Tag Archives: Rick Santorum

GOP Candidates Continue to Toss Money Down Cornhole

Gilligan-s-Island-Mr-and-Mrs-Howell-classic-television-revisited-3727152-435-326The really big difference between Republican and Democrat handout recipients is their ability to be sympathetically photogenic. When pressed, the average Democrat welfare recipient can hide the flat–screen TV, stash the cellphone in a drawer and refrain from cigarette smoking. And it’s not too much trouble to pretend to fill out the job application or limp convincingly to prove the bad back disability claim as long as photographers and media are around.

The Republican dependency class is another genus entirely. Empathy generating photo shoots and news coverage for these check–cashers is simply a non–starter. Hiding the Rolex, wheeling the executive jet inside the hangar, displacing the butler from the servant’s quarters and convincing the first wife to pretend to supervise the caterer is just too difficult to organize.

If Democrat welfare beneficiaries can avoid arrest, making jihad videos and Judge Judy the money continues to arrive completely free of social disapproval.

Not so for GOP crony capitalists. These leeches fight a two front war: Prevent competition and confuse conservatives. They are loud and proud “job creators,” economic mainstays and incubators of breakthrough technology! All the favored crony industry requires for total success is billions of taxpayer dollars in perpetuity while the people who supply the tax dollars maintain a discrete and respectful silence.

And Republican officeholders must pretend the conservative market principles they espouse in campaign commercials somehow don’t apply to this particular crony.

A disappointing number of 2016 GOP presidential candidates recently did just that in Iowa during the quadrennial Pour Money Down the Cornhole Festival otherwise known as the Iowa Ag Summit.

There Republican presidential candidates worship the ethanol subsidy and praise ethanol entrepreneurs for their selfless addiction to subsidies and environmental fairy tales.

The Renewable Fuel Standards law requires all gasoline refined in the US be 10 percent ethanol. Ethanol is the wonder product, made from corn, which makes gasoline more costly while reducing miles per gallon and increasing wear on internal combustion engines.

Diluting perfectly efficient gas with ethanol is like forcing mom to add sawdust to her cake recipe to protect our valuable flour stockpile. Sure the additional roughage keeps dad regular, but wear and tear on teeth and the occasional oven fire — not to mention that Home Depot flavor — doesn’t come close to compensating for the missing wheat.

The same is true for ethanol, all at a cost to taxpayers of $6 billion a year in handouts.

Somehow those facts didn’t make it into the spiel GOP mega contributor and summit sponsor Bruce Rastetter made.

Ethanol supporters would have one believe that before the bill was passed requiring refineries to dilute your gasoline, corn grew wild in Iowa and no one was even aware there was a use for the weed, other than the occasional frontier corn fritter. And even after wise agronomists in Washington started throwing money at corn farmers the fuel market was controlled by sinister forces that prevented innovation.

Just like the whale oil cartel prevented widespread drilling for oil until the early 60’s.

As columnist Paul Driessen wrote Rastetter’s pitch to the assembled candidates was pointed and effective: Failure to support ethanol handouts in Iowa means no victory in the 2016 caucus and no chance for the GOP nomination.

Naturally Big Government Republicans didn’t require much in the way of pressure to crumble. Jeb Bush said corny gasoline reduces the demand for imported oil. Mike Huckabee said it’s a way for the nation to “fuel itself.” (No pun intended.) And Lindsay Graham solemnly stated “Every gallon of ethanol … is one less gallon you have to buy from people who hate your guts,” which makes you wonder when Obama started pumping gas.

Rick Santorum, trying to get someone to pay attention, thought the RFS means something besides oil and natural gas “are allowed into [the energy] stream.” And Scott Walker was a profile in cowardice as he abandoned his 2006 call for an end to ethanol subsidies.

Rick Perry split the difference and wanted to end federal ethanol subsidies, but said that individual states could choose to be a foster parent for corn, which is at least a Constitutionally valid stance and would exempt most states that don’t grow corn and corn lobbyists.

