For Santorum
Rick Santorum opposed TARP.
He didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd — including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.
Santorum opposed individual health care mandates — clearly and forcefully — as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual health care mandate waters.
He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn’t written any “Contracts with the Earth.”
Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement.
Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed.
He won Iowa through hard work and competent campaign management. Santorum has improved in every GOP debate and gave his strongest performance last week in Florida, wherein he both dismantled Romneycare and popped the Newt bubble by directly challenging the front-runners’ character and candor without resorting to their petty tactics.
He rose above the fray by sticking to issues.
Most commendably, he refused to join Gingrich and Perry in indulging in the contemptible Occupier rhetoric against Romney. Character and honor matter. Santorum has it.
Of course, Santorum is not perfect. As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects. He lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives. He was a go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era. He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey.
I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul.
And I wish Ron Paul was not the far-out, Alex Jones-panderer on foreign policy, defense, and national security that he is.
If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul.
Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. ambassacor John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t changed for me in 2012.
Then there’s Newt, who has long made a career out of trashing progressive Saul Alinsky while employing his tactics at every turn. I’ve been making this point for years and have chronicled his dalliances with leftists as long as anyone in the conservative blogosphere.
Many grass-roots conservatives were awakened to Newt’s double-talk and double-dealing during the NY-23 race. Inconvenient truth: Newt’s transgressions are not from decades ago. It’s not ancient history. It’s here and now. Readers of this blog know the truth: It’s not just “the GOP establishment” that’s repulsed by Gingrich’s combination of moral baggage and K Street/Beltway culture of corruption. It’s the very grass-roots that Gingrich’s cheerleaders purport to represent.
From reader Barnaby, who sent back his crossed-out Republican solicitation forms with a “NO RINOS” sticky note for Newt Gingrich:
Remember the rebuke in Dubuque? May 11, 2011:
Guy: Speaker Gingrich, what you just did to Paul Ryan is unforgivable.
Gingrich: I didn’t do anything to Paul Ryan!
Guy: Yes, you did. You undercut him and his allies in the house.
Gingrich: No, I…
Guy: You’re an embarrassment to our party.
Gingrich: I’m sorry you feel that way.
Guy: Why don’t you get out before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
Lest we forget, this election is not about choosing a showboat candidate to run against John King or Juan Williams or Wolf Blitzer.
It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.”
For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine.
And at this point in the game, Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them.
***
Side note: Unlike many bloggers and pundits weighing in on GOP 2012, I have zero connections to any of the final four GOP candidates’ campaigns. I have neither received a single penny from, nor donated a single penny, to any of their campaigns. I have not served as any kind of consultant or adviser to any of the campaigns. I have not written any speeches or talking points or briefing papers for any of their campaigns. I have not organized any blogger calls or social media efforts for any of their campaigns. I have not spoken to Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich since interviewing them for Hot Air at CPAC in 2006, and as far as I can recall, I have not communicated directly with either Santorum or Paul. My first and only contact with Santorum’s campaign came last week when a spokesman called to assure me that Santorum was not withdrawing from the Florida primary or the race in general and was in it for the long haul.
So much for my “establishment” credentials, eh? 
***
Santorum is headed to Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nevada.
“The Rick Santorum for President Campaign will expand nationally this week with campaign stops in Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nevada in the coming days,” a spokesman MAtt Beynon said in a statement.
Santorum is slated to make several stops in battleground states over the next few days, but did not appear to be heading back to Florida, where Republicans go to the polls on Tuesday.
Santorum is expected be in Las Vegas, Nevada on Tuesday when the Florida results are known.
After winning Iowa — the first state to chose which Republican they want to face Obama in November — Santorum’s campaign has struggled to catch fire.
In Florida — a winner-takes-all race — the former senator has not appeared much and is barely avoiding a vote share in single digits according to polls, putting him in third place behing Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.
Nevada will vote just four days after Florida, while Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri all vote on February 7th.
Santorum had put campaigning in Florida on hold Sunday, as his daughter, Bella, was hospitalized just days before a key primary vote.
Two days before Florida’s winner-takes-all primary, Santorum spent the day in Pennsylvania, where his three year-old was admitted to a Philadelphia children’s hospital.
***
A reader writes:
I read your “For Santorum” article on your website. You wrote the argument against Newt clearly and completely. While Romney’s been on both sides of issues, Newt has been on both sides at the same time. I think Newt would be almost as combative and adversarial to a Republican congress than a Democratic one…
***
Question of the day: Who is the “machine?”
