerity of Romney’s pro-life convictions. As a church leader, he counseled women against having abortions, at one point showing up at a woman’s hospital room to try to talk her out of having an abortion and telling her about how a relative’s child with Down Syndrome had proven to be a blessing for the family. It’s true that he ran as a pro-choice candidate in 1994 and 2002, but when it came to actually governing he wasn’t able to follow through and govern as a pro-choicer. There are issues on which Romney’s personal instincts seem to be moderate, but abortion is not one of them.

  • Meanwhile, the Weathervane, true to form, tests the political winds before taking a stand on another critical issue:

    http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/in-kirkwood-romney-wonders-missour-ee-or-missour-ah/article_e519ea64-6d39-11e1-b1b9-0019bb30f31a.html

  • Well, I’m pretty confident that Romney is a fraud, and will vote accordingly. Which means it’s either Santorum or the Constitution Party for me.

  • “Quite honestly, Romney offers nothing to the GOP electorate other than a warm body and nice hair to put up as an alternative to Barack Obama. Sorry, but given his ACTUAL track record, that ain’t enough to get me to pull the lever for him.”

    See that’s the problem…Conservatives who want Santorum to win can’t wrap their heads around the fact that he’s unelectable. He has virtually no chance of winning. A candidate’s electability is inversely proportional to his enemies desire to see him nominated and democrats would love a Santorum nomination.

    Another way to put it is this way, Santorum would make a fine, trustworthy, and authentically Catholic president but since the American public currently has no appetite for such a man conservatives would nominate one at their and the country’s peril.

  • The portion of my comment that you quoted was about Mitt Romney and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Rick Santorum.

    My position on Mitt Romney has been the same since the first time I ever laid eyes on him in 1994. I felt the same way about him in 2008 – even back then, he was the one candidate other than Giuliani for whom I would NEVER cast a vote.

    And I don’t know where you’ve been during this election, but I’ve been saying the same thing about Romney since the days Santorum was pulling single digits and was begging to get asked questions in every debate. I was saying the same thing about Romney when I briefly flirted with supporting Hunstman. I was saying the same thing about Romney for the 5 seconds I considered Pawlenty. I was saying the same thing when I was on board with Rick Perry. In short, I’d be saying the same thing about Dullard Flip Rino REGARDLESS of who his competition was. Your focus on Santorum in response to the portion of my comment that you quoted is a complete non-sequitur and a big fat red herring.

    See that’s the problem…so-called “Conservatives” who want Romney to win can’t wrap their heads around the fact that he’s the problem – he can’t close the deal because he’s fundamentally flawed as an at-best “moderate” candidate running for the nomination of a conservative party. He has no chance of winning my vote and virtually no chance of winning the votes of countless other conservatives who simply don’t trust him and believe him to be a liberal fraud.

  • Nice post Jay. You hit (Dim)Mitt Romney right on the head. He is a fake. He is not trustworthy. He is not conservative and sadly, neither is most of the Republican Party; hence why he is the ‘favorite’.

    We are close to a tipping point and Christians in general and Catholics specifically need to be very careful for whom we vote. Persecution is building in our land and it is not from any single man. It comes from a radical secular establishment and they use pawns like BHO and Romney to execute it on their behalf. To avoid this you need a faithful Christian or possibly a libertarian, preferable a Constitutionalist rather than an anarchist.

    Romney will lose the ‘conservative’ vote. I know that I am leaning third party if we are stupid enough to make that empty suit the nominee. I’d prefer any of the other three.

  • so-called “Conservatives” who want Romney to win can’t wrap their heads around the fact that he’s the problem

    1. THE problem is that the federal government’s net borrowing is around about 9% of domestic product; the incumbent President disregarded the solutions a bipartisan national commission offered to repair the problem and offered nothing to replace said solution; and the competitors for his job have offered no worthwhile plans either.

    2. A secondary problem is that three of the principal candidates to replace them have never supervised anything other than their office staff and the fourth has for 18 years been given to bouts of blatant opportunism and no one knows what he really thinks (though we can be fairly sure he is not a ‘dullard’).

    Wunnerful wunnerful.

  • “Romney will lose the ‘conservative’ vote. I know that I am leaning third party if we are stupid enough to make that empty suit the nominee”

    He certainly may lose the “cut off your nose” conservatives. Having done that too many times myself I no longer have a nose to cut off.

    This election is neither about Romney nor any bona fide conservative. The election is squarely about Obama and for that we gratefully have the opportunity to replace him. The fact that some replacements are further to the right than others is picking nits with extreme prejudice.

  • He certainly may lose the “cut off your nose” conservatives.

    No, he is going to lose the “I don’t want to replace Obama with Obama-lite” conservatives.

    You know, Romney backers have had months to make the case for Romney, and in that time all you have managed to say – repeatedly – is that he is better than Obama and he is more electable than the others. The first point might be true – but then again who isn’t? – and the latter point is becoming more and more laughable as each day passes.

    Also, it also not enough to make the election just about the incumbent. There needs to be at least some enthusiasm for the challenger. Otherwise we might be wrapping up President Kerry’s second term.

  • The entirety of Romney the Very Canny Businessman’s contract with conservatives (of every stripe) reads thusly:

    “Vote for me, and I won’t be Obama.”

    Which he will adhere to to the last letter. Legally and ontologically, he will not be Barack Obama.

    Paid in full.

    Which means that after he gets elected, he will be able to indulge his three proven political principles: pursuit of elective office (in 2016), indulging his craving for bipartisanship, and flinching in the face of/pandering to the left (See Minimum Wage, Indexing of; cf. “Scheme, Perry”).

