Let A Thousand Disagreements Bloom

It comes from the left, it comes from the right, but wherever it's coming from, narrrow-midedness is the order of the day.

The Washington Post's Cat Zakrzewski was interviewing Senator Josh Hawley of Michigan about a Pennsylvania court dismissing a challenge to the election of Joe Biden when the Republican grumbled (beginning at 1:47 of the video below)

No, hold on. No, no, no, no, no. You can't have it both ways, Cat. No, you can't have it both ways. You can't say they dismissed- you can't say they heard the merits and dismissed it. That's wrong. That's wrong. The Supreme Court didn't hear the merits of the..... no, hold on. It's an important point. Listen, it's an important point. Don't try to censor, cancel, and silence me here.

That's rich. The Washington Post gives Senator Hawley a platform and he tells the reporter she is trying to "censor, cancel, and silence" him (impressive piece of psychological projection, though).

On Monday night CNN's Chris Cuomo had the temerity to interview a guy Twitter already has determined is an irredeemable racist.  At a Young America Foundation conference in March, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum maintained

We birthed a nation. From nothing. There was nothing here. Yes, we have Native Americans, but there isn’t much Native American culture in American culture. It was born of the people who came here, pursuing religious liberty, to practice their faith, to live as they ought to live, and have the freedom to do so. Religious liberty.

Cuomo directly confronted Santorum on the substance of his remarks and the former Senator conceded

Just to be clear what I was not saying is that Native American culture…I misspoke…what I was talking about is the founding of the country. I gave a long talk about the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and what I was saying is that we sort of created that anew, if you will. I was not trying to dismiss Native Americans. In fact, I mentioned them because they were here and they did have an impact. In fact, in this country you are right, they did have a huge impact.

But that acknowledgement of error was not enough because while conservatives such as Hawley object to being confronted about their actions, some liberals object to cultural conservatives being given a platform where they are challenged by an ideologically hostile interlocutor. In thecrossover from Chris "Cuomo Prime Time" to "Don Lemon Tonight," Don Lemon heatedly objected

I was furious watching that interview in my office. I can't believe the first words out of his mouth weren't "I'm sorrry. I said something ignorant. I- you know, I need to learn something about the history of this country. No contrition- didn't talk about the suffering Native Americans have had to deal with in this country.

In fact, the former senator did go further than almost any politician will, having admitted "they (Native Americans) were here and they did have an impact. In fact, in this country you are right, they did have a huge impact." However, neither Santorum nor anyone will get on his or her knees and beg forgiveness, beseeching "I said something ignorant."

Begging forgiveness is between Santorum and his God, not between Santorum and other human beings. It's not going to happen as Lemon wishes, even if the latter is so condescending as to demand that Santorum plead "I need to learn something about the history of this country."

It didn't get any more realistic when Lemon continued

Europeans did not found this country. Yes the Europeans conquered this country. They colonized it. But they didn't- it had nothing to do with the founding of this country and he should recognize that.

Actually, the Europeans did found this nation. That's not opinion; that's fact. Native Americans founded the land, though that's a redundancy. Of course, native Americans founded America- it couldn't be otherwise. Their descendants originated in Asia and were nearly wiped out at least 15,000 years later by people who came here from the European continent.

After displaying a fair amount of genocidal skill, European-Americans proceeded to create a nation which they hoped would enforce their dominance.  They helpfully did so with the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, and some reasonably democratic institutions which we must constantly strive to perfect.

Having whiffed on American history, Lemon added

He should know that, especially if he's going to be on television representing us and talking about it. He should be doing it from the right perspective and not from some perspective about how Europeans- no! That's the wrong way to look at it.

It's just a guess, but it's likely lifelong right-wing Republican Rick Santorum wasn't asked on Cuomo's show to represent "us," but rather the viewpoint of, say, a lifelong right-wing Republican who had recently made the kind of remarks Santorum would be expected to make.  If Lemon needed "the right perspective," someone with the same perspective could have been brought on to mouth Lemon's viewpoint. Instead, Santorum's feet were held to the fire by Cuomo. Oh, the horror of it all!

Chris Cuomo challenging Rick Santorum on comments about the contribution of indigenous people to this country. Cat Zakrzewski confronting Josh Hawley on his effort to block certification of a free and fair election of a President. It's real journalism, amidst all the whining and complaining about it.

>> @DonLemon's reaction to Rick Santorum's comments: "I apologize to the viewers who were insulted by this. I was sitting in my office, furious, because he's done it so many times. So many times..." pic.twitter.com/UD00zTalI7

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) May 4, 2021

Share |

The Magna Carta, Too

Three takes, and two are not helpful.

He should be fired for this, @CNN. He should have been let go long ago, but spouting off this hateful ignorance should not stand. https://t.co/CMTXsEh0td

— Greg Olear (@gregolear) April 26, 2021

Stop it right now. Stop saying someone should be fired for saying something ignorant. And this is only a little better:

(CNN employee’s overt racism and ignorance.) https://t.co/awZdUGtofE

— Soledad O'Brien (@soledadobrien) April 26, 2021

 

Rick Santorum at the Young American Foundation gathering on April 23 had stated

If you think about this country, I don't know of any other country in the world that was settled predominately by people who were coming to practice their faith. They came here because they were not allowed to practice their particular faith in their own country. And so they came here, mostly from Europe, and they set up a country that was based on Judeo-Christian principles -- when I say Judeo-Christian, the Mosaic laws, 10 Commandments, and the teachings of Jesus Christ, the morals and teachings of Jesus Christ. That's what our founding documents are based upon. It's in our DNA.

You know, if you think of other countries like Italy and Greece and China, Turkey and places like that, they've all, sort of, changed over time. I mean, they've been there for millennia in many cases. And their culture has, sort of, evolved over time. But not us.

We came here and created a blank slate. We birthed a nation from nothing. I mean, there was nothing here. I mean, yes we have Native Americans but candidly there isn't much Native American culture in American culture. It was born of the people who came here pursuing religious liberty to practice their faith, to live as they ought to live, and have the freedom to do so. Religious liberty. Those are the two bulwarks of America. Faith and freedom. I mean, you hear it all the time about faith and freedom, faith and freedom. But it is what makes America unique in the world.

