-
Has the IRS Already Seized Your Medical Records?
May 20, 2013 | 6 comments
-
The Grand Old Poseurs
May 13, 2013 | 72 comments
-
Obamacare Pimps Smear Lipstick on Another Pig
May 6, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Can One Iraq Vet Stop Obamacare?
April 29, 2013 | 88 comments
-
GOP at Fault for Obamacare Train Wreck?
April 22, 2013 | 106 comments
Political Hay
Savaging Santorum
The left is hard at work assuring that Santorum remains an “also ran.”
Rick Santorum wanted people to pay attention to him. Well, he got his way. Now his every utterance is being parsed by the media and he is receiving special scrutiny from progressive pundits, who have been frantically quote-mining for material to use in their obligatory hit pieces. Among the nuggets they have unearthed involves an exchange Santorum had a month ago with a student at Dordt College, a small Christian school in Sioux Center, Iowa. The student cited a 2009 study about the number of people who allegedly die every year for lack of health insurance and averred that God does not appreciate “the fact that we have 50 to 100,000 uninsured Americans dying due to a lack of healthcare every year.” Santorum replied, “I reject that number completely, that people die in America because of lack of health insurance.”
Little notice was taken of this comment at the time. Since Santorum’s stunning performance in Iowa, however, a spate of “news” stories and blog posts about the Dordt confrontation flooded the Internet. Predictably, most portrayed Santorum as a knuckle-dragger in denial about the carnage our health system supposedly wreaks on the uninsured. The Huffington Post hysterics of Alan Grayson, whose antics as a Congressman prompted his constituents to fire him in 2010, were typical: “How many more people have to die? How many more sacrifices on the altar of Almighty Greed?” Even the normally sensible Jonathan Turley wrote that the student should have known better than “to cite an academic study to Santorum during an election in which experts and intellectuals have been denounced as virtual threats to the nation.”
Actually, what the student “should have known” is that the statistics he cited were produced by a group of Harvard-based single-payer activists, Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), notorious for publishing “research” so tendentious that it frequently fails the laugh test. In 2008, for example, PNHP published a survey claiming that 59 percent of America’s physicians favored a single-payer health system despite the inconvenient fact that its own membership has never exceeded 2 percent of the country’s 800,000 doctors. PNHP is, in fact, responsible for manufacturing much of the propaganda promulgated by the establishment media about the U.S. health care system, including a deliberately misleading “study” concerning the role of medical expenses in personal bankruptcies.
The specific study quoted by the Dordt student was widely panned by health policy experts. John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, for example, did an excellent job of debunking PNHP’s methodology at the Health Affairs blog: “[T]he researchers interviewed the uninsured only once — and never saw them again. A decade later, the researchers assumed the participants were still uninsured and, if they died in the interim, lack of insurance was blamed as one of the causes.” PNHP’s recommended solution for its fictional problem was to expand Medicaid eligibility. This has now been done, much to the chagrin of the states, via ObamaCare. Unfortunately, as Goodman goes on to point out, “[P]eople enrolled in Medicaid have a much higher mortality rate than the uninsured.”
Thus, Santorum was wise to reject the absurd mortality statistics quoted by the gullible Dordt student. Like any informed participant in the health care reform debate, he knew the study being cited was not credible. Unfortunately, few of the progressive journalists and bloggers covering the Republican primary race have bothered to do their homework on the actual number and plight of the uninsured. If they were willing to do their jobs honestly, they would know that no legitimate study has succeeded in showing any real connection between the lack of insurance and increased patient mortality. As Goodman points out in his Health Affairs write-up, a number of organizations have attempted to fake it since 1993, but none have succeeded in convincing genuinely nonpartisan health policy experts.
The accuracy of such studies is unimportant to progressive journalists because, for them, the main thing is to get the President reelected. This is what prompted their sudden interest in that brief exchange between Santorum and his uninformed Dordt interlocutor. It is also the source of tawdry comments such as the following made by Eugene Robinson about the behavior of Santorum and his wife in response to the loss of their son, Gabriel: “Not everybody is going to be down, for example, with the story of how he and his wife handled the stillborn child. It was a body that they took home to kind of sleep with it, introduce it to the rest of the family. It’s a very weird story.” And it is such partisanship that provides the impetus for the religious bigotry implicit in Maureen Dowd’s recent reference to Santorum’s “über-Catholicism.”
In their quest to get Obama reelected, the first goal of the progressive punditocracy is to take down any candidate who threatens Romney. Unlike the Republican establishment, they and their White House allies know that Romney will be a weak candidate in the general election. Former DNC Chair Donna Brazile admitted as much after last Saturday’s GOP debate: “Mitt Romney won tonight.… and for Democrats… It was good news.” Most observers dismissed that remark as a head fake, but it was nothing of the kind. It will be child’s play for the Obama campaign to portray Romney as a flip-flopping Wall Street parasite with a lousy job creation record as the Governor of Massachusetts. His only memorable “accomplishment” was a health reform law that served as the prototype for ObamaCare. This is the man they want to run against.