Secondary question of the day: If you were a simple machine, what kind of machine would you be — inclined plane, wheel & axle, lever, pulley, wedge, or screw?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Overnight Open Thread: Dems Try to Manufacture New Voting Bloc
February 20, 2012 10:24 PM by Doug Powers
55 Comments‘Prominent’ GOP Senator: If Romney Loses Michigan, We Need a New Candidate
February 20, 2012 05:46 PM by Doug Powers
112 Comments
Obama Campaign Setting Sights on Santorum
February 18, 2012 04:43 PM by Doug Powers
137 CommentsJoseph Kennedy III Announces Run for Barney Frank’s House Seat
February 16, 2012 11:27 AM by Doug Powers
133 Comments
Obama Wishes He Knew Full Extent of Economic Crisis When He Took Office
February 15, 2012 10:42 PM by Doug Powers
141 Comments
For Liljenquist, Mourdock, and Cruz: A Tea Party Senate takeover
February 15, 2012 08:00 AM by Michelle Malkin
211 Comments
Categories: 2012 Campaign
Redstate
» Soak The Rich, Drown The RetireesPundit & Pundette
» Obama sings the bluesHot Air
» Obama moves on corporate-tax reformTigerHawk
» Her majesty's tax collectors are confusedHot Air
» Q-poll: Santorum up 9 over RomneyNice Deb
» Santorum and Good v.s. Evil
ITookTheRedPill: Great link, thanks, but nothing will be done about it.
Rogue Cheddar:
The French may be effed up in the head, but they’re not crazy. The Iranians are. Read the book, you cheapskate. It’s only $9.99 on paperback. Or is it beyond you first grade reading skills?
They won’t be interested in my take on it, Ota. They realize I am really a center-right, moderate conservative at best (and therefore my take on Santorum is suspect), contrary to your lunatic claim that because I recognize the Left for what it is (evil), and have the basic intellectual integrity to say so, I must be a “sick puppy.”
Again, unthinking Ota, it is not the shark that is evil. It is a philosophy a creature follows that can be evil, and a shark has no intellectual capacity for having a philosophy. All humans existing with a language within a human society have a philosophy of one sort or another regarding reality and the nature of being and the value of the individual.
The philosophy followed by socialists and their enablers is evil to the core.
Who is evil if not those who willingly embrace evil?
It is not a difference of opinion. It is not something that gets resolved through discussion.
We have been trying that for centuries. We just get called racists and homophobes and Islamophobes and nationalists and capitalists and whatever word the leftist slime are using to substitute for the word “evil” at the moment.
When did France or North Korea threaten to wipe a country off the map? Iran has made that threat on multiple occasions. Comparing the threat of Iran to a threat from France doesn’t really equate.
Would Ron Paul leave our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan to just die? You know, the ones who fought with us but will be overrun if we just leave tomorrow.
Or will he have a plan of disengagement over a period of time, therefore allowing them to at least have a chance to live?
Abandoning allies prematurely is not a wise strategy. It’s a bad strategy and deadly to those who thought we were their friends. Is Ron Paul that devoid of compassion and forethought?
Having a look into the Liberal Hive mind like Ota is like walking into an empty room with the only things showing are the 5 slides from a projector playing endlessly and shown on a blank wall. The Liberal Hive Mind is a disorienting place where no logical rules apply.
I may not always agree, but I’m still interested in your take.
I don’t agree that “social issues” are a guaranteed loser, but much of that depends on the public’s take on the media coverage of the candidates (which is true of every candidate and every conceivable difference the Republican candidate will have with the Democrat, social or economic).
To enhance your point: Iran is currently threatening an attack on US soil.
But it’s all our fault anyway, we deserve whatever happens.
Wow, a twofer, I’m cheap and illiterate! Such is the free marketplace of ideas with the left.
Well, it’s called blowback, and has been enumerated by our own CIA. But it’s easier to blame it all on Ron Paul, even though it wasn’t his foreign policies of the last forty years that has brought us to this point.
An interesting thought came to mind: I’ve wondered why the Freanch all of a sudden had no problem striking Libya along with the British last at the same time of the troubles of the Euro and the sovereign default threat on the continent. The French have normally given NATO and the US the heave-ho on something like this, but they didn’t this time.
Was their war effort an attempt not only to get direct access to Libyan oil, but to have the subsequent Libyan goverment denote trade in the Euro so as to bolster the value of the Euro in the oil trade?
See, this is what happened in 2008.
We were just arguing over McCain & Romney then.
RE post 410: ‘..with the British last at the same time’ should read ‘…with the British last summer at the same time…’
nice image.
My Dad used to say ‘nothing upstairs but sawdust & coathangers’
*shivers*
Lots of directions I can go with this.
Will there be “blowback” from Israel for abandoning them to the barbaric hordes?
Occupy Barnes & Noble!
The only difference is that I had money in my pocket back then.
what they don’t take from me every month, they’ll take on tax day.
