February 6, 2012

RomneyCo begins attacks on Santorum from the right; Coulter provides flank defense by hoping to shame the Hobbits, most of whom she know realizes don’t come from Connecticut and think the last time Bill Maher was funny was in DC Cab

I posted this in the comments yesterday, but not everyone reads the threads all the way through, so I figured I’d elevate it to the front page. Which I can do, this being my site and all.

First, this: The Romney campaign — perhaps sensing a potential Santorum surge — has begun in earnest to dump its oppo research into people’s inboxes. To wit: “Romney is going after Santorum now. Inbox: RICK SANTORUM: PROUD DEFENDER OF EARMARKS AND PORK-BARREL SPENDING”.

To which I’d like to ask that someone, anyone — and there are plenty of you erstwhile very staunch small-government conservatives (many former Perry supporters, in fact) who are now on the Romney inevitability train, for whatever your reasons — please please please tell the Romney campaign to stop trying to attack the remaining conservative candidates from the right. It insults the intelligence of anyone left who has any — first, because it’s very transparent aim is to depress the base by suggesting that there are no conservatives alternatives remaining to serve as antidotes to the coronation of Captain Gladhand Milquetoast; second, because it relies on the strategy that those in the base it can’t win over it can at least demoralize and keep at home, allowing Mitt to win primaries where voter turnout is low; and third, because it implicitly suggests that Romney suddenly cares about conservatism — making his support for, eg., Obama’s stimulus, TARP, federal minimum wage increases, cap and trade, the individual mandate, government-run health care, gun control, and the bureaucratic suppression of religious conscience laws, all seem strangely anomalous.

So we’re not buying it. Nor are the “independents” we’re supposed to believe only Romney can garner for us.

And as to the substance of the Romney attacks on Santorum (and I expect Ron Paul to join in with this, given the libertarian small-government ideologues strange relationship with the big government corporatist Romney), let me just note that there are strong conservative arguments to be made for earmarks. For instance, here’s James Inhofe, whose conservatism is largely beyond reproach:

Banning earmarks will result in less accountability and transparency. The flawed Obama stimulus bill famously did not contain a single congressional earmarks, yet, as we found out long after the fact, those tax dollars were spent on hundreds of frivolous items such as a clown show in Pennsylvania, studying the mating decisions of the female cactus bug, and a helicopter able to detect radioactive rabbit droppings, to name a few. What all of these have in common is that they were spent by presidential earmarks, not congressional earmarks. Similarly, as faceless bureaucrats in the executive branch have continually taken greater responsibility over federal expenditures, lobbyists are increasingly turning to them, not Congress, for money. Unlike congressional earmarks, which are posted online prior to the expenditure and approved by representatives who must face the voters, executive spending is in the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats, and we often do not find out about these expenditures until years after the fact.

Demagoguing earmarks provides cover for some of the biggest spenders in Congress. Congressional earmarks, for all their infamous notoriety, are not the cause of trillion-dollar federal deficits (of all the discretionary spending that took place in Washington last year, earmarks made up only 1.5 percent). Nor will an earmark moratorium solve the crisis of wasteful Washington spending run amuck. While anti-earmarkers bloviate about the billions spent through earmarks, many of them supported the trillions of dollars in extra spending for bailouts, stimulus, and foreign aid. Talk about specks versus planks! Over the course of the last several years, the overall number and dollar amount of earmarks has steadily decreased. During that same time, overall spending has ballooned by over $1.3 trillion. In reality, ballyhooing about earmarks has been used as a ruse by some to seem more fiscally responsible than they really are.

Santorum has come out for a significant change in the tax code; he has talked about the need to make tough decisions on cuts to programs and departments that he knows will be demagogued; he has promoted free-market alternatives to government programs meant to significantly downsize the size and scope of the federal government; he’s called for a balanced budget amendment coupled to an 18% cap in spending.

And yet we’re supposed to believe Santorum is a big-spending liberal Republican? The guy who rejected both the stimulus and TARP? Or worse still, we’re to conclude that Romney is therefore the better choice, because, well, why, exactly? The hair? The money? The organization necessary to defeat his opponents by outspending them on negative ads while allowing his fluffers in the GOP establishment to carry the water for him with strained defenses of his demonstrably anti-conservative record as a public servant?

This is madness. Unless you happen to be a status quo Republican, that is, in which case this is the hill you are willing to die on — knowing as you must that should a TEA Party wave sweep a conservative into office, reforms to the system you’ve grown so comfortable with will prove “draconian” to your hold on power, and there will have been an unambiguous mandate for the kind of institutional house cleaning that will of necessity follow.

Then there’s this from Ann Coulter, whose reputation as a unabashed conservative has given way to her new more well-deserved reputation as a rank opportunist and Rockefeller Republican groupie: says Coulter, should the TEA Party back Gingrich over Romney, they’ll prove themselves to be hypocrites, because they’ll have thrown their support behind an “influence peddler for Fannie and Freddie” (note the language, which comes right out of the Romney ads), and not behind the candidate Coulter tells us is “the most conservative” on immigration.

Listen: it may be true that Gingrich quasi-lobbied for Fannie and Freddy; but Romney supported the stimulus (Gingrich did not) — and unlike Gingrich, Romney did not lead the Reagan revival in the House, did not spearhead welfare reform, and did not balance the federal budget. Instead, he got busy with his friend and collaborator Teddy Kennedy designing the blue prints for state-run health care.

And of course, Santorum — whom Coulter will likely begin attacking next — called for reforms to Fannie and Freddy long before the housing bubble burst, rejected both the stimulus and TARP, and never supported an individual mandate, despite the Romney camp’s attempt to plant that seed by sending “conservative” new media outlets its bogus gotcha reports, which many of them initially ran with without bothering to verify.

So here’s my advice to the Santorum campaign, which I hope they read and consider: anytime an ad comes out against your candidate questioning his conservative credentials, the response from Santorum should be first to list the various big government, “moderate” and “progressive” things he doesn’t support that Romney does — from the stimulus to TARP to cap and trade to an individual mandate to federal minimum wage increases to gun control — and then second to follow up that list with something like, “Were Mitt Romney or his Super Pac truly concerned with the conservatism of the Republican candidates for President, he’d be spending millions of dollars and saturating media markets with a series of ads attacking himself.”

(thanks to Bob Reed, newrouter)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 10:10am
171 comments | Trackback

Comments (171)

  1. And yet we’re supposed to believe Santorum is a big-spending liberal Republican? Or worse still, to conclude that Romney is therefore the better choice, because, well, why, exactly? The hair? The money?

    No, silly. It’s his turn.

  2. If you’re not seriously thinking about a third party right about now, you’re no more serious about the problem than is the Republican party.

