Sex, With A Condition

Rick Santorum is no hypocrite.

The right-wing ex-Senator has seven children, exercising (with his wife) the inalienable right to have numerous offspring or, as he would think of it, "be fruitful and multiply."

Amid the impromptu debate about homosexual unions Santorum had at a stop in Concord, New Hampshire, the Virginian laid bare his view of conception.      

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the candidate "said he believed that God created men and women for the purpose of reproduction and that the relationship deserved society's sanction as marriage."        CBS News observed Santorum "restating his view that God created men and women with the specific purpose to reproduce" and quoted him asserting "I believe God made man that way."

Credit Santorum, a devout Roman Catholic, with being honest, up to a point.      He could have been more explicit and admitted that he based his theory on Genesis 1:28, in which God commanded “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

If God created men and women to reproduce, certainly, gay men and women need not apply. Single men and women also are excluded.      Surely, Santorum does not believe they should have sex and conceive children- although if they would be so immoral as to have the former, he probably would consider the latter a blessing.           And a married heterosexual couple without children?     Men and women were created for reproducing, he believes; marriage must be sanctioned in order to encourage that.      Presumably, couples who choose not to have children or who are unable to have children are equally at odds with God's will.

For 7,000 years or so, human beings have enthusiastically fulfilled God's preference that they "be fruitful and multiply."       Santorum is seriously mistaken if he believes that, in the absence of prolific conception on the part of his countrymen (countrywomen?), God's command has been (or is) being ignored, given that

The world’s population is now more than 6.8 billion and continues to grow by 83 million people per year. During the last half-century, the world’s population more than doubled. Between 1960 and 2010, the world population rose from 3 billion to 6.8 billion. In other words, there has been more growth in population in the last fifty years than the previous 2 million years that humans have existed. Currently the rate of population increase is 1.2% per year, which means the planet’s human population is on a trajectory to double again in 58 years. 

Even Rick Santorum would not claim that God was speaking directly to Americans.    The latter's admonition appears to have pre-dated the creation of Adam and Eve, who themselves were far more likely to have been residents of the Middle East or Persian Gulf region than of the U.S.A.       Still, for Santorum, the only life worth living consists of a man married to a woman and begetting offspring.         

Once the Iowa caucus drew to a close, Rick Santorum stated, to the praise of pundits everywhere, "What wins- what wins in America are bold ideas, sharp contrasts, and a plan that includes everyone."      Less than 48 hours later, that "plan that includes everyone" already had excluded most Americans.

Share |

He Wants To Talk Sex



Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh pretended "now the long knives are out for Santorum; and I guarantee you: The fact that the media and the Democrats are trying to associate Santorum with "big government" is an indication of something very important."    He charged

Big government is being misused here when applied to Santorum. Big government as it's used today means welfare state, and Santorum does not believe in a welfare state. So the left is playing a rhetorical game here, folks, and I want to alert you to this. "Big government" has a specific meaning today, and it means welfare state. It means redistribution. It means high taxes. It means command-and-control of the economy. And that's not what Santorum believes. So the left knows that "big government" is a negative. It is a harmful term to attach to somebody, and that's why they're trying to attach it to Santorum. But Rick Santorum does not believe in the big government of Barack Obama. It's totally different thing for him.

Leave aside Limbaugh's presumably ignorant remark "the long knives are out for Santorum."        Democrats (including the Obama administration) believe that Mitt Romney will be the GOP presidential nominee and thus are attacking him, primarily.  Santorum may as well be a gnat- annoying, but (figuratively) dead soon.     And if that vast liberal conspiracy Rush imagines is portraying the former Pennsylvania senator and (while he was Pennsylvania senator) Virginia resident as a supporter of "big government," it would not be to denigrate, but rather legitimate, him.