Santorum has fewer liabilities than the other “unRomneys” who have suddenly jumped to the front of the GOP pack only to eventually fall back among the also rans. As Charles Krauthammer phrased it, “He is the first challenger to be plausibly presidential: knowledgeable, articulate, experienced, of stable character and authentic ideology.” Krauthammer goes on to point out that Santorum possesses a “common-man, working-class sensibility [that] would be highly appealing to battleground-state Reagan Democrats.” Thus, the left-leaning media will continue mining Santorum’s record for anything, no matter how cheap, trivial or irrelevant, they can use to hobble him in his race with Romney for the GOP presidential nomination. They don’t want to see him on a debate stage, standing next to Barack Obama.
About the Author
David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (81) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David Catron
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/09/savaging-santorum
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
Clint| 1.9.12 @ 6:33AM
Big Government Ricky Santorum's Record On Voting For Earmarks, Even The Bridge To Nowhere, His Support For The Lobbyist "K-Street Project" , His Tariff Votes, Medicare Prescription Drugs, No Child Left Behind,Etc. Is Gonna Sink Him With Tea Party Patriots.
Social Conservatives Won't Be Able To Carry Santorum ,The Big Government Statist.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To The East Coast.
Jack in Wi.| 1.9.12 @ 8:12AM
Santorum is just another big government warmonger like Bush. No Christian calls for undeclared, preventive wars like chickenhawk Rick does. He gives us pro-lifers a bad name with his blood lust.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.9.12 @ 9:06AM
This from the Jew hating idiot who's about as "Christian" as Father Phleger & "Rev." Wright. This from the Hitler defending moron. Yes, tell us ALL about what ALL Christians call for...
You 2 oughtta have an anabaptist swinger session with Margie. Y'all 3 would do well together.
Stammon| 1.9.12 @ 11:34AM
Clint, Jack, et all;
You need to sit down, take a deep breath, and listen; Ron Paul is never going to be POTUS. Never. He can however make it impossible for anyone else but Obama to be POTUS. Sit down, calm down, and face reality.
Ted| 1.9.12 @ 1:05PM
Both Clint and Jack are not conservative at all; they support Ron Paul only because they think it will splint the conservative vote and ensure the re-election of their real favorite, Obama.
They are really liberals here, on the prowl.
Clint| 1.10.12 @ 4:10AM
You're An Israel Firster Smear Bund Liar, Litlle Teddy Boy.
I'm A Registered Republican, And Valley Forge Patriots, Tea Party Patriot.
I Voted For Bush 41 & Bush 43 And Refused To Vote For The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman, McCain-Kennedy, Gang of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003 And Supporting TARP
I Wrote In A Protest Vote And Would Never Vote For The Alinsky Keynesian Socialist Asshat Obama.
You're A Stinkin' Coward Israel Firster Smear Bund Liar, Lille Teddy Girl.
Wanna Make Somethin' Of It, Punk Liar ?
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Israel Firster r Smear Bund Scum, Little Teddy.
rhoetus| 1.9.12 @ 7:55PM
John Heinz was his mentor, so we have another Liberal-Republican thinking that being pro-life is enough. Penn is just another eastern state that supports the Progressive agenda.
KateS| 1.10.12 @ 2:32PM
Oh, a Bush hater.
VonMisesJr| 1.9.12 @ 8:15AM
Obama and Holder have continually shredded the Constitution with the oil drilling moratorium federal ruling, Chrysler Bond Holders bankruptcy claims, nationalized car companies, laundered money through green energy scams such as Solyndra, refused to enforce immigration laws, taken away your freedom on health care and financial transactions, armed drug gangs through "Fast and Furious" to undermine the 2nd Amendment and now unconstitutionally recess appointments; and you whine about earmarks? Claiming TEA Party alliances doesn't equate to believing them. Are you a clever troll?
old white guy| 1.9.12 @ 3:04PM
question. why would anyone believe you or the msm about anything you say about santorum? you have a communist in the white house now what do you think is going to happen if that communist is still in the white house. he has more than enough impeachable offences under his belt yet no one will do it. american voters = cowards. i guess holder was right but not for the reason he was stating.
TrueBlue | 1.10.12 @ 11:09AM
The House could easily bring Obama up for Impeachment, but the Senate would never prosecute him, so it would be a waste of time, AND you know the MSM would then paint all the Repubs as racist and obviously anti-Democrat just because of party allegience. After all, it was the Repubs who brought the impeachment charges again the "fantastic" Bill Clinton.
Dick Nome| 1.9.12 @ 6:39AM
You preferred Bob (with one 'o') Casey. So STFU Paulbot cultist.
aware| 1.9.12 @ 6:44AM
I'd be happy if the "right wing" main stream media would just provide just 1 example of Santorum voting AGAINST big government. EVER.
It's funny that the only "acceptable" candidates to the "right wing"(HA!) are all big government players with the records to prove it. The spectacle of "conservatives" fighting like rabid dogs over their Statist of choice should be all you need to see to know that twilight is upon us.
Clint| 1.9.12 @ 6:46AM
That's A Lie You're A Liar, Nome.
I Have Never Voted For Junior Or His Old Man Bob Senior.
Let's See Ya Make Me STFU, Punk.
