Isabella Santorum Hospitalized

Sunday, January 29, AD 2012

The AP reports.

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum canceled his Sunday morning campaign events and planned to spend time with his hospitalized daughter.

“Rick and his wife Karen are admitting their daughter Bella to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia this evening,” spokesman Hogan Gidley said in a statement Saturday night, adding “Rick intends to return to Florida and resume the campaign schedule as soon as is possible.”

Santorum had been scheduled to appear on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and attend church in Miami. Officials did not cancel Sunday’s afternoon events in Sarasota and Punta Gorda.

Please keep the Santorum family in your prayers.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Isabella Santorum Hospitalized

  • Av? Mar?a, gr?ti? pl?na, Dominus t?cum.
    Benedicta t? in mulieribus,
    et benedictus fr?ctus ventris tu?, I?sus.
    S?ncta Mar?a, M?ter De?,
    ?r? pr? n?b?s pecc?t?ribus,
    nunc et in h?r? mortis nostrae.
    ?m?n.

  • Well, here is some good news for Rick. Looks like he is enjoying a post-debate surge. Hopefully, he can surge right into second place:

    From Today’s Marist Poll:

    “Santorum is the only candidate to see a debate bounce. In the three days of polling (Wednesday through Friday), Santorum saw a five-point increase after the debate. He was also seen as the “true conservative” in the race — 38 percent said so versus 18 percent for each Romney and Gingrich, and 16 percent for Paul. More voters also said they saw Santorum as the candidate who best represents the middle class.”

  • Rick Santorum is showing that he has his priorities straight. His political ambitions do not stand in the way of what is truly important: his daughter, his family. A man with this much integrity deserves to be come president. May God bless him and his family and spare his little daughter!

  • Our prayors for Isabella and the Santorum family go with you !

  • Our prayers go out to Rick and his wonderful family. May God watch over Isabella, and grant her back to good health! Rick, all else is not important; just love for family! May you and your family receive good news this evening about Isabella!

  • may god bless you and your daughter and pray she will get better soon.

  • I shall present Bella to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament in the next half an hour as I observe the Eucharistic Apostles of the Divine Mercy’s 3.00 O’clock Holy Hour – The Hour of Great Mercy.

  • Pingback: MONDAY POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it

The Only Conservative Left

Friday, January 27, AD 2012

The 2012 presidential election cycle is truly one of the most depressing things to behold.  Neither of the top two candidates in the Republican field are particularly appealing, and the incumbent President has made Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan look like George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.  Meanwhile, for all the bluster about the Establishment choosing our candidates (a charge not wholly without merit), conservatives have done themselves no favors by engaging in ridiculous character assassinations of any candidate who is not one hundred pure and good – meaning all the candidates.  Meanwhile, superficial bluster about being a conservative is taken more seriously than actual conservative governing records in big states.

To top it all off, the only conservative left in the race is barely gaining any traction, even when dismantling his opponent in exchanges such as this.

That was far from the only highlight for Santorum.  While Newt and Mitt were busy tearing each other apart for every perceived slight, Rick brought some common sense into the debate.

I don’t think Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have helped themselves with their terse exchanges on illegal immigration and Fannie & Freddie.

Apparently, Rick Santorum didn’t think so either. He said there was nothing wrong with Newt using his knowledge of Congress to help advise companies and then said there was nothing wrong with Romney making money. Santorum then implored Mitt and Newt, “Leave that alone and focus on the issues,” to strong applause.

Ah, but Senator Santorum is unelectable, according to the all the wise pundits.  There’s no way he could possibly be more electable than the guy who was once portrayed as the “Gingrich who stole Chrismas,” and who has a 2:1 unfavorable to favorable gap in the polls.  And he’s certainly not as electable as the guy who is so darn appealing that Republicans are climbing over themselves to pick anyone else but him to be the nominee, and who has an electoral record that makes the Detroit Lions look like a juggernaut.  Santorum lost his last election by 18 points, and as we all know someone that unpopular can’t ever recover.  No, we need to nominate the guy who left office with a 34% favorability rating, and who didn’t lose his bid at re-election because he didn’t even bother, knowing he was going to get destroyed.  Failing that, we can nominate the guy whose own caucus ran him out of Washington, DC.

But Santorum is unelectable.

We also know Santorum is also unelectable because he holds social views outside of the mainstream.  For instance, Santorum has this notion that marriage is an institution for one man and one woman.  This is such an insane notion that it is only shared by a majority of the American population and the current occupant of the White House.  You see, the problem with Santorum is that, unlike President Obama, he really means it.  As was discussed a couple of weeks ago at Creative Minority Report, Santorum is actually sincere in his beliefs.  So while he might hold policy positions that are identical with the rest of the field, he is the one being mocked because, well, he actually believes what he is saying.

One of the things that occurred to me recently that only augmented my political depression is that Gingrich does hold one electoral advantage over Santorum.  The fact that Gingrich is a twice-divorced man with a checkered past while Santorum is a faithfully married man and father of seven means that independents won’t fear Gingrich as much on social issues.  That’s right – actually being a man of unquestioned personal morality is an electoral disadvantage, because that just makes you seem all the more scaaaaaary.  Thank goodness our elections are decided by the sorts of people who think it’s just creepy that other people think that all life is precious, even lives conceived during rape.

So excuse me if I sit this dance out.

Update:  Great piece by Daniel Allott that discusses “Santorum Derangement Syndrome” and the problems that sincere politicians face.  H/t: Dale Price.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to The Only Conservative Left

  • As I recall Bush versus Clinton Mr Zummo, Mr Bush gained some traction from his stable marriage over against Mr Clinton. The public mood has changed a lot in some ways but disdain for Mr Obama’s sexual and medical policies are very important now. They will become more-so if Cardinal Timothy Dolan – well, as of 28 February- as head of the NCCCB gets a fire lit under] the Conference and all its members and its constituents and their flock. The insurance issue in itself and the attack on conscience is a nuke ready for ignition against all that is wrong with the current group in charge of setting policy.

  • Santorum was simply fantastic !! America should wise up.

  • Perhaps Michael Voris’ recent video on the “Five Reasons Conservatives Lost” bears on this topic:

    http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D0ITGfUzoezk%26list%3DUUsUgCCaaOfESPA4REUfZ33g%26index%3D5%26feature%3Dplcp&index=5&list=UUsUgCCaaOfESPA4REUfZ33g&feature=plcp&v=0ITGfUzoezk&gl=US

    BTW, I would like to fuel that nuke HT was talking about with tritium and plutonium-239. I know where we can get a Subroc to do the trick! 😉

  • Apologies Paul P for using a WMD image as a pacifist. David’s smooth stone might have been better as long as it hits forehead and not ears!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • No apologies required, HT. I was in violent agreement with you either way. If a smooth stone doesn’t cut it, then we always have the subroc! 😉

    Just kidding.

  • Santorum is getting a lot of positive buzz for his debate performance last night and people are beginning to pay attention to him. His takedown of Romney on Romneycare was memorable. Romney’s stuttering non-defense (Obamacare is nothing to get mad about) was a strong indication as to why the Weathervane is the weakest candidate to go up against Obama. As compared to Romney and Gingrich, Santorum seemed to be the only adult in the room. Santorum probably will not be the nominee this time around, but he is giving a good example of intelligent, articulate conservatism and people are starting to note this.

  • Donald R. McClarey: The soul of clarity

  • “Donald R. McClarey: The soul of clarity” Or is that McClarity? kay sorry.. ButI love Santorum… I am praying he wins.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • While I’m definitely leaning toward Santorum (if only he hadn’t come out in favor of waterboarding…), the amount of sheer vitriol that’s already been leveled against him makes me fear the heights the Derangement Syndrome would reach if he made it to the White House. (If you thought the hatred of Bush was bad…) Then again, he’s been receiving that kind of backdraft ever since he was Senator, so maybe it won’t be so bad for his health…

    As for the majority of Americans opposing same-sex marriage, I’m not so sure how long that will last, as sodomy seems to have been accepted alongside divorce, fornication, and shacking up by society as something wholesome and worthwhile. (Have you ever tried to discuss the Catholic teaching on sexuality with someone outside the Catholic sphere? Or even tried to formulate an argument in a possible effort to – gasp! – try and win them to your point of view?)

    I dunno. (And then there’s conservatives’ sometime infatuation with Ayn Rand, which brings to mind the nightmare of an America divided solely between liberals and Objectivists…)

  • Local conservative radio host here in Houston says Santorum is not a fiscal conservative. Tom Delay supports Santorum and stated he is a true all-round conservative. Have heard he is big on unions – I personally don’t care for unions.

  • I kind of like 🙂 the moon colony idea of Newt….but we need the colony up and ready prior to the election not after… so that we have an alternative.

  • HAPPY FEASTDAY today 28 JANUARY “Tommy Aquinas” -presume he is your hero ? i find myself drawing closer to Mr Santorum from my earlier views when he was good but not seemingly electable. I also operate on the Higher Side of our Humanness. The hatred spewed on him is Evil at work, as it is for any Good, witness what we did to the GOOD SHEPHERD Jesus. My prayer and hope is that the combination of positive Gospel of Life people, the disdain for 44 and his backers, and the other nebelous factors in any public debate will be swept up by the Holy Spirit who will see ” the good, the true and the beautiful ” voted to triumph. That could be Mr Santorum, or Mr Gingrich or Mr Romney. As I noted elsewhere we are not electing a replacement Messiah.

  • “Santorum is actually sincere in his beliefs. So while he might hold policy positions that are identical with the rest of the field, he is the one being mocked because, well, he actually believes what he is saying.”

    This is the key to my support for Santorum and to the media’s–yes–conspiracy to ignore him. Every Republican is obliged to make pro-life noises. Once elected, he may throw pro-lifers a few bones, but for most part ignores them. I don’t think anyone believes Santorum would behave this way, whether they support his candidacy or not.

    I share your depression over this awful primary season, Paul.

  • Santorum’s hometown newspapers – no, check that, they are disgusting rags and/or scandal sheets – have never stopped ripping into him. It seems that Santorum’s wife worked for an abortionist before she met and married Santorum. The key to all of this is to make the Santorums look like hypocrites on the pro life issue.

    These disgusting rags – the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (the socialist rag) and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review (the libertarian/anarchist rag) point out Karen Santorum’s previous life, but ignore Dr. Nathanson and Norma McCovey. It does not fit their “world view”.

    I loathe the media. Actually I don’t like it enough to loathe it.

  • PenguinsFan: We all struggle with the hate-forgive-let go struggle. I am learning to take Jesus’ advice. walking the extra mile meant that, by law, Jewish men were obliged to carry a Roman soldier’s equipment for one mile. Jesus asks them to go the extra mile, and take the sting, hate and resentment out of the forced march. We can write letters, get on the local radio talk shows if available and make our points positively to the general public and maybe influence advertisers. One never knows the effect of a simple gesture, the biblical leaven or the mustard seed that influence the end product. Prayer of course is indispensable to take on Jesus’ mind as expressed in in Phil. 2:6-11- emptying ouselves of the fasle self and take on the mind of Christ Jesus.

Confessions of a Reluctant Romney Supporter

Tuesday, January 24, AD 2012

I haven’t written much of anything about the GOP primary contest, despite the fact I have been following it closely, in part because I found myself so incredibly dissatisfied with all the candidates. However, as the field narrows and appears to be actually competitive, and various people I respect line up behind candidates, it seemed like it was time to come out of the closet as something I’m not very enthusiastic about being: a Romney supporter.

This is not because I’m particularly fond of Romney. I don’t trust him a great deal, I’m not clear how solid any of his principles are other than his conviction that he should be president, and I don’t find him particularly inspiring. As various candidates have had their five minutes of popularity for the achievement of not being Romney, I kept hoping that one of them would manage to pull ahead and show some stature. I was particularly hopeful about Rick Perry, but he just didn’t seem able to run a campaign.

So why support Romney?

I’ll start with the positive. While I’m not enthusiastic about Romney, I think that most of what the GOP needs in order to oust Obama this year is simply a credible alternative who doesn’t scare people too much. Given how bad the economy is and how unpopular some elements of his policy have been, “not Obama” can be a solidly popular candidate by that virtue alone.

Continue reading...

30 Responses to Confessions of a Reluctant Romney Supporter

  • I think Romney has a glass jaw Darwin. Of all the Republican candidates, except for Ron Paul (R. Pluto), I think he stands the best chance of being beaten by Obama. He gives every sign of conducting the same lifeless, passive campaigns that Dole and McCain ran. Your support of Romney also typifies Romney’s problem: even his supporters are very tepid about him. I will vote for him if he is the nominee, but the only reason I can think for doing so is that he would be the Not Obama in the race. This year that may be enough, but that is a frail reed to base an election on.

  • Yeah, I guess my fear is that Gingrich will on alternate days have a nitroglycerine jaw and no jaw at all. Heck, if we were okay with a flaky philanderer for our nominee why couldn’t we stick with Herman Cain? At least he didn’t have the bad congressional history and we could have pizza at all the campaign events.

    If Santorum were the one polling equal to or above Romney, and if either Santorum or Gingrich weren’t doing a lot worse in the general election polling, I’d be moderately happy to support Santorum. But although I’d reluctantly support Gingrich if he wins the nomination (which is perhaps more than I could say for Ron Paul) I have to admit I’d prefer Romney at the top of the ticket to Gingrich. (Kind of the way I supported Dole over Buchanan.)

  • Gingrich’s personal life is despicable, at least it was during his first two marriages. However thus far in this campaign he has shown a talent for coming back from the political dead, twice, and going off the script. The script I am referring to is that Republican candidates are supposed to be deferential to a media that despises them and their supporters, and that they are supposed to adopt a defensive crouch towards their ideological adversaries. I fear that is a script that Romney will faithfully follow if he is the nominee. I would much prefer it if Santorum were the one with a chance of beating Romney, but I think that ship has not only sailed, but sunk.

  • Now I think about it, I think my preference is based on one other expectation: Obama is clearly going to run one of the most viciously negative campaigns in recent memory. There will be no more of the hopey changey drivel we got last time — even his own base doesn’t believe it any more. So instead we’ll get one of the lowest and nastiest campaigns ever.

    There are, I guess, two ways to go after that. One is to put in someone like Gingrich who will fight back tooth and nail. The other is to go for someone like Romney who will try to do the teflon routine and brush it off with a, “You’re saying that because you’re a failure. Now are we going to move on and get the economy together or are we going to focus on looking for scapegoats for the next four years?”

    My instinct is that the latter will work better — though my crystal ball is no more functional than any other, so we’ll see what happens.

  • I’ve been pleased by how much emotion I’ve seen in the past couple of weeks. The line on 2012 was that it was going to be uninspiring, but people have suddenly become passionate about the race. And it’s still nine months away.

  • We are in agreement on the type of campaign Obama will run. We disagree on the best response to it. If Romney goes with the “above it all” routine he will be lucky if all of his kids vote for him as he goes down in flames. Negative campaigning is effective, and being passive to it is normally a one way ticket to political oblivion.

  • As to the feeling that the choices were weak this time around, I think that both Clinton and W did a poor job of developing the farm team. Reagan did a great job in that area, making appointments and supporting candidates who went on to become leaders. It’s not just about the so-called “team of rivals”, which doesn’t necessarily work anyway (it didn’t even work particularly well for Lincoln). It’s also about giving the rookies a chance to shine. During the past year people have been talking about their list of candidates who didn’t run (Palin, Rubio, Christie, etc.). A lot of those names are newbies. The reason that newbies are getting so much attention is because there isn’t a strong group of established politicians, the people who would have been newbies 10-20 years ago.

  • Romney consistently polls best against Obama in head to head match-ups, he has better favorable/unfavorable ratings than Gingrich, his implied electability on Intrade is higher, and of course he doesn’t have Newt’s history of blow-ups. Why anyone would think Gingrich is more likely to beat Obama is beyond me.

    If Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels got in I would be thrilled. But I don’t see that happening.

  • “Why anyone would think Gingrich is more likely to beat Obama is beyond me.”

    Because he knows how to attack BA rather than to simply stand there and be a punching bag which seems to be Romney’s chief political skill. That and attempting to run to the left of his Democrat adversaries on social issues, which is a tactic he employed in both 1994 and 2002. Of course, now he is a changed man. (At least until the next shift in the political wind.)

    If pre-election polls were the determinging factor in who should be the Republican candidate than George Bush should have been the nominee instead of Reagan in 1980, since he normally polled stronger against Carter. As a matter of fact, Carter polled 10 points ahead of Reagan in the poll taken just before the October 28 Reagan-Carter debate when Reagan aggressively mopped the floor with Carter. Reagan went on to win by nine points. The rejoinder is that Gingrich is no Reagan. True, although Reagan was no Reagan until he put away a President he had trailed in almost all the polls the entire year.

  • I could understand holding one’s nose and voting for Romney in the General Election because one sees him as the better of two bad alternatives. I disagree with it, and won’t do it myself, but I understand it.

    But I just cannot understand actually supporting him in the primary. Fortunately, Darwin, Sarah and I will be more than happy to cancel out your vote in the Ohio Primary.

    😉

  • Romney consistently polls best against Obama in head to head match-ups, he has better favorable/unfavorable ratings than Gingrich, his implied electability on Intrade is higher, and of course he doesn’t have Newt’s history of blow-ups. Why anyone would think Gingrich is more likely to beat Obama is beyond me.

    That’s basically my thinking. If there was a candidate out there who I thought people would love if only they could get a better look at him, I’d be happy to support someone on that basis who didn’t yet poll well. But other three who have made it this far I like even less than Romney. Which is what leaves me supporting him.

  • Drew over at Drew Musings explains why he is backing Gingrich:

    “In the end, I’ve settled on Newt Gingrich.

    It’s been a long journey and the final choice I’ve come to represents a compromise on my ideal choice to fight the battle against Barack Obama.

    Originally I wanted a bland conservative who was plausible to most voters as a reasonable option to be President. I wanted the election to be a referendum on Obama with the GOP offering a solid, if not spectacular alternative. A Sanford/Pawlenty/Daniels type would have kept the focus where it belonged…on Obama.

    Some will argue that Romney is in this mold. I don’t think so. His wealth and more importantly his lack of basic political skills makes him to easy for Democrats (Obama, pundits and “reporters’) to caricature. He simply hasn’t shown the ability to take a bunch and drive the narrative.

    Failing that I figured we’d have a battle of ideas. If we can’t make it about Obama, then we damn well needed a big time personality to make the most pro-conservative case possible. I saw Christie and Perry as the best options for this kind of fight. Sadly, Christie didn’t run and Perry was simply incapable of carrying the fight to anyone, let alone Obama.

    Again, some will say that Romney could do this. His lack of conservative accomplishments, his record of bashing long held conservative beliefs and his lousy political skills (he can’t sell capitalism to GOP primary voters!), make the idea of Romney The Ideological Warrior a joke.

    That leaves us with the fight we have…going toe-to-toe with Obama in a long, hard, slog. It’s going to be hard to unseat a sitting President under the best of conditions and this election isn’t going to be that. What Newt brings to the table is what a heavyweight fighter always brings to the ring…a puncher’s chance. No, Newt isn’t going to win the election with a big line at a debate but over the course of a 6-8 month fight, Newt will land plenty of big blows on Obama on policy, record and rhetorical grounds. That combination will generate something that was missing for the GOP last time… real excitement in the base. The question is will he be able to pick up enough swing voters along the way? I think (hope) there are enough that are fed up with the bill of goods Obama sold them last time that Newt can make Obama too unattractive to support again while seeming to be a reasonable option himself.

    Gingrich will take a lot of shots in return but unlike Romney, he’s shown over and over again an ability to get back up and start swinging again. Yes, Newt’s been knocked out before and fought some losing fights but if he’s going to go down to Obama, he’s going to bloody him on the way out. He just might be able to knock Obama out before he falls himself.

    I just don’t see on what grounds Romney has any policy or political advantage over Obama.

    It’s not an ideal way to fight this battle but I think Newt’s way is the best chance we have.”

    http://drewmusings.wordpress.com/

  • I agree with Darwin. I do enjoy Newt’s combativeness, but his most recent debate response regarding Marianne’s interview was nothing more than an egotistical outburst that bordered on pathological. It is exceedingly difficult to listen to and unpack this statement and still believe that Newt has any true remorse for his callous behavior. I fear he is not only an egomaniac of the highest order, but he is horribly deficient when it comes to basic human empathy. And his ideas are half-baked. Some may be worth baking to completion, others plainly not, but he lacks the patience to drill down and finish the job. I’d still probably vote for him over Obama.

    Santorum’s principled social conservatism is admirable and attractive. I think he is also a genuinely decent man. Unfortunately, I think he is not only unelectable, he is also incapable of effectively governing a nation that sadly does not share his his passion on social issues. That would take a leader with with exceptional persuasive abilities, and I don’t see that in Santorum.

    Paul is just weird. Deep inside I do think he still worries about the Trilateral Commission and is only partially convinced that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job.

    Romney is more technician than idealogue, which is why he is so at sea when it comes to articulating abstract ideas and his own beliefs. I think he governed center-left in a hard left state, and I think he would govern center-right in a center-right nation. I do think he would appoint conservative judges, though perhaps not as reliably conservative as Santorum.. I also think that Romney is a decent man and an adult who is capable of self-restraint and self-discipline, something I don’t think applies to Gingrich. Like Darwin, I am comfortable supporting Romney, even if not enthusiastic.

  • And that’s why the GOP establishment will keep shoving guys like Romney down our throats … because we’ve proven time and again that we’ll throw over good, decent pro-life candidates like Santorum and, in the end, support whatever pro-abort RINO stiff gets the nomination.

    Please don’t take the foregoing as a harsher criticism than what it is meant to be. But it is frustrating for me to see a couple of gentlemen for whom I have the utmost respect and with whose poltical instincts I generally concur, take this line.

  • No worries, Jay. I appreciate your frustration and admit that my calculus could be incorrect. Basically, my number one issue is abortion specifically and life generally. That said, trying to advance that agenda involves more than simply identifying the candidate whose believes are most in accord with mine. More precisely it involves identifying the candidate who is most likely to actually make progress on this issue, and that is a function not only of my assessment of (i) his priorities and beliefs but also my assessment of (ii) his likely efficacy. While I think Santorum is considerably stronger on (i), I think Romney is much stronger on (ii), especially since I do not think Santorum can defeat Obama in November. I am very much a pragmatist. I have little interest in supporting a candidate who I believe would work hard to advance the pro-life cause if I think he will neither really get that opportunity nor would be able to be successful if he did. My gut tells me that a Romney administration would be much more pro-life than Obama’s, and that he would favor conservative jurists who are skeptical of Roe. That is not perfect, but it is good insomuch as it is better than Obama — and I am not prepared to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
    All that said, I realize that this calculus is almost entirely prudential, and I could just be flat out wrong.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Here’s my present voting stance:

    1) Santorum
    2) Gingrich
    3) Romney (holding my nose)

    …Ron Paul NEVER!