    Why, he can’t do anything about the fiscal/entitlements nightmare–at least not in an election year, or the year before an election year. He’d offend the volatile swing voters to whom he actually is beholden. So, sorry about that. Ditto social issues, too. But here’s his e-mail to March for Life-rs:

    “Dear You People:

    Abortion is rather less than ideal, as a majority of polled likely voters currently agree, the margin of error being plus-minus three point five percent….”

    But at least as the country careens toward Greece/Weimar, the conservatives who voted for him can accept the solace that he is indeed not Obama.

    If the only thing that keeps the country from careening to Hell is Mitt Romney, then the Republic is dead already.

  • Its always interesting when conservatives disagree. In principle and on most if not close to all of the issues I rather fancy most everything that is written on this here blog, by you gentlemen. Although however one might agree with such principles, in the end it is the application and the “getting there” which serves as the source of disputes.

    I like Santorum. I don’t like Romney except for his usefulness to ouster BO and will not be an apologist for him, per se. To that extent it is prudential judgment as to who is more electable in any given set of circumstances. Current political climate dictates the authentically conservative Catholic will not win. Its about the economy.

    In any event it would behoove conservatives to stand behind the eventual nominee come the general election if the goal is to preserve our nation from the existing attack from within.

  • To that extent it is prudential judgment as to who is more electable in any given set of circumstances. Current political climate dictates the authentically conservative Catholic will not win. Its about the economy.

    Again, though, actual results and polling do not bear this out. Santorum polls just a smidgen below Romney in head-to-head matchups with Obama. When you throw in Santorum’s track record of winning difficult elections in his House and Senate races in Pennsylvania, and the fact that he is staying close to Romney in elections despite being outspent by him by several orders of magnitude, the idea that Santorum is somehow certain to lose compared to Romney just holds absolutely no water.

  • It is too depressing to think about.

  • Paul, I respect people who come to a different calculation. If it helps you, prudentially speaking, I live in a State that hasn’t voted for the Republican candidate since 1988. So, my decision on Romney makes no difference.

  • FWIW, I live in a bluer state than Dale, so ditto for my decision. That said, I don’t know that my calculus would change if I lived ten miles to my west.

  • Blackadder,

    If Romney is truly pro-life and he chose to run as a pro-abort (I’ve seen his speeches and he was PASSIONATELY pro-abort) then doesn’t that reveal a certain flexibility with principle and a casual relationship with truth? Do we really want to place our trust in a guy like that?

  • I live in THE swing state, and that fact has absolutely no bearing on my decision. (In fact, in a sort of perverse way, I’m rather relishing the fact that Romney could really use my vote and that I’m going to withhold it from him.)

  • I too reside in a mainly blue state, to commiserate with Paul Z. & Dale, so this discussion is really for political banter with fellow conservatives. I’d much prefer hearing anyone’s argument here than elsewhere.

    I’m reticent to use polls this far ahead of the election but since you raised the issue Paul Z., Real Clear Politics has Romney beating Obama in at least a few polls whereas Santorum shows no such advantage. What polls are you referencing?

    Also for Paul Z, Dale, Jay or anyone else for that matter, when you watched the debates and see Rick out articulating conservatism how do you view him carrying the conservative banner? Do you think he advances his message convincingly?

  • If the only thing that keeps the country from careening to Hell is Mitt Romney, then the Republic is dead already.

    I appreciate your point. Just want to point out the following:

    1. He has experience with re-structurings.

    2. George Bush the Elder was quite adept at making himself appear opportunistic and silly. He performed satisfactorily in office, though not without error (e.g. David Souter). He may have been the most able chief executive we have had since Gen. Eisenhower retired to Gettysburg.

  • when you watched the debates and see Rick out articulating conservatism how do you view him carrying the conservative banner?

    He would have been the optimal choice among the five in 1992 or 1996 or 2000. Now, not so sure.

  • “He would have been the optimal choice among the five in 1992 or 1996 or 2000. Now, not so sure.”

    Art- hadn’t thought of it that way, but that rings true.

  • I have about 2 minutes, so can’t look up the source, but I believe it was Rasmussen that had Romney up 2 and Santorum minus 1 on Obama. May have been Gallup. Most of the polls I’ve seen have basically had the races fairly tight.

  • Here is a poll in Florida that has them both down by a couple to Obama. You’re right about polls being meaningless at this point, but they do suggest that that Santorum is not unelectable, at least no more so than Romney.
    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/15/rasmussen-obama-edging-romney-santorum-in-florida/

  • when you watched the debates and see Rick out articulating conservatism how do you view him carrying the conservative banner? Do you think he advances his message convincingly?

    1. On the whole, yes, he does. With the sad exception of the last debate, where he froze a bit in the headlights. He’s even better on the stump–for example, when my oldest son and I saw him in Michigan in February. A 45 minute speech about the economy as an organic whole, with references to the mediating institutions in civil society–it was a tour de force. Even my 9 year old son remembers the Keystone Pipeline and oil discussion to this day.

    But I will acknowledge he gets distracted and wounds himself needlessly with ricochets.

    2. He does on the stump, unfiltered. His discipline on the whole has gotten better, if still imperfect.

    I’m not going to pretend he was my first choice, or even my fourth. My first didn’t run, and the remaining three flamed out.

    He’s the best of a weak field, and under no delusions that the left can be made to like him, which saves time.

  • Art:

    The restructuring specialist is the best argument for him, and one I can instinctively buy.

    But then I go back to the fact this is Mitt Romney we’re talking about, a man who has never been a model of walking-the-tightrope political courage.

    In fact, when I keep hearing the Romney boosters’ attacks on Santorum, and to a lesser extent even Gingrich, my rebuttal is “That is a great argument–or rather, would be, if your candidate was Bobby Jindal. But he’s not–your guy is *Mitt Romney*.”