  3. I’m not sure which party WMOD is in, but that’s the way I’m going.

  4. So wait, Santorum is a pork-barrel-devotee. Despite the fact that he voted against the two biggest pork-barrel bill of our age-TARP and the porkulus…

    Not only are the Romneyans mendacious, their ridiculously illogical as well…

    Trouble is, I hope folks don’t fall for this.

  5. Bob, one of the advantages of getting tossed out on your ass in ’06 is that you don’t have to vote anymore.

  6. That’s Colonel Milquetoast, thank you velly much.

  7. Don’t worry about it. Romney assured us all in his Florida victor’s speech that all of the conservative candidates he has relentlessly flogged will fall in line behind him.

    We must be believers.

  8. Well thanks Ernst; I meant that he “opposed” the two, but in a moment of gray cell deficit managed to type “voted against”.

  9. I don’t remember Romney supporting the Obama stimulus I think what he said was that he’d have focused on cutting taxes and drilling more oils. Remember he was still running for president when the whole stimulus discussion was happening.

  10. At the WaPo.

    The Romney campaign scheduled a conference call with reporters featuring former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty discussing Santorum’s “long history of earmarks and pork-barrel spending.” The campaign also distributed a research dossier to reporters with “a summary of his past discredited attacks against Governor Romney” over the Massachusetts health care law.

  11. I don’t remember Romney supporting the Obama stimulus I think what he said was that he’d have focused on cutting taxes and drilling more oils.

    I’m shocked that days after I linked to Romney supporting the stimulus you’d wait and trot this out, just as we’re all shocked that you are now reluctantly, out of a strong sense of conservative duty and a rejection of Obama, of course, willing to support Mitt Romney.

    Here. Let me refresh for you your memories whats seem unreliable:

    BLITZER: He’s talking about a $750 billion economic stimulus package. He wants it to be passed as soon as possible. It’s unclear if whether it can be passed before he’s inaugurated on January 20th. What do you think about this proposal?

    ROMNEY: Well, I frankly wish that the last Congress would have dealt with the stimulus issue and that the president could assign that before leaving office. I think there is need for economic stimulus. Americans have lost about $11 trillion in net worth. That translates into about $400 billion a year less spending that they’ll be doing, and that’s net of additional government programs like Medicaid and unemployment insurance. And government can help make that up in a very difficult time. And that’s one of the reasons why I think a stimulus program is needed.

    I’d move quickly. These are unusual times. But it has to be something which relieves pressure on middle-income families. I think a tax cut is necessary for them as well as for businesses that are growing. We’ll be investing in infrastructure and in energy technologies. But let’s not make this a Christmas tree of all of the favors for various politicians who have helped out the Obama campaign, giving them special projects.

    That would be wrong. You’ll see Republicans fight that tooth and nail if that happens. Let’s do what’s right for the economy, and let’s not do what’s a political expedient move.

    I bolded for you the parts whats important to the misrememberings.

  12. Remember he was still running for president when the whole stimulus discussion was happening.

    Only in the sense that he’s been running for president since leaving the Governor’s mansion.

  13. i have video too cause its important we find staunch staunch staunch candidates what didn’t take the same positions as obama.

  14. Not if all we want to do is defeat the man we don’t.

    Of course it could’nt hurt. Hard to make it about personalities when your guy doesn’t seem to have one.

  15. I don’t remember Romney supporting the Obama stimulus I think what he said was that he’d have focused on cutting taxes and drilling more oils.

    I’m surprised that living out west like you do, feets, you don’t go after Romney for teh Mormonism. Me, I don’t care a whit about it, except that practical experience taught me that out there teh Mormons have plenty of strangleholds on plenty of governments, judiciaries, and what-not.

    Such religiousity in a President Romney should set your sheets and sails in virulent opposition, I’d think. Especially as his numbers crater while Barry and the Mediatones get their narrative groove on and Mitt, having only ever taken orders, looks around for backup that’ll never come. Then you could chalk it up to your self-fulfilling prophesying, Palin-like it.

    But then I also wonder how you could have mobied for the guy from like three years ago, so thick is the bias. Good perks?

  16. he was for stimulus but not for Obama’s one, so I think it’s inaccurate to say he supported THE stimulus – and I could’ve lived with tax cuts and with *some* amount of for reals infrastructure spending but I guess I was wrong about drilling the oils – I find this talk of “energy technologies” to be very sketchy.

    The mormonism thing is not something to go after Mr. Howard I think Romney’s been very clear that his religion is his religion and that’s that – aside from his gay marriage antipathy, which is a sine qua non of becoming the Team R nominee and would have to be his stance irrespective of what the mormon church says. Besides which, there’s oodles of mormons who are just fine with gay marriage.

    But lots of candidates could take a lesson from how dignified Mr. Governor Romney has been with respect to not flaunting his religion or making overmuch of it with respect to the duties of the office he’s seeking.

  17. Hey dummy, if Wolfie is saying Obama wants it passed before he’s inaugurated, I think it’s safe to assume that that implies it’s after Obama’s already been elected. And thus we are in fact talking about Obama’s stimulus.

  18. not flaunting his religion

    Smacks of inevitability, doesn’t it. One must have such immutable principles.

    Mike Gallagher told me Mitt’s a changed man.

  19. yes Romney is in ebababa, probably

    but if he’s not that’s ok with me I’ll just vote for whatever

    this whole primary thing has been a damp squib I’ll be happy when it’s over and we can all work together for to defeat Obama

  20. we can all work together

    And around we go again.

  21. Love those Obama dolls within dolls within dolls within dolls. Beat deficit by deficit. Beat Obama through more Obama. Make America with America (Clint says so!). Grow less government by growing more government. Health and happiness for all. See, it’s simple. Just say health and happiness for all, over and over and over, and voila! There you go.

  22. Slate gets into the act though they are an equal opportunity attack dog of the left.

  23. When Chrysler gets into financial trouble again down the road will the cry go out. “Fix It Again Timmy”?

  24. And around we go again.

    When he rolls over and shows you his belly like that

    kick it

  25. Obama very bad man

  26. He said “butch”.

    She said “Lifestyle choices.”

    I say: Fuck it, Barack’s your huckleBarry.

  27. sdferr, I’m kinda looking forward to those kiosks with Big Brother soothingly telling us that everything is a-okay and to be happy.

  28. he was for stimulus but not for Obama’s one, so I think it’s inaccurate to say he supported THE stimulus

    Hey, Moby: he was for the idea of a government stimulus, though he wanted one that didn’t just reward Obama’s constituency. A better one would be a stimulus he and the GOP got to control.

    But still: Americans were hurting, and the government needed to step up and help them out by taking money out of the private sector and directing where it went. Because government knows best.

  29. well yeah but most of his stimulus was based in tax cuts –

    how much infrastructure spending did he want to do?

  30. leigh, I’m holding out for the orgasmotron.

  31. Classical liberalism is doomed because politics is asymmetrical. It’s asymmetrical because truth is a choice, something to be sought after and confirmed, and confirmed again and again.