The only candidates claiming to be conservative supporters of market competition and having the courage to tell Iowa voters the subsidy spigot should be turned off were Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio — although Rubio did refer to corn as “maize.”

There’s an old song about moonshiners called “White Lightening” with a refrain that goes “Mighty, mighty pleasin’ my pappy’s corn squeezin’s.” Until Republicans can stop “pleasin’” crony capitalists with subsidies at the expense of the public, taxpayers will continue to be subject to regular “squeezin.”

GOP Dreams of 2016

Gage Skidmore (CC)

Gage Skidmore (CC)


It’s just a few years down the road, so of course it’s time for the potential GOP candidates for the presidency to start posturing, preening, hinting, and overtly stating that they intend to toss their proverbial hats in the ring. On the latter, sort of, there is the infamous Donald “I’m going to run and then drop out early” Trump. This time, (like all other times?) he’s saying he’s got his money, and he’s ready to spend it to get the prize. Of course, some could say that a move to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. would be slumming for the billionaire.

“If I made a decision, I’d spend a lot,” he said in an interview with ABC News, acknowledging the race would likely cost half a billion dollars or more. “If I did it, I’d spend whatever it took.”

It’s early, so who knows? Maybe dear old Donald will end up dropping out before the race even really begins.

Gage Skidmore (CC)

Gage Skidmore (CC)


What GOP primary circus would be complete without Rick Santorum? It’s no surprise that he’s already glad-handing in Iowa – maybe hoping for another at-least-a-little-more-fruitful victory there this time around. But will he be able to keep the momentum once he breaks out of the bible-belt? Given his current vocation – CEO of a Christian film company – the better money is on a tepid response from the not-so-religious right.

Bob Jagendorf (CC)

Bob Jagendorf (CC)

Yes, it is very early to be talking about he presidential primary, but there are already polls out there – ones that are undoubtedly at least a little disturbing to the ones that are showing early interest in running. And maybe Santorum and Trump missed the headlines about Chris Christie – he’s leading in a couple presidential polls. Again, it’s early. Also, the likelihood that the GOP will end up attempting to go “Big Tent”, draw in as many middle-ground voters that are disillusioned with Obama, and attempt to be welcoming of anyone leaning even slightly right – or at least giving a damn about freedom – is about as likely as the devil starting a snow-cone business in hell. So, Christie probably should frame those news stories, and save them for posterity. That popularity isn’t likely to last once the calls of RINO start again in earnest about him.

The Day After…

Well, we lost.  Mitt Romney didn’t win comfortably.  BUT, Republicans maintained control of the House of Representatives.  In one of the most ignominious highlights of the night, the GOP lost two senate seats – increasing the Democratic majority by two.  The current makeup is 55 Democrats to 45 Republicans.  In a milestone for the ladies, 20% of the U.S. Senate will be represented by women.  However, the night ended a bit like 2004 in reverse.

While the notions of GOP turnout seemed assured, it was rarely monitored, and turnout for the youth (and voter turnout in general) was unexpectedly high.  To no one’s surprise, young voters broke for the president (60-36), but represented a larger share of the electorate than four years ago.  Romney’s lead amongst independents wasn’t enough to overcome the Latino vote, which he lost to Obama miserably 72%-23%.  Lastly, Romney wasn’t able to cut into the gender gap quite as effectively as he wanted to, with the president winning women, overall, by eleven points.  However, it’s with unmarried women that Romney had a fatal disadvantage with, as they broke for Obama 67% to 31%.

On states, betting on Pennsylvania proved to another catastrophic play.  We haven’t won the Keystone State in almost a quarter century, and it may be time to part company completely.  Concerning Wisconsin, the state may have swung right on recent elections, but perhaps the ‘fairness voters’ – voters who may not agree with Walker’s policies, but are appalled that unions would want to revoke an election result – turned out to vote for the president this time.  In Ohio and Virginia, Romney’s failure to execute the war on coal narrative sooner, and formulating a response to the Bain ads, contributed to his defeat.

