I know this, because I’ve been told so by both serious, sober people on the right and by hateful, bigoted, and appallingly dishonest character assassins on the left. Who — coincidentally! — are among the same sober, serious, hateful, bigoted, and appallingly dishonest character assassins and their enablers who told me Palin, Bachmann, Cain, et al., were likewise dim, self-serving unelectable faux-conservative candidates who were merely taking the air from the room and preventing us from rallying behind a polished, electable candidate. Like Mitt Romney.
And Santorum’s own words — in which he lays out his beliefs and his reasoning for them — are merely innocuous-sounding code for his real plan to take away birth control and tether knocked-up women to a stove so that there’s a delightful holiday meal, and a family of at least 7, ready for each of the many wonderful and sacred Jesus holidays.
A Rockwell Painting in every pot!
Christ, does this man need to be put in his hateful place. The sweatervested free-market Nazi dead baby fetishizer who hates the gays and the vaginas.
(thanks to sdferr and geoffB)
****
update: related?
[…] cast a vote for him, it would be in spite of these opinions (not truths), not because of them. (via Jeff…) SantorumPermalink ← Shooting off his, er, not […]
Well, as long as he doesn’t engage in leftwing or Huckabee style statism critiques about capitalism, I’m OK with him. Newt and Perry, not so much anymore. Talk about an “own goal”.
I’ll take the quasi-moderate Romney over well educated career politicians/idiots opportunistically attacking a businessman using OWS language.
[…] You know who’s really vicious, though? Rick Santorum. […]
Bill Quick (first trackback) says:
Which is cool — making Quick part of the anti-happygriefer crowd realizing one can disagree on things without being disagreeable and understanding what is most important in this race.
In his own words:
“This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. … I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.”
His own words:
“I came to the uncomfortable realization that conservatives were not only reluctant to spend government dollars on the poor, they hadn’t even thought much about what might work better. I often describe my conservative colleagues during this time as simply ‘cheap liberals.’ My own economically modest personal background and my faith had taught me to care for those who are less fortunate, but I too had not yet given much thought to the proper role of government in this mission.”
His own words:
“Some will reject what I have said as a kind of ‘Big Government Conservatism.’ Some will say that what I’ve tried to argue isn’t conservatism at all. But I believe what I’ve been presenting is the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned. One that fosters the opportunity for all Americans to live as we are called to live, in selfless families that contribute to the general welfare, the common good.”
His own words:
“I didn’t vote for any kind of ban on contraception, nor did I vote for any ban on sodomies(sic*), nor would I as president,” he told CNN’s John King this week. “I don’t believe that everything that is immoral should be illegal. The government doesn’t have a role to play in everything that, you know, that either people of faith or no faith think are wrong or immoral.”
but…
“The state has a right to do that. I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have,”
(*has happyfeet and Santorum ever been seen in the same room together?)
I just think he is the same double-talking, back-stabbing, self-serving shit weasel as all the rest of them.
BMoe —
We’ve talked at length about this here, so if you haven’t already done so, I’d say go back and look at the various riffs on how Santorum’s ideas of family as the unit of individual autonomy is tied to his Catholicism / Thomism. Also, how family communitarianism is not at all like collectivism.
My own belief — and James Pethokoukis took this up, as well (I believe I did a post on it), is that Santorum is reacting in the excerpt on individualism you cite, to the Objectivists — those whose ideological foundation is Rand. That is, the libertarians. You may disagree with Santorum — and there’s plenty of room to do so — but it does no good to caricature the belief. Santorum is not a collectivist. And his ideas about the family — and government’s role in nurturing that unit — amount to things like increased tax credits for producing new citizens, or increased credit for charitable giving, so that charity is taken away from the state.
And he tries to balance his own views with the constraints placed on elected officials by the Constitution, which for Santorum includes the 9th and 10th Amendments.
These are often difficult waters to traverse. But with Santorum, he tells you what he thinks and believes. For me, that’s a net positive.
Romney mouths platitudes about limited government, and yet it’s clear he doesn’t believe a word of it. Santorum believes in a social safety net for the truly disadvantaged and indigent, but he tempers that with an animus toward those who would game the system — and toward programs that have the net impact of institutionalizing dependence on government.
What I liked about Cain — he didn’t have all the answers, because he hasn’t studied every question — I like about Santorum. You can see his thinking. He shows his work.
I too had not yet given much thought to the proper role of government in this mission
See, I actually LIKE hearing things like that. He is being honest that his assumptions are open to challenge.
Also, BMoe, I think it pretty obvious by now I’m not a social conservative. I’m just far less bothered by them then I used to be back when I was given to accepting the caricature of such creatures.
Nowadays I see that it is the “liberal” secularists who are far more dangerous, because their God is the State, and they therefore serve their God by granting that ever more power comes from the State.
The religious folk simply want the state to leave them the fuck alone, often times. And me and my spaghetti bulbs tend to commiserate.
About 20 years or so ago in GA a dude and his wife were getting divorced. She didn’t like the the way the settlement was developing and decided to give him one last fucking. She called him over to her place and proceeded to seduce him, but before the act was consummated, he picked up some weird vibes and left. She called the cops and charged him with rape regardless. At the trial, the wife’s sister found a conscience and testified that the bitch had told her of her plans to set the dude up, but not before the dude had admitted in his testimony to performing oral sex on his ex-wife.
The rape case was thrown out, but the judge sentenced the dude to ten years for sodomy. He eventually got released after serving two.
If I am a MSNBC “journalist”, I tell Santorum this story and ask him if he thinks that is the states right: He says yes and Obama gets elected.
It’s also a matter of Santorum being more in the line of a traditional (i.e Burkean) conservative rather than a classical liberal conservative.
I don’t mind social cons so much either, if they know how to give the right answer and when to keep their mouth’s shut.
I don’t have any problem with Palin, most of her bad press is purely invented regarding religion, I have never read a quote of hers that lead me to doubt at all here position on not legislating based on religion.
Santorum, on the other hand, is far too weaselly and vague in much of his phrasing. What you and Darleen see as nuance, I see as wiggle room and escape hatches.
So you think Santorum should deny federalism because an MSNBC reporter can dishonestly frame the issue? How about if Santorum counters by asking if the northern states shouldn’t have tried fighting the federal fugitive slave acts?
Were it me, I’d say you’d have to take up the bad law of the state with the state legislature of Georgia and with the judge who used it in sentencing. Because a law is stupid is no reason to do away with the procedure for how states make laws, and the authority they are granted by the Constitution.
I sided with Thomas in Lawrence: sodomy laws are stupid, but that doesn’t mean states that want them can’t have them.
I understand his position, that is just not the hill I would choose to die on given the stakes right now.
There has to be a better candidate out there.
He’s being asked the questions and he’s answering them. He might try prefacing his answers with, “well, given the economic problems in this country — debt, unfunded liabilities, high unemployment, the massive reduction in housing equity — asking me loaded questions redounding to federalism seems kinda silly, but here’s my position, and here’s my why I believe it.”
The “shoestring” example seems to suggest he’s on the right track for how to deal with attempts to turn him into something he isn’t.
So Santorum’s problem is that he’s not a phony? The kind of phony who tells us what we want to hear and doesn’t tell us what we don’t want to hear?
He might also try saying “I know what they important issues are in this race (insert example A B C here), and so do the American People and I trust them to see through these distractions and obfuscations.”
We are at war. Wearing your heart on your sleeve and telling the enemy everything they want to know isn’t the best tactics in war.
Santorum’s problem is that he’s not a
phony?tactician. The kind ofphonytactician whotells us what wedoesn’t tell the enemy what they want to hear.and doesn’t tell us what we don’t want to hear?Anybody still “in the race” is on Axelrod and the media’s short list of preferred candidates.
Fred Thompson was our last best hope, but the media told you he wasn’t serious and most of you believed them. Now they are telling you Santorum is the best conservative, and you still believe them.
Honesty is itself a tactic, particularly inasmuch as it separates you from the putative “tacticians” who work so hard to resist it.
Michael Greve, at a new lawblog Insty linked yesterday, Liberty Law Blog, had something to say about the States and the powers of the States in a nifty short post on his coming book, The Upside-Down Constitution:
The first few paragraphs of Fed. 45 are grippy. But then, they should be, as they address the purpose of government, as Madison conceives it. They also point to the solution to over-reach by the State. The People. But then, for good or ill, right? And finally, I think we have to say yes, right, for good or ill.
I supported Thompson. Now I support Santorum over Romney. I’d like Palin, but I don’t see it happening.
Here is a short account of the Georgia case B. Moe cites. The Georgia law was struck down by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1998.
Lawrence was the Federal sodomy case not Griswold. Santorum’s opinion on Griswold mirrors Thomas’s on Lawrence.
So conservatives should pretend to be moderates, like liberals do, in order not to scare the rubes? I have more respect for the electorate than that.
But then again I’m both more populist than I was four years ago —as well as more SoCon.
As I recall, the media told us that because Thompson told Carl Cameron of Fox News that he was running for Veep, and Cameron passed that on to the rest of the media instead of reporting it, and giving Thompson a chance to try to walk that back, and thus the voters a chance to decide whether it was true or not.
