-
Sanford Resurrected in Carolina
April 3, 2013 | 140 comments
-
Bostic and Sanford Battle in Charleston
March 29, 2013 | 16 comments
-
South Carolina Showdown
March 26, 2013 | 39 comments
-
The Liberal Media Lie About CPAC
March 18, 2013 | 35 comments
-
The Hottest Ticket in Town
March 14, 2013 | 28 comments
Campaign Crawlers
Santorum Barnstorming Iowa
Republican says media are ignoring him on purpose.
SIOUX CITY, Iowa — Perhaps 50 voters showed up Saturday for a campaign event held in a barn on a dirt road amid cornfields near Roland, about 20 miles north of Ames. While a few dozen voters isn’t much of a crowd by Republican presidential campaign standards, the audience inside the barn was enlarged — and enlivened — by the presence of scores of children, the offspring of several Christian homeschooling families in attendance. One family brought eight kids, another brought nine, and the hosts, Scott and Susan Hurd, have seven of their own, as did the guest from Pennsylvania whose “Road to Ames Barn Bash” was the occasion of this gathering.
Rick Santorum has been campaigning across the state for months and, as he told the voters (and their numerous children) during his speech in the barn, he has visited 51 cities in Iowa by now. Despite his dogged persistence, however, Santorum’s candidacy has yet to strike the kind of sparks that garner major national attention — a problem the former Pennsylvania senator blames on the media. “The national media has done a very good job of ignoring Rick Santorum,” he said, lamenting the fact that polls show him as the only GOP candidate whose name-recognition hasn’t increased in recent months. “Everybody else was being covered and promoted by the national media, even people that are below me in the polls, even people who most people say have no chance of ever getting the nomination.” The reason for this, he explained, is that the liberal media knows he is a conservative who can win and have decided “maybe the best way to get rid of this guy is to simply suffocate him by making sure that nobody talks about him?”
While some will say that sounds paranoid, it is remarkable how little press coverage Santorum’s candidacy has gotten. Perhaps it’s the Tea Party phenomenon, which has lifted up “outsider” candidates like Atlanta businessman Herman Cain. Or maybe it’s the economic situation, which overshadows the kind of social issues that have been the hallmark of Santorum’s conservative career. He hasn’t budged or backed down an inch on those issues.
“There are people in this race who say that if the state of New York or if the state of New Hampshire wants to pass gay marriage, then that’s fine with them,” Santorum told his Iowa audience. “It’s not fine with me.” He likened it to the antebellum debate over slavery — “whether states have the right to do wrong” — and said of same-sex marriage: “If the institution that they’re propagating in these states is wrong and harmful to the family, the states may have the legal right to do it, but as far as I’m concerned, they don’t have the moral right to do it, and we should stand up and fight against what they’re doing.”
This is red-meat stuff for social conservatives, and his listeners applauded Santorum’s stand-up-and-fight declaration. Santorum then addressed another red-meat issue, abortion, saying that “there was no major piece of legislation on pro-life that went through the Senate in 12 years that I didn’t author.” While social conservatism is what Santorum is best known for, as Quin Hillyer has noted (“Santorum’s Clarity of Vision,” May 2), Santorum can also speak with authority about foreign policy. During the question-and-answer session following his barn speech Saturday, Santorum talked at length about President Obama’s shameful support for erstwhile Honduran dictator Manuel Zelaya, an issue that few in his Iowa audience had ever heard about before.
Beyond considerations of policy, however, Santorum is trying to convince Iowa Republicans that he can win: “On the debate stage on Thursday night, if you look at all the people who will have accomplished what needs to be accomplished to win this election, and that’s defeat a Democratic incumbent. No one else on that stage has ever defeated a Democratic incumbent, I’ve defeated three.”
He points out that, at age 36, he won his 1994 Senate race against Harris Wofford, “a guy whose campaign team was James Carville and Paul Begala.” Despite the daunting Democratic registration advantage in Pennsylvania, Santorum edged Wofford by a 90,000-vote margin and thus, as he proudly tells his listeners, earned himself the No. 3 spot on the list of five Republicans that Carville hates the most. This flashback to the Clinton era of the 1990s highlights the depth of experience that Santorum brings to bear as a former two-term senator who’s been out of office nearly five years and yet, at age 53, is still boyishly youthful in appearance. He’s younger than Michele Bachmann (who is 55) and barely two years older than Tim Pawlenty (50), but had already been in the U.S. Senate for eight years when Pawlenty was first elected governor of Minnesota in 2002, at which point Bachmann was still a first-term state senator.