    It’s a choice then that bullshit gets more than a pass; when it gets exclusive top billing. Consider:

    Americans were hurting, and the government needed to step up and help them out by taking money out of the private sector and directing where it went. Because government knows best.

    Exactly. Dependent failshit America decided that its neoGod had its best interest at heart — that neoGod was superior and omniscient and a class apart, but mostly because stuff was free for as long as neoGod’s bread and circuses lasted.

    We’re no longer a self-made people; we’re a managed, governed, directed class of subservients. Second class. Inferior. To be dealt with. Why? Because we are, that’s why.

    That this is conversational is testament to the power of The Lie to make it so.

  32. Blake, heh.

  33. Bullshit, Moby.

    At the time Romney supported the idea of a stimulus, there was no official Act, just the outline from Obama. But he regretted that the GOP hadn’t already pushed through a $700 Billion dollar stimulus of their own.

  34. vanuatu or bust dept.

    It’s also hard to find a major national conservative leader who thinks poorly of Santorum. (Gingrich is just the opposite.) While they haven’t endorsed, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin, William Bennett, and NR’s own Rich Lowry and Kathryn Lopez are among the many who have had plenty of kind things to say about him. He could unify the Right, whereas the viciously bitter fights between Romney and Gingrich make it very clear that large numbers of Republican activists feel too passionately against one of the other two to lend any real assistance if their disfavored candidate gets the nomination.

    All of which is to say that Santorum’s potential for electoral strength is good, while his risk of disaster is rather low. Right now the only thing keeping him from being a clear winner is the failure of even more Reaganite leaders — all of whom know him to be a dependable, full-spectrum conservative — to stand up for him in the same way that he has stood up for conservative principles for so long. With Malkin, Angle, Limbaugh, and Bob Schaffer now coming on board, that odd reluctance might be coming to an end.

    If it does, watch Rick Santorum surge again.

    link

  35. Jeff, you have to give Romney credit. He’s been out in front on two huge issues and been wrong both times.

    (for those who need a scorecard, that would be Romneycare and the stimulus)

    Not only that, Romney has not backed down on either issue.

    So, in a perverted sort of way, Romney is staunch and principled.

    Unfortunately, Romney’s staunch principles are not conservative in the slightest.

  36. If only Romney were a better magician, he could pull this stauchitude off. But he isn’t, so he won’t.

  37. I still think Romney’s stimulus would’ve looked very different than Obama’s

    but no one expects Romney to be super-conservative – he’s just the best Team R could do this year

  38. speaking of spendings here is a video

  39. If Romney is the best the GOP can do, then the GOP is no longer worthy of liberals’ support and deserves to lose.

  40. Paul Ryan with a beard endorses Pete without a beard.

  41. well maybe someone else will get the nomination Mr. Ernst

    Romney doesn’t have to be in ebababa

    but I’m anticipating voting for him

    I like Pete I just thought the ad he did was … very brave

  42. ROCHESTER, Minn. — Just steps away from the famed Mayo Clinic, Rick Santorum ripped into the Republican presidential front-runner on heath care, saying the plan that Mitt Romney signed into law while the governor of Massachusetts should disqualify him from being the party’s standard bearer to take on President Obama.

    “Gov. Romney is dead wrong on the issue of the day and he should not be the nominee of the party,” Santorum said in a hotel ballroom across the street from the hospital, adding the issue of health care is “central to our country, central to this race specifically why Gov. Romney is absolutely incapable of making the case against Obamacare successfully.”

    He listed reasons why Romney’s legislation and the administration’s national health care plan, a standard target on the GOP campaign trail, are the same, even saying Obama “copied” Romney’s plan.

    “The problem is, we have a candidate who is running and seen by the media as the prohibitive favorite, who is the worst possible person in the field to put up on this most fundamental issue in this campaign, and that is Gov. Romney,” Santorum said. “The plan he put together in Massachusetts is in fact ‘ObamaCare’ on the state level.”

    link

  43. krauthammer review

    I wonder if conservatives sympathetic to Gingrich are beginning to quit on him. In our home-page poll today–all the usual caveats: unscientific and all that–we asked whether Santorum or Gingrich is a better alternative to Romney, and Santorum has been winning 80 percent to 20 percent all day long. You wouldn’t have had that result two weeks ago. Tomorrow, we’ll see if Santorum can pull it off in Missouri and Minnesota and put himself back on the radar screen in a way that he hasn’t been since Newt eclipsed him a month ago with his nuclear attack on Bain

    link

  44. Who is the best alternative to Romney?
    Gingrich 20 %

    Santorum 80 %

    11,640 votes

  45. Neil Boortz was angry today on the radio at people who say they won’t vote for Romney. Mr. Libertarian third party rebel dude is all not voting for Romney is a vote for Obama.

    Neil is getting old, which is why I hardly listen to him any more.

  46. just steps away from the famed Mayo clinic

  47. do they sell potato salad @ the mayo clinic?

  48. yes but you better like dill cause they dill it up

  49. Catholic League Poised To Go To War With Obama Over Mandatory Birth Control Payments
    Donohue Says 70 Million Of His Voters Ready To Alter Presidential Election

    link

  50. Interesting to see how Obama plays this. Heard a caller on the radio today suggest this was a ploy to firm up the Catholic vote, that Obama is fixing to throw Sebelius under the bus and call off the mandate. That could hurt him with the rabid anti-Christian left, but how many of them really wouldn’t vote for him?

    Christ what a cynical time we live in.

  51. As an aside, Mark Levin has been saying all along that he will rally around Romney, if Romney is the nominee.

    However, while listening to Levin today, it sounds like Levin is really souring on Romney.

    Perhaps a bit of rethink is in the works?

    For what it’s worth.

  52. b.moe sanfrannan is all in. interesting walk back progg/catholics feeling the tires

  53. A rethink of the sort you seem to suggest possible Blake, that is, a turn to urging an abstention from a vote for Romney — should he win the nomination and face Obama in the general — doesn’t sound like what I’ve been hearing from Levin today. There’s plenty of good reason to be sour on Romney, and Romney himself just keeps plugging away adding to those reasons, but that won’t change the disaster the nation will face if Obama wins reelection. Santorum, in the meantime, is by far the better choice over-against Romney, and that’s all Levin seems to me to be aiming at.

  54. …she acknowledged that many Catholics object to being forced to fund abortions, noting that “they have this conscience thing.”

    This is why I am an agnostic, I really hope there is a hell for that bitch to burn in.

    She is too fucking stupid to even hide what an amoral whore she is.

  55. Neil Boortz was angry today on the radio at people who say they won’t vote for Romney. Mr. Libertarian third party rebel dude is all not voting for Romney is a vote for Obama.

    Neil is getting old, which is why I hardly listen to him any more.

