The American Spectator

solidground| 2.21.12 @ 10:24AM

A commendable strategy on paper, sure defeat in reality. Unless Santorum can lead Americans to see the darkness looming on the Obama horizon, in the form of accelerating fiscal and economic decline, a sharp decrease in our standard of living, and a big ratcheting-up of danger and threat from abroad, he's a crash-and-burn candidate. Presently, most Americans have their heads, if not their rears as well, deeply buried in the sand. Shaking them loose to face, and hopefully overcome, the consequences of the liberal mire is going to require more than hope and faith. Lamentably, despite the fact that the resources will probably be available to blunt the mainstream media's hysterical (and possibly suicidal) assault, there isn't a ranking GOP figure capable of making the case.

JJ| 2.21.12 @ 3:02PM

So where are you moving?

Vern Crisler| 2.21.12 @ 4:44PM

It's interesting that there seems to be more interest in Santorum's sermons than in the sermons of Obama's preacher. Go figure.

SpiralArchitect| 2.21.12 @ 6:29PM

The people that vote for President Downgrade are worried that they will lose the handouts. Morality and ideology are of no importance to them.

Dai Alanye| 2.21.12 @ 7:00PM

It is premature for anyone --Buchanan, Antle, or posters here -- to predict what Santorum's strategy will be in October. Indeed, it's questionable whether Buchanan actually knows what it is right now.

Bo Darville| 2.21.12 @ 11:24AM

I just can't shake the feeling that turning an election that would've been a referendum on Obama and the economy into one on bith control and "who's more likely to go to heaven" is a losing strategy.

Ward Bond| 2.21.12 @ 12:05PM

I have a feeling that $4-5-? gas plus events to take place these next few months are going to put the spotlight on obama all right. It's going to be an eventfull election season.

SpiralArchitect| 2.21.12 @ 6:31PM

slow increase in gas prices will continue. Do not forget the price of gas was around $1.85 when zero moved into office. The increase has been steady and controlled.

Think of the old idiom of boiling a frog...

RJ| 2.21.12 @ 12:36PM

Whoever is the GOP nominee, this election is going to be a test between what people feel in their daily lives versus what the media reports.

Most of the media is clearly in the tank for statism and Obama. Notice how we no longer hear about the Patriot Act, now that Obama is President. Notice how we don't hear so much about the cost of gasoline (as mentioned by Ward, above), now that Obama is President. $3 a gallon gas was a national crisis when Bush was president. We now have $4 a gallon gas in California, and no media concludes that any of the increase is related to government policy, although there have been many Obama actions to restrict the development of US energy resources.

If most people believe what they see on TV, Obama will win. If they believe their own experiences, hopefully there are enough Makers still around to defeat the Takers. We will find out if we are living the Matrix.

Garfield| 2.21.12 @ 1:26PM

This is why I don't think Santorum can beat Obama. Santorum let's the left define the narrative and the topics that are talked about.

Gingrich wouldn't fall for this.

I can think of something off the top of my head as to why Gingrich's baggage won't hurt him at all in the general election.

Fast & Furious, seriously the Obama regime is responsible for the deaths of American citizens in his ideological push to do away with our 2nd Amendment.

I'm not going after Santorum cause of his social conservatism, the issue is that he lets the left define the debate using poll tested words and thus he ends up presenting Conservatism in the absolute worst way possible.

Vern Crisler| 2.21.12 @ 4:47PM

I think it has to do with Santorum's lack of leadership experience. People who've been leaders have learned to temper their words; whereas non-leaders have a habit of speaking the first things on their minds.

Oldefarte| 2.21.12 @ 1:59PM

Santorum would be a disaster as the nominee!

JJ| 2.21.12 @ 3:04PM

The disaster would be Romney, who carries the baggage of RomneyCare and a life long 1 percenter.

Oldefarte| 2.21.12 @ 4:24PM

Romney has run various private businesses and has been an administrative governor of a government-state. Santorum has not run anything even resembling a SNOW BALL STAND successfully and again, would be a disaster [and would lose to Obama]!!!!

Garfield| 2.21.12 @ 5:03PM

Romney's natural instinct is to always go left first chance he gets. I don't trust him to undo Obama's destructive policies.

