« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Rick Santorum and The Handmaid’s Tale

Who Restricts Freedom More In The End? The Censor or The Libertine?

‘It’s not about contraception,” thundered GOP presidential contender Rick Santorum. “It’s about economic liberty. It’s about freedom of speech. It’s about freedom of religion. It’s about government control of your lives. And it’s got to stop!”

– Jonah Goldberg, NRO

Rick Santorum scares people. He thinks crazy things. It puts him out of step with America! On issues such as birth control, working women, women in combat, gays in the military and abortion, Rick Santorum is an unabashed heretic against the secular religion of post-modern hedonism. The guy practically walks around saying. “If it feels good, take out your own d— wallet and pay for it!” I hope his cave has a nice warm fire and lot’s pretty charcoal paintings.

The Tampa Bay Times wants you to know, just how retrograde Lord Sweater Vest of The Ruritan Club truly is.

Most Americans don’t share Rick Santorum’s absolutist take on abortion. He’s out of step on women in combat. He questions the values of the two-thirds of mothers who work. He’s even troubled by something as commonplace as birth control – for married couples. Even among a Republican presidential field anxious to please religious conservatives, Santorum’s ideas stand out.

So the Pro-Libertine forces of both the Left and The Right push that Rick Santorum represents an intolerable step backwards. Many fear he will seek to make the United States enforce some form of morality code like the dystoptic future Republic of Gilead from Margaret Atwood’s Novel The Handmaid’s Tale. Yea verily, Rick Santorum will enforce The Patriarchy. If such is actually the case, here is how I would recommend he proceed to total and utter fascist victory.

Step 1: Keep Obamacare and greatly empower The DHHS Death Panels. Make the point repeatedly that we have to limit the amount of spending on medical luxury items. Abortions, contraception, Morning After Pills, these are all luxury items that impose undue expense on our over-burdened treasury. Making health insurance pay for all this ridiculous frivolity is simply no longer a prudent decision, given the struggling state of our national finances.

Step 2: Make public benefits such as EBT Cards and Section 8 Housing dependent upon people behaving in accordance with the Divinely Inspired Code of Santorum. Live by The Decalogue or prepare to hit the deck! Yank the benefits on people who dare defy His Radiant Holiness. (And then brag about the budget savings you generate the next time the Sec Treas goes in front of a Congressional Hearing.)

Step 3: Make absolutely certain that all 57 states know good and well that the extent to which they have paved roads and money to operate public schools and health clinics depends heavily upon their adherence to the ukases handed down by The Federal Morale Conditioner and Beneficent-Theocrat, Judge Roy Moore of The Great State of Alabama. You gotta’ use those recess appointment powers for something, President Rick!

Do all that. Just get ‘er done right and pretty, and Rick Santorum can reclaim and preserve a morally pure and absolutist America that obviously never existed even after three bong hits. But just to show you how dumb and non-presidential Rick Santorum obviously is, he’s got the whole playbook screwed up.

If Rick Santorum really wants churches to be free to teach their own moral beliefs without government interference, he’s going to wish he had a set of earplugs handy once some of these religious leaders tune up. Certainly, the teachings of D. T. Suzuki would have the ring of heresy to one so committed to imposing a Christianist Right theocracy on America. But unless Rick Santorum came around to supporting state-run initiatives just like the ObamaCare mandates, he’d never have the means or the power to enforce the benevolence of his golden message.

Which brings us to the central irony of all the complaints I’ve heard that Rick Santorum’s old-fashioned morality would make him a tyrant. It could certainly make Rick Santorum a gaseous bore around the supper table. But without the government powers he currently opposes, at least rhetorically, The Santorum Great Awakening is about as legally binding on my rights as an American as the typical Papal Bull.

To take the irony just one step further, let’s look at just how government got to assume some of the powers that could make something like Christianist, Fascist, Rights-Trampling Theocratic Red Dawn a viable possibility. The government assumed these powers gradually, over time, by pandering to a juvenile and licentious definition of freedom. We hear an example of this juvenile tom-foolery from Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul.

“If we are allowed to deal with our eternity and all that we believe in spiritually, and if we’re allowed to read any book that we want under freedom of speech, why is it we can’t put into our body whatever we want?”

This then leads to a clamor amongst the people to make all the negative externalities that come from putting these cute and exotic substances into our body go away. The government then rides to the rescue like a white knight and firehoses the problems with money until all the bad consequences go away. Then the people who like putting the love grass into the hookah become a new dependent class which the government has a new and extra-constitutional power to control.

Get enough people into enough dependence classes and the government no longer has to really care what Catholics, Feminists, Blacks or Comanche Indians really believe or think about anything. The government then has the power to just threaten any recalcitrant tea-bagger types with a shut-off of the deficit-financed cornucopia.

This is why Grumpy Old Man Rick Santorum will never play any higher than Double AA Baseball in the theocracy league. He’d get all huffy and tell all the Ron Paul fans asking for free whacky-weed to get off his lawn like a cranky-old Clint Eastwood Character. If he really wants to establish a new American Theocracy, he needs to become more in line with his opponent, Barack Obama. You have to own the people before you can set up a useful and functioning despotism. Rick Santorum doesn’t want any part of owning a sinful and flawed freak such as little, old moi. This is why I can support Rick Santorum with no concerns whatsoever that I’ll be helping him write the next chapter to Margaret Atwood’s Handmaid’s Tale.

COMMENTS

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    He gets it and he can win the battle based on attacks about his personal views sicne he is tolerant when it comes to the law…unlike ObamaDems….more later

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      It’s from so-called benevolence. Saying “no” gives the government far less dominant power than saying. “Sure, no problem. We’ll be glad to finance your toys and bad habits.”

      • GregInFla

        It couldn’t have been. Or have i seen so many of them on here tonight that I misread this? I must really have missed something, RMJ. Or are the sarcasm tags missing?

    • John6078

      Santorum is collapsing as we speak, just like the rest of the Non Romneys.