    That’s funny. Because Boortz is one of the guys who put us where we are when he was promoting the “lose in ’06 to win in ’08” strategy. (i.e. punish the GOP for Big Gov’t conservatism now so that we can back to being the party of reducing the scope of gov’t).

    I remember him repenting of that —hard after Nancy and Harry started goin’ to town.

  56. losing is never good if Obama wins a second term he’ll rape us all with his fiery cock of socialist trauma

  57. mark my words

  58. well if baracky seasons it with dill it won’t be so bad

  59. I disagree with Levin, sdferr, and I’ve said so. Levin was quite critical of Boehner for saying, in the run-up to the debt ceiling “crisis,” that he wouldn’t allow the government to shut down. That is, he gave up all his leverage and then naturally had to buckle in the “negotiations.”

    And that’s because it wasn’t a negotiation any longer: Obama knew Boehner wouldn’t shut down the government — he’d promised as much — so all he had to do was wait it out and let the GOP sweat. Hell, Obama was probably playing golf until Boehner caved.

    Here, it’s the same thing: Levin is very keen on making sure everyone knows that, if it comes down to it, he’ll vote for Romney over Obama. And that’s just what the GOP establishment is counting on. They don’t care if you’re pissed (you have 4 years to get over that); they just care that they can count on your vote. And so they have no real motivation to give you anything other than what they want to give you. Because really, you’ve already committed. So they just have to wait you out and outspend you / out organize you / out media you during the primaries.

    It’s not a negotiation at that point. You’ve said you’ll cave. How hard you fight in the meantime is just a Pyrrhic victory if you can’t defeat Romney, and you won’t defeat Romney without the leverage to convince the GOP it had better allow other candidates a fair shake in the process.

    I can see no reason to state upfront that you’ll give your vote to Romney in the end. None. It’s bad strategy, and it weakens your negotiating stance. Simple as that.

  60. will a highlighter do?

  61. Good thing no one here is voting for Obama, I don’t think. That way if he wins, we can blame the people who DID vote for him.

  62. stupid obama voters I hate them

  63. but strategy-wise there’s also the consideration of which potential nominee will do more to excite the rapist’s base

    Romney doesn’t excite anybody

  64. i could vote for the mittens in nov. only so the the replacement of “ruth ‘i’m a progg’ ginsberg and who will tell the egyptians this cuntry suxs” is almost souter like. heavy on the dill or pickle.

  65. ms. coulter has a mittens vibrator

  66. Good thing no one here is voting for Obama

    I might.

    Depends on if I think saving the GOP from Romney is more important than saving the country from four more years of Obama.

    Of course, if how I was going to vote was actually going to have an effect on my State’s electoral votes, I might not be so cavalier.

    Lucky me.

  67. I’ve understood your reasoning on that score since you laid it out Jeff, and think it’s well worth the effort to repeat, in part because the reasoning is sound with regard to the message the Republicans may take away (I only say “may” on account of the remaining question whether the Republicans in any sense mull such matters at all, given the evident lack of thought we see manifest in their general reactions to the Tea Party movement, if not manifest as a simple outright hostility thereto). In any case, for my part, in the main I attempt to keep my own counsel with regard to such questions (to vote for Romney or abstain, I mean), in particular with the events relatively far into the future, but choose instead to urge what I think I can urge in good conscience, namely, a vote for Santorum for everyone having that opportunity, between now and the Republican convention.

    As regards the Republicans: after the election has either doomed the country (Obama), muddled the country (Romney or Gingrich) or granted the country one more slim chance at salvation (Santorum), I’m committed to be done with them, and to seek to organize with others a new party representing my considered political views.

  68. Yes, happyfeet. We can’t nominate a conservative because that would excite the left’s base. And we don’t want that. Best to go with the “stealth conservative.” So skilled you’ll never even know he’s actually conservative, and nothing in the way he governs will give it away, either.

    Sneaky. Staunch.

    Why are you here on this site? Honestly, I’m curious. Because from where I sit it’s like you get some perverse thrill trying to cagily beat back everything I’ve written about for years here concerning the importance of fighting for your ideals and not allowing the left to set the rules, pick your candidates, frame the debates, etc. And you do it just to get a rise out of people.

    It’s strange and sad I think.

  69. Romney doesn’t excite anybody

    By the time he’s through, Obama’s base will loathe him. Romney’s base?

    What Romney base?

  70. we’d be on the same page but that Santorum is an odious religious nutcase I think

    it’s too bad there’s not a consensus candidate, cause Romney sucks ass

  71. Romney doesn’t excite anybody

    I don’t know, I think Romney has excited me into loathing him already, but then I don’t think of myself as someone’s “base”, so much as just another commoner amongst the riff-raff.

  72. We can’t nominate a conservative because that would excite the left’s base. And we don’t want that. [he said sarcastically]

    Just for everyone’s info, self-identified Conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals by 2-1. I think we can afford to rile ‘em up a bit.

  73. the only thing what excites me is the prospect of blissful obamalessness

  74. that Santorum is an odious religious nutcase

    I keep hearing that. Haven’t seen any evidence of it myself, but I guess it must be true. Otherwise people woudn’t be saying it I wouldn’t keep hearing it.

  75. You and I are never on the same page. You’re a griefer.

  76. I’m not gonna jump up and down and wave pom poms for a social con it’s just not in my nature Mr. Ernst

  77. But he’ll tell you how swell and misunderstood are nishi and thor.

    Because he’s a griefer, and nobody here other than leigh really takes anything he says seriously. And she’ll learn.

  78. bye

  79. James Madison on Property. (h/t Scott Johnson, at Powerline)

    More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man’s religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

    That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

  80. Perhaps not.

    But what’s clearly in your nature is to ignore questions or comments you can’t answer and pretend they don’t exist; as you just did when Jeff pinned you down like a bug under a microscope. Don’t think it’s not noticed.

  81. Our ‘Newspaper of Record’ floats the idea that the U.S. Constitution is needing changed. Like a diaper or something; it’s old, dated and doesn’t reflect democracy anymore.

    If you really want to get sick, read down a ways in the comments. Seems LeftLibProggs have found something they’ll cheer for.

  82. “bye”

    run run ‘feets’ save the little debbies

  83. she’ll learn

    maybe

  84. doesn’t reflect democracy anymore

    Seeing as how the term democracy doesn’t appear within an infinite distance of the Constitution, they’d probably be right about that.

  85. yes the “newspaper” of record financed by a slimy guy from fast and furious way. populated with economically, psychologically, scientifically retarded “thinkers”.

  86. I don’t know the circles you guys run in, but I can definitely see happyfeets angle. There are a lot of folks out there than lean classic liberal but get put off when a conservative can’t open his mouth without something about abortion or birth control or somesuch coming out first thing. Every. Fucking. Time.

    Some of it is media spin, I realize, but it is frankly hard to understand why we can’t come up with a decent candidate fiscally who doesn’t feel the need to evangelize too. I know a lot of good, decent people who don’t like Obama at all but are scared shitless of Santorum. If you aren’t willing to acknowledge its a problem we are never going to accomplish anything.