    WCC

  • If pre-election polls were the determinging factor in who should be the Republican candidate than George Bush should have been the nominee instead of Reagan in 1980

    I don’t say they are the determining factor in who should be the nominee, but they are an indication of who is more likely to win a general election. That Reagan ended up winning against Carter doesn’t change that fact.

  • A rather poor indicator at this time in a Presidential election cycle BA. After the conventions they have greater validity, although even then they need to be taken with a boulder of salt as demonstrated by the Reagan example. I believe the majority of polls in the first week of September of 2008 showed McCain ahead of Obama.

  • “…Ron Paul NEVER!”

    Agreed WCC!

  • It’s not conservative vs. moderate vs. liberal. It’s about the credentialed eiltes whose world views separate them from us. Seems they get upset when knuckle-draggers, such as myself, rise up on our hind legs and get in the way of their choices.

    Them there conservative elites didn’t excoriate Palin because she was liberal or moderate. They feared and loathed Sarah because she is not one of them.

    Newt will fight. He is from Mars.

    Santorum hasn’t shown any fight. He is from Venus.

    Romney is afraid or ashamed of himself. So, he can’t counter-punch. He is from Uranus.

    Paul and libertarians are worse than liberals. They are from Jupiter: could not be more stupider.

    Anyhow, Obama is at 44% approval rating. That’s down from 47% in second year; 57% first year; and 69% approval Inauguration.

    Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush had better polling numbers at similar dates in their failed re-election runs. Carter was slightly worse. I can’t understand that last one.

  • If Ron Paul (R. Pluto) gets the nominee, I’m going third party.

    As for Jay’s comments, I luv it! Romney is just another H.W.Bush/Dole/McCain clone that leaves me reaching for a swig of whiskey and a revolver.

    I want Santorum and he’s getting better in the debates.

    I could vote for Gingrich and hope he lands several debilitating punches to forever render Obama the worst president ever.

    I’d vote for Romney, if there were no one else and pray for a quick eight years to go by quickly.

  • Can anybody name a candidate for national office whose winning campaign strategy against an incumbent was to build a majority out of reluctant supporters?

  • Darwin:

    Santorum actually strikes me as a strongly principled social conservative, and in some ways I do like him, but I just don’t see him as having the executive presence to lead the nation or to succeed against Obama onstage.

    Mike Petrik:

    I think he is not only unelectable, he is also incapable of effectively governing a nation that sadly does not share his his passion on social issues. That would take a leader with with exceptional persuasive abilities, and I don’t see that in Santorum.

    You did not ask, but I tell anyway. I would not bother too much about handicapping candidates in this manner. The electorate can be highly tolerant of a considerable swath of characters if ambient conditions take a certain form. You will recall that in 1980 the country elected a man who had (eleven years earlier) been literally alone among the country’s governors on important policy questions. You will recall that three years ago the country elected a man who had been, just four years earlier, sitting in the Illinois legislature. Unlike Barry Goldwater or George McGovern, Mr. Santorum has been road-tested on a large and diverse electorate. His stance on the issues is pretty much what is modal among Republicans, just more emphatically stated. He will do as a candidate. His real deficiency is a deficit of preparation: no background as an executive and a truncated career in the private sector.

    Which brings us to what the problem is. The country needs to climb out of the hole it is in over the next four or five years. That will require instituting a combination of budget cuts and tax hikes. The latter is not admitted by Republican pols generally and quite a number may be perfectly sincere for all that. Mr. Romney’s utility (aside from an absence of distractions in his life like Marianne Ginther Gingrich) is that when he denies an intent to seek a tax increase, he is among the candidates the most likely to be lying. He also has experience presiding over restructurings. That will be useful.

    In effect, we are reduced to the hope that Mr. Romney will be much like the elder George Bush: a cheesy candidate but not a cheesy President. Wish things were different….

  • Art, you may be right. But I would note that I voted for Ronald Reagan. Twice. Rick Santorum is no Ronald Reagan.

  • Rick Santorum is no Ronald Reagan.

    Per David Stockman, Ronald Reagan was, a good deal of the time, daft. I have seen no indication that that is true of Mr. Santorum. (It is true of Michelle Bachmann, alas). So, yes, he is no Ronald Reagan.

  • David Stockman calling Ronald Reagan daft is like a turtle calling an eagle slow poke. Stockman should have been fired by Reagan after his Atlantic article in December 1981. One of Reagan’s faults is that he always was too kind hearted to mendacious mediocrities like Stockman, who was lucky to avoid a jail cell after his tenure as CEO of Collins & Aikman during 2003-2005.

  • 1. Stockman is not a mediocrity; he is anything but daft.

    2. He was known (and likely still is) for bouts of compuslive honesty. Some of them were in the presence of William Greider, which was not particularly prudent;

    3. One of Stockman’s accounts concerned a questionnaire he forwarded to the President ca. 1983. It was an attempt to flesh out just what were the Presidents priorities and preferences with regard to federal expenditure. The President was fascinated with the questionnaire and budgeted time over several days to complete it. Stockman examined the answers and discussed the implications with the President, which were as follows: you get everything you want and we have $800 bn in deficits over the next five fiscal years. Mightn’t we consider requesting a tax increase? Reagan’s reply, “Now, David, it is deficit spending that is the problem….”.

  • I have to echo Micha Elyi’s comment: “Can anybody name a candidate for national office whose winning campaign strategy against an incumbent was to build a majority out of reluctant supporters?” And let me add to it: Can anybody name the last time the candidate running against an unpopular incumbent won by being bland, moderate and uncontroversial?

    Whoever the GOP nominates, the Democrats are going to ask the swing voters, “Granted that BHO hasn’t done a very good job, do you really want to replace him with this guy?” And if it’s someone the core can’t get excited about, you can’t expect the swing to get excited about him, either. Just being “not Obama” in the most literal sense possible isn’t enough; the not-Obama has to be clearly not Obama in terms of policy and philosophy as well as identity. Romney simply hasn’t convinced anyone outside his own camp that he’s anything but “kinda-sorta-not-Obama”. That’s not a recipe for success — if we’re not careful, someone’s gonna think we’re afraid of Obama. He’s not an 800-pound gorilla! And neither Santorum nor Gingrich are that scary! (Ron Paul, on the other hand ….) I think either one of these two could get the core whipped up enough to pull the swing to the right. Mitt simply isn’t that attractive. Let’s not vote scared.

  • Voting the lesser of evils is why we have had evils in government for so long. We call ourselves Christians and even Catholics but we do not have the faith the size of a mustard seed. God is Almighty and can do all things even put Rick Santorum in the White House. Only Santorum can lead America back to God and to being, once again, a Christian nation.

Rick Santorum Won Iowa

Thursday, January 19, AD 2012

After a recount, the vote tally from the Iowa Caucuses show that Rick Santorum defeated Mitt Romney by a whopping 34 votes.  Previously Romney had been declared the winner by eight votes.

In the grand scheme of thing, this means little.  It doesn’t change the delegate vote one iota.  It does mean that the talking point that Romney won both Iowa and New Hampshire needs to come to a halt.  It is funny to read stories about this development suggesting that the Iowa caucuses were a split a decision, yet when Romney was considered to have won there was no such talk.  He might as well have won by 8,000 votes judging by some of what was said in the aftermath.

I do note that there seems to be a lot of confusion about the vote tally.

The deadline for final certification of the results was Wednesday. Party officials said eight precincts failed to follow the rules and fill out the official forms on caucus night, meaning those results can never be certified, while other precincts turned in forms that didn’t meet the legal requirements.

And yet we continue to allow this state to have over-sized influence on the nomination process.  Are we prepared to just ignore Iowa yet?

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Rick Santorum Won Iowa

  • I think that increasingly South Carolina is being perceived as the must-win state for primary candidates. Iowa and New Hampshire can be, and have been, won by a full-bore campaign that expends all its resources. By the time SC rolls around, though, only people with money are still in the race.

    Then again, as the years go by, people might try to focus on SC the way they currently do on Iowa and NH. But for the time being, it’s perceived as too big to win without an extensive advertising budget.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY U.S. POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Sadly, Iowa has a significant liberal element even in the Republican party. Need I say more?

The Non-Electability of Rick Santorum

Saturday, January 14, AD 2012

It has become accepted as a matter of fact in some circles that Rick Santorum is completely unelectable in a general election.  He is so outside the mainstream that Barack Obama would simply wipe the floor with him.  I’ve even seen it asserted by more than one commenter than Santorum wouldn’t even match Walter Mondale’s electoral vote total.

The more extreme claim is patently ludicrous to anyone even remotely familiar with America’s political landscape.  I would suggest that, at a minimum, no Republican candidate can lose the following states in the upcoming presidential election:  Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah.  I’ve left out states like Alaska and West Virginia that I think are longshots for Obama as well.  That’s not exactly Mondale territory – that’s not even Dukakis bad.

Fine, you say, Santorum won’t lose every state.  He still can’t hold the line in swing states like Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Missouri and others.  He is just too extreme for these states.

Really?  So the guy who won statewide election in a leaning-Democratic swing state twice has no shot in leaning-Republican swing states?  Yes, I know that Santorum lost by 18 points the last time he ran in Pennsylvania, and that should not be so casually dismissed.  But he did win twice, and he ran as a conservative no different from the man he is now.

As for Santorum’s 18 point loss – yes, it is bad and it looks strange that someone who lost by such a large amount in his last election could possibly win the presidency.  I would just note that in November 2006 Mitt Romney’s approval rating in the state of Massachusetts stood at 34 percent.  The only reason he was not shellacked in his re-election effort is because he didn’t even attempt to run again.

Just saying.

Continue reading...

60 Responses to The Non-Electability of Rick Santorum

  • It has become accepted as a matter of fact in some circles that Rick Santorum is completely unelectable in a general election. He is so outside the mainstream that Barack Obama would simply wipe the floor with him. I’ve even seen it asserted by more than one commenter than Santorum wouldn’t even match Walter Mondale’s electoral vote total.

    Just out of curiosity, to whom are you referring? (In particular, who is it that fancies that Mr. Santorum would receive fewer than 13 electoral votes)?

  • Most recently, a commenter on this thread (can’t link directly, but scroll down a bit to a gentleman named Knappster). I’ve also seen this expressed by commenters on Ace of Spades and Red State. Others haven’t been quite as extreme, but have intimated that he couldn’t win many electoral votes outside of a few southern states.

    Actually, it’s a regular trope of anti-Perry folks that he couldn’t win a single state outside the deep south, to which my response is the same as it is to the anti-Santorum people.

  • In regard to Casey the Lesser and his defeat of Santorum in 2006, Santorum was up for re-election in one of the worst post-war years for Republican candidates. Casey benefited from the good will of the people of Pennsylvania had built up to his father, Bob Casey, former governor of Pennsylvania and one of the great pro-life heroes of our time. Casey the Lesser ran as pro-life, amazing as that is considering his votes subsequently in the Senate. In a blue State like Pennsylvania it is no wonder that Santorum was defeated in 2006 but that he won twice before for the Senate. In 2010 Toomey, running against a very weak Democrat candidate in the best election year for Republicans since Calvin Coolidge was President, managed to win election with only 51%. Pennsylvania is a hard state for Republicans to win state wide.

    In head to head polls against Obama, Santorum is normally only a few points behind:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57355518-503544/poll-among-gop-hopefuls-romney-fares-best-against-obama/

  • The primary system seems so bizarre. Tromping in the cold and sometimes snow in tiny rural Iowa, then onto the small state of NH, then onto South Carolina. Why not have a little longer shot at it, one same-date primary, pour the cash into national and regional ads as detrmined and vote. It would be a way of eliminating the long-drawn out primaries, tedious ads, waste of cash on the early primaries. I look as an outsider now to the US scene which we still watch faithfully on local and USA TV. There is a lot to be said here for the five weeks maximum allowed in the UK system as in others which allows the parties and candidates time to get their messages across. Big help comes from the generous use of the People’s airwaves for public purposes. No doubt the land masses are smaller, but there is overall not that much different in the overall breakdown of the entire USA when one balances rural, urban, farming, manifacturing and religious groups and not to overlook the unemployed and foreclosed.

  • He won a moderate state 12 years ago. Bush won 12 years ago. You think Bush would be electable today on that basis? A lot can happen in 12 years. I think too much is made of the 18 point loss but a 12-year old win is even less relevant.

    I dont’ wanna say I told you so but the latest polls have Romney surging. There was no ceiling. Or rather there’s a ceiling but it’s pretty high.

  • I think the best primary reform would be to move the first primary to something like May.

    As to Santorum’s electability, unless Gingrich drops out before SC and every one of his supporters moves to Santorum, Romney’s got the nomination 95% sewed up. Taking it a step further, unless Gingrich drops out before FL and all of his supporters go to Santorum, Romney sweeps the primaries. I’d prefer to see Santorum win, but I’m fine with Romney, and anyway, like I’ve said before, I’m in Maryland and have no say in the electoral process.

    The most amusing thing about a Romney 51-state primary sweep would be the number of pundits with egg on their faces.

  • “I dont’ wanna say I told you so but the latest polls have Romney surging.”

    Of course you want to say “I told you so” RR! However, as Lincoln noted, the hen is the wisest of birds: she only cackles after the egg is lain. Let us see how Romney fares in South Carolina in actual voting.

  • “You think Bush would be electable today on that basis?”

    Actually my guess is that Bush could beat Obama today. I would also note that Bush 43 was unable to win Pennsylvania in 2000, when Santorum was re-elected to his second term in the Senate.

  • I think the punditry we saw will be typical going forward. First, they’ll say that Republicans always get behind the next-in-line early. When polls don’t confirm that, they’ll say that extremist Republicans have highjacked the party and are about to nominate an incompetent racist homophobe. Former Republicans will express how disappointed that the next-in-line hasn’t sewn up the nomination and how the party has left them. Then, the next-in-line actually becomes the inevitable nominee and having already cast him as the moderate in the race, pundits suddenly change tune and say he’s the extremist. They’ll say he changed and as proof offer cherry picked statements made in the 80’s. In the end, everyone will vote for the party they were always going to vote for and the independent swing voters will pick the guy they wanna have a beer with.

  • “Why not… one same-date primary, pour the cash into national and regional ads as detrmined and vote. It would be a way of eliminating the long-drawn out primaries, tedious ads, waste of cash on the early primaries…..”
    WHY in the world would we want to do that? That would make it more difficult or impossible impossible for a person like Santorum to get any traction, or for actual voters to get to know what they themselves think of the candidate. You would have to have big money and media before you started! What is wrong with devoting some time to the process and taking it to the regular folks? esp. since the three early states are apparently different social political demographics

  • Most recently, a commenter on this thread (can’t link directly, but scroll down a bit to a gentleman named Knappster).

    Ach. What a bucket of eels.

  • AD: “Bucket of eels.” Good imagery!

    Pray for the best: anybody but Obama. Prepare for the worst: it is all over. Obama re-elected.

    My agenda: Trust in God. Strategic investing: gold, guns and whiskey. Go to Canadian Consulate. Ask for immigration papers. Fish and hunt up there all year round.

  • I thought John McCain was an awful candidate; his team was reactive, petty, and clueless on messaging. He was unable to articulate even rudimentary elements of a political vision for the country, much less successfully respond to candidate Obama’s. The Republican base despised him and he was running in the worst year for a Republican in the last 30.

    And he got 46% of the vote and lost by 7.

    I believe Santorum would lose to Obama; I believe Romney will probably lose (55%-60% chance). But with the way the parties have sorted themselves on ideological lines over the last thirty years, we’re just not going to see Mondale-style defeats for the foreseeable future. And we certainly won’t see them this year with the economy struggling and Obama required by circumstances to run an overwhelmingly negative campaign. All that said, I am relieved that Santorum won’t be the nominee; his extremely hawkish foreign policy suggests to me that he has learned very little from the last ten years.

  • I still defend the ida of having a set number of months, drop the early, a-typical primary states. I forget who it was but decades ago a commentator on the US scene said that if one was dropped blind-folded into any major city of the nation, they would look alike. The people buy the same products, attend the worship style they prefer- many even have switched denominations more than was experienced as late as the 60s. They are “formed” by, or “seduced” by the same TV commercials for food as for political candidates. People are not as loyal to “brands” for faith or food or political candidates as they once were. Use the TV to air the candidates’ views, cut the 30/60 second TV and radio spots and let the nation decide. The obscene amounts needed for any major election today are turning the voters into Pavlov’s dogs or the old Hidden Persuaders of Mc Luhan”s mich simpler days before 24/7 media, social media and often deceptive ads

  • I’ve been noticing “not electable” means “everyone believes them when they say they’re socially conservative” a decent amount of the time.

  • Actualy, RR, I think Bush would probably before electable than any of the current candidates and would beat Obama handily — if his name wasn’t Bush but instead some big state governor with the same positions and personality Bush came to the primary with back in 2000. Having betrayed his base on foreign policy and failed to deliver the mushy middle a magical economic turn around, the GOP ought to have a walk in the park if they had a candidate that basically acceptable.

  • From Victor Davis Hanson:

    “When you think about it, Obama has kept the detention camp at Guantanamo. He’s going ahead with military tribunals. And where Bush only waterboarded three terrorists, Obama has used drones to execute about 2,600.

    “Obama’s sort of growing on me.”

    Seems all that charity, justice and peace stuff was cynical political posturing.

  • Darwin, in 2000, Bush was for a carbon tax and federal education standards. Betrayed his base on foreign policy? The base was for the Iraq War.

  • RR, Darwin was referring to Obama’s betrayal of his base on foreign policy.

  • One thing I do enjoy in regard to Rick Santorum’s run: it certainly brings the anti-Catholic bigots out of the woodwork for easy identification.

    http://news.yahoo.com/opus-dei-influenced-rick-santorum-201937160.html

  • No wait! There is no longer any doubt that the Obama regime has committed war crimes. The only question is when Obama will be held to account.

  • I thought John McCain was an awful candidate…And he got 46% of the vote and lost by 7.

    Did you ask yourself about the performance of other candidates in that set of circumstances? Prior to 1950, it was fairly common for political parties to be granted a third turn at presidential wheel. Not so since, where the incumbent party has done so once in seven attempts. The situations most analogous to that faced by John McCain were in 1952 and 1968; McCain’s performance did not compare unfavorably to either that of Adlai Stevenson or Hubert Humphrey. It was helpful to McCain that the Democratic candidate was a gossamer figure and the wrong color for a small contingent of their usual electorate; it hurt McCain that seven firms at the commanding heights of our financial sector went into crisis smack in the middle of his campaign. Call it a wash.

    I believe Santorum would lose to Obama; I believe Romney will probably lose (55%-60% chance).

    John Henry the Greek posits something with little precedent. The mean unemployment rate during this administration has been the highest of any in the last seventy years; the rate of growth in production has been the lowest of all bar one since 1932; public sector borrowing as a share of domestic income has each year exceeded that of any year on record outside of the 2d World War; and social survey research indicates that the incumbent is regarded with a disapproval more persistent and intense than that of any post-war president bar Jimmy Carter. Given that we are thirty-one months into the current business cycle and facing God-knows-what in the Eurozone, I do not think we are due for a sudden burst of rapid economic growth to save the incumbent’s bacon. If this man is returned to office, it will be a tour-de-force.

  • Commentary I’ve read said the curious point of the 2006 election is Santorum’s loss margin to a weaker candidate. I am surprised he lost considering how much federal money he brought to the state.

    I think all the candidates, except Ron Paul, is electable to varying degrees.

  • Santorum supported embryonic stem cell research? What’s an “altered human embryo?” Even if this does not destroy new embryos, the research, if successful would lead to the farming of embryos IMO.

    “Santorum and Specter team up on stem-cell bill The compromise measure would involve creating altered embryos as a source for the material.”
    http://articles.philly.com/2006-05-06/news/25400471_1_fund-new-methods-embryonic-stem-cell-stem-cell-bill

  • Without more detail than the article has, he may have been promoting IPSCs. I’ll see what I can find.

  • K, what the bill supported was “Altered Nuclear Transfer with Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming.” Mary meets Dolly, a great go-to site for anything Catholic and cloning related, only opposes it because it involves treating women as a resource. (She’s good about calling folks out on redefining stuff out of existence, like claiming a cloned embryo is different than a non-cloned one.)

    Me, I don’t like ANT-OAR, but some folks that she holds as having very solid chops in the pro-life area thought it was just fine.

  • Santorum also voted for funding birth control. He justified it by saying that it including funding for a lot of other stuff.

  • RR-
    anyone who’s ever voted to fund the military has “voted for funding for birth control.” Did you have something more specific in mind? When I search for Santorum birth control all that comes up is a bunch of liberal fear mongering about him making it illegal.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyFSXGVX73s

    So it’s okay to vote for birth control as long as you’re not voting for it for the birth control? Does the same apply to abortion funding?

  • Have you go something BESIDES a shaky, odd-angle youtube video?

    If you can’t boil down what you’re saying he did into specific claims, why should I spend the time trying to make your case?

  • You want me to provide you with a transcript? The video is less than 2 minutes!

  • Darwin, in 2000, Bush was for a carbon tax and federal education standards. Betrayed his base on foreign policy? The base was for the Iraq War.

    Yeah, sorry for the lack of clarity, that clause was meant to refer to Obama: “Having betrayed his base on foreign policy and failed to deliver the mushy middle a magical economic turn around, Obama should be eminently beatable for the GOP, if they had a candidate that basically acceptable.”

    So it’s okay to vote for birth control as long as you’re not voting for it for the birth control? Does the same apply to abortion funding?

    Well, let’s see… There’s the difference that birth control doesn’t involve killing someone.

    While I consider the use of birth control to be immoral, I don’t see its inclusion in spending bills as being the sort of massive issue that funding abortion is. Just because they’re both things that Catholics aren’t supposed to do does not mean that they’re the same.

  • I didn’t say they’re the same. So it’s just a matter of degree?

  • No, it’s a matter of kind.

  • So funding immoral activity is permissible as long as it’s not murder?

  • Straw Man alert! Straw Man alert!

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

    Here is a handy dandy link to a first rate list and description of logical fallacies:

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

    Learn ’em and Love ’em. They could revolutionize com box discourse! Or not.

    Ad Hominem
    Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
    Appeal to Authority
    Appeal to Belief
    Appeal to Common Practice
    Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
    Appeal to Emotion
    Appeal to Fear
    Appeal to Flattery
    Appeal to Novelty
    Appeal to Pity
    Appeal to Popularity
    Appeal to Ridicule
    Appeal to Spite
    Appeal to Tradition
    Bandwagon
    Begging the Question
    Biased Sample
    Burden of Proof
    Circumstantial Ad Hominem
    Composition
    Confusing Cause and Effect
    Division
    False Dilemma
    Gambler’s Fallacy
    Genetic Fallacy
    Guilt By Association
    Hasty Generalization
    Ignoring A Common Cause
    Middle Ground
    Misleading Vividness
    Personal Attack
    Poisoning the Well
    Post Hoc
    Questionable Cause
    Red Herring
    Relativist Fallacy
    Slippery Slope
    Special Pleading
    Spotlight
    Straw Man
    Two Wrongs Make A Right

  • You want me to provide you with a transcript? The video is less than 2 minutes!