      • ihavehadit

        But please tell me why you are saying it. I can’t believe the Republican party would nominate this loser.

      • John6078

        Anyone still think Santorum has the right message. Can you say Obama landslide?

        • jamesm

          nt

    • 4loveofus

      I agree with Santorum on the larger issues concerning contraception, but that’s not the point. As a supporter of his, I wish he would pivot away from this issue. He cited Gingrich’s lack of discipline as a reason for disqualifying him from consideration and he’s getting dangerously close to the same territory by allowing the spotlight to be on his impassioned views on the subject. As a practicing Catholic with 7 children, voters can put 2 and 2 together and figure out that he’s not a fan of contraception. Were I his top advisor, I would convince him that every day he talks about this is another day of distraction from focusing on Obama’s record. Here’s the message he should stay on: “As practicing Catholics, my wife and I have our own personal beliefs. Contrast that with my voting record, and it’s easy to see that I have never imposed my views of private behavior concerning this issue on my constituents. Many couples depend upon contraception, and my administration will not interfere with their decisions to purchase and use it.”

      This is his last chance. Get off this topic now or lose the nomination.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    No, not a theocratic Rick Santorum.

    I feared that he would make this election about social issues, and that’s just how it seems to be turning.

    People here should know enough about me by now to know that social issues are very important to me. But making this election focus about social issues is an excellent way to re-elect Barack Obama.

    • redcal

      The economy is getting better and the primary fighter on that front is an inauthentic flip-flopper. Social issues are a huge loser with independents. How is the GOP going to win this election? Are there any plausible narratives left?

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        Keystone Pipeline, ObamaCare, School Lunch Policing, and a host of other issues where this administration feels it has a right to interfere with your life to a ridiculous extent.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          They just think everyone else should lose theirs.

          • redcal

            If entitlements were such political losers, SS and Medicare/Medicaid wouldn’t have survived for so long.

            I’m unconvinced by the Central Planner attack, especially with the two likely messengers. Romneycare defuses Obamacare (and, by extension, a bunch of other issues). Santorum has more cred on the religious liberty front, but he too is fine with the Government as central planner, as long as the plan is somewhat Catholic.

        • Death_of_the_Donkey

          with an improved/improving economy. Beating Obama with the economy circa August of last year would have been a cakewalk for anyone, beating him with today’s numbers is going to be a heck of a fight and require a really good candidate, beating with numbers improved from now may not be possible. I don’t believe that every election against an incumbent is winnable.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            I’m thinking we’re in the midst of the best economic conditions we will see this year.

          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            but it was $3.30 when I filled up yesterday here in Ohio. For many reasons, gasoline consumption in the US is down and that is keeping prices low even with higher oil. I am not so sure that gas will hit $4/gallon this year. Also, the data seem to be improving not stagnating, which should predict at least another couple months of good economic data (leading indicators were up again today and are at their highest level since 2008). The US economy is so large that once it gets moving in a direction strongly it is hard to slow down/stop.

          • acat

            seems, to this cat, to be a poor wager.

            Mew

          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            I am just betting that gasoline doesn’t sustain a price of $4/gallon for more than a week (if at all) this summer. Also, in general terms, my bet is more that if what we are seeing in the economy is the beginnings of a true sustained and strengthening recovery, then even $4 gas may not choke it off.

          • acat

            is the U.S. strengthening *relative to Europe*, not in absolute terms.

            Unemployment – in terms of percentage of able-bodied americans not working – is at a high we’ve not seen in a generation. That gets magnified by the higher cost of the modern welfare state. (Medicare Part D, forex)

            There’s nothing in the fundamentals that leads this cat to believe we’re seeing green shoots.

            Mew

          • bgintn

            Cat, I see closer to $5.00 except in the midwest
            1) the change from winter blend to summer blend May 1
            2) there is a supply backup in the midwest because the oil is having a hard time getting to the refineries.

          • GregInFla

            as sellers sell to the needy Europeans in their cold winter and allow prices here to rise with the smaller supply (h/t Lou Dobbs on OReilly Factor the other night.)

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            …with a major run up over the past few weeks. And it’s still February.

          • littlehouse18

            ..

          • mikelindell2

            lately. He has a strong energy plan along with his other proposals. I’m not sure how anyone could not vote for him- Santorum isa big government, Big Labor-backing nanny-statist and Romney is a liberal.

      • jdw4america

        I don’t know about you, but I think the last time the MSM was touting a better economy was already upon us, it was, “The Recovery Summer.” It’s not better, and it’s not going to get better. This train-wreck of an administration has no idea how to improve the economy, or else they’d be doing it. That’s why all they have left in the arsenal are lies. That and hoping we’re really all as stupid as they think we are.

        Let’s face it, if the economy recovers under this kind of assault from the left, we’re all wrong about what the size our government should be. But we’re not wrong.

        Gas is already $4/gallon here in NY. While the elites on Park Avenue are thrilled about saving the planet, up in the Bronx? Not so much. So if there is grumbling here in we’re-too-damn-stupid-not-to-vote-for-democrats-ville, out there in the heartland, I think the people see the writing on the wall.

    • sethellis

      Repair man jack is simply constructing a straw man. Anyone who says Santorum wants a theocracy is stupid or lying. It’s just hyperbole.

      When considering if Santorum is really electable in the general, one needs to look no further than this diary. If Santorum wins then this is what the front page of redstate will be talking about all year. Do you really think this is the way to battle Obama?

      I’m excited to argue about the role of free markets and capitalism in our society if Romney wins. Instead we would be arguing about Santorum’s views on contraception.

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        One word: RomneyCare.

        • sethellis

          I’d love to talk about that too. Then we can point out that Romney’s main goal was to make it easier to buy private insurance, and create a real market in healthcare. We can point out that it was never intended by Romney to mandate a certain level of coverage (ie you must cover birth control). We can look at what was wrong with the Massachusetts law, and tell the nation our new solutions.