When someone invokes Jesus Christ in support of something bigoted, ignorant, or harmful to the American people, there is often a more effective retort. Much better than than saying Rick Santorum is a bigoted troglodyte or should be fired

There’s a lot to, uh, quibble with here, but I didn’t realize that Jesus Christ created the British parliamentary tradition, nor was I aware that Jesus Christ was the ghostwriter behind Locke, Hobbes, and even the Constitution! The things you learn! https://t.co/0z934WDxrP

— Julia Ioffe (@juliaioffe) April 26, 2021

 

Once upon a time In America, anti-discrimination laws were meant to apply to everyone. However, the Supreme Court continued its trend when in its last term

the court sided with Christian religious groups in three argued cases. The court ruled that state programs supporting private schools must include religious ones, that the Trump administration could allow employers with religious objections to deny contraception coverage to female workers and that employment discrimination laws do not apply to many teachers at religious schools.

And the court will soon decide whether Philadelphia may bar a Catholic agency that refused to work with same-sex couples from screening potential foster parents.

After Justice Barrett joined the court, it changed positions on the one question on which religious groups had been losing: whether governors could restrict attendance in houses of worship to address the coronavirus pandemic.

This nation has been on course to wring discrimination from its laws and customs- except in one area. If a plaintiff can claim that Jesus made him (her or them) do it, the common good and equal treatment under the law give way.

Santorum cites the Mosaic Laws (i.e., Mosaic Law), the Ten Commandments, and Jesus Christ so he can be, or appear, ecumenical. However, either, whether in the New Testament or the Old Testament, is antithetical to the separation clause. And when the ex-Senator says "it's in our DNA," he implies it's biological, thereby leaving no room for disagreement.

The real danger is not what Rick Santorum believes about Native Americans or their culture, about Italy, Greece, China, or Turkey. It's in the false premise of the Republican Party's white  evangelical base. "God is on our side."

 

Share |

Little Sound And Fury, Probably Signifying Less

In an op-ed Monday in The Washington Post, forty-four former United States senators, most Democratic but many Republican (and Independents Joe Lieberman and Lowell Weicker), wrote

.... it is our shared view that we are entering a dangerous period, and we feel an obligation to speak up about serious challenges to the rule of law, the Constitution, our governing institutions and our national security.

Appearing on Cuomo Prime Time with former Democratic governor Jennifer Granholm, Rick Santorum commented (beginning at 17:33 of the video below)

What does this letter really say? I mean, it looks like a letter that was put together or the idea was for the Senate to go after Trump. But it looks like a letter that was put together by committee. They couldn't really come up with anything other than stand for God and country but it says nothing so I don't know what this is really all about. Is it a missive to say this is sort of a wink and a nod vote for impeachment when I think there isn't any realistic possibility that will occur in the next two years? I have no idea what the letter is all about.

That makes two of us. Impeachment, as Santorum undoubtedly knows and understands, takes place in the House. Therefore, even though there is a realistic possibility of impeachment because the House will be controlled by Democrats, the letter has nothing to do with impeachment. It may, instead, be an effort by these Republicans and Democrats, most of whom had a reputation for ideological moderation and/or bipartisanship, to put themselves on the right side of history.  

Additionally, the letter's authors may be big-timing the House, suggesting that Senators are superior to Representatives. "At other critical moments in our history," they write, "when constitutional crises have threatened our foundations, it has been the Senate that has stood in defense of our democracy."

In a mere ten sentences, the writers have stood for nothing except, as Santorum noted, God and country, or perhaps puppies and motherhood. Alternatively, they have done something worse, sending mixed signals.

The music is "sort of a wink and nod vote for impeachment," weak tea, especially because the Senate has nothing directly to do with that act, which approximates an indictment. However, the lyrics go in the opposite direction. 

"We are on the eve of the conclusion of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation," the Senators write, a dubious claim arguably intended to push for a conclusion of the investigation. This is similar to the periodic leaks, probably coming from the Trump-Giuliani, camp, that Mueller is about to wrap up his investigation. 

If not from a committee, it might as well have come from one. This letter adds nothing to nothing, playing no role in emboldening GOP senators (or Representatives), who have been, and will remain for awhile, no bolder than an inanimate object. The following morning on the same network, Jeffrey Toobin remarked

I think the Republican Party as s a group, and certainly it’s true for members of the Senate, have said, made a collective decision, that "we’re not gonna change our minds about anything until all of these developments are wrapped up, until there is a Mueller report and then we have to decide whether to throw Donald Trump over the side."

I think that is very unlikely. The Republican Party, as John Boehner said not long ago, is the Trump party today and they are going down with the ship, if the ship is going down.  I think, if you look at Donald Trump’s popularity within the Republican Party, within the voters, it’s still very high. And the Republican politicians are following along.

Share |

A Comparatively Petty Argument

In their November 14, 2015 debate, Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton all emphatically refused to use the term "radical Islam" when asked about the term by moderator John Dickerson.   O'Malley contended "radical Jihadis" is "calling it what it is" while Sanders insisted "I don't think the term is what's important." Clinton would concede only "We are at war with violent extremism. We are at war with people who use their religion for purposes of power and oppression. And, yes, we are at war with those people. But I don't want us to be painting with too broad a brush."

Rick Santorum was not amused and tweeted "Yes @Hillary Clinton we are at war with radical Islam! You are not qualified to serve if you cannot even define our enemy!"  Similarly, John Ellis Bush, imagining a declaration of war, tweeted "Yes, we are at war with radical Islamic terrorism."
Appropriately amused, however, Mike Huckabee tweeted "You're all grown up now. You can do it. Three words. Ten syllables. Say it with me: "Radical Islamic terrorism.'"

Carefully avoiding the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" or "Islamic terrorism" is, as Huckabee infers, more humorous than dangerous.   Hillary Clinton, for her part, at least noted that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, and Jordan are among the countries which "are going to have to take on ISIS."

More appalling than failing to acknowledge the obvious- that Islamic terrorism is destabilizing the Middle East and  poses a grave threat to world peace- is the utter hypocrisy of many GOP presidential contenders.  Observing the last Republican debate, David Masciotra  explains that several candidates

openly used the phrase “World War Three,” while others discussed the group of evil barbarians as if they had invaded New York and were marching toward D.C. as they spoke. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are not exactly the equivalent of Winston Churchill, and the American people, who panic on command, are not particularly resilient. Ernest Hemingway defined courage as “grace under pressure.” American politicians, and the Americans who empower them, are currently failing to act with grace while under no pressure. One could only imagine the nightmare of chaos and hysterics that awaits should ISIS actually attack.