Without a doubt, the Bain ads – the Obama campaign’s first official salvo in their ‘Kill Romney’ strategy –  released right after Mitt unofficially clinched the Republican nomination resonated with Buckeye residents, and shame on the Governor’s communications team, who were on the defensive for most of the election cycle.  In short, like with Goldwater in ’64, the Obama campaign was able to define Romney – before Romney could define himself.  It’s another costly misfire.

However, I truly feel that Mitt Romney ran a good campaign, and did the best he could’ve with what he had regarding resources.  It’s hard to be successful when you don’t have a Karl Rove, James Carville, or David Plouffe on your side.  It also hurt that he couldn’t run on health care, since Romneycare served as the blue print for one of the most egregious affronts to the constitution since the Alien and Sedition Acts of the Adams administration.

Yet, if you looked at the field from the beginning, It was either going to be Mitt Romney or Rick Perry fighting for the nomination.  Newt and Cain treated this serious event in American politics with the maturity of eight year olds at a lemonade stand – with the lemonade being books.  For many Americans, Michele Bachmann failed the threshold question of any presidential candidate, which is do I trust this person with nuclear weapons?  Disgraced former Pennsylvanian Senator Rick Santorum failed the conservative test, in my opinion, by voting for Medicare Part D, which added $ 7 trillion to the unfunded liability of the program. That’s 20% of the entire unfunded liability, which we now have to deal with before the fiscal cliff.  He voted for Sonia Sotomayor for circuit judge. Santo voted against National Right to Work, Food Stamp reform, a flat tax, and Medicaid reform.  He voted for internet taxes, the unionization of FedEx (twice), and No Child Left Behind.  He took that one for the team.

Rick Perry, my choice for president, flamed out in one of the most epic derailments we’ve probably seen in a long time.  Jon Huntsman was too moderate.  Ron Paul was well, Ron Paul. So, we were left with Mitt Romney.  Sometimes the pickings of the field aren’t too stellar, and we have to deal with that.

Again, I don’t blame Romney for the loss.  Yes, Obama’s record of economic pain, which he has inflicted without mercy on the American people, is long, but his political team, along with the media, were able to spin it just enough to trivialize the fallout.  As Ralph Reed, Founder and former Executive Director for the Faith and Freedom Coalition, said at CPAC 2012 last February – we’re about to face “the meanest, toughest, most vicious political team we’ve ever faced.”  He was right, and we paid dearly for it.

Given Obama’s record, and Republicans’ inability to defeat him, it begs the question if the GOP should have any business being in American politics.  Yes, they still do, but renovations need to be made.  We need to do better with women – cough nix the rape talk cough cough – hispanics, and younger voters.  The hispanic vote ruined the California GOP back in 1994 when Prop. 187 established a citizenship screening process and barred illegals from using state services was construed as ‘anti-immigrant.’  It was really protecting the territorial integrity of the United States, a core function of a nation in the international system, but that’s a different debate. Regardless, it was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and California Republicans have been in the bunker ever since.

We need to find ways to protect our sovereign soil, but in a way that doesn’t come off as nativist.  Hispanics are hard-workers, religious, and pro-traditional marriage.  Or, at least, that’s what was the conventional wisdom at the time.  Heather MacDonald posted on National Review yesterday that:

a March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.

spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”

So, despite Mitt’s shaky conservative credentials, without a doubt, he’s the most hard-lined presidential candidate on immigration we’ve had in the past ten years – and that didn’t hurt him with these voters.  Bain, on the other hand, probably didn’t help.

Nevertheless, I’m not saying we should be for amnesty.  We shouldn’t be.  Amnesty is unfair and unethical – as is the president’s Dream Act light, which requires illegals to bribe the government $465 from doing it’s job enforcing federal law.  However, what 2012 should show all conservatives is that our coalition, which to Paul Krugman’s chagrin truly represents the ‘Real America,’ is static.  It’s more rural, blue collar, and white.  That’s not enough to win elections.  We need to improve outreach with minorities and venture back into the cities, or places where the people are, to make these contests competitive again.  George W. Bush won 44% of the Latino vote in 2004, with increased majorities in the House and Senate.  It’s not impossible. But it’ll be very difficult trying to chip away at the government’s “role in helping people,” which in Democrat speak for getting these people so dependent on us as possible, so they’re a lock when Election Day arrives.