          Unfortunately, as much as I’m sure you’d love to change the subject to healthcare, we might never get that chance. Nope, instead we have to defend Santorum when he states that contraception is “wrong”. Still excited?

          • redcal

            Never intended by Romney to mandate a certain level of coverage? The title of the legislation as “The Massachusetts Mandated Health Insurance Law.” (St. 2006, c.58). It mandates the purchasing by private citizens of a government-defined level of healthcare. I mean, your statement is exactly the opposite of reality. It certainly made it easier to buy private insurance, as does Obamacare. That’s not the problem with either, though.

            Commonwealth Care has subsequently faced funding gaps and required federal funding of more than 1.5B. If you’re a taxpayer in MA, you either have to prove that you have health insurance or pay a mandatory penalty (tied to the cost of premiums).

            You seem to be a Romney supporter, and even you are not aware of the publicly available, very-well documented facts of Romneycare. Just wait till Obama starts his (very well-funded, and precisely targeted) attack campaign. Still excited?

          • sethellis

            One must make the distinction between what Romney actually wanted or intended, and what was actually passed. If you can find quotes from Romney during the time the bill was crafted in support of mandating a level of coverage I will readily concede the point. My understanding if his position is that he wanted people in the private insurance market so they could select a plan that fit their own needs.

          • redcal

            Just watch the video:

            0:50: “The biggest pro is…no free-riders.” (meaning the mandate)
            1:30: “No, no, I like mandates.” (During a debate — not his finest moment)
            2:07: “If you can afford to buy insurance…if you don’t buy it, you have to put aside enough money to pay your own way.”

            http://www.mrctv.org/node/76634

            The mandates weren’t something that someone else put in the bill. This was his core philosophical motivation for the bill, and one that he defended in 2008 all the way up to this year.

            His only argument? That somehow the federal gov forcing a purchase (Obamacare) is evil, but state goverment can force any purchases they like (Romneycare).

          • redcal

            Defending mandates: “With private insurance finally affordable, I proposed that everyone must either purchase a product of their choice or demonstrate that they can pay for their own health care. It?s a personal responsibility principle. Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. ”

            The whole article is about universal healthcare. That was his original goal. Indeed, the idea of a ‘connector’/exchange is something he gives away credit to, as a mere ‘enhancement’, to the Heritage Foundation. He reserves the universal health and mandate angles for himself.

            Review:
            http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/05/12/what-mitt-romney-said-about-romneycare-when-he-signed-it-into-law/

            Original Romney-written Op-ed:
            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114472206077422547.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep

          • littlehouse18

            during these primaries, and now it’s too late.

          • sethellis

            You have good links, but they do not hit at the crux of the argument which was “it was not intended to mandate a certain level of coverage”.

            Romney’s support for a mandate cannot be disputed, but the mandate was only intended to prevent freeriding. It was never intended to be used as a tool to force insurance companies to cover certain things. Romney’s proposed mandate was very different. It only required catastrophic coverage, and allowed for people to pay up front for their visits.

            Romney never said “all plans must cover x, y, and z”. A key difference from what Obama has done.

          • redcal

            First of all, catastrophic (and ER) coverage _is_ a level of coverage. It’s clearly different from contraception, but it’s a level of coverage that is mandated, and happily so by Romney (at the time, and still now).

            Now, I agree that Obamacare’s forcing insurance companies to cover contraception doesn’t have a precedent in Romneycare. But remember that Romney (in Dec 2005) did require…wait for it…Catholic hospitals to buy and provide contraception to rape victims, as against the Church’s stance as Obama’s mandate. This wasn’t part of Romneycare because he got it done BEFORE Romneycare. Here’s the quote:

            ?The initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration but from the Romney administration,?? said C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. ?President Obama?s plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I?m not sure Governor Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.??
            (http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-03/nation/31017576_1_catholic-hospitals-emergency-contraception-religious-liberty)

            That’s mandating a level of coverage, at a detailed level, one exactly analogous to one of the most controversial of Obamacare. Romney did indeed say “All plans must cover x”, where x is providing contraception, and even said “in his heart of hearts” it was the right call. It just didn’t happen at the same time as Romneycare, but before.

            This is why nominating Romney is absolutely giving away the Obamacare issue. Wherever you find Obama, Romney got there first.

          • redcal

            “In an earlier debate, Newt Gingrich underscored the point when he described a Massachusetts couple fined $3,000 by the state. They had health insurance, but it didn’t meet the state’s specifications. Lauren and Nick Destito had owned a tree and landscaping business for 25 years before the economy collapsed in 2008. They were forced to declare bankruptcy but still tried to abide by the state’s health-insurance mandate, purchasing a policy that cost them $750 a month.”

            “Mr. Romney has indeed backed himself into a corner by insisting on defending his health plan while attacking ObamaCare. In the Oct. 11 [2011] debate at Dartmouth College, Mr. Romney said: “[W]e all agree about repeal and replace. And I’m proud of the fact that I put together a plan that says what I’m going to replace it with.”

            Does he really mean that he wants to use Massachusetts as a model for his “replacement” plan? No wonder voters are worried. ”

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204573704577187351873393504.html

            More here:
            http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/15913

            Links to a variety of articles explaining why Obamacare = Romneycare:
            http://ricochet.com/main-feed/To-Fight-Obamacare-Nominate-Romneycare

          • sethellis

            Again your are making the assumption that Romney agrees with everything in the bill. If I recall correctly, it was on Hannity this week that Governor Romney explained that they had no choice but to include it because it was mandated by the courts.

            As for level of coverage, I think you are just splitting hairs. What level of coverage can you get that is below catastrophic only? However, this really just highlights the real issue here. The government shouldn’t have to care what level of coverage you have. It only matters because the government has to pay for it. True personal responsibility would mean no coverage no care. Until this fundamental problem is fixed, all solutions will be flawed. I don’t see that happening given the current views of the public. Hence, it is a question about the lesser of evils.