You don’t have to pretend to be anything, you just don’t have to spill your guts every time someone asks you a question.
For instance, just say “I think laws against sodomy or contraception are wrong, and an invasion of one’s privacy. But I think these issues are best dealt with at the state level.
Next question.”
It really isn’t that hard to outsmart these dipshits.
And when you have lived through as many elections as I have I doubt you will still have any respect at all for the electorate.
That isn’t the case I was referring to, Geoff. This one was late 80s, early 90s and the dude was sleeping with his wife.
This is the case I am talking about
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/georgia/ganews23.htm
James Moseley.
Fred Thompson was how Carl Cameron “made his bones”.
B. Moe, don’t you think Santorum is persuaded that he must persuade the people — the electorate you lament, or derogate there — that he understands it to be insufficient to merely hold his beliefs in order to put them to work in politics? Seems to me the simple fact of this article is a proclamation to that effect.
This, it appears to me, stands in stark contrast to any claim that he attempts to weasel his way into power with slippery language. Of course too, simply making the attempt to persuade isn’t the same as succeeding in persuasion. Yet, on the other hand, those of us who may remain skeptical of his conclusions are left with questions which Santorum has raised to answer ourselves, so venturing into a field of counter-persuasion.
B. Moe. The Powell case was to show how that Georgia law was struck down by the Georgia Supreme Court and was all done by a State not Federal. The link I provided first and labeled as your case has this right at the beginning of the page.
What then? This isn’t categorical enough for you?
While penumbras are sacrosanct, actual, factual parts of the Constitution not so much and slandering those flyover hicks is the new sport.
The moral of that story is to treat NYC like a 3rd world kleptocracy and stay the hell away from it.
NYC, the Egypt of the East Coast, eh.
I would vote for him over Obama. The rest is window dressing. I suppose the only problem I have is that since he is trained in the legal profession, he would probably continue the bizarre reality that we need more laws enacted just to appear to be doing something. The reality is we need someone who will deactivate many laws in order to give our citizens breathing room to exist and engage in commerce.
I still prefer Ron Paul because it seems that he is more conservative than most conservatives (maybe Santorum is an exception). His thoughts on Iran do not bother me as IF Iran actually tried something they would be swatted down like gnats. A war with Iran – to destroy their war-making powers (not to invade and occupy) would take probably a day or two. And if we aren’t willing to admit that, I think we are all being dreadfully dishonest with ourselves.
geoffb
here’s another case of NYC’s commitment to piss on the 2nd amendment
His thoughts on Iran do not bother me as IF Iran actually tried something they would be swatted down like gnats. A war with Iran – to destroy their war-making powers (not to invade and occupy) would take probably a day or two.
Who’s going to swat Iran? Paul won’t even if Israel is nuked off the map and half of Europe goes with it.
Paul doesn’t even like we got involved in WWII
Personally, I don’t like that we got involved in WW2 because at least in regards to Japan, Roosevelt practically MADE it happen. Sure, it was the “good” war, but it was a war that was caused by socialist one-upping. Every major power was some form of socialist dictatorship (including the USA – sorry) and their leaderships fuckered up ideal for the future meant that they alone had the “answer” to catapult mankind into some bizarre utopian asshole-town.
And if Israel is nuked off the map, then I suggest that we get a FORMAL senate approved military defense pact signed in which we are obligated to do so. If we did so, that and only that would be a real game changer in the area. We have pussyfooted around too much in regards to Israel. If they are truly our only ally in the area well then lets proof it by forming a legitimate defense pact with them.
If he is the nominee, I will vote for Santorum, but I would vote for Joe Biden over Obama, that isn’t the point.
The point is electability is part of the equation, there is no point in nominating an unelectable candidate, the point is to find a candidate with views you can live with who can win. My gut feeling tells me Santorum is not what he seems, and what he seems is marginal to me. I keep hoping someone will convince me otherwise but so far it isn’t happening.
I don’t mind social cons so much either, if they know how to give the right answer and when to keep their mouth’s shut.
Do you know when to give a right answer and to keep YOUR mouth shut?
Or are social cons the only ones who need to stick to the script and keep their deeply held beliefs about the foundations of human society (and why the state ought not tamper with them) to themselves?
I didn’t realize til just now that RoAs handle was literal.
Wearing your heart on your sleeve and telling the enemy everything they want to know isn’t the best tactics in war.
What if they’re actually telling the electorate what they want to hear? What if the electorate is sick to death of the sexual revolution and its wretched fruits and want to hear someone in power articulate a solid case for Real Marriage and Life and not pander to those who scream the loudest?
What if it’s a by-God foundational truth that the family is the greatest bulwark against the State, and that the sexual revolution and all the other pressures to dismantle the family are done for the express purpose of clearing the ground for the state to take the place of parents and families?
You don’t have to be a socon to see how sounding the trumpet loudly for family and marriage and life are anything but a “distraction from the important issues” but rather the very core of the matter.
When posting on this board, obviously not. When on the job, yes. My job depends on it. As do successful politicians.
If your deeply held beliefs are going to discomfit a large portion of the electorate then you probably need to go into the ministry instead of politics.
Ah B.Moe, just because war is fun to look at on TV doesn’t mean its something a nation needs to do all the time. I was up for kicking Saddams ass. I was up for spanking the Taliban. They both attacked us. They both had rationale for what happened. Iran has not yet attacked anyone. It seems to me that we have been more active in violating their nation than they have ours. I am not oblivious to the fact that they hate us. But that does not mean that you pro-actively invade them. If Israel needs to do that, then let them do that.
Another point, I am aware that if we “leave” that our absence will only make another power fill that void. I am not that much of a jackass. I just don’t think Iran has power to do anything it claims it does. I also don’t think they would EVER nuke Israel. I am pretty sure if they did so unprovoked that the United States would crack their spine wide open and the deep fry the spinal chord and serve it with horse radish sauce.
GeoffB: That Steyn piece means that in NYC, there are no more Serpicos at any level.
Which, nuke it from orbit, just to be sure.
Sorry di, but telling me that I am immoral and a threat to civilization just because I don’t think I should have to give up sex because I am not married and don’t want children isn’t going to get my vote.
I don’t think I am in the minority on this.
“Iran has not yet attacked anyone.”
That doesn’t seem a serious assessment, to me anyhow. Iran began attacking across the world in 1979 and hasn’t quit since.
–Stuff Neville Chamberlain Probably Said
are going to discomfit a large portion of the electorate
How big is this portion? Everyone seems to think that the majority sees things as they do (myself included). Given that conservatives outnumber libs by 2:1, and that most of the loudest “discomfiture” emits from the coastal elites in Hollywood and the Eastern MSM, how many socons have merely been cowed into silence and been made to feel like we’re all freaks in a tiny minority?
There’s a reason that Glenn Beck’s first campaign was “We Surround Them”: people have to know how big their own ranks are.
I keep hearing moderates tell socons to STFU because we might scare the Big Undecideds, as if they were are moderates by definition. Maybe they’re actually cynics who are disillusioned by the corruption of the system, not former conservatives who got grossed out by socons.
I think it sullies religion to politic it up like that Santorum does – and just like Santorum knows all these super awesome single moms me I know tons of super awesome religious people what can shut up about it for ten minutes
This seems to me dangerously naive and remarkably narrow in its idea of “attacking,” considering the 1979 hostage takings and Iran’s funding of terrorism.
But then, I’m not much of a constitutionalist or true conservative like erstwhile libertarian Ron Paul.
telling me that I am immoral and a threat to civilization just because I don’t think I should have to give up sex because I am not married and don’t want children isn’t going to get my vote.
Pretty sure nobody is decrying fornication these days, nor the decision to remain childless. You don’t want marriage or kids, don’t have them. Nobody wants to persuade you otherwise.
But are you telling me that marriage is NOT a bulwark against the State? Remember, I’m also single and childless, but that doesn’t mean I can’t still champion marriage. This isn’t about me or you: it’s about society in general.
Your concern over religion is about as credible as your concern over NHRA pit passes.
Given the divorce and single parenthood rates I am pretty sure you are in the minority, di.
If I had a bunch of kids scattered around the country that I was failing to support or mentor I would accept the criticism. But I don’t, because I doubled down on my depravity and irresponsibly used contraceptives.
55 for 52
Ok sdfer and BMoe, I am aware of who is in Lebanon and why. I am aware that they are also in Palestine – as a reaction to the Sunni failure to “destroy” Israel. I know that Israel suffers daily at the hands of these losers. So then, your suggestion is to preemptively invade Iran to stop this. Correct?
Ok, so then we occupy Iran – which would invariably happen – and what would be the outcome of that? NOTHING. As soon as we leave it would return to same ol same ol. You know why? Because we don’t have any soul in the game. Occupying Iran is not integral to OUR survival as a nation. Or at least our powers that be haven’t brainwashed all of us properly to believe that is the case.
Were you also for our recent Libyan operation? By the way you seem, you most definitely should have been. If so, give Obama the props that he deserves for a job well done.
griefersneerswhat?
