This Is Rick Santorum
Up until this week we had been faced with a few different possibilities in terms of potential challengers to President Obama in November, none of which seemed overly pleasing to clucking tongues in conservative sewing circles. It always had the appearance of a choice between Mitt “Mr. Inevitable” Romney and any one of a series of cracked, flawed, or otherwise questionable alternatives. Even the latest in this series, Newt Two Point Oh, brought with him worries as to whether his airport caravan sized train of “baggage” might allow Barack Obama’s reelection team to make the race an archaeological dig into the former speaker’s lengthy history rather than a referendum on the wreckage left in the wake of Obama’s first three years in office.
But following his impressive hat trick on February 7th, we are now faced with a different possibility in the person of former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. (Or, as he was known through the course of the first 349 debates, “that guy at the last lectern who never gets any questions.”) And if the seas part at precisely the right moment and he somehow becomes the nominee, we may find ourselves with the opportunity to conduct a long-awaited and fascinating experiment in American political theory.
One of the chief sources of internecine scrapping and grumbling among Republicans has come from the ranks of the social conservatives, or Socons as they are frequently known. We have already spent time speculating what would happen if Mitt Romney becomes the nominee. If he loses to Obama in November, the Socons will once again say that it was because cowardly, establishment party leaders failed to push forward a sufficiently conservative warrior who would fire up the base as a champion of socially conservative principles. If he wins, the Socons could quietly grumble that he’d simply gotten lucky against a deeply flawed president running on a failed record and bide their time until the next open seat in the Oval Office came up for grabs.
Similarly, if Newt Gingrich were to lose to Obama, the blame could be heaped on his own shortcomings and extensive, frequently controversial biography. After all, his three marriages and “complicated” history didn’t exactly make him a darling among evangelical Christians. The same excuses could be applied with slight modifications.
But Rick Santorum is a horse of an entirely different color who could serve as the ultimate test of this theory and put the question to rest once and for all. Is the secret to electoral success truly found in a take-no-prisoners, hard-core, rock-ribbed conservative? Is this truly what America is pining for?
We can, for purposes of this experiment, think of conservative values like the volume dial on a musician’s stage amplifier. A totally muted value of one would produce some amalgam of Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, and Fidel Castro. At the top end of the range, a setting of ten would give us an ideologically conservative Cerberus, its three heads being John Bolton on national defense issues, Grover Norquist on fiscal policy, and Pat Robertson on social matters. Many observers, including even some of the media elite these days, seem to feel that America is a “center-right” nation, perhaps carrying a value somewhere in the range of six. But reminiscent of that classic scene from the movie Spinal Tap, Rick Santorum goes to eleven.
If, for example, we’re talking about the issue of contraception – much in the news of late – President Obama has stumbled badly, providing a tremendous opportunity for Republicans to attract Catholics worried about excessive government overreach into matters of faith. But as much as these voters are rightly concerned about the recent HHS ruling and Washington intrusion on the sovereignty of the church, there are still a huge majority of people in the country – including a massive portion of Catholic women – who employ birth control technology. Santorum, on the other hand, has not only said he favors the right of states to outlaw birth control, but is on record saying that he personally feels it is “dangerous” and should be outlawed.
On birth control, Rick Santorum goes to eleven.
On the always dicey topic of abortion, America also seems to be a center-right nation, with more than half believing that it should be restricted in a number of cases and minimized as much as possible. But when you ask if it should be a criminal offense in every single instance, support plummets for the idea. There is a massive library of video clips of Rick Santorum saying that the procedure should be illegal even in cases of rape or incest and that any doctor performing one should be prosecuted.
On abortion, Rick Santorum goes to eleven.
When it comes to the subject of biological evolution, there are plenty of Americans of faith who feel that creationism or intelligent design should be offered in schools alongside Darwin’s theories so students and families can make their own choice. But in poll after poll they cite a preference for keeping everything on the table and handling it at the state and local level. Mr. Santorum has not only pushed to mandate this at the federal level but essentially claimed that the idea of biological evolution is bunk.
On evolution, Rick Santorum goes to eleven.
The list goes on from there, and it’s lengthy indeed. For social conservative warriors who are tired of RINOs and squishy moderates and are seeking a candidate who will truly reflect their values up and down the line, Rick Santorum appears to be a Socon’s dream come true. And if we nominate him, the great question I posed at the top of this column could finally be put to a real-world test. But what would happen?
Here’s where we roll into the arena of prognostication, so each of you can make your own call, but the outcome looks fairly clear from where I’m perched. If you were worried that Team Obama could turn a Gingrich nomination into a referendum on the speaker’s history, Santorum would make that look like child’s play. Gone would be discussions of the president’s paltry record on job growth or the disastrous downstream effects of his environmental regulatory policy. The DNC would dump hundreds of millions of dollars into running 24/7 advertisements in the fall featuring grainy, black and white clips of Rick Santorum reading off the quotes I cited above and many, many more. Tens of millions of moderate and independent voters who are currently looking with dismay at Obama’s record and are kicking the tires of a possible Republican alternative would thunder for the exits. In short, I believe a campaign such as that would lead to Barack Obama winning in a landslide.
But perhaps that’s just me and I’m reading the temperature of the American public entirely wrong. Socons have been complaining for ages about the propensity of the establishment GOP to back social conservative geckos when they seek a Komodo dragon. With Rick Santorum we could, at last, put forward the social conservative Godzilla, destroyer of worlds. And when the dust settles in November we would finally have the answer to the question once and for all. But it might be a very expensive experiment to run.
Do you think speeding is wrong? Everyone does it, so if you say it is wrong, do you hit eleven or twelve?
Evolution or creation: Scientifically, evolution is bunk. There is no science for evolution. So where do you stand? Right in the middle between those two? It would seem only one can be correct.
As to costly experiments, you can look at the current state of America and start counting the beans. Or nuts, as you might prefer.
Correction:
There is no science for creation.
Sorry about that!
No, no. Don’t apologize. You got it right the first time.
Correct GMan. Evolution is replete with gaping and hopeless holes. It is an attempt to explain the world from start to finish in the absence of a creator. Hubert Yockey in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, some forty years ago, using information theory and very liberal assumptions in favor of evolution, calculated that the probability of the natural synthesis of cytochrome c, a universal and relatively “simple” protein, was 10 to the minus 97 power. There are some thirty thousand fully integrated proteins in the human body alone all of which depend on the information in DNA to be produced as well as a myriad of other chemical and biological complexities. The idea that these were the products of random, undirected chance is the belief of a kind of willful intellectual blindness. In short, evolution is an accommodation to atheism. If you refuse to accept the possibility of a creator then you are an evolutionist by default. Good luck.
Science on evolution is also very fuzzy. The first protein, as in first replicator? I mean, I have two “hard science” degrees, and still not aware of scientific consensus on evolution theory.
.
Correct. As a PhD physicist friend of mine says, if you can’t do a double blind experiment it isn’t science.
kinda off topic, but I disagree with the criterion. There are sciences when experiments are not possible, like when Astronomers try to model the probability of appearance of supernovas. They can’t make a supernova experiment, they just need to sit and observe and hope to be lucky.
In a similar way, Evolution per se is unobservable in human time scale, nobody can sit and way gazillion years to record the slow and gradual change in species. But some of its proposed mechanism can be tested; yet nobody has produced the satisfactory, replicable experiment.
Evolution does not try to explain the first protein. Evolution covers the diversity of life once established. The interface between Geology and Biology is Chemistry. The initiation of life on earth is a chemistry question. The hypotheses I like is the “metabolism first”.
I can fully appreciate the evolution argument in some instances, but there are a LOT of unanswered questions. Yes, it makes sense that an animal with good eyesight would fare better than one with poor eyesight. Over time, it makes sense that the poor-sighted members of a species might decline while the sharp-sighted members would be more likely to thrive.
But that does not explain how the eye evolved in the first place. An eye is useless until all of its parts exist together. How can an eye “evolve?” One cannot argue that the species with only a lens later developed the retina, because the lens serves no purpose without the retina – and every other part of the eye that is critical for functioning sight. Science has never been able to explain how an eye could have evolved.
The best analogy is the mousetrap. It has few parts, and one can work to create a “better mousetrap.” But how was the mousetrap created in the first place? The individual parts are useless until they are assembled… and that is the same with the eye.
Science has disproved creation? Really?
Any number of scientists can tell you that your view is bunk.
What interests me about SoCons like Santorum is that they act as if evolution theory is a threat to the existence of God, when evolution theory says nothing about first causes. In fact, to me it makes the universe yet more mysterious and the idea of God stronger.
What seems more problematic is some SoCons insistence that Biblical literalism should be treated equally to evolution in the schools – the world was created in six days, etc. Most of us take that as metaphor now – and should. What might be a better approach in the schools, and help our scientifically-challenged students to learn, is to point that evolution doesn’t prove the existence of God one way or the other – then go on to teach science. It’s sorely needed.
Andy, what people don’t seem to understand is that God works within the laws of physics, etc. He doesn’t break “his own laws”…as mankind has advanced, he changes through evolution… according to climate; the part of the world he/she is in to accommodate TO the environment.
Indigenous Tierra del Fuego people could not stand near the fires lit by Europeans. They would dip each newborn into the icy ocean for a second, to see if they had what it took. Unfortunately, they were hunted to extinction, despite the efforts of the Jesuits.
The Ashkenezie Jews are regularly cited as the smartest people on Earth. They supported young people who excelled, helping them have homes, encouraging fertility and education. Over time, genetic diseases took hold because the most powerful men were fathering too many, called Founders Disease. Lupus and Tay-Sachs still exist, but the enduring high intelligence still exists too.
These are two examples of observable evolution in people during recorded history.
I can take evolution or leave it. What bothers me are these “heresy” trials given to religious people by narrow-minded atheists like Bill Maher. Most of the country doesn’t believe in evolution; what difference does it make to public policy? You think we’re gonna change oil exploration methods of something?
There are too many secular fanatics running around wild in the media.
I disagree on the argument that evolution doesn’t exclude GOD. In fact it does just that to the narrow minded academics who teach it in schools your children attend. They skirt around the hard questions and spit ball answers as though there was no real threat of being exposed as simply not knowing the answer. Which is sadly true. Take the time to run down and watch Ben Stein’s movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It is witty, curious and challenging. The favorite parts are when Ben gets a chance to talk directly to the scholars and supporters of evolution. I’ve known him for years and he is quite intelligent in his own right. His questions catch the smug scientists repeatedly showing just how little they really understand.
Through that gap, you can run an entire fleet of creation theories and questions that would challenge the assumptions for generations. The truth is we know and can prove a million more facts than we could say around 1000 A.D. Science will continue to probe and question IF IT IS ALLOWED TO! Sadly, today’s PC agenda squelches dissent. (Just ask the people who doubt Global Warming) Which is why I disagree with the poster above. Science does deny Creation, it has to, no money in saying “God did it.”