    No, I want you to state your specific accusation, preferably in the form of “Santorum voted for X bill(s).” Either the video has that information, in which case I don’t know why you didn’t just say what it is, or it’s rather nebulous, in which case I’m not wasting time building your case.

    Generally, when that information isn’t forthcoming, someone along the line for the claim decided that the specific facts weakened their case. Sometimes it’s just to try to get people to waste time, and a few times I’ve seen it used to drive up views on a video, but those are less common…..

    Incidentally, yes, I’d say that contraception is different than slaughtering children. Lovely red herring, though.

  • I don’t know what bill. In the video, Santorum says he voted for a bill that contained funding for birth control. He says he opposes funding for birth control but the bill contained funding for other stuff so he voted for it. What more do you need?

    Yes, contraception is different from abortion. That’s missing the point. Is it permissible to vote to fund immoral activity? Why is nobody able to answer that? If your position is yes, it’s permissible to fund immoral activity but abortion is so bad that it’s almost never permissible to fund it, just say so!

  • I don’t know what bill. In the video, Santorum says he voted for a bill that contained funding for birth control. He says he opposes funding for birth control but the bill contained funding for other stuff so he voted for it. What more do you need?

    As I pointed out, anyone who’s ever voted to fund the military has voted for a bill with contraception funding in it. The details DO matter.

    Why is nobody able to answer that?

    Strawman again. Just because we’re not going to run and do what you think we should do for a point you didn’t even bother to state until now– why do you expect us to drag everything out for you?– doesn’t mean we can’t do something.

    I don’t feel any need to sprint down rabbit holes at your whim, thanks. Rather tiring how it takes, what, three posts for you to clarify your accusation to “Santorum says he voted for a bill that included birth control funding.” (Which is still too nebulous, but better than the original.)

  • I don’t feel any need to sprint down rabbit holes at your whim, thanks.

    What she said.

  • Yes, contraception is different from abortion. That’s missing the point. Is it permissible to vote to fund immoral activity? Why is nobody able to answer that? If your position is yes, it’s permissible to fund immoral activity but abortion is so bad that it’s almost never permissible to fund it, just say so!

    Your phrase “permissible to vote to fund an immoral activity” strikes me as assuming a cleanliness that almost never exists in the real world of a democratic republic — especially as large and messy as our own.

    In the abstract, if one is faced with a choice which is simply:

    a) Fund immoral activity X
    b) Do not fund immoral activity X

    I would assume that the answer would always be B). However, in the real world, funding bills tend to cover a variety of things, good, bad and unknown. I imagine that every funding bill funds immoral activity. After all, most people manage to act in an immoral way most of the time. The question would be: How immoral is the act. How directly am I supporting the act. What positive things am I achieving by voting for this particular bill which contains both good and bad things, and how do the good and bad elements of it weigh out.

    As such decisions go, I would tend to weigh something like abortion (or euthanasia, or eugenic forced sterilization, or genocide, etc.) so highly that few other concerns would be capable of causing pragmatic support. With contraception, however, I’m more inclined (given the society that we’re dealing with) to assume a classical liberalism kind of approach and leave these choices up to individual people. Do I think it’s wrong of them to choose to use contraception? Yes. Would I support forcing it on anyone? Absolutely not. Can I see providing funds to make contraception available as part of a medical care to those who choose to use it in a liberal democracy in which the majority of people do not consider it wrong — yeah, that’s a compromise that I consider worth making. That are levels of error I see it as worth using force to prevent and levels or error I think it’s worth while to allow.

  • The present Pope as head of the CDF used common sense to state the obviously simple. One can vote for a candidate who favours abortion IF one looks at the package of issues in the election, weighs them and the other candidates’ views and decides. The wording is mkine, the reasoining is his. Discernment is called for obviously as the Consistent Ethic of Life is assumed and one does not as a practical Catholic Christian vote for abortion as “choice” if one is so persuaded. Knowledge of the “Seamless Garment” image of the late Cardinal of Chicago USA and the Lordship of Jesus over all Life are presumed. As noted above birth control which is morally evil according to the OT and abortion which is against Natural Law and indiscriminate divorce and re-marriage were once all illegal in the USA. We in Europe have a different political system in that the two houses of Government and a President as in the US can be of different parties and must agree or come to a negotiated decision. The winning PM here is head of the majority party and so that party has more control over taxation, public assistance. The President is not elected in Europe as in the US from a specific party to continue in that office which is honourary at that point. He/she asks the Supreme Court to decide if a proposed law is constitututional so there is none of the layers of courts and appeals and fear of turning the Supreme Court majority to favour abortion or reverse it as is such a crass element in the USA today.

  • That charity, justice and peace stuff is little more than cynical political posturing to buy political power and advance abortion – the Democrat Prime Directive.

    How’s that justice and peace working for you? Since January 2009, more Americans are hopeless and poor.

    And, according to a Pew survey, 67% of Americans hate other Americans because they think the they stole from them.

    Obama must go.

  • Thanks, Darwin and HT. So it’s as I suspected. It’s not formal cooperation if done for other proportional reasons.

    But Darwin, you say, “Would I support forcing it on anyone? Absolutely not.”

    If there was a standalone bill to ban contraception, why wouldn’t you support it? For pragmatic reasons? E.g., inefficient use of law enforcement resources.

  • It’s not formal cooperation if done for other proportional reasons.

    Not being a moral theologian, I’m not going to comment on whether something is “formal cooperation” or not. I’m simply going to say at an everyday moral and political level that I think there’s a lot more room to see proportional reasons for voting for a package of spending that includes funding for an evil such as birth control than there is to see proportional reasons to vote for funding abortion.

    But Darwin, you say, “Would I support forcing it on anyone? Absolutely not.”

    If there was a standalone bill to ban contraception, why wouldn’t you support it? For pragmatic reasons? E.g., inefficient use of law enforcement resources.

    First, let me clarify that when I said: Do I think it’s wrong of them to choose to use contraception? Yes. Would I support forcing it on anyone? Absolutely not. Can I see providing funds to make contraception available as part of a medical care to those who choose to use it in a liberal democracy in which the majority of people do not consider it wrong — yeah, that’s a compromise that I consider worth making.

    The “it” I was referring to was contraception, not my belief that contraception is wrong. I would consider it far worse to supply funding to eugenic efforts that force birth control or sterilization on people against their will than to supply funding that made birth control available to people who wanted it. I could see the possibility of realistic compromise on the latter, but not the former.

    If there were a standalone bill to ban contraception in a country such as the modern US, I would not support it, because I think it would be an inefficient (and probably futile) use of state power. Back in 1900, when birth control was illegal in most of the US and those bans were generally supported, I would certainly have supported keeping them in place.

    The reason why I can see more flexibility on this kind of issue is that people who use birth control are primarily hurting themselves. People who use abortion are seeking to kill another. So in addition to the fact that murder is a worse evil than sexual impurity, abortion is an attack on one person by another rather than an attack on one person by that person himself. Interpersonal wrongs are typically things that are much more addressable by the law than personal wrongs.

  • Darwin, I think we’re in complete agreement, which should scare you.

  • The struggle for Truth, Justice and the American Way will intensify and progress no matter who wins. The state, with the authentic authority to defend virtue and condemn vice, is constituted by the sovereign personhood of the newly begotten human being brought into existence by our Creator.

  • Pingback: MONDAY POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • The pro-contraceptive, pro-abortion, pro-transhumanism, pro-genetic exploitation Republican leaders in places of power and amplified arenas like DC and NYC and the press don’t like Santorum. These so-called conservatives are so beaten down by their sins, they’re trying to do what we all do. Crucify and ignore good. If they can succeed in making everyone as bad as they are, or at least squashing any sign of goodness that enters into their view, they hope their guilt will dissipate. They should learn from us other sinners that ignoring, crucifying and placing goodness and the guilt of our failures into the deep dark caves of our mind and covering them with boulders of vice and lies won’t stop the resurrection of God’s love for us and calls to repent.

  • At this point, whether or not Santorum gets elected has less to do now with what he says or does, and more to do with what we do and say!
    It is fun to discuss and debate at arm’s length- but it would be helpful if we put all that brainpower to a strategy and a willingness to help transform this election!
    Looking back at some encyclicals Leo 13, B15, Pius 12– lots of the troubles of world are not laid at the feet of those amorphous “others” but at the feet of the Catholic
    and… think Lepanto

  • My election philosophy is to avoid seeking a “saviour, ” a white-hatted cowboy coming to route the enemy. The ultimate goal is to create a citizenry where the majority demands out of conviction that all human dignity is sacred and legislation and policy reflects that. War, taxation, health care, foreign aid, human rights at home and abroad, the death penalty and the fiundamental right to life in the womb. So often it seems to me the Church’s bishops and their state conferences lobby government and preach only on abortion, that is too often how it comes across, as people do not “listen” outside election years. It hurts as that consistent education is not carried out in the Liturgy as various incidents and readings are proclaimed throughout the year. Sermons on abortion are not really all that helpful as the “choir is already converted” as they say. The whole congregations needs to be moved in that sacredness of life lesson. No need to talk about abortion in Advent and Christmas. Jesus becoming a God-Man is powerful enough to convince us of His Love and life as precious Gift. Faith not head knowledge converts us, so work on the Liturgy and Grace, including biblically rooted lessons in homilies are the key to its growth in our heads and hearts.

  • I stand by the view that Santorum is unelectable but watching tonight’s debate, it’s become clear to me that he’s the most moderate Republican, now that Huntsman is out. That was an impressive performance. On every issue, he stood to the left of all the others (except Paul on foreign policy). He wants the highest tax rate of all the candidates. 28%, the same as Huntsman. Instead of unfunded entitlements like Newt and the status quo like Romney, Santorum wants to cut entitlements for the wealthy. He wants ex-cons to vote. He would not strip US citizens of habeus corpus. He would continue foreign aid, without question. The issues on which he’s perceived to be a right-wing extreme, gay rights and birth control, he’s no more extremist than the others. He has said he would not ban them and he’s even voted for birth control.

    Add the fact that he’s intelligent, articulate, genuine, and actually understands how Washington works and he’s the most appealing candidate. I still disagree with him on his industrial policy and reintroducing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell but I disagree with the others on many more issues.

  • “My election philosophy is to avoid seeking a “saviour, ” a white-hatted cowboy coming to route the enemy. The ultimate goal is to create a citizenry where the majority demands out of conviction that all human dignity is sacred and legislation and policy reflects that. War, taxation, health care, foreign aid, human rights at home and abroad, the death penalty and the fiundamental right to life in the womb.”

    I agree. Which is why the last election was a disaster. Obama and his efforts at establishing a European social democracy in America is clearly on multiple levels a failure of authentic Catholic Social Justice. The false utopianism of the left is coming home to roost in the debt crisis of the failed European system which now threatens the American recovery.

    On to pragmatically guided policies that take into account the actual human condition.

  • PHLLIP; The European economic crisis is absolutely tied to the USA disaster. Banks and the over-bloated property market here were led by gamblers. and followed the same US pattern of sub-prime mortgage loans- same as the USA Secretary Geitner came here from the USA to Europe and forced the nations here to pay all the bond-holders here, banks and insurance companies and the ECB ( central bank) forced it all to be repaid, partly on his direction, and the EEC ( commission) say the governments cannot write it down or negotiate it, some are trying to negotiate some of that debt from the later bail-out money caused by the 100 % payment of the bond holders, The UK and Ireland Greek and Italian governments are pushing severe austerity without growth in the economy which is added pain for the most vulnerable. The Banks which are paid up are not afraids to loan money as in the USA. The Global Village is totally interconnected. For better and for worse!

  • “Banks and the over-bloated property market here were led by gamblers. and followed the same US pattern of sub-prime mortgage loans…”

    Then who is the bigger fool, the fool or the fool who follows the fool? Seems again like Europes problems are problems of their own making.

  • Yes- gambling, greed and such are common to flawed human nature. I am not a student of economics or world finances, a family member is. I am into the Humanities, the religious aspect of it all and feel it when anyone is in trouble, especially when austerity hurts those who are down already before the recovery takes off. I hope all the “experts” hide the Keynes textbook, and learn from this Great Depression Rerun, minus some corrections undertaken back then. Do you foresee any severe austerity hitting the US economy or will it recover first? As I also noted earlier, the whole Ethic of Life is part of my concern, the “personal morality” as it were ( which does include others for some immorality) and the social-moral community which embraces all of everything in our human experience and aloving concern for all of Creation,

  • I am also concerned with the Ethic of Life. I believe there is personal virtue of which justice governs the relationship with others. I believe there is morality in the community which is the sum of personal virtue or vice.

    I believe our differences are more of practical application than of belief.

  • PHILLIP I did not sense any conflict between us on the essential points. it took me a while to oppose the death penalty decades ago, and to realise that money spent on war was stolen from the human needs in too many cases. The old principles for war established by St Augustine in the fifth century are still valid, TALK first, proportionate means, no evil to get a good accomplised. JESUS of course said t first in the Beatitudes, meant for us all, not some monastic community. Sherman put it well also, WAR IS HELL!

  • Again I don’t believe we differ on principles taught by the Church. Only on specific prudential applications.

  • I intended to make that clear. I came slowly as a police chief’s son to see the death penalty as opposed to what us today seen as the Gospel of Life, I am referring to the 1970s at this point, also came slowly to see the futility of war. I was surrounded by a very conservative culture. That is why I am a bit impatient at times with many Catholics who were not taught the Gospel of Life in their formative years and some do not understand that it takes a conversion of heart process, not just a “head” lesson. That is why on another site I advocate a regular use of the Liturgy to see the sacredness of life, starting with JESUS becoming one of us at Christmas, to become THE IMAGE of the Unseen God , we are all IMAGES as GENESIS says but we were brought up to see other groups- Protestants, blacks, “Commies” “pinkos” and of late Islam with no distinction between the violent extremists and the majority as decent humans. Conversion is a matter of Grace and being open to it, some take longer, some never accept it and allow “the same mind as was in Christ Jesus to replace our own Aadam-Eve prode- I love PHIL 2:6-11 as a powerful lesson for wnat Jesus did and I need to!

You Mean Rick Santorum is Not a Libertarian? Burn Him at the Stake!

Thursday, January 12, AD 2012

I’m going to need to recant my placement of RedState at the top of my favorite blogs list.  Now that Rick Santorum has emerged as probably the leading not-Mitt candidate in the GOP presidential sweepstakes, they, along with a few other conservative websites, have gone absolutely bananas over the prospect of Santorum becoming a leading candidate.  Sure, they all hate Mitt Romney, but can we truly tolerate a candidate who says extremist things like this:

This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.

My goodness.  I can just see Santorum delivering these remarks on a balcony with a hammer and sickle proudly displayed behind him.  Did he also poound a shoe on the podium, because the man must surely be just shy of being an out and out Communist.

Jeff Emanuel has unearthed two more shocking quotes that reveal Santorum’s obvious Stalinist tendencies.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to You Mean Rick Santorum is Not a Libertarian? Burn Him at the Stake!

  • If only his foreign policy was less interventionist, he would be pretty close to the perfect candidate. Certainly better than Romney, but I still have concerns.

  • I, too, am getting tired of “not libertarian” being conflated with “not conservative.” Libertarianism is easier to identify and defend rhetorically, it just stinks on ice when you apply it to all of reality, instead of idealized reality…..

    I don’t think Santorum is very conservative, BUT there’s a difference between “wrong on this, that and the other thing” and “a lefty.” There’s some overlap, of course, but– like Bush– I think his wrong points are well meant. Meaning well doesn’t solve everything, but it beats a cynical desire for power.

  • Maybe traditional conservatism was more paternalistic but with advances in economic understanding, thanks more to Milton Friedman than Ayn Rand, American conservatism has become more economically libertarian.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • In other words, don’t use that charity stuff to cede everything to unlimited government.

  • I think there is a genuine fear of more federal expansion disguised as compassionate conservatism. The author’s belief is much of the Santorum’s writings along with his legislative history advocate federal intervention where lower levels of government, or better yet non-government, institutions can do better. It’s not that federal management is always bad, but the “federal government first” attitude leads to expansion of power. I think the author would prefer governance closer to the principle of subsidiarity.

    While he did criticize Santorum’s view of governance, he also complimented him on his desire to want to help.

  • I think Jeff Goldstein knocks it out of the park here:

    GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum defends capitalism, defends Mitt Romney’s earlier engagement of capitalism on capitalistgrounds (as opposed to Romney himself, who appealed for a defense to progressive corporatism), and yet the GOP establishment and its attendant media — as well as an increasing number of sober, pragmatic, “it’s time to rally behind a single candidate” members of the conservative base — tell us that it is Santorum who is unelectable, and throw their support behind the candidate who enacted state-run health care, and who can’t even defend his own engagement in capitalism without retreating to a progressive defense.

    More at the link here.

  • Jeff, I would love to rally around Santorum, but 8 years of compassionate conservatism was hard enough to take. As crazy it sounds, sometimes I feel like rolling the dice with Romney or Ron Paul. And yes, that is crazy! Still hoping for Perry despite his having to work against media mis-portrayals of every word he says. That includes much of conservative media.

  • Read points two and three, because Jeff’s point is precisely that Santorum is not the nanny stater in this contest.

  • My opinion is based on his legislative record. He’s less a nanny stater than Romney and certainly Obama.

  • I just came across this interest article discussing the Santorum & federalism problem. It uses the issue of marriage between homosexuals to illustrate a point.

    http://formidablecourage.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/perry-santorum-and-the-evangelical-dilemma/

  • On economic paternalism, Santorum is mostly wrong. Better to alleviate the destruction of creative destruction than to prevent the whole thing. I understand his point that it has social dimensions but even taking that into consideration, protectionism is more harmful than free enterprise.

    On moral paternalism, Santorum is mostly right. We punish immoral behavior to the extent that it prevents more harm than it creates. We also promote moral behavior in a limited way by keeping it free from impediments. While the state may legitimately actively promote moral behavior, I don’t think the track record is great. In Europe, churches live in a culture of dependency where they get government handouts without having to work.

    Where I’m not sure what role the government should play is in quality-of-life paternalism. Smoking bans, trans fat bans, healthy eating campaigns. I.e., limiting or subsidizing amoral choices. One can argue that this sort of paternalism degrades personal initiative. On the other hand, they’re things I may admit that I am weak at controlling and therefore want some help with. Is there any CST guidance on this?

  • There is no perfect candidate and we can’t dig up Reagan and run him again. I feel like Santorum is the best candidate and I will continue to support him. one thing we must all understand is that Congress must be changed. Congress is the root of our problems. Our elected officials have been allowed to corrupt the system and continue to bankrupt our country and our childrens heritage. Don’t compromise on a Presidential candidate, support the person who best represents our beliefs even if some overpaid pundits say he/she is unelectable. And more importantly get rid of the entrenched Congresmen and send some new blood to Washington.

  • There is no perfect candidate and we can’t dig up Reagan and run him again.

    We’re Catholics. If we can dig up a pope and strip him of his vestments, this should be a small matter. Heck, I can’t see how any corpse could be a worse president that the one we have and most who are running, but Reagan’s corpse might do a pretty impressive job.

    🙂

  • Sometimes, Paul Zummo, rhetorical hyperbole just leaves one looking hyper. I found your defense of Sen. Santorum and his big government conservatism unpersuasive.

    RR’s comments here make a lot of sense to me and RR’s mention of Milton Friedman should remind us all of the Invisible Foot.

    Sometime in the previous century, the federal government went beyond helping localities provide a safety net. Federal provision increasingly became a hammock for those who learned to exploit the system and is now often a sticky spider’s web that traps those who come into contact with it due to a temporary hardship. I have news for Santorum et alia, the Great Depression ended almost 70 years ago. Cease rendering the poor unto Caesar.

  • RL hits it out of the park.

    Any one of the GOP hopefuls is 100% better than that Obama nobody. Two out of three know Obama and his gangsters are very bad news for America.

    Tip to all. Cut the attacks against each other.

    The one with the best depiction of how the Obama wrecking machine is killing America is the most electable.

    Obama must go.

Douthat, Santorum and Tolerant Hate

Monday, January 9, AD 2012

The mocking of the Santorums for the manner in which they grieved over the death of their new-born son Gabriel Michael Santorum by Alan Colmes and Eugene Robinson has been explored in two previous posts here at TAC, and they may be read here and here.  Ross Douthat tackled the subject in the New York Times:

But if the attacks on the Santorums’ personal choices were incoherent (so incoherent, in fact, that both Colmes and Robinson soon backtracked), they were also entirely characteristic of our moment. This is the second consecutive election cycle in which a Republican politician has endured a bizarre obstetrics-related controversy; last time, we had the various conspiracy theories surrounding Sarah Palin’s pregnancy and her Down syndrome son.

In a sense, one could say that these kinds of invasive debates become inevitable once the traditional zone of privacy around public figures collapses. But it would be more accurate to say that the zone of privacy has collapsed precisely because of the deep moral divisions that these kinds of controversies reveal.

Privacy is a luxury of moral consensus. Nobody would have thought to politicize the premature birth and death of John F. Kennedy’s son Patrick, because abortion wasn’t a polarizing issue in the America of 1963. But if a white politician in the Jim Crow South had married a black woman, the relationship would inevitably have been seen as a political gesture as well a personal decision.

Today, we are less divided over race, but more divided over sex and reproduction. In a country that cannot agree whether fetuses are human beings, even questions like how to mourn and bury a miscarried child are inevitably freighted with ideological significance. Likewise, in a country where the majority of Down syndrome fetuses are aborted, the mere act of carrying a child with a genetic disorder to term — as both the Palins and the Santorums, whose daughter Bella has Trisomy 18, have done — feels like a political statement.

Go here to read the rest.  The column is a good restrained look at this issue.  What is truly interesting however, are the comments reacting to the column.  Almost uniformly, they are completely unsympathetic to Santorum and his family, and most say that his beliefs against gay marriage and abortion are so despicable that he is fair game for this type of criticism.  A random sample:

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Douthat, Santorum and Tolerant Hate

  • Many liberals are purely evil. We need to help them.

    In Christian charity, we need to work to bring them to virtue. We need to bring them the good news.

  • The militant homosexualists and abortionists have little fear of showing their true colours now. It may be a little late but war to the knife should be the order of the day when dealing these people. Trying to understand them, or to persuade them of the reasonableness of the Christian position is a pointless errand, as what enrages them is the mere existence of committed Christians. And when it comes in a package as attractive as Sarah Palin, it infuriates them even more, driving them into a fury like the sans culottes who paraded around with human heads on pikes.

  • they hate anything that recognizes the humanity of unborn children. pray for them.