I think it sullies religion to politic it up like that Santorum does
That’s very touching, ‘feets, knowing how much tenderness you feel for religion.
I know tons of super awesome religious people what can shut up about it for ten minutes
It’s actually the inverse, ‘feets. If religious people talk about religion—in earnest—for ten minutes, you wonder why they won’t shut the hell up already.
Some non-religious people just can’t stand to hear the god-botherer talk even for a minute, just as I can’t eat anything that had a stalk of broccoli waved over it during cooking: the nasty flavor is too intense to be borne even in small doses.
“So then, your suggestion is to preemptively invade Iran to stop this. Correct?”
C’mon. This is even less serious. Either find a way to argue respectfully, or expect to meet with disrespect.
Hey, let’s not be badmouthing broccoli here.
I don’t think I should have to give up sex because I am not married and don’t want children isn’t going to get my vote.
Because getting laid is what FREEDOM! is all about. And those religious whackadoodles, they’re all about taking away your FREEDOM!
/sarc
I mean the last time I checked there weren’t any Iranian subs blasting US merchant ships just off the coast…..I suppose their will be someday though…maybe in 10 years? Let’s not let them do this! BOMB THEM NOW!
Oh yeah, I think Iran has also secretly annexed parts of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Azerbaijan. The Nevilles of the world just aren’t letting us know about it..right?
(In regards to your nazi Germany comparison)
Four years of Ron Paul would no doubt witness significant amounts of mischief from the usual suspects (and probably a few edifying surprises as well.) And mischief really is a euphemism for international horrors.
The only potential solace would be that, after those four years, we would still have the option of re-exerting our presence on the global stage.
As opposed to more years of go-for-broke statism (be it full strength Obama or Romney Light) which will eliminate any choice in the matter.
see this is what that Santorum does you always end up talking about sex or gays or fetuses … this is one of the reasons why I think he’s having trouble getting any traction
it’s just not that kind of election this time
I am not condemning marriage, just asking not to be condemned because I am single and haven’t joined a monastery.
grieferselffulfillsprophecywhat?
Given the divorce and single parenthood rates I am pretty sure you are in the minority, di.
What minority? Single and childless or those who believe that marriage is the best bulwark against the state?
Being Married requires the participation of TWO people, and just because someone believes in it doesn’t mean they can pull it off. People don’t raise kids alone just because they think marriage is irrelevant: they’re often forced to do it because the father (usually) flaked out or because they were irresponsible about sex in the first place.
How people actually live and what they believe to be true, especially when it comes to family, are often two different things, and not because they’re hypocrites. I’d LOVE to have been married and raised a family, but no one ever made me an offer I couldn’t refuse, so aquí estoy, plantada.
because I doubled down on my depravity and irresponsibly used contraceptives.
Facts not in evidence, dude. I have no problem with contraception.
As opposed to more years of go-for-broke statism (be it full strength Obama or Romney Light) which will eliminate any choice in the matter.
Amen to that. And I am pretty sure that Romney will be full steam ahead as well. With a few diversions to throw a few people off the trail.
Forgive me in advance if the quote tag is wrong.
this is one of the reasons why I think he’s having trouble getting any traction
He’s been gaining traction dude. Santorum used to be nowhere.
just asking not to be condemned because I am single and haven’t joined a monastery.
Is that what Santorum is doing? Or are you just hearing the echos of other condemners who likewise talk about marriage and family?
i love broccoli dicentra! this is pure healthy tasty deliciousness but usually it’s NOT value… at Ralph’s they want like $5 for one but I think at the jew store they may be a little cheaper cause that’s where I first got them and I remember them being more in the $3.50 area there
but anyway I throw em in my spiffy new toaster oven at work at 350 for 37 minutes and they come out beautifully
Good thing we have Obama as Prez and not some conservative. Otherwise it’d be unprovoked attacks on poor Iran all day long!
Who the fuck is this ‘you’ you are referring to Cupcakes?
Gone all third person on us have you?
“sex or gays or fetuses”
Great title for something…..
I don’t think I should have to give up sex because I am not married and don’t want children isn’t going to get my vote.
So I guess any observant Christian or Jew isn’t going to get your vote because what their opinion of what is ideal chaps your ass?
(btw, Catholics don’t believe you ONLY have sex for procreation)
The widespread instability in the Middle East since Obama got elected are just a coincidence. So what if the ME and Greece and the Balkans are all teetering on the edge, how much trouble could start in the Balkans or the ME?
“Good thing we have Obama as Prez and not some conservative. Otherwise it’d be unprovoked attacks on poor Iran all day long!”
I doubt that. Even the warmonger Bush said the same thing that I have just said – that Iran has not attacked anyone. To me, Iran seems more like a bully that talks you out of your lunch instead of one that punches you and then takes it. Tell me how I am wrong here. I want to see actual instances where Iran has engaged the United States in what is normally considered “acts of war” since 2000 or so.
To me, the Iran issue isn’t conservative or socialist issue. It’s common sense. They haven’t done much but talk shit. That is not a reason to invade a country. They have done more than talk shit to Israel. If we want to defend Israel from Iran then we should sign a legit defense treaty with them. I am sure that would stop Iran from keeping up this game.
Feets, if Family is the greatest bulwark against the State, then yeah, you have to talk about “sex or gays or fetuses” because them things are wholly entwined with The Fundamentals Of Human Society.
Trouble is, when you start talking about those Very Personal Things, you also have to talk about Bad Choices and Self Restraint, and nobody likes that.
As for broccoli, you can have it. There’s a bitter chemical in it that only about 1/4 of the population can taste, and I’m pretty sure I’m one of them.
And don’t EVEN start with “you’ve not tasted it properly prepared.” The bitter chemical is so strong that it overpowers all other flavors.
Crap, I don’t know why people have a problem with my broccoli dislike. Lots of people hate lima beans; I like them. Celebrate diversity or something, hey?
We are talking about Santorum, I would vote for you for President in a heartbeat.
If contraception and oral sex are immoral, as Mr. Santorum avers, then what is there but celibacy for the unwed?
About Iran and whether Iran is a real threat or only a “threat” threat:
Everybody remembers the scene in The Godfather where Don Vito Corleone makes the peace with the Tattaglias, right? Rember the part about anything happening to his son Michael and that the Godfather would not forgive, that even if Michael was struck by lightning, he was going to blame some people?
I believe we need to do something similiar regarding nuclear proliferation. We know who’s developing nuclear weapons, we know who’s sharing that technology. We know who supports terrorist organizations and uses terrorists for proxies.
So if a nuke in the back of a delivery van should happen to explode, either on our soil or that of one of our allies, we need to blame some people. And we should be upfront about it.
but it’s silly how the Santorum brackets marriage from the federalism I think that’s ideological contortionism
of course the hapless Perry tried to do that and then flipper-floppered cause of the heresy
B Moe
Who is going to endanger your personal liberty more
The Catholic/Jew/Protestant who talks about the ideal way to live, but pursues no legislation, who believes (as Santorum stated) not ALL immoral things should be made illegal — and uses little more than the pulpit/newsletter/internet to preach their opinions
Or the leftist-secularist who thinks your BMI should be monitored, your lightbulbs dictated, your showerhead restricted and your driving habits monitored — for your own good — via State Godhead?
Not if they promise to use the Presidency as a pulpit to preach to me about it.
And not if anybody but Obama is in the White House.
Just curious, but has anyone looked into why there was a law that brought about the Griswold case in the first place? I mean, I think I remember that one of the dissents said something like it was “an uncommonly silly law” but still held that it was the place of the State of Connecticut to rid itself of the thing, rather than the place of the Court. But I’ve never looked back to see what had prompted the law itself (what arguments, or appearance of need, so to say), and thought maybe someone here had?
Of course, I also doubt that Ron Paul would ever sign a defense pact with Israel. Hey really, I am just not all that sure that there is any real leadership to look forward to in this election. There are things I don’t like about Ron Paul. There are things I don’t like about Santorum. I don’t think either of them will get the nom anyway. So much like 2008, I will probably sadly color in the Romney oval on my ballot and then pray that he has an epiphany and realizes that this country is FUCKED and he leads us to a complete 180 on almost all social, environmental, and fiscal policy and a good amount of international/defense policy as well.
If contraception and oral sex are immoral, as Mr. Santorum avers, then what is there but celibacy for the unwed?
If you’re not Catholic, why should it bother you?
There’s a silly leftist argument against Bible believers calling them “hypocrites” because the Old Testament condemns the eating of shellfish so why aren’t the godbotherers picketing Red Lobster?
1-Christians don’t follow kosher
2-And the OT law is for Jews, no one else.
It’s like the anti-theists that run around looking for religious symbols so they can be offended. Dude, you don’t believe so why the wadded panties?
I said upthread that I would vote for Santorum over Obama. I am just saying that is a pretty low fucking bar and I can’t believe we can’t do better. The election is still damn near a year off and we are already accepting that the choice is between a Santorum and Romney.
Fuck that. The truth is Santorum is damn near as empty a suit as Obama was. He has no resume, just some shit he has said, some of it I like, some of it makes me want to tell him to go fuck himself. Without a condom.