Michael DePietro| 2.21.12 @ 2:28PM

This misreads Santorum and what is happening. Santorum is not driving most of the social issues, he is haauled into it because the media is jumping on every statement to make this so. Plenty of people have referred to the global warming hysteria as a theology ( since it is accepted on faith and heretics who disagree are punished.) Only Santorum gets attacked for this. I was a PA resident for part of much of the time Santorum was Senator. I can tell you there is zero chance he will come after anyone's contraception ! (Seriously does anyone really believe he would? He was a pretty conservative Senator and frankly very effective. He was also very responsive to his consituents, if you called his office someone actually called you back. What I think has some Republicans driven quite mad, is that he is pro-life bnt really means it! Alas the problem is for those like me ( An unapologetically pro-life Catholic Physician ) another reason to support him not a flaw. The problem is that by attempting to portray him as some kind of "Christine ODonnell" like odd ball, in spite of the fact that he was a reasonable 2 term senator, you are driving social conservatives like me away. Do not expect to win in November like this. The more the "establishement " , does this, and the more Romeny runs a scorchd earth campaign via his surrogates, the less appealing Mitt becomes. It is possible this will win the nomination, but if he does this at the expense of making caricatures of his opposition enthusiasm and turnout will be low. This is helping Obama more than anything else

JJ| 2.21.12 @ 3:08PM

You are correct. They have a different mindset in Washington. It is the that the GOP conservative base are a bunch of dopes who need their guidance. Yet come election day, they are counting on us dopes to comply. They allow Obama to swing way to the left, then expect that we must therefore swing haveway in that direction to beat him. This is what the Left always counts on. It is why once a new department, bureau, program, entitlement goes into effect, we NEVER get rid of it.
Think of this, the GOP NEVER eliminates what the left has started.

Oldefarte| 2.21.12 @ 4:27PM

Think of this, the GOP if given control of all three branches of government, WOULD ELIMINATE WHAT THE LEFT HAS STARTED!!!!!!!!!

Conservative Bob| 2.21.12 @ 7:20PM

Oldefarte I do not often disagree with you but I think you are be a bit over optimistic on what will happen if the GOP controls House Senate and White House.

The same elite that has trashed Tea Party favored candidates in favor or moderate RINOs will lack enthusiasm for eliminating very much at all of the overreaching federal government. Trimming at the edges seems to be their favored approach.

RJ| 2.22.12 @ 3:00AM

The GOP during most of Bush's administration had control of the Senate and the House. They expanded the size of government rather than cut it down. Given that experience, I think many conservative voters are less trusting than before. I suppose, to borrow a phrase, the trend is now "Trust but verify."

JP| 2.21.12 @ 3:24PM

This isn't really a gamble at all, as Santorum has nothing to lose. Mitt owns the "nuanced, high-brow, middle-of-the-road, Establishment" vote; Ron owns the Libertarian-neo-isolationist, Ayn Rand vote. The former Senator had no choice but to play his strengths, and try to downplay his part in the No Child Left Behind-Medicare Part D- Large Defecit fiasco of 2001-2006.

As it turns out, the fiscal conservative/social liberal wing of the GOP is either absent or much smaller than the experts realized. The Anyone but Mitt crowd is coalescing around Santorum.

Marco2| 2.21.12 @ 3:52PM

That's right, Santorum has nothing to lose. The rest of us, however, have a lot to lose. I can see Republican officeholders at all levels abandoning a Santorum-headed national ticket in a mostly vain attempt to save themselves from a horrible November blowout. Just that happened in 1964, and Goldwater didn't even want to be pope.

ds80| 2.21.12 @ 9:59PM

Snarky anti-Catholicism must make you feel so clever, Marco

Garfield| 2.21.12 @ 4:04PM

The issue isn't Santorum's Conservatism, it's his ability to shape the narative. He gets himself into messes because he always blunders headlong into a poll-tested narative.

This is what scares me about Santorum, he doesn't know how to create or shape a narative.

Gingrich wouldn't let the media define the narative like this.

W| 2.21.12 @ 4:08PM

Santorum can run on the economy AND social issues. Obama is weak on both.

Garfield| 2.21.12 @ 4:22PM

I don't mind the fact Santorum is running on both economy and social issues.

I DO MIND that he is letting the LEFT define the narative and control the debate.

If we have an honest debate on principles, then Conservatism wins; unfortunately Santorum lets the left define the narative in a manner that makes it look like Santorum is saying something that he isn't saying (I'm assuming that this is just Santorum being inept and not something more concerning).

The debate isn't over Contraception it's over whether or not Government has the right to force religious institutions to fund Abortions.

Obama's crew is making it sound like Santorum is out to ban condoms, when the issue is about forcing people to pay for abortions in violation of their religious beliefs.