This is a description of Platos Allegory of the Cave. A fabulous classic. The people in the cave were chained and could only see a blank wall in front of them. Behind then were the guards. The reflection of the guards from the campfire were the only things the chained people could see. It became their reality.
Once, they freed themsleves of the chains and escaped. However, the world they went to outside the cave was so vastly different from the “reflections” they knew that they could not cope and returned to the cave. Living in chains was the only reality they knew and it was more comforting to them to not change that than to face the unknown.
Awesome cool story and an allegory to a lot of issues people face in life. I hope I didn’t oversimplify as the point is to think deeply about life and things we know or think we know.
I was picturing a combination of the haunted video from “The Ring” and the movie “Manos, the Hands of Fate”.
Bizarre, scary, and hilarious all at the same time.
I’ll serve your ass like John McEnroe
If your girl steps up, I’m smacking the ho
And what point is that? The leader of the free world? The best country on earth? A free and prosperous nation?
Or are you trying to say the US is an evil country that has stolen from everyone else on earth and is the root cause of all that is wrong in the world? Is that Ron Pauls interpretation of America? I don’t agree with the assessment that somehow Americas foreign policy has been “bad”. Thats where Ron Paul goes wrong.
Rogue Cheddar:
WOW, YOU’RE DUMB!!!!!
THERE’S A REASON THE SCREEN NAME IS CONSERVATIVE HISPANIC, YOU STUPID PAULBOT!!!!!
Man, you’re dumber than sawdust. And a cheapskate, too.
Oh, gee, I went to vote about 30 minutes after the polls opened. I think I was the 3rd one. I saw the local FOX news truck and one of the reporters on camera, so I parked 3 rows away. I was on my way to my painting job and had on my paint clothes and an Army sweatshirt. I was the only one voting at the time and when I came out, I headed to my car. Sure enough, she made a beeline for me. Rats. She asked if she could interview me and I said, of course, and on a day when I’m in my paint clothes.
She was really taken aback by my answers. She asked what I thought of the campaign and I said I was disgusted with both parties. I also said their behavior is despicable and for them to take to petty politics and personal attacks when we want to hear about the issues is ridiculous. I also said my friends and I can’t wait until November. I said a lot more in a brief few minutes. So then I called my friends and told them and also said they probably won’t air my interview as even local FOX has an agenda and what I said was not what the reporter expected to hear, I’m sure.
It was fun, though. I was nowhere near a tv today. Maybe tonight. We’ll see.
Now you have to change your name to floridaparticipant.
Haha!
I forgot to mention that she asked me what I thought we should look for in a leader. Without hesitation I said someone who has a strong moral compass and will do the right thing for the country.
How many were on the ballot? Was Cain or Bachmann on the ballot?
For those of you discussing Constitutional issues, and the intent of the Founders, I don’t have time to respond, but I’ll recommend a great book, “The Theme is Freedom: Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition,” by M. Stanton Evans.
I don’t care what type of quasi-philosophical definition you wanna put on it. I’ll accept your defintions.
And you know what, I still don’t think conservatives/republicans/rightists are “evil”. I have the same argument with leftwing nuts.
That’s the difference between me and you. 2 fair-minded and rational people–not often found here–can have polar opposite political views.
I feel bad for you that political matters are so “dark and deep” for you.
That being said, you make cogent and rational points on this thread about Santorum. I can tell you used to be more liberal and less bitter.
What? Ota, we read what you write here. Fair minded and rational are not the thoughts that come to mind. Bitter sounds more correct.
You folks are right! My vote counts and I think Santorum is the best all around…I don’t understand why the Tea Party isn’t behind him. Mark Levin said on his show this past week, that he would vote for him if he had the chance.
Just saw on Fox news, that Newt is calling for Santorum to drop out…really Newt? Talk about arrogant.
Not bitter at all, Coco. I’m not the one here day after day writing about how the the president is destroying the country. I’m not the one ranting about re-education camps and how America is lost. lol. Give me a break.
I’m kind of watching “Special Report” on FoxNews while reading these comments, and they were discussing Santorum, and I sort of missed it, but apparently Rush had some good comments about Santorum today. Anybody else catch it?
Santorums negatives were that he lost a Senate election as an incumbent. People probably think he could not win against Obama but those are two different elections. The unelectable meme.
He also supported some Union things as a Senator from Pennsylvania. While not exactly conservative, he has stated that he represented the Unions as a Senator and felt he had an obligation to do so even if he personally did not believe in doing so.
He was a big spender who did a lot of earmarking for his state. Why would we think he won’t spend now?
And of course he is a staunch Christian who believes firmly in family values and a strong family unit as a foundation for a strong society. That’s not a bad thing generally, although people like Ota Bitter seem to think it is disasterous for the gay community.