But the bigoted bombastic blowhard is not the issue.       And neither is his charge "big government as it's used today means welfare state."      It may be to Limbaugh and to his dittoheads, with their eyes closed and fingers set firmly in their ears, so as not to see or hear anything that might upset their worldview.        But big government actually is, well, big government.

On caucus day, Santorum was interviewed by Jake Tapper of ABC News and reiterated his opposition to Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the U.S. Supreme Court in 1965 struck down a state law banning use of contraceptives by married couples.        He couched his enthusiasm in the concept of states' rights, maintaining

The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.  That is the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court, they are creating rights, and they should be left up to the people to decide.

You shouldn’t create constitutional rights when states do dumb things.      Let the people decide if the states are doing dumb things get rid of the legislature and replace them as opposed to creating constitutional laws that have consequences that were before them.

Though Santorum, eager to pretend he is not a moral scold, this time referred to "dumb things," words come back to haunt.     Interviewed in 2003, he explained that he supported the position of the state of Texas in Lawrence, in which the Court went on to strike down the Texas law banning gay sexual behavior.     Two men had been arrested and convicted of committing "deviate sexual intercourse, namely anal sex, with a member of the same sex (man)"  in their own home.       Santorum told the Associated Press reporter  

We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.

Those laws, Santorum clearly believed (believes), are "there for a purpose," ostensibly because those sexual acts "undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family" and "undermine the fabric of our society."

Santorum's support for a government ban in one's home of behavior of which he disapproves extends beyond homosexuality.       He  asserted "I have no problem with homosexuality.   I have a problem with homosexual acts.      As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual."

These were not preferences expressed in 2003 by a philosophical theorist, constitutional lawyer, or Freddie Mac historian.      They were uttered then by a United States Senator who apparently was unconcerned that they would be considered extremist by a majority of citizens, given that most Pennsylvanians are not favorably disposed to a Western equivalent of Sharia law.

Such issues are not for the squeamish.   But Santorum himself, in a recent interview (video, here) with of Shane Vander Hart of caffeinatedthoughts.com, stated (at approximately 17:48)  “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.... It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."  

Unfortunately, ex-Senator Santorum was not asked in 2003 by the AP what the "variety of different acts" would entail, include or exclude.       But now that he is the second leading contender for his party's presidential nomination, it's time to have that conversation he is inviting and determine for ourselves whether the expansion of state power he contemplates fairly defines "big government" and vastly exceeds what most Americans have ever envisaged.

Share |

One Step Closer


You knew it would happen.

This morning, MSNBC's Chris Jansing referred to a vague notion that "President Obama was the big winner last night."      Now, at 11:00 a.m. eastern, Ed Schultz is saying "the anti-Romney club is starting to galvanize" with "stars aligning" as Santorum becomes "the right candidate at the right time."    Last night, as Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney were running neck-and-neck, network heavies Schultz, Chris Matthews, and Lawrence O'Donnell already were pushing the idea that Romney is deeply distrusted within the GOP, Santorum is a growing force, or the race has become more unsettled.

Don't believe any of it.     There could be a late entrant to the field or maybe a draft at the convention, but either is unlikely.      If a candidate is chosen from among those currently in the race, we- and they- know who it will be.        There is a reason the former Massachusetts governor, in his speech to supporters after the caucus ended, congratulated the former Pennsylvania senator for scoring "a great victory" (not for doing well- but for a victory!) and it wasn't only to appear to be a nice guy.     He knows that ultimately Rick Santorum absolutely will not be the nominee.         In the past month or so, there has been only one candidate in the race with any chance to upend Romney at the convention and, thanks in part to the pounding Newt Gingrich took from Romney's SuperPAC, the former House Speaker is dead in the water.