Heck, one could even throw the contraceptive argument right back in the faces of the left using condoms as an example (I don't know the price of one so let's say $5 dollars). Why should an insurance company have to shill out $5 to pay for a flippin condom in the first place?

That's an example.

However, Santorum just blunders right in and plays into the notition that he's out to ban condoms.

I'm on the autistic spectrum, so I'm not exactly a good communicator or good with impromptu debating, but I wouldn't be blundering as badly as Santorum is.

That's why I don't think Santorum can beat Obama, Obama can lie and twist the narative better than Santorum can tell the truth.

I want Newt to be our nominee because he actually can define the narative to present Conservatism as Conservatism and not play into what the left tells people Conservatism is.

Oldefarte| 2.21.12 @ 4:29PM

Wrong! He never has run anthing in his extensive professional career, and therefore has no experience at doing same. Are you going to put a janitor in a hospital operating room and ask him to successfully perform heart surgery?????????

W| 2.21.12 @ 6:06PM

Santorum is as an effective debater as Newt. Newt is good, but just has a different style than Santorum.

Santorum won two Senate races and one congressional. He debated and beat three good speakers, Walgren, Wofford (who beat Richard Thornburgh) and Ron Klink, a TV newsman who was a polished speaker.

Rick has the same congressional experience as Newt. Neither Rick or Newt have the executive business experience of Romney. All three have more and better experience and skills than Obama.

Simon Templar| 2.21.12 @ 6:23PM

W, you have a very clear, sharp, and disciplined mind and do not lend yourself to bias and distortion.

Please write more about what you think are the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate and what they should do to control the smear and MSM attempts to control and define their image.

Love to hear your thoughts on this....

W| 2.21.12 @ 6:40PM

Simon,
I will try, just had glass of wine with dinner so not as sharp.
I enjoyed your comments about Elizabeth Bettina's book "It happened in Italy." Did you visit her website at www.ElizabethBettina.com about WW11 camps in Italy?

We have an excellent crew here, such as you, Al, ConChef, AlbertC, KJack, OT, DrunkenSailor, Nick, RJ, Vern, Von, Martin, and others I will think as soon as I sumit to comment, but we are getting bogged down attacking our own candidates because of a few who pretend to be conservatives. We can find fault with our candidates, but seriously, look at Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Biden, Schumer, all the Kennedys, there is enough material here to keep us busy and laughing for years.

Fiscal| 2.21.12 @ 4:55PM

First of all, I agree with many of you who think Santorum's strategy is the only viable one against Romney in the primaries. The GOP base is comprised of a great number of people who would prefer a near theocracy over a secular government. The left is NOT framing the issue, Santorum is doing the framing by getting attention and providing red meat to the base. He doesn't have the money to do research, so we are hearing the real Santorum right now -- not the measured one who was a Senator in PA.

Santorum is a bright guy. He knows that the economic message is a losing one. He is a big government guy who voted for unfunded entitlements, unfunded wars, and a slew of payola addendums. He loses the fiscal conservative message to Romney who has no congressional voting record and to Ron Paul who does have one.

The calculation here is that he needs to pull out all of the stops to get elected in the primary. However, there is no way these positions will appeal to independents as what they get is a religious extremist who votes for big government programs.

So, from a game theory viewpoint, he is smartly pursuing the only strategy that can give him the Republican nomination. Unfortunately, it sets the stage for a huge general election loss. The other strategic point is that the only strategy Romney has is to try and maintain positions that could win a general election. If he goes hard right, he knows there is no reason to run as he would never become President -- he doesn't have the personal skills to make that happen. Besides, it would not be believable.

I would make one other note -- I don't think focusing on economic issues is a winning strategy in the general election. Under Republican stewardship, we were losing over half a million jobs per month when Obama became President. We have been gaining jobs ever since. It is a mistake to think the election will be a referendum about Obama. With both political parties disliked to the greatest extent in history, this will be a personal battle between two candidates.

Vern Crisler| 2.21.12 @ 5:21PM

"The GOP base is comprised of a great number of people who would prefer a near theocracy over a secular government"

This is absurd. Conservatives want a return to the Constitution, the very opposite of a theocracy (or ecclesiocracy). I'd say that politicians (like Santorum) need to follow the example of the founding fathers and speak more circumspectly about theological issues, but they don't need to hide their social or moral views in order to appeal to moron moderates.

Garfield| 2.21.12 @ 5:48PM

Actually I think Newt Gingrich can still win this.

Remember folks, Newt's drop in the polls was the result of Romney launching the most despicable smear campaign in Republican Primary History (the kind you would expect from Barack Obama not a fellow Republican).