Santorum also points out that in 2000 he was re-elected with 52 percent of the vote in a year when George W. Bush got only 46 percent in Pennsylvania. And then he explains the one blot on his otherwise stainless political career: “I lost in 2006, but frankly, so did every other Republican in Pennsylvania. We lost five congressional districts, we lost the Statehouse by more than we’ve ever lost it in the history of the state, and we lost our governor’s race by 22 points.” But then he mentions a Quinnipiac poll of Pennsylvania which showed President Obama with a 54 percent disapproval rating and says, “Between Barack Obama and me, we’re in a dead heat.” Indeed, that poll in Pennsylvania, a state no Republican presidential candidate has won since 1988, shows Santorum polling nearly as well against Obama as Mitt Romney, who leads the GOP 2012 field in fundraising and name recognition.
Romney, however, is not expected to make a major effort in next February’s Iowa caucuses, which have historically favored social conservatives among Republicans. The upcoming straw poll at Ames is shaping up as a showdown between Bachmann and Pawlenty, the two candidates from neighboring Minnesota. A Tea Party favorite, Bachmann has surged since her strong performance in a June 13 debate in New Hampshire, while Pawlenty — who has struggled to live up to his early promise as a conservative alternative to the more centrist Romney — may see his campaign implode if he doesn’t do well at Ames. And there is an outside possibility that Santorum may figure more prominently in the straw poll’s impact than his low-profile campaign would suggest. In his most recent syndicated column, George F. Will described Santorum as “a favorite of evangelicals,” and said that if Santorum finishes ahead of Pawlenty in Saturday’s straw poll, that result might “destroy” Pawlenty. (The destruction of Pawlenty would be a bad thing, according to George Will — who it must be noted, is also part of the “national media” that Santorum accuses of deliberately ignoring him.)
Santorum was running late Saturday as he left the Hurd family’s barn to continue his journey along the road that leads to Thursday’s debate and next Saturday’s big showdown in Ames. Six events are on his schedule for Monday, and seven more Tuesday. Before he left the barn near Roland, however, he reminded his supporters that anyone who will be 18 years old by Election Day 2012 is eligible to vote in the straw poll — and that would include many of the 16- and 17-year-olds who were among the home-schooled kids in attendance. If enough of them heed Santorum’s suggestion, by next Sunday even the liberal media won’t be able to ignore him anymore.
About the Author
Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (63) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Robert Stacy McCain
More Articles From Campaign Crawlers
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/08/santorum-barnstorming-iowa
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Self-Righteous Republic
- Of Wizards and Weapons
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi.| 8.8.11 @ 7:49AM
A nice guy: He claims to be a big prolifer. Yet he supported a big abortion lover and liberal Spector over Tommy. His foreign policy credentials are awful. He is a neocon parexcellance. Nice guys finish last and thats where Santorum belongs.
Alan Brooks| 8.8.11 @ 10:26AM
Which of course means Santorum might win, Jack.
So many of you appear to have a naive idea that Jesus is someday going to roll you a seven, and another Gipper will appear. Perhaps you don't get it that his dignified age-group is either dead or half-dead.
I live in the Midwest, and the hearts of the GOP are in the right place here like no others. But I worry about their grasp of non-mystical reality.
Go too far with optimism, and one is GULLIBLE.
Alan Brooks| 8.8.11 @ 10:42AM
... the Midwestern heart (I've lived there 30 years) is soft and kind; the Midwestern head is thick and impenetrable.
PCC| 8.9.11 @ 10:26AM
Maybe he should get a job instead.
W| 8.8.11 @ 11:57AM
Santorum supported Specter because Geroge W Bush asked him, and because of Specter's support of Justice Alito and Justice Roberts. Also, Specter destroyed Anita Hill in his questioning that helped the vote for Justice Thomas.
Specter was never a conservative, but in Pa, the Dems have a one million voter registration advantage.
Snarlin Arlen will always be remembered for his reply to Teddy Kennedy during the Thomas debate when he told Teddy; "If you believe that the I have a bridge to sell you." Teddy blustered and sat down.
Elron H.| 8.8.11 @ 1:01PM
I don't blame Santorum for endorsing Specter over Tommy.
I mean, c'mon! Spector was bad...
But would a deaf, dumb, and blind pin-ball playin' guy be any better?
Clint| 8.8.11 @ 2:31PM
It Appears That Elron H. Is Tryin' To Pose As Brooks Undercover Now.
You're A Gutless Coward.
David Brooks| 8.8.11 @ 3:00PM
And you're what? Clever? Intelligent? Insightful?