He does believe in a strong military and is hawkish on Iran. That scares some people who don’t want another war.
He may be a bigger spender than conservative would like but believes in a balanced budget.
He seems like a good guy to me with solid positions like them or not.
I think the Tea Party is behind him. Not everyone who claims to speak for the Tea Party is actually the Tea Party. By it’s very definition as a grass roots movement, there are no official leaders or spokespeople – so anybody can say, “I’m the Tea Party, and we say [insert your personal rant here]. Sheesh, Mitt the mutt says HE’S the Tea Party.
May I suggest the obvious – if unpleasant – reality again? I’ve already sent hundreds I can not afford to Bachmann and Cain campaigns, and now [sigh] Santorum. You know the need is there, and this is arguably the most important election in my lifetime. He needs our help. Do NOT send money to the RNC. Zero. Zip. Nada. Send it to the only candidate on the radar that is a genuine conservative and has the integrity and character to lead.
Santorum is the only one left. Talk is cheap. Pony up or shut up. Please!
He has the exact same position on Oklahoma’s beloved Seantor conservative Jim Inhofe on earmarking. (sic) He would rather bring the money back to his constituents rather than let the Executive branch (of either party)spend it they way they want. I have heard Santorum state this on Greta Van Susteren show.
I always make cogent and rational points. You just like some and don’t like others.
Also, your understanding of both liberalism and bitterness have the usual leftist backward twist. I am a real liberal, like most of those now regarded as center-right or moderate conservatives. I feel sorrow about the destruction of liberalism by the leftists/collectivists.
Sorrow and bitterness are quite different things, Ota, and liberalism and collectivism are polar opposites, or at least they were before the collectivists changed the meaning of the word.
T-Bone,
To add to my post #437, from Inhofe regarding earmarks.
To several of the comments here: why is it that Gingrich and Romney are far,far worse than Santorum on certain issues like spending yet Santorum is the one who loses your vote? It’s just another one of those little side steps that starts with apoplexy at big government liberalism and ends with voting for a liberal. It’s one small step after another but the conservative always the one to get screwed.
Mark Steyn is right. It’s hard to take “conservatives” seriously when they ALWAYS vote for liberals in the end. We’ve been watching the process here daily for years.
Nervousness over his ability to beat Obama.
@ Blackstone – Santorum would BURY Obama
All the candidates have fatal flaws, Romney being the worst. But Santorum has no credibility on border enforcement (the man would even forbid employers to use e-verify voluntarily), and he was far too deep into compassionate conservatism. He would just be Bush III reaching across the aisle and all that so there is no way I could vote for him. Look, none of these guys would win against Obama anyway so it is every man for himself: vote for whomever you like, you’ll get no grief from me.
As a protest vote, which is how I view 2012, I would probably go with Paul (I know, I know), followed by Gingrich, then Santorum, and finally Romney. The great Heinlein said to always vote against, that way you will never lose. This is the best I can do.
Pray for a brokered convention.
No, not every day, but you drop by about once a week to sling your slurs and innuendo. This entire thread for you has been one long accusation of homophobia. In other threads, the theme varies to sexism or racism, but it’s always the same old song. You’re a one-trick pony, and an excellent example of the culture of victim mentality found in the denizens of the left.
We may be bitter about the bankrupting (destruction!) of our country that you so cavalierly dismiss, but you are bitter because life isn’t fair. How very noble and mature of you…
So you might as well vote for Obama. No risk. Your logic is illogical. More of us won’t be voting for either Rombama or BJ Gingrich this year than didn’t vote for McAmnesty in 2008. How about voting for the best conservative?
If he loses, so what? Nothing changes if the other two get elected except who then gets blamed for our current problems and the renaming of the Bush/Obama agenda. A major defeat parading as victory.
Actually we end up getting blamed no matter what. I’d like to have someone in there who can at least talk back to the media when they try do it.
Romney, I agree with you, is not that man. Gingrich might be. Santorum’s iffy.
I do think Santorum would be tough for Obama to beat in a general election…tougher than Romney. I think people would relate to Santorum, and he at least seems to have some convictions. Romney’s robotic-ness, lack of consistency, and incredible wealth makes it harder for people to identify with him. He did do a good job in the FL debate, though.
Paul would have also been a threat…he’s so damn affable, and his antiwar rhetoric would have gotten a considerable portion of the liberal and just-plain-sick-of-war vote. Gingrich would have been the easiest of the three to beat, in my opinion.
I’m not bitter at all about the progress of homosexuals in this country. How bitter is Santorum and his followers on the issue, to distract from our very real problems, by discussing reinstating DADT, or getting fixated on what homosexuals do in the bedroom. Why does he care what homosexuals do in the bedroom, and why would he support states banning gay sex acts? I’m just exposing how lost he is on the issue. I’m also happy that the likes of Santorum are on the fringe, and will be rejected by moderates.