  • I skipped through 155 comments on another site this morning about Mr Santorum. Their comment section was closed. I was amazed at the venom poured on the Santorums. At least one wrote as if they brought this up for political gain, seemed not to know it was in answer to a question on the campaign trail, upset his wife visibly. Others seemed to act as if the decision to accelerate the birth was an attemoted abortion, but ended in a premature delivery of an already dead baby. Not a fetus, bhy the way, but a baby. One OB GYN physician wrote that the drug given was perfectly normal. We all know the principle of double effect, we can do something to relieve a condition in the human body, even if it may result in death, whether the patient is a single man swith a specific medical condition or a mother with a difficult pregnancy. I know that dirty politics did not begin with the 24/7 news and the ingternet, blogs and social media. However the sickness is so much more evil today with hat 24/7 spread of hate, lies and one-sided attacks. The only cure is civilised discourse but I am off to drain the Atlantic before I tackle that one.

  • Pingback: MONDAY EVENING EDITION | ThePulp.it

Casual Cruelty

Friday, January 6, AD 2012

My co-blogger Paul has an excellent post here detailing the attack by Leftist commentator Alan Colmes on the Santorums for bringing their dead newborn son home so that their children could see their brother, Gabriel Michael Santorum, and the family could mourn together and spend one night with him.  Colmes swifty apologized.  Now another Leftist, Eugene Robinson, who gets paid to scribble columns for the Washington Post and to utter nonsense on MSNBC, has attacked Santorum on this score in a video which you may view here.

It would perhaps take a psychologist rather than a political analyst to explain fully why Leftists today feel free to villify their political opponents in the most personal ways imaginable, but I think Patterico at Patterico’s Pontifications gets close to the nub of the matter:

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Casual Cruelty

  • Look what they did to Palin and her imperfect baby in 2008. The pagan Greeks would have stapled his legs and left him to the wolves on a hillside. Today, they also have the right to kill.

    Remember this next time one of the lying, Obama-worshiping morons starts whining about civility.

  • Tragic, vulgar and cruel as those reactions are, should we be surprised? Those who see a pre-born child as a “choice” for her/his mother to decide to save or destroy have no innate sense of the value of the child as human. Nor can we expect them to understand family bonding, grieving and the need to allow each family member to see, experience, mourn and ask questions in the age-appropriate way. If there is no awareness or belief in a spiritual life, a life beyond this one, their insensitivity is heightened. The apology by Mr Colmes was helpful to the public, but do the major networks have a wood-shed to have a chat with such a violation of the people’s airwaves, which are rented, not owned, in such insensitive ways. “You betcha” they would not do that if the Obamas or any other family whom the Left rarely touch, the Palins as noted were a first class example.

  • It is good to see civility being defended so vigorously.

  • Any hammer. If there isn’t one easily at hand, make it up, and always accuse others of doing what you are doing.

  • Or, even better, accuse them of accusing you of what they are accusing someone else of.

  • Attacking someone over the death of his child is not lack of civility, it’s utter barbarity. In more civilized times, people were called out to fight duels over less.

    The “Oh Noes, Peoples is being uncivil!” rounds of hysteria people like to have in politics can certainly get silly at times. But seriously, using a family’s morning over a dead child for “aren’t they weird” political attacks?

  • Pingback: Character Assassination Attempts on Rick Santorum | ThePulp.it
  • “They know not what they do.” Does not always apply.

  • PM-
    Eh, a bit too much theology wiggle room there… it’s possible they really simply do not get people being upset about losing a “possible child.” I don’t doubt that they know they’re being wicked, I think they just don’t know HOW wicked.

  • (Thought has more to do with my realizing how much more impact child-related things have on me– for example, walking through WalMart the other day, I saw a scene from what I assume is the new Pixar kung-fu panda movie, II, where his mother was leaving him. I dang near broke down. I’ve always been emotional, but not THAT emotional. Tough on my little princess, who was more interested in how cute and fuzzy they were. Some things just don’t impact unless you’ve got the fear.)

  • Hi Foxfier, my first reaction was that post. I understand what you mean about the wiggle room, but there was a loss of family. You were probably born well after, but maybe you could look back at the contrasting outpouring of grief in publications and reports when then Pres. JFK lost his third child. (Before the desensitizing of our culture to death and loss of virtues over time from Roe v. Wade.) I think our Lord was referring to those carrying out his sentence because they didn’t get to know of Him yet. We don’t have that excuse after 2000 years. I just can’t see any excuse for meanness except some kind of insanity.

  • PM- my mom was a little girl, and my dad only a teen.

    I don’t doubt that if– God forbid– the same thing were to happen to the Obamas now, there would be a similar outpouring. It isn’t about the kid, though, it’s about “good person hurts.” It’s the same way women who had abortions can mourn an IVF child lost at the same stage as the one they killed– the kid doesn’t matter as a person.

    I have no idea what it was like back then, though. All the sense-of-the-time I have is my mom’s quip about there being a wall when she was growing up that had a picture of Jesus, the Pope and JFK. (I assume Jesus was center-top.)

  • A difficulty dealt with as professor and teacher is that we often think in a linea mode- we went from manual typewriters to laptops and marvel. We often presume the same happened for moral matters and all marched along. But we saw some nations moving from accepting slavery to abolishing it, passing laws against abortion when primitive technology allowed them to experience life in the womb and science diswcovered that a woman had an active role in proviidng the egg for conception. The death penalty is abolished for many civilised nations who also do not provide natural life sentences and a life sentence is severe if 20 years is imposed. The USA now allows abortion and some want infanticide disguised as partial birth, most states have the death penaltyand very severe sentences as alternatives. The pro-“choosers” extremists will make fun of the Santorums while your present administration favours shelling out multi-millions to Planned Parenthood whose money is made from abortions. Other services they offer are easily provided by clinics and health care providers who do not see “over-population” as a problem or a baby as a medical error, even a physically or mentally handicapped one- someone has lovde enough to care for such gifts of God with faith and His love.

  • Pingback: Douthat, Santorum and Tolerant Hate | The American Catholic

Coulter Shreds Any Remaining Credibility

Thursday, January 5, AD 2012

I’ve never much cared for Ann Coulter, but her column today shreds whatever remaining credibility she had.  Her attacks on Santorum in particular reek of anti-Catholicism.  Thankfully Jay Anderson has fisked her so that I don’t have to (Jay’s comments in red).

… Santorum is not as conservative as his social-issues credentials suggest. He is more of a Catholic than a conservative [ED: Apparently, being “more of a Catholic” – i.e. taking one’s faith seriously – is supposed to be a bad thing.], which means he’s good on 60 percent of the issues[ED.: Got that? Being Catholic automatically means being “wrong”on 40% of the issues in the mind of Coulter. At least she’s honest about her bigotry.], but bad on others, such as big government social programs. He’d be Ted Kennedy if he didn’t believe in God. [ED.: Yeah, that Santorum is JUST LIKE Ted Kennedy. Wait. What could the conservative Santorum POSSIBLY have in common with the uber-liberal late Ted Kennedy? Oh yeah. That whole Catholicism thingy – being beholden to the Pope, or something like that. Any doubts about how Coulter feels about Catholics now?]

Santorum may not be a big spender as far as professional politicians go [ED.: Or, for that matter, as far as your big-government, health-care mandating RINO boy, Dullard Flip Rino, goes.], but he is still a professional politician. In 2005, one of his former aides described him as “a Catholic missionary who happens to be in the Senate.” [ED.: I, for one, think the Senate could use a few more such statesmen who are committed to renewing our culture, promoting virtue and traditional family values, and prizing service to others in the common good. Apparently, these things have no place in the selfishly individualistic, objectivist AynRandland that Coulter envisions for our society.]

The Catholic missionary was fantastic on issues like partial-birth abortion, but more like a Catholic bishop [ED.: Ah, there we go. What anti-Catholic screed would be complete without a few shots at the hierarchy in the form of Bishop-bashing?] in his support for No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug entitlement program (now costing taxpayers more than $60 billion a year), and a highway bill with a Christmas tree of earmarks, including the famous “bridge to nowhere.” [ED.: I was unaware that the Bishops had taken a formal position in support of any of these measures. Not sure they’ve really taken much of an interest in Alaska road projects, for example. But why let that get in the way of slapping the Bishops around?]

More at the link.

If I may add, her attacks on Rick Perry are just as poorly thought out.

Rick Perry is not electable as president for three reasons: First, he seems too much like Bush;

Only to dimwitted individuals who can’t look past the fact that he’s from Texas and speaks with a midwest Texas twang.

second, he gave illegal immigrants in-state tuition;

Really?  I mean really?  This is supposed to be a disqualifying position?  Also, he didn’t just give them in-state tuition discounts – the communist bastion known as the Texas legislature, by an overwhelming majority, did.  Meanwhile, Coulter supports the guy who gave Barack Obama the model for his health care overhaul.

But yeah, Perry signing the in-state tuition discount for illegals is completely disqualifying.

and, third, uh, oops … I can’t remember the third reason.

Oh!  Oh!  Get it?  It’s because Perry had that brain freeze at the debate.  That’s a completely original joke from Ann Coulter that hasn’t been made a couple of hundred times already by people with far more wit.

Ten years ago National Review gave Coulter the boot for her post-9/11 column.  With such slipshod reasoning as displayed here, I think they’d be ready to welcome her back with open arms.

Continue reading...

29 Responses to Coulter Shreds Any Remaining Credibility

  • Pingback: THURSDAY POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Ann Coulter… zero credit.

    She has a problem with Santorum’s vote on Medicare, but she makes no mention of Romneycare?! That’s a burden on Massachusetts and the people of Massachusetts. It’s medicare part D and then some.

    She hits Newt for sitting on the couch with Pelosi for a TV commercial, but no mention of liberal legislation passed by Romney as governor. Which is more detrimental to the citizen, an environmental TV ad or liberal legislation?

    And Rick Perry… again with the stupid, vapid in-state tuition charge. (You’d swear Texas is the most liberal state in the union the way these ill-informed pundits speak.) Dear Ann, how can you possibly have a problem with in state tuition in Texas when Romney pushed free, comprehensive health care for illegal immigrants?!

    I am glad Ann and McCain have found common ground. So much to talk about at the next GOP cocktail party!

    In regards to her Catholic disrespect, it speaks for itself. Too bad she didn’t give Catholics the level of respect she gives the Log Cabin Republicans.

  • Ann Coulter’s act got old very, very long ago. I guess she must have forgotten about what she said in regard to Romney in February of last year:

  • I like Ann. I usually disagree with her but I enjoy listening to her take.

    Her bit about Santorum acting like a Catholic bishop is something you’d hear on Republican-leaning conservative Catholic blogs.

    She also makes a legitimate point. Had Santorum been in the House in 2009, can you say with certainty that he wouldn’t have voted with Joseph Cao in favor of ObamaCare the first time around? I don’t think he would have but the fact that I’m not certain says something about Santorum.

    I do think the fiscal conservatives in the GOP would keep any Republican president in check though so that’s not a big issue for me. Apart from his electability and possible lack of leadership ability, what concerns me most about him is his overly aggressive foreign policy and his deviation from free-market economics.

  • “Her bit about Santorum acting like a Catholic bishop is something you’d hear on Republican-leaning conservative Catholic blogs.”

    Rubbish RR. This is the Republican-leaning conservative Catholic blog and you would never see any of our contributors writing anything like that.

    “can you say with certainty that he wouldn’t have voted with Joseph Cao in favor of ObamaCare the first time around? ”

    I can say that with complete certainty.

  • Coulter’s article offends me more as a reader than as a Catholic. She just doesn’t back anything up. It reads like she wrote it in five minutes. I know she often uses hyperbole to make her points – way too often, for my tastes – but in this article she isn’t even making specific charges. (Actually, the more I think about this column, the more it offends me as a Catholic. But I’m ok with being offended as long as you back it up.)

    “what concerns me most about him is his overly aggressive foreign policy and his deviation from free-market economics”

    Coulter implies the same thing about his economics, but I just don’t see that in his record, except for the Medicare expansion. I have a real problem with that vote, but frankly a lot of high-caliber people disappointed me that day.

  • Pinky, as I said I don’t mind the drunken sailor record so much because any president will be restrained by the fiscal conservatives in Congress. But Santorum wants to tinker with the economy. Republicans rightly criticize Obama for “picking winners and losers” pointing to Solyndra. Santorum wants to do the same. As did Newt. Newt supported ethanol subsidies. Santorum supports manufacturing tax breaks. And if you follow their reasoning, there’s no reason why they would stop there. Their ideological frameworks don’t prevent “picking winners and losers.” David Brooks says we elect thought processes. I’m mostly with Santorum on his social issues thought process, i.e., orthodox Catholicism. I’m just realizing this now but the person whose foreign policy thought process most agrees with mine is Secretary Clinton’s. On the proper role of the federal government, I’m with Rick Perry. On economics, I’m with Romney. Santorum is right to worry about economic mobility but special tax breaks isn’t the solution I’m looking for. Nor is hiring students as janitors.

  • Years ago, I read one of her attack liberals books. I liked it and found it readable. I find most contemporary writers to be torturers.

    Ann and I are “bomb-throwers” more adept at outraging than communicating. I wonder if she does it because she thinks her readers wouldn’t get it. Or, more likely, she actually does not “have the goods.”

    Her attacks on my two Rick’s are short on facts and evidence. Liberals are so much easier to hit up. They never have facts.

    Or, was I less critical in the earlier readings?

    Anyhow, men are from Mars.

    Women are from Bedlam.

  • One thing about Ann that has always bothered me is that she’s just a complainer. I don’t really recall her offering solutions to any problems, just complaints that person X isn’t doing enough, person Z is crazy, and person Y had the right idea but did it wrong. I’ve found myself liking Charles Krauthammer more and more as the days go by, and I’m curious to see his take on the Iowa poll (I haven’t seen anything post-caucus, only his pre-caucus prediction).

  • “This is the Republican-leaning conservative Catholic blog …” (emphasis added)

    Love it. Reminds me of when Limbaugh responds to generic condemnations of “talk radio” by saying “Let’s get one thing straight – I AM talk radio.”

  • Too many people take Ann way too seriously. She will continue to say the most provocative and outlandish comments that are convenient at the time usually with a twisted right-wing spin.
    Ann Coulter = The Lady Gaga of the Republican Party.

  • Ann Coulter is my least favorite conservative and always has been, but a couple of years ago (I think) I happened to read a column of hers that was a fairly nice tribute to her then-recently deceased father… and it referred to him being Catholic. Sounds to me like she MAY be yet another of those “recovering Catholic” types. Still, she at least gives the Church credit for being right on more issues than not.

  • Santorum wants to do the same. As did Newt. Newt supported ethanol subsidies. Santorum supports manufacturing tax breaks

    An inadvisable idea, but it is a passably transparent rule. The U.S. Department of Energy had by 30 Sept. 2010 acquired a $50 bn loan portfolio. Discretionary decisions have to be made concerning each extension of credit. You have opportunities to make stupid allocation decisions and sluice income to the well connected you simply do not have when you merely declare the profits of manufacturing tax exempt.

  • Kyle,

    Krauthammer’s article today is full of glowing praise for Santorum, which actually mildly surprises me.

  • Santorum is at 24% today in a Rasmussen poll in South Carolina, just three points behind Romney:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sc-poll-romney-27-santorum-24-gingrich-18_616105.html

    Note Gingrich at 18%. Once Gingrich pulls out, and hopefully throws his support to Santorum, Romney is going to be in very deep trouble and the GOP establishment will be in full melt down mode. Most of them simply do not realize that Santorum has an ever improving chance to win this. He raised over two million dollars in the last two days and his state polling is taking off. Romney is deeply unpopular with the base of the party and the effort by Republican elites to push him to victory is bitterly resented by the rank and file. Santorum gives them a chance to say a loud No!!! to all of this and Republicans around the country are grabbing hold of this opportunity.

  • Karl Rove and now Ann Coulter are bending over backwards to ensure the Romney gets the nomination. I wonder if it ever dawned on them why Romney can’t get past 25% in any poll? Could it be the anti-Romney vote? With Bachmann out and the novelty of the racist and 9/11 Truther Ron Paul wears out, Santorum will get another bump as well.

  • I remember in mid-December when CK was asked if Newt was peaking at the right time, if it was too early. He said “No. He’s peaking at the perfect time.” Oops. Can’t get them all right.

    And this is the part that worries me…
    “He is no austere limited-government constitutionalist. He participated in George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism,” ”

    Ugh. The fed is overdue for a serious downsize. The private sector has; it’s the fed’s turn.

  • Point of information (correct me if I’m wrong): Our Rick’s proposal is to cut corporate tax rates for all corporations. The rate reductions for all non-manufacturing corporations is 50%, for all manufacturing it’s 100%.

    BTW: reducing tax rates is the proven way of government fostering economic growth and development.

    Reduced tax rates are subsidies when you believe the regime owns you and is oh so liberal as to allow you to keep some of youe earnings it does not need to fund your subjugation.

    Solyndra was not “picking winners and losers.” It was political pay back to Solyndra’s billionaire Obama cash bundler.

  • “Krauthammer’s article today is full of glowing praise for Santorum, which actually mildly surprises me.”

    Santorum is from the Northeast, not like all those red-state rubes from the South and Midwest. In addition, Santorum is part of the Wilsonian GOP Establishment. Of course Dr. K is going to love him some Santorum

  • Krauthammer is a Teddy Roosevelt Republican who recognizes who our enemies are on this planet, as does Santorum.

    Although a pro-abort, Krauthammer has also called for the overturning of Roe:

    http://www.lifenews.com/2007/05/11/nat-3113/

    I have enjoyed Krauthmmer’s columns over the years, appreciating his reasoning even when disagreeing with him, and I am happy he likes Santorum.

  • Since I endorsed Santorum two days ago, despite his deficiencies on a number of issues, I’m glad to see him get support from whatever quarters he can.

    But I still think my explanation for Dr. K’s support is probably right on the money. The “making the world safe for democracy” crowd in the GOP sticks together. (And that crowd has a stronger resemblance to W.W. than they do to T.R., both of whom were from the so-called “Progressive” tradition, by the way.)

  • Santorum is from the Northeast, not like all those red-state rubes from the South and Midwest

    Mr. Santorum is from Pittsburgh. That’s the Rustbelt, not New England or the BosWash corridor.

  • (And that crowd has a stronger resemblance to W.W. than they do to T.R., both of whom were from the so-called “Progressive” tradition, by the way.)

    Actually Jay Roosevelt was much more eager to get into World War I than Wilson and blasted him regularly for his unwillingness to do so. Roosevelt also pioneered nation building in Cuba after the Spanish-American War. What is called Wilsonian foreign policy might be better called Rooseveltian foreign policy. The Republican party had a spasm of isolationism in the thirties and up to Pearl Harbor but it has basically always been activist in foreign policy, other than for that time period, dating back to the sending of Sheridan with 50,000 troops into Texas immediately at the end of the Civil War to strongly tell the French to get their gallic hides out of Mexico.

    However, for all I know his foreign policy views might well be what attracts Krauthammer to Santorum. Krauthammer has had his doubts about Romney for some time:

  • Donald: Thanks for the link, I was intending on getting towards NR sometime today. Glad I’m not the only person who reads his work (some of my conservative friends say, “Who?” when I mention his name). He has a weekly editorial/opinion column in my local newspaper, The Greenville Times (Greenville SC).

    Art: The general term “Northeast” refers to: Maine, NH, Vermont, Mass, RI, Conn, NY, PA, and NJ. I would agree, though, that Eastern PA (having spent several years living there) is more like Ohio than the rest of the Northeast region, it still technically is part of the Northeast corridor.

  • CK is interesting, and the article is a nice write-up, BUT he has a double standard here. Some say Perry is a long shot for nomination, and CK calls him a dead man walking. Many say Santorum is a long shot on winning the general, but CK calls him “first challenger to be plausibly presidential” along with several other accolades.

    I like Santorum, but he has a very tough road ahead.
    – He needs to put the personal issues to the side (Don’t worry. They will naturally come out anyway.) and make clear to the public what his policies would be. Right now, it’s muddled (ex: artificial contraception), and the MSM will happily paint his personal opinion as public policy and cry “Theocracy!”
    – He needs to continue retooling himself to move away from the petulance we saw in the early debates.
    – No more debating the audience like he did at the college on homosexual marriage. The campaign trail is not the senate. State your position and why and move on.

    This is the part of Rick that has me worried. I actually agree with a few of the positions he took, but that’s a long list.
    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/

  • The notion that part of Santorum’s appeal to many “establishment” types has to do with his being from the Northeast and not the South I would think is inarguable.

    Clearly there is a sentiment among some that a Northeastern candidate (such as Romney or Santorum or Christie) or Upper Midwest candidate (such as Pawlenty or Daniels) would help to expand the base of the party beyond what has been for the last 20 or so years a Republican “solid South”.

    Living in Ohio, I recognize that Pittsburgh and Western PA are considered rust belt. So are Buffalo and Syracuse. But that doesn’t make them any less part of the Northeast.

  • Santorum is borderline Northeast at best. Bachmann was Midwest but that didn’t help her image. The Northeast Republican image has more to do with perception than actual geography. Bush 2000 and McCain were acceptable to Northeast Republicans.

  • Living in Ohio, I recognize that Pittsburgh and Western PA are considered rust belt. So are Buffalo and Syracuse. But that doesn’t make them any less part of the Northeast.

    1. Cross-cultural contempt is a reality (lucidly expressed at one point by whathisname in the Oval Office), but you imputed to a particular individual (a man who grew up in Montreal and has spent his adult life in Washington after a run of years in Boston) a particular attitude that I think you would have a difficult time demonstrating he holds.

    2. Political boundaries and compass points are not optimal (much less exclusive means) for delineating regions. The ‘Midwest’ has two components:

    a. A savanna zone which was (until recent decades) intensely invested in agriculture and has a fairly truncated settlement hierarchy, with cities of middling and large size found only on its peripheries;

    b. A deciduous forest zone with a full settlement hierarchy and (until recent decades) an unusual affinity for heavy industry and slavic immigrants.

    Each of the cities of the BosWash corridor is a region unto itself and divergent from proximate provincial territory. I am not sure any were ever ‘industrial cities’ to the extent Chicago or Detroit were industrial cities. Economic and demographic adjustments derived from the decay of manufacturing are still ongoing in Detroit and Buffalo; not so cities farther east. (Have a look at some place names in Upstate New York and Michigan. You will see people from the one were settling the other).

    The Midwest begins at Allentown.

  • Actually, Santorum does have a (slight) Midwestern connection… he attended a Catholic high school in Chicago for a year while his dad was stationed at Great Lakes Naval Training Center.

Romney 29%-Santorum 21% Nationally

Thursday, January 5, AD 2012

Rasmussen is first out of the gates with a national poll of the Republican candidates following Iowa.   Santorum has risen 17 points to 21% with Romney at 29%.  Gingrich is at 16% and Ron Paul is at 12%.  Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry are both at 4%.   Romney seems incapable of moving out of the twenties in any of the national polls on the Republican nomination.  Santorum has a lot of room to grow, and Romney seems to have hit a firm ceiling for his support in regard to the nomination race.