          • redcal

            I think it’s safe to assume they agree with it. Note that Romney actually takes the time in his op-ed to disagree with the employer fee:

            “My Democratic counterparts have added an annual, $295 per-person fee charged to employers that do not contribute toward insurance premiums for any of their employees. The fee is unnecessary and probably counterproductive, and so I will take corrective action.”

            He calls this out because he doesn’t want to be associated with it. Conversely, he does want to be associated with everything else. If he’s changing his support this week on Hannity, it’s a bit late for that. He fought for the mandate (that was the goal) and he believed in the rape contraception mandate.

            I absolutely agree with your final statement — there’s a tension between no mandate (on paying for insurance) and a mandate of care (by emergency rooms). The finances don’t work if they’re not aligned. But instead of attacking the latter, and truly making it a culture of personal responsibility (no mandate in either case), he entrenched the latter by enacting a mandate on the former. If that direction (mandate+mandate) makes more sense than no mandate in both cases, then that’s a philosophical disagreement between you and me, but not between Romney and Obama. They went in exactly the same direction.

          • jdw4america

            Isn’t it? If the law wasn’t what he wanted it to be, he had a solution – veto.

          • streiff

            No one has to defend Santorum when he says contraception is wrong.

            In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

            But that isn’t the issue. The issue is religious liberty and whether a religious organization can be made to provide a service, in this case contraception but it could just as easily be abortion or euthanasia, because it provides health insurance.

            In the future, I’m going to consider any of this “we” stuff coming from you to be trolling with its attendant consequences. You have a long enough posting history that no one believes you are a conservative or perhaps even a Republican.

          • sethellis

            “But that isn’t the issue” is exactly the problem here.

            Voters will ask “can I really support someone with such views on contraception?” My fear is that many independents will answer “no” to this question. If this occurs then it won’t matter what they think about actual policy issues. It is precisely this type of deflection that Obama is counting on to win.

          • streiff

            and people didn’t vote for Clinton because he didn’t think fellatio was sex.

          • Death_of_the_Donkey

            The Lewinsky thing erupted after the 96 election.

          • streiff

            but this did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

          • sethellis

            I hated Bill as much as anyone, but we must admit that he had a certain charisma that helped him better connect with voters. Something Santorum and Romney lack.

    • http://lukos.com Ed54

      and goaded us into it.

      As Instapundit said, “why are we talking about birth control when the country is going broke?”

  • momac

    so i’m straight here, we need to go ahead and assume that the things he thinks are ‘right’, he won’t presume to pursue as president.

    have you heard him explain the constitution? have you heard him describe the ‘repsonsibilities’ he see in there? he wants to fight AGAINST libertarian and tea party influence in the republican party. liberty is not his strong suit.

    i truly wouldn’t vote for him under any circumstances, but neither will 70% of people so no worries. his quotes get wide play and he’s done. whether that primary or general i don’t know.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      The other two guys think the US Const comes with the power to install the Individual Mandate.

      • WillWong

        nt

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          NT.

          • WillWong

            “With respect to President Obama?s health insurance mandate, Newt believes it is an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of federal power. If the federal government can coerce individuals?by threat of fines?to buy health insurance, there is no stopping the federal government from forcing Americans to buy any good or service. It is a serious and unconstitutional infringement of individual liberty.

            With respect to Governor Romney?s mandate, we have observed that it doesn?t achieve its goal of providing low cost catastrophic coverage for the uninsured. The intractable problem we have learned from experience with health insurance mandates is this: once you have a mandate, the government has to specify exactly what coverage must be included in insurance for it to qualify. This introduces political considerations into determining these minimum standards, guaranteeing that nothing desired by the special interests will be left out.

            In the 1990s, Newt and many other conservatives, such as the Heritage Foundation, proposed a mandate to purchase health insurance as the alternative to Hillarycare. However, the problems outlined above caused Newt to come to the principled conclusion that a mandate to purchase health insurance was unconstitutional, unworkable and counterproductive to lowering the cost of healthcare.

            Today, Newt carries the banner in fighting for the repeal of Obamacare and advocates for a ?patient power? replacement that will create a free market framework for healthcare, provide affordable, portable, and reliable healthcare coverage, and establish a healthcare safety net focused on those truly in need. This system moves us towards the goal of healthcare for all with no unconstitutional mandate of any kind.”

            http://www.newt.org/answers#Mandate

          • mike90815

            I’m new to some of these issues and in wonder if any of you very articulate guys could help me out. What’s the difference between mandating health insurance coverage and here in California the state mandating all drivers carry car insurance? Of course there’s a difference because one is a Federal mandate, the other a state mandate. But is there something other than that that I’m missing? Oh, and of course if you don’t own a car you don’t have to buy it…but still if you do you must. Thanks in advance.

          • acat

            so insurance for car owners is mandatory *only* for car owners, but insurance for citizens is pretty much required for all citizens.

            Note – yes, this means illegals, who aren’t required to have insurance. will have lower expenses and be able to work cheaper.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            Car insurance or a bond are required only if one is operating his or her vehicle on public roads. In this case, there are services which one is taking advantage of daily funded by the commonweal — and of course, one has the option of posting a bond.

            Additionally, most states only mandate liability insurance — i.e., insurance that covers damage done to others. The individual mandate only covers damage or services that you are undertaking for your own improvement, and not because you have harmed others — these should be elective, as they are in state mandates for car insurance.

          • acat

            is that farm kids often learn to drive much younger than 16 .. it’s not *that* hard, after all .. but are only allowed to drive if they’re on the farm. So .. you’ll sometimes see a pickup with a barely-teenager bouncing along a dirt road, running parts or water or whatnot from one corner of a good sized farm to another.

            Mew

          • WillWong

            of wealth (insurance premium) from younger people who are less in need of medical services to older people who tends to need more medical services.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Back then.