  • My observations of Santorum have been via the debates with occasional clips of him talking to the media. I either haven’t seen this tour de force side of him or just am looking for something else. Thanks for your observations Dale.

    He will be at my alma mater on Friday evening so maybe having the chance to see and hear him in person will provide another perspective.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY EXTRA: U.S. POLITICS | ThePulp.it

Under Southern Skies

Wednesday, March 14, AD 2012

Rick Santorum’s campaign has been truly remarkable.  From being a defeated two term Senator from Pennsylvania, on a Quixotic no cash campaign for President which no observer, including the writer of this post, thought he had any chance of doing anything with other than being an asterisk, he has become the leader of Republican conservatives opposed to the nomination of Romney, aka the Weathervane.  Last night’s dual victories in Alabama and Mississippi underlined this.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

3 Responses to Under Southern Skies

  • Not only among the other candidates, but also in this alligator-infested swamp. His drive and determination remind me of the Hunters of Kentucky post from last week.

  • I think last night highlighted one thing for the American voter; the character of each candidate. Romney won’t admit defeat gracefully, so he fled the scene. Gingrich took credit for Santorum’s victory saying ‘We showed them’. And RIck Santorum first thanked God for his victory, then his wife, children and supporters.
    Guess which of these men I support?

  • While Santorum’s campaign has been remarkable, it has more to do with circumstances than it does with Santorum’s ability as a candidate. He is the last not-Romney standing. Newt, despite a short lived surge, was never going to overcome his baggage.

    The staying power of the not-Romney campaign waged by a significant portion of the conservative base with Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin as its main megaphones is even more more remarkable. They gave voice to what many in the base feel that the GOP establishment is trying to shove Romney down their throats.

    There are of course other reasons why the not-Romney sentiment has lasted. A good part of it has to do with some of his gaffes (I’m not concerned about the very poor -) and his being a rather boring personality to name of couple of things. There is also the issue of his being a Mormon. This is especially true in the south. Don’t think for a minute that a Mormon is not going to have trouble with southern Evangelical protestant conservatives.

33 Responses to Santorum Wins Kansas

  • None of your Grouchy Penguin music criticisms Art! 🙂 Campaign music is supposed to be terrible. The only one I can think of that I like is:

  • Actually Art, the song wasn’t that bad – catchy tune and all.

    But it was worth watching all through for the youthful enthusiasm, and of course, the pretty girls 😉

  • Don, what a completely sexist and completely true thing to say!

  • Hi Don.

    You may have gathered, PC is not one of my strong points 🙂

  • I am shocked, Don, shocked I say:

  • Delaying the inevitable. A Romney win and a basting by Obama, who will win in a near-landslide. forcing me to update my passport so I can go to South America.

  • Actually Joe the Rasmussen tracking poll today shows Romney beating Obama by 5 and Santorum beating Obama by 1. Of course such polls this far out are largely meaningless, but Obama is in terrible shape for re-election and I expect him to lose the electoral college around 316-222.

  • The girls put this together without coordinating with the Santorum organization, Though I think he would approve it.

    If you click through they have some other non-poliical music which is pretty good for a group starintg in that genre.

  • Check out this interesting analysis by Nate Silver of Five Thirty Eight (be warned, it’s lengthy):

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/09/how-daunting-is-santorums-delegate-math/#more-28081

    “Mr. Santorum’s path to the nomination probably involves generating some real momentum by sweeping just about everything in March — other than perhaps Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the territorial caucuses. If he won Illinois on March 20, for instance, and then followed it up with an April 3 result in which he won Wisconsin clearly and if Maryland was close, that’s about the point in which Mr. Romney would be in extreme danger. It’s not impossible, but Mr. Santorum has a very high bar to clear.”

  • I think the only thing that would help Obama’s re-election is if Hillary becomes his running mate (God forbid)!

  • Joe,

    Hopefully you and I won’t need to emigrate. Although, I am looking into Chilean immigration laws.

    I saw the Rasmussen tracking poll, too. Romney 48 – 43; Santorum 46 – 45. The O’zero’s approval rating is 25%.

    Anyone see this racist chart on Don Surber? It’s the ones wherein Obama’s statisticians showed the projected unemployment rate trend lines with and without the $800 billion stimulus boondoggle. The current propaganda unemployment is 8.3% (with 6,000,000 people dropping off the face of the Earth, er, out of the labor force = denominator). This is above both scenarios.

    In fact, O’zero promised unemployment would never go over 8%. Once Obamacare kicks in the unemployment rate will never go lower than 10%, unless 15,000,000 more working class Americans fall of the face of the Earth.

    Racist Charts!!!

  • Rick’s biggest problems these days are the media of every stripe. When you win Kansas by 30% with 20K votes cast and lose Wyoming by a TOTAL VOTE COUNT of 650 to 425 and the headlines are “Romney splits Caucuses in Kansas and Wyoming” it’s pretty clear they’re trying to diminish anything good that Santorum pulls off.

    “Romney is projected to win the Wyoming Caucus, splitting the day’s events with Santorum who won the Kansas Caucus with over 50% of the vote there. “

  • Oh, yeah, Kansas!

    I’ve been to Kansas, down in the south by Medicine Lodge and Kiowa in Summer 1986.

    Being a Custer buff, I was interested in actually being in that part of the Plains Wars geography.

    Anyhow, I am seriously confused by Frank Baum’s, The Wizard of Oz. The most unfathomable part is:

    Why would Dorothy want to go back to Kansas?

  • “I am seriously confused by Frank Baum’s The Wizard of Oz.”