I am fucking tired of this constant parade of dim-wits and con-men.
what is there but celibacy for the unwed?
I’m celibate, and I have no regrets.
Granted, it’s easier for wimmens than for mens, but let’s get real. You said pointed out the two statements:
BUT
The top quote was about The State, whereas the bottom was about the states. He’s trying to be POTUS, and that gives him exactly ZERO power to consign singles to a monastery or mandate chastity belts.
I also doubt that he’s inclined to do so, even if he had the power.
just asking not to be condemned because I am single and haven’t joined a monastery.
Hey, you think I like being told that I’m a freak for being deliberately celibate? Far more messages in society to that effect than condemn you.
Man up, already. Other people’s sexual choices are naturally a matter of strong emotions. Get over it.
[…] a bit later, same guy: Also, BMoe, I think it pretty obvious by now I’m not a social conservative. I’m just […]
realizes that this country is FUCKED
no one is leveling with us about this except maybe Paul and the inane debates don’t go anywhere near this as these wankers bleat their versions of it’s morning in america blah blah blah
It is so fucking not morning in America I can’t even tell you.
Not if they promise to use the Presidency as a pulpit to preach to me about it.
Who did that?
Jeez… deja vu 1960
Not if they promise to use the Presidency as a pulpit to preach to me about it.
Damn that broccoli in the casserole!
di
there was no broccoli in the casserole … but it WAS in another dish on the table making noises on how healthy it is, so like it should have just shut up
this is very very on point Mr. sdferr but not easy to get at
from what you can see it suggests that contraception laws were a reaction a popular desire to suppress obscenity in literature and were part and parcel with censorship laws and comstock laws what among other things made it illegal to mail rubbers
Whether I believe it or not, I get tired of being told I am an immoral cretin. Its why I don’t go to church. It’s why I don’t want to elect a President who promises to preach to me from the White House.
If we had an atheist, financial conservative, strict Constitutionalist running who was perfect in every way but constantly demeaned the religious as superstitious, backwards ninnies would you throw your support behind without complaint?
The fact that I don’t like broccoli is no comment on whether it’s nutritious or poisonous. I know that it’s got all kinds of vitaminks in it. It’s also goitrogenic, so my sick thyroid doesn’t need it.
Furthermore, I can be lured into the very maw of hell by any pastry with frosting on it. Also not a comment on its healthfulness.
Look, if family is the biggest and best Bulwark against the State, then it stands to reason that a POTUS who preaches Family is also preaching against the State. The fact that it tastes nasty in your mouth isn’t the same as it being wrong.
oops here is the first very on point link
If we had an atheist, financial conservative, strict Constitutionalist running who was perfect in every way but constantly demeaned the religious as superstitious, backwards ninnies would you throw your support behind without complaint?
Zombie Christopher Hitchens?
Yeah, I’d get behind him. I’d also express annoyance with his anti-theism, but I wouldn’t find it a threat.
Who are we talking about? Santorum said it, right out loud.
He doesn’t plan on pushing any legislation about sex, but he looks forward to having the Presidency as a platform to preach about it.
I already linked to the quote in a previous thread, don’t remember where I saw it.
Bingo!
But I wouldn’t be harping on it in every single thread, the way certain Pikachus do.
Mostly I’d defend ZCH’s Constitutionalism and say that even though I’m a devout Christian, I’ll put the Bitter Atheist in office because that’s what’s best for the country.
How many atheists do that for Santorum?
Yeah, that Santorum quote is definitely going to be broadcast 24/7 if he gets the nom. That would practically preclude him from getting any independent women votes. Not sure if I care about the independent woman vote – but there you go.
The quote on rubbers…
Hey thanks for that link, Pikachu! Wherein the writer says
It’s a demonstrable fact that The Pill has had a HUGE impact on society. We can’t talk about what that impact is and whether it’s good or bad?
That would practically preclude him from getting any independent women votes.
Do you know that for a fact?
I’d argue, in fact, that there are a LOT of single women out there who would welcome a socially accepted reason to say “NO” until well after the third date.
The sexual revolution benefited the libertine male, not the nesting woman. And that’s not been good for family life. Not at all.
hmmm i want to put a rubber on my pee pee and put it in your thingy but you know what President Rick says
oh my goodness you’re right let’s play parcheesi
okeydoke!
Sure you can. And the more you talk about it, the more people associate you with it.
Rick Santorum, oh, he is that guy who is against contraception.
Focus on the big picture: the economy, sane foreign policy.
Leave religion for Sunday morning. You don’t have to give an in-depth answer to every question you get asked.
*
We most often look at this from a believer/non-believer angle but I’m not sure that’s necessary for everyone. (It is relevant, of course. I’m not saying anyone is missing the point when they speak to a different facet of the issue.)
Let’s say that Santorum was pitching things that ran counter to Western tradition. So, instead of the family and baby makin’ stuff, he was pitching something like a prohibition on sporting events. Or, a prohibition on democratic institutions, let’s say. One would hope that his support would sharply decline with all rightists. Because he’d be a radical revolutionary regardless of whatever arguments he might muster.
Likewise, in the reverse, if he’s pitching things that have a long and positive tradition, do I have to look at the religious underpinnings at all or can I just accept it as a rather boring and staid Burkean?
If I have to accept it in a religious sense, I can’t, at least not honestly. But, there is more than one way to accept and support something. A religious argument works for some. A traditionalist argument works for others. Always a good idea to keep that second door of agreement open to let a few friendly stragglers through.
hf
front or back thingy?
i’d had you figured as a foot fetishist..
i haven’t seen a conservative candidate that wants to put anyones hoo haw under federal jurisdiction. quite the opposite.
of course that means no coochie related fundings
I get tired of being told I am an immoral cretin.
It’s my experience, albeit based on a very small and unrepresentative sample, that people who believe that they are in fact immoral cretins tend to lash out, mocking those they fear think as little of them as they think of themselves.
I think it’s safe to say given how monochromatic this Santorum is that this primary season is in part a referendum on how enthusiastic Team R is about the idea of nominating a hyper-religious moralist
we’ll see I guess
I have been trying to be patient with you Ernst, but you really need some work on reading for comprehension.
bh, there’s a certain amount of inescapable overlap between the religion and the tradition, simply because the religion is a central component of the tradition.
I’m beginning to understand.
That wasn’t directed at you B. Moe.
BH is right: there are plenty of arguments to make for the Family as Bulwark Against the State that don’t reside in Judeo-Christian theology or any other theology.
Thing is, if a candidate were making the non-religious argument for Family, I wouldn’t get all panty-bunched because he wasn’t using MY favored arguments, nor would I feel that there was no seat for me at his table.
a hyper-religious moralist
Would you vote for Jesus Himself? Or is he just a touch too noisy about his religiosity for you?
Leave religion for Sunday morning.
It puts the broccoli in the compost heap.
Look, if your going to discuss this seriously, the first thing to resolve is whether it’s the individual or the family that is the most basic fundamental unit of a society. Everything else more or less flows from your starting premise.
Exactly. You can promote responsible parenthood and families without proselytizing and condemning those who prefer other, just as socially responsible, options.
Jesus would never run for office.
america is about individualism mexico is about families
I think it is stupid to worry about Santorum’s religious beliefs.
Romney’s either, because neither of them are crazy
Sure, check ’em out, vet them.
The real wild haired fanatic in the race is Ron Paul. But his craziness isn’t religious, so it’s gotta be ok.
Has Rand endorsed his dad yet?
It doesn’t matter if he talks about it or not in the sense of it being brought up as a negative in the campaign. It does matter in the sense that if he dodges it or hedges it then he will be also cast as shifty-eyed in addition to being a religious zealot.
I’m going to repeat myself here.
Our press and pundits can with much effort both make things up out of whole cloth and completely cover things up but both of these are hard to do and harder to sustain as time goes on. The much easier path is to be very selective in what is reported in a major way and how it is reported.
Every candidate makes mistakes, mis-statements, gaffs, flubs, has things done in their past that can be spun in ways to hurt them and their campaign. No candidate is perfect, but selective reporting can make any of them close to perfect if desired or make them a pariah.
In the previous thread I linked a piece at Slate which saw the Republican primary of 2012 as a repeat of 2008. Because he is a member of the class which drives the similarities the author doesn’t perceive that what he is writing on is a not happenstance, not a coincidence, but the result of a conscientiously followed strategy. One which went back, in the run-up to 2008, to 2006 and “macaca” which took out George Allen who was at that time considered to be a serious conservative candidate for the 2008 presidential run.
It is not just the left leaning media who work this strategy. The establishment elite of the Republicans caught on to it and use the selectivity also. they weren’t as active in 2008 but are fully engaged this time around.
The “George Allens” of 2012 were Palin and Daniels. The Slate piece details the rest of the “Groundhog Day” scene. Until the press power to do this selective reporting and flood the media with the same story spun the same way on each candidate is broken we will always have this message come up each election. “It is happening again.”
In the immortal (immoral too?) words of Bill Murray “It just doesn’t matter“.