            We can play this game all day.

  • Whacker77

    I sure wish Doc Brown’s flux capicitor was real. If it was, we could go back in time about a year or so and show one of the candidates who didn’t run just how bad the current field is. Maybe then we could convince one of them to run and we wouldn’t be in the middle of screwing up a sure thing.

    I’m sure Romney and Santorum have redeeming qualities, but they’re papered over by their many faults. Are we really going to put one of these guys up against Obama? Is the party really going to nominate a moderate or a guy who seems to be running for Arch Bishop (I write that as a Catholic)?

    Everything about this last year has been so implausible so I’m left to hope that an implausibility saves us, a brokered convention. I know most think it’s a bad idea, but if it becomes clear no one will receive a majority, a new candidate could enter in late May or early June and use the time before the convention to set up a campaign, raise money and woo delegates.

    Even if a brokered convention might produce a bad outcome, could it be any worse than nominating one of the terribly flawed candidates we’ve currently got?

    • Bob_Frazier

      If our candidates are “flawed”, just look at Ubama.

      Why say Santorum is running for Arch Bishop?. He hasn’t said a thing. This false issue was created by the demoncrats. They are known liars. Why do you buy in?

      Even Romney, who I am no fan of, is much less “flawed” than Ubama. So why is everyone so worried? The emperor is naked. Expose him!

      • acat

        To win the election, Bob, we need to win enough of the independents…

        Reliable GOP voters account for only approximately 1/3 of the electorate – and are neatly balanced by another 1/3, the reliable Dems.

        The final 1/3 – the piece that matters – is the wishy-washy squishy middle… and my whiskers are telling me that Santorum is going to have some serious image-management problems selling himself to them.

        Mew

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          Empirical evidence says that is has only happened 3 times in the last 8 tries. RS has his warts, but only when not addressed in comparison to either Mitt Romney or Newt GIngrich. All of our guys will have serious image problems. If you assume that all three are equally less awful than BHO, and are only voting on electability, you just have to pick your poison.

          • acat

            but that does not make them equally distasteful.

            All four are acceptably opposed to abortion. All four – yes, even Ron Paul – would be better fiscally than Obama.

            That said, I’m looking for someone who can conduct and win a national campaign.

            Santorum has no national campaign experience, unlike the other three, and his performance in Pennsylvania in 2006 shows he struggles to handle attacks from his right. (maybe he’s used to being the farthest right guy on the field?) Santorum also seems dead set on making the general election about social, rather than fiscal, issues. It’s a battlefield he’s more comfortable on, but it’s one that has not – historically – been successful in nationwide elections.

            Romney has executive experience, unlike the other three, but it’s hardly a glowing record .. and he’s about as inspiring as an asparagus stalk. He does, however, have national campaign experience and a heck of a lot of money.

            Gingrich has, out of the bunch, the best fiscal conservative record, national campaign experience, and of the four, the best ability to synthesize complex issues down to simple sound bites. Palin does it better than Newt, but she’s not running.

            Ron Paul is a nut.

            At this point, since we still have to beat a sitting president, I’m leaning toward Gingrich. He does “the vision thing” reasonably well, has run a successful national campaign, and his warts – marital issues specifically – are less likely to count against him in the general.

            Mew

          • oldlady

            kitty-cat, but I don’t recall Gingrich ever running for national office. Indeed, unlike Santorum, he never even ran for statewide office in his home state of Georgia. The only races he ever ran in and won was in his own Congressional District in Georgia.

        • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

          I was speaking to a “sensible liberal” today – that endangered species – who was expressing surprise that Santorum was sounding more reasonable than in the past.

          Obviously anecdote isn’t the same as data, but what it means is that if Santorum can redirect questioning towards economic (other non-social issues) and deflect the hot-button gotcha attempts, independents may be willing to give him a listen as a man of conviction rather than dismiss him out of hand as a social conservative hobby horse.

          And he at the moment is making headway.

          It really rests in Santorum’s hands as to how he handles this opportunity – and to what extent Romney tries to poison the well by attacking him with leftist talking points, but if Rick can make the case that he has alternative ideas to Obama and is not a theocrat in the wings, he could win over enough skeptics.

          Obviously in this totally unpredictable year, things could look very different by March, but I’m at the moment suspending my unbelief and willing to let things play out further.

          Though I still have to say that for Santorum to become a serious challenger to Obama will be like picking to an inside straight. But that’s a vast improvement from a couple of months ago, when his odds seemed to be in the lotto range.

          Or around the odds of a successful lunar colonists’ revolt against earth…

    • aesthete

      Look: Santorum is doing the exact same thing as his buddies on the social left. He’s asserting that he has all the answers for how society works, and that “true freedom” only comes by chaining people to his ideas of how things ought to be. Contraception is one of the few areas where Santorum’s personal beliefs and preferences are not realized in terms of law.

      I wish he were simply about making sure that people pay for their own pleasures: everywhere I look, Santorum either wants to criminalize said pleasures, or to have me pay for ways to stop people from doing what they feel is right. Neither behavior is theocratic, but it is nanny state government and is not what I, or many conservatives, want.

      • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

        by repeating the phony strawman arguments of the left against conservative candidates.

        This … “He?s asserting that he has all the answers for how society works, and that ?true freedom? only comes by chaining people to his ideas of how things ought to be.”

        is false.

        Yes, Santorum has a view about how society best works. SO DO YOU. . Santorum has on more than one occasion put caveats about personal views versus political positions, and that they aren’t always the same. Does he want to ‘impose’ it on you any more than you? Even anarchists seek to impose … anarchy.

        So what’s the problem? When it comes to contraceptives, he’s never outlawed it and indeed supported fedral funding to provide for some women – quite a long shot from imposing personal beliefs. When it comes to most other social issues, Santorum supports the status quo versus those who are seeking govt imposition of changes in law (eg marraige for homosexuals).

        ‘chaining people’?