I just feel the need to school folks like you about it. DADT was repealed. Gays can adopt in Florida and many other states. You know what gay adoption will lead to in the next decade? Wait for it, wait for it, Gay Marriage. Sorry, it’s inevitable.
Santorum’s views make the issue relevant. And he will l.o.s.e
victim mentality: That my friend, is projection.
LOL. Yeah, you folks are all about blame the media, blame Obama, Christians being victimized by liberals, the War on Christmas, the marginalization of conservative women, our mocked black conservatives. wahwahawha.
All so many of you do is play the victim card. You learn it from RW radio.
I’m happy about the progress this country has made, and know we will make it through this rough patch.
So yeah, good luck with your bitterness. I’ll just trumpet the rights of my fellow Americans, and remind you why you’re wrong…from time to time.
Where’s this “fixation” you’re talking about? Click on the link at the top of the page to Santorum’s site. Now click on “Issues”. The only mention there of anything having anything at all to do with the homosexual agenda is his support for keeping the definition of marriage what it’s been. That’s it – nothing about DADT, nothing about banning sodomy.
Yes, I know where he stands on those issues, because he’s been asked about it in interviews and has given truthful answers. But the only ones “fixated” on his positions on these issues have been the Left, who very often have greatly exaggerated them beyond all recognition.
What he has been “fixated” on, judging by his speeches, debate performances, and website, has been, as you say, “our very real problems” such as the economy and national security (and has a far more mature and knowledgeable approach to them than Zero does). Leftists such as yourself are distracting from them by obsessing over these other issues.
I actually think Romney’s wealth will help. I think he will give Americans hope and remembrance that capitalism still works. Unless he has some skeletons or he chokes in the debates, I think Romney will beat Obama with ease.
The best bet is to play up Romney’s lack of convictions and lies. But, I doubt that works. All that will matter, is what he believes now, because the economy is so bad. And the GOP Congress is dead set on sabotaging Obama, so many folks will just hope to get moderate Romney in there, so stuff gets done.
Hell, if Romney shows up at the convention unshaven, and rocks out like this, I may even vote for him…or think about it. F word alert. lol Rock n roll
On January 31st, 2012 at 10:21 pm, Ota Benga said:
How bitter is Santorum and his followers on the issue, to distract from our very real problems, by discussing reinstating DADT, or getting fixated on what homosexuals do in the bedroom. Why does he care what homosexuals do in the bedroom, and why would he support states banning gay sex acts?
It’s not the fixation of the gay sex in the bedroom, you whining leftist minorities always think you have “the right” to dictate your beliefs on the majority. This goes for everything you parasites believe in.
W
I’m not hooking up with you at the end of the party again, because it’s getting old, and there are other “freaks” out there. But I’ll hit you with this: Views matter. If you clicked on the DNC suite and saw the typical rhetoric, but you heard Obama in interviews talking about allowing 13 year olds to get abortions without parental consent, making gay marriage legal via constitutional amendment, and legalizing drugs, I’m sure your freaken ears would perk up, and you’d have concerns.
Words and views from a presidential candidate matter to me, so shoot me.
It’s not the fixation of the gay sex in the bedroom, you whining leftist minorities always think you have “the right” to dictate your beliefs on the majority. This goes for everything you parasites believe in.
According to a Gallup poll (and I do think Gallup has some credibility), a slight majority of U.S. citizens favor making gay marriage legal. Arguably, we are the majority here.
@OtaBenga: Actually, I think the best bet is to make sure every voter knows Romney strapped a family pet (in a crate) to the top of a car for a 12-hour road trip, and when the poor beast had diarrhea, no doubt because he was completely freaked out, he stopped at a gas station, hosed the dog crap off the car, and continued on with the dog on top of the car.
And then he recounted this in an interview as this hilarious example of how he deals with problems.
Ugh, screw this guy.
I disagree with Santorum on…let me check…just about everything. But at least I believe he has feelings.
As demonstrated in the past, your here and my here, is light miles away… and you forgot the parasite part of the quote, once again, at your liberal convenience.
@OK_Loyalist: I ignore stuff like being called a parasite because it doesn’t mean anything to me. You can insult me all you like, but I have no insults to bestow upon you in return. I think you’re probably a decent guy, to be honest, although we disagree on many things.
People that believe in the collective are parasites. Again it’s always the whining leftist minority, including yourself, a liberal, at 21% according to your beloved Gallup, has no right, God Given or illusioned to tell the majority anything, because you are the minority, so stuff it!