    You’re not the only one. Some literary critics, believe it or not, think the story is an allegory or parable of the American Populist movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with the Wizard representing the federal government; Dorothy a sort of Every Man/Woman; the Scarecrow, farmers: the Tin Man, industrial workers; and the Cowardly Lion, politicians (especially Populist presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan). Dorothy’s silver shoes (in the book; they became ruby slippers only in the movie) allegedly represent “free silver” coinage, a favorite Populist cause:

    http://www.amphigory.com/oz.htm

  • I have noticed on FOX at least more and more voices are starting to come out about the dangers of a prolonged primary.

    I don’t think it’s ending soon and I really think Gingrich needs to drop out for Santorum to beat Romney. Otherwise they will keep splitting the vote.

    For example, I voted Santorum and my wife voted Gingrich. She would have voted Santorum had he been the only one besides Romney. I am sure this is happening hundreds of times over….

  • Delaying the inevitable. A Romney win and a basting by Obama, who will win in a near-landslide. forcing me to update my passport so I can go to South America.

    I find this confidence in the President’s prospects (by supporters and opponents alike) very curious. Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan were returned to office in the midst of vigorous economic expansions; Dwight Eisenhower was a national icon; and Richard Nixon had managed to wind down a war 10x as bloody as that in Iraq while facing an unreconstructed Henry Wallace Democrat as an opponent. Can some of the President’s boosters tell me which precedent they think applies here?

  • Art: Hope and Change!

    From personal experience (I’m 61 going on 16): pessimism comes with the “territory” when one becomes superannuated. Then, second childhood . . .

    That and wasting campaign air time calling extremist liberal tools names.

    The notorious arch-racist, Professor Thomas Sowell, recently stated that America faces another great depression if Obama gets a “mulligan.”

    Perhaps, we are being too hard on the President. After all, it is his first job.

  • Mr. Shaw & Mr. McClarey: The polls you cite with Mitt and Rick beating Obama are offset by others that showed the Bamster with big leads. My hypothesis is that whoever emerges as the Republican nominee will be so bloodied by the GOP infighting and MSM assaults that he will be badly weakened. Imagine the Dems, flush with cash, running a slew of negative ads showing Mitt trashing Rick and vice versa and a variety of “gaffes” taken out of context that will make either look unfit to be President of “all the people.”

    BTW, off-topic a bit but perhaps a thread maker: Pat Buchanan’s new book, “Suicide of a Superpower,” subtitled “Will America Survive to 2025?” has two chapters, “The Death of Christian America” and “The Crisis of Catholicism” and the bitter fruit of Vatican II that would supply much grist for TAC contributors. October will mark the 50th anniversary of VII and no doubt critical retrospectives are very much in order.

    God bless, everyone, from a lapsed Catholic who is making his way back into the fold notwithstanding lingering doubts. I also thank all of your for your forgiveness and forebearance.

  • Welcome back Joe to the Faith!

    Polls, as I stated earlier, are largely meaningless today. The underlying reality is that Obama has been a miserable president with a bad economy, and that is going to lead to his defeat in the Fall. In 1980 Reagan was shown behind in most polls until the Republican convention. John Anderson, a Republican Congressman, bolted the party and ran on a third party ticket. Moderate Republicans were constantly proclaiming their dissatisfaction with Reagan and predicting a Carter victory. Polls at the end of October showed Carter ahead of Reagan. Reagan received a savagely bad press. None of that mattered in the end, because none of it could alter the fact that Carter had been a miserably bad President with a miserably bad economy.

  • Don, I would like to share your confidence and wholeheartedly agree Obama has been the worst president ever, but there are too many variables yet to predict a winner regardless of who the GOP nominates. I have a feeling that Iran, gas prices, social issues and unforeseen but impactful events will shape the mood of the nation in October. Polls are ephemeral anyway, reflecting the whims of the day. BTW, would appreciate any feedback on Buchanan’s jeremiads, which I must say seem quite justified in light of the deep divisions in the body politic.

  • Will keep you in my prayers, Joe. Keep walking back home, and the Father will run out to meet you and throw His arms around you.

  • Boy, everybody is forgetting the 2010 elections. Do you think those people who gave Obama a “shellacking” are going to stay home and sit on their hands?

  • “That song is godawful.”

    Yeah, well I don’t see anyone rushing out to make music of any kind – good or bad – for Dullard. He just doesn’t insire anyone to do anything apart from utter the words “electable” .But I don’t think that word means what they think it means.

  • The song is kinda catchy. Good tune, goofy lyrics, pretty girls… Looks like half the country music I listen to and love these days.

    As for the pessimism and optimism, I reject both because they are too narrowly focussed on the election. Both suggest that our system of government sinks or swims on election cycles. Thish ship of state turns slowly and eighht years isn’t enough to remold it. It is that fact that has frustrated self-styled “progressives” from Wilson to Obama.

    Will Obama’s political career survive this contest? Maybe. If so, it will be greatly weakened. Will Romney or Santorum win? Maybe. If so, their mandate will be Weak, and their influence subtle.

    Every day, I am amazed by the inspired choices of our Framers.

  • “Do you think those people who gave Obama a “shellacking” are going to stay home and sit on their hands?”

    If the nominee is Romney? Yes. Either that or they’ll vote for a 3rd party candidate that shares their views and priorities.

  • I respect your views on the Weathervane Jay, and if he is the nominee I will have no enthusiasm for him. However, I will have much enthusiasm for sending Obama packing, and I think most Republicans and conservatives will agree with with me, certainly enough to get that job done.