We're The Pennsylvania Gun & Bible Clutchin' Conservatives, Who Helped Throw Little Ricky's Ass Out Of The Senate, After He Stepped In The Last Weeks And Propped Up The RINO-CINO Poster Boy,Arlen Specter Against Our Republican Primary Guy, Pat Toomey.
Now, Little Ricky And Specter Have Been Chased Away And Our Tea Party Senator, Pat Toomey Is In.
If Little Ricky Comes Back To Pennsylvania,We'll Throw His Big Government Israel Firster Ass Out Again,
Make Our Day Little Ricky.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Dick Nome| 1.9.12 @ 8:21AM
No, you are an A-hole Paaulbot cultist with a chip on you soldier and a case of mental constipation. A bronx cheer to you. Brrracckkk.
Clint| 1.9.12 @ 8:32AM
You're A RINO-CINO Cuntist With A Chip Off Bibi's Block And A Sociopathic Full Blown Asshat.
Read The Finger.
The tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Asshat.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.9.12 @ 9:10AM
You're some fake baking Jewsey Shore wannabe who picks up 15 year olds at the King of Prussia Mall & makes up bullshit stories about your fake ass "war hero" WWII vet father, when you're 23 years old.
MAKE me shut up, "cupcake."
Here's Clint, the guy with the WWI vet father. Gee, he looks old enough to have a Dad who's a WWII vet, doesn't he?
http://www.facebook.com/people.....1129661768
Stammon| 1.9.12 @ 11:56AM
Wesley-Ross?
Con Chef (NB) | 1.9.12 @ 12:01PM
This is our keyboard commando.
AJsDaddie| 1.9.12 @ 12:55PM
Ha ha! The page is down already!
Con Chef (NB) | 1.9.12 @ 1:09PM
Color me shocked!
chuck| 1.9.12 @ 10:27PM
LMFAO! Wow, that must really have been you, Clintie-pooh. What a lying POS, Mr. My-Daddies-A-War-Hero!
Thanks for the laugh!
Now, go have another "Zima"!
Clint| 1.9.12 @ 11:02PM
Lieutenant Wesley Ross
146th Engineer Combat Battalion - B Company
Omaha Beach
http://www.americandday.org/Ve.....Wesley.htm
On March 4, 2011 at 6:32 pm Wesley Ross said:
My platoon–3rd Platoon, B-Company: 146th Engineer Combat Bn–and a platoon of the 2nd Ranger Bn were attached to a Troop of the 38th Cavalry Squadron for much of the time after we entered Paris 25 August 1944, and the Bulge. We were often among or east of the retreating Germans. This 38th Cavalry Troop was aggressive to the point of being scary! The Cavalry and Rangers did the necessary fighting as we cleared Tellermine roadblocks and abatis. Their activities are spelled out in my book “146 Engineer Combat Battalion–ESSAYONS” REALLY A GREAT OUTFIT the 38TH!
http://horsesoldier.wordpress......n-returns/
You're A Serial Liar,Israel Firster Smear bund Boy,ConJob.
Lieutenant Wesley Ross And His 146th Engineers Were attached To My Dad's Command In The 38th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron.
Interesting, How These Israel Firster Smear Buns attempt To Smear American Combat Officers.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.
Clint| 1.9.12 @ 11:50PM
Go To This Link
http://www.battleofthebulgemem.....alion.html
Clint| 1.9.12 @ 11:00PM
Lieutenant Wesley Ross
146th Engineer Combat Battalion - B Company
Omaha Beach
http://www.americandday.org/Ve.....Wesley.htm
On March 4, 2011 at 6:32 pm Wesley Ross said:
My platoon–3rd Platoon, B-Company: 146th Engineer Combat Bn–and a platoon of the 2nd Ranger Bn were attached to a Troop of the 38th Cavalry Squadron for much of the time after we entered Paris 25 August 1944, and the Bulge. We were often among or east of the retreating Germans. This 38th Cavalry Troop was aggressive to the point of being scary! The Cavalry and Rangers did the necessary fighting as we cleared Tellermine roadblocks and abatis. Their activities are spelled out in my book “146 Engineer Combat Battalion–ESSAYONS” REALLY A GREAT OUTFIT the 38TH!
http://horsesoldier.wordpress......n-returns/
You're A Serial Liar,Israel Firster Smear bund Boy,ConJob.
Lieutenant Wesley Ross And His 146th Engineers Were attached To My Dad's Command In The 38th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron.
Interesting, How These Israel Firster Smear Buns attempt To Smear American Combat Officers.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.
Clint| 1.9.12 @ 11:51PM
Go To This Link.
http://www.battleofthebulgemem.....alion.html
Clint| 1.9.12 @ 11:06PM
This Is For The IsraelFirster Smear Bund Serial Liar Con Job.