No. Not exactly.
Clint| 8.8.11 @ 3:15PM
Gee, What I'm Not Is Victor, The Cripple Russkie, Nor Dr.Reich The Anti-Catholic Nazi Cupcake.
Occam's Tool| 8.8.11 @ 5:02PM
No, you're Clint Air, the guy who sells opioids (among other drugs) without a Dr's prescription on his website. I wonder how legal that is. I wonder if I should contact the DEA.
Clint| 8.8.11 @ 6:03PM
Asked & Answered.
Never Met Or Heard Of The Guy Before Dr.Reich, Your Nazi Buddy Brought Him Up.
But Then, You Already Knew That, You Serial Slandering Liar Israel Firster Fanatic Tool Job
Smoke This Asshole:
"Rasmussen Poll:
Iowa Caucus: Bachmann, Romney and Paul on Top
MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 2011
In the Iowa caucus race for the Republican presidential nomination, five candidates are in double digits, and many voters are open to changing their mind before caucus day arrives.
The first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Iowa’s Likely Caucus Participants shows that Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann attracts 22% support, while former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney earn 21%. Just slightly behind is Texas Congressman Ron Paul at 16%, followed by Texas Governor Rick Perry at 12% and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty at 11%.
The Tea Party Rebellion Ramps Up For The 2012 Elections.
Carpe Diem."
David Brooks| 8.8.11 @ 5:17PM
No one even knows what that means...
Clint| 8.8.11 @ 6:04PM
Then, Ask The Cripple Russkie, Victor.
C Bowen| 8.8.11 @ 8:06AM
""there was no major piece of legislation on pro-life that went through the Senate in 12 years that I didn't author.""
I guess Santorum doesn't think subsidizing Planned Parenthood year after year, which he voted for, counts.
Mike Hawk| 8.8.11 @ 8:32AM
You are an ass. You don't nuke the senior Seantor in a primary when you are the Junior Senator. Had the primary gone 2 more weeks out we might have dumped Snarlin' Arlen. GW was behind Specter too as well as the STate GOP. W also supported Chaffee, another Specter clone. Both RINOS are gone.. Specter screwed Rick when it came down to it. Maybe you are a one issue weenie, but Santorum was one of the best Senators this state ever had and he is a definate Conservative.
Ted| 8.8.11 @ 10:22AM
"Chaffee, another Specter clone"
Chaffee was never a Specter clone. Chaffee was in a class of RINO all by himself. Come to think of it, so was Arlen...
@ Mike: Your assessment is correct though. A Junior Senator does not nuke the Senior Senator. Especially if that Senior Senator is from your own party. You apparently are from PA. What's your assessment of Casey's relection chances? I am not a fan of his, but I am a fan of his late father.
As far as the other comments go, no Congressman or Senator would ever be re-elected if we nitpicked every vote they ever made. Sometimes you vote for a bad deal to avoid a worse deal; sometimes you vote for an okay deal on one thing to get support for a great deal on something important. And sometimes you dig your heals in like the Tea Party reps did last week.
loulou| 8.8.11 @ 10:24AM
Supporting Arlen Spector--big blunder. Unfortunately Santorum never recovered from that.
John in PA| 8.8.11 @ 10:36AM
I have known Rick Santorum since he was an aide to a State Senator in the eighties. I supported his run for Congress and helped fund raise in 1994 for the Senate run. He has some pretty significant limitations, but he should have been a good Senator.
Once he got to the Senate his focus shifted, he left Pennsylvania behind, and had pretty poor constituent services, unlike Arlen Specter's office. He went Washington and managed to alienate most of his long time supporters, not all of whom share his particular Catholic obsessions.
His defeat in 2006 was no surprise, he hardly had any enthusiastic and loyal supporters anymore. He lost me during the Trent Lott controversy where he footsied around trying to help Lott keep his job instead of standing up for better leadership in the Senate GOP.
His running for President is just to raise his profile so he can continue to make a living in politics, instead of doing something in the useful sector.
Clint| 8.8.11 @ 11:22AM
Catholic "Obsessions" ?
Doctor Right| 8.8.11 @ 1:02PM
Don't get us started, Clint...Er, I mean "Mr. Air."
Clint| 8.8.11 @ 1:51PM
Asked & Answered Slandering Liar, Dr.Pussy.
Aaaaand Besides, What Are You Gonna Do About It,Gutless Coward, Liar, Cupcake, Dr.Reich ?
Hmmmm Girl ?
Doctor Right| 8.8.11 @ 1:57PM
Clint,
Don't make me remind people that you ducked a challenge.