Obama surrogates posing as pundits isn't pretty.     And it does no good for the liberal, or the Democratic, cause to have conservative and moderate Republicans, the mainstream media, and virtually everyone else in the country other than liberal Democrats to write off MSNBC, misjudging it as part of the "liberal media."          In prime time it is, with Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, and Lawrence O'Donnell, a network promoting not liberal causes or Democratic causes, but Barack Obama.     (Rachel Maddow, with somewhat more commitment to principle, is an exception.         And she is not likely to boost a GOP candidate hostile to gay rights.)       Sharpton, who wouldn't stop referring last night to "Willard" (instead of "Mitt" or "Romney"), is the most brazen example, having been plucked from the roster of informal Obama advisers in order to waste the viewer's time at 6:00 p.m. Eastern.

Mitt Romney's 25% share of the overall GOP vote was, admittedly, underwhelming and unimpressive.     But he initially planned to bypass Iowa, figuring he could begin in New Hampshire where he was, and is, a heavy favorite.         Iowa, with its preponderance of evangelical Christians, was known to be unfriendly territory for the Mormon Romney, where in 2008 he was defeated by Reverend Mike Huckabee.       Romney had to avoid finishing third in Iowa; instead, he finished an extremely strong second or extremely weak first.

Gingrich now promises to be Barack Obama's prime surrogate.     He wouldn't put it that way, of course, and it might be unwitting, but his vow this morning to join Rick Santorum in denouncing and condemning Romney will be doing the President a great service.       That is, in the long run, advantageous for the country, chipping away at Romney's image to Obama's advantage.         But it's the only thing left for a bitter guy who knows it's over for him, with only a glimmer of hope for the candidate, Rick Santorum, he now has to pretend he likes.





Share |

First, Second, Third (Or Not), And Outta Here


Bold!  Bold!    Governor Terry Branstad (sarcasm alert) goes out on the limb with his prediction of the outcome of tonight's Iowa caucuses.       The GOP chief executive, emboldened by polls showing Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul in a virtual dead-heat, has predicted that either Romney or Santorum will come in first but "you can't rule out Congressman Ron Paul."

He can't, but this blogger, who expected a Romney v. Clinton race last time around, will.

Paul has some money and a strong organization.      But his advantage in possessing rabidly enthusiastic supporters will be somewhat limited in the face of the fairly unusual January weather expected as the curtain rises at 7:00 p.m.(central time) in the overrated caucuses.     Further, in a survey conducted Tuesday through Friday of last week, fully 41% of likely participants said they still might change their minds.     They may vote for the surging Santorum, eventual nominee Romney, or even Winnie the Pooh (not permitted, actually) but they are not going to vote for Ron Paul, the second choice of virtually no Republican voter anywhere in the world.

If weather.com proves accurate, temperatures in the ten largest municipalities in Iowa will range from a low of 27 degrees in the eastern city of Davenport (population 99,685) and the northeastern city of Dubuque (population 57,637) to a high of 38 degrees in the western city of Council Bluffs.        While the average monthly temperature in January in Des Moines, capital of Iowa and its largest municipality, is 20.4 degrees, it is expected to be 35 degrees at 7:00 p.m. tonight.     No precipitation of any sort is expected in the ten locations and wind, projected to be high during the day, is expected to subside by evening.

This unseasonably good weather in all likelihood will benefit Mitt Romney, who is particularly popular among the elderly.     It will disproportionately harm Ron Paul, a hero among many college students, who are attracted by his isolationist tendencies and opposition to the federal drug law and are less put off by the ludicrousness of Paul's libertarianism of convenience.    They would have been the most likely to show up in any kind of weather.

Santorum, who clearly has momentum, should be slightly benefited by the good weather, given that it will enhance turnout with some individuals lured by the idea of going with the hot hand (sports metaphor).     In a poll recently (apparently in the past week, but difficult to determine exactly when) conducted by CNN of what it describes as 64 "business and conservative interest group leaders, veterans of previous caucus campaigns, and a variety of other party activists," 40 predicted a victory by Romney- and none by Santorum.     Further,   Romney has expressed confidence in winning, magnifying the risk in even a close second place finish.  