Lieutenant Wesley Ross
146th Engineer Combat Battalion - B Company
Omaha Beach
http://www.americandday.org/Ve.....Wesley.htm
On March 4, 2011 at 6:32 pm Wesley Ross said:
My platoon–3rd Platoon, B-Company: 146th Engineer Combat Bn–and a platoon of the 2nd Ranger Bn were attached to a Troop of the 38th Cavalry Squadron for much of the time after we entered Paris 25 August 1944, and the Bulge. We were often among or east of the retreating Germans. This 38th Cavalry Troop was aggressive to the point of being scary! The Cavalry and Rangers did the necessary fighting as we cleared Tellermine roadblocks and abatis. Their activities are spelled out in my book “146 Engineer Combat Battalion–ESSAYONS” REALLY A GREAT OUTFIT the 38TH!
http://horsesoldier.wordpress......n-returns/
You're A Serial Liar,Israel Firster Smear bund Boy,ConJob.
Lieutenant Wesley Ross And His 146th Engineers Were attached To My Dad's Command In The 38th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron.
Interesting, How These Israel Firster Smear Buns attempt To Smear American Combat Officers.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is On The East Coast.
Clint| 1.9.12 @ 11:52PM
Go To This Link.
http://www.battleofthebulgemem.....alion.html
Clint| 1.10.12 @ 4:17AM
Lieutenant Wesley Ross
http://www.omaha-beach-memoria.....esley.html
L. Ross| 1.9.12 @ 8:36AM
Clint:
Tone the rage thing down a bit. It is not helping you or your chosen candidate. Your agressive, name calling posts are a real turn off. I suggest that your style might be better suited on HuffPo. Don't hang out there much myself, but as I understand it, they use a lot of name-calling and foul language. You would blend in well, and possibly change some minds there. Why do you waste your time here. We all know you support Ron Paul. The vast majority of readers on this site will support whoever the Republican nominee is. Do us all a favor, quit cursing at the choir and try to make some converts from the other side to dimish support for BHO and increas support for your chosen candidate.
Quartermaster| 1.9.12 @ 6:56PM
A pox on both their houses. The antiPaulbots are just as juvenile as the Paulbots. A bunch of elementary schoolers out without momma.
Oasis| 1.9.12 @ 6:47AM
Thank you. Rick Santorum would normally have my vote in this primary. He would. However, I live in the state of Virginia. A backward state if there ever was one when it comes to common sense, voting, the franchise, and what and who the GOP leadership are here.
Did you hear about the Virginia primary day March 6 2012 fiascos? You haven't? Well, get ready to laugh. You see, there are such arcane means to get on the ballot for a GOP primary here that, well, only (allegedly -- all this is shrouded in deep secrecy by GOP hacks in Richmond) Ron Paul and, surprise, surprise! Mitt Romney will be on the ballot for Super Tuesday/March 6/the GOP Virginia primary day.
Can a voter at the primary vote station 'write-in' Mr. Santorum or Newt or Huntsman? Noooooooo. Silly boy. Silly question -- this is Virginia. Write-ins are not permitted by the Virginia GOP in such primaries.
And, to top all the ludicrousness off, if one is so mind numb as to go on March 6 (with only the choices of Paul and Romney AND NO OTHERS), a voter cannot actually vote until he or she signs the Virginia GOP's loyalty oath. Yes, a signed agreement/oath, forcing a man or woman to commit for how he/she will then vote in November 2012.
Talk about stupid.
So, Mr. Catron, I'd like to support Mr. Santorum's efforts, but it just ain't happenin' here in Virginia. The GOP puppeteers that control us are doing all in their power to deliver Virginia safely into the hands of the establishment candidate Romney.
It's a farce. Means zip to have served abroad for years in our military to protect rights, freedoms, privileges, and vote opportunities in the USA. They don't exist. I'm a little older now. Back then I was so naive as to think we are somehow better than banana republics.
We just get the candidate that the establishment wants. It will be the same as we'll see former U.S. Senator George Allen 'crush' his Virginia GOP challengers to vy in the general election for the U.S. Senate seat that current Sen. Webb is (thankfully!) vacating. That is another race where Virginia voters have no choices at all.
This is all determined for us. You shouldn't delude yourself either; there are no choices.
Ivan Ivanovich| 1.9.12 @ 7:46AM
I read the oath and I don't see a problem. You have three choices, sign it and follow it, don't sign it, or sign it and break your pledge. What's to get so excited about. Lots of Germans defied Hitler in 1945.
Oasis| 1.9.12 @ 8:32AM
Hey, dork, it's simple: Good leaderhip does not place an obvious moral hazard in front of its voters. A good leader does say, "I'm not going to bind you to support Ron Paul or Mitt Romney." Because a good leader knows that, if the candidate is good enough, no one has to be 'forced' or stiff-armed into supporting that candidate. This is indeed forcing people to be deceitful. And what it is really doing is keeping people from participating.
Right now this is a huge waste of all Virginia taxapyers' monies. Running a statewide election/primary day voting on March 6th costs millions of $. It is a huge and very costly undertaking. For just two candidates? (because we've very whimsically/purposefully bureaucratically 'removed' all others)
It is also very, very disingenuous. Prominent, big name GOPers in Virginia routinely support independent candidates running in county/local races, particularly up in NOVA -- Northern Virginia. Both current governor Bob McDonnell and lt. governor Bill Bolling have done this in recent years. No one was standing there beside them and throwing them in the penalty box for stepping outside the rigid GOP political party confines.
It is unconstitutional and unconscionable for me to inquire as to how you vote, intend to vote, or will vote.