Now say 3 "Hail Mary's" while genuflecting and I MIGHT forgive you...
Clint| 8.8.11 @ 2:34PM
Or You;ll What Pussy, Dr.Reich ?
Hmmmm Girl ?
Show Up At Our Tea Party Meeting Anti-Catholic Bigot Punk Dr.Reich And Start Something Physical & I'll Give Ya A Free Boxing Lesson Cupcake.
Doctor Right| 8.8.11 @ 3:04PM
Clint, you big poseur!
I already gave you a chance to prove your "manhood", and like the coward that you are, you chose not to show.
"Start something physical"?? That's a MAJOR Freudian slip...
"Clint Air"??? Is that anything like "Air Jordan"???
Clint| 8.8.11 @ 3:24PM
Dr.Reich, You Little Pussy!
I already gave you a chance to prove your "girlhood", and like the cupcake that you are, you chose to prove it.
"Start something physical"?? That's When Hermann Goring's Girlieman Dr.Reich Borrows Some Nazi Major's Slip & High Heals.
Dr.Reich, Is That Anything Like Eva Braun ?
Hmmmmmm Little Nazi Cupcake ?
Occam's Tool| 8.8.11 @ 5:06PM
Dr. Right:
It's actually a website. Of course, there appears to be NO Colonel Air in Paris in WWII. Fancy that.
The website is attached to multiple sites to sell potentially addictive drugs without a MDs prescription. Check out this page: http://highdesertteaparty.ning.com/.
RCV, an opinion on the legality of these sites?
Clint| 8.8.11 @ 6:14PM
Asked & Answered.
Never Met Or Heard Of The Guy Before Dr.Reich, Your Nazi Buddy Brought Him Up.
But Then, You Already Knew That, You Serial Slandering Liar Israel Firster Fanatic Tool Job.
The Screwball Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Traitor Bastard Coward Fanatic Tool Job Has A Bad Habit Of Badmouthing My Dad, A Highly Decorated American Combat Officer,Who Led His Troopers In Fierce Combat From Normandy To The Final Link Up With The Russkies
Smoke This Traitor Bastard Asshole:
"Rasmussen Poll:
Iowa Caucus: Bachmann, Romney and Paul on Top
MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 2011
In the Iowa caucus race for the Republican presidential nomination, five candidates are in double digits, and many voters are open to changing their mind before caucus day arrives.
The first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Iowa’s Likely Caucus Participants shows that Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann attracts 22% support, while former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney earn 21%. Just slightly behind is Texas Congressman Ron Paul at 16%, followed by Texas Governor Rick Perry at 12% and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty at 11%.
The Tea Party Rebellion Ramps Up For The 2012 Elections.
Carpe Diem."
RCV| 8.8.11 @ 6:56PM
Don't have one. Wouldn't venture an opinion on a legal issue I know little about.
JO| 8.8.11 @ 8:00PM
Occam, Dr.Right,Clint. You three should leave, or limit yourself to one personal insult per day, and give the rest of us a break.
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.8.11 @ 9:32PM
I don't bother with silly wondering the over/under on how many readers saw this post and thought to themselves 'that never stopped the idiot before' matters.
RCV| 8.9.11 @ 1:06AM
zzzzzzzzzzz .......
canuckistani| 8.8.11 @ 11:27AM
I forgot about the Lott acquienscense....
Between Spector and Lott, it appears he is more focused on following the establishment line.
His recent mavericky rhetoric is only a misdirect?
His delusional obsession with culture wars is unseemly and he deserves the amount of MSM coverage he is getting.
It is also rich he is lamenting coverage by the "lame-stream" media at all. I thought the GOP had added the MSM to the banned list?
Shocked, I am....
W| 8.8.11 @ 12:01PM
What are Santorum's limitations"
Which state senator did Santorum serve as an aide?
By Catholic obsessions, I assume you refer to Santorum 100% voting record agaisnt abortion. Santorum has never wavered on his pro life position, you knew that when he ran for Congress and the Senate, if you found his pro life anti abortion position as a catholic obsession, why did you support him?
Clint| 8.8.11 @ 12:08PM
The Economic Numbers Mean Obama's Failed Presidency Is In Serious Trouble.
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 22% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18 ."
Dai Alanye | 8.8.11 @ 10:40AM
Santorum is arguably the best candidate policy-wise of all the Republicans. I have to laugh when I hear people tout Herman Cain, whose major policy idea is to get together a bunch of government types to help him decide what to do. (Not that I wouldn't prefer Herman to Barack, of course.)