  87. If you aren’t willing to acknowledge its a problem we are never going to accomplish anything.

    It’s one thing to acknowledge the existence of a false opinion, it’s quite another to dismantle it piece by piece.

  88. What the fuck is a false opinion? Its how people feel, there is nothing false about it.

  89. Click on the last video link on this site, what is the first thing they start in on?

  90. “I know a lot of good, decent people who don’t like Obama at all but are scared shitless of Santorum.”

    really. for what?

  91. I have to agree with B. Moe. If Santorum or his handlers are letting him be defined as an Inquisitor, whose fault is that?

    The boy is a great debator. Surely he knows how to pivot and turn the questioning to how he is going to save our Republic. And stop talking about handing out money to people who have babies. That caused a problem right here in PW City with the DINKs, and I don’t blame them.

  92. “a decent candidate fiscally who doesn’t feel the need to evangelize too”

    i laugh in your general direction because the first thing proggtards care about is the “sacrament” of abortion. if they could kill babies with their bare hands these a##holes would do it.

  93. “If Santorum or his handlers are letting him be defined as an Inquisitor, whose fault is that? ”

    yea repeat sh(t and rinse. go clown.

  94. There are a lot of folks out there than lean classic liberal but get put off when a conservative can’t open his mouth without something about abortion or birth control or somesuch coming out first thing.

    Those are issues that are rooted deep in the bedrock of conservatism. Bitterly clinging to those, and to other values that are moral and that matter provides strong anchor points on which to base the rest of our principles. I mean, if we can’t seem to save a few innocent lives, what good is a strong, smoothly-running economy, really?

    Without ties to bedrock, one starts to drift. You can see how far adrift are the majority of people who comprise our sickening society today? We’ve moved so far Left of ‘Center’ that we’ll likely never make it back to where we were, when ‘Center’ meant ‘centered’. ‘Conservative’ means sticking to your principles no matter who or what shows up for to do battle.

    We are losing because we can’t stay anchored to principles that really matter.

  95. so after you destroy newt and rickys, what’s your “classical liberal” view of the remaining dick heads?

  96. I have to agree with B. Moe. If Santorum or his handlers are letting him be defined as an Inquisitor, whose fault is that?

    Why, it’s his, certainly. After all, how others define you defines you.

    And the left is more than happy to define us to ourselves. And that’s our fault. Doesn’t matter if we actually are like they say: what matters is our inability to prove a negative.

    Born to lose.

  97. So you really believe over a million babies a year are being murdered, and the best you can come up with is hoping Rick Santorum might get a chance to appoint a couple of Justices who one of these years might someday get a chance to overturn Roe v Wade and then somebody maybe will pass a law or something.

    And you are going to lecture somebody else on morality?

    Really?

  98. “if they could kill babies with their bare hands these a##holes would do it.”

    oh the sanger brigade left that to the black doc in philly. maggy sang says hooray “kil dem darkies”

  99. it’s either that or set loose the clinic bombers, B. Moe. But that’s frowned upon.

  100. “and the best you can come up with is hoping Rick Santorum might get a chance to appoint a couple of Justices who one of these years might someday get a chance to overturn Roe v Wade ”

    i find your penumbras interfering with your emanations. use dill in your potato salad.

  101. Santorum is who he is. He is the best we got, and that is fucking pathetic.

  102. #occupy planned abortion

  103. I used to feel that way, BMoe, until it dawned on me that most of the time it is the religious person who is a victim of the state trying to subvert his religion and replace it with its own. If you know people who are more scared of what Santorum might do than what Obama has already done, than they’ve allowed the cartoons created by the left — and then beaten into them through years of pop-cultural portrayals — to control them.

    The reason I’m sanguine about Santorum is that he is willing to stand and answer questions and explain his positions to the point that the caricature loses power and people come to realize that he is not an alien creature — and that his religious convictions work within the confines of the Constitution.

    Once people see that, they realize that many of thowe who want you to distrust people for their faith do so to keep your concentration off of their secular religious takeovers of your freedoms.

  104. “He is the best we got, and that is fucking pathetic.”

    coming off of obama-bush that’s the best we got. this stupid idea of gov’t is tough to do a 180

  105. it’s either that or set loose the clinic bombers, B. Moe. But that’s frowned upon.

    So you aren’t willing to blow up a clinic, but you are perfectly willing to blow up the country.

    Just put on the backburner for a couple of cycles and maybe we can still save this shit. Probably not, but what the hell.

  106. Let’s see B. Moe: “Its how people feel, there is nothing false about it.”

    So, by this line of reasoning, “Kill the Jews!: they are an inferior race, a blight and a destruction to the Aryan people!” Oh, hey, it’s just how people feel, nothing false about it! Very well, then I must say there are no false opinions.

  107. I predicted this re: the Constitution back when the trial balloons first came out — around the time Ezra Klein was musing over the age of the document, etc.

    Here’s the answer: if the left doesn’t want the Constitution, we don’t have a rule of law that is dependent on anything other than force. We live perforce in a police state. And the only response is anarchy.

  108. Jeff, we are talking past each other. If the common perception of you is that you are going to string Patterico up from a tree and all his readers run with it, don’t you fight back like you did when he was lying about you? Or do you just roll with “Oh, that’s just your perception” and carry on?

  109. Depends. Am I busy running for President? And if so, do I worry that people are scared I might take away their condoms, or do I worry that the guy with the millions is sending out oppo research that says I’m a big spending earmark whore?

    Santorum is a man of faith. If you ask him questions about his faith he answers. The trick of the left is to focus on his faith, then scare people with how odiously religious is Santorum based on how much he talks about religious issues.

  110. Not wanting to be preached to by the President and not wanting to have policy influenced by what you view as extreme religion is not a “false” opinion. It is how people feel, and what they want.

    You don’t have to dismantle it, you have to assuage it. Santorum has done a rather shitty job of that.

  111. Obviously the latter.

    Is it working? I guess we’ll find out. What does local news say in CO today?

  112. “And the only response is anarchy.”

    i would say that the response is “fall back to your states”. they made the fed. gov’t.

  113. I’m not willing to literallly blow up a clinic. The country will or will not figuratively blow itself up with or without my lone curmudgeonly non-vote for Utahbama if he indeed become the R nominee.

  114. @112 decentralize

  115. It’s next to impossible — or no, it is impossible — to assuage a fiction, B. Moe, so to that extent, I’m inclined to cut Santorum a bit of slack.

    Policy, on the other hand, is influenced by many things, and not solely the Catholic faith, be it labeled “extreme” or no (which, by the way, for my part, I think modern Catholicism rather one of the least extremes where it comes to religious business, but that’s only my own view).

  116. There’s a million abortions a year in this country?

    Man, what a sick society.