Continue reading...

21 Responses to Romney 29%-Santorum 21% Nationally

  • Of course the Catholic Social Justice types are out now with their denunciations of Santorum:

    http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/fplaction/the-catholic-case-against-rick-santorum/

    Perhaps we can start to take these points one by one to show how some are using CST for rank partisan purposes.

  • “The baby is born when the baby is born.” Barbara Boxer is such a deep thinker.

  • That poll proves that Romney hasn’t hit a ceiling. The previous Rasmussen poll had Romney at 17%. It’s true that Romney has never hit above 30% in any poll (with the exception of PPP which seems to be a random number generator). It’s also true that nobody has hit above 40%. It’s hard with so many candidates. RealClearPolitics has Romney at the highest level of support ever. Higher than Cain ever got. There’s no reason to believe it won’t rise further.

    On Intrade, Santorum’s rise has hurt Gingrich but it hasn’t affect Romney. In fact, Romney’s numbers have improved, presumably because Santorum is the less threat.

  • Pingback: Rick Santorum Thursday Roundup | ThePulp.it
  • with the exception of PPP which seems to be a random number generator

    LOL!

  • “Of course the Catholic Social Justice types are out now with their denunciations of Santorum:”

    Yes, they always seem to put a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger down their memory hole:

    “3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

    http://www.tldm.org/news7/ratzinger.htm

  • Yes, they always seem to put a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger down their memory hole

    Not in this particular case. The blog Phillip linked to brought up perfectly legit issues working against Santorum and it made no attempt to compare them to abortion and euthanasia. Catholics who ignore bishops’ (and popes’) pastoral guidance on these matters in order to vote party line do so at their own peril (in my opinion).

  • Well Spambot the Pope noted that their could be a legitimate diversity of issues on issues such as war and peace and that not all moral issues carry the same weight. I tend to attempt to not be more Catholic than the Pope. Then we have the fact that the group putting this tripe out is a George Soros funded machine to attack all Catholic politicians to the right of Ted Kennedy:

    http://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2011/02/soros-money-funds-faith-based-community.html

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/why-is-atheist-george-soros-giving-money-to-a-faith-project/

    http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/faith-in-public-life-socialism-cloaked-as-christianity/

  • CatholicVote.org endorsed Santorum today. That doesn’t hurt.
    http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=24668

  • Just saw Santorum on The OReilly Factor last night. I was a little disappointed. Bill completely misrepresentation regarding Catholic Teaching on birth control and Santorum really seemed to back off from calling him out on it. In fact Bill gave him an opening to go into social issues more and Santorum dodged the question.

    In fairness, I know that Santorum has limited time to respond to questions thrown at him. I am sure he was completely caught off guard by the question.

    But it really seemed as I was watching the interview live that Bill needed to be corrected on his. He completely butchered Catholic teaching on birth control. Santorum made some silly faces after Bill said it, but never followed up on it. Considering millions of people were watching it seemed to me the sort of thing that really needed to be corrected. Especially since Bill brought it up and gave Santorum the chance for a follow up on it.

    For those uninformed people watching the exchange you would probably think Bill was right about birth control after the exchange.

    I guess the very fact that birth control even came up is a good thing

  • O’Reilly was doing his best to torpedo Santorum last night. He brought up the fact that when asked a question on the subject Santorum had said that states do have a right to ban contraception. O’Reilly then asked Santorum if pressing for such a law would be a priority in a Santorum administration and Santorum said absolutely not. O’Reilly is buffoonish at best in most areas of knowledge and normally I would ascribe his questioning Santorum on a non-issue to simple ignorance, but I believe he had malice aforethought against Santorum in the interview yesterday.

    Santorum of course was making the point that a state could ban contraceceptives because he believes that Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1967 US Supreme Court decision holding state bans on contraceptives to be unconstitutional under a right to privacy, was wrongly decided. Griswold set the stage for Roe. Of course all of this is far, far beyond O’Reilly’s knowledge base.

  • I think Santorum handled the O’Reilly interview pretty well. Santorum knows that debating contraception isn’t going to win him any votes. No sense in dwelling on the topic.

    But I want to pin down Santorum’s exact position. So he’s personally opposed to contraception. But he’s said that he doesn’t want to ban it. I guess that’s morally permissible if you think banning it would do more social harm. But Santorum has voted to fund contraception. Is that morally permissible?

  • Spambot,

    I think the only places one can legitimately (though not necessarily correctly) critique Santorum are on torture and war. The former I think Santorum would agree is wrong but he believes that certain techniques performed during the Bush Administration are not torture. Perhaps if the Church clearly stated Enhanced Interrogation Techniques in all circumstances were torture and he persisted in his view, one could then say he is clearly out of line with the Church. I think he has a harder time with attacking Iran.

    The remaining items in the link regarding income inequality, immigration etc. seem so fraught with prudential judgments that it merely is a laundry list of the liberal establishment. Prudential judgments, even by Church leaders, do not bind one’s conscience. Unfortunately, most of our Bishops do not make that fact clear.

  • I think Santorum handled the O’Reilly interview pretty well. Santorum knows that debating contraception isn’t going to win him any votes. No sense in dwelling on the topic.

    I would agree except that Bill framed it as a “Catholic” position, and not a general “conservative” or “republican” position. It seemed that framing it that way relieved Santorum somewhat in that it became an issue of what Catholic teaching is. Basically a case of one Catholic correcting another Catholic on an aspect of the faith.

    I am not skilled in the ways of politics, and most likely naive regarding this. Very likely a battle regarding Catholic teaching wouldn’t be a good political move. But it seemed like the opening existed for more to be said and just maybe a little clarification would have been a good thing.

  • Why should we trust a one day poll of 1,000 GOP over Gallups three day averages? I desperately want to believe the rasmussen poll (and now that Bachmann is gone I am for Santorum either way), but isn’t the 11% number more likely? I want to believe it isn’t.

  • I have high trust in Rasmussen’s numbers Ike based upon my prior experience with him and other pollsters. We will soon have more polls to draw comparisons with. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a few showing Santorum ahead of Romney by this time next week.

  • Still waiting for someone to explain to me how Santorum’s support for funding contraception is morally permissible.

  • Phillip & Don,

    Thanks for the replies. I’ll keep it all in mind. (I think what concerns me is that it’s not one bishop saying one thing and another bishop saying something else. On the issues discussed in the link, there seems to be a set of fairly unified and consistent positions among the bishops who have expressed opinions. Not risng to the level of inerrant teaching, but not something to ignore either.)

  • Spambot,

    Fair enough. However, a quick response. The bishops uniformly opposed welfare reform. It passed anyway and most likely had a positive effect on poverty, work and the common good.

    Prudential judgments, even by the host of bishops, remain prudential judgments.

  • Spambot,

    This from Vox Nova by commenter “A Sinner.” An excellent rebuttal of the prevailing distortions about CST by some and better worded than I could:

    “I don’t like all these things about him either. But “show me the dogma.”

    Vox Nova’s tactic has fallen ridiculously flat of trying to “give the conservative heresy-hunters a taste of their own medicine” by trying to draw equivalency with disagreement on the prudential question of the concrete means of implementing social teachings (of which the absolute abstract moral principles in themselves…are much broader and more vague than you’re making them out to be, and there IS plenty of room for debate on whether this or that given solution fulfills the criteria).

    Now, albeit, I do generally believe the in the approach of the Vatican and USCCB towards economic questions and immigration and war, etc. But to act like Catholics have to toe the line on specific policy questions like that is very dangerous. The conservatives may (with things like the culture wars and abortion and gay issues) bring religion too much into politics, but the sort of “obedience” to “Catholic social teaching” you are proposing here would bring too much of politics into our religion!

    I support both positions, to be sure, but amnesty for immigrants or supporting Medicaid or opposing the Iraq War…are simply not De Fide questions, and there is certainly a lot more room for debate and disagreement about the application of various moral principles there than is about the statement ‘the State has a duty to defend unborn life.’”

  • Vote counters in Iowa are saying that one precinct erred and gave Romney 20 extra votes. So Santorum really won by 12. However, there’s no recount process so Romney is still the official winner.

Big Government? No. Big Exaggerations? Yes.

Wednesday, January 4, AD 2012

Now that Rick Santorum has basically tied Mitt Romney in the Iowa caucus, the knives are really out for Rick.  On the one hand, he will undoubtedly experience a surge in the polls and in fundraising.  On the other hand, as every conservative who has ascended in the polls has before, he will face a firestorm of criticism from both left and right.  I discussed this in my post yesterday, and now things have only gone into overdrive.  As someone who reads secular conservative blogs, there is a lot of concern that Santorum is some kind of “big government” conservative.  I think this is absurd, as does a pretty famous conservative figure not known for particularly liking big government types: Rush Limbaugh.  Here’s what he had to say about the big government charge on his program today:

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Big Government? No. Big Exaggerations? Yes.

  • Santorum voted for Medicare Part D. He believes in a bigger government than I do. But that’s not what bothers me most about his economics. Government spending may not be a major concern for him but the political climate has made him change his tune enough to be considered a fiscal conservative. What bothers me is his central planning. It can be called “big government” but it might be more accurate to call it liberal or socialist or market intervention. He wants to pick winners and losers. He’s not a pure capitalist. And I think that’s worse than being a big spender.

  • great observation–” Too often conservatism is dumbed down to being simply anti-government. ”
    that hated entity, the Government….. oh if only that mystical corpus could be what it is called to be– free to do the good!

  • Equating “big government” with only domestic social programs is also a bit of rhetorical ju-jitsu. Another area of big government, particularly from the “conservative” side, is the military-industrial complex of which none other than Ike warned. In that context, Santorum’s foreign policy would seem to fall into the big government category.

  • Yes, Santorum is not Ron Paul. He is a mainstream Republican with regard to foreign policy and the role of the US military. I don’t think his views differ materially from any of the other GOP candidates, aside from Paul, in these respects.

  • As much as I love Santorum on social issues and many fiscal issues, I don’t think he is the best candidate to be chief executive. He is another candidate who believes government is inherently good, and the problem has been government just hasn’t had the right person at the helm. Big government is bad.

    Erik @ Red State stated it well in a piece on Perry…
    “If Rick Perry leaves the Republican race, there will not be a candidate in the field who authentically represents smaller government.While many conservatives don’t mind activist government so long as the ends are conservative, the willful use of activist government for conservative ends leaves in place a government perfectly capable of activist liberal government when conservatives lose.

    There are other issues popping up about Santorum that worry me.
    “In the 104th Congress Sen. Santorum joined all Democrats and a minority of Republicans in voting to filibuster the bill S. 1788, the National Right to Work Act of 1995.”

    He’s also a big supporter of subsidies like ethanol subsidies. (One theory Perry did so poorly in Iowa is his stand against ethanol subsidies.)

    I like Santorum’s victory speech and the answer he gave Shep @ Fox on homosexuality, but he needs to get vetted, which he hasn’t before, before I could support him.

  • is the military-industrial complex of which none other than Ike warned.

    If I am not mistaken, the ratio of military expenditure to domestic product during the Eisenhower Administration averaged around 0.11. As of now, it is about .057.

  • Kyle, while I think the big government charge being levied against Santorum is wrong, I do agree with you that Perry is the better overall candidate. I might post on this in coming days and elaborate, but he is better on federalism issues, on foreign policy, and of course executive experience – and please don’t give me the line about Texas being a weak governor. He has been governor of the second most populous and second largest state in the Union for 12+ years, LT Governor for 6 more.

  • Paul, I referenced “big government” because of the article’s subject, but I prefer Erik’s interpretation as “activist government.” Here are some issues unearthed before the Iowa vote.
    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/28/no-surprise-iowa-social-conservatives-are-about-to-shoot-us-all-in-the-foot-again/

    I agree. People often confused “Texas governor weaker than governors in other states” as “The Texas governor is weak.” That’s not true.

  • Pingback: Rick Santorum Thursday Roundup | ThePulp.it
  • “He is another candidate who believes government is inherently good,” ? ? ?
    I do think it is good to have government….I don’t think it is a necessary evil, but of course positive if it is in fact good governance

  • Sorry. The way governments have worked in history, I think it is a necessary burden, and I don’t mean the good kind. I mean like the natural requirement of the body to periodically go to the bathroom to expel waste.

    Even God wasn’t very enthusiastic when Israelites wanted to setup a king to join the party of the governed as was in neighboring countries. (1 Sam 8:10-18)

  • From Federalist 51:

    “It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

  • If I am not mistaken, the ratio of military expenditure to domestic product during the Eisenhower Administration averaged around 0.11. As of now, it is about .057

    First, this is government accounting, which is more based on the heisenberg uncertainty principle, mixed in with voodoo, than it is on sound accounting practices. Second, military expenditure is only part of the picture. When US national interests become equated to US corporate interests, the machinery of government (inlcuding the military) merely becomes another tool for market expansion/dominance. It is the cozy relationship driving policy decisions, not merely the expenditures, that represents the dangers.

Santorum: The Galvanizing Candidate

Wednesday, January 4, AD 2012

George Will has a first-rate column about Rick Santorum:

He can, of course, be tenaciously serious. On Sept. 26, 1996, the Senate was debating whether to ban partial-birth abortion, the procedure whereby the baby to be killed is almost delivered, feet first, until only a few inches of its skull remain in the birth canal, and then the skull is punctured, emptied and collapsed. Santorum asked two pro-choice senators opposed to the ban, Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), this: Suppose the baby slips out of the birth canal before it can be killed. Should killing it even then be a permissible choice? Neither senator would say no.

On Oct. 20, 1999, during another such debate, Santorum had a colloquy with pro-choice Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.):

Santorum: “You agree that, once the child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed. Do you agree with that?”

Boxer: “I think that when you bring your baby home .?.?. .”

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Santorum: The Galvanizing Candidate

  • Great post here Donald. I’ve wanted to say this in about every blog I’ve seen this video, but did anybody else notice that this man just did a 20 minute speech without notes or teleprompters! Seems like the Democrats aren’t the only one with a public speaker! This man’s speech gives me chills. When he speaks about God, you can just tell it is real. When he speaks about caring for the dignity of every worker, he’s sincere. There is something very genuine about this man that will be hard to miss if people give him the time of day. Let’s just keep on the positive Rick and show America who you really are!

  • Look, I admire Santorum’s pro-life work tremendously. I think he is, essentially, a decent man. But I fear that he is basically a Catholic Huckabee – a statist social conservative.

    That said, I will vote him if he is the GOP nominee. The only GOP contender I really don’t think I could bring myself to vote for is Paul. So I’m not going to get into a pitched battle fighting about the pros and cons of Santorum, Romney, etc. when I’m really not nuts about any of them. (I initially favored Perry, but Perry has pretty much destroyed his own candidacy.) The important thing is to beat Obama.

    It would be nice to vote for someone with enthusiasm, rather than voting against someone. But the conservative “A Team” (Jindal, Rubio, Walker, Ryan) isn’t running. *Sigh*

  • Oh, and I’m also aware that my criticism of Santorum for being a statist also applies to Romney. Darn it, every single candidate has big minuses. We have a serious crisis in leadership at a time when we need great leaders more than ever. I disagree with the Instapundit on certain issues, but I certainly agree with him when he says that today’s political class has to be the worst in the nation’s history.

    Still, Obama is the worst of the worst.

  • His backdoor protectionism in that video made me cringe. It’s the type of stuff I debate liberals who think the US needs China-style industrial policy on.

  • I don’t understand why so called conservatives are ideological free traders. But, regardless, how is Santorum saying we should lower taxes on manufacturers protectionist, while I doubt anyone would say lowering regulations on manufacturers is protectionist. The fact is that both are or neither are.

    We ought to do what’s in the public interest, rather than what might fit some economists’ neat vision of global efficiency. We are less competitive than our competitors when it comes to manufacturing. Should we not seek to remedy that? Or should we continue to let middle incomes stagnate? I think this policy fits excellently into Santorum’s broader pro-family vision.

  • Thus we have had candidates like Bob Dole in 1996 and John McCain in 2008 who ran lifeless campaigns and seemed to be concentrating on being good losers instead of fighting to win. I think Mitt Romney is such a candidate.

    Whatever the merits or demerits of any of these men are if one aspires to a political economy congenial to a Catholic society, the first two have faced political circumstances which reduce certain outcomes to decidedly improbable events. (It is in the interest of professional campaign hacks to pretend otherwise, but we do not have to pay attention to their self-promotion).

    Previous presidential candidates who faced circumstances the most similar to John McCain’s were Adlai Stevenson and Hubert Humphrey (the notable differences being that the economy had been much more bouyant, the running sore of a war was a great deal bloodier, and there was no banking crisis).

    As for Dole’s situation, consider: the economy is vigorous, a portion of your constituency has been sheared off by a 3d party candidate, and most of the public is curiously unconcerned (in and out of season) that the incumbent and his minions are forever concealing the muck by hiding it behind a bigger pile of muck.

    Now consider Romney. What is he doing in electoral politics and why has he abased himself? You think it might be because he is a competitive (or ambitious) man?

  • I don’t understand why so called conservatives are ideological free traders.

    Students of economics of a variety of descriptions tend to oppose impediments to foreign trade for the following reasons:

    1. Tariffs induce efficiency losses;
    2. You can through international treaty effect mutual reductions in tariffs.
    3. Trade restrictions generate politically determined rents which induce a mobilization of constituency groups to defend them.
    4. Countries with a vigorous civil service and extensive record-keeping do not need them to obtain revenue.

  • “I don’t understand why so called conservatives are ideological free traders.”

    Everyone should be a free trader regardless of ideology. Thinking liberals (Bill Clinton, President Obama, and even Paul Krugman) are also free traders.

    “But, regardless, how is Santorum saying we should lower taxes on manufacturers protectionist, while I doubt anyone would say lowering regulations on manufacturers is protectionist. The fact is that both are or neither are.”

    There’s a big difference. Reducing many regulations saves money for all parties. Subsidies (which is what special tax breaks are) cost money. We just got rid of the ethanol subsidy but now Santorum wants to add a manufacturing subsidy.

    Maybe you believe the Keynesian notion that the subsidies will create so many jobs that it’ll be worth the price. Maybe you believe that Santorum can multiply fish just as Democrats believe Obama can. Maybe it’ll work, maybe it won’t. That’s the risk of central planning. Better to apply the same taxes across the board and let the free market allocate. Santorum says he’s picking manufacturing because other industries can’t move overseas. First, that’s not even true. But more importantly, why does that even matter? If under a fair tax system, China still has a comparative advantage in manufacturing, let it move. This is Wealth of Nations 101.

  • They tell us the army is always fighting the last war. I wonder if that can be applied to the political system for 2012 and beyond. The Congress has stymied any progress on the debt reduction and has made no serious effort to create the jobs, re-boot the tax and economic system to help the US out of the hole that was dug, not really an issue by whom or how back then but what about now. The control of Congress by statesmen, not a continuation of the current session’s “nah nah nah nah” spooked by the Soros and Co Tea Bagger too-powerful lobbying interest. As I look back at the nation I just left after 47.5 years, I do not see the POTUS as being the real need for reform, although 44 is a bust given all that faced him and how he set priorities and rammed the dubious health bill through with no understanding of its almost 3000 page detail. I wish there were the same opportunity Europe had by getting technocrats to fix the Greek and Italian economic crises, booting their two PMs so that some of the nasty is off the table. As to longing for “good old days” humans have a natural tendency to see it as bright and rosy while iignoring the dark side, nor not even knowing how weak, flawed human nature was also at work there also!

  • RR, I’ll give you credit for being honest. You don’t mind those jobs going to China.

    I simply think it’s common sense to encourage manufacturing at a time when our trade deficit is so deep and the middle class is shrinking. It’s a sound conservative policy goal.

    And a tax break for manuf. is hardly central planning in the sense we think of central planning. It’s no more central planning than this country has ever engaged in.

  • “If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage. The general industry of the country, being always in proportion to the capital which employs it, will not therby be diminished… but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed with the greatest advantage.”

    – Wealth of Nations

    Another way of looking at tax breaks for manufacturing is as tax disadvantages for non-manufacturing. There will be more investment in manufacturing and less in non-manufacturing. It’s a centrally planned allocation of resources into a less efficient configuration.

  • Pingback: Rick Santorum Thursday Roundup | ThePulp.it
  • In March of last year the Boston Globe quoted Rick Santorum telling a group of right-wing Catholics that he was “frankly appalled” that America’s first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, once said “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.” In characterization, Santorum went further by saying “That was a radical statement,” and did “great damage.” And Santorum concluded, “We’re seeing how Catholic politicians, following the first Catholic president, have followed his lead, and have divorced faith not just from the public square, but from their own decision-making process.”

    Santorum may insist that he is a better Catholic then I am and a better man to be president than John F. Kennedy, but just as freely I view him as a religious bigot that neither speaks for me in matters or conscience nor political affairs. And further, were he to gain the power of the presidency by successfully painting the people’s consideration with his brand of religious fanaticism, it would do “great damage” to our land.

    And frankly, in words of comparative disparagement that Lloyd Bentsen directed at Dan Quayle in their 1988 vice-presidential debate, “Rick Santorum, you’re no John F. Kennedy.”

  • Considering that JFK was a serial adulterer Sam, I’d say that JFK didn’t even impose his religious beliefs on himself. The idea that a leader can, or should, not allow his religious beliefs to help guide him in regard to policy decisions is simple rubbish. Look at Lincoln’s magisterial Second Inaugural Address. Are you seriously going to argue that Lincoln was not influenced by his religious beliefs when he wrote that, or that it was a bad thing that he was? The beliefs of a president can be good or bad, but the idea that he can wall off his religious beliefs and that they will have no impact on what he does as President is simply both impossible and rubbish. As for your calling Santorum a bigot, that is merely your way of saying that you have beliefs that do not coincide with his. Welcome to the wonderful world of political disagreement!

  • I believe those who attack true conservatives like Rick Santorum for daring to say the US needs to have a manufacturing base. Claiming it’s ‘protectionist’ or ‘statist’? Yet these same types are silent when it comes to China, India, Latin America, Canada and all other countries subsidize their manufacturers, hit US goods with high tariffs, and act in ways that are truly protectionist. I have to say, I believe those who do so, are NOT conservatives, nor are they Catholic or conservative in any way. They sound like the Marxists who demand the US economy be ransacked, bled dry, it’s citizen’s be rendered into third world poverty, and looted of their rights and freedoms. Rick Santorum’s plan is to eliminate the US manufacturing corporate tax, cut other corporate taxes by 50%, reduce other tax rates, including personal income tax to the pro-growth Reagan era taxes of 10% & 28%, eliminate the marriage penalty taxes, provide research and development incentives, and so on. Santorum’s Made in America jobs plan is very in depth and on his campaign web site.