As far as Santorum's backing Specter, it's unfortunate, but the call to party loyalty puts a great deal of pressure on a man, and it's now water over the dam.
What Santorum needs is one big flashy idea to get media attention. He makes a mistake when blaming the media--the better idea is to bring up something they can't ignore.
Pelligrino| 8.8.11 @ 12:23PM
As far as former Sen. Santorum gaining some traction in Iowa, well, I'll raise the same BIG QUESTION/issue here that I always have.
Why Iowa?
Why the sequence Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina?
Maybe the people in Iowa (surely they are in New Hampshire) with no financial gains from these politicians trekking into every county, maybe these Iowans just don't care so much.
I'd be tired of it every 3.5 years. I surely would.
Maybe there'd be some more traction if the state were Ohio, Alabama, Colorado, or even Washington State.
Why shouldn't one of those states be the first in the long line of primaries prior to the party conventions?
Folks, we err massively by having the same states start the sequence for determining our President and VP. This is buffoonery.
Again, mark my words: The candidate for the GOP nomination will already be determined (as they all drop like flies even before Super Tuesday) long before we get to your state, your primary, your voice, your vote.
So you could be very well stuck with a useless RINO like Romney, that former New Mexico governor or that Utah guy -- and you'll have been completely excluded from the process -- AGAIN.
As for party loyalties and Santorum/Specter, let's not forget Sarah Palin going to Arizona to help out John McCain last fall. She didn't absolutely need to do that, not at all. But she did.
Trinacria| 8.8.11 @ 1:20PM
Nice guy; zero chance of winning the Republican nomination. We know it; he knows it - that's why he entered the race to "run" for Vice President. Problem is, it's hard to make a compelling argument to the Republican nominee that you bring a lot to the table when you lost in your own state by 18% in your last election. Next...
RCV| 8.8.11 @ 5:52PM
True that!
Jim Hlavac | 8.8.11 @ 1:24PM
Mr. Santorum is on record as saying he wants to outlaw gay smooching again, and make us all criminals for the good of the nation. He's comporting with people, like Tony Perkins of FRC and Maggie Gallagher of NOM, et al, whom are all for rounding up the gay folks for some sort of reeducation; perhaps to be run by the new "Ex-gay Czar" Marcus Bachmann? OK, then, so how many billions will this cost?
I mean, to round up several millions of people, maybe 10 million, and incarcerate us -- which would be three times the current prison population of the nation, is quite an undertaking no? How many billions for the new prisons? How many billions for the police in the new police state? For the guards that will be required in one very weird "Club Ted," which he will view as punishment and we will view as the weirdest resort ever devised by the folly of man.
And how many billions for the courts, the lawyers, the adjudication? Or will it just be extra-judicial, you know, like brown shirts come down like a pogrom upon us?
Will he seize the wealth of gays to pay for it all -- under the forfeiture laws? Will he incarcerate us for short periods or forever, or until we relent (which we shall not)? And how will he explain to our families that he's ripping us out of their bosom to be made into something more to Santorum's liking -- in a craven disregard for our right to life, liberty and our pursuit of happiness.
And what of all the billions in taxes we would no longer pay, and the businesses we have that would close? Truly, a policy proscription as daft and dangerous as Santorum's needs to be explored. Let us get real here. How many billions and at what human cost to satisfy his religious lust against us?
These are just a few of the questions I have for the man.
Nick| 8.8.11 @ 6:29PM
Mr. Hlavac,
You just listed some of the best reasons to vote for Mr. Santorum. Please, keep up the good work.
da monk| 8.8.11 @ 1:37PM
Sen. Santorum states regarding same sex marriages," ...that states my have a legal right to do it, but as far as I'm concerned they don't haved a moral right to do it." Is the Senator intimating that because I believe people of the same sex should have same right as heterosexual in regards to marrying, my morals are suspect? Since when is he the arbitrator of the morality of other peoples beliefs. We are a constitutional government defined by our Constitution not a Theocracy.
darcy| 8.9.11 @ 12:32AM
Since when are YOU the "arbitrator" of morality?
We can't have it both ways, da monk. Either you homo guys and gals upend the social order with your imposed immorality or you back off and return to normal: 5000 years of human history in which children were brought into the world within the union of one man and one woman.
We don't need a theocracy to SEE that even you were the product of one man and one woman.
David| 8.8.11 @ 3:01PM
Jim Hlavac, your comments are ignorant: "roundup", "incarcerate"??? Where do you get this stuff???
Why don't you ask those same money questions when it comes to the question of how much it will cost the states in bogus lawsuits if same sex marriage is not made a federal issue?