Concerning the ladies, we need to exert a little more discretion when we talk about rape.  While the Democratic National Convention could’ve been Abortion Fest 2012,the senate races in this cycle should have been more appropriately called Rape Fest.  It’s odd that we even have to mention this, and some blame the Tea Party for these mishaps. I don’t.  The Tea Party is the heart and soul of the Republican Party.  As George Will once noted, they’re the best thing to happen in American politics since the Goldwater insurgency.  Republicans would not be where they are now without the Tea Party, but that does not mean we should accept every one of their primary victors as serious candidates.

As Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel wrote in The Daily Caller yesterday:

The tea party believes the GOP establishment is ideologically corrupt. They’re right. But replacing the current leadership with obviously unqualified buffoons is no remedy. Republicans have lost at least five winnable Senate races in the last two cycles because they fielded candidates whose only real qualification was being anti-establishment. Many will argue the GOP can only win going forward with more liberal candidates. That’s not true. But the genuine conservatives they find will have to come with political skills, policy smarts and impressive resumes in order to get elected.

The sad truth is that even if the Republican Party did all this — sent its current leaders home and stopped nominating losers — it still wouldn’t be enough. The country is changing too fast. Most people have the sense that America is different demographically from what it was 20 years ago. But unless they’ve been reading the latest census data, they have no real idea. The changes are that profound. They’re also permanent and likely to accelerate. In order to remain competitive outside Utah, the GOP will have to win new voters, and soon.

That’s the Republican reformation plan, Stage B. They may get there. First they’ll have to tackle the basics, like finding fresh leadership and candidates who aren’t embarrassing.

That will take some serious vetting.  Furthermore, we’re Republicans.  We’re pro-life, and the American people know that about our movement.  In elections centered on the economy, you can easily pivot away from such issues.  Sadly, some of our fellow party members couldn’t help themselves, they shot their mouths off, and got trounced.  There is much intra-party work to do – and it starts now.

Meanwhile, a divided America exists and the government we elected is representative of that partisanship.  Michael Barone wrote also wrote in National Review that Americans on the right, and the others of the left, are no longer becoming culturally cohesive.

Ronald Reagan, speaking the language of the old, universal popular culture, could appeal to both Americas. His successors, not so much. Barack Obama, after an auspicious start, has failed to do so.

As a result, there are going to be many Americans profoundly unhappy with the result of this election, whichever way it goes. Those on the losing side will be especially angry with those whose candidate won.

Americans have faced this before. This has been a culturally diverse land from its colonial beginnings. The mid-20th-century cultural cohesiveness was the exception, not the rule.

We used to get along by leaving each other alone. The Founders established a limited government, neutral on religion, allowing states, localities, and voluntary associations to do much of society’s work. Even that didn’t always work: We had a Civil War.

An enlarged federal government didn’t divide mid-20th-century Americans, except on civil-rights issues. Otherwise, there was general agreement about the values government should foster.

Now the two Americas disagree, sharply. Government decisions enthuse one and enrage the other. The election may be over, but the two Americas are still not on speaking terms.

It’s sort of like this exchange between President Bartlet and Governor Ritchie.

Right now, Obama is in a good position to increases taxes, which will happen when Obamacare’s fully implemented in 2014, nominate SCOTUS appointments, which threaten to curtail our constitutional rights, and to continue this destructive surge in government spending that only shackles people to the will of the state through dependency.  It’s up to House Republicans to obstruct Democratic plans, and put forward a deluge of alternatives of their own. Granted, we won’t be able to filibuster Supreme Court appointments, but this president’s agenda, and that of the Democrats, is inherently dangerous to the socioeconomic fabric of the country and we must fight them all the way.  Concerning the fiscal cliff, maybe compromise can be reached.  Yet, we should also remember that compromise is how we got Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and the first round of federal stimulus under the Bush administration.  Policies that attributed to the near collapse of the conservative movement in this country.