    As Catholics, we know Christ’s teachings, and it is in NO way Christian to rationalize the economic genocide being imposed upon US citizens, and it is in no way Christian or conservative to insist that the US be deprived of it’s own economic independence, and it’s citizens ability to live instead of starving and becoming homeless.

  • I never contributed a dime to a political campaign in my life. I just send money to Rick Santorum’s campaign. Just a good feeling.

  • Wayne – the Democrats have a public speaker? Who’s that? I’m mean someone who can speak without the aid of a teleprompter telling him what to say.

  • Mary, LOL free traders are Marxists? LOL.
    Capitalism is “economic genocide?” LOL.

    You guys need your own party.

  • Talking to liberals I found that without exception they all believe Santorum wants to ban sodomy, contraception, and masturbation despite the fact that he’s said just the opposite. They confuse his statements against Lawrence v. Texas and Griswold v. Connecticut to mean that he’s for bans. It’s a failure of education. People seem to think the Supreme Court is another legislature. I do think Santorum can make his position clearer though. Sometimes he gets so confrontational that he’s more concerned with making a philosophical point than campaigning.

  • Talking to liberals I found that without exception they all believe Santorum wants to ban sodomy, contraception, and masturbation despite the fact that he’s said just the opposite. They confuse his statements against Lawrence v. Texas and Griswold v. Connecticut to mean that he’s for bans. It’s a failure of education.

    It is not a failure of education. Something John Leo said about reporters some time ago applies here: they think with templates. No amount of education is going to penetrate in most cases.

  • Do the liberals believe President Santorum will deploy black helicopters to enforce his tyrannical bans on nose-picking, farting, and belching?

    Here is a paraphrase of a Twain quote on congressmen. Suppose you were an idiot. And, suppose you were a liberal. But, I repeat myself.

    Twain also knew reporters: “If you don’t read the papers, you are uniformed. If you read the papers, you are misinformed.” Truth.

  • Outside of pro-life issues, what has Rick Santorum done? What is his executive experience? What has he lead?
    He was elected to Congress at 32 and has spent all that time in Washington. When he was defeated he remained Washington at a policy think.
    Santorum has clearly demonstrated he is Pro-Life. That is a good first step. But to be the natnion’s chief executive, he needs some executive experience. If he were elected Governor, then he would obtain that experience.
    Also[, we followed the logic that the longest running candidate should be President, then it would belong to Ron Paul.

  • If you feel that way, I’m sure you didn’t vote for the Obama,did you?!

  • Show’s over, folks. Any candidate who favors cutting Social Security benefits is simply unelectable. And as a Pennsylvanian I can tell you, this is his style – in a few days one of his aides will get to him and explain how dumb that position is, and he’ll reverse himself.

  • “Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, says changes should include a higher eligibility age to qualify for Social Security benefits, and tighter restrictions on benefits for upper-income people. Americans now qualify for reduced Social Security benefits at age 62 and full benefits at 66, soon to rise to 67.

    Social Security pays proportionately higher benefits to low-income people. But Santorum says wealthy retirees’ proportionate benefits should be trimmed further. He did not offer details.

    This week, he told New Hampshire audiences that Americans over 65 were society’s poorest age group in 1937, when Social Security was created. Now that group is the wealthiest, he said.

    He also noted that Americans now live much longer, putting far bigger demands on the government retirement program.

    Santorum offers only modest details on how he would implement his proposed changes. He has not said how much money he hopes to save.

    In a brief interview Friday as he plowed his way through a crowd after the Keene event, he was asked if the nation should make the changes now.

    “I think we should, yeah,” Santorum said. “Obviously we’re going to have to go through a debate next year and figure out ways in which to make the revenues meet the expenditures.”

    He tells voters he would rule out higher taxes or more deficit spending to help the Social Security program. That leaves benefit cuts as the only way to match revenues and costs, he notes.

    Santorum’s call for immediate benefit cuts puts him at odds with his Republican rivals.

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who came under fire for calling Social Security a “Ponzi Scheme,” tried to recover in part by emphasizing that any changes in benefits would not affect current or soon-to-be retirees.

    Rep. Ron Paul of Texas says younger workers should be able to opt out of Social Security taxes and retirement benefits. “My plan explicitly protects the elderly and the sick in the transition,” he says.

    Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has said in a statement, “We must keep the promises made to our current retirees: their Social Security and Medicare benefits should not be affected.”

    Like Santorum, Romney has called for increasing the eligibility age for Social Security and slowing benefits to high-income recipients. His aides have said the pace of change has yet to be decided, but soon-to-be beneficiaries would not be affected.

    Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls for giving younger workers the option of diverting Social Security taxes to private retirement accounts. Some independent groups say his proposal, which is based on a Chilean program and does not anticipate automatic benefit cuts, is unduly optimistic.

    President Barack Obama last year discussed possible reductions in Social Security benefits as part of a large debt-reduction deal with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. The talks collapsed, however.

    The Romney and Gingrich campaigns had no immediate comment Friday on Santorum’s proposals.

    A House Republican budget-cutting plan, authored by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., would exempt everyone now over 55 from proposed reductions in Social Security benefits.

    Ryan and others have said a phased-in change would give Americans time to plan their retirements without surprises. But Santorum says those officials are seeking political cover by delaying their proposed changes.

    “That’s why you see Paul Ryan saying, ‘Oh, I’m going to fix Social Security, I’m going to fix Medicare in 10 years,'” Santorum told a crowd Thursday in Northfield, N.H.

    He said Ryan assumes, “well, if you’re under 55, you won’t be paying much attention, right? Well, the problem is, this is not a problem that we can wait 10 years to solve.”

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j7O34Bpp42k-IlMMNiOLBkYF2zNw?docId=b1cff9ecefe24ca6ae1764a09761e361

    Santorum rises in my esteem as to bluntly honesty. Only the willfully blind or the terminally obtuse can look at the numbers and not realize that social security will have to be adjusted, and sooner rather than later.

  • Show’s over, folks. Any candidate who favors cutting Social Security benefits is simply unelectable.

    Well, Mary Elizabeth, you unelectors are in for a rude surprise when the sovereign default hits.

  • Romney now trading at his highest point ever on Intrade, including in South Carolina where he’s given an 80% chance of winning.

6 Responses to Internet Hitler Alarmed by Santorum

  • Love the Hitler rants. Go Santorum! I prefer him over Romney. Cheers!

  • Pingback: Rick Santorum Roundup | ThePulp.it
  • Unlike many other posters on this Blog, I like Romney. But I like Santorum more. That said, I worry about Santorum’s ability to be elected or to lead. While Romney is a social conservative, social issues are not his passion and he does not wear it on his sleeve. This makes him more acceptable to the middle, I’m afraid. I do think that a bona fide passionate social conservative can be elected and can be a successful president, but only if he or she has extraodinary leadership ability and skills of persuasion. See Ronald Reagan. But a dogmatic conservative without such abilities is probably unelectable and would probably be an ineffective leader. Santorum has not demonstrated such abilities, yet, at least to me. I hope he can and does. I think he is a good man, but worry he would be an ineffective president even if he is electable in the first place.

  • I love all the Scooby Doo references!

  • Mike Petrik, I agree with you.

Rick Santorum v. The Weathervane

Wednesday, January 4, AD 2012

 

 

Some elections are themeless and some have themes.  The Republican presidential nomination contest has had a theme from the outset:  this is a two man race with Romney, or as I affectionately refer to him, the Weathervane, and one other candidate, identity to be determined.  Last night the identity of the Not Romney candidate was determined:  Rick Santorum.

Final Iowa Results:

Mitt Romney:               30,015

Rick Santorum:            30,007

Ron Paul:                     26,219

Newt Gingrich:            16,251

Rick Perry:                   12,604

Michele Bachmann:       6,073

Jon Huntsman:                 745

 

Santorum was annointed by default:  each of the earlier pretenders to the title having, in turn, stumbled and fallen away:  Bachmann, for a nano-second, Perry, debating is an essential skill for Presidential candidates unless they have won a big war, Cain, the femmes were found, and Gingrich, a man can outrun anything except his own past.  However, Santorum would not have been so annointed if he had also not been working the state assiduously for many months, visiting each county in Iowa, and holding over 375 townhall events.  The caucus set up in Iowa rewards old fashioned shoe leather politics and Santorum did the endless hard work neccessary to succeed.

So today is Santorum’s day in the limelight and he has earned it.  What happens next?  Santorum is currently in single digits in all other states.  That should change now, but in order to be taken as a serious challenger to Romney, he will quickly have to move into at least a close second place behind Romney in most of the upcoming primaries.  Campaign funds will now start flowing to Santorum, and he will need to use it swiftly to build up a national organization.

Candidates will start dropping out:  Bachmann soon and probably Gingrich soon after New Hampshire.  I think Bachmann has been angling for a while for a job in a Romney administration, and I expect her to endorse Romney, although that is not probably important as her support is miniscule.  Newt is boiling over from the fact that Romney negative advertising torpedoed his campaign, and he and Santorum have been close in the past, so I would not be surprised if Gingrich endorses him after he drops out.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Rick Santorum v. The Weathervane

January TAC GOP Presidential Poll

Tuesday, January 3, AD 2012

UPDATE 1-8-2012:  We have eliminated Ron Paul due to spamming issues.  If you feel the need to cast a vote for Ron Paul, please do s0 by leaving a comment.

John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, Buddy Roemer, and Paul Ryan never announced their candidacy for the GOP nomination as some had speculated, so they have been removed from the TAC Poll.  In addition, Gary Johnson has removed himself from consideration the moment he accepted the Libertarian Party Nomination.  Herman Cain has suspended his campaign which is nothing more than preventing the inevitable.

Here’s our latest poll so please vote in anticipation of the Iowa Caucuses (voting ends 7pm this Friday):

 

Continue reading...

65 Responses to January TAC GOP Presidential Poll

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY MORNING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: Rick Santorum Roundup | ThePulp.it
  • I am surprised to see that Santorum is doing so well on this poll. Is it because he’s Catholic? I hope not, because the Catholic church teaches, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” I do not see this practiced by Santorum in his legislative ethics, nor in his strident efforts to promote war with Iran, and now countries in South America (see the Iowa debate).

    The candidate who truly espouses peace is Dr. Ron Paul, and he has my support in the hopes that his administration would be one of peace & goodwill.

    whyronpaul.com

  • There is a difference between espousing peace Cynthia and being a naive fool about foreign powers that mean harm to us. Ron Paul crossed that line long ago. His viewpoint of course is that the rest of the world can go to Hell while America huddles down in Fortess America. Somehow I do not think that foreign policy lives up to the admonition of Christ that you cited.

    In regard to our Civil War Ron Paul believes it was completely unneccessary. Go to the link below explaining why he was wrong:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/08/23/ron-paul-and-the-civil-war/

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY EVENING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Two Paulbots have been banned for their charming attempt to recycle a slur against Santorum hurled by homosexual activists. All such additional attempts will go into the trash where they belong and the attempted commenter will be banned from this site.

  • It’s been pretty ugly for Santorum as the Militant Gay Lobby has been harrassing Santorum with their KKK tactics all throughout his Iowa campaign. It’s no coincidence that Paulbots are doing the same to Santorum considering that Ron Paul wrote racist newsletters up until the 1990s.

  • Oh look, the Paulbots are stacking our poll:

    “Little poll that sanatorium is winning…

    Submitted by Howimademy on Wed, 01/04/2012 – 19:54.

    Thought it’d be fun to just knock him out of first…silly, maybe…fun, yes. 🙂

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/01/03/january-tac-gop-…”

    http://www.dailypaul.com/199365/iowa-caucus-night-info-open-thread?#comments

    Of course this has ever been the tactic of Ron Paul cultists. Too bad for them that they can’t win elections in real life.

  • Too bad for them that they can’t win elections in real life.

    Or friends or jobs or a life . . .

  • What bothers me (off topic just a bit), is that Sarah Palin are warning Republicans to not alienate these 9/11 Truthers, ie, Paulbots.

    Of course, this came a day after she said that “its not (Michele) Bachman time”. Considering that she has almost zero executive experience, I found this truly rich.

  • Ron Paul is no doubt the most Biblical candidate for 2012, if you are a true believer you would support Dr. Ron Paul. Here is a short series explaining as to why he is:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tYk5mEli68&feature=BFa&list=PL0E27AFB852E14B16&lf=player_embedded

    I urge everyone to watch this series so you can understand as to why he is the most Biblical candidate and why believers should support him and no other candidate. If you don’t you are just lying to yourselves and/or others.

  • Most Biblical? Indeed! Here is exclusive video of Ron Paul leading the Paulbots out of Iowa and across the Mississippi:

  • Are you proud to mock your religion?

  • I am a Catholic John. I mock the Ron Paul Cult that you are obviously a card carrying member of. Read back your original comment to yourself. It would be too much if applied to George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, let alone Ron Paul. It comes across as completely over the top and invites the type of mockery that I gave it.

  • We will see.

  • They are just like cochroaches aren’t they…the Paulinista’s…they seem to be everywhere…I gotta give them credit…they are organized, but then so were the borg.

  • It was bound to happen in one of these polls that the Paulbots would manipulate poll. They know they can’t win, so instead of letting poll develop organically they spam it. Fortunately, that doesn’t work in politics. We can pretty much throw out the Ron Paul vote, meaning that Santorum has the Catholic vote behind him.

  • I am all in favor of ending the IRS.

    Thats one of the reasons I am voting for Ron Paul. (as if thats not enough by itself)

  • Pingback: THURSDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: THURSDAY MORNING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • I would say, there is no greater media cheerleader for Ron Paul right now than Judge Andrew Napolitano, who is Catholic. Regarding Rick Santorum, I must ask, “What could be more ‘pro-life’ than peace?” What does “waterboarding” have to do with “family values”? I apologize for “Paulbots” who may have offended you. However, I am genuinely concerned that a President Santorum or a President Gingrich would start World War III in the Middle East by bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities for no good reason except political expediency.

  • I do not think Catholics can take Santorum seriously. Although he spouts pro life rhetoric at times, he places a higher value on politics. Why did he support Arlen Specter’s candidacy for Senate over Pat Toomey? Toomey was pro life while pro choice Specter was head of the judiciary committee and had fought Robert Bork.

  • Santorum was always a pro-life leader in Congress. He fought hard for every pro-life piece of legislation and always voted pro-life. In regard to the Specter endorsement in 2004, as the tight Presidential polls that year indicated, there was every prospect that 2004 was going to be a bad year for the Republicans. The Democrats had slightly more seats up than the Republicans, 19-15 in the Senate that year, but the playing ground was fairly even. On election night Kentucky, Florida and Alaska were fairly close, and South Dakota was won by a hair. Control of the Senate would have shifted if those elections had gone the other way, and they might well have.

    Santorum extracted a pledge from Specter that he would support every Supreme Court nominee sent up by Bush. This pledge was crucial if control of the Senate had shifted or if the Republicans had come back with a diminished majority .

    I think what Santorum did was reasonable at the time, assuming that one’s goal is to have Supreme Court justices on the Court that will overturn Roe. Bush lost Pennsylvania to Kerry, and I think it likely that Toomey might well have been defeated that year, considering that he only got 51% of the vote in 2010, the best election year for Republicans since Calvin Coolidge was in office.

  • “would say, there is no greater media cheerleader for Ron Paul right now than Judge Andrew Napolitano, who is Catholic.”

    He is also a paranoid conspiracy nut like Ron Paul. He is a 9-11 Truther among other charming conspiracy theories he partakes in.

  • Ron Paul does not ‘work well with others’ as the old grade school report card used to say. Whatever his viewpoints, if one hasn’t that power to sway other powerful and intelligent people to your side it is wasted. In all his years in Congress he has been a moody, strange loner. He’s like the kid who sniffed his fingers and his mother attach his mittens to his snow suit so he wouldn’t lose them. No one wants him on a team.

  • These folks make a habit of just spamming polls:
    http://www.dailypaul.com/200240/a-whole-bunch-of-polls-have-at-em

    Because nothing says your candidate is a massively popular guy on his way to winning a nomination than having to spend your entire day spamming meaningless internet polls.

    Well, at 8.6% unemployment, it’s understandable how they have the time to dither their day away. Doing arduous things like brushing up on that ole resume is just a bummer activity.

  • Completely counterproductive activity since everyone knows that the Paulbots do this, but they persist in it anyway merely to be annoying. Juvenile and delusional which basically sums up the Ron Paul Cult.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • “I think what Santorum did was reasonable at the time, assuming that one’s goal is to have Supreme Court justices on the Court that will overturn Roe.”

    This is where I would take issue with you.
    Let us examine the nominees of Bush:
    Roberts: pro life, but I doubt he would overturn Roe v Wade due to his belief in Stare Decisis.
    Harriet Myers: ???
    Alito: Pro Life, but it is not clear he would overturn Roe V Wade.
    Digging deeper, it was Arlen Specter who reportedly dissuaded Bush from nominating Alberto Gonzalez.
    So, by making the political bargain Santorum did, he passed on opportunity to remove a staunch pro choicer in exchange for gaining no headway in overturning Roe V Wade. I am not sure I believe Toomey was a sure loser against Spectre, as Spectre generally won by thin margins, though you make a good point. I see Santorum as playing party politics rather than sticking to his stated principles. I really do not trust him. I am from Pennsylvania and have followed his political career going back to before he was elected to the US House when he upset Doug Walgren.

  • Considering that Alberto Gonzalez is a pro-abort I think it was a very good thing that Specter talked Bush out of nominating him, although I hadn’t heard that. In regard to Roberts and Alito, judging from their votes in a partial birth abortion case, Gonzales v. Carhart, I have little doubt that they would vote to overturn Roe if the opportunity presents itself.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart

  • I am a Ron Paul supporter. I’m not a Paulbot, not even sure what that means. I’m also a pro life follower of Jesus Christ. I’m not a pothead and I don’t spam polls. I do however go to any poll I can find and cast my vote for Ron. There are 3 people of voting age in my household and many times we can’t all cast our votes for Ron because most polls only allow one vote per IP address.

    I would like to personally apologize for the knuckleheads who tried to post the Santorum stuff on here. Something to consider though. We have a lot of young people in our camp, young people don’t really care to much for what us older folks would call propriety. I guarantee you, if you were to come over to Ron Paul forums or the DailyPaul and meet some of the people there that we are mostly, such as yourselves, kind and decent folk.

    Most of us only want to live in peace with our neighbors and the world. We love our country and see it slipping away from us. We are losing our God given rights buy the day, bankrupting ourselves with endless wars and entitlements, etc, etc. We love America, we love our neighbors, and we want to be free.

    You can hate us if you want to, not a very Christian thing to do but what the heck, live and let live. We are people just like you but with a different perspective, one that we did not get from CNN or FOX news. Many people don’t realize this but there is not one main stream media news network that isn’t owned by a larger enterprise that makes most of their money from the military industrial complex. Don’t take my word for it, look it up.

    As I said, I am staunchly pro life as many of my fellow Ron Paul supporters are, but for us, being pro life extends beyond the womb. There are 75 million human beings living in Iran, approximately 50 million women and children. I personally am not willing that even a single one of them be sacrifice so that I might sleep a little better at night. Besides, God has not given me a Spirit of fear, it’s in the Bible, you can look that up too.

    Please get the facts about our candidate before you dismiss him entirely, there are hundreds of videos all over the internet of Ron Paul in his own words. The media misrepresents Ron Paul and often flat out lies about him or puts words in his mouth. For example, Bill O’Reilly just said last night that Ron Paul said he didn’t want to be President, a bald faced lie. These are the kind of things that we are fighting against and some of us take it a little too far at times.

    God bless you all, and have a great day.

  • I agree, Don. I certainly think that Roberts and Alito would *like* to overturn Roe. As principled jurists (unlike Roe’s authors), they do have to take stare decisis principles into account, which does make the outcome harder to predict. That said, beyond reversing Roe outright, pro-life forces certainly favor judges who are sympathetic to their strategy of chipping away at Roe so as to limit its applicability as much as possible, and certainly Alito and Roberts fall within that description.

    I think the criticisms directed toward Myers were over the top and unfair. In any case I have no reason to believe that her jurisprudence vis-a-vis Roe would differ from that of Roberts or Alito.

  • In any case I have no reason to believe that her jurisprudence vis-a-vis Roe would differ from that of Roberts or Alito.

    The objection to her nomination went beyond how she’d decide cases to the potential quality of her jurisprudence. But that’s a debate for another time.

  • Ditto what Tito said re: “KKK tactics”

    Rick Santorum 2012!

  • Archie, I do want to commend you on your thoughtful comment. I do wish that more Ron Paul supporters were as reaonable and polite as you – frankly it would help his own cause if he didn’t have his supporters making such disgusting attack ads as this one against Huntsman.
    http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2012/01/05/you-stay-classy-ron-paul-supporters/

    Please get the facts about our candidate before you dismiss him entirely, there are hundreds of videos all over the internet of Ron Paul in his own words.

    Archie, the reason most of the people here think he is so far out there is precisely because of what we’ve seen Paul say in his own words. Frankly people like O’Reilly are full of hot air anyway, and I don’t need to listen to him in order to come to my own conclusions.

  • Paul, thank you for your kind words. I saw the video you posted, silly really. I’m not sure what they were trying to prove. Huntsman is a decent enough guy and a very successful businessman, he obviously is not my first choice but I wouldn’t rule him out were he to win the nomination. My son speaks Chinese as well, so I’m really not sure how that’s a bad thing. What can I say, it’s politics, sometimes it’s ugly, sometimes just plain ridiculous.

    In fairness, Huntsman ran a very biased and misleading attack piece on Ron Paul as well, taking his words out of context and basically saying he was crazy. If you don’t agree with Ron that’s fine, but his views are particularly well thought out, not crazy. Concerning foreign policy, he has been supported by some of the better minds on the subject. The CIA has written and warned about “blowback” and the 9/11 commission report agreed with much of what he has been saying for years.

    Those of us in the Paul camp who have lived a little longer are a bit easier to deal with and welcome rigorous intellectual debate on the issues. If there is something that you have heard Ron say that troubles you or gives you pause, I am very interested to know what those statements may have been. BTW, I’m very pleased to hear that you are not one of the mindless drones who takes every word from FOX as if it came down from Mt. Sinai.

    Love and Peace in Jesus Christ

  • Father of five, Knights of Columbus Grand Knight here. Ron Paul is the only option for me when I size up the candidates against my faith. We don’t want the world to go to hell in a hand basket. Evil countries, evil men, and evil ideas around the world need to be stopped. It’s just the the US Federal Government should not be in charge of this. It’s not their role. The US Federal Government isn’t the only way to combat evil. We can combat it here in our north western hemisphere and the other countries of the world can pick up their own slack.

  • “We can combat it here in our north western hemisphere and the other countries of the world can pick up their own slack.”