JohnG| 8.8.11 @ 3:41PM
Santorum supported Arlen Specter only because Specter pledged to allow any Supreme Court nominees through his committee unscathed; and because Santorum believed that Toomey did not have a chance of winning the general election in Pennsylvania that particular year, whereas Arlen did, and that therefore it would be better to control the Senate with Arlen than to lose it with whoever would defeat Toomey in the general election. This is very understandable.
As for Santorum's views on marriage, I wholeheartedly support him. When are gays going to stop lying about Santorum allegedly wanting to round up and arrest gays? Maybe when gays stop lying to themselves about their behavior, which itself constitutes a lie because it involves actions (sodomy, the whole bit) that tell a lie about our very make-up as people.
Furthermore, I submit that it is the GAYS in this country who are BULLYING and threatening America with insistence on not just "tolerance" but on enshrining gay-hood in the laws such that it will be illegal not to hire openly gay men and women; and such that already California's schools are re-writing elementary school textbooks that will make "Heather Has Two Mommies" look like chicken-feed by comparison.
Bottom line: Santorum is right to protect the privileged and unique status of one-man-one-woman marriage in America. GAYS are the real BULLIES and extorters in this debate, NOT Santorum! Just watch any protest by GAYS, and see who the VIOLENT ones are!!
I am also sick to death of correspondents' complaints about Santorum's so-called "Catholic "OBSESSIONS." Truth is, what is revealed by these comments is deep-seated hatred for Catholicism itself. SANTORUM IS NOT A THEOCRAT, although his detractors LIE and LIE and LIE and LIE about Santorum's supposed wish to enshrine Catholic doctrine into American law.
When the H*** are Santorum's detractors stop LYING about him? HMMMM?? Says something about the depth of HATRED FOR CATHOLICISM that these people feel compelled to LIE about Santorum. Since when is it disqualifying for the Presidency that one should actually BELIEVE and LIVE as the Catholic Church teaches, hmmm?? I'll tell you when: it is disqualifying when the alleged "conservatives" out there happen to harbor HATRED for Catholicism!! That's when!!! Because that is all Santorum's religious beliefs are about -- genuine, faithful Catholicism.
You so-called conservatives: would you prefer the shallow, faithless "Catholicism" of the likes of Pelosi, Biden, or (the late) Ted Kennedy? And YET: you DARE to always bring up Santorum's faithfulness to the Church as somehow a THREAT to America!!
You people with this "OBSESSION" about Santorum's Catholicism: you are just as much LIARS as OBAMA..... You are NO BETTER!!!
David| 8.8.11 @ 4:20PM
THanks John G.
Everything you said is right on: both about Santorum and the homosexual crowd. Homosexuals don't want to be TOLERATED, they want to be ACCEPTED, RESPECTED, and TO BE GIVEN THE OKAY BY SOCIETY AS TO WHAT IT IS THEY DO. I say fine, do it, but don't expect us to allow you to teach our children that what you do is okay.
diviz| 8.8.11 @ 4:43PM
If he gets on the ticket it will kick the whole evolution science vs creation psuedo-science front and center. Trying to argue for american pre-eminence in technocentric military and economic arenas while opposing teaching science is school will make the debates hilarious.
diviz| 8.8.11 @ 4:44PM
If he gets on the ticket it will kick the whole evolution science vs creation psuedo-science front and center. Trying to argue for american pre-eminence in technocentric military and economic arenas while opposing teaching science is school will make the debates hilarious.
JohnG| 8.8.11 @ 10:38PM
Again, as in my prior comment, "diviz" shows well the predilection -- indeed, the compulsion -- of Santorum's critics to LIE about him..... So, "diviz": you says that Santorum is "opposing teaching science in school...." This is a flat-out LIE. Santorum does not oppose introducing students to the THEORY of evolution, opposing only that it is to be taught as ESTABLISHED FACT, which is NOT SO. That Santorum should advocate that students at least be TOLD that "some people believe in intelligent design" is HONEST, because it is the TRUTH. To deny students information about, for example, the alternate hypothesis about "irreducible complexity" making evolution of highly complex creatures a remote-in-the-extreme possibility -- to deny letting students know that there is a non-scientifically verifiable claim of a "supreme being" who designed and created the universe -- to deny students at least INFORMATION to this effect -- this is CENSORSHIP by evolution-bigots who cannot tolerate the idea that there might actually BE a REAL GOD!! SO, I ask, who's afraid of teaching the TRUTH to students? Hmm?