Senator Ted Cruz left no room for interpretation when he pounded the podium to announce that the “biggest threat we face is radical Islamic terrorism.” Fear of terrorism dominates the discourse.

Any time a conversation about terrorism begins in a political debate or on cable news, there is not an elephant, but an unacknowledged gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle in the room that exposes the utter hypocrisy and insincerity of America’s declaration of war on “radical Islam.”

One of America’s closest allies is Saudi Arabia. The alliance is mostly a one-way relationship in which the United States is subservient and obsequious – essentially a harem to the Saudi royal family, who collect all the benefits and rewards.

Saudi Arabia is the country most responsible for the rise of radical Islam, and the largest benefactor to Islamic terrorist organizations. According to multiple sources of American intelligence and Indian intelligence, the Saudis have spent billions to build mosques, madrasas and cultural centers dedicated to the promotion of Wahhabism – the small but growing sect of Islam insistent on literal interpretation of the Quran, and violent jihad.

The Kingdom also may have been the "principal financier," as former Senator Bob Graham (D-Fl) puts it, behind the attacks of 9/11/01. Graham and Representative Walter Jones (R-NC) are among the current and former members of Congress who have read the 28 pages redacted from the report issued by a joint Senate and House report on "intelligence community activities" before and after 9/11/01.  The section, entitled "potential sources of foreign support for the September 11 hijackers," was classified by the Bush Administration and efforts to have its 28 pages released have been stonewalled by the Obama Administration (CNN report from 9/14, below).

"The information contained in the redacted pages is critical to our foreign policy moving forward and should thus be available to the American public," Jones maintains. It also is crucial to the understanding that the debate over the use of the term "Islamic terrorism" pales in comparison to the importance of assessing the role of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism.

Share |

All For One, And That One Is The Corporation

It's all because of liberals whom, according to Rush Limbaugh, include Rahm Emanuel. Complaining about the National Weather Service, Limbaugh on Tuesday remarked

Well, a couple of weeks ago we had a story here, folks, where the school board president, one of the faculty members, two women actually, sent a letter home to the parents telling them to let their kids bring canned food to school in case a shooter with a gun showed up. They were going to teach the kids how to throw cans of food at a potential armed intruder. So those of you that went out and stocked up on the canned goods on the advice of Mayor de Blasio, you are prepared for intruders showing up and being able to frighten them back out of your home.

I don't know, folks.  It's just -- I know.  I know.  Some of you think I chalk everything up to liberalism, and you think I need to give it a rest.  I'm telling you, that's why this happens.  I say all the time, don't doubt me.  I know these people.  It's all intertwined.  Crisis. Remember Rahm Emanuel: a crisis is too important to waste.

Notice Rush referred to "school board president"-  who would be a public servant- thus encouraging his audience to believe the public school system, as he has argued before, is failing. CNN reports

"We realize at first this may seem odd; however, it is a practice that would catch an intruder off-guard," the letter reads, according to CNN affiliate WRBL. "The canned food item could stun the intruder or even knock him out until the police arrive. The canned food item will give the students a sense of empowerment to protect themselves and will make them feel secure in case an intruder enters the classroom."

Chambers County School Superintendent Kelli Moore Hodge acknowledges that the middle school didn't educate people properly before sending the letter home, but she says the cans are a very small part of the training.

But as you already should suspect, it wasn't the school superintendent primarily responsible. Oh, no:

"The major point of the training (which is called ALICE - Alert, lockdown, inform, counter, and evacuate) is to be able to get kids evacuated and not be sitting ducks hiding under desks," Hodge wrote in an email.

Even if you can't escape and are barricaded behind closed doors to avoid the shooter, there are still steps to take to increase your safety, suggests an Auburn University ALICE video. Auburn is providing the training to the school district.

Once the door has been locked and barricaded and students have moved to an area out of sight, students should have a plan if the attacker breaks into the room.

That's when canned goods and other classroom items come into play.

"Start gathering several items you can use to protect yourself. Every room has something you can use to distract and defend from the aggressors' attack," says the Auburn video's narrator. "Communicate with others around you and tell them your plan. Don't wait until the aggressor gets into your safe area to have a plan of action."

Students can throw books, book bags, computers and, yes, those canned goods to distract any aggressor.

He'll be distracted as he doubles down in laughter.  The next time Alabamans complain, justifiably, that the canned goods defense is ridiculous, the public school administrator- a government employee- should leave the discomfort of providing an explanation to Auburn University. Alternatively, she should affix the blame where it belongs instead of shilling for a company or private university.

In a larger sense, the Democratic Party bears blame for covering for the private sector- as in failing to make clear that greedy financial institutions (rather than homeowners, as many people believe) were responsible for the financial meltdown of the last decade.

When Rick Santorum expounded on "blah people," he was ridiculed. But here (video, below) we have the face of anti-labor, anti-worker extremism saying  "... as Republicans we need to make the case that we're going to promote policies that promote and support and defend hard work in this company, in this country once again," he ought to be called out for conflating company and country, looking at the USA as just one big, private enterprise.

Santorum is a confused and somewhat backward fellow. However, Walker, master of humblebrag, committed a Freudian slip, expressing the guiding principle of the Repub Party and, increasingly, the nation's politicians. Public-private partnerships and turning the people's business over to for-profit operations, as the incident in Alabama indicates, is doing no good for anyone except the small number of people making off like bandits at the public's expense.

Share |

God On Their Side



Perhaps you remember Michelle Bachmann remarking in May, 2011 in Iowa  “Well, every decision that I make, I pray about, as does my husband, and I can tell you, yes, I’ve had that calling and that tugging on my heart that this is the right thing to do.”   Coincidentally, that same month at a fundraiser in Texas, Governor Rick Perry commented "God was dealing with me.  At 27 years old, I knew that I had been called to the ministry. I've just always been really stunned by how big a pulpit I was gonna have. I still am. I truly believe with all my heart that God has put me in this place at this time to do his will."   (Perry prayed to the Almighty also last year to put an end to the drought in Texas.    God listened but apparently didn't give the Governor the answer he was seeking, as the drought grew worse.)


There was Mr. 9-9-9, Herman Cain, who six months later told the Georgia Young Republicans "I prayed and prayed and prayed.  I'm a man of faith, I had to do a lot of praying for this one, more praying than I'd ever done before in my life. And when I finally realized that it was God saying that this is what I needed to do, I was like Moses. 'You've got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?'"