As someone who thought the St. Louis Cardinals would have a down year in 2011, I believe Rick Santorum will come in a very strong second to Mitt Romney tonight, with Ron Paul a relatively distant third.     And in a blow to political entertainment, say goodbye to Michelle Bachmann, who will hold off on making an endorsement.








Share |

The Tenth Amendment Is Not A Suicide Pact


Rick Santorum is right, you know.

More on that later.     For now, let's congratulate the Department of Justice, which on December 23 officially notified the Deputy Attorney General of the State of South Carolina that the Justice Department was denying approval of South Carolina's new voter photo ID law. South Carolina is one of only five states required, because of their history of racial discrimination, by Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act to obtain "pre-clearance" from the DOJ or a three-judge panel in Washington for voting requirements.

In a 2009 case, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One vs. Eric Holder, Chief Justice Roberts, delivering the opinion of the Court, wrote "the preclearance requirement represents an intrusion into areas of state and local responsibility that is otherwise unfamiliar to our federal system.      While the South Carolina law appears headed back to the High Court, Jeffrey Toobin summarizes the critical role played by the Voting Rights Act, regardless of state of residence:

The Justice Department action in South Carolina underlines the continuing necessity for the Voting Rights Act, nearly four decades after it was first passed. The South Carolina law is part of a wave of new rules, passed in the wake of the 2010 Republican landslide purportedly to stop vote fraud, that limit the right to the franchise.


As many independent studies have found, “voter fraud” is a cure in search of a disease. There is no significant voter-fraud problem in the United States. Rather, these laws are transparent attempts by Republican majorities to stifle and suppress the number of minorities and poor people (mostly Democrats) who go to the polls. Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department has the tools to stop this travesty—at least in states like South Carolina, which are still subject to “pre-clearance.”


Whether states imposing new requirements (and Holder has implied that the Department will challenge new laws in states not covered by the 1965 law) are doing so because they believe their legislators believe the NBA is unjustifiably dominated by blacks (inaccurate and accurate, respectively) or because they recognize that racial minorities mostly cast their votes for Democrats (accurate, and more likely the motivation) should not be controlling.       Either way, the laws should not be tolerated, inasmuch as they are intended to have a particular, and adverse, effect on black citizens.        


Notably, individuals will be allowed to vote in caucuses throughout Iowa tonight without having to show identification, pursuant to rules established by the state Democratic Party. Brad Friedman observes "since only Republicans are on the IA Republican Caucus ballot, unlike general elections, the GOP has no interest in disenfranchising their own voters."      He states the obvious:  "Polling place photo ID laws, passed in states where Republicans took control in the wave election of 2010, are instituted for one purpose and one purpose only: to suppress the votes of voters such as the elderly, minorities and students, all of whom have a dastardly tendency to vote for Democratic candidates rather than Republicans."
         
Perpetrators of racial discrimination ought not to be able to hide behind the cloak of "states rights."      But neither should the adversaries in the matter of same-sex marriage.      Rick Santorum has at least one thing right, having recently told MSNBC's Chuck Todd, according to Think Progress,  "I think marriage has to be one thing for everybody.    We can't have 50 different marriage laws in this country."


Instead, of course, we have the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman (Section 3)  and authorizes states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in another state (Section 2).       Lawsuits have been filed challenging DOMA as violative of  the full faith and credit clause in Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution and the Holder Justice Department has announced its refusal to defend Section 3 of the law in court.     


Meanwhile, efforts are underway in the U.S. Congress to repeal DOMA.       The momentum toward granting the right of same-sex marriage throughout the country may be brought to climax or, as Santorum wishes, a constitutional amendment barring the unconventional practice may be enacted (though that appears highly unlikely).      Either way, however, this issue, as well as preserving the right to vote free of restrictions imposed by Republican partisans, calls for aggressive, definitive, federal action, whatever the annoyance to states rights purists.    