Furthermore, Catholic teaching does not deny the POSSIBILITY of a divinely-guided biologic "evolution" of lower forms of life as antecedents to our current biologic form, with the proviso that there was a distinct time in history when God chose to breathe supernatural life into Adam and Eve, the first parents of all humanity.
Last of all, may I put in a word for parental CHOICE in education? After all, "CHOICE" is such a favorite word of the LEFT in this country, most of whom are determined to live their lives as though SCIENCE is the ONLY reality. Excuse me, please, but the many, many, many problems and controversies about how schools are run, and over the curricula to be taught, could easily be resolved if we were to ABOLISH PUBLIC SCHOOLS!!! Just cut every single parent a check for each child in the amount that the State spends now -- with more $$$ for special-needs kids -- and tell the parents to CHOOSE where to send their OWN kids to school. You want your kids indoctrinated in atheism? Fine by me -- they are YOUR children!! But, let ME send MY kids to a school that is HONEST enough to admit of the possibility of "intelligent design."
Notice, here, on the issue of public schools, it is the LEFT that is INTOLERANT. The LEFT just can't STAND the thought that some kid "out there" might possibly be educated the way his PARENTS want him educated!!! "God forbid!" Oh -- that's right, the LEFTIST ATHEISTS who believe in SCIENCE as "god" can't have that!! Let us just say, "Science forbid!! (whatever the "H" 'science' is!!!)....
Finally, a last word to "diviz": try being HONEST when you criticize Santorum in the future. After all, HONESTY is a PREREQUISITE TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, ISN'T IT?? Or, is honesty in a public forum too much to ask of you, hmm?
diviz| 8.9.11 @ 9:29AM
I have no problem with people who do not agree with evolution, only with those who claim that their belief is in some way based on science or who LIE and say that there is some sort of dispute in the scientific community about the validity of evolutionary theory.
There are reams of support for evolution and it has proved to be a useful and fecund theory, there is no evidence in support of ID and it has produced no research (few even bother to try because they know it doesn't work).
Teach your kids whatever you want, but don't call ID and other religious beliefs science because that would be lying.
JohnG| 8.9.11 @ 10:40PM
Don't you lecture me.... I am NOT claiming that ID is "science." I am saying that evolution is THEORY, and there IS a good bit of dispute as to exactly HOW evolution could have occurred because of the problem of "irreducible complexity" -- this is a criticism of the THEORY of evolution that YOU do NOT address. Therefore, it is NOT a "LIE" to claim that there is no "dispute in the scientific community about the validity of evolutionary theory." Truth is, there IS dispute, but it is suppressed because there is an unspoken censorship, and any scientist espousing other points of view is silenced, not published, ignored, ridiculed, not promoted, not given tenure -- in short, there is bigoted REFUSAL to HEAR alternate hypotheses. Truth is that when you claim the "validity of evolutionary theory," you'd might as well claim the "validity of intelligent design THEORY." The difference, sir, is that the LATTER is not science -- both are GOOD THEORIES. But when espousers of evolutionary "theory" claim that it is "valid" beyond shadow of doubt -- that is de facto claiming that it is PROVEN. It is NOT -- it is STILL a theory. Children in schools are presented evolution as though it were FACT. It is NOT -- it is THEORY. And the children are NOT TOLD that there are ALTERNATE theories -- NOT scientific -- that address the "origin of species." This is CENSORSHIP.
You say, "teach your kids whatever you want," but you TAKE my TAX DOLLARS that teach ONLY YOUR point of view!! That is bigoted extortion - yes, extortion, because your FORCIBLE taking of MY MONEY to educate MY KIDS in YOUR views is exactly that. The "extortion" is because I would go to jail &/or lose my possessions at the point of the government's guns if I were to make a conscientious refusal to "contribute" my tax $$$ to support schools that teach my children what I don't want them to hear. Let ME keep MY tax dollars, sir -- only THEN will I believe that your "offer" to "teach your kids whatever you want" is genuine. Otherwise, it's one standard for you, another for me so far as you're concerned. You're a bigot --- are you willing to let me keep MY taxes to educate MY kids? I'd bet the hell not!!
diviz| 8.15.11 @ 11:20PM
A classic case of confusing the scientific definition of theory with the pop culture definition derived from legal dramas. In science a theory has been well tested and has scads of evidence producing an overarching framework for understanding a a particular phenomenae (theories include gravity, relativit, quantum mechanics, and plate techtonics), IDists intentional confuse this with the legal drama definition of where theories are untested and have significant room for doubt. This has been explained many time but IDists are not bright enough to understand words.