The only person who should know how you vote or intend to vote is you and God Himself.
And you don't address the "no write-in" issue. Maybe some GOP voters would like to write in a vote for Mitch Daniels, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, or Jim DeMint. Why not allow this?
Most electioneering officials can tell us all hands down that unless a name appears on a ballot it rarely ever garners enough write-ins to impact an election outcome. Getting on the ballot (paper or electronic) is vital. If a write-in candidate does WELL in an election, people in a state need to wake up and take note. This is a big rarity, and it means that, maybe for a rare instance, the people are actually voicing real support for a ballot issue/candidate.
Indy| 1.9.12 @ 7:48AM
Yes, the message from the cocktail party is "eat your peas" it's Willard's turn.
obadiah| 1.9.12 @ 9:46AM
you are going to eat your rominy. you can have your rominy with milk, you can have your rominy with sugar, but you are going to eat your rominy.
obadiah| 1.9.12 @ 9:46AM
you are going to eat your rominy. you can have your rominy with milk, you can have your rominy with sugar, but you are going to eat your rominy.
Kade| 1.9.12 @ 7:25AM
It seems that the open primaries are designed to ensure a RINO win. Anyone know if SC, Florida and other early states are open or closed primaries? Isn’t this open primary system what gave us McCain in 2008 and things are still the same?
Have the talk-radio guys spearheaded any change in this open primary rigged system or are these GOP establishment hacks just preaching to the choir about Obama 24/7 ?
Ivan Ivanovich| 1.9.12 @ 7:33AM
I've watched all these guys for some time now and there has always been something about the look on Santorum's face and the way he speaks that is unpleasant. It's a little puckered up like a strict
school marm or librarian. For a moment, during his surge last week he looked happy, but he's back to his normal look. Yes, it's a silly thing, but to win we need someone that looks like he is happy. That's how JFK beat Nixon.
On the other hand Newt looks like the male version of nurse Ratched and Mitt looks like a President.
Nancy in NC| 1.9.12 @ 10:12AM
Electing a president is not American Idol.
How someone looks should only come into the equation for morons and useful idiots.
You soud like a liberal, intentional or not. We conservatives prefer thinking about facts, not mere inconsequentials like how someone "looks". How immature.
Vern Crisler| 1.9.12 @ 12:00PM
The main problem with Santorum is his lack of executive experience. Republicans made a big deal about it when Obama ran for President, but they give Santorum as pass on it. Consistency is not a hobgoblin in this case.
Snickety Snack| 1.31.12 @ 2:19PM
Keep in mind that every time a new precedent is set, the game changes. Republicans did indeed deride Obama's lack of executive experience, however Obama became POTUS. Therefore going forward, executive experience is no longer a requirement. Nor for that matter is producing a legible un-doctored birt certificate, or keeping your signed promise to take the public finance option, but those are other topics entirely.
So we can safely say Santorum isn't being given a free pass. As the rules now stand the POTUS is a no experience required job.
FWIW: Judging by the selection of Obama over McCain and Romney over Gingrich, Marital fidelity may soon become the leading indicator of presidential material. Go figure.
David| 1.9.12 @ 9:08AM
Ivan, we got Bam Bam because of how he "LOOKS, APPEARS". Reject that line of ..........well, I was going to say thinking, but you are not really thinking at all to focus on how someone looks. He will come across just fine to the average voter.
William Z| 1.9.12 @ 9:09AM
Will vote for Santorum because he respects the Constitution.
George S| 1.9.12 @ 9:11AM
And therein lies the problem. The Left makes an accusation in a crisp, easy to understand sound bite. It is then refuted by boring statistical analyses that makes people's eyes glaze over which invariably results in the accusation sticking. All you have to do is ridicule them by scoffing at the notion that death is limited to only those without health insurance.
John Navratil| 1.9.12 @ 10:11AM
George S,
"A lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
There is the problem. If you don't think for yourself someone else will fill your brain with mush. The youth are still too close to peer pressure and being a member of the group to stand up to the crowd. I'm not damning them. My twenty-two year-old is smart, fairly conservative (good Catholic schools) and just as naive as the next. Until they get hit with the hard dose of reality (usually beginning with the first paycheck) they are simply not disposed to looking for the contrary position.
The left doesn't have to make the point. The sound-bite sounds witty and fits the contemporary zeitgeist. One could counter the Dordt student with "the trouble with your fact is that is isn't one" and would have absolutely no credibility.
I'll suggest that if the media were right-wing, the youth would be, too.
Snickety Snack| 1.31.12 @ 2:27PM
I would rather ask them to produce an autopsy report listing "insurance asphyxiation" or "acute lack of health insurance" as the cause of death. Good luck with that!
Not a singular one of those people died from lack of health insurance. If lack of insurance is a life-ending disorder, homo-sapiens would have passed into extinct on day one.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.9.12 @ 9:16AM
From the Article:
"Actually, what the student "should have known" is that the statistics he cited were produced by a group of Harvard-based single-payer activists, Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), notorious for publishing "research" so tendentious that it frequently fails the laugh test. In 2008, for example, PNHP published a survey claiming that 59 percent of America's physicians favored a single-payer health system despite the inconvenient fact that its own membership has never exceeded 2 percent of the country's 800,000 doctors. PNHP is, in fact, responsible for manufacturing much of the propaganda promulgated by the establishment media about the U.S. health care system, including a deliberately misleading "study" concerning the role of medical expenses in personal bankruptcies."