Even spouses of candidates were not precluded from claiming divine sanction.   Karen Santorum, who said it was the passage of "Obamacare" that "put fire in my belly," maintained it was "God's will" that her husband run for the GOP presidential nomination.

Neither Bachmann, Perry, Cain, or Santorum ever had a chance to get the Republican nod.    (Of those in the race, only Newt Gingrich ever had a chance to derail Romney.)     So perhaps God chose not to intervene in the race or instead did so, deciding to hand each of the four an unequivocal defeat.   None of the four, however, was a darling of the mainstream media, perhaps because (the first) three were marginally serious candidates and arguably, simply not serious at all.

But the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Representative Paul Ryan of Ohio, an Ayn Rand acolyte and spokesman for the 1%, has been portrayed by the naive media as a thinking person's politician and breath of fresh air.    Then on Sunday, Ryan on ABC's This Week contended

What Ms. Kennedy and others were saying is that this is a new government-granted right. We disagree with the notion that our rights come from government, that the government can now grant us and define our rights. Those are ours, they come from nature and God, according to the Declaration of Independence — a huge difference in philosophy.

In a thorough take-down of Ryan's remark today, a dailykos blogger points to this portion of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Ryan did not pause to tell us why God decided to punish the citizens of, say, Somalia, Libya, Syria, and mainland China with few rights.     Apparently, neither nature nor God decided to extend generosity, at one time or another, toward billions of people throughout the world.

Fortunately, the Repub heavyweight, thought to be on Mitt Romney's short list of running mates, probably is not so ignorant of the Constitution and devoid of common sense to believe what he said.     Already idealized by the Village as an "economic conservative" (i.e., someone who wants to drop taxes on the wealthy and explode the budget deficit), Ryan likely figures he has to shore up support among cultural conservatives in the party.     Still, his statement is part of a pattern of politicians in the Gas and Oil Party to imply that they, and they alone, know the mind of the Lord and have his cell phone number.



Share |

Measured Praise


It is an article of faith on the far right that Barack Obama's supporters have been head over heels over him for several years.    Illustrative is this exchange from January 21, 2009 between two of the three most popular talk show hosts in the nation, including one who still refers continually to Obama as "the Messiah":  

HANNITY:  It's gotten so bad. Did you notice they had the commemorative Obama thong? I mean — what do you make of the — you talk about a cult-like personality or you use the term messiah, the anointed one, he descended from the heavens at Invesco Field. What do you make of this Obama worship syndrome, Obama-mania?
LIMBAUGH:  Well, I don't — I — you know, it is cult like depending on the people you're talking about, but let's examine the drive-bye. The media.

As expected, some on the left found President Obama's expression of support this past week for same-sex marriage exhilarating.   Newsweek's Jonathan Rauch argued

Still, Obama has claimed for himself a place in gay history not unlike LBJ’s place in black history. He is the first U.S. president to put the federal government unequivocally on the side of full equality for gay Americans, and he will almost surely be the last Democratic president to have opposed full equality. For his party, for its liberal base, and possibly for the country, there is no going back. He has crossed the bridge from Selma.

Andrew Sullivan,  sometimes libertarian, generally supportive of  Obama, and married to his "partner," referred to the President Sunday on The Chris Matthews Show as a "father figure."  He explained (video below from Crooks and Liars) that he was moved to tears as he "watched our President tell me that I'm his equal....fully part of this family."  










Generally, however, the reaction among liberals/progressives (which periodically includes Sullivan), invariably favorable, was nonetheless sane, sober, restrained, and offered in perspective. Glenn Greenwald observed:

It should go without saying that none of this mitigates the many horrendous things Obama has done in other areas, nor does it mean he deserves re-election. But just as it’s intellectually corrupted to refuse to criticize him when he deserves it, the same is true of refusing to credit him when he deserves it. Today, he deserves credit. LGBT equality is one area — and it’s an important area for millions of Americans — where he has conducted himself commendably and deserves praise. That was true before today, but even more so now.

It might be telling that Sullivan, one of the most effusive in his praise of Obama,  is a registered Republican.    So is the conservative who, prior to Barack Obama's inauguration, gushed

There is an air of something big, something grand, something electric about to explode upon us. Barack Obama's visage is everywhere. His relaxed and reassuring - even beatific - smile is omnipresent. So are his irrepressibly cute girls and their together mom.

Unfortunately, that was not Mr. Etch-a-Sketch.     But it was, however, a genuine conservative- former Pennsylvania governor and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum.


Share |

Not Always An Apology



Apologizing has become routine in American politics.       What are commonly, if incorrectly, termed "apologies" are sincere to varying degrees.   They range from an admission of wrongdoing to a proclamation that he/she is sorry if "anyone" was "offended."

Most of these fall somewhere between a full statement of regret and a complete avoidance of any responsibility.     Still, there are discernible differences, as demonstrated by two "apologies" heard this week.    

In February, then-active candidate Rick Santorum, reacting to the President's recommendation that everyone pursue post-high school education or training of some kind, told a tea party audience in Troy, Michigan

Not all folks are gifted in the same way.       Some people have incredible gifts with their hands. Some people have incredible gifts and ... want to work out there making things. President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob.

Having advocated roughly what the President had, Santorum was roundly criticized for calling the President of the United States a snob, grossly misinterpreting the President's words, or allegedly demonstrating an insufficient regard for higher education.     However, recently this exchange occurred on Piers Morgan's CNN talk show:

MORGAN: Of all those, which is the one you most regret looking back?
SANTORUM: The snob one, because I misread his comment. I thought he said everybody should go to college. And it was…what I had read was someone’s interpretation of what—and I just used that as a fact. That it was factually incorrect.   That's the one I feel bad about.  

Santorum said "I misread his comment" and he repeated as fact something which was "factually incorrect."      One tipoff to Santorum's sincerity was his decision not to  emphasize (or even mention) the impact upon others.     A speaker can be wrong even if no one took personal offense and emphasizing the feelings of others is a slick way of avoiding admitting that one simply made a mistake.    It rests the virtue of a statement not on one's actions but on the response of others to it.  

Santorum displayed another near-sure sign of a genuine apology.       Paradoxically, it lay in his avoidance of the word "apology."    Using the term is a sure way of getting the media to refer to a statement as an apology without the speaker ever admitting to having done anything wrong.