I’m pessimistic that a deal will be reached.  This president’s ego would bust the marble in the Capitol dome – and he exuded poor presidential leadership as described in Bob Woodward’s new book The Price of Politics.  Yet, Mr. Will again reminds us that throughout the course of American history there is not a single thing that the American people wanted intensely and protractedly that they did not eventually get from the federal government.

Why Rick Santorum Mattered

This afternoon, when Rick Santorum dropped out of the presidential race, my heart broke. As a young conservative, for as long as I can remember, the political landscape has been dominated by corrupt career politicians who ignore the voice of their constituents and vote as they please to gain power and riches. It seemed political efficacy was dead. The only people whose voice mattered were the rich and powerful who had the connections to run for office and buy votes. I’d given up hope for the 2012 election. And then, along came Rick Santorum and his incredible underdog campaign.

Why did Rick Santorum matter so much to me?

He went from being the longest of long shots, garnering one or two percent in presidential polls, to winning Iowa. In every state, he was outspent two or three times by the most prominent candidates. They ran attack ads that Santorum could not afford to respond to, yet people still voted for Santorum.

Time and again, GOP leaders endorsed Mitt Romney. Even conservative and Tea Party leaders, whose views Rick Santorum embodied, gave their endorsement to Mitt Romney. And still, Rick Santorum pulled off seemingly miraculous primary wins.

Rick Santorum had little money. The majority of his campaign finances came from small donations from private citizens, not rich businessmen or corporations. What he lacked in money, he made up in personal campaign stops to spread his message, perhaps most famously by visiting every county in Iowa.

Time and again, his words were twisted by the media-he was a crazy right wing extremist who wanted to ban birth control and drag women back to the dark ages.

Yet, despite the media spin, despite attack ads and trailing in campaign donations, despite virtually no exposure in early debates and despite the media dismissing him at every turn, Rick Santorum drew votes from the people. Something about his message made sense to voters. And his success in the poll was a result of his message, not support from party politicians, not a result of money spent on ads selling him or attacking his opponents.

And that’s why Rick Santorum mattered- he reminded us that a private citizen, with little political party backing, little money and little organization, could get out on the public stage, speak passionately about the principles that moved and motivated him, and inspire people to vote for him.

And that’s why today, I’m deeply saddened by Rick Santorum’s decision to drop out of the race. In my short life, I’ve become frustrated with an America whose political system is dominated by career politicians who sell their votes for personal gain and don’t care about their constituents. Rick Santorum restored my faith that there are still people of character who care about individual freedom and the rights of man. And from the bottom of my heart, I thank him for that.

 

Rick Santorum Has Two Weeks Until Judgement Day

No, I’m not suggesting that Rick Santorum is going to die. I am saying that April 24th will determine not only whether or not he should even bother going to the Convention this year, but also whether or not he has a political career in his future at all.

Rick Santorum

Gage Skidmore (CC)


The only thing saving Santorum right now is that the Romney campaign soft-pedaled a little on their advertising, in deference to the Santorum family, and the fact that their child Bella was in the hospital. She was released last night, so it wouldn’t be surprising to hear that the Romney camp would put that attack ad on air later this week. Unless, of course, Santorum would decide to bow out.

If anyone is thinking that Pennsylvania isn’t the end of the road for Santorum, they haven’t been paying attention. He not only needs to win – he needs to win big, in order to justify moving on in the primaries. Suggestions that he drop out before the April 24th primary are not only wise, but also the most logical solution for this campaign.

Newt Gingrich has all but dropped out, admitting on-air that Romney is the man in November. Ron Paul was marginalized shortly after the primary field started thinning out. While there are four choices on the ballots now, it’s been becoming abundantly clear that the bottom three really have no chance to defeat Romney. The only chance they have is to raise hell at the Convention. Any candidate that chooses to do that should be considered finished politically. Whether or not the GOP will stand by that conviction remains to be seen.