Gee, color me shocked. A brainwashed idiot kid who cited a study because it had "Hah-vahd's" name attatched to it, so it MUST be true. Either that, or it was the study his buddies in whatever passes for the SDS these days on college campuses told him to cite. Same political bullshat, different day. However, its nice to see someone like Santorum, who's been around the block with this band of idiot more than once, smash their idiotic assertions like a balsa wood structure.
Rock on, Rick!
Con Chef (NB) | 1.9.12 @ 9:17AM
"...brand of idiot..."
No coffee yet.
bill| 1.9.12 @ 9:31AM
My assessment on both debates:
Romney was robotic and shred.
Santorum was confusing and exposed.
Gingrich was angry and scripted.
Ron Paul was great on monetary policy.
Huntsman was scripted and fake.
Rick Perry was articulate and authentic, but was not given enough time (allotted only 5 min in a 90 min debate) to express his view, and was interrupted over and over.
Rick Perry once again showed that he's the most viable candidate in the GOP field.
bill| 1.9.12 @ 9:32AM
Romney and Santorum, both are "big government RINO." Romney will buy NH but will be derailed in SC, where voters will reject his stances on RomneyCare, abortion, gay marriage, climate change. Santorum also will get trouble with his support of big labor unions, NCLB, Medicare Part D, Arlene Spector, raising debt celling 5 times, and cannot win in SC. Ron Paul has no chance in SC because of his foreign policy. Gingrich has to explain his stances on climate change, individual mandate, immigration, lobbyists, and will be placed at the bottom in the election night.
Rick Perry has southern heritage and conservative credentials. He needs to campaign hard in SC to convince voters there that he's the only Washington outsider who can fix current fiscal crisis and overhaul Washington once and for all. He needs to revive, rebound, and regain his campaign.
Rick Perry will win in SC.
obadiah| 1.9.12 @ 9:51AM
David Catron must have a mole in the Obama adminstration since he knows about the recent meeting between Obama/Axelrod and the Liberal Media Elite, where they decided to destroy Santorum because it will be much easier to defeat Romney. That's why Romney got all the easy questions in the debate. They hired those women to smear Herman Cain as part of their pro-Romney strategy. Either Herman Cain or Rick Santorum would have beaten Obama easily but Romney will throw the fight.
martin j smith| 1.9.12 @ 10:26AM
Savaging our candidates is a joint Socialist Republican establishment operation. Oh yes the Left and the ER ( funny it should stand for Establishment Republicans) have something very much in common. They make a deal for power and make our elections a joke. I think voters ought to see thru the nonsense --I hope more do.
Again New Hampshire a tiny state I do not take seriously. Now Florida is a bigger deal.
Purp| 1.9.12 @ 11:16AM
Quite funny article blaming a physician's organization for propaganda or spin, when on the right, the millions are pouring in from Big Oil, Big Coal, the Pharma industry and others and who are already producing tv commercials highlighting their commitment to the environment, health and job creation. Very funny that Rick Santorum can't stand up to the heat, but I guess if you really don't know anything, it's hard to fight back.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.9.12 @ 12:00PM
I think its even funnier that regressive idiots like yourself scream in agony over the Citizens United Case, but have no problem with how much influence Big Labor peddles in politics as well. Its morons like you who conveniently forget that the reason most union jobs went overseas was because of the parasitic demands of the unions who claimed to represent the workers OF those industries.
And when that physician's organization is representative of such a miniscule percent of doctors in this country, why shouldn't we view that with some dubiousness. Unless of course, we're useful idiots like yourself. THEN we'd buy it.
Purp| 1.9.12 @ 1:11PM
Revisionist History again .. hahaha. Having run my own business, I can tell you jobs went overseas when it was clear they could get the same work done for 1/10 an American's salary. You want to blame someone - blame the WalMart's of the world that chased cheap labor. With 7% of American workers belonging to a union, it sure ain't unions that made them flee, nor can all the unions combined equal the corporate checkbook of just Exxon-Mobil alone.
Moreover, since many white-collar jobs have been moving overseas as well, and they are NOT union workers - who you gonna blame for that? Neither unions, taxes nor regulations pushed anyone to outsource. It is simply to pay the lowest wages. Would you suggest all Americans get paid on the wage scale of the Chinese or Indians? Why not the other way around?
And you call me an idiot and a moron? Sounds like you need to turn off Fixed News and to do some studying of issues and homework for yourself, Sunshine.
Con Chef (NB) | 1.9.12 @ 1:28PM
I didn't learn it from Fox News, idiot. I learned in in college. If anyone's spewing revisionist dreck here, its YOU, parasite.
"With 7% of American workers belonging to a union, it sure ain't unions that made them flee, nor can all the unions combined equal the corporate checkbook of just Exxon-Mobil alone."
While that may be true NOW, why don't you tell us why the steel industry went tits up? Why are Japanese cars better than their American counterparts, yet have none of the labor problems? Go spew your CPUSA "workers of the world unite" BS to someone who's buying. I sure as hell ain't.