        “Santorum either wants to criminalize said pleasures”

        Abortion is a ‘pleasure’ now? Yeah, and he want to keep heroin, shoplifting, rape and fraud illegal – I’m sure some people those to be ‘pleasures’ but it doesnt make them less wrong.
        He doesnt want to outlaw SUVs like Obama’s EPA wants to. he doesnt want to make it a crime to eat a burger and fries like Moochelle Obama wants. I dont think he’s for banning smoking everywhere.
        AND HE CERTAINLY IS MORE AGAINST HEALTHCARE MANDATES!

        So who’s the real Nanny-Statist? The globaloney warming guys? the ‘plastic bags are evil’ statists? Obama’s HHS, ready to make us buy health insurance against our consciences with the weight of Federal law?
        Or a prolife catholic?

        This phony leftwing meme that somehow a guy standing for traditional values ‘imposes’ something while they dont is specious. Almost as bad are the phony anti-socon arguments from pseudo-conservatives who make a fetish about “imposing” beliefs and lose all perspective, taking umbrage over tiny flyspeck issues (oh he doesnt want to legalize drugs and all gambling and wants to go after deadbeat Dads – “statist!”) while ignoring the 90% of agreement.

        Since absurdities abount once you start down the path of strawmen and over-generalization, rather than make Obama’s job easier and throw overbroad generalizations out there, identify the specific, concrete laws and legislation that he passed or advocates that you like or dont like, and leave it at that.

        • aesthete

          I think that it makes us look like shills when we defend all of our candidates against attacks that we think have validity. It definitely makes Obama supporters look like shills.

          “Does he want to ?impose? [his worldview] on you any more than you?”

          Yep. So do lots of leftists. Next question?

          “Abortion is a ?pleasure? now?”

          No, but gambling sure is — so’s sodomy for some folks, I’d imagine. There’s a whole list that I can point to of things Santorum supports bans, restrictions, or extensive taxation of, if you’d like.

          “He doesnt want to outlaw SUVs like Obama?s EPA wants to.”

          There’s this cool thing they invented, where you can disagree with Santorum without hopping on board the Obama train. You should check it out.

          “So who?s the real Nanny-Statist? The globaloney warming guys? the ?plastic bags are evil? statists? Obama?s HHS, ready to make us buy health insurance against our consciences with the weight of Federal law? Or a prolife catholic?”

          I thought you said there would be no multiple choice questions on this test!! YOU LIED TO ME

          “This phony leftwing meme that somehow a guy standing for traditional values ?imposes? something while they dont is specious.”

          Good thing I never made that argument. I am using his statements about freedom and his record in office to state what I believe to be his general worldview, and then pointing out these issues. I’ve never said that Santorum wants to ban contraception — you can go searching if you’d like. His real record is bad enough that I don’t have to embellish.

      • littlehouse18

        I really hate to say this, but these concerns are not rational, verging on hysterical. They’re the sort of thing our opponents like to say about conservatives.

    • Dave_A

      Is that it gives Ron Paul a greater chance to implement his nonination-jacking plan….

      For whatever reason, the man is determined to try and force an electorate that has rejected him in every primary state, to accept him as their candidate…

      The method to this, is to pack un-appreciated state-party positions & convention delegations with Paul supporters, and then have them vote their personal fantasy (Paul nomination) over the wishes of their electorate…

      Many states are only bound to the primary/caucus results for the first round of voting…

      And few things would be worse for us, than Paul pulling his heist off…

  • rmwstanford

    Santorum care that much about economic liberty? He has no problem restricting economic liberty when it is political beneficial for him to do so on trade issues. Hehas a terrible record on trade. He has supported a number of tariffs that would raise cost on consumers. He sponsored a bill that would raise tariffs and then given those tariff revenues to a special interest group.
    On the contraceptive issue he seems to believe that state government should have the right to restrict economic liberty when it comes consumers choosing to purchase contraceptives.

    http://www.examiner.com/bloomington-economic-policy-in-springfield/why-rick-santorum-worries-me-on-trade

    • Dave_A

      Santorum believes that we should follow the Constitution.

      As per the 10th Amendment, any power not granted to the US falls to the states next, and to the people if the states don’t claim it…

      Thus, the states DO have the power to regulate intrastate commerce – including the banning of commerce in specific items.

      That doesn’t mean that states SHOULD ban contraceptives – it means that they have the legal power to do so.

      Which is very clearly the way things are supposed to be, as per the Constitution.

  • Viet71

    The Left has no sense of humor. Maybe that’s one reason conservatives tend to dislike Romney. He’s about as droll as a slug.

    But I say, vote for him if he’s nominated. eom

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      I’ve probably written more anti-Romney stuff than anyone else ofn the FP. However, I wouldn’t hesitate voting Mitt over Barack.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        as would the election of Rick or Newt…

  • znjs

    But without the government powers he currently opposes, at least rhetorically, The Santorum Great Awakening is about as legally binding on my rights as an American as the typical Papal Bull

    See this is where I have a problem with Santorum – I have no faith that he will continue to oppose expanding government power once he’s the one expanding them. I don’t trust him to make government less intrusive in my life.

  • Bob_Frazier

    And Ubama says contraceptives should be given way free by the insurance companies (forced by the government) and that even institutions who do not agree with the thinking of the government has to make them available anyway.

    And you are worried because Santorum “seems to believe” that state governments should have the right to restrict the purchase of contraceptives? Well, we say that about abortion all the time, don’t we? And yet, this is a false issue. The Dems brought it up and twisted it.

    Come on people. Even if Santorum said the above today, whose stand is worse, Ubama or Santorum?

    Santorum supports some tariffs, and ubama is nationalizing companies, playing crony capitalism, and bankrupting the country.

    Lets get real folks.

  • Bob_Frazier

    And Ubama says contraceptives should be given way free by the insurance companies (forced by the government) and that even institutions who do not agree with the thinking of the government has to make them available anyway.