I wouldn’t deny the overlap, Ernst, but I’m suggesting that non-believers might be able to blackbox the religious wheels and gears inside and simply say, “If it works, don’t monkey with it.”
That doesn’t deny what’s in the box, it just changes the focus to whether or not the box is spitting out good things or bad things.
(I use blackbox as a verb once in awhile and it might be a bit of jargon regardless so I’m gonna link this in case I’m being confusing with my usage.)
ah
I see Rand did endorse his dad. huh. that’s two strikes and an expanded zone for the next pitch
Great point from Geoff – it is clear that the infighting is being aroused for a reason. And it is clear to me that reason is to insure that Romney gets the nom.
For a similar reason, most people like Jeff were not allowed inside the pearly gates of PJM.
Daniels and Perry and Gingrich were rejected for not being conservative enough Mr. geoff
and so we get Romney
Of course Rand Paul is going to endorse his father. I don’t see that as a strike against Rand.
grieferdistortswhat?
sdferr, here is a passage about the Griswald decison:
this was before fannie-mae whore Newt became a a strident anti-capitalist
You can use ‘blackbox’ as a verb any time you like, bh. If English doesn’t have an equivalent verb, go ahead and use a noun, say I.
That is an opinion that I do not share. They got all got a media treatment that was designed to take them out, and you can add Cain, Palin, Bachmann and others to that list.
Hell for all I know Huntsman is/has been framed in a way that is contrary to what he is and wants also. Whoever gets the nomination will be pilloried even more than they have been so far and I expect that there are more tricks like the Oct. 2008 financial “CRISIS!!!!!” in the works.
This is the Left’s “real war” unlike that fake stuff happening overseas about which they care naught unless it has a political use to win here.
Dicentra, forgive me for saying this as I am aware that not all independent women care about contraception. It does seem to me, being married twice, having an mother and a sister, and several female friends, that all of them found it a fairly important issue. I was born in a protestant crowd, so they usually are pro-contraceptive. The only people I remember ever being against it were the old school Catholic types.
Possible that you are more familiar with a Catholic community as far as Christianity goes than a Protestant one?
.04% of us had an opinion at a cocktail party, and .07% have actually voted, yet 90% of the field has been eliminated.
There is no law saying we have to nominate our people this way, is there?
Now I’m suddenly unable to conjugate broccoli as a verb for humorous purposes. Stupid -i ending. Stupid bh.
Broccoling? Broccoliate?
Jeff uses bracket the same you use blackbox bh
I think that is probably why Huntsman got the China post. The Obama team knew that would poison him with most Republicans and take him out of the race before it even started.
Mr. Daniels was pilloried for being against right-to-work and for thinking the deficit was a more pressing issue than the fetuses also it was suggested he wanted a VAT (which is something Romney isn’t ruling out)…
Perry we learned is a huge fan of “immigration magnets” plus per Palin he’s a crony capitalist.
Newt is problematic he’s sort of the Hot Mess candidate of 20012.
Cain had a very fake and then a very real chippie problem but his 999 thing (which included a VAT-like tax) almost put tax reform on the agenda. It was the closest this campaign came to being about something so far.
Ahhh, yeah, you’re right, Ernst. [Adds bracket to internal thesaurus.]
*2012*
Only Huntsman made Huntsman take the China post. And I haven’t observed him trying to make his case to the base.
Anyways, if I remember correctly Di wasn’t too keen on Huntsman or on his chances for another term as Gov. of Utah.
Huntsman was caught up in the historical moment. He believed in hopenchange.
It’s really that simple.
Studies have shown that the tinfoil actually magnifies the mind control rays, B. Moe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5ZYpvXCphA&context=C3788c16ADOEgsToPDskKghMHz0UVfCwHeGY_pCpFv
Its gotten so fucked up I am actually considering Ron Paul.
I am told that Democrat campaign strategists actually develop strategies.
Crazy, I know, but that’s what they say.
Why does a son have to endorse his father when the father is more than a little daffy?
Possible that you are more familiar with a Catholic community as far as Christianity goes than a Protestant one?
I’m a Utah Mormon. We’re good with contraception but not with sex outside marriage.
I am aware that not all independent women care about contraception
It’s not a matter of caring about contraception but about the impacts contraception has had on society at large. That’s a different issue than whether contraception should be restricted.
Well, I am a Roman Catholic and while we are not supposed to use birth control, nearly every one of my Catholic friends and family either does or did. I’ve had a lot of internet arguments with people about this, but it’s not true that all Catholics eschew birth control.
I think it’s a good thing, myself. If you want a houseful of kids, go ahead. If you only want a couple, great. If you don’t want any, well that’s your business.
we need a national discussion about contraception
Maybe we do need that discussion.
IF that discussion is going to take into account that the problem with contraception isn’t it’s utilization per se, but the way that it’s utilization, and the contreceptive mentality which results, alters our understanding of sexuality, as well as altering the way men and women relate to each other’s sexuality in a utilitarian way. And that paradigm shift, so to speak is as profound as the shift in the way people related to the state: from subject of a monarch to citizen of a republic to client of a welfare state.
it’s not really the job of the president to engineer how men and women relate to each other’s sexuality
it’s not Congress’s job either
limited government must perforce limit itself to a limited array of subject matter
otherwise it’s not limited really
it’s holistic
“we need a national discussion about contraception”
we already are. though we tend to just hear from the side that wants to give 8 year olds condoms.
that’s something what happens at the community level Mr. newrouter
Yes, we’re often retarded at the community level, especially in very blue places.
Count me out of that one, I am firmly on the side of non-water balloon proliferation.
The ratchet only works in one direction, eh?
it’s not really the job of the president to engineer how men and women relate to each other’s sexuality
Engineer? No.
Introduce the topic? Why not?
b moe
Rick Santorum, oh, he is that guy who is against contraception FOR HIMSELF
FTFY
He’s not, and said specifically, against contraception for any adult that wants it.
SHEESH … I guess “intent” doesn’t apply when it comes to godbotherers.
Oh… by the way that “independent women” vote (aka single females)
How “independent” are they when they as a block always vote for more Big Nanny Government?
Of course, if you really want to make things equal, posit a candidate who is a devout Muslim who talks about Strengthening The Family Against The State AND who thinks any women who does not wear hijab, dates boys, and is uncircumcised is a whore.
Stone them
Obviously
I understand, Darleen. I was talking about problems with perception if a candidate dwells on a topic too much.
I also understand that you guys don’t like making concessions to the ill-informed, casual electorate, but we have to have at least some of them. If all you are concerned with if making statements and sending messages, you might as well vote Libertarian.
As long as he is a Constitutional literalist and supports a balanced budget amendment I don’t see what the problem is.
Respectfully, B. Moe. 169 in incongruent with 168. Either perceptions matter, or they don’t. Unless, that is, only some perceptions matter, in which case, D’Souza didn’t go off the rails after all.
Either perceptions matter, or they don’t.
Doesn’t that take us right back to the question of perception being reality?
Not neccessarily. Santorum is a Constitutional literalist who supports a balanced budget amendment (I would argue), so presumably B. Moe wouldn’t have any more of a problem voting for him than he would for Di’s hypothetical muslim candidate. But if that hypothetical candidate dwells on social problems arising from educating girls, for example, presumably he’s going to have similiar problems with the ill-informed casual voter. I’m just pressing to find out which candidate has the greater problem with the voters, and the reason for it.
Grab the wrong power lines behind dicentra’s house and no matter what you perceive them to be they will kill you all the same.
You know? #173 appears to be in the wrong thread, but looks to me like it’s not.
That all depends on how grounded you are, doesn’t it?
dicentra, that’s just your perception.
So reality is potential dependent?
Aristotle thought virtue was too.
Reality? That’s 14-0, Patriots (pending review). GRONK!
I’m just pressing to find out which candidate has the greater problem with the voters, and the reason for it.
Thanks, Ernst. I figured that’s where you were going.
OT, sorta:
I just heard Haley Barbour say that his faith informed his decision to pardon all of the murders, et al, that Mississippi’s citizens are all atwitter about. It seems that Governor Barbour’s faith is in conflict with the state constitution’s provision for pardoning the cons, in that proper paper work was not filed, &c.
This sort of thing is what gives voters pause when candidates burnish and brandish their Christian cred. My problem with public speaking about one’s faith, and this may be just me, is that it can smack of pride. Of course, it is possible that I am not hearing what they are saying aned they are, in fact, very humble.
Virginia Postrel:
Feminist filmaker’s Thatcher bio-pic suggest’s iron-lady should have stayed home and baked cookies.
Kinda OT
(or is it?)
Aristotle thought virtue was [potential dependent] too.
I like that formulation. A lot.
I just heard Haley Barbour say that his faith informed his decision to pardon all of the murders
That’s a good example of how NOT to live one’s faith while in office. If serving as governor would put you in a position to violate your faith, maybe don’t run for governor.
Also, if he thinks Christianity compels him to forgive all sinners by releasing them from the constraints of law, he needs to be smacked upside the head by all the pastors (most of them) who know otherwise.