  • Oh, and to buck up those inclined to pessimism, the electoral map has shifted significantly for the Republicans. Assuming they can win New Hampshire, the Republicans no longer need to win Ohio, although I do think they will win the Buckeye State and Pennsylvania:

    http://www.270towin.com/

  • I don’t like Romney either. Some say he is Obama-lite and he may be but I would rather take my chances with Mitt because I KNOW what a disaster Obama is.

  • Joe,

    Today, I fret less about who wins in November.

    There will be great rejoicing in Heaven.

    You inspire me.

    T

  • Read this—an insider is saying Hillary is going to be on the ticket. This makes sense coupled with the contraceptive story and the fact that Bill Clinton is out there doing fundraisers for Obama.. All bets are off, this may put Obama back in play considering Hillary’s popularity. Can he fool voters again??

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/03/election-news-and-blue.php

  • There needs to be an ‘attraction’ on the D ballot. The new Kennedy glam of the Clinton’s (he who wiped innocence and dignity from the political face for the people of this country) will outdo a VP like J. Biden.
    The bloodied and slandered Republican on the ballot will need the hand of God.

Rick Santorum & the Data Behind the Catholic, Evangelical, Youth & Women’s Vote

Wednesday, March 7, AD 2012

The divide between the truth of the election results and the punditry of the mainstream media is seemingly growing every major primary election night. Perhaps none more than the recent Super Tuesday results, especially those of Ohio. How could it possibly be that Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania Senator won the youth vote, all voters under 44, and the married women vote? If one listens to the mainstream media, especially that of NBC, MSNBC and the New York Times one would think the only people voting for Rick Santorum would be rust belt pre-Vatican II ordained Catholic priests, and an amalgamation of southern characters such as Jed Clampett, Mr. Haney, as well as some assorted extras from the set of Deliverance. However, the true exit poll results tell us something quite different.

The mainstream media seemed shocked that Rick Santorum didn’t win the Catholic vote and won the Evangelical Vote as well as the others I indicated earlier; young people and married women. I want to delve into the nitty grtty of the statistics and demographics in a few paragraphs but first let me give you some background on those in the heartland who became liberals even though they grew up in GOP circles and folks like myself who became conservative after growing up in a Democratic household.

I grew up in a working class steel and railroad town in Ohio. My family, like many around us was Democrat in party affiliation and social conservative in our mindset. I was educated in Catholic schools (during the 1970s & 80s) and though it was the warm fuzzy era of Catholic education, our nuns and lay teachers never completely bought into the liberal model that was so the rage in cool, upscale areas.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

9 Responses to Rick Santorum & the Data Behind the Catholic, Evangelical, Youth & Women’s Vote

  • “The area west of I-75 in western Ohio might simply be some of the most conservative political real estate in America.”

    The same could be said of the area south of I-80 in Illinois, with a few exceptions such as East St. Louis and university communities like Champaign-Urbana. Our primary is less than 2 weeks away and it will be interesting to see whether the results reflect yours.

    Perhaps it ought to be emphasized here that — in my estimation — while it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for an observant Catholic at this point to vote in good conscience to reelect Obama, I don’t think we should assume that a “good” Catholic MUST or will always vote for Santorum over Romney or Gingrich or Paul. A faithful Catholic could vote for any one of them for a number of reasons and we should not presume Santorum is the one and only “true Catholic” candidate.

  • I love this:

    “Ohio voters who think Paul is too conservative went 45% for Romney. Voters who think Paul is not conservative enough went 39% for Romney.”

    Even The Weathervane’s supporters blow with the predominant breeze.

  • It’s a shame R.Paul is not more eloquent in speech and better looking. He is the better candidate because he is better for America overall than anyone else running on either side. When we focus on “wedge” issues, we lose sight of the bigger picture. He fully supports the constitution, wants to get rid of the FED and his ideas of foriegn policy make much more sense than what we’ve been doing for many decades. I would rather lose a fight that is important to me now (say abortion), but to continue to focus and educate on it locally and get someone in the white house (or senate/congress) that is a true statemen and patriot. Everyone else are simply politicians…

  • Excellent article, David, which I hope the Democratic strategists never read.
    At a pro-life pancake breakfast on Long Island, former friend of Rev Jackson and frequent guest on EWTN, Delores Bernadette Grier, told how Jesse who was himself nearly aborted as a baby, was a pro-life activist with the Archdiocese of New York,and convinced her to become active in the pro-life movement. She said he was told he had to be pro-abortion in order to run for the presidency and gave in.
    So many Catholics followed suit, in order to be accepted by the wider culture, and have the luxuries they craved, they used birth control and voted pro-abortion. They are the Cathoiics who voted for Obama and like, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, are cultural Catholics from the Coast.
    They have no clue that there is a large, vibrant John Paul II generation just now coming of age to vote. Its been said that home-schoolers are Rick’s secret army, and even here in Eastern CT we are organizing for him, and praying for him. Rick knows, I think he intentionally chose Steubenville, OH for his speech on Super Tuesday, since it is the home of JPII Catholic bastion, Franciscan University. I bet he has a lot of support there.

    John Kerry, another cultural Catholic found this out the hard way in 2004 during a campaign rally there. Catholic Evangelist Scott Hahn’s son led half of t he student body to the rally carrying signs reading, “You can’t be Catholic and Pro-abortion!”.
    I pray that such a surprise awaits our president on a November evening when the new wave of Catholics deliver a Santorum victory.