Just saying…
To prove my point about the bias that exists with people and scientists driven by PC science, I’ll go no further than linking to Wiki the review of Stein’s movie and the review and adulation for Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. Read both and ask yourself since we have long settled the fact that Gore’s movie had more factual holes in it than a spaghetti strainer, why is he still “cool” and Stein’s work was so horrid. “Tell a lie long enough to enough people and it will become the truth.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth
I’ve never really understood the way pro and anti religious people talk past each other on evolution. Rule one about how science and religion mix is that every time a scientific theory says “random” or “randomly” a religious believer can insert the phrase “as directed by the hand of God”. Then there cannot be any honest dispute because no scientist has any idea where something a scientific theory calls random comes from — because that’s what “random” means, scientifically speaking. So, for example, when biologists talk about “random” mutations driving evolution, this can be taken to mean mutations created “by the hand of God drive evolution in the way God intends”. Non-believers will retort that evolution cannot be God’s will because it looks so arbitrary and cruel. Philosophers, however, have pushed this sort of objection to the idea of God long before Darwin came along. It is basically an objection to Walt Disney’s idea of what God — kindly, soft-hearted, etc. — has to be like. Remember, according to the idea of God, He is all-powerful — that is, the random element ends up dominating everything else — so He really doesn’t have to care what you think (for starters on this subject, see the book of Job).
It’s simple really. Religious peoples do not let science dictate their faith. The idea that you simply insert God into the blank spots of science shows an incredible lack of faith.
The problem is that no one seems willing to have a respectful discussion on this. Everytime a young-earth creationist or an intelligent design believer says his/her piece, they get attacked viciously. Both sides are too high-strung for a dialogue on this.
Can life, love, intelligence spontaneously spring from matter? Whay scientific experiments support such silly notions?
‘There is no science for creation or evolution.’
Not all things are defined by the scientific method. Three things define truth–version 1, version 2, and the truth. They are never the same.
Human history is never scientific. The word human cancels it out. At some point you have to see reality. Reality is based on perception. Science is only a help tool for seeing reality. And even reality is unreliable.
‘Scientifically Evolution is Bunk’.
Farmers have vastly changed the genome of plants and animals with un natural selection. The fossil record shows plants and animals definitely have changed over time.
What we don’t know is how.
What I personally don’t know is why Christians have to think they universe is bone simple for a God to exist. I just dont read the bible to say anywhere it is the end of physics. In fact, it does say a lot about wisdom and even some favorable words about scholars.
While admittedly, they don’t actually vote all that much, but I don’t think a social conservative is ever going to gain votes of people under 40. Unless they are very religious.
People who grew up in the 70s or later just don’t see homosexuality as a big deal. Most people have gay friends or relatives. It’s not a big deal. And to see them get discriminated against is just a big turn off.
The other thing about an overly religious candidate is that while America is a religious country still, a lot of those that are are black, who just aren’t going to vote Republican. (I mean, if the Civil War didn’t do it, nothing will)
but I don’t think a social conservative is ever going to gain votes of people under 40. —- Jeremy
And yet we have Prop 8 passing in a landslide.
The real problem is that the Left has taken over Hollywood and the Education system and are indoctrinating children. Not social con policy.
But in the end, Leftwingism is unsustainable and thus society will collapse (rather quickly) under its direction both fiscally and socially. And then the Social Con Christians will rebuild civilization….which eventually will once again be torn down by the Left. Rinse, repeat.
That’s what they said about Reagan.
Jazz Shaw : IMO you are correct about the barrage awaiting Santorum if becomes the nominee. Unless he is willing to now state that some of his stronger religious beliefs are personal and not intended as policy prescriptions. People want to hear respect for other points of view and beliefs. Obama understood this when he was bamboozling people during his first campaign.
For every person that wants to protect the unborn there is another person imagining a twelve year old rape victim being forced to carry a baby to term. Even though she herself is a child. And unfortunately it usually seems to be men that will never have to endure the rigors of carrying a baby and going through childbirth that are the most vocal and adamant.
Many people do have a nuanced view. They think abortions are a lousy form of birth control, they think late term abortions are horrible, they wish there were more adoptions instead. And they might think the only thing worse than aborting a baby is to bring him into the world unloved, unwanted, uncared for, neglected and mistreated.
You also didn’t even mention the “hating gays” attacks they will mount against him.
I think until the conservative movement offers a big enough tent for small government, freedom loving, fiscal conservatives and libertarians without the social con litmus test, they face being condemned to minority status. I think we have a country that needs saving.
I truly respect people of faith. I agree with many of the the same things they do. The depth of their belief humbles me. They make and keep the world a better place. But do you want to reject those that only agree with you 85-90% of the time?
Stellar post.
The Libertarian Party has suggested altering our adoption laws to make adoption much easier than it is today. I have a relative (teacher of handicapped children) who never got married, but wanted a child of her own. She ended up going to China and adopting a little girl there. Our adoption laws are set up in such a way that she could not legally adopt here in the USA. Thus many who might wish to adopt simply cannot do so under our present laws. Additionally those who become pregnant (and don’t wish to be so) face medical costs in carrying a child to term that can be quite “major” for someone who is low income. It has been suggested that we could allow those who wish to adopt to support the mother to be in return for being allowed to adopt the baby after birth with legal agreements backed by law. The pro-life organizations could put “pressure” upon their representatives to pass legislation allowing this to be done. To make adoption “easier”. Anyone who checks our adoption laws today will see that legal adoption has been made quite difficult, far more difficult as a matter of fact than what it really needs to be.
Ah but adoption is so difficult because it produces yet another group of people brought up dependent on big government. It’s just another way of increasing the Democrat voter bloc.
Nominate Santorum and just hand the election to Obama!
Regressive vs progressive taxation. the role of the Federal Reserve. consequences of high corporate tax rates, employer mandated health insurance, currency debasement, American court decisions re Shariah Law, causes of the sub-prime loan debacle, etc…these are complicated issues that many many voters won’t bother to understand.
But tell ‘em the Republican nominee thinks it’s OK to outlaw birth control and the race is over! (So, gentlemen, is YOUR action in the bedroom BTW).
I think that it is quite clear that Santorum was giving a personal opinion on contraception, not advocating a law.
As far as his statement on Griswold vs. Ct., that’s a logical conclusion for anyone who understands that Roe v. Wade is a joke. It doesn’t matter what you think about contraception (I have no particular problem with it outside fo abortifactants), the constitution clearly does not restrict the states in this manner.
Did anyone notice how that constitutional fraud Ron Paul dodged the question?
Everyone seems to think homosexuality will bury this man but hell Prop 8 had a majority yes vote in one of the most blue states in the union with the gayest city in the union and Hollywood. Methinks homosexual marriage opposition won’t be as big of an issue against Santorum as most people think.
Adding something I didn’t have time to earlier. Anyone who thinks that Romney is actually more electable than any of the others has not been paying attention. The idea that Santorum will be smeared by the left hardcore over the social issues and that Romney won’t is complete foolishness. No matter who it is they will be painted as a racist, anti poor, religious nut case and that is simply because of what party they are in. When standing next to the others Mitt may seem more electable because he’s the moderate with all the money and media attention but against Obama any advantage those may give him will be lost. His millions will be no match for Obama’s billions, the media that now loves him will turn on him so fast it probably won’t even be noticed they were ever in his ring in the first place. The fact is that the lefties won’t move right no matter who we have so we might as well go big or go home and elect either Newt for the fiscal issues or Santorum for the social issues. Electing Mitt just because he can get elected no matter his stance on the issues is pathetic.
One final thought on this paragraph here.
“On the always dicey topic of abortion, America also seems to be a center-right nation, with more than half believing that it should be restricted in a number of cases and minimized as much as possible. But when you ask if it should be a criminal offense in every single instance, support plummets for the idea. There is a massive library of video clips of Rick Santorum saying that the procedure should be illegal even in cases of rape or incest and that any doctor performing one should be prosecuted.”
Boiled down that argument is essentially “abortion is the murder of innocent children however the Republican elites have no problem justifying that kind of crime so long as it is politically expedient to do so.” Do you guys ever stop and ask yourself why nobody trusts the elites? It’s because you will sell out over any issue no matter what it is if you feel it will get you the votes, which is especially foolish since the only votes you’ll pull with that line is from the left and good luck with that.
Santorum does not have to worry about being “smeared by the left”, he scares many of us on the right who see in him just a different form of statist. He wants to use big govt as much as Obama does; the only difference is toward what ends it would be used.
The same arguments used against Obama – never ran anything – apply to Ricky, too. He was a legislator. We have one of those in the Oval now; how’s that working out. Romney at least has led business, a state, and an Olympics. He’s been the decider, as W would say. Ricky has never done that, except for deciding to siphon your money to his state.
Yes.
Being a negative nellie I think none of the candidates are electable. Something terrible has happened to the nomination process.
Yes. Image. Exposure. Rick will be portrayed as strongly pro-life, but that’s good. He stands for something. Barack Obama stands for evil. How many know that he vigorously opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act? How many even now know what’s in Obamacare? or Romneycare? Many of us were glad to see Rick Santorum press Mitt Romney about Romneycare in Florida. True grit is an attractive quality in a man who will need to pursue the demise of Obamacare, and the grit to stop expanding government and scary deficits. Rick is the conservative answer to Barack Obama.
The objection to Santorum is not about gay marriage. If it were, he’d be fine. Obama hasn’t come out for gay marriage either. It is about horrible, bigoted things Santorum has said about gays. That is what will turn everyone off.
Santorum has never said anything nearly as bad as the things Obama listened to in church for 20 years.
Will turn who off exactly? You seem to be under the impression that the Republican candidate can actually say anything that will make the media and LGBT crowd not hate him. Do you seriously see the hard left gay crowd voting for Mitt because he might not be as solidly against gay marriage as Santorum? Neither will get those votes and neither will be seen as favorable to gays when standing next to Obama. It’s a non issue since we can’t hope to win it.
“Will turn off who exactly?”
You are correct that Republicans won’t win the votes of far left gays. But others in the “don’t ask, don’t care” crowd will be turned off by anything they perceive as hateful or intolerant. I expect to see a lot of commercials about bullying and gay suicide.
Any statements or attitudes that are contrary to a gay’s mindset is immediately considered “bigoted.” The gay community needs to hold up a mirror and examine its own bigotry against Christians and heterosexuals. They get the crap beat out of them every single day in the media and in the public arena in general. They seem to have no rights at all. Not even to their own opinions. Consider for a moment what would happen if a group of heterosexuals formed groups that lobbied, protested, threw glitter bombs, etc.
“That is what will turn everyone off.”