Oddly enough, isn’t pardoning all murderers more in line with what a Lefty would do, but for different reasons?
So, it’s ahistorical, Ernst?
Yeah, that.
If we are merely talking of opinions, then not off topic. However, that article was about a movie. I was referencing an actual quote in real time by Governor Barbour.
I’m sorry, what did you want us talking about? The Barbour thing? The most Christiany thing I heard in it was that he was comfortable with pardoning several of the killers because they’d found Jesus. The forgiveness thing was secondary, IMHO.
I’m not directing the conversation, but my post #179, was trying to answer what Ernst was asking about voters, electability and my opinion about why people get spooked about socons. I heard what I heard as stated in that same post, so I either we heard towo different statements or I misheard it.
In addition to that, you have the feminist filmmaker choosing to portray the career woman exemplar par excellence as wishing she’d spent more time at home being a housewife and mother; which is probably just playing up the conservative hypocrite angle (you know how those conservative women are supposed to be).
And finally you have the double irony of a feminist filmaker inverting the trope forming the moral dilemna at the core of almost every movie John Ford ever made. It’s not Margaret and Denis fighting over career and homelife, it’s Marvin and Denise.
tebow
leigh and I posted two OT comments at approximately the same time.
The gods of teh intrawebs are happy
…hey play with us.
Threadhijacking: It’s not just for Dicentra’s tree removal project anymore.
Just soes liegh doesn’t feel left out [wry smile]:
Barbour put himself into the same pickle Huckabee did, and from what little I’ve heard, for largely similiar reasons.
Both governors got to meet many of the inmates they ultimately pardoned (because both states employ convict labor in & around the governor’s mansion or something), and felt that because they knew them personally, they had a sense that their repentance and conversion (so to speak) were sincere and worthy of clemency.
Hopefully Barbour’s clemency doesn’t bite him in his ass that way Huckabee’s did. (That would be my guess as to why Huckabee opted not to run again.)
We’re a mighty frewheeling lot, aren’t we?
“e”
Toss that up there where it belongs.
Leigh
I just heard Haley Barbour say that his faith informed his decision to pardon all of the murders, et al, that Mississippi’s citizens are all atwitter about. It seems that Governor Barbour’s faith is in conflict with the state constitution’s provision for pardoning the cons, in that proper paper work was not filed,
Amazingly, Governor Arnold never used “faith” for his pardons. So people criticized his judgement without ever laying blame on what allegedly motivated the judgement.
Just as I don’t care where you got your principles, I only care about your behavior … nor do I care what motivated your judgement, only if the resulting judgement was good or not.
Yes, that’s the way I heard him (Bartbour) explain it. So, he and Huckabee both got conned by the cons. (No doubt some were sincere, but I tend toward cynicism when dealing with the incarcerated.)
Geez, Pablo, and here I thought we all marched in lockstep – sycophants to JeffG or just sockpuppets.
Did he get conned? Tough to say at this point. I think it’s enough to surmise that he fucked the paperwork up. And there’s a potential MANHUNT!!!!
And now to jack the thread back my way:
Just because the conflict between public and private duties is an old trope, doesn’t mean that their isn’t some truth to it.
OHNOES! Little kids just recited John 3:16! Focus on the Vaginas And The Gays got airtime? EVERYBODY FREAK OUT!!!!!
AAAAIIIIEEEEEE!!!!!!
Ah, a caveman in a dress. Much better.
there needs to be a fcc investigation of this 316 thing
i like diversity just don’t disagree with me ok.
that’s only a thing really when R’s jump on it and claim the Focus message for the Republican Party I think
Teh horrah!
OHNOES!!!
Obama 2012!
“that’s only a thing really when R’s jump on it and claim the Focus message for the Republican Party I think”
’cause “general betrayus ad” printed,cut rate, in the nyt had nothing to do with demonrats
What a time hogging asshole. It’s not all about you, Dude!
you should be a picachu fashionista and get a sweater vest
There’s no way that sweater vest costs $100. Even with the embroidered logo we’re talking $20, tops.
Plus, they look like a heavy cotton/ply blend. That’ll pill like a motherfucker. Maybe that’s the coded message of the Sweater Vest,eh?
Uh, it’s campaign donation tchotchkes. The campaign is not a retail outlet.
Probably has his teleprompter line to Jesus hidden under that sweater vest or the words get written on the wall. We do know he has to be too stupid to stand there and take questions for two hours un-“prompted”.
“I bark for Barack”, then go pee in his marching slippers.
Of course, Pablo. That’s why they’re called fundraisers.
Geoff, he wrote key words on his hand.
i’ve read the taro cards and g-d will smite brady at 7:54 3rd q
Assertion monkey asserts. Assert, assertion monkey, assert.
ymmv
I’m counting the minutes.
ouijiboard update: g-d lets sodom and gomorrah ma. fall. tebow don’t look back
This sort of thing is what gives voters pause when candidates burnish and brandish their Christian cred. My problem with public speaking about one’s faith, and this may be just me, is that it can smack of pride. Of course, it is possible that I am not hearing what they are saying and they are, in fact, very humble.
This. Not that Santorum exudes “pride,” but politicians who flaunt their faith, publicly pontificate & dwell on religion and morality (especially sexual morality)– who in the year 2011 spend time valuable time talking about e.g. the evils of sodomy and contraception, and who say they would use the presidential bully pulpit to sermonize on these issues (as Santorum has done)– repel a lot of people. And not just “independent women” and horndogs and atheists. I’m talking about religious people too– deeply religious people, who might personally agree with all of Santorum’s social con views: many of them too are put off by such politicians, because they don’t want & don’t need & indeed find it inappropriate to hear this stuff from a president. That’s what they go to church for (which they voluntarily choose for themselves). They already have a preacher or a priest. Indeed, it’s quintessentially American to be religious, yet feel uneasy about politicians who insist on their religion, spotlight their faith (e.g. refer to themselves as “the Jesus candidate”).
And why wouldn’t they find it off-putting? It’s condescending to think that the religious (a majority of the country) would welcome a president spouting off on these things, just because they might agree with them. I’m an atheist, and if (in some alternate universe) a president started sharing his Dawkins- or Hitchens-like views on religious belief (even while reassuring us he has no intention of threatening religious freedom), let alone extolling the virtues of sexual liberation, it goes without saying I’d find this repellent and extremely unseemly coming from a president.
Think about Obama, and his polarizing us vs. them rhetoric. A social conservative president who would feel it’s his duty to use the presidency to sermonize (even while reassuring us he wouldn’t push legislation on these things) is just as polarizing, speaking to an “us” (people with heterosexual “family values”) and stigmatizing a “them.” I don’t want a president– who’s supposed to be president of us all– doing that, even if I shared all his values. In fact, I might be especially offended if I shared his values– because while I might want my personal, spiritual, religious values to have a place and a voice in the public square, I’d find it unseemly to have them pushed by the POTUS– who was hired to do a different job, which is big enough already.
A Bush or a Palin, for example, is a very different case. They may be deeply religious, and might occasionally talk about their faith, and might have been caricatured by the left as theocratic ultra-fundamentialists, but that caricature is patently false, and very few people (outside of the left) bought it. Bush & Palin almost never brought religion into their political speeches, it was not a dominant theme among their policy concerns. It would be false & unfair to call Santorum a theocratic Christianist (to use the Andrew Sullivan epithet)… but the left would certainly have a much better case to convince people of that, starting with all too many of Santorum’s own words. They wouldn’t have to make anything up (as they did in the case of Palin)– just draw up a list of bona fide Santorum quotations, and let the voters decide.
Leigh, Bo knows the words by heart.
“but politicians who flaunt their faith”
more from the ” i like diversity but don’t disagree with me dept.”
I see G-d has not smitten Brady yet. I think your tarot cards are broken.
rachel you’re a wimp go vote for mittens
God seems to love Brandon Spikes.
“I see G-d has not smitten Brady yet. I think your tarot cards are broken.”
see @219 ouijiboard update
Well said, rachel.
Tebow better make quick work of those six TDs in the next little while.
“In fact, I might be especially offended if I shared his values– because while I might want my personal, spiritual, religious values to have a place and a voice in the public square, I’d find it unseemly to have them pushed by the POTUS– who was hired to do a different job, which is big enough already. ”
ms. rachel is a relativistic mess. yo go grrrl. hey it might be 1/2 full/empty who knows just don’t piss on dead taliban peeps. andy the beagle told me so.
“It’s condescending to think that the religious (a majority of the country) would welcome a president spouting off on these things”
link
To reiterate, with emphasis:
Our press and pundits can with much effort both make things up out of whole cloth and completely cover things up but both of these are hard to do and harder to sustain as time goes on. The much easier path is to be very selective in what is reported in a major way and how it is reported.
Every candidate makes mistakes, mis-statements, gaffs, flubs, has things done in their past that can be spun in ways to hurt them and their campaign. No candidate is perfect, but selective reporting can make any of them close to perfect if desired or make them a pariah.
[It] is a not happenstance, not a coincidence, but the result of a conscientiously followed strategy.