As for Santorum, if he does not have a massive showing of support in Pennsylvania, beating Romney by a double-digit spread, it wouldn’t be wrong to say that his political career is over. Now, to be fair, when Santorum lost to Casey in 2006, and broke down in tears at the podium, several campaign consultants figured he was finished, myself included. Bluntly, he should have been. Tears of joy are fine at a victory party. But, breaking down at the podium and crying simply because you lost by double-digits? That’s no better than a baby crying over losing a balloon. When he announced that he was running for President, I nearly choked. That he made it this far isn’t a testament to anything that he has accomplished. It is a statement about the bullshit that people are willing to swallow in the name of putting a fellow follower of the same deity in the White House at all costs. If the people that voted for Santorum were honestly voting for him, and not for his radical religious platform, then the GOP is screwed up far more than anyone can imagine.

Pennsylvania is not an evangelical state. We have pockets of these sorts of voters sprinkled throughout, between the major cities. But, given the economy, it’s a fair guess that the people here will be more concerned with getting a handle on spending. We already know about Santorum’s love affair with earmarks, and have been made aware of the financial situations he has been mired in since his 2006 loss. We know that he collected large sums of money for non-profit work, and that the vast majority of those funds went to pay his friends to administer those organizations, instead of actually helping people. It was a microcosm of bloated government, something we know we can’t afford anymore as taxpayers. Santorum’s only “base” are the single-issue voters that won’t vote for anyone that even whispers that they are pro-choice. The fact that the majority of them are registered Republican works to his advantage, however, it probably won’t make a difference anyway. This is a beauty contest. Electoral votes from Pennsylvania are not determined by the popular vote. Santorum hasn’t seriously courted delegates here – Romney has. That is why it’s being suggested that Santorum drop out before this primary – save face, and live to fight another day. Personally? Bring it Rick! I want to watch you go down, and hopefully end up with no chance in 2016, 2020, etc.

Is The Fat Lady Starting To Sing?

After winning the trifecta of delegates in DC, Maryland, and Wisconsin Mitt Romney looks like he’s on a roll. Is it time for the other candidates to step aside and allow the Republican Party to begin coalescing?

Can Republicans afford for Rick Santorum to stay in the fight? A new PPP poll has Romney overtaking Santorum in Pennsylvania.  How much damage will a Pennsylvania loss do to Rick Santorum’s future aspirations? We are reminded that he is a young candidate and looking towards the next one or two election cycles will have time to form a stronger political machine necessary to run for president.

Many are asking why Gingrich is still in the race. He did demonstrate that one can be out of the public eye for twenty years and yet still remain relevant. But to what end? Santorum supporters believe that Gingrich is splitting the ‘true conservative’ vote; that the race would have been much closer if Gingrich had bowed out earlier.

The blog-o-sphere is rife with opinions and questions. How much damage are Republican candidates doing to the party? To the final nominee? Can the GOP come together with enough support to win in November? Even with a poor record, an incumbent president will be difficult to beat.

The ‘Anyone but Mitt’ group still seems to be looking for their candidate. Is the anger towards ‘ObamaCare’ so powerful that the Anti-Mitt crowd will lose sight of the bigger prize? Or are conservatives willing to believe when Romney says emphatically that he will repeal the Health Care law? The strong showing in Wisconsin and possible surge in Santorum’s home state seem to indicate that more are seeing Romney as the likely candidate and one who might beat Obama.

For many conservative voters Mitt Romney was not the first choice. But they could remember he was seen by many as the more conservative candidate when running against John McCain in 2008. He might not have all the social conservative views that the religious right espouse but he his business background and fiscal experience are causing many to lean his direction. Recent endorsements by Tea Party favorites Marco Rubio (FL), Ron Johnson (WI) and even Jim DeMint (SC) should be worth review by fiscal conservatives.

There are rumors today that Santorum and Gingrich may unite. But is it too late? To paraphrase the colloquialism, the fat lady might not yet be singing, but she may be warming up.