Well, I don’t know who your “everyone” is; there are plenty of people in America who while they may be tolerant of homosexuals and homosexuality have had it up their ears with in-your-face gay advocacy. I don’t know what else gay activists could do; they’re already a major bankroller of all things Leftist and Obama, see, e.g., the Gill Foundation. Gay activists are a major component of the Colorado Plan which basically allies a lot of left-leaning billionaires, trust fund babies, left-leaning foundations, etc., see, e.g., “The Blueprint” for some truly frightening insight into what supports and motivates the Left.
You know, PJMedia used to be a lot more nuanced than it has become, or at least how I remember it was. Most of the writers here have jumped unabashedly on the Romney-wagon and have been harshly critical of religious/social conservatives. It is reminiscent of the media’s “I don’t know a single person who voted for [Nixon]” quip. Perhaps it is the writers themselves; they are all very successful, influential people. While that is wonderful for them, don’t you think that the lack of lower middle-class (if we are to use that term) peoples, or rural Southerners and Mid-Westerners for that matter, is a bit biased against those who make up the majority of American conservatives?
Didn’t mean to ramble, but this constant slugging of Gingrich and Santorum, and the belittling of social conservatism, is getting old. I thought PJMedia was above this sort of thing.
This times eleventy.
PJM has gotten more out of touch than NRO who at least has a few writers that support alternate candidates.
PJM has done nothing but support the party line and bash non-party candidates. There’s been the occasional piece where a writer has tried to fake enthusiasm for an alternate candidate but ersatz “balance” journalism fools no one.
It’s no mystery. The managers of this site are educated. That means they can’t bear to think of themselves as common republicans and have embraced godless libertarianism. Through out the font of all real values and you get an automaton like mittens. Or Jazz Shaw.
You can be a libertarian and not be godless. Or believe that people are free to believe what they themselves choose.
A Santorum nomination would be the end of the Republican Party and would result in an electoral disaster which would usher in the completion of Obama’s transformation of America into a European social welfare state on steroids.
His positions on individual and economic liberty and the separation of church and state are appalling to anyone other than an ultramontane Catholic longing for days of Pio Nono. That someone with his views is even taken seriously as a Republican candidate is an indication of the depths to which the Party has sunk in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade.
Santorum 2012 would make Goldwater 1964 pale – Santorum would be lucky to carry the heart of the old Confederacy and he’d never carry Arizona!
I think you “misunderestimate” the desire for a return to conservative values in most of America.
People are tired of high minded pontificators telling them what they need to believe and accept.
It’s a moral battle this time and while Romney is not horrible, he’s got too much Obama in his past to be able to draw clear distinctions …. with the exception of, “I know how to create jobs, he doesn’t”. Dear Mitt, presidents don’t create jobs.
While some of his big government inclinations from the past trouble me, at least Santorum can be distinguished from Obama.
Of course, it’s easier to accept the media spin of “he lost his last election by 150%!” or “he’ll ban abortions and make everyone worship the Pope!”.
Yeah, let’s buy into that.
Mike – I agree there is a desire to return to more conservative values, but I think you badly misunderestimate a few things: 1) just how far Santorum’s views go beyond mere social conservatism into using the state to enforce those views, 2) just how far outside the mainstream Santorum’s views on birth control(!), abortion and separation of church and state are, as Jazz pointed out, and 3) wanting people to choose conservative values and behave more traditionally is not the same as wanting to write those choices into law.
Can you seriously imagine a candidate who thinks states should be able to ban birth control could be elected? I can’t.
Most conservatives/Republicans, including this one, believe that Griswold and Roe are very bad law and without them, states can ban birth control and abortion. Without the penumbras and emanations of Griswold, there is no federal right to privacy, so states can ban all sorts of things, starting with homosexual sodomy but the same theory applies to any other sex acts, hetero or homosexual. Either way there is a precipice; a federal right to privacy calls for the strictest scrutiny and a compelling state interest in looking through the bedroom door, the absence of a federal right to privacy invites the government into the bedroom – and lots of other places, too.
I have the good fortune of living in a state that has a state constitutional explicit right to privacy, but few others do. Granted, some of the things that state right entails are very troubling to many religious folk, some of it is troubling to me, and I’m not very religious. That said, I think the vast majority of Americans are more comfortable with the government, federal, state, or local, firmly locked out of their bedroom. A Santorum candidacy makes these issues the primary issues in a Presidential campaign and lays the Republican nominee wide open to the Left/feminist “American Taliban” meme that resonates all too well. I want Comrade Obama’s “fundamental transformation” to communism to be the issue, not separation of church and state and I believe if the issue becomes separation of church and state, Comrade Obama wins in a walk.
As a lawyer, I don’t disagree with you that both Griswold and Roe represent terrible legal reasoning – both examples of the axiom ‘hard cases make bad law’. I’m not so sure, however, that state laws banning birth control would be permissible – though, surely it would depend on the state and its constitution. In fact, a state ban on birth control is exactly the sort of state interference with individual liberty we should eschew. Similarly Roe was terrible law, but probably a reasonable political compromise (in its original form) consistent with the views of the largest plurality of citizens – who neither oppose all abortion nor favor completely unrestricted abortion.
No matter. Where we agree is that anyone who stands up and says that states ought to be able to ban birth control is going to be taken seriously as a candidate for, let alone win, the presidency.
I think that only a very stupid state legislature would try to do that, only a very stupid governor would stand for it, and you couldn’t pay me to live in that state. But yes: under the Constitution as written, the state should be ABLE to. If that’s a distinction that the voters can’t grasp, we’ve got bigger problems than a presidential election can solve.
Cato,
I don’t know that having states ban birth control is Santorum’s position.
If you have a reference, I’ll be happy to re-consider.
You do make a very clear distinction between Santorum and Obama and that is Obama is clearly an autocrat who operates outside the powers granted by the Constitution when he wishes, while Santorum prefers that the state administer rights.
Obama has already ordered you to BUY a commercial product, how long will it take in term 2 for him to insist that you only have male children because of the population imbalance? An extreme example? Sure, but that’s how autocrats migrate their decision making process.
Santorum is on record (I just listened to the video) saying “contraception is not ok” Santorum Interview with Caffeinated Thoughts.com,/url>.
Also on record saying states have the right to ban contraception – Jazz showed that above.
Even if you think contraception is wrong – as Catholic doctrine teaches – that doesn’t mean the government should ban it.
Santorum has also been clear in rejecting the separation of church and state.
You have to take Santorum’s views in the context of his ultramontane Catholicism. Whenever it has been able to get away with it, the Church has had states ban contraception and divorce well into the modern era. I’m not suggesting the Church’s teachings are wrong or right, but I am suggesting there are lots of people who don’t agree with those teachings and the laws should reflect the American consensus, not Catholic doctrine.
Sorry Cato there’s no reply tag for your last comment.
Until this comment: “Santorum has also been clear in rejecting the separation of church and state” – I believed you were responding in good faith.
Now, I think you’re using extremist tactics to make an unrealistic claim.
The contraception quotes you cite above were comments about the legality of the state making laws. He’s right, the state can make those laws. Does he disagree with them, apparently so.
Are you concerned that his personal beliefs will convert the American populace to his position? C’mon, be serious.
Bottom line, if’s he the nominee against Obama, who do you select, the guy who points out how laws are legally enacted or the guy who acts outside of his Constitutional authority?
“I think you “misunderestimate” the desire for a return to conservative values in most of America. People are tired of high minded pontificators telling them what they need to believe and accept.”
Funny thing is, while everyone shrieks in horror that the “religious right” *might* “impose their values”, the left is actually doing it.
You’re correct and they’re doing it through judicial fiat or extra Constitutional methods.
Every day the country becomes more lawless among those who should know and act better.
Can you blame the street thugs?
We hear this argument everyday…mostly from Paul supporters. It ain’t gonna fly.
That someone with his views is even taken seriously as a Republican candidate is an indication of the depths to which the Party has sunk in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade.
Nah,
It just shows how hated Romney is.
All we can talk about in these Primaries is either wedge issues or historical trivia. We apparently cannot talk about our overbearing government, unconstitutional regulations, excessive wealth redistribution, or our screwed up foreign policy. We must instead talk about who sat on a couch with who, the allegedly uncapitalist act of consulting for a public-private partnership, how many wives a candidate had, or how many women could claim affairs with a candidate. Or else we must talk endlessly about abortion, immigration, and racism.
That said, Santorum is a big government conservative who will look OK on the trivial and wedge issues, but look almost as bad as Romney on the core issues that this country faces (with the possible exceptions of the Israel-related foreign policy and RObamacare issues).
I think, if Santorum is the nominee, that the true social conservative world will, the morning after the election, collectively do their Pauline Kael imitation. You know, the NYT film critic who called the newsroom the day after the election to make certain that Mr. Nixon had won reelection, because neither she nor any of her friends had voted for him. They keep insisting that the problem is that each Republican nominee is too liberal on social issues, and that if a “true conservative” were nominated he’d win easily. He will win easily, in *their* neighborhoods…he’ll lose catastrophically everywhere else, and Obama will be reelected in a landslide.
If Santorum is the nominee, I don’t know what I’m going to do. There’s no way I’m voting for Obama for reelection, I think the man’s essentially clueless, and uninterested in hearing from anyone with any new ideas; I’m pretty much certain I won’t vote for Santorum either. I may just sit this one out, and I’ve voted in every election since Reagan won in 1980.
Essentially what you are saying is that you WILL be voting for Obama.
When you fail in your Constitutional duty to vote, you have sold the United State out. I have always voted for president, even when I didn’t like my choice. People like you who “sat out” the last general election sold us out to the ultra liberals. So, hold the nose and Vote!!!
Congratulations, you’re an idiot.
All of the Republican candidates share the same views on the key political issues. Nominating Newt would insure that the GOP gets no votes other than its hardcore conservative base. Once Santorum is put through the Obama meat grinder, he’s likely to do no better. As much as I’d like someone with a more conservative record, the only candidate who will stand a chance of winning over anyone whose not a right-wing evangelical is Mitt Romney. None of these guys is perfect, but Romney has a history of public and private achievement that his Republican opponents lack. If this election is focused on Socon issues, it will be a disaster. Many of us will vote ABO but those who aren’t committed will likely vote for reelection.
That’s right — Romney has a Great and Worthwhile Public & Private History:
— Romneycare [takes any argument against Obamacare off the table]
— Huge Tax Increases in Massachusetts [takes any argument against Obama's tax increases off the table]
— Mormonism [despite how worldly & wise we wish the American electorate is, most of the country views is as a cult on par with snake handlers]
— Big Business / Wall Street ties [OWS & Obama's 3 year campaign against the private sector makes Romney's success in 'turning around companies' a liability. Remember 'turning around companies' = cutting jobs to try to save what is left still means cutting jobs]
Give it a break. Mittens is the candidate that the MSM & the rest of the democrat party want to run against. The proof is in who they are attacking — everyone but Mittens
I like Rick. He actually stands for something. He has character and doesn’t just talk the talk. But, alas, this is politics, and virtue counts for little. The Left would delight in mocking his beliefs. We must be practical. Unless somebody else materializes out of the ether, it will be Romney. We must get rid of Obama.