Are you still on happyscrapper about her comment on re-education camps three years ago?
Why would he need them? The unions in the public education sector are already trying to tell kids what a mean, evil country this is.
And yes, Obama is destroying this country. If he gets re-elected, I hope you have connections in the beltway, because if you don’t you and the 99% of liberals would SOL.
Correction: not happyscrapper, Englishqueen.
Rough patch? Is that what you call spending more than a trillion dollars a year more than the government brings in?
Your boundless naïveté speaks volumes about you.
The stage for gay marriage was set by the SCOTUS striking down the Texas sodomy law. As in prior decisions, the high court takes on a comparative non-issue, and writes the majority opinion in such a way as to pave the way for the actual intended societal change (As in how a largely unenforced contraception ban was used to pave the way for Roe v. Wade).
You either do not read or you cannot comprehend my posts, or you would know that gay marriage, rather than homosexual acts, was the point of my posts all along. If it were it otherwise you would know that your taunting reference to the inevitability of gay marriage will not send me into apoplexy (nor your rather lame accusation of “projection”).
Not only is gay marriage coming, but polygamy and likely legalized incest.
Despite your constant trumpeting of DADT repeal, the courts have been, and continue to be the instrument of these changes.
If they are so confident, why do they always push the government to make it legal for gays then? Why not let the people vote? What’s wrong with that? What are you so afraid of? You’re in the majority, after-all, right?
On January 31st, 2012 at 11:36
Regrettably, I am not personally in charge of these things.
Lesson 1: Liberals won’t respect you unless you agree them entirely or are content to play second fiddle and let them have their government goodies.
When you combine that with the fact that every single state (38 so far) that voted on it has rejected it, including quite liberal ones like California and Maine, all this proves is a point I’ve made in the past, which is that how people answer a question when the answer has no consequence of any kind – such as when they’re called up and asked about it out of the blue – is often quite different from how they answer when their answer actually will have a real-world effect, such as (for exampe) in a referendum, and they’ve had time to consider it and listen to the debates.
We saw the same phenomenon a few years ago when Bush was President, and there was a bipartisan push for an illegal alien amnesty. We kept seeing reports in the New York Times and elsewhere about how (assuming these polls were to be believed), most Americans did favor some sort of amnesty of the kind up for consideration in Congress. But then there was an open revolt and a rare thing happened – a plan widely agreed to among the most powerful politicians in both parties crashed and burned under the withering gale of open revolt.
This could not be blamed on some nefarious “special interest” sabotaging the process, because all the special interests – from big businesses to the left-wing pressure groups, even (oddly enough) the unions – were all on board with amnesty. The only explanation is that it was simply the American people who said not just no, but hell no.
Wrong. I tend respect plenty of people here, including the person below.
I’ve been referring to Santorum’s point about gay sex acts. Yes, it troubles me, and I find it very bizarre. I conceded several posts ago, that we tend to agree, a bit, on how it’s mostly unenforceable and needless. Then you started backtracking to the tribe, by mocking the word distractions. When urging states to ban gay sex, really is a distraction, and one that won’t work. Again, we tend to agree, a bit.
Good, maybe you’re more “moderate” on the issue, then you let on.
And sorry, the state has more of rational basis for banning incest(health) and polygamy(tax and domestic court issues), than basic similarities in sexual organs. Again, the allowance of gays to adopt will lead directly to gay marriage. Glad you won’t have apoplexy like right4life and may others.
The courts and state legislatures all around the country. You know why? It’s because hearts and minds have changed. It’s similar to what happen in the Civil Rights movement in prior decades.
Cool, you’re half way rational when you’re not trying to show off for “stillontheroad” and the like.
I gotta cosign ALL of that.
Good night.
Nonsense. They have no more basis to ban incest than to ban women having children at all past the age of 35 or so. If I recall correctly the incidence of developmental/genetic defects reaches parity somewhere in that age range. Furthermore, there are contraceptives as well as medical procedures (abortion) that will eliminate this as an argument.
The State’s interest in polygamy is similarly easy to dismiss as complexity in the tax code has never been a deterrent to any law (and more importantly, to any activist judge) before.
At some point you either arrive at the concept that morality and respect for traditions are both acceptable and desirable bases for law, or else you do not, and consequently anything goes. As anarchy is a physical impossibility in the real world, the result we are reaping from our abandonment of traditional morality has been a network of arbitrary hyper-legalistic rules covering far more aspects of life than our moral rules ever did.
Local news sites are rife with tales of fines and even jail time for “offenses” undreamt of 20 years ago.
83 year old woman ticketed and threatened with arrest for throwing away newspapers in a city trash receptacle.
Church fined over 4000 dollars for trees “illegally” pruned on its property.