  117. We’re preached to all the time. But it’s mostly about the importance of injecting government into our lives, not about the importance of removing it and allowing people to practice their faith freely (which is part and parcel of the identity of social contracts on this continent since the Puritans arrived).

    Frankly, I’m far less worried about Santorum’s using government to set up religious orders than I am of the leftists setting up religious orders that they disguise as government.

  118. “Not wanting to be preached to by the President ”

    are you killing a baby by abortion: yes or no?

  119. you do know baracky likes to kill them outside of the womb.

  120. Colorado is a caucus state, and I’m hearing that there’s pressure being applied based on the “electability” and “looks Presidential” tropes. The people are backing Santorum’s message, but they fear that only Mitt can win against Obama.

    Because this has been drilled into them. On purpose.

    We’ll see. I suspect Romney wins but Santorum shows well here.

  121. Preacher-in-Chief:

    It wasn’t enough for President Obama to claim the endorsement of Judaism, Christianity and Islam for his policies of class warfare in his National Prayer Breakfast speech this past week. Obama also cited Plato as stating a version of the Golden Rule supporting his policies. Where’d he get that Idea? Apparently from a statement made by Socrates in The Republic, but no version of the Golden Rule lends support to the vast expansion of government powers that Obama claims are derived from it.

  122. See? We can’t even talk about Santorum on PW without hauling out the knives coming out.

  123. coming out

  124. If somebody is telling me I should only fuck if I am married and trying to have babies, that is extreme. And it frankly makes people question your judgement, and sanity.

    Sorry, but that is how it is in the world I live in.

    I am mostly just really, really frustrated, to the point of actual anger, that these three fucking stooges are what we have to choose from. You guys are defending a failed Senator, whose only other job was a hack lawyer for pro wrestling for gods sake. This guy has no more experience than the idiot we have now. You really think there is a chance in hell he is actually going to accomplish anything?

    The dude best known for taking a bullet for Arlen Spector?

    The whole mess is fucking nuts.

  125. Plato would pop Obama upside the haid, he would.

  126. The Soc-cons didn’t destroy themselves. This was a conscious strategy on the left that has been implemented for many many years now. The left fears those who are actual believers in Christ. C&E Christians they are fine with as are those whose Christianity is but a mask for their true progressive religion.

    The experience of the Soviets was that true Christians were impossible to control by any physical or mental means and that made them a threat that had to be destroyed. Tens of millions died under the Communists.

    That so many now accept the lies that the left tells about the religious is a testament to how thoroughly and mercilessly they have work to destroy believers. This has led to there being some who want payback but they are not a majority, not even a small minority, but only a vocal few. The craziest all seem to either have some personal demon which ruins them or to be of the left but never announced as such by the media.

  127. See? We can’t even talk about Santorum on PW without hauling out the knives coming out.

    That isn’t about Santorum leigh, so much as it’s about us, seems to me. Santorum, after all, isn’t here, not only in the ordinary sense, but not even in the simpler sense of straight up quotation, argument and counter-argument. What we have instead are representations as to other’s (nameless others, no less) opinions regarding their beliefs of Santorum’s views, without his particular views making any appearance on the scene at all.

  128. True enough, sdferr. It does get wearying to be called names and told to fuck off for asking questions in good faith. And I do ask in good faith.

  129. None of these clowns has a chance in hell of beating Obama, he can only beat himself at this point. Somebody else might make a late move on him, which given the insanity of the current process and the problem of the press is probably the smart play.

    I just don’t see smart around that much any more.

  130. I don’t feel like looking again, sdferr, but I have linked before to Santorum saying he wanted to use the White House as a platform to lecture about the evils of birth control. He said it repeatedly and he won’t walk it back to my knowledge.

    That is just fucking stupid if you want to be taken seriously.

  131. What’s worse? Someone telling you that they don’t like or agree with something you do or someone using the force of the government to make everyone do exactly what they want them to do.

    Christianity is not about conversion by the sword. It has in a few instances been twisted to that effect but except for some few cults not in recent centuries. The same cannot be said for either the religion of the progressive left or of Islam. In those two it can be said, “There’s your problem.”

  132. If somebody is telling me I should only fuck if I am married and trying to have babies, that is extreme. And it frankly makes people question your judgement, and sanity.

    Sorry, but that is how it is in the world I live in.

    Why do you care? Nobody’s mandating that you can only fuck to procreate. It simply doesn’t affect me — and I have no fear that Santorum would ever try to institutionalize the idea. It’s a complete non-issue. Unless you’re dealing with it from the perspective of federalism, in which case the question is largely academic.

    Abortion, on the other hand, has, for reasons we’ve discussed here, a different social contour, because it comes down to very fundamental questions of both science and religion, namely, what is life, when does it begin, who is protected by the Constitution, and how do we negotiate a woman’s right to decide what happens to her body with the rights of an unborn child, if indeed that’s what we believe is being carried in the womb.

    Similar concerns arise, for me at least, over the idea of expanding the definition of marriage when other options are available — and that’s because the left is always looking to pressure decisions made by courts to break down constitutional protections in order to undermine a society built on natural rights and limited governmental powers.

  133. B Moe, you really need to read Kipling’s Gods of the Copybook Headings. “Social” and “Fiscal” are two sides of the same coin: People who are willing to put off gratification and instant rewards in one sphere are more likely to put them off in others, because they have been taught that it isn’t all about them; it’s about them not buying the big screen this month because the family needs essentials first.

  134. B. Moe, did you see Marco Rubio’s address about abortion the other day? It’s worth a look, I think, even if — or maybe especially if — you disagree with his position on the subject.

  135. So you aren’t willing to blow up a clinic, but you are perfectly willing to blow up the country.

    I personally don’t know anyone willing to blow up a clinic. Stay away from me if you do. But I do ‘know’ plenty of people who are willing to destroy this country (see comments to that NYT link above); they, for the most part, embrace abortion as a sacrament. Why give ‘em any succor, by agreeing with them that the entire topic is bad, bad bad for America? If you agree with them, fine; but what that means is you’re adrifting Left AFAIC.

    Failure to anchor. It’s what’s cool in ‘Centered’ American politics. Enjoy the ride!

  136. “None of these clowns has a chance in hell of beating Obama”

    no sir. only mittens can’t beat baracky. see romney/obamacare

  137. Plato’s Republics were all failures. They were Utopian dreams.

    This megalomaniac isn’t even hiding it any more. They are all in: they think they can convince the dumbed down citizenry to vote for an overthrow of the Constitution in exchange for the promises of a Utopia. Or more likely, they think they can gull enough people into buying into more forward-looking fantasies.

  138. I don’t know the circles you guys run in

    I quit running in circles. Too much with the falling over afterwards.

  139. 70 million Catholics to ‘battle Obama‘. Now that’s a real chunk of electoral CHANGE, if it can translate to votes.