    The Ukranian man made famine under Stalin, the Katyn Massacre, the Rape of Nanking, the Cultural Revolution, and the list could be endless, shows how well that tends to work out in practice.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Donald, I understand your point. I’m not saying Americans shouldn’t do anything about these horrible atrocities around the world. I’m just saying that tax should not be collected from all American’s to fund a military operation across the world.

    What I believe should happen is what happened before we became the police of the world. Allow American’s to join foreign armies in times of need so that if an American is willing they can make a difference. If 51% of able-bodied American’s joined a foreign force to combat evil and/or contributed funds to these causes I think we would see evil be defeated in many cases.

    If you think that 51% of able-bodied American’s would not serve or fund other countries across the world on their own… then you and I have something in common. If 51% of American’s would not give money or risk their lives for other counties, then why the hell is our Federal Government doing this in the first place? Is it because “it’s the right thing to do”, or because it’s “just and righteous”? That’s what they told us about Iraq and i have to say I don’t believe them anymore.

    This is why I have changed my mind. I will (or want to) contribute my time and money to causes I feel are “just” and “righteous”. I don’t want the government taking my money and giving it to who they feel, or just say, rightfully deserves it.

  • “The Ukranian man made famine under Stalin, the Katyn Massacre, the Rape of Nanking, the Cultural Revolution, and the list could be endless, shows how well that tends to work out in practice.”

    What did the US do about any of that?

    We did not bomb or invade them.

    Should we have bombed Ukraine, China, etc. to stop killing innocents?

  • We should do what we can T. Shaw to stop innocents from being massacred. Sometimes we effectively lack the power to do anything about it, but we should never rest our foreign policy on the presumption that murder of innocents abroad is none of our business. In regard to China, if we had effectively supported the Nationalists, corrupt though they were, in their war against Mao in 1945-49, how many tens of millions of lives might have been saved? After the Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-1919, the US and its allies had an opportunity to support the Whites against the Reds. Instead the US and its allies tired of the conflict, pulled out of Russia and the Soviet Union was established, with the consequences to the world that we are all familiar with. When we refuse to fight evils at the outset, the evils often do not disappear, but grow in strength and end up killing hordes of innocents.

    This section from Proverbs 24 has always hit home to me in this area:

    10 If you falter in a time of trouble,
    how small is your strength!
    11 Rescue those being led away to death;
    hold back those staggering toward slaughter.
    12 If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,”
    does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
    Does not he who guards your life know it?
    Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?

  • It was Catholics who put the worst president we have known in our lifetime, even over Jimmy Carter, into office. How can we do this again by voting for someone who cannot win with his crazy conspiracy theories and his isolationist thinking?

    Are we doomed to repeat history because we ignore it? Does anyone here think that the US has done anything to make clearly religious extremists, BIGOTS, whose religion like it or not, gives them permission to kill the infidel…that be us…just for existing into assassins hell bent oh no, paradise bent to kill us all. The entire Western Civilization.

    I have never heard Judge Napolitano espouse the conspiracy theory that the Truthers espouse but regardless, they are crazy. Ron Paul is pro life, thank God, but he is not prolife if he thinks he can negotiate us to peace with these people. They are more prolific than us, because most Catholics do not practice a prolife mentality and they are not unwilling to die. All I can see is that we are not willing to do what our fathers did, we are willing to die for our freedom and that of our brothers and sisters.

    How said for people like my father and I am sure many of yours or your grandfathers and mothers who laid down their life. Or was Hitler more of an enemy than a Islamist extremists who insinuate themselves into our culture, take advantage of our education, and good heartedness until ready to blow themselves up for what? 70 Virgins….doesn’t that offend anyone?

    When I stand before Jesus, I will have to answer for voting for someone who may use techniques of war, IN war, that I don’t necessarily care for, however, I feel better being able to say that I voted for a lesser evil in order to end the reign of a decidely anti life, scoundrel who has lied to us about everything and is not only trying to control our birth and death but how, when and where we can practice our faith, in fact I would venture to say, Obama would like to replace our Christian faith with a secularist faith based upon the ideology of green. To be a steward of this gift of earth is our task but climate change and all that has attached itself to it is not about science it is about ideology and a way to replace Christ, expecially in the minds of kids, with mother earth.

    We need a pit bull to go against the obama machine, not someone who thinks, much like Carter did (and look what that got us) that we can negotiate or worse just stick our heads in the sand and pretend there is no other world out there…no enemy by us.

    I am so saddened that we may be the reason for another 4 years of hopey changey until the only change will be our Church muzzled and more of us blown up.

  • Hello Chris, May I offer a brief rebuttal from the Ron Paul side? Sir, you are completely mistaken or misguided when you refer to Ron Paul’s foreign policy as isolationist. I know the media says it all the time but it simply is not Dr. Paul’s view. Ron Paul has stated repeatedly that were a significant threat present itself he would deal with it swiftly, vigorously, and completely, and then he would come home. That to me, does not sound like a man who is weak on defense, but rather a man who is wise on war.

    Ron Paul’s foreign policy is non-interventionist. Ron Paul wants free trade and friendship with all nations. When Ahmadinejad made serious overtures at the U.N. recently, that he was ready to negotiate, Obama wanted none of it. War has been the game plan from day one.

    Here’s a clip from General Wesley Clark stating as much in no uncertain terms.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uswDmTjLog

    I could go into greater detail of course but if this clip doesn’t at least get you to look into what I’m saying a little deeper, any additional words on the topic would be meaningless.

    In regard to the evil horde of Muslim extremists eager to destroy us and our way of life. Sir, as someone who has shared tea and tobacco with Muslim men, who has done business with Persians (Iranians), Saudis, Yemenis, Lebanese etc. I have to tell you, I just don’t see it. My son who works in Naval Intelligence (no jokes please) doesn’t see it either and he is far more in the know than I am. I know these people personally. Most Muslims, Middle Easterners, Africans, what have you, they simply want to be left alone.

    Are there Muslim extremists? Absolutely. But there are Christian extremist, Hindu Extremists, every religion has it’s extremists. Here is something that so many people rarely ever think about. Of all the people in America who claim to be Christian, how many of them would you call fundamentalists, and out of the fundamentalists, how many would you label as extreme, and out of the extremists, how many are blowing up abortion clinics on a regular basis? I hope you are beginning to see my point. Islam is no different than Christianity, Muslims are no different than Christians or Mormons or any other group. Religious practice in the middle east is as cultural as religious practices everywhere else in the world. They are no more devoted to their faith and all that faith entails than the average “Christian”. Most Muslims don’t know the Koran any better than most “Christians” know their Bible’s.

    When we place sanctions on countries who have done us no harm, starving their children, devastating their economies and overall quality of life, when we threaten them with war and regime change, we create the very extremists that we fear.

    In your comment above you spoke of “our Christian faith”, I share that same faith. In my 20 plus years as a Christian, and a Christian who takes his faith perhaps a bit more seriously than some, though admittedly not as much as others, I have yet to discover this concept of Christ honoring preemptive war. If you can direct me to the appropriate scriptures supporting this position I will consider them with prayer. Until then, may I leave you with a verse from 2 Timothy,

    “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind’.

    God Bless

  • I see Ron Paul is way ahead in this poll. I do not believe it is true Catholics who usually view National Catholic Register voting for Paul. The paulbots find polls over the internet and tell all of their paulbot buddies to go that site and vote for Paul. To love thy neighbor means help those all over the world. That’s what America’s been doing since her birth, starting at Tripoli, and part of why she’s been so blessed.
    God Bless America.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY EVENING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: FRIDAY MORNING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: FRIDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: FRIDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Archie,

    I too have sat and laughed and kibbitzed with may people of Middle Eastern background, including Muslims. Sufism is a lovely mystical version of Islam. Sufism was one man’s attempt to bring to Islam what we believe, that reason and faith are compatible and should work in cooperation. He was not successful because of the Koran’s religion and the pressure of the mainline groups, so it went the way of mysticism. But those who truly still adhere to it are lovely hearts. As a Middle Eastern Major in college, I have always had a love of the place, the people and the history. But I am not naive about their religion or their cultural ways. Are there extremists in all religions, heck yes, but how may certainly in this day and age blow up people of other religions for no reason. We have the nuts who go to military funerals and spew their hatred, but they don’t kill people, they don’t send their young children or mothers to die. The cool aid drinkers who think one or another of their prophets is Jesus incarnate or another Messiah tend to kill themselves rather than others. It is quite different and the difference come by the fact that we do not worship the same god…worshipping one god does not make it the same god. Their story is Abraham Isaac and Ishmael with the emphasis on Ismael. They cannot know God in any real way, a personal God for them is anathema. Jesus is just a prophet and not the last or with the last word.

    Have christians done bad things over time yes, and people always want to bring up the Crusades, but defending our own in the Holy Land was not necessarily doing wrong when we were asked in and it was a different age. We constantly judge our ancestors by our own 21st century values. We give everyone else a pass…loh that is their culture, we can’t comment or dislike it but when it comes to ourselves we say, how dare the Crusaders do this or that.

    Do not put Christian fundementalists in the same light with these people that is completely to twist the truth. If you are going to do comparisons, do them in this time and place. When was the last time CHristians savagely attacked any one of another religion without provocation, other than our religion/our God (to whom we are slaves remember that is the case for muslims) tells us it is what we should do?

    The Iranians are NOT going to negotiate. Iran is no different than STalin was or the Japanese even for their part back in the 30s and 40s. You are not dealing with honest people. Have you so soon forgotten Jimmy Carter’s debacle in that respect? While I have no use for Obama, he had to listen to HIlary and the people who know with whom we are dealing…zebras do not change their stripes.

    How about Obama’s tour of Mea Culpa at the beginning of his presidency, telling everyone how the US is to blame and we are sorry and we would just love to negotiate and work with you. Where did that get us? Perhaps that is why Obama stepped back a bit. He found out all he did was expose us to being considered weak and a target.

    I think Obama set out to wreck the country, period. All his ‘friends’ are out in th eopen communists, socialists and anarchists. He found out, we the people are in line with that and while most of his appointees drink the same cool aid, don’t think Hilary, does though I wouldn’t vote for her either. Like her or not, she is clearly working her tail off from the looks of her and she has here hands full.

    Can’t you see by the outcome of the so called “Arab Spring” that we are in for the biggist struggle of our lives. As soon as I saw the first country rise up, I began to pray, knowing full well it ws not going tobring a spring but a long winter of extremism.

    What does Ron Paul consider imminent danger? And I don’t want us to negotiate or give money to these people through the government. I am a believe not in redistribution of wealth, perhaps Distributionism but I don’t trust the government not to make that into socialism and communism as it is almost impossible for power not to corrupt. I believe in Subsidiarity whether it is here or abroad. When three planes are flown out to kill us for no reason other than we are who we are, we vote, we respect others’ religious rights, women’s rights…or we did before the feminist and gay rights movements and the cowtowing that the Obama administration is doing to their causes…that is a declaration of war. That you can’t pin point a country but must admit to a cultural enemy doesn’t change it. Makes it far more difficult and requires some not so typical tactics of war, but it still requires us to accept it for what it is and protect ourselves and our country.

    I do understand the culture and the religion. I don’t listen to the msm or anyone else on this one. I study history and I am tired of the tail wagging the dog in this country. Mostly I pray…and I would suggest we all do that rather than just listening to televisions and debates. I want a pit bull to go up against Obama and that isn’t Ron Paul and frankly it isn’t Ron Santorum though I admire him. It is Newt because he is knowledgeable and he has made our government work together before. One of the very few who have. He has the intelligence and the experience.

    If we were voting for a saint none of these people would deserve our vote. But we are not, we are voting for a man or woman who can reign in this government and it’s tenticles on both our money, our human rights and our religious rights to name the most important. We have ideologues on both sides and the only one who has ever been able to cut through that is Newt Gingrich. Like him or not, he converted and he was absolved ofhis sins. Who are we to second guess Christ. Is his personality great no, but this isn’t a personality contest. This is a contest for our country…is there a real monetary crisis coming…hell yes and no matter who gets in it will not be averted, perhaps mitigated but not averted.

    Let’s listen to history and to our God…let’s us pray for our country and that whomever we put into office, we will as a people put God back in the center of our lives and the life and laws of this country. That is where I stand.

  • Pingback: Character Assassination on Rick Santorum | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: Rick Santorum Friday Roundup | ThePulp.it
  • So nobody’s supposed to vote in this poll unless you’re a regular on this site? How is it fair to completely remove a candidate from the poll based on that? Seems pretty biased to me!

  • Josette,

    You don’t have to be a regular at TAC, but Spamming does not reflect the electorate.

  • Ron Paul 2012!

  • first of all, just because we believe in the message of Ron Paul does not make us dishonest, cheaters, or less valuable in the eyes of the Lord or the United States. we each get 1 vote and believe me, we don’t have to cheat to have enough voters to beat any of the other candidates. We are also willing to support him from our pockets too. he does not take money from Lobbyists, churches, Wall street or big Government supporters. He attends Church ever Sunday, has raised a good, god Fearing family, has great values for himself and his offspring. How can you not support a man who is truly a Christian, a Military Hero, and honest person and a true Statesman? I do not need the Catholic Church to tell me who to vote for, nor do I need them to tell me right from wrong….I have been led to Christ with no help from you or your pope…..or any of your lying, child molesting priests! so, kick us out of you poll that has now become useless for anything but glorifying your bias and closed minds! I am so glad that I was not allowed to join your church and raise my boys under the catholic doctrine! I am Happy as a Methodist thanks! In Jesus name, may your lies and bias be unveiled to your congregations!

  • “I do not need the Catholic Church to tell me who to vote for, nor do I need them to tell me right from wrong….I have been led to Christ with no help from you or your pope…..or any of your lying, child molesting priests! so, kick us out of you poll that has now become useless for anything but glorifying your bias and closed minds! I am so glad that I was not allowed to join your church and raise my boys under the catholic doctrine! I am Happy as a Methodist thanks! In Jesus name, may your lies and bias be unveiled to your congregations”

    Initially Sour Melody 00, I put your comment in the trash where the rantings of anti-Catholic bigots like yourself normally end up at this site. However, the sheer stupidity of coming to a Catholic website to urge support for a candidate, and while you are doing so spitting on the Catholic Faith, was so monumental that I had to share it with my fellow Catholics for their amusement. Thank you for the laugh that your bitterness, bile and bigotry produced.

  • Mel’s a typical paulbot [email protected] I had favorable feelings for Paul (he’s right on the Fed for the wrong resaons). I never thought libertarians were worth the powder it would take to shoot them.

    After Mel’s hate-filled tripe, Paul can go to Hell and so can his freaking son Rand.

    To ensure Paul never got elected; if, in some nightmarish scenario, Paul were nominated by the GOP, I’d vote for Obama. Then, I’d go to Confession because that would be a mortal sin.

  • Mel you black-hearted protestant murderer.

    Now, I remember why I always threw in when they passed the hat for the IRA, you rat.

  • I second Donald.

    I initially was going to trash your bigoted rant, but Donald did the right thing to show how vile your hate is to all the world.

  • “Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be the children of God”

    Mathew 5:9

Knives Out

Tuesday, January 3, AD 2012

The Hawkeye Cauci have arrived, and tonight we’ll watch in breathless anticipation to see which presidential candidate will walk away with the lion’s share of the precious 25 delegates being awarded tonight – a critical two percent of the 1,144 needed to win the nomination.  Rick Santorum has climbed up the polls and is a serious threat to finish third, if not win the caucus outright.  And as with all candidates who have experienced a burst in popularity, the knives have come out for Santorum.  Yesterday I linked to Alan Colmes’s disgusting mockery of the manner in which Santorum and his family mourned the loss of their child, but that is just a taste of the attacks that Santorum has experienced in the previous few days and will experience if he continues to be a somewhat viable candidate.

In particular the blog Red State has run a number of blog posts in recent days that have, to put it mildly, been very critical of Santorum.  Just scroll through the link and you can see that Erick Erickson in particular has been a busy beaver.  Now most (though not all) of the contributors to the blog are pro-Perry and they see Santorum as a threat mainly to Perry.  And for what it’s worth, I am sympathetic to Red State’s views.  Though I certainly think people should vote for the candidate they feel is best, as a Perry supporter myself I lament that Santorum will do more to divide the conservative vote and help nominate Romney than anything else.  Rick Perry is much better suited for a long run at the nomination than Santorum, so I have mixed feelings about Santorum’s rise in the polls as he is my second choice for the nomination.  In fact I’d be ecstatic if either Rick won, yet both candidates are basically evenly dividing the not-Mitt vote with Gingrich.

Red State’s takedowns of the other candidates, especially Ron Paul, have been very good.  The anti-Santorum stuff, on the other hand, has been very weak tea.  There’s but the vaguest hint of a scandal with a company that Santorum was associated with, and this attack on Santorum about not believing the President to be a Chief Executive is nitpicky at worst, and smells of desperation.  The most effective criticisms revolve around the issues I brought up in this post from about a month ago.  In particular, this post simply linking to Santorum’s video endorsement of Arlen Specter is just damning.  

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Knives Out

  • Anyone who can watch that Specter endorsement ad and still defend Santorum while pissing and moaning about frickin’ Gardasil needs to re-examine their priorities. The former is one of the, if not THE, biggest sell-outs of the pro-life cause by a pro-lifer in my lifetime. The Gardasil mandate that never came to be pales in comparison. They’re not even close to being in the same category.

  • “The problem with this defense, especially the bolded section, is that Specter was not needed to put Roberts and Alito on the Court. Republicans wound up with a more sizeable majority in the wake of the 2004 election.”

    True Paul, and Santorum had absolutely no way of knowing that when the primary was held in April. As the tight Presidential polls that year indicated, there was every prospect that 2004 was going to be a bad year for the Republicans. The Democrats had slightly more seats up than the Republicans, 19-15 in the Senate that year, but the playing ground was fairly even. On election night Kentucky, Florida and Alaska were fairly close, and South Dakota was won by a hair. Control of the Senate would have shifted if those elections had gone the other way, and they might well have.

    I think what Santorum did was reasonable at the time, assuming that one’s goal is to have Supreme Court justices on the Court that will overturn Roe. Bush lost Pennsylvania to Kerry, and I think it likely that Toomey might well have been defeated that year, considering that he only got 51% of the vote in 2010, the best election year for Republicans since Calvin Coolidge was in office.

  • I like Santorum and want him as the next president. I still can’t figure out why so many say “he is an unelectable candidate.” Can anyone offer some logic to this thought? Am I just getting the vibes from the anti-pro-life crowd?

  • True Paul, and Santorum had absolutely no way of knowing that when the primary was held in April.

    That’s a fair point. I remember that the Senate configuration was very much in doubt even all the way up to the eve of the election. I was more optimistic than most – and turned out to be right, but it very well could have gone the other way. As it turns out though, Specter’s vote and even presence really was not determinitive, and I think it’s fair to say that in hindsight. Again, you could be right about Toomey in 2004, but we’ll never know. Long story short, Santorum made the wrong call, and it cost him.

  • The Specter spectacle is forgivable as a a wrong call, placing pragmatic considerations over principle. A bigger criticism is his foreign policy is indistinguishable from Bush. If that’s what you want, then he’s your man.

  • c matt, I just learned Santorum’s foreign policy is much worse than Bush’s.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZJsq_hdlBU

    Unless Santorum comes out and says he believes the “Palestinians” have a right to vote as Israeli citizens, this goes too far for me. It’s as extreme as anything Ron Paul says about foreign policy.

  • I still can’t figure out why so many say “he is an unelectable candidate.”

    Because he lost 20 points to Bob Casey for the senate and he would not win Pennsylvania in a general election.

    I really like Santorum, I really do. He is a good man. I was in Pa during that Spector endorsement and was crushed by it, but have moved on from all that. He would make a secertary of HHS, Dept of Homeland Security or something similar, but he just wouldn’t win a general election.

  • In 2006 Christ could have been running statewide against Satan in Pennsylvania, and if Satan had a (D) after his name he would have won by 5 points. Casey ran as a fake pro-lifer, and capitalized on the high esteem in which his late father was held by pro-life voters, and quite a few Toomey voters decided it was time for payback. That Santorum was able to win two terms to the Senate in a blue state is actually a tribute to his skill as a campaigner. I have my concerns about Santorum: little charisma, a manner which seems to rub quite a few people the wrong way, not a great orator, etc. However, when looking at all the candidates currently, I think he is the best of a very weak lot.

  • That Santorum was able to win two terms to the Senate in a blue state

    I wouldn’t exactly call PA a blue state. It has traditionally been a battleground state, albeit one that Democrats have won with some regularity in recent presidential elections. But the parties have switched control of the governor’s mansion and the legislature. In fact now the GOP has a decided advantage in terms of its Congressional delegation, and I believe has a majority in the state legislature. And while Santorum really had little chance in such a wave election in a state that leans a little bit in the Democrat direction, he lost by nearly 20 points.

  • It’s as extreme as anything Ron Paul says about foreign policy.

    Rubbish. Most of the video in question appears to depict an attorney arguing with someone for sport. The principle he eventually asserts is that the disposition of the territory is properly at Israel’s discretion and not subject to claims of right by other parties. That is an arguable point. It is not extreme in the manner of Paul’s historical fantasy.

  • I wouldn’t exactly call PA a blue state.

    There was a measure of resistance to the New Deal in Pennsylvania, but if you look at the top of the marquee amongst the state’s office holders you see that from about 1944 to about 1972 the state returned either mainline Democrats or returned Republicans given to qualifying, accomodating, and amending the initiatives of the mode in the Democratic Party. Such a disposition was congruent with the main currents of thought within the Republican Party prior to 1972; afterward, the Republican Party nationally took on a more coherent, ideological, and above all inner-directed disposition. This was not reflected at the top of the ticket in Pennsylvania, which continued to return the same sort of chaps. Mr. Santorum is the only figure elected between 1972 and 2010 who reflected the main currents of thought within the Republican Party and one of just two figures elected during the entire postwar period whose disposition to the Democratic Party was one of vigorous resistance. (The other fellow last stood for election in 1952). In context, he has been an oddity in Pennsylvania, and aspects of his career something of a tour-de-force.

  • The odd thing about PA politics that no one’s mentioned is that there’s a strong pro-life element in the Democratic Party, and a strong pro-choice element among the Republicans. A pro-lifer has to make a lot of prudential decisions. Without getting into a whole double-effect conversation, it can get pretty complicated. But then again, I’m always defending Santorum around here. 🙂

    Alito was confirmed by a good percentage, but the committee vote was 10-8 along party lines. If that had been 9-9, I don’t know what the Senate would have done.

  • If [the Judiciary Committee vote to send the Alito confirmation to the floor] had been 9-9, I don’t know what the Senate would have done.

    Pinky

    The World’s Greatest Dithering Body would have let the Alito nomination die in committee, that’s what.

    Because Sen. Santorum’s reputation rests so heavily on how principled he is, his half-a-loaf-is-better-than-none argument falls flat. No way does it come close to answering the question you sold your soul for Arlen Specter?