And so it is with Monica Crowley.        Hearing that Sandra Fluke is engaged, President Nixon's speechwriter on Thursday tweeted "To a man? 'Sandra Fluke Announces Engagement.'"      Later that day, responding to criticism, the ever-classy Crowley tweeted "I love exposing the Left's total lack of a sense of humor."
     
Later yet on Thursday, Crowley tweeted  "Regret my tweeted question caused a stir.    I certainly & unequivocally apologize to Sandra & anyone else I offended. Not my intention.”

Worse yet, Mediaite- seriously- contended in so doing Crowley had "apologized."        Worse yet still, the Center for American Progress, via ThinkProgress, reported she "has issued an apology to Sandra Fluke."

Hardly.      The twit regrets only the reaction to her initial tweet- that it "caused a stir."    She doesn't even acknowledge anyone specifically who could have been offended, choosing instead to offer the generic, meaningless "anyone else I offended."     Crowley thus refused to acknowledge anyone who might have been offended, nor that there was any reason someone could have been offended.    While her intention to was to ridicule, offending someone in the process was an additional benefit.     It would be similar to  "Sorry I ran you over with my car.   Not my intention."   Or better yet, "I apologize to anyone I might have run over.    Not my intention."

While the media rushes to label virtually any follow-up to an offensive remark an "apology," actual retractions are relatively rare.     Consequently, these few statements of sincere regret ought to be applauded and recognized as unusual demonstrations of integrity by public figures.




Share |

With God On Their Side



What do Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum (hint: eventually) have in common?

They all were forced to drop out of the Repub presidential nomination, sometime after they suggested that the Almighty inspired them to run.

Asked in early June whether he had "that sort of calling to run for president." Representative Bachmann replied "yes, I've had that calling and tugging on my heart that this is the right thing to do."     Later that month, just before announcing her run, she told Bob Schieffer "I am a Christian, as is my husband. I became a Christian when I was 16 years old. I gave my heart to Jesus Christ.     Since that time, I've been a person of prayer. And so when I pray, I pray believing that God will speak to me and give me an answer to that prayer.  That's what a calling is.    If I pray, a calling means that I feel like I have a sense from God."

In August, Governor Perry gave a 13-minute address infused with Scriptural references at "The Response: A Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis" in Houston's Reliant Stadium.      The prayers at the event, according to the New York Times, "were given in Jesus Christ’s name, and the many musical performers sang of Christian themes of repentance and salvation."     The previous month, Perry had told the Des Moines Register “I’m not ready to tell you that I’m ready to announce that I’m in.      But I’m getting more and more comfortable every day that this is what I’ve been called to do. This is what America needs.”

In November,Herman Cain assured the Georgia Young Republicans "I'm a man of faith, I had to do a lot of praying for this one, more praying than I'd ever done before in my life. And when I finally realized that it was God saying that this is what I needed to do, I was like Moses. 'You've got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?'"

As you would expect, Rick Santorum also believes that God brought him in to the race. Early this month, an official with the Romney campaign boasted "As you can tell all we have to do is keep doing what we’re doing and we can get to the nomination.     For those guys it’s going to take some sort of act of God to get to where they need to be on the nomination front.”     Santorum, campaigning in Puerto Rico, demurred, stating "One of my opponents recently said that it would take an act of God for me to win this primary. I agree with him."

To be sure, none of the three candidates who have departed the race claimed that God had designated him/her to be the next President, nor even the next GOP nominee.        Nor did Santorum say that God is running interference for him- only that if he were to win the Puerto Rico primary, it would be the Lord's doing.    

In July, the Daily Beast's Michelle Cottle spoke to longtime cultural conservative and American Values president, onetime presidential contender and current Santorum supporter (phew!) Gary Bauer.    She asked him to explain Perry:

"Sometimes it’s presented in media that the individual believes that God has picked him to be president. That would be very jarring to people, and would not be a wise thing for candidate to say—since the voters would certainly like their chance."  He adds with a laugh, "That would mean God would go before Iowa!"

But Bauer added "Being called is basically about praying and trying to discern God’s will," Bachman, Perry, Cain, and Santorum all have implied strongly that God's will was that they run for the Repub nomination for President.     I have a sense from God that this is the right thing to do, Bachmann said.    Perry suggested that he would be "in" if it's "what I've been called to do."      Cain apparently was told by God "this is what I needed to do."       And now Santorum has announced that he will win Puerto Rico if and only if God wishes.

It's over, for this cycle, for Herman Cain.     But Michele Bachmann is running for re-election to the U.S. House, it's hardly likely that Rick Perry's career in Texas is over, and Rick Santorum has an outside (barely) chance to be the GOP nominee for U.S. President.  And each seems to believe that God is in his/her corner, having selected that individual over all others.

A partisan would argue that the media is giving GOP candidates a pass on their rather interesting take on the role of the Almighty.        Not being partisan (insert chuckle here), I believe instead that the media is awfully uncomfortable about raising the issue.    But it must be probed; religion is very important to these politicians, or at least they claim it to be.    It appears to be an important part of whom they are, let alone the reason they've gotten into, or remain in, the political arena.     Ignoring the elephant in the room won't make the elephant go away, only encourage more politicians in the future to maintain that God is on their side, and uniquely so.


Share |

Tossing Words Around


Mediaite's Jon Bershad is right:     "While it’s only natural for words to change meanings over time, I hate it when people try to force new definitions for their own selfish gain."

Bershad notes that Mitt Romney has accused Rick Santorum of being, at least on economic issues, insufficiently conservative (insert joke here: _____________) , "thus signaling that he would like to change the definition of conservative from meaning a bunch of stuff that Santorum clearly is, to meaning 'super awesome dude.'"

And you may have thought calling a president who has cut the income tax bill for roughly 90% of American families a "socialist" was a little silly or reckless.       But along comes the voice of the 19th century, Rick Santorum, telling right-wing Republican talks-show host Mark Levin

When Mitt Romney's solution to a healthcare problem is to take over one-sixth of the economy, you can't call yourself a "conservative."        You can call yourself a "socialist," but can't call yourself a "conservative."