Santorum would be the Barry Goldwater of 2012. He would fracture the right and the independents, allowing the far left and what’s left of the moderate Democrats to win easily. Sad, but true. I still think Newt has a chance if he can get his act together. People talk about his three marriages, but so what? Bill Clinton was accused or RAPING a woman, and he still got elected and re-elected. I think a lot of Newt’s past would go away if he said the right things to encourage the conservative base and carried the fight to Obama. If he wants a good road map on what to do, he should watch Marco Rupio’s speech yesterday at CPAC. You can see it here: http://www.therightscoop.com/full-speech-marco-rubio-at-cpac-2012/
THIS is what we need more of, some real hope for the party and for the country. He isn’t running, but with a guy like this waiting in the wings, at least I know we have some hope for this nation. As for “Mr. Hope and Change,” I think Newt is still the only guy with the stones to take the battle to him. I could be wrong (have been in the past, my friends), but it’s just my opinion.
Still over the moon for Newt? Big Ideas come with big price tags. Newt’s enthusiastic support for the sub prime socialist mortgage program that nearly destroyed the banking industry ought to have ended his candidacy. For every departure from conservative orthodoxy by Romney, Gingrich has 2.
Without Barry Goldwater there would have been no Ronald Reagan.
And, without the rout of Republicans in Goldwater’s defeat, we wouldn’t have medicare and medicaid.
The problem with your argument is that even if it is true that a drubbing of ‘purist’ candidate may produce a great candidate later, a la Reagan, the other side can do a whole lot of probably irreparable damage to the Republic with the majorities the electoral disaster ushers in.
Thanks for destroying the word “conservative”.
Santorum is the opposite of conservative in every way. As a Senator, he loved the spending – including Medicare drugs. He also loves to put the Federal Government into the States’ and the People’s personal business. I laugh when he talks about the Constitution – he must have missed the 9th and 10th Amendments.
He’s a Republican Statist – Not Thanks.
Old Soldier, I’m with you.
Santorum is another “fixer,” determined to inject government into every aspect of our lives. How is that any less dangerous or more admirable than Obama?
On Jazz Shaw’s scale I consider myself to be a 7.5 and Jazz to be a 5. As a frequent critic of Jazz, I commend him for nailing the meaning of Rick Santorum as the GOP nominee. On a scale of 10, Jazz’s article is a 10. Santorum’s nomination will result in a 60-40 Obama landslide.
The number of days of creationism ,7, is like the three numbers of pi, 3.14. They exemplify the use of significant figures. Genesis was written in a time before the base 10 number system was in use and even before the number zero came into use.
Genesis is a great book. It is beyond the understanding of some people, especially those who have decided it is fiction.
This article just confirms what I’ve been thinking for a while now. SoLibs are more exercised about social issues than social conservatives are. Mr Shaw, in the first couple of paragraphs of this article jumps to the conclusion that the reason no one wants Romney is because of social issues. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The fact is, that social issues aside Romney is not a conservative in any way shape or form. That’s why we want nothing to do with him. Period.
As a so-called socon myself, I can tell you that social issues have been far down on my list of concerns so far in this cycle. I have one by one supported all the non-Roms who have risen up along the way, because of Obonmney care, and other fiscal issues I have with our chosen one. I want a conservative who will turn this fiscal train around NOW! If I happen to also get a socon in the bargain, I’ll take it. Not the other way around.
So the choices are:
- nominate a candidate that’s indistinguishable from Obama, and thus free from criticism (HA!), or
- nominate a candidate who sharply differs from the Sainted One?
But why the anguish? If Santorum gets the nomination then all the Republican “moderates” will flock to his banner… won’t they? Won’t they support the nominee… or is that just something that’s required of SoCons? Because at the end of the day all you’re saying is that I must support your candidate but you’ll actively campaign against mine. Well, I say let’s have a real election with real choices, let’s have a true ideological debate, let’s actually discuss the future of the country instead of cowardly hiding behind “some won’t vote for him”. What are you afraid of – that Santorum will win?
The argument that we should pick a candidate who will be free from attacks by the libruls is a zero. No such person is alive today. The idea that we should put up a candidate who is a basic conservative and give ourselves and the nation a clear choice between liberty and tyranny is a ten.
It should also be drummed into the public and the media that a president’s powers are limited by the Constitution. The election to come will also be for the rule of law versus the rule of the lawless. If the lawless win…it seems a revolution may be required at some point; what other choice would be available?. Jefferson and other founders have warned us of this possibility (see also The Declaration of Independence).
Yes, the battle we’re facing is fundamental:
We are all ruled by the Constitution, or we’re not.
We are a nation of laws, or we aren’t.
We are a nation of minimal goverment intervention (social, economic, political), or we aren’t.
Less is more. The GOPhers need to shut up and step away from social issues, which are NOT government’s job.
Certainly, social values is not the government’s job, but this is precisely the principle that has been perennially violated by the left, to the point where we seem incapable of recognizing it, anymore than anything else that gradually permeated the air we breathe. But this is not the essence of it, it’s only the symptom. When the left pushes for legislation in support of abortion without limits, and even on the tax payer’s dime, and gay marriage on grounds of equality, they in fact work hard to turn the government into both an arbiter and an enforcer of a particular kind of social norms, more precisely one that depends on the repudiation of traditional moral values.
We hear that the national economic health trumps what we call “social issues” (I suppose because we are afraid of saying moral standards). Why a-priori deny the merit of a candidate who alone is in a position to argue that economic strength is the outcome of moral values, or more to the point, that the present economic and financial distress is the reflection of a concomitant moral depravity?
We are mistaken when worrying about a president who will impose his views on the nation. He couldn’t, even if he was foolish enough to try. The president’s power to act effectively depends on his ability to reflect the national sentiment of his time. If he is at odds with the nation, he cannot accomplish anything of value, as we can witness presently. The electoral process may be suffering from various flaws, but it is still our best chance to elect someone who can manage to convey our collective sense of the times.
A Santorum presidency can be boosted by two powerful forces: 1. When we contemplate the vaporization of one-half of our retirement savings, are we thinking about some mathematical mystery about something terrible that can spontaneously happen to some numbers, or are we sensing that something is rotten somehow, somewhere? The one fellow who has the guts to bring this up will command a lot of respect for his courage, (a.k.a. moral fortitude), and 2. The same fellow will be pillored for being the one talking about is so openly and forcefully, and will thereby receive the sympathy of a great many folks who are not necessarily in full resonance with his personal set of beliefs. Or do we have an overwhelming preference for the “inevitable”, whatever that means?
This is like watching a horror movie. You know something bad is coming, the music is getting louder and more intense.
There is NOT a good choice in the bunch.
And, for me, the biggest fear is not what this administration has done so far, it is where they will take us…unfettered by the prospect of another “shellacking”. They already ignore every rule, regulation, law, check, balance, etiquette, protocol, and governmental design in place for the past 250 years.
They scoff at the notion that they are MANDATED to produce a budget for WE, THE PEOPLE to look at, have scored and engage with our elected officials to ensure that they are actually representing us.
They have loaded up our Department of Justice with radical extremists, and refuse to enforce laws in a race neutral fashion. They stonewall inquiries into what is essentially theft of OUR monies for private companies, gun running for drug cartels, putting Workers Party creditors ahead of others at the head of a bankruptcy line, having the NLRB as shakedown thugs against the expansion efforts of a private company, assaulting the tenets of a private religion that contains more than a billion people worldwide, promoting civil unrest and disunity, suing border states trying to protect themselves from essentially organized crime flooding into their territories, using the EPA as an unelected hit squad, circumventing every restraint by putting czars and czarinas in place to do their underhanded dirty work …and, these are just the things we know about.
So, in the face of all that…and…what comes next…do we join forces and stand shoulder to shoulder to take on the clear attempted overthrow of our system of government?
Do we put up our best and brightest? Garner all our strength and stand behind a consensus candidate who has all the attributes of a sound, solid, stable leader?
Nope, …Moe, Larry, Curly and Shemp.
Santorum is not a traditional fiscal conservative. One of our major issues above is the Workers Party portion of small c communism. They are doing everything they can to force a Workers Party explosion into federal government and the assault on the free market has crossed every line…NLRB behavior has been near criminal, bankruptcy court corruption, …Zombie has the pictures of what is on the union label these days. Santorum is not an advocate for trimming the Workers Party sails.
Santorum is an earmark and pork guy. That is not a fiscally conservative notion.
So, suggesting that Santorum is a “conservative”…is a bit of a stretch. There isn’t a fiscal hawk in the Moe, Larry and Curly offering. “Shemp” Paul’s candidacy is so fringe, not even he believes he’s a serious candidate for the office.
Curly Gingrich has an ample belly and an insatiable appetite for …well, excess. He’s the most entertaining stooge. He not only has “big” appetites, he has “big” ideas. Sex on the moon, Jurassic Park, sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi and pushing a global redistribution hoax….gnuk, gnuk, gnuk….woo woo woo wooo.
In a debate between Shemp Paul and Curly Gingrich we might hear a festival of blame against America for jihadist enmity and an assault on capitalism that actually would add nicely to the small c communist menu.
At a time and in a moment in our history when we need to fight back rampant, runaway leftism, Shemp and Curly attack America from FURTHER left than Obama.
Moe Santorum, …even his WIFE says he has to chill. Strident, shrill, and edgy he seems ready to poke someone in the eyes or rake a saw across their heads. His views on social issues are a swing state wrecking ball. In fact, his combination of pro-union, pro-earmark fiscal governance and maximum interference social governance…mirrors Obama’s in many ways. The “live and let live” crowd will run….run…from this candidacy.
That leaves “Larry” Romney. He’s the middle stooge. He has no “big” ideas, he has empty platitudes. He stands for nothing. And everything. Or something.
He’s a political oaf, “filler” …playing the role of the man in the middle. This guy is quantum politics personified. He’s in two places at once, he’s not a particle, he’s not a wave…and he only exists when you look at him.
“Larry” Romney is a political oaf. He’s supposed to be the “compromise” candidate, but he is simply compromised. He’s less substantive than cotton candy, twice as cloying and more spun.
He is Biden-esque in his gaffe-tastic ability to take big wins and turn them into a near fiasco overnight. He has an instinct, it’s to be not natural.
He runs a tight ship, that has its anchor down and is tied to the dock. It doesn’t sail, it most certainly doesn’t rock…it’s moves up and down like a bobblehead doll, plastic, useless and boring.
He not only can’t take the fight to Obama against the overthrow, he’s trying to trip and fall into a lifeboat as a political strategy.
This tragicomedy, this broad farce…has a bad ending. I keep waiting for the deus ex machina to waft down onto the stage in August and save the day.
Hitchcock couldn’t have put together anything this frightening on his best day, but it appears we have a room booked at the Bates Motel just the same.