  • Very interesting analysis. Dave Hartline and many other “socially conservative” Catholics were Democrats back in the day. Same could be said for countless others–Abp Chaput, for instance, wrote about working on the Carter campaign. Obviously back in the day the parties were not clearly defined on abortion and, in fact, the Democratic party was actually more socially conservative than the “country club / wasp” dominated GOP prior to Reagan. GW Bush’s whole “compassionate conservative” campaign was specifically designed to win these largely Catholic socially-conservative, economically moderate voters.
    Which brings me to Santorum, whom I find interesting b/c on the one hand he appeals to the same folks as the compassionate conservatives (think Huckabee in ’08, Chris Smith, Norm Coleman in MN, et al). Yet on the other hand he has won the support of many “tea party conservatives” whose anti-government liberterian-laced rhetoric does not jive very well with the Catholic communal ethos. In this light, it makes sense that Romney wins with Catholics b/c he is perceived as more “moderate” and less draconian. Note I am not talking about actual policy differences so much as perceptions, taste and culture.
    Santorum has more appeal with these voters, but as Thomas Sowell pointed out, it is not clear that he is the best candidate to take on Obama. Running for President is ultimately an audition for a job, and the successful business doesn’t hire someone b/c they like them best or b/c they have the same sympathies, but b/c they have the best skills and will do the best job. On the other hand Romney has failed to convince many that he is the one best qualified to knock off Obama and address the nation’s pressing economic and social issues.
    I will continue to follow the votes of Catholics in this election with interest.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY EXTRA: U.S. POLITICS | ThePulp.it
  • “Younger Catholics who attend Mass regularly are more pro-life and adhere to the Church’s teachings more than their baby boomer parents.”

    This may be true. However what percent of the population are these younger Catholics?

  • First of all, I’ve never liked the “compassionate conservative” schtick of GW Bush. It unwittingly implied that conservatism, in and of itself, was lacking in compassion. Likewise, I find Santorum’s “supply side economics for the working man” suffers from the same type of false dichotomy, albeit unwittingly. I think what made Reagan’s approach so effective is that he saw the natural win-win in his conservatism.

    I also think Santorum being an orthodox Catholic and assuming he is knowledgable enough about the faith, I think he needs to start presenting his economic policy in the context of the principle of subsidiarity, which is in line with mainstream conservatism, especially when he speaks to Catholic audiences. He would also do well to show its consistency with mainline conservatism to non-Catholic audiences, particularly in light of the HHS Mandate viz. Obamacare.

    To my knowledge, Santorum has yet to do so.

    Believe it or not, that would be well received by most of the Tea Party. Given their cohesiveness (which smacks of a “communial ethos) and political effectiveness, they are not like Libertarians in that sense who are, to quote Michael Medved, “Losertarians”.

Something for Everyone Tuesday

Wednesday, March 7, AD 2012

Well, all of the remaining candidates in the Republican fight for the presidential nomination had something to brag about, and to worry about, after last night.

1.  Rick Santorum:

Brag About:  Major bragging rights go to Santorum.  He battled to almost a tie in Ohio, after being outspent four to one by Mitt Romney, in a truly remarkable demonstration that fervent volunteers can largely negate a money advantage.  His wins in Oklahoma, North Dakota and  Tennessee demonstrated that where the Republican party is strongest, unless there is a substantial Mormon population., Santorum also tends to be strongest, and that he has an appeal to the Republican base that is not limited to geography.  He came in a strong second in Alaska, and weak seconds in Idaho and Massachusetts.

Worry About:  He did not win in Ohio and thus any momentum from a near defeat in the Buckeye State will be much less.   Gingrich is giving no sign that he is leaving the race and his vote totals deprive Santorum of victory after victory.

2.  Mitt Romney, a/k/a the Weathervane:

Brag About:  He dodged a bullet by winning, barely, the big prize of Ohio last night.  He won overwhelmingly in Massachusetts.  Toss in victories in Virginia, Alaska, Vermont  and Idaho and it is impossible to argue, as much as I would like to, that Super Tuesday was not a very good night for the Weathervane.  He ran a strong second in Oklahoma, and weak seconds in Tennessee, Georgia and North Dakota.  He continues to amass the most delegates and to be the clear favorite to get the nomination.

Worry About:  Unless his money mud machine is fully deployed, the Weathervane has a great deal of difficulty in winning against a strong candidate, the prime example last night being Ohio where he eked out a one point victory with only a four to one spending advantage.  His victory in Virginia, where 40% of Republicans voted for Doctor Delusional since he was the only not Romney on the ballot, is also troubling for the Weathervane as it shows the depth of the anti-Romney sentiment among rank and file Republicans in a key state in the fall, and is mirrored throughout the nation.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

14 Responses to Something for Everyone Tuesday

  • If you count Super-PAC spending, Dullard Flip Rino’s advantage in Ohio was probably something more like 12-1. Every time you turned on the TV here, Santorum’s grainy photo was juxtaposed with ominous music paid for by Dullard’s Super-PAC.

    At any rate, Santorum’s loss in Ohio – even though a squeaker – coupled with Gingrich’s win in Georgia – which will be enough to keep Gingrich’s oversized ego in the race, means this thing is, for all practical purposes, over. And the allegedly “conservative” and “pro-life” party will have nominated someone who is neither.

    Which means I’ll be casting my vote elsewhere this fall. Time to replace my Santorum bumper stickers and yard signs with ones for Virgil Goode.

  • Probably a correct analysis Jay unless Gingrich does decide to drop out soon and put every drop of energy he has behind Santorum. Unlikely, yes, but this year I do not think it is ever safe to assume that the unlikely may not occur.

  • I’m not sure the Pauls are angling for Rand to get the VP spot. Yeah, I’ve heard chatter about it, but it doesn’t seem to make much sense to me given that Romney’s positions (as floppy as they may be) are far and away different than those of Pauls… at least the ones Paul supporters care most deeply about (foreign policy, ending the FED, etc…).

  • Rand Paul’s chances of accepting a VP slot are between none and square-root-of-negative-one. If the GOP loses, Sen. Paul is then cast into Elysium, never to be seen again. If they win, then he’s in that lovely position that was unsuccessful for all but Martin van Buren and GHW Bush.