How about cuffing and jailing an honor student because a kitchen knife was seen inside her car in the floor?
These kinds of stories are everywhere, and they are a natural consequence of the massive top-down amoral model of government overreach that prevails today.
Even if the Gallup poll is way off, and it very well might be, it’s only a matter of time before gay marriage is legal, because millennials are so strongly in favor of it. The age group most opposed to gay marriage is 65+. So unless there’s some master plan to change the minds of a generation who grew up on Will and Grace and Ellen, fighting against legal gay marriage is in the long term a lost cause.
Wake me up when the pro-incest and pro-polygamy movement has the organization and support of the pro-gay marriage movement. We all know somebody who is gay/lesbian and wants to marry a partner. If you know of any similar type of political traction for incest and polygamy I’d be curious to see the equivalence. Good luck.
And Cheryl, having sex with her son, or father, would cause a serious health concern if she were to reproduce. And a mental health concern for the family unit.
It’s an equal protection argument, as you know. The case for polygamy and incest has a much higher hurdle to overcome, in order to show that the state doesn’t have a rational basis to prevent it. Enlighten me about the mandate and momentum of the pro-incest movement. Just be careful about what sites you click on, but it will be funny seeing you try to make the case that incest and homosexuality, in anyway have similar civil rights and political traction.
I don’t know if you’ve spen any time in domestic court, but it’s already a cluster. There is no freaking way, states will burden the courts with trying to figure out how Janice and her 2 current and 4 ex husbands are going to divide alimony and parenting time. That is nonsense. Homosexuals? The main argument has been relating to the traditional family unit. Like cross-racial adoptions and single parent adoptions before, gay adoptions are largely legally permitted around the country. Gay marriage is right around the corner. You admit that. If this blog is around in 20 years, I’ll be happy to point out “I told ya so” about polygamy and incest.
Folks like you try to distract with the incest and polygamy argument as some type of nonsensical “the sky is falling” alarm. It’s distinguishable, and you know it. I credit you for not trying to take it even lower by trying to compare gay marriage with beastiality and pedophilia, like many other slimeballs.
I linked an article on polygamy. It is already happening. The presumptive nominee for the Republicans’ grandfather fled the country for polygamy. Your outrage is as selective as your facts, it seems.
What’s happening? Where is the national debate on polygamy? When is the last time there was a controversial legislative act, concerning polygamy? Some states have legalized gay marriage? How many states have, or are in the process of legalizing polygamy?Houston is the largest of several cities with a homosexual mayor. Tell me about some politicians who are interested in polygamy, besides Newt. I can’t believe I’m engaging in this asinine disussion as you try to make bogus comparisons. For the record, I could give to —– how many people a person marries. I’ve just articulated how there is no mandate for it, no national debate about it, there is no equivalence to gay marriage about it, and the states have a rational basis to prevent it.
How freaking long ago was that? Jerry Lee Lewis used to bang his 13 year old cousin, a few decades back. So what? In the times of Socrates, men took on boy lovers, and it wasn’t really all that frowned upon. Guess what. Evolving standards of decency have rejected pedophilia and polygamy and more readily accept homosexuality.
What outrage? You’re projecting again.
I’m not the one concerned about gay marriage. I’m just explaining how it’s inevitable. I’m happy about it…a 180 from “outraged”. I’m explaining how the outraged social conservatives like Santorum are out of step with the progress of gay rights. Your facts, as I’ve clearly explained for the last time, don’t fit your argument. Polygamy and incest have decreased in acceptance, while homosexuality has gained acceptance. Looks at a newspaper. Turn on your internet. Read a book. Read your history.
Excuse the typos. I’m out till the weekend or later…
Yes, that is the current trend. Trends can be and have been reversed, however. 50 years ago, liberalism (as we understand it nowadays) was the wave of the future, or so it seemed. Then came the social patholgies brought on by the hippie revolution, the destruction of the black family wrought by the “Great Society”, and, well, the Carter administration, among other things. Those sent things in the other direction.
Likewise, the ’90s saw a relatively brief but surprising resurgence of social conservatism among the youth, rejecting the more liberal values of their parents. We don’t know what may happen in the near future, especially as budget pressures force the federal government to cut back spending on primary education. That’s where a lot of these attitudes are inculcated, in the schools. If they start to become run more and more at the local level, and increasingly under the control of parents rather than big bureaucracies and teachers’ unions, that could very well have a pronounced effect on current social trends.
Ota, the reality is that polygmaous grassroots organizations are already present in this country.
Well, England and Australia now recognize polygamous marriages performed abroad and more nations recognize polygamy than “gay marriage”.
Actually, only legislatures and courts have.
I would say that Bill Clinton and Tony Weiner were a lot closer to polygamy than Newt ever was.