Good post. Your first comment about there not being a good one in the bunch puts me in mind of something I heard earlier today. The current Republican field was compared to “the last four items on the shelf at the convenience store with a hurricane coming on”. You gotta buy at least one of ‘em!
You know far too much about the Three Stooges.
Though my outlook is as dark as yours or maybe even darker given I believe the book of ‘Revelations’ belongs in the Bible, I know that we have to go with one of these four, barring a brokered convention where we could maybe put a gun to Marco’s head and march him to the hall. So I’m going with Santorum even though he may freak out all the God haters. Listen to him speak. He can you know. I’m going with the guy who at least admits there is a higher authority that governs his values. Perhaps a more conservative Congress can help him become some semblance of the POTUS we need.
It’s really annoying how so many people get that wrong. There is no ‘s’ in Revelation.
Myth Buster, I think the reason people add the ‘s’ is because the Apocalypse is so full of revelations (plural) that it is natural to refer to the book in the plural. The actual title means ‘the Unveiling’.
It is my favorite book in the Bible, and I have Scott Hahn’s exhaustive commentary on it, etc., and STILL I sometimes slip into adding ‘s’ when saying “the Book of Revelation”.
C’est le vie, right?
An Préachán
On fiscal issues I think Santorum fell into the same trap as many other Republicans in the GWB years when the leadership felt that in a booming economy, they could “bring home the bacon” as the key to remaining in the majority. I think even GWB thought he was emulating Reagan in letting the “appropriators” have their way and thwarting the worst Democrat excesses as a way to continue to have his way in foreign policy. As it turned out, the Democrats hammered him and the Republican Congress on domestic policy, fiscal policy, and foreign policy with equal ferocity and cast them into the outer darkness. Only the Obama/Pelosi/Reid over the top open distain for the will of the People has given Republicans any relevance at the federal level, and even after the victories in ’10, Republicans only have the power to stop the Democrats from doing their worst, they have no real ability to stop Obama from doing anything within Executive Branch authority (well, they do, but none of them have the guts to tempt the backlash of an actual defunding of anything consequential). All that said, I think Santorum’s greatest liability is his social conservatism, which will allow the Left to paint him as a would be theocrat and I don’t think that liability only extends to the swing states; Santorum puts the Right at risk of a defeat of Mondale proportions.
I think Romney’s personal style issues can be overcome with good campaign stagecraft and lots of advertising, so that doesn’t concern me so much. What does concern me is that there is a powerful anti-business sentiment in this Country and not just the communist-led OWS stuff. There is a widely held belief that big business and big banks and just bigness led the American economy over a cliff; one Helluva lot of Americans lost their whole life’s work in the losses in their house value, their savings, their retirement accounts, etc. I have a retirement backed by the Constitution of my state, which happens to be one of the wealthiest and most fiscally sound states in the Country, and I have little confidence in my retirement plan living as long as I will. The Democrats will beat Romney to death over looting companies, “firing” people, offshoring jobs, and just generally being big and rich when so many people who five or six years ago thought they were set for life aren’t set for anything much anymore.
And that leaves Gingrich and all his baggage and his crazy ideas. Nobody much will remember the good things he did; there are lots of people voting this year who weren’t born yet when Reagan and Bush I were President and Gingrich was the conservative voice of the House and who were still in diapers at the time of the Gingrich Revolution in ’94. Of the three, I still think Gingrich has the best chance of actually beating Comrade Obama because whatever else, he can and will fight. I think Comrade Obama and the people around him are just like all the other Blue State community organizers, union reps, and faculty lounge communists; they’ve never really had a fight with somebody who likes fighting and they don’t know how to deal with it. Axelrod et al. are one-trick ponies and they’ll just throw dirt at Gingrich who’ll invite them to roll around in the dirt with him rather than curling into fetal position out of fear of being embarrassed before his wife and friends. That doesn’t mean I have much confidence in Gingrich winning, because I think too many of the coalition that we need to win will either stay home or vote third party if Gingrich is the nominee, but I think he’ll put up the best scrap and may well help in downticket races while I think either of the other two are at best neutral downticket.
Unlike you, I think these three are the Varsity, maybe not the best Varsity, but the only one we have. Somehow I’m feeling like the coach in “Hoosiers;” this is your team! There isn’t that one kid that never missed a shot just waiting to be encouraged to come be our star player; they’re either unknown Congresspeople, another Texas governor, a New Jersey governor that the unions would move heaven and earth to defeat and who “isn’t a true conservative,” and Sarah Palin who can bring out more of the Left’s oppobrium than anyone except possibly Gingrich, even Palin hasn’t been on the cover of Time as the Grinch, plus I don’t think Palin is ever going to expose herself to a hostile audience again and she sure isn’t going to expose herself to any more Glen Rice stories.
As for me, I’ll support the Republican nominee no matter who it is, even Palin or Paul, but beyond giving some dutiful money and putting up a sign and bumper sticker for the Presidential race, I’m going to work my butt off for state candidates because the future and safety of our Republic is going to be in the hands of the statehouses for the next several years, even if we win the Presidency and the Senate back and hold the House. The Left and the Soros Cabal have gone all in to bring about the “fundamental transformation” of America and they aren’t going to go easily into that good night. Oh, and I’m investing in precious metals; brass and lead.
People turned out in droves to vote for Newt in SC and the counties in FL that weren’t brainwashed by McMoneybags 99% negative 5 to 1 smear ads. Turnout was abysmal in the three states Rick just won, and in all of the counties McMitt has lost.
Qualifications? Gingrich – all major post-Reagan conservative legislation except the Bush tax-cuts. Santorum – man of principle. Romney – author of Obamacare, also very good at sliming opponents, except obama, who he likes and respects.
Disqualifiers? Gingrich – infidelity, accepted money from an agency 90% of the country knows nothing about and would approve of if they knew. Santorum – too bright lines on social issues. Romney – poster-child for big bad business; cult religion
If it wasn’t for conservative pravda, it would be over by now and Gingrich would be raising the billion he needs to counter the smears from obama. Even the Romney smear machine couldn’t have kept McMitt in it without conservative pravda.
We are in the midst of a conservative rerun of the last 50 years of liberal propaganda. Despite the overwhelming rejection of Republican voters, McMitt is still the odds-on favorite to be the guy assigned by the Ruling Class to lose to obama, and thereby extend their money train for four more years.
Excellent point about the Conservative Pravda, proreason. I am firmly convinced, (based too on what Mittens said to the political pros behind the scenes at CPAC) that the guy simply will go full nuke on Santorum and Gingrich (should Newton make a comeback somehow). Romney will literally stop at nothing to get the nomination. He’s borderline wacko about it.
If he’d then run against Bam that way, wow. But of course, he won’t. Such scorched earth tactics in the general election probably wouldn’t work anyway, just turn off EVERYONE from voting. See C. Edmund Wright on Feb 9ths American Thinker.
Grim, grim business. We need to make the Party bigshots understand, and understand well, that we will not support Mitt Romney (at least up until he is actually nominated–then patriotic duty essentially demands we vote for the guy, and if he’s elected, watch him like a hawk).
An Préachán
Art, proreason, I’m with you guys. Found Art’s “Hoosiers” analogy especially apt.
I think Gingrich hasn’t even broken a sweat yet, and what we’ve seen from him so far is nothing compared to what’s on reserve in this battered old guy. He’s the only one on stage who knows what “in for a fight, in for a funeral” means and we’re *way* past anything less than that. They don’t call them the Fighting Irish for nothing.
I’m thinking of sending Calista a couple more cases of hair spray. I just wish all the rest of these reluctant virgins would fade out and let him cut his swath.
Another pro Newt here, this is not over.
Agree with Old soldier (13). The problem is not that Santorum is a SoCon, yes, I don’t agree with his views but that’s not the point.
The problem is that Santorum is NOT a fiscal conservative.
Yeah, so you are happy because the man believes in Jesus and has moral character etc, ok, nobody is discussing that. But also Jimmy Carter was a Christian and it didn’t worked well.
We are NOT electing a pastor but a President, so better elect the fiscal conservative, and live to fight another day for your faith.
You make an excellent point about Carter: I was on active duty in the army during that election and remember many otherwise conservative army officers who were evangelicals supporting Carter because they felt he was ‘one of us’ and because their pastors were strongly encouraging support of Carter. The evangelical (but not fundamentalist) Carter turned out to a disaster for the country. In case anyone doesn’t remember, Carter combined the worst aspects of preachiness with seriously left of center views on domestic and foreign policy.
Carter turned out not to be a Christian. All of the other problems stemmed from that.
Paulistinian alert…..
I am not a “paulistinian”, actually I prefer Newt. You may agree or not with me but try at least to make an argument instead of spouting nonsense.
I have enjoyed listening to Santorum on radio on the Bill Bennett show for a couple of years. He seemed intelligent and sincere. He came across a bit angry and oddly lacking in energy during the early Republican debates but seems now to have found his tempo. He would make an excellent president.
Replace Santorum’s social views with what Romney did in his business career, and you go to 15 on the level of what normal Americans will tolerate. Half the country favors abortion. 90% of the country hates businesses that run roughshod over peoples’ lives to make a buck.
Personally, I’m not a deep socon, so unless Rick declares that he won’t uphold the Constitution if it interferes with his conscience, I don’t much care that he has some views I don’t agree with. We already have a guy who is shit-canning the Constitution, so anybody who kind of thinks the founding fathers got it right gets a strong yes from me, even if he thinks evolution is bunk.
The least electable candidate is McMitt. If he buys or smears his way to the nomination, the entire election will be about his business career. And if you think people will be upset because Santorum wants to protect the lives of fetuses, wait till you get a load of what people thing about the 30 odd businesses that Mitt violated to make a fortune. That won’t be a 50-50 split, it will be a 90-10 split. And that doesn’t even get into the Mormon thing, which is nearly as disastrous.
Newt’s baggage, btw, is stuff real people (as opposed to the highly opinionated conservatives and libertarians on PJM) don’t care about anymore…divorces, bitter ex-wives, obviously trumped-up ethics charges from the obviously most corrupt institution in the country, political opinions that appall true-blue conservatives but appeal to middle-of-the-road Americans, some obscure consulting with a federal agency 90% of the country knows nothing about, etc.
Will Santorum put another Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito on the Court or will he put another Kennedy or Souter.
As an aside, our illustrious SCOTUS Justice Ginsberg told the Egyptians last week that she doesnt recommend looking to the US Constitution and Legal History for guidance in creating a new Egyptian Constitution. Pretty telling of what Leftwingers think of it, heh?
That’s easy: he’d put another Scalia on there. Why would you even doubt that? He’s a devout Catholic who lives out his faith even though it costs him much, so there is no cause to suspect him of betraying us when it comes time to nominate justices.
Santorum will be the republican Jimmy Carter, yes he is principled and all, but fiscally he is more to the left than I’d like to see.