Journalist David Cay Johnston has analyzed the economic proposal announced by Mitt Romney last September.      He finds some of it commendable and notes that the frontrunner's income tax scheme would cut income taxes for the former governor far less than would that of Newt Gingrich.      Nevertheless, Johnston explained

President George W. Bush cut taxes for almost everyone who paid income taxes. Romney would make the Bush tax cuts permanent. But that’s only a first step.

He would also raise taxes on poor families with children at home and those going to college. Romney does this by reducing benefits from the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit and by ending the American Opportunity tax credit for college education.

Without these tax breaks, the poorest fifth of taxpayers would pay $157 more in taxes in 2015 than under current policy, the Tax Policy Center says in its analysis of Romney’s plan. The second poorest group would pay $82 more, according to the center, whose past work has been praised by Republicans and Democrats alike.

While Romney would make these two groups — the poorest 125 million Americans — pay higher taxes, the top 60 percent all would get tax cuts. The top tenth of one percent would save, on average, $464,000 a year, the Tax Policy Center’s analysis says.

His plan gives one third of his tax cuts to the top tenth of one percent of taxpayers. By comparison, Bush gave this group only one eighth of his cuts.

Romney would also eliminate estate and gift taxes, a policy that I believe would damage the spirit of striving that has served us so well until now, replacing it with a new era of dynastic wealth.

The following graph, borrowed by Johnston from Reuters, illustrates the likely impact:

The word "socialist," Bershad observes, now means simply "a guy I don't like."     In the alternate reality that is the GOP universe, facts are shunned and labels are king.


Share |

Not As Alarmed As He Pretends


You just knew that somehow, in some way, it made sense.      Or at least it was connected to reality, Rick Santorum-style.

Mother Jones has received a transcript of a town-hall meeting held by Rick Santorum in Clairton, Pennsylvania in February of 1994.     Santorum maintained

Most people agree a continuation of the current [welfare] system will be the ruination of this country.  We are seeing it. We are seeing the fabric of this country fall apart, and it's falling apart because of single moms....

Open up the current periodicals—study after study, article after article, children having children is destroying the fabric of our country.      If you want to close your eyes to it, if you don't care about it, if you don't want to solve it, if you want to continue the system, to let people stay and spiral—go ahead. Not with me.

Santorum contended, according to reporters Tim Murphy and Andy Kroll, that single mothers "needed politicians who weren't afraid of 'kicking them in the butt.'"

Welfare reform was enacted but there was no drop, rather an unfortunate increase, in the proportion of babies in the U.S.A. born to single mothers.     Nevertheless, the percentage of children born to teenage mothers fortunately has declined, suggesting the risk in conflating the two social problems, unwed motherhood and teenage motherhood.

Still, it is notable that Rick Santorum railed against unwed and/or teenage women having children, given that he is one of the most outspoken supporters of denying to females the option of ending, or preventing, an unwanted pregnancy.   In a 2006 interview, he contended contraception is "harmful to women" and "harmful to society" and in an October, 2011 interview labeled artificial birth control "a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."    He pledged as president to work tirelessly to end federal spending for contraceptive services.  

In a recent opinion piece in the Philadelphia media, the ex-Pennsylvania Senator from Virginia approvingly quoted Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, R.I., who maintains "The point is that any Catholic in public office - his first commitment has to be to his faith ... because it involves your relationship with God."    Santorum believes that as a Roman Catholic politician, he is duty-bound to oppose abortion and birth control.

And yet that same individual was horrified in 1994, and probably still so, at the high rate of unwed- and teenage- motherhood.       The contradiction is, at first glance, striking.    

But there probably is no cognitive dissonance at all.       Mother Jones reports

Santorum has since toned down his broadsides against single mothers (if only slightly), but he's singled them out during his presidential campaign. In October he told Family Research Council president Tony Perkins that single moms are "the political base of the Democratic party." He continued, "Why? Because it's so tough economically that they look to the government for help and therefore they're going to vote. So if you want to reduce the Democratic advantage, what you want to do is build two-parent families; you eliminate that desire for government." 

Santorum's opposition to unwed mothers because they vote Democratic renders, remarkably, Rush Limbaugh accurate.        On January 4, trying to credit Santorum with helping engineer the K Street project (a connection the candidate, dishonest but a little more prudent, denies) maintained "What Rick Santorum and DeLay were trying to do was disempower the Democrats' bureaucrat lobbying reach into Washington."     Limbaugh added "What Rick Santorum has always been about is disempowering the Democrats."

But there is something more remarkable than Rush Limbaugh hitting upon the truth.      Few people would deny that of the three major GOP presidential contenders (Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney), the extremist, reactionary Rick Santorum is actually the most principled and committed to ideology.     And even he is less concerned with single motherhood because it makes "the fabric of this country fall apart" than about suppressing Democratic votes.

Share |

Church And State, Conflated



Four years ago Rick Santorum  (in)famously told students at Ave Maria College in Florida

We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.

The parameters of "mainline Protestantism" are somewhat elusive.      Excluded would be Roman Catholics; Eastern Orthodox adherents; Jews, Muslims, and members of Eastern religions; individuals denying a religous affiliation; and, for the most part, evangelical Protestants.     (Evangelical and mainline are not mutually exclusive, but nearly.)

Wikipedia identifies mainline Protestants as Congregationalists, Episcopalians, northern Baptists, Methodists, most Presbyterians, most Lutherans, and members of some smaller denominations. (The United Church of Christ, formed a few decades ago by union of Congregationalists and Disciples of Christ, should be added.)   In the U.S.A., the numbers of Roman Catholics are holding steady, members of Eastern religions are growing as the nation becomes ever more diverse, evangelical Protestants are increasing in number, and the number of individuals eschewing any religious affiliation is exploding.         The proportion of mainline Protestants, hence, has declined to its lowest level in history, though whether the number is as low as 15 million or as high as, say, 45 million, is debatable.

While it is difficult (for anyone but Rick Santorum, apparently) to generalize, mainline Protestant denominations have shifted over the years to a theological viewpoint with which the former Pennsylvania senator from Virginia disagrees.   (Even here, however, generalization is risky:     some congregations within a couple of the denominations may not march in lockstep with the national organization.)       It is not reassuring, however, that an individual who is vying to be president of a nation of extensive ethn ic and religous pluralism among its 300 million-plus citizens would argue, without elaboration, that one vital part of the religious mosaic "is gone from the world of Christianity."

It is presumptuous of any individual to read any denomination out of the Christian family.      Having declared mainline Christianity "in shambles," Santorum appears to be assuming that "the world of Christianity as I see it" is, simply, the world of Christianity.