You don’t need a national debate, you only need a sufficient quantity of available time and money, the backing of some sort of legal foundation like the ACLU, and a court date. Quit pretending this is some sort of mandate. Of states who have had a referendum (over 30 of them) not one (no matter how progressive) has chosen to change the definition of marriage. This is happening almost entirely in the courts, and through their actions (like that laughable court order to the MA legislature to alter the definition).
So in order for people to deserve “equal protection” there has to be a “national debate”? I thought that was the justification for judicial review in the first place: To prevent “tyranny of the majority”.
What is your actual concern here, then? If this isn’t about supporting gay marriage because it is the right thing to do, but rather because there is some sort of movement to get behind, then are you not simply being prosaic?
Since you reject the validity of the comparisons of incest and polygamy (which I find highly naive as polygamy is now featured in a reality show, which means public interest in it will grow. How about the question of cousins marrying? Some states allow it, some allow it with restrictions, other forbid it, and in a few it is a criminal offense. Incest.
Your positions are arbitrary and based upon flavor-of-the-moment populism rather than principle that I could respect, even if I might disagree.
This whole discussion about “gay issues” is SO irrelevant to the Presidential election. Very few consider it too be of national importance. Get a life.
I’m for Santorum, and it doesn’t have anything to do at all with his views on homosexuality. Sheesh!
Actually, Santorum is/was for an Individual Mandate:
http://articles.mcall.com/1994-05-02/news/2979474_1_cooper-grandy-health-reform-employees-premiums/2
And Fannie and Freddie:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10680-debate-fannie-freddie-and-fakers
Only one man in the Field has:
1. Never Voted For An Un Balanced Budget
2. Never Voted For A Debt Ceiling Increase
3. Never Voted For A Tax Increase
And always follow the Constitution. It’s Not Santorum, Romney, or Gingrich…From there you might be able to figure out who that is. He also predicted the Bubble Burst, years in advance. But, he knows economics, so, it’s not surprising really.
Ya, that crazy Foreign Policy, founded in the likes of John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington, really is foreign to our way of thinking today. But those 900 Bases overseas cost money. And the last I looked, we were flat broke. And these un declared wars, why, I don’t know, maybe, just maybe, we aught to listen to those crazy folks in the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force, who, have donated more money to Ron Paul than all the other candidates, including Obama, combined. I think they might be trying to tell us something…
But, since it must be anyone but Paul, I just wonder, what has happened to the Tea Party and Spending. After all, only Paul is serious about cutting spending. And all those departments “conservative” use to rail against, and promise to eliminate, are in the Paul proposal….
And those troops, spending there money here, in our economy, why, that would certainly be good, no?
Wasn’t Santorum for the Kill the 4th amendment act,known as the Patriot Act? Isn’t he for the NDAA bil, just signed? That old constitution, sure would be nice if folks took their Oath to it seriously…
I’ll be clear again. My core values and principals teach me there is nada, zilch, nothing wrong with same sex couples marrying.
Again, I could care less about polygamy, but understand the rational basis argument against it, for the reasons I stated more than once.
Incest is a health concern, and a concern that I appreciate. What degree of cousin is safe to encourage a marital situation? That is above my pay-grade. And you can’t make isolated rules per couple like, “Hey, Sally got a hysterectomy, so she can marry her dad.”
My principals tell me that I don’t give a damn what consenting adults do with each other, and I find it pathetic that others do. There is nothing arbitrary about that line of thinking. I believe in personal liberty when it comes to matter of the heart, and consenting adults. That said, I understand that pragmatics of the state, having regulatory concerns over some matters (incest, polygamy).
The point lies in what gay marriage will lead to, and your fears about polygamy and incest don’t compute, and are not analogous to two consenting adults, who merely share the same type of genitalia.
The biblical “family values” argument against gay marriage will fail, as the rights of gays to adopt put a dagger in the “position”; not that the positions in a few thousand year old book, written by man,is always that relevant to these times,anyway.
@steveuus – you absolutely prove my point – the only reference to Santorum supporting an individual mandate is from the obscure Lehigh Valley “The Morning Call” from 1994!! They have no quotes from Santorum or anybody else supporting the story. AND NOBODY ELSE REPORTED IT, to my knowledge.
Sheesh – this proves nothing!
regarding “gay marriage”, being opposed will only help Santorum, though it’s a minor issue. He’s not making it a centerpiece of his campaign. It’s obvious he’s not a “hating” type of person, so I don’t think it will hurt him at all.
I’m with Rick – marriage is/should be limited to a woman and a man, but I don’t spend all day obsessing about it. Heck, we have 2 openly gay couples 2 or 3 houses away (one right next door), and our attitude is “live and let live,” though we kind of pity them.