 

 

Rick Santorum and His Uphill Battle to the Convention

Aaron Blake almost got it absolutely right today, when giving the run-down on what Rick Santorum needs to do to survive in this primary. The five states mentioned are definitely must-wins. However, that goal does not exist in a vacuum, and is probably going to be affected by at least a few things that will be utterly out of Santorum’s control.

Santorum Caricature

Donkey Hotey (CC)


But there’s at least one thing Blake missed that was theoretically under the candidate’s control. Pennsylvania won’t be very easy for Santorum, no matter which way you cut it. While he could win the day in the popular vote, that won’t necessarily get him delegates, since Pennsylvania delegates are not bound to vote for specific candidates. Add to that the fact that his campaign failed to organize properly in the Commonwealth by recruiting loyal delegate candidates for the upcoming election, and he is in trouble. Throw in the fact that his last experience in Pennsylvania was a double digit loss of his seat in the Senate, and it’s not likely that he has many friends left in the state’s GOP establishment. The screw-up with the ballots really can hurt Santorum, because beyond being disorganized on the ground, he is also giving the impression that his former home is an afterthought for his campaign.

Beyond the Keystone State, it’s doesn’t bode well for Santorum that Newt Gingrich met with Mitt Romney. While there wasn’t an agreement made, it would be foolish to rule one out entirely going forward. Gingrich is already running in the red, and if he is realistic about his options, he is not going to be looking very kindly on an alliance with the relatively cash-strapped Santorum. Romney is the most likely candidate to be able to offer Gingrich a deal that would clear his campaign debts. And all of these problems are not taking into account the increasing number of endorsements for Romney coming from heavy-hitters in the GOP.

Off the cuff prediction: Look for more endorsements for Romney, of course. Also, don’t be surprised if there are more “secret meetings” between Gingrich and Romney, particularly after April 24th, if not sooner. Also, expect a close race in Pennsylvania, but don’t expect the delegates to follow those results, at least not if it falls to Santorum’s favor.

Santorum is Liberal?

Yes, there is someone out there that thinks Rick Santorum has a liberal streak. As if to prove what I’ve continually said about the variety of conservative views out there, I found someone that actually made at least a semi-valid argument about Santorum being liberal.

Rick Santorum

Gage Skidmore (CC)


Pittsburgh’s Conservative Examiner, J.J. Jackson, offered the argument that Santorum’s promise to wage war on pornography is anything but conservative. Jackson offers the radical concept that conservatives should be for limited government. The people don’t need the government to protect them from pornography.

I can hear the screams of social conservatives everywhere on this one, but the fact is, Jackson makes a very good point. While he made the argument fairly well, he didn’t take that final step to point out that it just isn’t about Santorum trying to protect the people from things he personally finds objectionable. It is also about legislating religious beliefs. And it’s not like this argument against the social conservative agenda is new either.

On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.

I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.”

Barry Goldwater made that statement years ago. The irony is that he might be considered a RINO today, because of his refusal to mix religion and politics. Toward the end of his life, Goldwater was presumed to have drifted left, primarily because of his “hands-off” stance on gays. I’d argue that he didn’t shift left. He simply recognized that placing people’s personal life decisions on the political chopping block was not something conservatives should do. People’s right to privacy started trumping moral arguments in his mind. Given his already well-established distaste for religious leaders dabbling in politics, that’s not at all surprising.

Pundits have been dissecting the current primary from just about every perspective. One common theme, particularly from the left, is the contention that the GOP is suffering from an identity crisis. They’re probably right. By polarizing everything within the party, running about calling people RINO’s, and engaging in mini-negative campaigns against each other, the GOP is weakening itself and its message. Perhaps we need to adopt a “ballot positive” attitude. If someone is saying that they intend to cast their ballot in favor of the GOP candidate, that person is either a Republican or a Party supporter. It doesn’t matter if the voter worships a “sacred” potato in his bedroom, is a nudist in his own home, watches internet porn obsessively, and smokes pot morning, noon, and night in his basement gameroom. While any one of those behaviors might be objectionable to many people, it doesn’t matter, since it is all happening in the privacy of his own home. The vote is what matters, period.