Your facts are wrong. Santorum does not favor making contraception illegal. You should not use flakey “news” sources like the website you cite for your authority. Santorum actually refers in that article, however, to the law invalidated in Griswald as “dumb.” Because the aricle heavilly edits Santorum’s comments regarding the “dangers” of contraception, I’ll have to guess at what he was talking about is that when the morning after pill is used or a large number of regular birth control pills are taken, the woman taking it receives a very large dose of the hormone(s) used by those drugs (I’m not a doctor). There are a few documented cases of woman who have died from complications associated with the abortions those pills have induced. Santorum may well favor making the morning after pill illegal, but that is really dovetails into the abortion argument, which is nothing new to American politics. (Note, my understanding is that, depending upon how fast it is taken, the morning after pill can also prevent conception or can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, which is not technically an abortion as “pregnancy” is defined as beginning at implantation).
Santorum’s views on family, faith, and the moral responsibility of the individual are all quite admirable. His comments on poverty at the Myrtle Beach debate were pretty much on mark, when he argued that Americans could do three things that would significantly reduce poverty: graduate from high school, work, and get married before having children. But these are things that Americans, as free and responsible citizens, must ultimately do for themselves; they reflect cultural values, as Mr. Shaw points out, not political values, and as such they are largely beyond the scope and capacity of government. Thus a conservative administration should confine itself to those tasks that are within its reach. The economy and foreign policy, yes; the inculcation of moral virtue, no.
Agreed. A constitutional conservative will not be writing any laws or initiating any social engineering. He will be a great leader on foreign policy, the economy, and an example of moral strength.
I don’t trust socons on fiscal issues. They are happy spending my money on other people. Don’t forget southern conservative where part of Roosevelts coalition.
The slander machine is in full throat I see. Shaw’s article is pure unadulterated demagoguery. I works though. In the Post-Christian age we live in it works. This nation deserves the political leadership it has. Too bad for the minority of us who are just plain ole God fearing people who believe in American exceptionalism. We bitter clingers will have to suffer along with the rest of you as you grease the skids into the darkest hell for this nation.
I dunno. I’m under 40, totally NOT religious, I have a degree in Biology (so yes, I “believe” in evolution), and I don’t care what Santorum believes about these issues. I think he’s great. He has the moral fiber that we need. He’s smart. He’s passionate and patriotic (wouldn’t that be a nice change?) He definitely has my vote.
I am exhausted by all of this. We can’t run a campaign on social issues when our pressing issues are overspending, over-taxing, and the usurping of power from the legislative to the executive branches. Social issues should be the province of the states. I believe that attention to the encompassing issue of State’s rights, because they are supported by our United States Constitution, would do more for the cause of social conservatives than anything else that can be done. I noticed there were zero out of forty-four people at my precinct caucus who were under the age of 30 and I believe our insistence on politicizing social issues is the primary reason. Republicans always do this to themselves and we are so close to a complete Communist takeover of our government that it is disgusting for me to watch this scenario play out again. We will lose and, in the process, will lose our right to press our social agendas forever, I am afraid. ABO
What utter twaddle.
The left-fascists are imposing dictatorship on the country, and it’s the fault of the opposition for disagreeing with their aims.
Social issues should be the province of the states. — Jim Baker
Lost that argument years ago. It is going to take quite some doing to put that genie back in the bottle….decades, if not a century of conservative Supreme Court rulings with intent.
Jim Baker, you seem to not be aware that it is the Left that is pressing/politicizing Social Issues…..it is the Conservatives that are the Reactionaries.
Yet the Left doesnt seem to be under any pressure to stop pressing social issues because it is turning off the electorate, heh?
Maybe because those of us who want the social issues dropped oppose the left an realize how much power it gives them . . eh.
Well if you dont oppose them everywhere in the institutions and political debate, then Leftwing social debauchery becomes the norm and zeitgeist by default. Self fulfilling prophecy you have there.
Eugenics/Abortion is an abomination, and saying so is a moral duty, not something to be jettisoned for political calculation. The traditional family is a core institution that has accounted for the success of our society and individuals within that society…and its defense and propagation shouldnt be jettisoned for political advantage. You are losing the war, whilst winning phyrric victories….ie managing civilizational decay and decline. That IS the politics of defeat.
Nope, claiming to want a Constitutionally limited government in one breath then beating your breast in the name of having government determine what people do with their own bodies is politics of defeat, of socialism, and hypocrisy.
How about you libertarian ideologues take over the Democrat Party, then we all can agree on fiscal policy and Federalism…then we can take the social arguments to the state level.
Id be all for that.
You have to fight the battle in the reality you are given, not the one you fantasize about.
Which is why Santorum was absolutely correct about Federal tort protection for US firearm manufacturers, and Ron Paul would have seen US firearm manufacturers cease to exist…because he wouldnt have put up a fight.
Abstention from the debate and failure to act is defeat. No matter how many times you mumble about Constitutionalism and ideological purity.
And I say to you that slavery is not a personal property issue, but rather one of human liberty. Any government that refuses to defend the defenseless against those who would destroy their rights is not fulfilling the reason for its existence, which according to the Declaration of Independence, is a self-evident truth, “We hold these truths to be self evident:…that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
So if we rightly regarded slavery as being an unjust deprivation of liberty and saw fit to correct the matter through force, without regard for their master’s supposed right to property, how much more should we uphold the right of the unborn, whose very life hangs in the balance? “My body, my choice,” is the argument of slavers, who regarded human beings as property, to be disposed of as they saw fit.
I like your explanation, mb. Here’s my bumper sticker formulation, which would be apt to cause road rage.
Slavery: If you don’t like it, don’t own one.
I agree. If Santorum is the Republican candidate we will spend the entire election talking about contraception, abortion and homosexuality, the Democrats and their water-carriers in the media will make sure of it. Meanwhile the nation is heading straight for the cliff of financial ruin.
This is no time to mess around. We need to win. We have to make this race about the national debt and the size and scope of government.
What really pisses me off is when people who *CLAIM* to believe in limited government judge a candidate as if he will be elected to the position of Lord High Maker of All Laws and Dictator of All Reality.
It doesn’t matter what Santorum believes, so long as he sticks to the Constitutional powers of the presidency.
I just figured out why Santorum worries some on the right and scares the bejabbers out of the left: he’s one of us.
So, he thinks that evolution as defined by liberals is a crock and that God clearly designed the universe and made it happen? Ok – massive majority of Americans believe the same.
So, he thinks that gay marriage is not marriage and shouldn’t be legalized and, very importantly, not imposed by judges? Ok – massive majority of Americans believe the same.
So, he thinks that abortion is wrong and, furthermore, has the courage to follow his conviction and thus state his preference is for a ban on it? Ok – even those who are unwilling to ban abortion have to admire the guts of someone willing to speak his mind. I’ll bet a massive majority will approve of that – certainly far more than a Democrat’s “safe, legal and rare” code-phrase for “federally funded abortion on demand”.
So, he thinks that it is far more important to build up dirty, hard work jobs which actually make, mine and grow things as opposed to more money to subsidize the financial, legal and education industries? Ok – massive majority of Americans will agree with that.
On and on it goes – Santorum is one of us; he’s one of the long-ignored majority which has had just about enough of elitist pinheads destroying this nation (and even more so had enough of conservative pinheads who are so worried about offending people that they back squishy candidates…it doesn’t matter if we lose in a landslide, for crying out loud: if we don’t have a revolution, the nation is doomed anyways and if we’re to be hanged for a sheep…).
I like Rick Santorum, but if he’s our nominee there is no doubt Obama will be a two term president.
Unfortunate, but true.
The only candidate Obama fears is Mitt Romney, and that is why I will vote for Romney.
What a depressing article.
We have a field of candidates that other than Santorum have no principles or definable beliefs. They just want to be POTUS.
Obviously you, Mr. Shaw, believe Santorum’s principles and beliefs are outside the core values (or lack thereof according to your article) of enough voting Americans to get him elected. You are probably right.
On the flip side, we have an incumbent who has a yearning to be god but will settle for dictator…and he deserves it. Just ask him, he’ll tell you he does.
A despicable man who has from my perspective not one single redeeming quality.
Mr. Shaw, you have astutely iterated or re-iterated the problem…something that is obvious to every patriot…ooops sorry that is a politically incorrect term, …to every informed adult.
How about taking a risk and offering up some solutions, I for one am bored with writers telling and retelling the obvious. Every hack can do that.
As I said to my employees for over thirty years …”A solution or get a different profession”.
it is time for the bells to toll…the rush limbaughs sean hannitys
mark levins and all of roger ailes’ creations have been trumpeting that it
is time for a true social conservative to run and win…they don’t really
care about the presidency what they care about is retaining their listening
audiences while they pander to the social right…this nation has never ever
elected what it knew to be an extremist on the right or on the left..and if
given the option of a rick santorum or a barack obama…there will be no contest
regardless of what the polls now say..most people are unfamiliar with santorums
views on a myriad of subjects including birth control, and evolution and will
be loath to vote for a rigid inflexible religous zealot once they find out
Rick Santorum isnt an extremist. He is a middle of the road average American Christian.
Sarah Palin represents not an extremist, but the average American Christian.
When these folks actually do represent extremists, then our nation and civilization is already doomed…and nothing will be able to save it.
I wish Pat Buchanan or someone younger but mostly like him was running.
The problem with the current Republican party is perfectly reflected in its candidates. Any attempt to make a racemic mixture of trad-con, paleo-con libertarian and the occasional center/rightist is hardly going to be stable.
Its necessary to prevent 100% Democrat takeover buts its no solution.
I’ll note that if Santorum gets the nod, I am not voting for him, period end of game. I won’t vote for Obama but I live in the PRC anyway so its moot.
As a paleo-con with Deist and libertarian impulses I can’t in good conscience vote for someone with his views .Bluntly I do not want American to become a theocracy. Iran with more Jesus and less burkhas. Thanks no.
And with a likely Democrat Congress blocking well everything, whats the point? Either he goes all out on executive orders which is just switching the problem from one President to another or gets nothing done. We need to trim the powers of the Presidency not make it more Imperial.
Just this mans opinion but if we are to compete in this world we need far more science and reason not less of it anyway.
Mitt kind of sucks but with a party to divided to find a good candidate or too gutless (or smart maybe) to nominate Ron Paul (yes highly religious too but actually having good ideas) what can a conservative do?
I lead a life not perfect to SoCons but not likely to garner their ire. I am not Christian Right so my problems with Santorum are that he is a “porker,” i.e. continues to approve legisation that brings money home to his district and that he is NOT a right-to-work supporter. Both of those (and others) are hot button issues to me. There is no Republican currently in the race for whom I would vote (and I loathe Obama but do not vote “lesser-of-evils”) though if I learn more about Paul, I may vote for him even if he is not the Republican nominee. Separately I wrote him asking that he run in a third party. That might give His Highess the victory but I would rather an avowed hater of this country bring us down than a mealy-mouthed Romney. I would also vote for Palin, BTW but she is not in the running. I would also vote for Cain but he did himself in and I am glad he dropped out.