Every candidate will get the treatment. It will work, is designed to work, on a certain segment of the voting public. A different segment depending on what can be plausibly used to smear a particular candidate.
This one works to split off a certain part of the voting public from Santorum. You can see it right here. It fucking works, and it fucking will work to the same effect on each and every candidate that they run this play on.
It will continue until you get madder at the press and pundits, those assholes who are jerking the chains you have hitched to your own selves, than you get at the candidates who have no way to avoid this and can only either keep on keeping on or play kiss-ass to the media who will simply kick them harder in the end for being weak.
Gingrich got his traction by fighting the real enemy, the press, that’s why Romney went after him because Mitt thinks they, the press, love him and love him defending them by attacking those who attack them. He too will be kicked hard but he’s being saved for last. Just like McCain.
You can’t fight the enemy until you see exactly who they are. Paddy Chayefsky was prophetic 35 years ago. Jeff G. has been as long as I’ve read him. I’ve been mad as hell for a long time.
ne are massholes
“Santorum’s problem is that he’s not a tactician.”
BMoe,
Forgive me for piling on because I respect your views but in light of geoffb’s links and points above I’d like you to consider a couple of questions:
1. If Rick Santorum was the perfect tactician would it matter? How would we know it?
2. Considering how the media cut the legs out from under Fred Thompson do we want them get away with it again? And isn’t it possible that they’ve already succeeded?
And just for the record; while I don’t consider Rick Santorum and Fred Thompson equals, I do think they are not as far apart as some would have us believe.
Romney’s not anywhere near as feckless as McCain
still pretty damn feckless though… try as he might no one would ever confuzzle him for a normal person
effin class act in masshole
Well said geoffb!
And for the record it should be noted that RS was “tactical” enough to avoid the Romney/Bain dog pile.
white thugs attack black guy in masshole
rachel you’re a wimp go vote for mittens
I probably will, if I get a chance. I was undecided between Romney, Perry, & Newt. But the Bain thing has managed to convert me into a Romney-supporter. And definitively turned me against Newt & Perry.
I feel bad going off on Santorum, who’s not a bad guy. And probably wouldn’t be terrible president, all things considered. (Though I don’t think he’s the “true conservative” he’s being made out to be here. Neither is he the renegade candidate, disfavored by the GOP establishment– National Review loves Santorum, so does Rupert Murdoch. Anyway, I’d much rather vote for Santorum than Newt. Goes without saying I’d vote for Santorum over Obama, anyone over Obama.) But I’ll admit I do have an intense antipathy for preachy, pietistic, moralizing politicians. So I am biased, but I don’t think it’s bigotry (though you might disagree). It’s not their religion or faith or values I object to, not at all; it’s not their social conservative positions. It’s using the presidential bully pulpit– taking valuable time from the national dialogue, when there are so many grave & urgent things to deal with– on topics that are, or should be, beyond the president’s purview.
I just think it’s ridiculous for a presidential candidate, in public political discussion, to utter the word “sodomy” at all. Unless they’re singing along to the Hair soundtrack.
To add to what geoffb said, it’s more difficult to talk about classical liberal positions because they don’t appeal to emotion, they appeal to reason. Emotion is much easier to convey in a few words. Of course, even if someone did it, the selective reporting of partial truths would go against them, because that’s the way the press wants it.
This isn’t directed at anyone, so take it for what it is (or not):
However judgemental one thinks overtly religious people are, they’re nothing like as judgemental as the people judging them.
I base that on how I’ve seen people, co-workers mostly, treat my wife. Who is religious (devout or faithful are probably better descriptors) but isn’t particularly overt about it.
She can’t hide the “goody-two-shoes” though, and people immediately go to “Christian” as in “one of those,” and I’ve seen her made to suffer for it.
“I just think it’s ridiculous for a presidential candidate, in public political discussion, to utter the word “sodomy” at all.”
link
“It’s not their religion or faith or values I object to, not at all; it’s not their social conservative positions. It’s using the presidential bully pulpit– taking valuable time from the national dialogue, when there are so many grave & urgent things to deal with– on topics that are, or should be, beyond the president’s purview. ”
yea you go grrl talking about the national debt and paying sect.8 and welfare and all the freebies.
“to utter the word “sodomy” at all.”
hey rachel if you want a dick in your ass or you want suck one that is ok with me. enjoy hun.
“It’s not their religion or faith or values I object to, not at all; it’s not their social conservative positions.”
effin stuck on stupid
we want to thank the nea tonight for all the “bright peeps” you have given us over the last 40 years. go commies!!
I’ve seen and heard progressives be condescending about people who have faith in G-d. I’ve been on the receiving end of the famous, “What, I thought you were smart,” kinds of responses.
At one party, I heard a guest expressing sadness over the fact that the hosts were practicing Catholics.
Jesus said it wouldn’t be easy, and sometimes it isn’t.
I think Rachel put a lot of thought onto her comments, and that they merit better consideration. But that’s going to have to wait because I have to get up in the morning.
That’s the kind of thing that I was getting at, Cranky. The Kultursmog (as R. Emmett Tyrell so ably termed it) is so thick that it seems to me we cede half the playing field before the match even begins.
reagan had only a fraction of the religiosity of a santorum
and george w. was the apex of this sort of thing I think
Well, I’m glad the hipster hamster is here to inform me of the zeitgeist. That way I know who to ignore.
That is because 168 was serious and 169 was me being an obnoxious dick.
Bring it, dude. I am trying to sort how I feel about this out, the more I have to answer to the better.
I am not looking for perfection, just don’t drop your guard and walk into punches. Make the bastards work for it.
See above. And what Geoff said at 230. In Santorum’s case, yes, I do think they have already succeeded. They are just waiting for the right time to throw the trap.
Like Geoff said, the first step is to recognize and spotlight the enemy. Then call in an air strike, don’t cooperate, eliminate.
I would argue that they have already identified all the enemies, and have a way to destroy any of them, because the media is that invested in Obama ahead of the truth.
re: the continuing arguments that Santorum (or any other politician who does more than give lip-service to a religion) is, by definition, “preachy” and “wastes valuable time on social issues”
Recall that only once did Sarah Palin, in talking about the unique position of AK’s governor position, of having to deal with things like Russia because “They’re our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska”
Suddenly “I can see Russia from my house” became the catch-phrase that “Palin says all the time.”
And if a politician dismisses a question – e.g. Romney saying a question about contraception was “silly”- then suddenly they are RUNNING AWAY and have some HIDDEN AGENDA!!
No one was talking about “banning contraception” except the Left because “bad” Catholics (the non-left ones … not the “good” lefty Catholics like Nancy Pelosi) actually follow their faith.
Radical secularism is what has brought us to this a-American place where public talk about sex and sex practices and even public profanity is yawned about, but talk about God and morality is enough to make some people take to the fainting couch.
Darleen, have you been reading to the end of the Santorum comment thread at Ricochet? Just wondering, since there are other accounts of “what has brought us to this a-American place” that don’t precisely pin the tail on radical secularism as such, unless possibly I mis-understand what you intend by radical secularism.
sdferr
I’ll have to go and read the comments there …
I mean “radical secularism” as the left-center sentiments of mass media, academia, and politics that demand Christian faith (and to a less extent, observant Jews) shut up and leave the public square.
Secularism – as usually defined as being religiously neutral – is how our fed government is set up. A “hands off” approach to religious persons and their exercise of religion. But a classical liberal government requires citizens who come from a strong educational tradition of ethics, principles and morality and, in general, that requires a sound religious background. (this doesn’t preclude atheists from being ethical/moral at all — and we’ve had this discussion before, so I won’t rehash it here)
Oh, America’s hoi polloi are still allowed to call themselves “Christian” … as long as it’s the “I celebrate Santa Clause and the Easter bunny” kind, not the icky Tebow, Palin, fetus-fetish, anti-euthanisia, believe-Jesus-actually-lived kind. Go there and count on marginalization, derision, and active hate.
sdferr
yikes .. there’s 416 comments on Ricochet so far — a quick sampling see’s a great many arguments about SSM.
Can you point me to stuff you reference? Or summarize the argument?
And we can either continue to walk face first into that slamming door or we can start to figure out ways to get through it.
I don’t know the answer, but being very careful of your positions and language is a necessary first step it seems to me. Don’t give them easy targets, make them work for it and start to develop some sort of counter-offensive. Newt was on to something there for awhile, then he caved and started pandering. We need someone with a few less skeletons in the closet I think to pick up the flag.
Santorum might could be that guy, instead of the martyr he is setting himself up for now.
“Can you point me to stuff you reference? Or summarize the argument?”
I don’t think I should do that, in the sense of lending any encouragement to limiting consideration of the arguments broached there, since my own views may prove too narrow, hence missing something possibly more important than I’ve seen to this point. Just to say, they are many (the arguments), and the contributors many, and most, or more than not, deserve better consideration than I have given them.