Slacker| 1.9.12 @ 11:38AM
If the left takes down Santorum they will be doing everybody a huge favor. Ideally Scrotorum would be made into an “also ran” by conservatives but, if the left is going to do it, that works too.
J.C.Eaton| 1.9.12 @ 11:55AM
Did you ever notice how the most virulent posters never use their names? A least not their full names. Having said that, the referenced lib pundits are really the simplest of tools. Citing a contemporary college student on any topic except football and pissing away tuition money is absurd....but to make something of a riposte with a former senator!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that's perforce, a big deal? And from Dortdt College? Do they even have a Delta house? Too funny.
Purp| 1.9.12 @ 11:57AM
Ahhh, but how we try to hide from the truth. He said it, he deserves what he gets ...
bill| 1.9.12 @ 12:18PM
Santorum is for
-Card Check (a pro-labor union guy)
-unfunded Medicare Part D
-NCLB
-raising the national debt celling
-Arlene Spector
-against free trade
That makes Santorum a "big government Washington insider RINO."
Not Rick Santorum, but Rick Perry is the most viable candidate in the GOP field.
Purp| 1.9.12 @ 1:13PM
Hahahaha ... oh, stop, my side hurts .. LMAO .. "Oops" ... what an accomplishment - Perry remembered the 3 departments he wants to abolish. Wonder how long he had to study to pass that test? Rick "Oops" Perry? OMG, stop ... LMFAO
bill| 1.9.12 @ 1:55PM
Rick Perry created over 1 million jobs and supported "right to work state" law, and never lost an election in his life.
Santorum lost by 18 points in his senate re-election in 2006. He OPPOSED "right to work state" law. He's a "big government RINO."
America had enough with politicians like Obama, Romney, Huntsman, Santorum. Dump them all in 2012.
J.C.Eaton| 1.9.12 @ 12:20PM
Purp, my good friend, you took my first point but missed on my second. I can't help myself....I'm really beginning to enjoy you. Now hitch up the ol' belt, man up, and use your name. What?! we don't deserve that?
bill| 1.9.12 @ 12:22PM
NH is a state with only 1.3 million people and 4 electoral votes, and still is a crucial player determining the next GOP nominee, in a country with 312 million people and 535 electoral votes. Whoever wins in NH will be shoe-in for SC and FL. In 2008, McCain won NH, and absorbed SC and FL, and became the GOP nominee. The significance of SC and FL in GOP race is enormous. SC has 9 electoral votes while FL has 29 electoral votes. In the general election, NH is not a factor. But for GOP nominee, winning SC and FL is a big deal. McCain lost FL and was defeated.
The presidential primary has some glitches. Instead of NH, NY or PA should hold its primary in the NE. In the south, FL should hold its primary before SC. In the midwest, MI or IL should hold their primary before IA.
Bigger states should have bigger role than smaller states with no influence in the general election.
In the general election match up, nobody cares about NH or IA or SC, but FL, MI, IL, NY, PA are states candidates must win.
WE must change our primary race.
Ron| 1.9.12 @ 1:14PM
Santorum could be a little faster on his feet...he could have answered very simply with "You are quoting incorrect data from a flawed study" and been good to go.
He really needs to stick to easy, fast, relatively simple answers for the audiences. Unfortunately, that is all most of the electorate can handle. Good or bad, that is reality.
bill| 1.9.12 @ 1:58PM
Ron,
I'm sorry. But Santorum can run but cannot hide his record. He OPPOSED "right to work state" law, in favor of big labor unions. He will be buried, along with Romney and Huntsman, in the SC primary.
Rick Perry will win in SC, Gingrich will be in the 2nd place.
rhoetus| 1.9.12 @ 7:58PM
Ron Paul is the only true Conservative.
Jack London| 1.9.12 @ 5:47PM
So there are what, about 50 million without health insurance and we are supposed to believe there are zero premature deaths in this group? We are supposed to believe that there is no advantage to carrying health insurance?
Ron| 1.9.12 @ 6:39PM
Jack,
You are missing the point...many of those individuals (and I really hate seeing the alleged number keep rising..it used to be 15 million, then 30 million, and now 50 million) have elected NOT to get insurance when they are perfectly eligible to, such as their employers (they ant to keep the money, because they are young, and young people never get sick, you know.) Others on that inflated number are persons who are eligible already for medicare or medicaid, but have not enrolled, or are waiting for decisions from various agencies (I know, because I used to work for my State's H&SS; department.) -
Also, look at the US Constitution...It only affords one the opportunities to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that one can attain...Not to be dispersed by an overbearing government. You make your own fortune.
bill...I was not inferring that Santorum was a good or bad candidate...he just needs to be quicker (as any of them do) if they want to get a pointed, easy to understand message across to the current electorate.
bill| 1.9.12 @ 10:02PM
Santorum needs to explain why he opposes "right to work state" in favor of big labors, SC is a right to work state,where Boeing is fighting with big labors to set up a plant, allowing workers to have voice over unions. Santorum can win PA, favoring labor unions, he made his argument being a conservative sounds like "pious ballony." Santorum cannot win in SC, no way.