Let the games begin
Jazz,
Good article, and I largely agree with your assessments of the risks inherent in a Santorum nomination. (Though I think they could be overcome by focusing on the economy.) But I do have a quibble:
“But as much as these voters are rightly concerned about the recent HHS ruling and Washington intrusion on the sovereignty of the church,..”
It’s not sovereignty, but this clause of the 1st amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..“
The new regs interfere in an unacceptable way with free exercise by forcing the Church (and other religious groups) to fund what they believe is mortal sin. (And, in the Catholic Church’s case, that’s been the opinion for 2,000 years.) It’s not a matter of “sovereignty of the Church,” the but religious liberty of believers to practice what they preach.
Santorum stated on Fox TV a few weeks ago that he would NOT work against birth control. He does not believe in it for himself, but he would not work against it. He would work against abortion.
This satisfies me that my support of birth control would be supported under a Santorum administration. My opposition to abortion would be supported as well.
Concerning the unhealthiness of birth control–that is true, in many cases, probably the majority, it’s unhealthy. We do not have a really good form of non-permanent birth control; only sterilization through hysterectomy or vasectomy is healthy, although that is not exactly a welcome choice. I’ve been down that route, got poisoned by birth control pills to retard excess bleeding, had to have a very unwelcome hysterectomy. Our reproductive dilemma is not simple.
I have not participated in the Lamestream-sanctioned mud-wrestling match up to this point, because I recognize the fact that nobody is going to win in a knife-fight in a rubber boat. If the nominee is Newt, Rick, or, more likely, Mitt, I don’t want to hand the Obama CREEP a soundbite for their inevitable campaign slogan:
“(insert GOP candidate name), “TOO EXTREME FOR THE RIGHT WING; TOO RISKY FOR AMERICA.”
Enough of hyphenated conservatism. The conservative principles which uphold economic conservatism uphold social conservatism. The enemy of both is the Progressive vision that grants the government the authority both to alter the moral social order, and the contents of your wallet.
There is a moral component to our economy. Who is currently swelling the rolls of our welfare system? Single-parent households headed by women. Who fills our prisons and clogs our court system? Criminals who by wide margins come from fatherless homes. A free market economy will only work in a society where there is a strong moral social order.
The learning curve goes both ways. The arrogant overreach of HHS Secretary Sebelius has finally opened the eyes of Catholic bishops, who are now recognizing that the government’s concept of “social justice” is very different from that of the Church. The government which gives itself the authority to correct the “injustice” of unequal wealth distribution grants itself the authority to “correct” essential Church doctrines. What is going to happen is a techtonic shift of practicing Catholics to the party which still has a pro-life plank in its platform.
During the Cold War, a US diplomat asked his Soviet counterpart what would happen if we simply gave in to their long list of demands. The Soviet diplomat calmly replied, “We would produce a new list.”
The totalitarian’s strategy is always “Divide and conquer.” Stop cooperating with that strategy, and get to know who your allies really are.
This constant debate about who is the best candidate is ludicrous. Everyone seems to forget that there is a Congress, the legislative branch, and a Supreme Court, the judicial branch. Ever hear of checks and balances? A president by himself can’t do anything, unless Congress is behind him, although he can issue executive orders. An executive order to desist teaching evolution in schools, or also mandate the teaching other beliefs, if possible, just would not be acceptable, even to his own party. Obama has been getting away with it because congress is currently deadlocked, and during the first two years of his term because Congress was controlled by the Democrats.
I really doubt that social issues will make much difference in the election. Not because they aren’t seen as important, but because the country is so divided on them and the voting will split accordingly. It will take decades to arrive at a significant majority of opinion on most social issues.
The economy and debt should be the big things, and some polls show that they are. But, here again, many people seem to think that the debt is not really a problem–that a few tweaks to spending and some raising of taxes and everything is fixed. So, we are, really, split on that also, and, no doubt, a very large number of voters in the huge moderate group would tend to think that a bit more stimulus, increased taxes on the “rich”, and a little time for the “recovery” to gather steam and we will be back to normal.
I think we have enormous structural problems in our economy that must be addressed very soon to avoid drastic decline. But, that puts me in a radical group in relation to the general electorate. But, there is not likely any immediate political cure possible for the problems I see. Sure, Obama will push us further to the edge if re-elected; but, any Republican president will be hamstrung by public opinion and the liberal media to take much meaningful action against structural problems that most don’t agree exist.
So, do we have a debt problem? Is the dollar about to be ruined? If a majority of voters thought these things to be imminent, the election would be clear–Obama would be retired and any Republican would win. But, the average voter thinks that we are in a normal recession that was caused by Bush and the Republicans, and that Obama is not what they thought, but is still likeable, and that all the Republican candidates are not cool.
Gary Shilling says we are in a de-leveraging condition that will play out over a long period of retrenchment. Makes sense, but much too harsh for voter comfort.
I hope I am wrong, but I think Obama will be re-elected, and that over the following 4 years voters will get an education that will, finally, create an election that makes sense.
” It will take decades to arrive at a significant majority of opinion on most social issues.”
This is just false. The Left will just keep pushing further Left, after any and every successful advance on social issues.
There will be no consensus, because the purpose is the deconstruction of European Christian consensus.
I said significant majority. The left is not a majority, they have only managed to influence the moderates, who when added to one of the other groups, constitute a majority in voting. Conservatives are now in a tough place because we can’t put forth a truly Conservative candidate, because of the left’s influence on moderates. But, that can be changed, and, eventually, will be.
The left has only been so successful due to deception; but, eventually, that will no longer work. It may even be starting now; but I fear not in time to un-elect Obama in November.
We don’t have to wait for Obama and the Democratic super PACS to do this. Romney will beat them to the punch. If Santorum can survive Romney, he deserves to be elected and will be well innoculated against the Obama attack machine.
Santorum was also clear that he believed Americans were doing the “pursuit of happiness” thing all “wrong”.
He declared the Founders intended we pursue a collective happiness, not individual happiness, and that it was the job of government to provide the direction to achieve that collective happiness.
While that may be called “social conservatism” because he opposes birth control, abortion, drugs, and the like, it can never be fiscally conservative, and is virtually identical to the rhetoric of the hard Marxist left.
I think it would be fantastic for Santorum to be nominated. Then (if they can get their act together) the Libertarians would have a really really large shot at the presidency. It’s the only way to finally get rid of the Rs. Or at least the crazy conservative wing that has held them hostage for a few decades now.
If they went with the more libertarian message (fiscal responsibility – which Santorum doesn’t have – and social acceptance – i.e., not having the govt in your stuff – ) they could perhaps win with a good candidate (ahem, gary johnson). But they prefer to shoot themselves in the foot.
Why dont you yobs, take over the Democrat Party, then our 2 parties would largely agree on fiscal policy and Federalism….then we could take the social issues to the State level for argumentation.
Sounds like a better plan.
@19 cfbleacher (on Mitt): “This guy is quantum politics personified. He’s in two places at once, he’s not a particle, he’s not a wave…and he only exists when you look at him.”
LOL. This has to be the best description of Horromney ever.
One of the FOX reporters related that someone at CPAC opened with a joke along the lines of: A liberal, a moderate, and a conservative walked into a bar. And the bartenders said, “Hello, Mitt.”
I think somebody should start collecting Mitt jokes in a tumblr page or so.. if Newt have a fan tumblr, why not a Mitt one.
Kudos for using the proper term “lectern” when everyone else incorrectly uses the word “podium.” One stand on a podium (a raised platform) but behind a lectern (the stand with the slanted top for placing a speaker’s notes).
“…the idea of biological evolution is bunk.”
Jazz, it is. There are some facts that evolutionists can not help but have nightmares over.
DNA, Deoxyribonucleic acid, is a CODE made of 4 chemical bases represented by the letters A,G,C, and T. The language that is spoken through these is life. It is as would be expected of the language/code that speaks “life” the most complex thing that man has ever or doubtless will ever discover. 4 little letters (allow me the latitude please)make the most complex code.
Now consider that there are 10 to the 80 power atoms in the universe (more or less). Electrons? 10 to the 130 power. Big numbers certainly.
Yet, that pales when it is considered that the genetic variations possible from the pairing of one man and one woman comes to 10 to the 2017 power.
Everyone admits that DNA is a code, a language, information, a program, and yet no one will address the persistently pugnacious pachyderm pounding the premises. Every programer, philologist, philosopher, engineer will tell you that those things can only spring forth from sentience.
Information is non-corporeal. It can be expressed using symbols, letters, ones & zeroes or adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine if you like and they all can produce a product, but not unless …thought … is the engine.
The idea of spontaneous generation is absurd on the face of it. Pasteur elucidated the first and most irrefutable law at about the same time Darwin published his racist tome, “On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of FAVORED RACES in the struggle for life.”
Pasteur’s law of “Life only begets life” has been tested by the canning industry for 153 years. A can of frijoles has yet to produce any signs of life though it has produced other things. But I digress.
Darwin’s book though has produced much division of those who feel they are superior to others. Biology has since proven that there is one race, the human race.
Werner Git’s laws on information and its origin will be helpful in verifying that macro evolution is as has been asserted is quite impossible.
I am SO stealing this.
Leaving us where? That on some cosmic level, there had to be some force, some organizing principle which defines reality? Whatever that is could be beyond what we call “thought.” To say that it is God is fine, but is the inference also that it is a God who reveals himself to Judeo-Christians, or in a more Jungian collective unconscious mode of which Judeo Christianity is a small part? Obviously, whatever is, IS, but our stories and myths about how “was” became “is” help us…exactly how?
That leaves us at the limit of Aquinine proofs (named after St. Thomas Aquinus who wrote the Five Proofs of the Existence of God based on purely rational observation). Aquinine proofs can tell us that there is a God, but they tell us nothing about His nature, beyond that which corresponds to the definition. In other words, they tell us What He is, not Who He is. To go farther requires revelation. Revelation, being supernatural, allows us to know things that cannot be learned through natural means. Of course, the revelation in question must be true to be of any value.
Fortunately, we have a falsifiable means of testing revelation, too- it’s called prophecy. Since we know from the laws of causality and the Uncertainty Principle that causes must precede their effects and that perfect knowledge of the future is impossible by any natural means, it follows then that any revelation that can consistently predict the future without causing it can be trusted as legitimate. This should be so self-evident that God Himself threw down the gauntlet about this matter and dared anyone who wished to claim divinity to reveal what the future holds by their own power- this challenge is recorded in the book of the prophet Isaiah.