    He’s aiming at 2016 or 2020, depending. Were there any chance of Paul the Younger being on a ticket, Paul the Elder would have dropped out months ago. Being in any oppositional situation would not serve the cause.

  • Pretty much nailed what I was gonna say. I would just add that the Virginia result is the most troubling for Romney, especially since Virginia is such a must-win state for the GOP. That’s a mighty loud protest vote. And for the “electable” crowd, please note that Romney is barely eking out victories while massively outspending his opponents. What is he going to do when he’s the one being outspent on the order of 2:1, if not more?

    Even though Gingrich dropping out would help Santorum – and Santorum certainly would have won Ohio without Newt in the race, and probably Georgia as well – there’s something to be said for the fact that Rick would be facing a 2-1 onslaught without Newt. Not having Newt in the race could help Romney and mini-Romney concentrate their fire. So I think the advantage to Santorum to Newt dropping out is not as significant as people might think.

    I had suggested on my blog that Santorum would drop out if he lost Ohio, but considering the closeness of the race and the otherwise decent showing last night, he’ll stick it out. He should do fairly well in the next round of states, which are concentrated in the south and midwest. But he faces an uphill climb to 1,044.

  • Something to keep an eye on:
    Every time Romney gets a big win, he lets down his guard and drops the conservative fascade. It always comes back to bite him, and his campaign is left scrambling to undo the damage and explain that the candidate didn’t really mean what he just said. (See, e.g., last week’s faux pas re: the Blunt Amendment.) EVERY time. So be on the watch.

    My guess, based on his speech last night in Massachusetts, is that Romney will not wait any longer before doing the general election pivot to the “middle” (i.e. left). It will happen this week, perhaps as early as today. Expect to be continually disappointed throughout this election as the REAL Mitt comes to the fore.

    I expect he’ll even pull a Murkowski and back off his already tepid “support” of the failed Blunt Amendment at some point in the near future. He’ll use the “I support religious freedom, but the Blunt Amendment was overbroad and went too far” line. He’ll even go on record as wanting to broker a “more effective accomodation” than the Obama “accomodation”. It will be somewhat more favorable to the Church’s position, but not satisfactory. Just watch.

    That’s my prediction.

  • I think that there are a few things people often forget about:
    1) We’ve had huge upswings in this race. To count *anyone* out right now seems crazy and indicates a lack of backwards vision.
    2) I don’t have numbers to back this up, but is it possible that some people who vote for Gingrich might vote for Romney instead of Santorum? I know I would choose Romney over Santorum any day, any week, if it was between those two!
    3) How many Republicans and conservatives are actually going to sit at home on election day if Romney wins the nomination? I think the hatred for President Obama is so high among that crowd that they’d show up to vote for a shoe. So any talk of Romney barely beating Santorum, and only when he outspends him, says nothing about the general election. The general election will simply be, for Romney, making sure he doesn’t offend the Republican and conservative base, and appealing to moderates. Santorum can *only* appeal to die-hard conservatives and Republicans.

    In the end, I can’t see how Santorum is a better general election candidate than Romney: and this comes from a Newt supporter!

  • I don’t have numbers to back this up, but is it possible that some people who vote for Gingrich might vote for Romney instead of Santorum? I know I would choose Romney over Santorum any day, any week, if it was between those two!

    Most polling suggests that you’d be in the minority among Gingrich supporters, though who knows what would really happen.

    How many Republicans and conservatives are actually going to sit at home on election day if Romney wins the nomination?

    Well, you’ve got two on this thread alone, and from what I’ve seen I would say that a not unsubstantial number of conservatives would do so. Again, we’ll see.

    Santorum can *only* appeal to die-hard conservatives and Republicans.

    And yet he twice won in a district that was more than 3:1 Democrat to Republican, and won twice state-wide in a leaning blue state (yes, yes, I know – he also lost there by 18). In a general election, Santorum’s populist appeal could very well attract more blue-collar Democrats and independents than Romney is likely going to draw.

  • Ohio, Ohio, Ohio.

    Both candidates allowed the press to build it up as the defining race of Super Tuesday, so they have to live with the results. This is the second Clash of the Titans since Santorum’s three-state sweep, and Romney has won both of them.

    Newt has a shiny new toy, and will go into the Convention with two state victories – cause it ain’t gonna happen a third time. Paul didn’t even get a shiny toy. At this point they’re just vying for a good slot in primetime at the Convention. I think they both want to hold their heads high, but really, why should they?

    I’ve been bothered by the constant calls for candidates to drop out, but if Romney can win the two Deep South races of Alabama and Mississippi next week, I don’t see why Santorum should stay in the race.

    How would Santorum be as a VP nominee? Typically, the pick has less significance than the press thinks it does. VP isn’t like being Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon; it’s more like being Michael Collins who stayed in orbit. You’re close enough to see what power looks like, but you don’t actually have any. And there’s always talk about putting all the other candidates in your cabinet to show party unity, which never amounts to anything. But I think that the personas that Romney and Santorum have crafted in this campaign would play off each other really well. The fact that they don’t seem to like each other would work to their advantage.

  • I got to hear the local vaguely-conservative station’s special coverage that was mostly scolding Gingrich and pouting that Santorum was doing so well. (the guy really likes Romney)

    I notice a trend: the folks who support Romney and Libertarians seem to think that SoCons are still going to do their “better than nothing” trick and support anybody that’s not Obama. I think the game is changing– you can’t take the base for granted, not when there’s so much access to information that “better than nothing” is more like eating the seed-corn.