    And you are worried because Santorum “seems to believe” that state governments should have the right to restrict the purchase of contraceptives? Well, we say that about abortion all the time, don’t we? And yet, this is a false issue. The Dems brought it up and twisted it.

    Come on people. Even if Santorum said the above today, whose stand is worse, Ubama or Santorum?

    Santorum supports some tariffs, and ubama is nationalizing companies, playing crony capitalism, and bankrupting the country.

    Lets get real folks.

  • jon11

    Im going to make a simple statement of fact.

    There is one establishment in this country and one alone. thats the one in power.

    The DEMOCRATS who control the WH and the senate.

    The republican establishment isn’t in power, and nominating santorum isn’t sticking it to the MAN, its doing the bidding of the democratic establishment, the real MAN, who are/is openly rooting for santorum.

    Im trying to remember how we even got such a state of ass backwardness and confusion.

    It begins with a lie. Not a lie in my opinion. An objective lie.

    The lie is this: A ‘moderate’ republican, someone who agrees with you 85% of the time, is no better than a liberal democrat who agrees with you 0% of the time.

    Better to spend 40 years wandering around in the political wilderness than have a leader in power who only agrees with me 85% of the time.

    IF you can get people to believe that, you can get them to believe anything.

    Even that Rick Santorum might actually possibly be the president one day.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Or else Mitt Romney would have already wrapped up the nomination. You can’t read an issue of National Review Incredulously and not come away from it believing Mitt Romney walks on water without even getting his shoes wet. Romney has amassed more endorsements, money and party support than the rest of the candidate sin the race combined. He outspent Gingrich 65:1 in Florida.

      • mikelindell2

        to still read NR, especially after this election cycle. I feel that the establishment is warming up to Santorum if they can’t have Romney. Not sure why, Santorum would lose, again, by a record margin. Romney has a slight chance, although I think he’d lose too. I’m still crossing my fingers Newt pulls this off.

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      the Liberal ABCBSMSNBCNNYTimesWashPostUSAToday Media is the Establishment.

      Obama owns the White House and the whole Executive Branch. that’s Establishment.

      The GOP movers and shakers who want the ‘electable’ whatever are not establishment, nor do they have much power. And they are NOT the enemy. They are like us, desperate to find a NOT-Obama to run. They get annoying when their preferred candidate ignores our key issues.
      BUT, they are not Establishment.

  • Scope

    and is going to announce his backing of Santorum on Friday. I believe Santorum is way way ahead in Ohio in current polling.

    As to Santorum on the social issues, so many choose to forget that it is the left that keeps the social issue talk alive. Especially the bimbo’s on CNN, they are appalled over Santorum being against their free contraception. They scream daily about how anti-women he is, yet as I said on another post, this liberal administration is now imposing pregnancy simulation training. They don’t even address the religious freedom aspect of the argument, and so to do many on the right, up to and including comments to the effect that Santorum will make all women wear chastity belts. Even though Santorum correctly went for the religious freedom argument, and tied it into economics correctly, the libertines are having feinting spells because he has stayed with his positions on traditional family values that were not a new phenomenon brought about only when Santorum entered the race.

    If you don’t believe that the liberals address the social issues, in all it’s varied messenging, just watch CNN for a few days. There is no day that doesn’t go by that stories are not breathlessly told about how how parents must be told how they must feed their own children. They go on and on about how the government, and with the great help of Moochelle Obama are fighting childhood obesity with the same vehemence they are still claiming to fight the war on poverty, with no end date for that war in sight.

    Who isn’t sick and tired of the ACLU and the liberals fighting to remove the 10 commandments, school prayer, the pledge of allegiance, christmas decorations, wishing others merry Christmas or Happy Hannukah, and the mention of God on our money. Who wants their child to go to grade school to be taught that it’s OK to have two mommies, or two daddies, or that it’s OK for boy’s to wear pink toenail polish, and dresses. Why do taxpayers have to pick up the tab for a prisoner to have a sex change operation. There is not a day that passes when the liberals are not attacking traditional family values. For a liberal primer just read Hillary Clinton’s words- “it takes a village to raise a child.”

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      To really empower the government to raise your child against your will, it takes a village of bureaucrats and taxpayers.

      • Scope

        n/t

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      dittos on this.

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    Probably because Obama knew he could win if the election were fought on social issues.

    • Scope

      on requiring religious organizations to provide free contraception for all insureds. They knew they had a losing argument when they were attacked on their infringement into religious freedoms, and turned it into a contraceptive debate to take everyone’s eye off the main ball. Those on the right that oppose Santorum on his traditional social positions are now attacking Santorum using liberal tactics and talking points, and have also ignored the religious freedom angle. I get it, the liberals, Romney, and the libertarians are in panic mode. They can’t allow social anarchy to be challenged until every traditional value is completely expunged from society.

      The entire Obama administration has been about nothing more than social issues, and pushing their visions and values of their utopia on all of society. You cannot oppose Obama without attacking his social issues.

      • acat

        just as Santorum started rising in the polls?

        Do you believe that’s a coincidence?

        I do not.

        Obama is a past master of dirty tricks and proxy hits, and this strikes me as a false encouragement of a Catholic anti-birth-control candidate at the expense of the rest of the GOP field.

        Mew

        • oldlady

          up the topic of contraceptives at the debate he moderated weeks before the Obama Administration’s announcement was made that caused all this brouhaha? If you guys recall Romney questioned where Stephie was going with this (at that time) off-the-wall line of questioning. IMHO Stephie was already clued in to the forthcoming Obama campaign plan of attack which would lead to the GOP candidates (especially Santorum) looking like religeous fanatics.