Jazz, you left out the fact that Santorum said that as president he will NOT offer any legislation on birth control. So he would NOT attempt to outlaw it. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287419/santorum-birth-control-kathryn-jean-lopez If Romney and Newt had not proved to be such flawed candidates I would not be supporting Santorum. Santorum must downplay the social issues if he wants to be elected. But let’s play devil’s advocate here. Anyone read Charles Murray’s new book on how working class whites in America are sociologically and morally falling apart? Anyone noticed how the birth rate of middle and upper middle class whites (and middle class blacks for that matter) is BELOW replacement rate? Why are European birth rates falling so fast? Anyone read Pat Buchanan’s new book? Things aren’t looking so great for the next generation, and could the widespread use of birth control and abortion be encouraging that? Why don’t we start encouraging stable family formation and higher fertility rates within those families. Maybe all of this sex without consequence is bad for women and discourages men from marrying and families from forming.
While Shaw says Rick Santorum is an 11 on social issues, he ignores the fact that Barack Obama rates a -100. Shaw is also completely wrong about why conservatives say a conservative has not been nominated recently. Social issues are the least of the problems beltway Republicans like Romney face. People just don’t trust him to hold the line on spending or to take the fight to Obama and Democrats.
Take the vicious attacks on Gingrich that Romney has been engaging in, will he show half as much vigor in attacking Obama? I doubt it.
What would be your reason for thinking that someone who has demonstrated an ability to make a vicious attack, would be the same person who would not be able to make a vicious attack? Romney is a tough nut, and you berate him for being too tough on poor old Newt Gingrich and then claim that he isn’t tough enough for an election fight with Obama? Sheesh. What is this mindless hatred of Romney about?
It’s not mindless hatred; it’s a real concern for many. Visions of McCain and his “honorable” defeat. Romney has been trying to appeal to moderates and he’s afraid honesty will turn them off. So, he’s inclined to dance around the edges. Plus, there are so many issues he has in common with Obama it will be difficult to draw the sharp contrasts needed.
It’s not mindless hatred of Mitt. Visions of McCain and his “honorable” defeat still haunt us. Romney will be trying to appeal to moderates and too worried about scaring them off. Plus he has so much in common with Obama it will hard to draw sharp contrasts.
I will vote for Mitt if he is our nominee but, how can anybody be happy (or even quite believe) that the father of Obamacare might be our candidate?
First, we’ve tried the “Establishment” candidates and had mixed results. Mixed meaning we’ve lost the election or we get into the Bushes. Go along to get along or just flat out throw ideals in the trash. Second, America wants a Conservative. Not conservative-lite or kinda conservative. I think that was made clear in the midterms. We want to get back to the Constitution and the rule of law. No one who has half a brain thinks that we could achieve that goal with Newt, and no way in hell with Romney. Santorum is not perfect but he has three huge things going for him. One, he’s not Newt, two, he’s not Romney and three, he can beat B. Nobama. Number three is important for two reasons. One, I don’t want a Marxist/socialist/communist/liar as my president, and two Santorums vision for America is simple. Do what is best for the United States of America, and treat other nations according to how they treat us. period.
You announce that America wants a true conservative, but how do you square that with America’s recent propensity to elect liberals? It seems to me that America doesn’t know much about true conservatives and doesn’t want to know either. I think Americans know a lot more about “American Idol”, “America’s Biggest Losers”, ‘Pimp My Canadian House’, “Pimp My Ride”, ‘Pimp my Wedding Dress’, and all of that important stuff. With that assertion in mind, how would you sell a true conservative against Boobily’s Clown Act? A former Dancing With the Stars champion would do better, I says.
There is a lot of defeatism voiced here, and it starts with Jazz Shaw. Just keep up the circular firing squad, Jazz, and see where that gets us, even if you are foolish enough to be pro-Romney.Mitt is my last choice. Newt has a chance to repair the blunder of counter-attacking Mitt’s viciousness, but Santorum never fell into that.
I think, (as in I guess, Je suppose, is dóigh liom) that my order of preference with this lot we have is Newt first, Santorum second, Mitt (a distant) third.
Timtom 50 is exactly right–a lot of defeatism here. I blame a lot of it on Romney’s negative campaign. Mitt needs taken to the woodshed on his damned negative carpet bombing strategy, as it is turning off Repubicans and Independents in DROVES. Romney told conservative bigshots behind the scenes at CPAC that he can’t control the PAC doing all the negative ad buying. Utter male bovine excrement.
We are the ones to take Romney to the woodshed. Call his campaign, send emails, do whatever, show up at his rallies with signs saying, “Stop the Negative Ad Campaign!” or whatever. Because if we don’t, Romney will wreck this election for us–MASSIVELY.
Newt needs to get the same message and Rick Santorum, who has just been edging into doing it, needs to stop now, too.
So in the Libyan fable it is told
That once an eagle, stricken with a dart,
Said, when he saw the fashion of the shaft,
“With our own feathers, not by others’ hands,
Are we now smitten.”
Aeschylus, Fragment 123 (Plumptre’s Translation).
Getting this into Romney’s (fat) head is a task we need to do.
How to do it?
An Préachán
Trashing of the opponent is the only part of politics Americans will listen to. You could talk until the cows come home about tax policy or the budget mess and most Americans will just glaze over. Why call out Romney for doing this when it is the only way to get elected in this completely uninterested country. Besides, you have admitted that Gingrich, Santorum, and Ron Paul have all demonstrated that they good American politicians by trashing anyone standing in their way, as well. Meanwhile the father of negative politics, Obama, is busy trashing all of them. So, get over the Romney obsession. I think Obama and his Communists have already nearly been handed another win. All that remains is for one of these bozos to run as a Libertarian or some such other third rate party.
So let’s see if I have this right, Rick. If Santorum runs and loses the conservatives should remove one of the three legs of their platform–social issues. If this is your line of reasoning, then one must also logicall say that if Romney runs and loses, a different leg of the stool must be removed from conservatism, ie, the economic one, for that is all he is about. Are you willing to go there? Of course not, because you’re not being consistent in your arguement. When you are, we’ll start to listen to you. Otherwise, keep shilling for Romney but don’t expect conservatives to abandon one of the three legs of the stool upon which we sit.
So let’s see if I have this right, Jazz. If Santorum runs and loses the conservatives should remove one of the three legs of their platform–social issues. If this is your line of reasoning, then one must also logicall say that if Romney runs and loses, a different leg of the stool must be removed from conservatism, ie, the economic one, for that is all he is about. Are you willing to go there? Of course not, because you’re not being consistent in your argument. When you are, we’ll start to listen to you. Otherwise, keep shilling for Romney but don’t expect conservatives to abandon one of the three legs of the stool upon which we sit.
Santorum could easily defang the massive theocratic scare campaign envisioned here. Have him look into the camera “My belief in the sanctity of the Constitution is as strong as my belief in the sanctity of life. I believe in truth and persuasion. Obama, or whoever he is, believes in lies and mandates. Please watch the following example. Please visit the WEB site at the bottom of your screen for many more examples.”
As one of Santorum’s former constituents, there is so much wrong with him even being this prominent in the race that has nothing to do with these issues, though no one looks too hard at them. Besides the well-document ethical issues, from his hypocritical residence issues, spending through a super-PAC, his role in the Ensign scandal, etc., one thing that came up elsewhere was about Pittsburgh’s new sports stadiums, which one blogger, I think Ed Morrissey, said was personally okay with him. BUT the problem is that locally, this was not fine with alot of residents in the city, it was seen as a colossal waste of money that the teams should have taken on the burden instead of the taxpayer.
Right now, our city was playing with receivership over pensions, and in another six months we are set to lose all of our public transportation which will create total chaos in our city which is expected to be unprecedented. Lots of wasteful spending connected to that issue too. Then the state doesn’t even have the resources to fix state roads and bridges, we’re in the process of probably the most massive budget cuts that we have ever seen, and wasn’t Santorum from Penn State somehow? He was in office when the whole Sandusky affair happened the first round in 1998, wasn’t he, so what did he know about that? I may be a social conservative, but he’s way off the radar on his views even for me. So come election day, I plan on doing a write in.
SOPA Is a bill which will allow the U.S Government to regulate the internet and remove websites, Rick Santorum Doesn’t think the internet should remain free.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5iY5Sll72k
“Tens of millions of moderate and independent voters who are currently looking with dismay at Obama’s record and are kicking the tires of a possible Republican alternative would thunder for the exits. In short, I believe a campaign such as that would lead to Barack Obama winning in a landslide.”
Bull-crap. If this is true, then why do Americans as a whole vote conservatively, even in “left” states? Why, for example, did Prop 8 win in a landslide in very liberal California? Because no matter what the media & the Hollywood elites tell you, the majority of this country still votes right. Obama may have pulled the wool over America’s eyes once, he won’t twice. I think a Santorum nomination would BURY Obama in the general, while a Romney nom would be if-y at best.
Mr. Shaw appears to be an “Ann Coulter conservative,” one who doesn’t much like
Liberals but steers away from actual conservatives. if we were to follow his logic, we woukld be inevitably led to Mitt Romney. I would like to point out some facts:
1. This is a Presidential election, and we are running against the most lawless and immoral President in our nation’s history. It will be tough. If toughness is seen as a deterrent, we might as well give up and become Greece. Or California. We need to get behind our nominee, and quit carping.
2. With regard to Mr. Santorum, he will have to cdeal with Congress. Congress
has to deal with voters. Mr. Santorum’s “eleven” will be modified by the process
into an eight. We desperately need an eight.
3. Who says we can’t make this about Mr. Obama’s failed administration? So, he’ll run ads. So will we. He’ll campaign. So will we. He’ll make outrageous claims, many of which will be obvious. We’ll make fasctual statements abnout things people are either presently experiencing or which they remember.
They’ll make their case. We’ll make ours. Mr. Obama won’t be able to “make” the election “about” anything, unless we let him, even with the media in the
tank for him.
I, for one, am getting pretty sick of the glooming and dooming of the Romneyites–particularly the ones who try to look like they’re not actually pushing Romney. If Mr. Shaw has a case, he should state it. As it is, all he’s doing is trying to make people feel depressed. We don’t need that. An attitude
adjustment is in order.
Wise words! We all need to keep our eyes on the ABO ball, or our own lack of heart will do us in.
Hmmmmm….A real social conservative can destroy Republicans but a cluster (flll in the blanks) like the Occupty movement barely scratches the Democrats?
I think we may be overstating social issues as determining the election…it would be great to have those grainy shots of Leftist family values by the DNC against Republican commercials showing Solyndra, bailouts, crony capitalism, etc.
That is if Santorum would run a campaign and not a revival meeting. If Santorum runs a campaign we can and probably will win.
For this election cycle I have stuffed my principals in my shoe I will only consider a republican candidate that can win. We can discuss principals after the election, when we can have that discussion in the warmth of the hall of the White House, instead of on the outside of the fence in the cold
Pretty nice post. I simply stumbled upon your blog and wanted to mention that I’ve truly enjoyed surfing around your blog posts. In any case I’ll be subscribing on your rss feed and I am hoping you write once more soon!