Children in schools are currently presented with all the scientific evidence supporting alternate theories, however as there is no scientific evidence this does not take long.
David| 8.8.11 @ 6:08PM
Diviz, your comments are as ignorant as Hlvacak's. Because one believes in intelligent design does not mean one does not believe in science.
Newton, Galileo, Pasteur, are just a few o f the many who come to mind. In fact scientist of their caliber used science to help to understand God, and certainly believed in creation rather then evolution to explain the universe.
diviz| 8.9.11 @ 9:44AM
A rather weak application of the logical fallicy of "argument from authority." Newton and Galileo predate the beginnings of evolution theory. Pasteur who co-existed with the beginnings of evolution theory is frequently misappropriated and malintepreted by creationsts, Pasteur experimetally disproved spontaneos generation (a philisophical belief dating back to aristotle) and although he might have been trouble by the lack of experimental evidence of evolution in the 1800s he would have been quite satisfied with the scads of experimental evidence produced over the last century.
As I said earlier Santorum (due to his support of the Santorum amendment) will put ID psudo-science in th espot light resulting in hilarious debates.
Nick| 8.9.11 @ 10:13AM
diviz,
There is about as much proof for Darwinian/atheistic evolution as there is for Anthropogenic Global Warming, i.e., NONE.
It is all conjecture and speculation.
Perhaps you would like to provide us with your top two sets of evidence that prove that the theory of evolution is true?
diviz| 8.9.11 @ 1:22PM
1) fossil record
2)genomics
johng| 8.12.11 @ 7:10AM
Diviz: you are dishonest because you don't address my point: Santorum isn't against science. But science is against the idea that there is anything OTHER THAN SCIENCE! This is a close-minded (willfully so) view of the universe.That the public school monopoly has excluded teaching the possibility of non-experimentally tested reality is testament to the Left's bigotry; and then you refuse to let believers keep OUR tax dollars to educate OUR kids. You SAY you're not against us teaching our kids the way we want -- this is a LIE because you refuse to hand over the $$$ that WE PAID into the system! You refuse to acknowledge that science is not the ONLY reality because you don't WANT to address the deepest realities of life, which cannot be put under a microscope! Too bad for you, but STOP trying to DICTATE this sad reality for milli0ns of kids stuck in the dreary leftist-socialist NEA-controlled schools.
diviz| 8.15.11 @ 11:28PM
Santorum wishes to stretch the meaning of science to include super natural causes, this will entirely undercut the millinia long scientific endeavor. Imagine if you will that Santoum has his way and "god did it" is legally mandated as an acceptable answer to a scientific question. Now when a child is asked to explain why apples fall, instead of discussing Newtonian or Einsteinian concepts he could say "god did it" and receive full credit. Or a researcher publishing the results of an analysis uraniam critical masses: "god did it."
IDists/creationists are not right, they're not even wrong
POST American| 8.8.11 @ 11:36PM
-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------
----Chatham House/ Rockefeller/ CFR
'90's Show' SAP op DIS-traction ---ALERT!----
MEANWHILE
USURY remains a GOD mocking, creation
hating, dynamically destructive ABOMINATION
---and the Glow-ball--IST RED China TREASON
OP -------IS REAL.
"Remember, sin is NEVER STILL
but is always on the move
and is ALWAYS LINKED---"
-Jonathan Edwards
America's Pre-Eminent Calvinist
---AMEN---
-------------SEE YOU IN NUREMBERG!
Charles Martel| 8.9.11 @ 12:54AM
Hang in there, Rick. Put some numbers on the board. There's a bunch of us in much later states that are pulling for you.
+++
Pelligrino| 8.9.11 @ 2:12AM
I "second" the motion, Mr. Martel. I appreciate the things I know about former Senator Rick Santorum and am very interested to learn more about him. No, I am not from Pennsylvania, so I have to do my homework on him. When I see his interviews, he speaks calmly and very sensibly. Today those very basic, foundational traits are wanting in Washington, D.C.
Keep in the fight, Mr. Santorum. And don't change who you are or try to be someone your are not. Americans want genuine.
David| 8.9.11 @ 11:01AM
The fact is: Santorum is not against science. I don't know of ANYONE who is.
surfcitysocal| 8.11.11 @ 4:30PM
I like Santorum a lot, and I've forgiven him for endorsing Carly Fiorina over tried-and-true proven conservative California senatorial candidate, Chuck DeVore. I liked what Santorum had to say in the last debate and feel like he stands, refreshingly, on principle, but unfortunately, I don't think he's got a snowball's chance. Count me in for Bachmann.