  • After viewing the three speeches last night, I reached the conclusion that there is only one candidate who articulates the fight necessary to beat Obama and the vision to lead this country out of the rubble. I challenge all of you to objectively view the speeches and honestly evaluate the message conveyed.

    P.S.
    Newt= $2.50 gasoline.

  • Tess S. –
    why on earth would we base our choices on one speech from each person? Besides the fact that what I heard of Newt’s speech was not persuasive unless you already agreed, and the idea of Newt fighting the elite establishment still makes me giggle (imagine Pelosi talking about speaking truth to power), I don’t make choices strictly on how good someone is at talking. That may be a bias on my part, because I’m not so silver-tongued myself.

  • Foxfier,

    Then let’s vote for a candidate based on the fact that he has seven kids.

    The majority of his Super Tuesday speech consisted of bragging about the size of his family, his roots in the Ohio Valley, and a display of a few smooches with his wife. It was beautiful. Profound. A family like his will save the world.

    Yeah. I Pick Rick.

Shenanigans in Michigan

Friday, March 2, AD 2012

Despite losing by three percentage points in Michigan on Tuesday night, Rick Santorum could claim a small moral victory.  Because Michigan awards its delegates proportionally, Santorum and Mitt Romney walked away with 15 delegates each.

Or so we all thought.

Well lo and behold the Michigan Republican establishment got together and made sure that didn’t happen.

On a 4-2 vote, the Michigan GOP’s credentials committee met Wednesday night and awarded both of the state’s at-large voting delegates to the party’s national convention to Romney — who won the popular vote 41%-38% over his chief rival, Rick Santorum.

Based on earlier explanations to reporters and the campaigns that the party’s rules said the at-large delegates would be awarded proportionally, it had been expected that each candidate would get one at-large delegate.

. . .

Saul Anuzis, one of six members of the credentials committee, said the credentials committee voted in early February to award both at-large delegates to the winner of the popular vote.

Republican Party spokesman Matt Frendewey said he didn’t do a good job explaining the rules to reporters.

“I just didn’t explain it clearly enough,” he said.

You see it was all just a big misunderstanding.  They always meant to award both at-large delegates to the winner of the popular vote.  Nothing to see here.  The native son won after all.  Have fun in Ohio.

Unfortunately for Anuzis (who at one point came close to heading the RNC), not all Romney supporters are this dishonest.

Not to former Attorney General Mike Cox, a member of the committee, who said the vote doesn’t pass the smell test.

“I have this crazy idea that you follow the rules,” Cox said. “I’d love to give the at-large delegates to Mitt Romney, but our rules provide for strict apportionment.”

Cox supported Romney and even acted as a surrogate for the candidate on several occasions during the last three weeks. He was one of two “no” votes Wednesday night — along with attorney Eric Doster. Voting for the distribution of delegates to Romney were party Chairman Bobby Schostak, Anuzis, party Co-chairwoman Sharon Wise and party official Bill Runco.

Cox figures the issue will become moot when Romney does well on Super Tuesday, when 10 states hold primaries and caucuses next week.

“But this niff-nawing over one delegate doesn’t help him,” Cox said.

He acknowledges that there was discussion of giving the popular-vote winner both at-large delegates, but that it didn’t get written into the rules.

Obviously Mr. Cox’s ears must have had a typo during that discussion.

So we have further proof that Mitt Romney is such an incredibly awesome hurricane of a candidate that party insiders have to change the rules post facto in order to give him a victory in his native state.

One would like to think that by now Romney and company have done enough to repel any Republican voter from even considering voting for Romney.  HA!  Romney now commands a 16-point lead according to Rasmussen, and has all but erased Rick Santorum’s lead in Ohio, and now leads in Washington state.

I don’t know what to say.  In light of the events that transpired yesterday I made a vow that I was no longer going to hector those whom I normally agree with about this election.  It doesn’t mean that I won’t continue to try and do everything in my power to help Santorum get the nomination, but I’m done banging my head against the wall.  It is what it is.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Continue reading...

28 Responses to Shenanigans in Michigan

  • “I don’t know what to say.” How about: “Let’s begin to put our differences aside and realize that, unless we unite soon, President Obama will be re-elected in November.” He will then be unfettered by the need to run for election again, with its attendant consequences for his second term.

    Paul, you are right, “It is what it is,” and this November, unless we unite soon, it will be what WE allow it to become.

  • Tom, I’m sorry but I’m not going to be bullied into supporting someone as loathsome as Mitt Romney. I won’t spend my days and nights blogging about how awful he is, but “he’s not Obama” is not enough. I recognize that is a minority position, likely unpopular, and if you want to vote for whoever the GOP candidate is, that is your prerogative. Count me out.

  • Ah, pettiness and stupidity, the hallmarks of the Romney campaign. The pettiness is obvious in cheating to get a measly delegate. The stupidity comes into play in creating a great deal of ill will over one delegate. If Romney is the nominee I will vote against Obama, and the most effective way I can do that is by voting for the Republican nominee. However, Romney and his acolytes are working overtime trying to dissuade me from my resolution.

  • I certainly did not, and do not, wish to “bully” anyone. I think that I was stating what, by now, must be obvious.

    What each of us chooses to do this November is, ultimately, our choice, the consequences of which we must be fully aware. A second Obama term will be unfettered from the restraints of having to run for re-election. If you dislike what has occurred during his first term – to quote Bachman-Turner Overdrive – “you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

  • Bully was a strong choice of words, so I apologize for that. And I completely agree that a second Obama administration must be avoided. I’d like to avoid nominating the guy who will make it easier for Obama to achieve that mission.

  • No need to apologize Paul, I admire and respect your passion. Let’s all of us – Republicans, libertarians, and conservatives