Share |

Barack Obama, The One


Four years ago, Hollywood was exuberant.     Halle Berry said she would “collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear," therein recalling Barnabas' cousin who two thousand years earlier quoted Isaiah predicting "the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.’”

Oprah Winfrey, as usual, could not be restrained and announced "He is 'The One'," recalling the assurance given by a man skilled in seamless shoe analogies, who told the skeptics "I baptize in water but among you stands One whom you do not know."

Other Hollywood stars were at least somewhat less effusive (and biblically literate) than Berry and Winfrey, the latter of whom was curiously quiet after the Democratic convention. But as with those of us who preferred Edwards or Clinton, we all should have known better. New York Magazine reported on December 22 of an incident 9-10 years ago:    

On June 11, 2002, as a state senator, Obama and fellow state senator Rickey Hendon nearly threw down on the Senate floor. At issue was a bill that would close a child-welfare office in Hendon’s district. Obama voted in favor of the bill — accidentally, he claims — but Hendon was irate. “There’s a rift between the African-Americans on the West Side and South Side here in Chicago,” says David Mendell, Tribune reporter and author of an Obama biography.“They’re competitive, and [Hendon] was saying that Obama voted against his project because he wanted to placate some fiscal conservatives, and it was a West Side–South Side thing.” Obama at one point put his hand on Hendon’s shoulder as a friendly gesture, but Hendon slapped it away. It didn’t take long before both men were engaged in a heated shouting match on the floor of the Senate. When they took their argument to a different room, Obama allegedly had to be restrained. “According to people I interviewed who were there, they said Obama was ready to throw some punches,” says Mendell.

Yes, a "friendly gesture."     And Mitt Romney merely wanted to soothe a nervous Rick Perry:




Admittedly, as this Wikipedia entry suggests, Hendon may be a guy whom it's easy to be tempted to slug.      But as Isaiah prophesied the coming of the Lord, the vote may have portended the presidency of Barack Obama, at least as notable for disregarding his liberal allies as for the lack of  courage reflected in his "present" votes as state senator             Still, how comforting it is to know that this November we'll probably have a choice between a patronizing right-winger and a patronizing centrist.






Share |

Death By Another Cut


It was already all over for Newt Gingrich.

The latest surveys of likely caucus-goers in Iowa finds Newt Gingrich a distant fourth, well behind Messrs. Romney, Paul, and Santorum, in whatever order the three of them finish.

Gingrich's popularity among Republicans both in Iowa and nationally already had plunged.      And then, Virginia.

Newt Gingrich- as well as Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman- failed to collect enough signatures to qualify for Virginia's primary ballot.      It's bad enough that it puts Gingrich and the others out of the running for gaining any delegates in the state tied for having the eleventh greatest number of any in the GOP nominating process.      It also suggests to primary voters elsewhere that these candidacies are not completely serious, or at least won't end in success.       (All five candidates are joining in a federal lawsuit challenging the state's ballot-access rules.)

But instead of leaving bad enough alone, an aide to the man who once described himself as "the most serious, systematic revolutionary of modern times”  would compare the organizational blunder to the second worse attack ever on the U.S.A.     "Newt and I agreed that the analogy is December 1941," he stated.      "We have experienced an unexpected setback, but we will re-group and re-focus with increased determination, commitment and positive action."

NFL running backs love openings as large as that gave Mitt Romney, who pounced, declaring  "I think it's more like Lucille Ball at the chocolate factory.      You've got to get it organized."





It may not mean much to voters under 50 or 55 years of age but to older baby boomers, the analogy resonated.      And now we have the Des Moines Register's analysis of its latest poll, indicating "the former Massachusetts governor has strengths with older and wealthier Iowans."      The unforced error by the Gingrich campaign won't itself hand a caucus victory to Mitt Romney, but it gave the latter's campaign a chance to shine, and me an excuse to post the classic video.


                                               HAPPY NEW YEAR

Share |