  140. how’s come we ain’t discussing baracky’s abortion record or his punishing with a baby statement?

    http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/33663535

  141. Here’s the kind of stuff that becomes the oft-repeated truth. And this, too.

    We ran into this very issue when John Roberts was being attacked by the left for a french fry ruling. He said it wasn’t the job of the courts to overturn laws made by the states that adhere to the Constitution and precedent simply because they were dumb. Similarly, Thomas took that same tack in his dissent on Lawrence (and I agreed with him).

    Santorum is making that same argument here. That’s it. A state has a right to pass dumb statutes that pass Constitutional muster. And given that Griswald was planned as the stepping stone to Roe, you can see why Santorum is wary of courts overstepping, even if they believe the (local) ruling is largely innocuous.

    But it’s an academic question.

    The point being, that Santorum’s actual views and reasoning are not properly characterized, because the goal is to tether to him teh crazy and teh extreme — when really, his opinion would be right at home in the Federalist Society.

  142. mr mittens would be “credible” as a front runner if he said sumthing like this:

    “The President promised that he would not increase taxes for the low and middle-income people, the workers of America. Then he imposed on American families the largest single tax increase in our nation’s history. His answer to all this misery? He tries to tell us that we’re “only” in a recession, not a depression, as if definitions, words, relieve our suffering.

    Let it show on the record that when the American people cried out for economic help, Jimmy Carter took refuge behind a dictionary. Well if it’s a definition — if it’s a definition he wants, I’ll give him one. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”

    http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganlibertypark.htm

  143. mr mittens would be “credible” as a front runner if he said sumthing like this:

    If he said something like it now, who would believe him?

  144. Today is Ronald Reagan’s 101 birthday.

  145. “If somebody is telling me I should only fuck if I am married and trying to have babies, that is extreme.”

    I would respond with:

    If somebody is telling me I should only fuck[their daughter] if I am married [to her]and trying to have [making actual decisions] about babies, that is extreme [just good sense].

    That’s how I’d expect most fathers to think anyway…

  146. @144 dude rhetorical

  147. If somebody is telling me I should only fuck if I am married and trying to have babies,

    Nobody’s telling you that. Not the latter part. And certainly not Santorum.

  148. While Catholics were blindsided by the January decision, the left had been paying close attention to the subject for months. In November, several leftist and feminist blogs began beating the war drums, warning Obama not to “cave” (their word) to the bishops. They were joined by the Nation, Salon, the Huffington Post, and the usual suspects. (Sample headline: “The Men Behind the War on Women.”) At the same time, Planned Parenthood and NARAL launched grassroots lobbying efforts and delivered petitions with 100,000 and 135,000 signatures respectively to the White House urging Obama to uphold the policy and not compromise.

    In that sense, Obama’s decision might be thought of as akin to his decision halting the Keystone oil pipeline: a conscious attempt to energize his base at the expense of swing voters, who he concluded were already lost.

    The other possibility, of course, is that Obama sees the dismantling of Catholic institutions as part of a larger ideological mission, worth losing votes over. As Yuval Levin noted in National Review Online last week, institutions such as the Catholic church represent a mediating layer between the individual and the state. This layer, known as civil society, is one of the principal differences between Western liberal order and the socialist view.

    Levin argues that the current fight is just one more example of President Obama’s attempt to bulldoze civil society. He wants to sweep away the middle layer so that individuals may have a more direct and personal encounter with the state. The attack on Catholics is, Levin concludes, “an attack on mediating institutions of all sorts, moved by the genuine belief that they are obstacles to a good society.”

    Seen in this light, Obama’s confrontation with the Catholic church is of a piece with the administration’s pursuit of the rickety Hosanna-Tabor case and another incident from last October, when the Department of Health and Human Services defunded a grant to the Conference of Catholic Bishops. That program supported aid to victims of human trafficking. The Obama administration decided that they no longer wanted the Catholic church in the business of helping these poor souls. That, evidently, is the government’s job.

    Of course, there is a third possibility in explaining the president’s motives. It could be that, in deciding to go to war with the Catholic church, President Obama has hit on one of those rare moments where his electoral interests—at least as he perceives them—and his ideological goals are blessedly aligned.

  149. dead baby jokes are more fun with dill!

  150. [Obama] wants to sweep away the middle layer so that individuals may have a more direct and personal encounter with the state.

    Perhaps we can all agree that in this instance what we want is for the Left (Statists, Utopians, Anointed, meddling busy-body sonsofbitches) to not get any of their State on our (ir)religion?

  151. so that individuals may have a more direct and personal encounter with the state.

    But those bitter clingers who want to have a more direct and personal relationship with their god — why, they’re just too extreme to tolerate.

  152. the man santorum defeated

    In the special election held in November 1991, Wofford faced Dick Thornburgh, the former Pennsylvania governor and U.S. Attorney General under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Candidates for this special election were chosen by the party committees because the vacancy had happened too late to set up a primary. Wofford began the campaign so far behind in the polls that most pundits assumed he had no chance of winning. His eventual victory over the former governor by ten percentage points surprised many.[citation needed] His campaign was run by Paul Begala and James Carville, and their dramatic success brought them to national attention. The campaign was also a proving ground for many of the themes that would underlie Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential election victory, such as the focus on the economy and health care. Wofford was a finalist for the vice presidential nomination,[9] although Clinton ultimately chose Al Gore.

    In May 1993, Wofford received an honorary doctorate from Elizabethtown College, Pennsylvania.
    [edit] 1994 re-election loss
    Main article: United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 1994

    Wofford narrowly lost his 1994 bid for re-election to Republican Congressman Rick Santorum, 32 years his junior, who defeated Wofford 49%–47%. The election was part of that year’s Republican Revolution, in which many Democrats were ousted from both houses of the United States Congress.

    link

  153. Don’t know if sdferr was channeling Jeff or if Jeff anticipated sdferr:

    Frankly, I’m far less worried about Santorum’s using government to set up religious orders than I am of the leftists setting up religious orders that they disguise as government.

  154. Couldn’t resist:

    The bell for Round Two of the fight between President Obama and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is about to ring.

    Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, was bloodied in the first round after his proposal to revamp Medicare became a campaign poster for Democrats.

    Obama, who skirted major proposals to reform Medicare and Social Security in his own budget last year, invited Ryan to a speech and then ripped him from the stage, saying the proposal would “end Medicare as we know it.”

    So, Ryan was “bloodied” by opposition attack advertizing, but Obama? Hmmm, doesn’t seem to say there in the lede, but, let’s see?

    Obama’s Budget in 2011 was defeated in the Democrat controlled Senate by a vote of 97 against, 0 for.

    So, what should we call that little set back? Annihilation, maybe?

    This year, Obama won’t even bother to submit a Budget on time. Reckon he knows what’s coming?