  • Pingback: TUESDAY POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: Big Government? No. Big Exaggerations? Yes. | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Big Government? No. Big Exaggerations? Yes. « The Cranky Conservative

Santorum Could Win Iowa

Sunday, January 1, AD 2012

 

A big surge is being detected in polling in Iowa to Santorum, with Santorum outpolling Ron Paul (R.Pluto), who was just behind Romney, in the last two days of polling.  Go here to read all about it.  A win for Santorum in Iowa could be a game changer, as overnight he could become the conservative hope against a Romney nomination.  That would be great, as Santorum is as pro-life as they come, recognizes the threat from the radical jihadists and has a realistic plan to cut government expenditure, the components of which are as follows:

Continue reading...

41 Responses to Santorum Could Win Iowa

  • Quoting from the above:

    Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution capping government spending at 18% of GDP so that Congress and the President will need to balance the budget like Governors are required to do.

    How is this working in Illinois? Or California? Politicians will always find a way around these limitations.

  • Miracles do happen, Don.

    Could this be the political version of a contemporary “Hail Mary” Pass?

  • This one might counter that problem:

    “No member of Congress shall receive any salary for service in Congress during a fiscal year in which the expenditures of the Federal government shall exceed revenue received by the Federal government. All citizens of the United States shall have standing to bring suit in any Federal District Court seeking to enforce the terms of this Amendment. The terms of this Amendment shall not apply in a fiscal year if the members of Congress vote by at least a three-quarters majority of the members of Congress in each chamber to have the amendment not apply in that fiscal year.”

  • “Could this be the political version of a contemporary “Hail Mary” Pass?”

    It would be a pretty big upset Karl, but the pieces do seem to be falling into place for Santorum in Iowa. The man has worked harder and longer than any of the other candidates in Iowa and Iowans traditionally appreciate that.

  • Well, if others drop out, the spoils would typically go to whomever is left that is not Romney and not Paul.

  • With that amendment, Congress would just borrow the balance. If you say that debt can’t count as revenue, they’d find another way to structure debt as revenue or off-load expenditures. One way is to spin off unprofitable operations into GSE’s which can issue their own debt. It’d be off the government’s balance sheets yet enjoy the implicit guarantee of government.

    I think any balanced budget amendment has to incorporate an independent determination of whether it has balanced the budget. Maybe an executive office or even voters. Also, most congressmen are very well off. Most Senators are millionaires. I don’t think cutting their pay is enough of an incentive. I like Warren Buffett’s idea. Make them ineligible for reelection.

  • At any rate, Santorum will finish in the top 3 in Iowa. Supporters should hope that Newt, Perry, and Bachmann drop out though I doubt they will before South Carolina. Supporters should also hope that regardless of where Santorum finishes in Iowa, Romney doesn’t win Iowa. The second best outcome after an outright Santorum win, is to make Iowa irrelevant with a Paul win.

  • Oh I am sure that the Congress Critters would wish to engage in the type of mendacious conduct that you mention RR, which is why I included the provision about all American citizens having standing to litigate the amendment. Such litigation would give massive publicity to any underhanded flim flam engaged in by Congress to get around the plain words of the Amendment, with the added bonus that the courts might well rule against such Congressional attempts. Bad publicity and no salary would be powerful incentives to Congress to balance the budget.

  • Man, that would be great if Santorem would win Iowa. He would make a great President.

  • Commit to cut $5 trillion of federal spending within 5 years.

    I think that would require that the spending trajectory be reduced by 27%. Color me skeptical

    Implement Strong America Now reform through Lean Six Sigma management process as a key engine for cutting government waste and improving efficiency.

    Smells of gimmick (and the sort of thing N. Gingrich would be pushing).

    Immediately reduce federal (non-defense discretionary spending) to 2008 levels through across the board spending cuts.

    He can put more intelligence into it than that. What are you cutting and why?

    Freeze defense spending levels for 5 years and reject automatic cuts.

    Why does he not have an ally with a more granular knowledge of military spending than implied with that?

    Freeze spending levels for social programs for 5 years such as Medicaid, Housing, Education, Job Training, and Food Stamps, time limit restrictions, and block grant to the States like in Welfare Reform.

    Op. cit.

    Repeal and Replace ObamaCare with market based healthcare innovation and competition to improve America’s and Americans health, control costs, improve quality and access, and to keep and create jobs which provide resources for healthcare.

    And, while we are at it, pursue cheap air fares via the suspension of gravity.

    Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution capping government spending at 18% of GDP so that Congress and the President will need to balance the budget like Governors are required to do.

    I suspect you are right that balanced budget provisions in state constitutions and local charters are why publicly held municipal debt as a ratio of direct expenditure is less than a third that of publicly-held federal debt. Our recent experience suggests that fiscal stimulus has low multipliers in most circumstances, so constraints on federal expenditure during recessions are (one suspects) not nearly so injurious to production as a certain class of macroeconomist has claimed. That having been said, consider that military expenditure over the period running from 1929 to 2008 was a mean of 7.8% of gross domestic product. That can be segregated into 5.8% for military preparedness and 2.0% for fighting wars. Currently, expenditure on veterans’ benefits runs to about 3/4 of expenditure on our contemporary shooting wars. Can we thus suppose a long term stream of 1.5% on veterans benefits? The civilian espionage services, overseas development and relief projects, and the diplomatic corps currently chew up about 0.6% of domestic product. That sums to about 10% of domestic product. For the most part, that expenditure is a function of the world in which we have lived. I know the Ron Paul bots fancy we could have lived in some other world, but you and I do not take that seriously and neither does Sen. Paul.

    Beyond that consider the following:

    –Interest on the public debt. If I am not mistaken, outstanding federal debt in 1928 amounted to about 25-30% of domestic product. Apply an interest rate of 4.4% to that and you get about 1.2% of domestic product in service charges.

    –Federal police, prisons, tax collection and enforcement, courts, and civil regulatory enforcement. That currently chews up about 0.75% of domestic product, with the last amounting to less than $20 bn at this time.

    –Miscellaneous services (civil defense, parks, statistical collection, the space program, inhouse scientific research, the Voice of America &c.) and intramural services (the operating budgets of the federal payments, personnel, and purchasing systems, &c.): perhaps 1%

    Which is to say that as far as I can see, Sen. Santorum’s plan is to spend around 5% of domestic product on subventions to old-age pensions, medical care, unemployment compensation, and long-term care. Somehow I think getting from here to there will take a loooong time.

    Pass legislation to reform the Congressional Budget Process and support legislation to require Congress to pass constitutionally required spending bills on time or not get paid the next fiscal year.

    No objections.

    Implement Medicare Reforms and Innovation proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan and speed up their implementation to control healthcare costs and improve quality.

    Reform Social Security and place on a sustainable path by a combination of reforms such as addressing adjusting CPI, dependent benefits and disability income benefits reforms, moving back the retirement age for younger workers, means testing benefits, annual adjustments as needed, and dedicating Social Security payroll taxes to Social Security.

    Maybe not optimal, but not objectionable. These would take several business cycles to pay off appreciably.

    Implement reforms and cost savings of up to $100 billion in March 2011 GAO report requested by Senator Coburn listing 34 areas of duplication and waste.

    Caveat lector.

    Stop implementation of any remaining federal stimulus spending.

    Why not specify the agencies and programs to cut?

    Freeze pay for non-defense related federal employees for four years, cut workforce by 10% with no compensatory increase in contract workforce, and phase out defined benefit plans for newer workers.

    First and the third are advisable. Compensation for federal employees should gradually return to Earth. (IIRC, compensation amounts to about 12% of federal expenditure, but I may be way off). Please to not fire Dale Price’s brother (Customs and Border Protection) or mine (Veterans’ Health Administration).

    Eliminate all energy subsidies and most agriculture subsidies within four years.

    Good. Why not get higher education, real estate, and miscellanous social work philanthropies off the teat while we are at it?

    Eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood and use half of the dollars to support adoption instead.

    A small program, but the principle is good. Placements are properly devolved to county governments, however.

    Cut EPA resources for job killing regulations and return focus to commonsense conservation and safe and clean air and water.

    About 10% of the EPA’s budget is devoted to generation and enforcement of regulations or around $1.1 bn, give or take. About 45% is devoted to ‘Grants, subsidies, and contributions’.

    Cut in half the number of State Department USAID employees and US funding for United Nations programs.

    IIRC, the Agency for International Development is an independent agency, not a component of the state department, and overseas development and relief expenditures are around $27 bn, give or take. There are likely some badly structured programs therein, but he does not need to use a meat axe. I suspect we could profitably withdraw from about half of the UN’s specialized agency, though that will not save much.

    Eliminate funding for implementation of Dodd/Frank regulatory burdens.

    Why not redesign the regulatory architecture and fund it properly? Regulations may have ill effects when enforced, but enforcement budgets are typically small. You have about nine agencies involved in regulating the financial sector. I think the largest in the Securities and Exchange Commission, which has an operating budget of about $1 bn.

    Eliminate funding for implementation of ObamaCare.

    Why not replace the program?

    Cut funding for National Labor Relations Board for decision preventing airplane factory in South Carolina.

    Why not recast the federal labor code?

    Eliminating funding for United Nations’ agencies which oppose America’s interests and promote abortion and cut the US contribution to the UN in half.

    Repetitive, but OK.

    Phase out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac within five years.

    OK. What are the details? Are you going to sell off the loan portfolios. Who will be responsible for honoring the trillions of dollars of securities they have issued?

    Sell unproductive and wasteful federal properties.

    That’s not the problem. The main problem is that we are maintaining huge inventories of commercial grazing and timber land which are quite productive.

    Transition Team will review all spending cut proposals and restructuring reforms of the Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute, American Enterprise Institute, and the Simpson-Bowles Commission for additional savings.

    Whatever.

  • I agree with you Art that objections can be made to various aspects of Santorum’s plan. What impresses me is that he has a plan with some specificity at all. Most candidates merely say they will elimate the “Department of Waste, Fraud and Abuse” and leave it at that.

  • Santorum is not as pro-life as they come. Why did he support Arlen Spector against Toomey? Romney is the best candidate to advance our Church’s pro life cause because he can win. I believe like Ronald Reagan he is now true pro life. A Santorum win in Iowa only helps Obama (He lost in Pa by 17% against Casey), he doesn’t have the money to compete anywhere. He’s not even on the ballot in Virginia. I urge all Catholics to unite around Romney so we can end this by Florida and set sites on Barack Obama. Mitt Romney should take a Catholic for VP Marco Rubio!! Marco would destroy Biden in a debate.

  • Santorum supported Specter in 2004 because he squeezed a pledge from Spector that he would support any of Bush’s Supreme Court nominees, which ended up including Justices Roberts and Alito. Specter had opposed Bork in 1987, but he did support Roberts and Alito. Santorum made the calculation that Specter could win in 2004 in the general election and Toomey couldn’t. I tend to agree with that calculation. Toomey won a Senate seat in 2010 in the best election year for Republicans since the Twenties, but it was still close, with Toomey winning with 51% of the vote against a lacklustre Democrat, Joe Sestak.

  • The second best outcome after an outright Santorum win, is to make Iowa irrelevant with a Paul win.

    It must be a brand new year because I totally agree with RR. The best thing that could happen is Paul wins while Rick – my preference is Perry – comes in third. Iowa is discredited, but an actually likeable (to me anyway) candidate gains momentum.

  • “A would destroy B in a debate!” is something we hear every 4 years and it never happens. The only things that stick out in people’s minds are the clever rehearsed one-liners that anyone can deliver.

    I wonder… is there a single person who won’t support Santorum because of his support for Specter? Seems like a waste of breath for opponents to bring it up. I’d stick to electability. If anybody but Romney or Huntsman wins the nomination, Obama is reelected. There’s no way around it.

  • RR I’ve always liked Rick Santorum. I am just saying he is not as “pro life as they come.” I absolutely agree about electability. Romney’s raised over $20 million in the 4th quarter. He is the only candidate that will be able to respond to inevitable relentless Obama attacks. A shame if he has to waste valuable resources in Florida for the primary. Also I don’t think Marco Rubio is an a or b. In my mind he is the most articulate voice for conservatism in America. A Romney Rubio ticket would be unstoppable.

    *Paul, the Catholic League published an article on that Evangelical minister who supports Perry, and had attacked Romney’s Mormonism a couple months ago…They have documentation in it that the man is an anti-Catholic bigot.

  • Meaning no disrespect Chris, I would stack Santorum’s actions in defense of life against anyone’s political analysis of his pro-life credentials any day!

    http://www.jillstanek.com/2011/10/meet-rick-santorums-precious-daughter-bella-the-center-of-our-universe/

    How many Downs Syndrom children are dead because their parents couldn’t imagine having to care for a special needs child? Santorum’s is alive precisely because he and his wife had the faith and courage to trust God that it would be OK. Is there a better, more sure affirmation of his deep-rooted pro-life convictions than that? Is there another candidate with as good a credentials?

    Give him a break.

  • Touche g-veg- you are right. I just fervently want Obama to be defeated and Mitt Romney as I see it is the only candidate that can do it. I believe he will do what is right for pro-life. This election is truly a matter of life and death. I get discouraged talking to
    Catholics who just won’t get behind Romney because of his Faith.

  • G-Veg, Santorum didn’t know his daughter had Trisomy 18 until after birth.

  • RR, at the risk of nit-picking, do you say so because Santorum says he didn’t have any hints, because he had hints and didn’t verify them, or is it your guess that he didn’t know?

    Chris, It isn’t Romney’s faith that troubles me.

    Part of what troubles me is that I feel like Romney is being shoved down my throat and I don’t like being bullied. I have yet to meet a Republican or a conservative who has said “I like Romney” or “Romney is my guy.” I hear a lot of “he’s the most electable” and “who else has the support to beat Obama.”

    Why are we seriously considering someone we don’t like for office? I’m an Eagles fan and I really thought their 2011 season would be a winner. Given how bad my picks are in football, is it reasonable for me to cast a vote based upon my analysis of someone’s electability?

    Setting my pride aside – for I concede that my reaction to having Romney shoved down my throat is prideful – what does Romney bring to the table? He doesn’t seem to have any economic plans to bring order to this mess, and he has no track record of supporting the things I favor like pro-life issues or freedom of conscience. He’s not a war or civic hero. I acknowledge that a decade holding political office shouldn’t disqualify one from becoming president but it shouldn’t the sole qualification for office either.

    I’m willing to be convinced so please tell me, other than, “he’s going to beat Obama” why I should vote for Romney?

  • The right use of freedom, then, is central to the promotion of justice and peace, which require respect for oneself and others, including those whose way of being and living differs greatly from one’s own. This attitude engenders the elements without which peace and justice remain merely words without content: mutual trust, the capacity to hold constructive dialogue, the possibility of forgiveness, which one constantly wishes to receive but finds hard to bestow, mutual charity, compassion towards the weakest, as well as readiness to make sacrifices.

    Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity.”8 We Christians believe that Christ is our true peace: in him, by his Cross, God has reconciled the world to himself and has broken down the walls of division that separated us from one another (cf. Eph 2:14-18); in him, there is but one family, reconciled in love.

    Peace, however, is not merely a gift to be received: it is also a task to be undertaken. In order to be true peacemakers, we must educate ourselves in compassion, solidarity, working together, fraternity, in being active within the community and concerned to raise awareness about national and international issues and the importance of seeking adequate mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth, the promotion of growth, cooperation for development and conflict resolution. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God”, as Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:9).

    Peace for all is the fruit of justice for all, and no one can shirk this essential task of promoting justice, according to one’s particular areas of competence and responsibility. To the young, who have such a strong attachment to ideals, I extend a particular invitation to be patient and persevering in seeking justice and peace, in cultivating the taste for what is just and true, even when it involves sacrifice and swimming against the tide.

    – 2012 New Year’s Message – Pope Benedict XVI

    “I would be saying to the Iranians, you either open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors, or we will degrade those facilities through air strikes.”

    – 2012 New Year’s Message – Rick “Frothy” Santorum

  • Why “frothy?” I don’t want to put words in your mouth so I’d like you to be clearer.

    From where i sit, that Iran will likely acquire the nuclear arms in 2012 or 2013 is a legitimate concern and “what would you do about it if you were president” is a legitimate line of inquiry. Are you saying he is wrong? If so, why?

    It is well and good to quote a pope and scripture and such. These sources should factor heavily in our analysis. They are not answers in and of themselves though unless they are directly on point and nothing you have said is. Frankly “what to do about Iran” is an incredibly complex issue that has frustrated Administration after Administration.

    Have you a better answer than Santorum gave?

  • G-veg, I supported Mitt Romney in 2008 and support him wholeheartedly this election. I’m a lifelong Republican and Conservative (of course voted Reagan,Bush,Dole,Bush, McCain) and love Mitt Romney. I think he has been given a very bad rap. 1) Socially, Okay when he ran against Kennedy he said while he was personally pro-life he wouldn’t change state law. He than changed his view when embryonic research bill came to his desk. I believe that he is pro-life now. He was never for same sex marriage..ever. Look at his life and the family he has 5 children, 16 grandchildren. A wonderful wife. 2) National security, I’m a former Marine my son is going to Ranger School at Fort Benning in 2 weeks and I absolutely trust Romney as Commander and Chief. 3) Being an economic conservative, Romney is the only one with private sector experience. If we are not strong economically as a country it weakens everything else. I want America to be the land of opportunity not a welfare State. Mitt means business. I truly see alot of Reagan in Romney. I think the more you and the country see of Romney the more you will see Reagan. Romney can once again make us the shining city on the hill. At many a Knights of Columbus meeting I have talked to others that won’t look past his Mormonism. I keep hearing all the slogans, he’s for Obamacare, cap and trade, etc… All not true. I pray he beats Obama and leads us back to the America we know and love. A god loving land of opportunity.

  • I’m willing to be convinced so please tell me, other than, “he’s going to beat Obama” why I should vote for Romney?

    There is no particular reason to vote for Romney bar a calculation under a cloud of uncertainty that having him in office is better than the named alternative.

    Romney is not being ‘shoved down your throat’. It is just that

    1. He is running;
    2. He has a certain baseline of salesmanship and organizational skill; and
    3. The Republican electorate is motivated by many things, not all of which motivate anyone who comments here. Romney is someone a great many and perhaps most are willing to put up with without too much dyspepsia.

  • Are you saying he is wrong? If so, why?

    You are asking her to consider alternatives as if she were making real decisions. You are interrupting her while she strikes attitudes. I think you are due to be accused of ‘consequentialism’, or some such.

  • G-Veg, Santorum said he found out after birth. I don’t know if he had hints before that.

    “I’m willing to be convinced so please tell me, other than, “he’s going to beat Obama” why I should vote for Romney?”

    Depends on what your objective is. Some people would rather see Santorum lose to Obama than Romney win. If your objective is to steer the country in a more conservative direction you first eliminate all the candidates whom you just can’t vote for either because you think he or she is unqualified or because your conscience won’t allow it. Then you eliminate the unelectable. For me, that leaves Romney and Huntsman. I tend to think Romney has the edge against Obama because Huntsman has proven himself to be a horrendous campaigner.

    As for why Romney is a superior candidate, apart from electability, he has extensive executive experience, he understands business like no other, he’s highly intelligent, and he’s scandal-free.

  • Frankly, I don’t trust Romney or Santorum on foreign policy. Santorum and Huntsman are the only two candidates who clearly know their foreign policy but Santorum is excessively belligerent. As for Romney, I haven’t seen any evidence he’s any wiser than the briefings his campaign staff gives him. He reminds me of Obama on foreign policy. Bold statements that pass a smell test but no evidence that they have more than a superficial understanding. I just hope Romney appoints a capable Secretary of State.

  • “I truly see alot of Reagan in Romney. I think the more you and the country see of Romney the more you will see Reagan. Romney can once again make us the shining city on the hill.”

    Good grief. I think I just vomited a little inside my mouth.

  • Here’s another reason why you should support Romney: Santorum did in 2008.

  • “Here’s another reason why you should support Romney: Santorum did in 2008.”

    Well, if we’re going to base our support for a candidate on whether St. Rick supported him at one or another, I suppose we should all support Arlen Specter as well.

    (One of the the reasons I have lost some of the respect I once had for Santorum is his past support for Specter and Romney.)

  • Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan. Romney is a transparent phony, a synthetic human who has held a leadership position in what is widely regarded as mind controlling Cult, similar to Scientology. Consider that if Mormon Mitt picks Scientologist Tom Cruise as his running mate they may have to convert Air Force One from an airplane into a spaceship for their intergalactic travels. There are many Americans in recovery from the LDS Mormon Cult. Putting one of their leaders, a hollow man and soul less shape-shifter in the White House makes little sense. At the end of the day, replacing Obama with Romney is a pyrrhic victory at best. Winning with Mitt is losing. As an American Catholic, I would not under any circumstances want a Mormon as my President. Mormonism is a Cult and scam founded on the fraud and deception of a convicted con-artist. Romney has in effect served as a leader of what amounts to a spiritual Ponzi Scheme.

  • Mr. London, “I find your lack of [charity]… disturbing.”

    I’ve known a few Mormons over the years and I find nothing in their culture to support your allegations. Those that I’ve met are sober, charitable, and hard working.

    Sure, I find the origins of their faith to be amusing. I find multi-armed goddesses from India to be amusing too. I know that the mountains aren’t sleeping giants and that the pyramids don’t conduct forces of the universe. However, while other faiths may strike me as bizarre, believing wrongly rarely strikes me as a disqualifier for elected office.

    If all you have against Romney is ignorant prejudice against Mormons, perhaps he is worth a look after all.

  • To everyone kind enough to offer reasons for voting for Romney, thank you.

    I’ll give him a second look and I appreciate the assist.

  • Consider that if Mormon Mitt picks Scientologist Tom Cruise as his running mate

    Yeah, I’m real anxious about that.

  • I don’t know why I can’t get on board with Santorum. I’d vote for him in the general, but right now I prefer someone with at least a modicum of executive experience. Which leaves me with only a few alternatives. I know he’s not particularly viable at the moment, but I think Huntsman is a solid choice. A bit of a klutz as a campaigner, but a good option overall.

  • I like Santorum and would be happy to work on his campagn! Also, love Sarah Palina and am sorry she did not run!

  • “I believe that he is pro-life now…Look at his life and the family he has 5 children, 16 grandchildren.”

    Ah, if only we could get Nancy Pelosi, who has a family track record similar to Romney’s (5 children and 8 grandchildren), to represent a district other than ultra-liberal San Francisco — which, by the way, is literally a shining city on a hill, for those keeping score. Presumably, she, too, would choose to flip-flop her way into higher office. Then, we could all reassure ourselves about how deep down in her heart she was a pro-lifer all along.

    I mean, what’s a few principles here and there when it comes to getting elected? Shining city on a hill, here we come!

  • Oh, and I should clarify — San Francisco is literally a shining city on a hill only when the weather is favorable and the light hits it a certain way.

    In other words, it’s a lot like Romney’s pro-life credentials.