Josh Barro of Forbes has a different take.     He believes more important is the portion of the speech in which the Pennsylvania Senator from Virginia says

If you were Satan, who would you attack, in this day and age? There is no one else to go after, other than the United States. And that’s been the case for now almost 200 years, once America’s pre-eminence was sown by our great Founding Fathers.He didn’t have much success in the early days—our foundation was very strong, in fact, is very strong. But over time, that great, acidic quality of time corrodes away even the strongest foundations. And Satan has done so, by attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity and sensuality…

Barro comments

Let’s think back to what America was like almost 200 years ago. Slavery was legal, indeed enshrined in our Constitution by our Founding Fathers. The federal government was forcibly removing American Indians from their lands, leading to thousands of deaths. Women couldn’t vote and were limited in their rights to own property. And yet, Santorum sees Satan wielding more influence and having more success in America today than he did then.

The issue is not that Santorum favors slavery or Indian removal—if prompted, I’m sure he would agree strongly that these were great evils. But how does somebody look at the history of American society and see a country that was more Godly under Andrew Jackson than it is today? The answer is by focusing only on the rights and treatment of white, Christian men. When some conservatives and libertarians make paeans to a lost period of American greatness, they are treating the perspectives of women and minorities as if they don’t exist, or don’t count. 

There is enough that is wrong-headed in the speech to go around.     Santorum, to his credit, does not suggest that he has changed his mind in the ensuing four years or otherwise developed a fondness for tolerance.      Nor could he.     Sunday, he said on ABC's This Week 

now we’re going to turn around and say we’re going to impose our values from the government on people of faith which, of course, is the next logical step when people of faith — at least according to John Kennedy — have no role in the public square.

John Kennedy, unsurprisingly, said no such thing in his speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association.     The distinction Kennedy rightly drew, as Jon Meacham told Charlie Rose today, is between church and state- not between religion and politics, as Santorum imagines it.      In the same broadcast, Dr. Richard Land, still a conservative Christian as president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, argued that Kennedy acknowledged a role for his conscience as informed by religious faith while maintaining that he would not be guided by an external religious authority.  

It is telling that a major presidential contender believes there should be two sets of rules- one for "people of faith" such as himself and another for his disbelieving neighbor.     Whether that neighbor is Christian or not, white male or not, Rick Santorum's vision is of a bifurcated nation, one forever divided against itself.       Out of one, many.




Share |

Rick Shills For The Rich


We know who Rick Santorum is, which is more- or at least something different- than we can say about the GOP's likely presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.  

Unfortunately, almost all we know about Santorum is not good.    On Friday in Troy, Michigan, the former Pennsylvania senator from Virginia maintained

Not all folks are gifted the same way. Some people have incredible gifts with their hands. Some people have incredible gifts and want to work out there making things....

President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob.    There are good, decent men and women who work hard every day and put their skills to the test that aren't taught by some liberal college professor....

That's why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image.      I want to create jobs so people can remake their children into their image, not his.

These faux anti-intellectual remarks from one of Virginia's most prominent millionaires apparently were met with considerable applause.        They were, ironically, made at a rally sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, Michigan.         The source of the chapter's funding is not easily ascertained, but AFP nationally is heavily subsidized by Charles and David Koch, owners of the second largest privately held company, and second largest privately held energy company, in the U.S.A.      Reflecting the political persuasion of the right-wing libertarian Koch brothers, the Michigan group's executive director has urged "taking unions out at the knees so they don't have the resources" to fight for workplace benefits or political candidates.

Truly a man of the people, a genuine populist, that Rick Santorum.       Consider that he believes that the tax plan of America's most famous vulture capitalist, Mitt Romney, is too hard on the wealthy.      At a tea party rally in St. Claire Shores, Michigan, the former senator

criticized the tax plan Romney laid out earlier in the week that would reduce all income tax rates by 20%, noting that Romney said he would make the plan revenue-neutral by limiting mortgage and charitable deductions for the "top 1%."

"Hmmm, where have I heard that before?" Santorum said. "We have a Republican running for president who's campaigning as an Occupy Wall Streeter."

From the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, here is a graph, indicating that the effective tax rate for households with over $1million, fell from 32% to 22% from 1992 to 2007:

This would bring a smile to Rick Santorum's face while he continues his "anti-snob" campaign on behalf of the 1%.





Share |

It's All That Guy Obama's Fault



Irresponsible remarks by the three leading GOP presidential candidates at last night's debate in Arizona did not stop at the water's edge.

Rick Santorum curiously contended President Obama "did reach out immediately to Syria and established an embassy there."         Only Barack Obama did not establish or re-establish the embassy in Damascus.      Our ambassador to Syria was recalled in 2005 following the assassination, to which the Syrian government may have been connected, of the former Lebanese prime minister in Beirut.      But our embassy was not closed (and hence Obama did not re-open it) but rather, as Wikipedia notes, "A series of chargés d’affaires represented the U.S. until the appointment of Robert Stephen Ford in January 2011."

An aerial strike against Iran might, at some point, be unavoidable.     But Romney, who vigorously asserted Obama "does not want Israel to take action- that he opposes military action," ignores the obstacles Tel Aviv would face.     The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller recently wrote

Should Israel decide to launch a strike on Iran, its pilots would have to fly more than 1,000 miles across unfriendly airspace, refuel in the air en route, fight off Iran’s air defenses, attack multiple underground sites simultaneously — and use at least 100 planes.
     
That is the assessment of American defense officials and military analysts close to the Pentagon, who say that an Israeli attack meant to set back Iran’s nuclear program would be a huge and highly complex operation. They describe it as far different from Israel’s “surgical” strikes on a nuclear reactor in Syria in 2007 and Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981.

“All the pundits who talk about ‘Oh, yeah, bomb Iran,’ it ain’t going to be that easy,” said Lt. Gen. David A. Deptula, who retired last year as the Air Force’s top intelligence official and who planned the American air campaigns in 2001 in Afghanistan and in the 1991 Gulf War.

The GOP front-runner maintained also the President "opposes military action. This is a president who should have instead communicated to Iran that we are prepared, that we are considering military options. They're not just on the table."