  155. Levin argues that the current fight is just one more example of President Obama’s attempt to bulldoze civil society. He wants to sweep away the middle layer so that individuals may have a more direct and personal encounter with the state

    Yuval Levin and I agree last week.

    That will be the outcome and is the desired outcome of the administration who have done this not just as a way of gaining the praise of their base but to further drive down all private charity while enlarging the public version. and wounding an old enemy at the same time.

    This is similar to the long term goal of effecting the self elimination of all private healthcare insurance providers by setting before them a meal they can’t swallow without dieing and so they starve to death instead.

    Obama and company should be renamed Engulf & Devour Inc.

  156. It could be that, in deciding to go to war with the Catholic church, President Obama has hit on one of those rare moments where his electoral interests—at least as he perceives them—and his ideological goals are blessedly aligned.

    He is exactly who we thought he was. Finally, it’s starting to show; the glossy veneer is thinning.

    But, given the decrepit state of the morals and values of average, ‘centered’ American citizenry, it likely won’t matter much. Obama will likely enjoy continued political success and be rewarded with re-election; the Executive in Chief of this ‘failshit’ (thanks for that, ‘feets!) State.

  157. This year, Obama won’t even bother to submit a Budget on time. Reckon he knows what’s coming?

    Why should he bother when Harry Reid’s already said he has no intention of or interest in trying to pass one.

    Damn obstructionsist teabaggers! Why do they hate fiduciary responsibility?!?

  158. Obama will likely enjoy continued political success and be rewarded with re-election; the Executive in Chief of this ‘failshit’ (thanks for that, ‘feets!) State.

    If he is, then we deserve to fail —and we probably will, what with this being a democracy instead of a republic.

    And if you think the state as State is failing, you’re using the wrong metric.

  159. You guys are defending a failed Senator, whose only other job was a hack lawyer for pro wrestling for gods sake. This guy has no more experience than the idiot we have now. You really think there is a chance in hell he is actually going to accomplish anything?

    That depends. Just consider how much the current idiot accomplished in only two years with a willing Congress. He isn’t lying when he says he’ll put his record in his first two years up against that of any other President save Johnson, FDR and Lincoln.

    The dude best known for taking a bullet for Arlen Spector?

    The lesson of that little episode is that you can’t rely on establishment types, so don’t make deals with them.

  160. The opponents went at each other for two hours, taking calls from listeners for the last 30 minutes, and at times both were talking so loud and at the same time that Devlin had to calm them down.

    They clashed on health care, each other’s records and who is less in agreement with his party.

    But they did refrain from calling each other liars.

    At one point, Santorum quoted directly from the health-care bill Wofford co-authored to make his point that Wofford supported a payroll tax for health- care reform and that it’s a government-run health-care plan.

    “Stop not telling the truth. Tell the truth,” Santorum said to Wofford. ”Is your bill a single-payer bill?”

    “No,” Wofford responded.

    “That’s not the truth,” Santorum said, his point being that Wofford supports government-run health care and he doesn’t.

    Wofford kept insisting that Santorum signed the “Contract with America,” a proposal that U.S. House Republicans released recently that details a legislative agenda for next year and includes support for a capital-gains tax

    link

  161. “So you really believe over a million babies a year are being murdered, and the best you can come up with is hoping Rick Santorum might get a chance to appoint a couple of Justices…

    BMoe,

    I’d be much happier if someone could convince people that abortions should be undesirable and un(tax payer)funded rather than unlawful. Running for National office and having a special needs child tends to support that goal.

    I think you may have you views on SOCONS (Santorum in particular) clouded by the prism of media reporting. I’d encourage you to find the article you refered to and look into the possibility that the statement regarding birh control was taken out of context or just made up by someone with an agenda to promote.

  162. VDH pretty much lays out why I think anyone scared of Santorum’s Christian beliefs and any lectures he might deliver about abortion need to wake up and see what’s happening to our country.

  163. The Dohrn-Ayers Dinner Project.

    Horseshit, start to finish.

  164. Not wanting to be preached to by the President and not wanting to have policy influenced by what you view as extreme religion is not a “false” opinion. It is how people feel, and what they want.

    Then George Washington would be unelectable.

  165. The Dohrn-Ayers Dinner Project.

    Those DC_Crawler guys were batted about like children’s playthings.

    Maybe they should’ve invited Mike Tyson to come along too. You know, for the ‘Wombshifter’ POV.

  166. Oh, OT. Jeff, Stanley Fish is talking textualism

    Originalism is the view that interpretation is a historical activity in which one attempts to identify the meaning a text had at the moment of its production, either by looking into the intention of an author (what did he have in mind?) or by determining what the words an author used would have meant to the literate and rational reader at the time. (The latter is called public meaning originalism.) Thirty years ago, originalism was dismissed as an outmoded interpretive methodology and stigmatized as a conservative strategy for binding us to the dead hand of the past. Now originalism is on its way to becoming an orthodoxy as more and more scholars once skeptical of the faith declare themselves to be believers. As the number of adherents grows, so do disagreement about just what originalism is and how to apply it. Hence the annual conference, which has funding for at least the next five years.

    The guy then promotes academic jackoffery rather than apply real linguistic skills to political ends. Seriously, with that sort of ‘keep it in the realm of academe’, if he’d been a researcher who’d come across the cure for cancer, he’d never have brought it out of the lab. He’s completely useless to anyone.

  167. From a commenter at the sdferr’s link:

    Obama is my shepherd; I shall not work.
    He keepth jobs out of the hands of the people,
    Which leadeth the country to class warfare and polarizati­on.
    He encouraget­h sloth; he leadeth the government to new heights in deficit spending.
    Yea, though I walk in the shadow of Economic collapse,
    I shall fear no depression­: for Obama is with me.
    His handouts and monetary indiscreti­on supplement my income.
    He maintaines­t spending increases in the presence of insurmount­able debt;
    He punisheth businesses with excessive regulation­s;
    And giveth the hard-earne­d fruits of labor to the unproducti­ve.
    Surely, handouts and stimulus payments shall follow all the days of his administra­tion;
    And I will stay unemployed forever.

    Can I get a Darn Skippy! from the Brigade?

  168. Just consider how much the current idiot accomplished in only two years with a willing Congress.

    He rubber stamped what Congress shoved through with the media running interference. Our guy isn’t going to have it that easy. We need someone who can overcome long odds, who knows how the game works.

    Someone who when the media starts with the set up questions is smart enough to not play, someone who redirects to the important issues and doesn’t eagerly start giving them soundbites they can use to destroy him.

    Right now, the most important thing for the Republicans is to take control of their own selection process and stop letting the Democrats pick who they want to run against.

  169. I pretty much more or less agree with that B. Moe, particularly the take control of the nomination process part.

    My quibble is that if a candidate spends all of his time worrying about how not to have what he says misconstrued or distorted, he’s never going to say anything meaningful.

  170. Pingback: Explaining Coulter » Cold Fury

Leave a Reply