        • Scope

          and Santorum was correct in responding to the Obama effort as an attack on religious freedoms. All you hear on CNN now is about the contraception debate, and they have pursuaded their listeners away from the backlash from those arguing for religious freedom. Remember Obama was threatened by the leftist Catholics, and risked losing their support because of his overreach in the mandate. Not only is Obama, and the liberals trying to paint Santorum as some kind of religious fanatic, he is getting the same kind of attacks from those on the right who are opposed to traditional social values. I am in doubt that Obama had Sebelius come out with the Obamacare contraceptive flap at this time just to be able to go against Santorum. If that was his goal, he got a huge backlash from more than just Santorum.

          • acat

            I don’t think Obama rolled out the attack to “go against Santorum”, I’m thinking it was more to make Santorum look better …

            Mew

          • Scope

            Sebelius had Santorum in mind at all when they rolled out yet another part of Obamacare. Why would Obama want to do anything to help any of our candidates, and alienate a block of his voters? If your point is that Obama wants to run against Santorum because he is the least electable, tell that to the voters in the states that chose him as the state winner, and to all those who are breaking big time for him in the current polling.

          • acat

            was amazingly small, and none of those States awarded delegates. They mean nothing except in terms of image…. and they also get people who otherwise weren’t looking at Santorum’s record to do so…. and that’s not going to go over well.

            Santorum is still behind Romney *and* Gingrich in delegate count. To borrow from Palin, Santorum’s the flavor of the month.

            And yes, I think if Obama has a choice, he’d prefer to run against Romney or Santorum.

            Mew

          • littlehouse18

            I think Stephanopoulos wanted to discredit Santorum, and the others as well, and knew full well that Obama would use this to distract from his record. He brought out the issue just to plant a seed in voters’ minds about Republicans. It was just too bizarre and out of the blue. There has not been debate about birth control ( the non-abortifacient type) for several decades. The Dems probably also thought that the insurance flap would demonstrate how ‘benevolent’ government-controlled healthcare is.

        • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

          Senator Hatch in particular berated HHS Secty Sibelius for ignoring his JULY 2011 letter questioning their plans AND pointing out that it violates the freedom of conscience of religious groups.

          Well, Sen Hatch was steamed because he got no substantive answer to his letter AND to a letter sent by 27 Senators that summer on the same topic. The Obama administration has simply blithely IGNORED the feedback. This is the Obama administration at full pro-abort pro-rad-fem tilt, not caraing about any such feedback that contradicts their extremist world view.

          No, Obama is NOT messing with the GOP primary. How was Obama to know Santorum would be on the rise instead of newt or Romney. What he IS doing is messing up our freedoms and attacking any reaction as an attack on the ‘freedom’ to get this stuff for free. Hence, we’ve now got the NYTimes editorial board claiming that being against a forced health insurance mandate of contraceptive coverage is against ‘choice’.
          That misdirection is something the leftwing media would want to have no matter who is running for President.

      • jamesm

        This is an attack and on people of faith. The rest is nonsense. Contraception is available. Now people are buying into a discussion over contraceptives? That’s exactly what the liberals want America to discuss. Focus

  • Liberal Lion

    How was requiring Catholic Hospitals pay for insurance that covers birth control an affront to religious freedom?

    • Locked and Loaded

      ted!

      Haha!

  • ihavehadit

    Donald Trump told the NY Daily News that if Romney is not the nominee he will run on the American Elect Presidental ticket. That would kill us. No vote for Santorum

    • jamesm

      for Romney. Won’t work and he won’t run. He would destroy his brand for good.

    • littlehouse18

      nt

    • znjs

      Right after he releases the shocking evidence his investigators found about Obama’s birth certificate.

      Trump lies to get attention. That’s what he does. Of the remaining candidates I’m for Romney, but fears of Trump actually running have nothing to do with it.

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      Trump is all showman and not a do-er. If it eats into his profits he won’t do it.

    • http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com katesmith

      It’s not on the NYDN website, I entered it in several searches and got nothing at all. At first I assumed this was bias on the part of NYDN, that they buried it, but then couldn’t find it elsewhere. The most I found was a day ago there were hints he might go American Elect but nobody took it seriously and a Romney contingency wasn’t mentioned. I think he was embarrassed that his endorsement of Romney didn’t help, so instead of backing off on it he’s going to double down.

  • clowngirl

    In my view that doesn’t include government officials – particularly the President publicly expressing strong opinions about private family matters like the use of contraception or whether mothers should work outside the home.

    Painting the notion of that motherhood needs to take all of a woman’s time and that a woman working to support her family is somehow ignoble would seem to have the potential to undermine women’s position in society and put us at a competitive disadvantage.

    If there is a problem with children not having enough time with their mothers– then we should hope employers would adopt more child friendly policies — and, increasingly they have.

    As to Santorum’s remarks on women in the military – I disagree with him. I don’t think our soldiers are going to be distracted by “other feelings” because of the presence of women, dressed like men, with their hair either short or pulled back, and probably wearing little make up.

    Nor do I think that some protective instinct will cause a problem.. Surely there are deep friendships that develop between soldiers and soldiers are frequently in the position of having to focus on the mission when others they care about are (also) at risk.

    But I wouldn’t be that concerned by Senator Santorum’s comments if he had gone out of his way to make clear he is aware that women are capable of handling combat situation — speaking with conviction of the many female military and police officers who have performed with distinction. If he had left no quarter for those who would be emboldened by his view to spew ignorant nonsense about how women are just too emotional and can’t function under stress – and what if it was that time of the month. (I haven’t noticed anything like this on RedState -thankfully-but have seen too much of it elsewhere since Santorum’s remarks.)

    I would hope Senator Santorum doesn’t have any sort of gender bias — and I, as a Republican who wants to believe well of him, will give him the benefit of any doubt. But the Obama administration would not – and would exploit every possibility of painting Santorum as sexist and/or out of touch.

    Santorum should’ve been sensitive to the fact that keeping women from an expanded role in the military could be seen as a denial of full equal rights — and should have thought through the implications of such a comment and taken care to be very clear about what he meant and – more importantly- what he did NOT mean by it.

  • Pingback: Daphine Cordia