KateS| 1.10.12 @ 2:43PM
Great point Bill. Santorum probably pandered to the union-heavy state of PA while in congress. He is trying to sell himself as something he isn't...a small government guy. How can tea party members support him? The only thing I can think of is they don't know his record. You can't just listen to someone's promises...a politician will tell you anything.
I don't live in SC, but if you do and have the time, frequent other conservative blogs to let people know Santorum's record on labor.
The DNC strategy is working...have the republicans kill each other off (at least in credibility) so Obama wins.
Garfield| 2.6.12 @ 1:04PM
Santorum was a senator from Pennsylvania, when he voted the way he did, he was representing the people of his state. He was not pandering to the unions...
Goes to show that Mittbots will try to destroy Santorum as they tried to destroy Gingrich.
rhoetus| 1.9.12 @ 7:59PM
Will Santorum protect the US sovereignty against the United Nations collectivism?
Liberal Reader| 1.10.12 @ 12:14AM
Man. We haven't heard much from you Black Helicopter guys since the last 90s. Rhoetus! We never knew you! Keep cool, my friend.
Grdankl Strong| 1.9.12 @ 10:35PM
Santorum makes a very necessary connection between the moral/spiritual health of our nation and our multiplying social ills. For example, we have aborted approximately 50 MILLION babies since 1973. At a lifetime average income of $2 million ($50,000/yr x 40 yr career), this represents TEN TRILLION DOLLARS, aborted out of our economy. Wouldn't that help our national debt and our bankrupt Social Security system about now? And, the whole generation of workers we have aborted have left job vacancies that are now contributing to the illegal immigration problem. The "sexual revolution", which has led to wholesale devaluation of the bond of marriage, has led not only to skyrocketing abortion rates over the last generation, but to sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS, an ever-increasing divorce rate and family dissolution. There is much emphasis on poverty. However, the largest demographic group in poverty is single mothers with children - a direct result of marital breakdown. 71% percent of juvenile inmates come from fatherless families, and children from fatherless families are twice as likely to be incarcerated as children from intact families. Children from low-income, intact, 2-parent families academically outperform children from wealthy, single-parent homes - so money is not the major factor in education. Businesses cannot function without people and companies meeting their commitments and deadlines - in other words, functioning with integrity. In fact, it is hard to find a socio-cultural problem in our society that is not traceable to moral-spiritual roots.
GS
Liberal Reader| 1.9.12 @ 10:49PM
In case anyone around here is interested in what an actual leftist has to say, let me offer this:
No sentient leftist would do anything to hurt Santorum's chance's, just like any leftist would be delighted for Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Trump, or Ted Nugent, or whatever non-Mitt you all are flirting with this week, to get the nomination.
Romney is a real threat to Obama; I think he's likely to win. Ohio, Wisconsin, and many other states in the midwest will go to Romney, and Obama will likely not be able to keep up.
Personally, and I speak as a leftist, I like Santorum and I think a lot of leftists probably would if they could settle down about the social issues.
Santorum is that last living Republican that cares about the actual lives being led by the majority of the Republican base -- the people who work hard for a living and somehow think giving billionaires tax cuts and kicking people off Medicaid is helping them.
Santorum is honest enough that he can still at least have a kind word for unions and for labor in general -- the real real Americans -- and I think he is a man of genuine moral decency.
Grdankl Strong| 1.10.12 @ 2:24AM
P.S. The diabolical (I use that term advisedly) deception of the Left is that they seek to "solve" these moral & spiritual problems with economic and political "fixes". This is both closing the barn door after the cows have gotten out and trying to cure a societal cancer by slapping layer upon layer of band aids on it. This is even more diabolical when we see that those so-called solutions serve mainly to keep statists in power and to increase their control over us. Do you want to hear something even scarier? The dedication of the book, Rules for Radicals, by Obama's mentor, Saul Alinsky, is actually to ... LUCIFER! Now can we understand the craziness, deceptiveness and the destructiveness of these policies? Either we are a nation under God, with rights endowed by Him, which no government can take away, or we are as nation under a state acting like God, which claims to be all-sufficient, providing all things for all people's as well as granting us rights, which they, then, can just as easily take away!
GS
KateS| 1.10.12 @ 2:38PM
These conservative authors are no different from the networks trying to sell us on Obama and his great 3 year presidency. I can't believe anyone sees Santorum as electable...he couldn't win his own state of PA (even after delivering millions in pork).
Liberal Reader| 1.10.12 @ 3:10PM
"Delivering" the pork. Otherwise known as doing what the Constitution says he ought to do.
Weird you guys bray and honk incessantly about your religious devotion to every jot and tittle of the Constitution but you seem to misunderstand fundamentally some of its most important provisions.
The Congress is empowered to levy taxes and appropriate money for spending. That's what it does. A representative or senator who didn't try to secure spending in his state would be remiss.
POST American| 1.10.12 @ 10:27PM
---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------
Rick Santorum? ---in 2012? ---huh?
Sorry, 'on board', Globalist, controlled
COOL WHIP 'CON---servatism' will
never, ever do.
--------WE ARE DEALING WITH TREASON-------