Today’s “News”

Monday March 12, 2012…Today’s “news” begins with the headline: The Most Aired Political Campaign Ads.

A sub-headline reads: Obama’s “Unprecedented” commercial was shown 6,190 times before Super Tuesday.

At first, by mentioning campaign ads from multiple candidacies, this article flirts with the idea of integrity. A flirtation which disappointingly dissolves in the face of the ‘mention the favorite candidate’s ad first’ sub-headline. Will “progressives” explain why there’s no outcry against Dylan Stableford for stating “Barack Obama has spent $63 million, a little less than half of his $136 million war chest”? Weren’t terms like “war chest” supposed to be off limits because using politically incorrect terms like “war chest” leads directly to the shooting of member of Congress? Or does that standard only apply when Conservatives use such terms? Is it now fair to conclude that all “progressives” are allowed to speak and write freely, fearing not the cost of using “inflammatory language”? Do First Amendment Rights now fully apply to all “progressives”, not just lousy comedians who donate millions of dollars to “progressive” election campaigns?

Next comes the headline: Christie’s Public Shouting Match Shows He’s Not Ready For White House.

Kim Jascobs Walker wastes no time, plugging the phrase “Chris Christie again made headlines for losing his temper and insulting one of his constituents” into the first paragraph. Walker admits that the source, “Save Jersey” blogger Brian McGovern described constituent Bill Brown as “disrespectful”, but Walker makes no attempt to clarify whether Christie called Brown an idiot because of his question or because of a disrespectful approach. Walker criticizes Christie by alleging that “Any seasoned comedian could have handled a heckler better than Christie did”. One wonders, might Bill Maher be included among Walker’s comedians? Walker’s sojourn continues with the long espoused “progressive” slant that “Adults don’t really like it when politicians talk to them like they’re errant children.” Perhaps that statement explains why adult Conservatives don’t really like the way Obama, Reid and Pelosi speak to the nation’s Conservative majority. Walker continues: “Christie’s ‘because I said so’ attitude won’t play well with thinking people”, strongly indicating the “progressive” presumption that people who disagree with Christie think, while strongly implying that those who agree with Christie don’t. Walker concludes the final tirade with: “Christie needs to mature into a leader who can handle dissenting opinions before he sets his sights on the White House”. This statement reveals a key component of institutionalized “progressive” thought. In “progressive” minds, unless you’re willing to submit to their attempts to indoctrinate you to their philosophy, you’re closed minded. The possibility that you’re already familiar with their philosophy, have measured it against Conservative philosophy and decided to adhere to Conservative thinking seems beyond their comprehension.

Then comes: GOP race for White House is ‘corrosive”: Obama adviser

Of course Robert Gibbs, a long time Obama adviser would describe the GOP race as “corrosive”. That’s as predictable as the sunset. Why is this a headline? That’s easy to answer. As a news headline displayed along with similar headlines, it subliminally reinforces the “progressive” narrative propagated daily by the “progressive” Party Pravda that the GOP is bad and the “progressive” left is good.

Next there’s the headline: Reid says Democrats should retain Senate

Naturally the current Senate Majority Leader predicts that after November’s election the Democratic Party will retain control of the Senate. Even if every poll under the sun showed numbers contradicting his perception Reid would still state this view. Including this in the list of “headline news” is another clear example of the intent by the institutionalized “progressive” left to “nudge” undecided voters towards conclusions desired by George Soros and his myriad of puppets within the “progressive” Party and their cohorts in the “progressive” Party Pravda.

Two more “headlines” read:

Pelosi Dreams of Rush Being ‘Advertiseless’. Is advertiseless even a word, or something that came to Pelosi in the midst of a botox induced hallucination?

Sunday Shows: Reid Says ‘I think Congress Looks Bad’.

And Reid’s pulling every lever of power in the Senate to perpetuate that manufactured myth. BTW Senator Reid when is the Senate going to pass a budget?

Are you beginning to see the pattern here? Or shall we continue to flog this dead horse?

 

« Older Entries