Nevertheless, I can point to the arguments joined by Tommy De Seno (who is present in the thread from the beginning to the end) for one (and there are others aligned with him, more or less), and Robert Lux (who doesn’t join the thread until about the 10th page), for another, though it can appear they are talking past one another. Both, so far as I can tell, are serious toward the subject, and I think are seriously engaged with elucidating the American view, as they see it, yet seem to reach widely differing conclusions. I’m not perfectly certain, but think De Seno says he’s a believing Catholic, yet arrives at the conclusion that homosexual marriage is militated by a proper reading of our rights scheme, and Lux? I don’t know for sure, but appears anyhow, to not lay any claim to religious belief that I can see (I may have missed it), yet arrives at the conclusion that homosexual marriage is entailed by the abandonment of natural right theory, and is part and parcel of an untethered and arbitrary nihilistic stand.
That is, if I read them right. Which I may not. But see for yourself.
sdferr
Oh, I saw a number of things about SSM and in regards to natural law.
BTW can we get away from the terms “homosexual marriage” or “gay marriage”? It perpetuates the myth that marriage is based on sexual orientation. Every person has a right to marriage, but that doesn’t mean the right to marry anyone else regardless.
One can’t marry:
a sibling
a parent
a minor
another married person
someone of the same sex
someone who hasn’t consented to marry you
more than one other person
The sexual-orientation of people wanting to marry is of complete indifference to the state.
Marriage describes a contractual arrangement in which both male and female participate. Always has, always will. And the weird idea (expressed in the thread) that it only arose via sexual jealousy is something out of some Womyn’s/Gender Study program.
The state does have a legitimate interest in protecting children; therefore, investing a minimal body of statutes to the obligations and duties of the people whose relationship most naturally produces them, and the issuance of licenses that directly tie them to those statutes does not stop other people from making other arrangements. Privileging marriage doesn’t outlaw civil unions/domestic partnerships and all manner of private contractual arrangements. Indeed, many heterosexual couples supplement state law with private pre-nup contracts.
“Always has, always will.”
Huh. I thought that question was what the argument has been about? I mean, the proposal is to allow the state to recognize as marriages unions of two people of the same sex? Granted indeed, such a thing is novel, so far as I know. But if it were utterly inconceivable, there wouldn’t be any question to have to deal with in the first place, would there? (By the by, as it happens, the only reason I wrote “homosexual marriage” there was just a general irritation — most likely idiosyncratic in origin — with the abbreviation SSM. So grabbed at the first thing that came to mind in the alternative. I aint’ wedded to it, heh.)
of course people can marry someone of the same sex there’s like 7 states already where you can
Granted indeed, such a thing is novel, so far as I know.
No historical record of same-sex marriage. Ever.
if it were utterly inconceivable, there wouldn’t be any question to have to deal with in the first place
Has nothing to do with inconceivability, it has to do with language. You can get everyone to call a “table” a “cat” because they both have four legs, but it doesn’t make them fungible.
Though, correct me if I’m wrong, I believe the SSM debate was a bit afield of my statement about radical secularism?
What an upside-down world that 1) Tebow is hated but wife-beaters in the NFL are not 2) profanity and sexual acts are celebrated in public media but expressions of faith are objects of derision …
“Though, correct me if I’m wrong, I believe the SSM debate was a bit afield of my statement about radical secularism?”
Possibly, though you could better pin that down than I. On the other hand, the field gets mighty broad mighty fast when the Divine plan is invoked as a basis for political principles.
hf
if same-sex couples commit to each other and are happy, I applaud them. Their relationship, though, is not the same as a opposite sex couple. Not inferior or superior, just not the same.
the field gets mighty broad mighty fast when the Divine plan is invoked as a basis for political principles.
So the Declaration of Independence is controversial? You know, with all that Creator and inherent rights stuff
I’m out.
sdferr
If you didn’t mean “Divine Plan” in a snarky way, I withdraw and apologize for my own snarkiness.
I don’t even think one needs to even go to a God-based plan in regards to marriage.
But we cannot ignore that the Founders were religious and much of their own principles have a religious foundation — e.g. Man as “special”, individuals as “unique”
Once one elevates Man from the merely animal, then men’s behavior is more than succumbing to the animalistic.
It was religious arguments against slavery that moved the country away from it. Not secularists.
happiness in particular is not really something we’re in any danger of being asked to pursue by a santorum administration I don’t think
he kinda stops at the life part
hf
so killing for teh happiness! is the cause you get behind?
[…] of Santorum given his social-con views and credentials are pretty well covered in the comments to Jeff’s post on the […]
I don’t think the whore president of the United States is where I’m ever going to look for moral leadership
that’s not his job… at least Wall Street Romney understands that and he’s charmingly private about his religious beliefs whereas Pastor Santorum doesn’t understand what the president’s job is
which is a big reason he’s not in any danger of getting put in it I think
So, to sum up then, better to have a president that will keep Obamacare and be quiet about his private convictions than one that will reject Obamacare and be honest about his private convictions.
“Cuz of knowing what the presidents real job is…
Romney has a better chance of getting rid of obamacare cause he’s not as assured of losing the congress at the midterms as Santorum is I think
I think it’s ridiculous that the election itself is still 9 ½ months away and we’re arguing about the merits of Santorum and Romney to the exclusion of anyone else in the field.
Super Tuesday isn’t until the second week of March, even.
In other news, it must be election season since Obama took the fambly to church. He needs to borrow Bubba’s giant bible for the photo op.
fannie mae whore Newt’s gone over to the occupy camp
Perry bet the farm on his social con panderings and lost out in the bidding to Santorum
Have to dig to see who is running these ads in Florida.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi6JL8JlLKM
Almost makes you think Rick S is a liberal.
It’s disheartening, it is happy. I may have to start reading the Ron Paul spam in my mail box.
Ron Paul is the true conservative in the race is what I heard
I think Rachel’s objections boil down to this: we have to respect the Wall of Separation that’s been erected for us so that religion, and anything that can be tied to religion —fairly or not— remains safely ensconced in the private sphere where it can do no harm—to secularists and statists. I don’t see either the necessity or benefit of debating political issues exclusively in the terms preferred by the Left.
As to the rhetoric being polarizing —it’s supposed to be. Just as Obama’s class warfare rhetoric and social “justice” rhetoric is polarizing (not to mention rooted in the social gospel tradition of the early progressives, but that’s religious stuff, so we’d better not speak of it, lest we offend anyone). It’s just a different polarity; one that, hopefully, presents the country with a choice of public goods instead of an echo.
I think Rachel thinks presidents ara all around more effective if they focus on their actual job
That’s what all the email headers say, happy. It must be true.
I think Rachel is very articulate in her posts and is giving voice to what many people in the country think re the role of the president. I do not want a preacher in chief. And, as we have been reminded by the Obama presidency, faux college professors likewise do not belong in the Oval Office. The last college professor we had as president was Woodrow Wilson and look where that got us.
In my opinion, Santorum’s death grip on social issues is distracting from the real crises: The economy is on life support, banks are failing, the housing market is underwater, Europe is imploding, the ME is saber rattling, &c. While social issues are certainly important, it is time to triage our priorities. Whether or not queers get married is not at the top of most people’s hit parade.
I think Rachel is very articulate too. I just don’t happen to agree that she’s right.
And if you’re distracted it’s because you’re the one who can’t stay focused.
That should be “detracting” not distracting. I wish we had an edit feature.
I know you disagree with her and that’s fine. This is America. We don’t have to all think alike.
BTW, what do you think Lincoln was doing when he wasn’t sitting the the telegraph office at the War Department reading dispatches or firing generals? He was preaching.
What a prick, huh?
Then their really wasn’t any point to praising Rachel’s articulateness, was their?
Quite obviously, I am not an historian, nor do I play one on the internets.
Totally with you on the edit feature, thow [stet].
Then you should stop putting it there and pretending it’s Santorum who’s doing so.
Damn. I wish I’d have said that.
Somebody should tell the queers that.
Heh on the stet. I haven’t seen that one since college.
The Pee-Wee Herman defense sounds so much more impressive in Latin.
at least Wall Street Romney understands that and he’s charmingly private about his religious beliefs
Until he gets the nomination, then look at the MSM running all sorts of things about Mormonism
Magic underwear, it’s “racist” past, “some” would call it a cult, interviews with ex-Mormons, stories on the break-away fundie LDS and polygamy (I guarantee the Warren Jeffs story to be trotted out as an in-depth followup …that it happens during the campaign will only be coincidence, nothing more, trust me…)
Didn’t the way the media handled maverick McCain teach you nothing?
I don’t think Romney should get too worried about it, Darleen. All he needs to do is go to the stack o’ stuff about Reverand Hatey and it’s a “So’s your old man!” argument.
All he needs to do is go to the stack o’ stuff about Reverand Hatey and it’s a “So’s your old man!” argument.
Um… if people refuse to cover it, did Rev Wright ever really say it?
Certainly the “Wright was taken out of context” and that Wright is just a victim of selective editing has already begun this cycle.
National Soros Radio has already done some wicked mormon bashing then they shelved it cause they want Romney to be the nominee but yeah it’ll be back.
can “god damn amerikkka” be selectively editted?
Besides which, the Rev. Wright story has already been covered. Just like the story about the guy in the neighborhood. What’s his name? The bombmaker. The one who wrote his book.