President Obama, timid peacenik that he is, has said that launching a war- or, as Romney put it, "military action"- is not ideal.     In the same statement, however, the President added "But we are keeping all our options on the table,”  which sounds a lot different than "they're not just on the table."     Obama's assessment, unlike Romney's charge, is consistent with the Israeli spokesman in Washington whom Bumiller explained

said the country continued to push for tougher sanctions on Iran and reiterated that Israel, like the United States,  "is keeping all options on the table."

Leaving the issue of Iran, host John King asked Newt Gingrich "on the question of a more prominent role for women, good idea or bad idea?"

It would seem a simple question- good idea or bad idea, yes or no.      But not for Gingrich, who responded

Well, look, I think it's a misleading question in the modern era. You live in a world of total warfare. Anybody serving our country in uniform virtually anywhere in the world could be in danger at virtually any minute. A truck driver can get blown up by a bomb as readily as the infantrymen.

So I would say that you ought to ask the combat leaders what they think is an appropriate step, as opposed to the social engineers of the Obama administration.  

Hand it to Newt:     he knows the lingo.     Referring to foreign policy and military advisors as "social engineers"  is pretty heady stuff for a guy who advocates replacing school janitors with schoolchildren.        King neglected to ask Gingrich his interpretation of Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which specifies "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."       Although in the spirit of "monkey see, monkey do," Santorum also invoked "social engineering" he cautioned "I would defer to at least hearing the recommendations of those involved. But I think we have civilian control of the military, and these are things that should be decided not just by the generals."

In regard to the Armed Forces, the President of the United States, not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or other military figure, is commander-in-chief.      When action can be taken against Muammar Ghaddafi, Osama bin Laden, or Somali pirates, the decision is that of the President.     It is his/responsibility, and he who will be held accountable, to the nation, the world,  and history





Share |

Educational Malfunction


It's easy to get caught up in Rick Santorum's intolerant views toward birth control, abortion, and religious views different than his own and neglect to notice his other reactionary opinions.         Richard A. Oppel of The New York Times reports Santorum in Columbus, Ohio

said the idea of schools run by the federal government or by state governments was “anachronistic.” Mr. Santorum did not say public schools were a bad idea, and he said that there was a role for government help in education.


But it was the latest in a series of comments by the former Pennsylvania senator — who is tied in polls in the critical Ohio and Michigan primary contests — suggesting that he takes a dim view of public schooling. He and his wife home-schooled their children.


For the first 150 years, most presidents home-schooled their children at the White House, he said. “Where did they come up that public education and bigger education bureaucracies was the rule in America? Parents educated their children, because it’s their responsibility to educate their children.”


“Yes the government can help,” Mr. Santorum added. “But the idea that the federal government should be running schools, frankly much less that the state government should be running schools, is anachronistic. It goes back to the time of industrialization of America when people came off the farms where they did home-school or have the little neighborhood school, and into these big factories, so we built equal factories called public schools. And while those factories as we all know in Ohio and Pennsylvania have fundamentally changed, the factory school has not.”

Inconveniently, the idea of public schools goes back a little further than that  (H/T to Blue Texan of Crooks and Liars) to the Founding Fathers, whom conservatives adore citing when convenient.      It seems

For Thomas Jefferson, public education was the key to preserving republican government. To secure the broadest level of popular education Jefferson prepared his "Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge" as part of the revision of Virginia's laws. As chair of the committee, Jefferson proposed a three level system in 1779, (never adopted): three years of primary education for all girls and boys; advanced studies for a select number of boys; a state scholarship to the College of William and Mary for one boy from each district every two years.

Jefferson advocated public education not only because it lifted individuals out of ignorance, but also as an institution fundamental to America's republican system of government.     He noted in his State of the Union address in 1806

Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of Federal powers.

It appears that Santorum would not end subsidies for public education but would eradicate the influence of taxpayers, as expressed through their elected representatives.    The Times continues

While he said he did not oppose government financing of schools, Santorum said that "public education should be a dynamic process that's locally run."


"I think the parent should be in charge," he added, "working with the local school district to try to design an educational environment for each child that optimizes their potential."

From the party of small government, we have a proposal for a school system with, say, 10,000 students:     10,000-20,000 parents working with thousands of school employees to develop 10,000 curricula.      At best, Santorum simply hasn't given any thought to this.    More likely, it's a conservative's wet dream:      taxpayers funding private schools with no standards and guidelines, chaos abounding.

And while he's at it, educational expert Rick Santorum, who urges "an educational environment for each child that optimizes their potential," might consider that each child instead should optimize his or her potential.     Just saying.





Share |

Reverend Santorum


On Friday, CNN reports, Rick Santorum "sought to bring some clarity to his birth control position" by stating in Columbus, Ohio "My position is birth control can and should be available."         Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman at Politico write "while the ex-senator doesn't favor outlawing birth control...."   

So, the ex-Pennsylvania Senator from Virginia doesn't want to ban artificial contraception.      Case closed.

Or not.      In Mckinney, Texas Santorum on Wednesday had maintained  “It’s not because I want to be the pastor of the United States.         I have no intention and no desire to be the pastor of this country."

But in his Friday speech in Columbus the candidate went on to say

The president’s agenda is not about you.    It’s not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your job.    It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology.        Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but no less a theology.   

Santorum was not suggesting President Obama is not a Christian, National Communications Director Hogan Gidley comforted us, but rather “Rick was talking about the President’s belief in the secular theology of government — and how believing that theology is dangerous...."

Whether a non-theology, such as secularism, can be (or should be) elevated to a theology is debatable.    But Santorum is positing that Obama subscribes to a secular theology, one which " teaches that it’s perfectly fine (to) take away our individual God-given rights and freedoms," according to Gidley.        Conveniently, his candidate divides the nation into two religions:     real Christians (and Jews, perhaps), who are noble or virtuous; and secularists, who are ignoble or wicked.       And then he says:      "I have no intention and no desire to be the pastor of this country."

Unless Rick Santorum holds to an idiosyncratic definition of "pastor," he is being dishonest or, as the media likes to picture him, refreshingly candid.

When Santorum says "my position is birth control can and should be available," he is being similarly mendacious.      This is no libertarian, who might hold to a reactionary point of view but is fundamentally, philosophically opposed to government action.        This is Rick Santorum, who has asserted "I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement."

Santorum is not a libertarian, and in some ways that's reassuring.       But when it comes to your most personal beliefs and values, including sexual mores, Rick Santorum is an authoritarian, and that is not reassuring.
      

Share |