If Santorum suffers from a drop in the polls, it won't just be from Obamney's attack ads, it will be from his own blunders.

To be frank, Newt Gingrich isn't perfect, so what? Who here is perfect? Gingrich has the reputation for not getting along with people in Washington, so what? How exactly is that a bad thing?

I want someone in DC whom will actually fix things, not someone whom will be invited to all the cocktail parties.

Newt Gingrich may have criticized some of Ronald Reagan's policies or how they were implimented. So what? Gingrich supported Reagan and while he may have offered criticisms at times, those criticisms were intended to help Reagan improve on a policy or save Reagan from making a mistake. Gingrich wasn't out to tear President Reagan down like the liberals that criticized Reagan, he was out to make sure Reagan was a successful President, that's why Nancy Reagan passed the torch to Newt.

Newt was the architect in 1994 that saw the Republicans take the House of Representatives. He is the only Speaker of the House in our lifetimes that had a balanced Federal Budget (we started having a deficit again the first fiscal year Newt was no longer speaker).

Newt once agreed to do an environment commercial with Pelosi. So what? When he found out what the Democrats were pushing he testified against their legislation.

Newt once was for an individual mandate. This isn't important because Newt has acknowledged he was wrong on this issue and uses Obamacare as the reason why he changed his position. (Romney still defends Romneycare, that's why Newt has credibility going after Obamacare and Romney doesn't).

Newt has baggage, got news for people so does Santorum, so does Romney, so does Paul, and more importantly so does Obama.

The question is who can capitalize on going after Obama's baggage the easiest while giving Obama the most difficulty with his attacks on their baggage.

1. Who can make Obamacare an issue with credibility?
Santorum can go after Obama on Obamacare, as can Newt Gingrich, as can Ron Paul. Romney can't make this an issue because Obamacare is based on Romneycare.

So in the first criteria Rick, Newt, and Ron pass, Romney fails.

2. Whom has a glaring issue that can be exploited that we are only just learning about?

Santorum has an issue with some of his comments and can easily be painted as a radical nut. I'm guessing this is cause he's rather inept when he is put on the spot in an interview. Then we have his earmarks, which not sure if that would be a serious issue.

Ron Paul has his little travel scandal (which isn't that big of an issue). His earmark tendencies however is an issue.

Romney has Bain Capital, offshore bank accounts, and who knows what else.

We pretty much know all of Gingrich's baggage, so I don't think we would see an october surprise. Plus some of Gingrich's baggage is less damaging than pundits think, if Gingrich plays his cards right he can actually turn it into baggage on Obama and the establishment. Gingrich's biggest baggage is his past marital issues, however we have to remember Obama's Fast & Furious baggage, among other baggage.

3. Ability to define the narrative.

I'd say Newt Gingrich is the best at defining the narrative instead of letting the left define the debate.

Ron Paul would probably come in second on this. I don't think Ron Paul would get suckered into the contraception trap that Rick is.

Santorum isn't good at defining narratives on the spot, and Romney falls apart when he is put on the defensive.

4. Has credible plans for turning this country around and can campaign on those ideas.

Gingrich again is best at this and his plans are the most thought out.

I'd say Ron Paul is good on domestic policy (unfortunately a disaster on foreign policy).

Santorum has shown he has a plan but he often gets sidetracked.

Romney just seems content with mud slinging.

5. Finally, the big question is who does the establishment hate most?

That's hands down Newt Gingrich. They don't like Santorum either, but it's Newt that scares them the most.

They like Romney and I don't think they consider Paul a serious contender for the nomination, but they apparently don't like Paul much.

So really our best candidate is Newt Gingrich, he fits our critera for a candidate and he is hated by all the people that caused this train wreck.

We're not running against Bill Clinton here, we're not running against Jimmy Carter either, we're running against Obama.

Clinton had a good economy to help him win re-election.

Carter was inept, but he wasn't corrupt. As Pat Caddell pointed out monthes ago on Fast & Furious, if Holder had been in Carter's DoJ and pulled a stunt like this, Carter would have fired him and then thrown Holder in jail for good measure.

Obama has managed to seriously damage this country. Obama has the Fast & Furious scandal, along with Solyndra, Light Squared, etc.

I don't know about you, but I think the public would consider Fast & Furious to be more of an issue that Gingrich's marital history.

Jim Hlavac| 2.21.12 @ 6:16PM

Santorum's constant attacks on gay folks as a "threat" somehow to society, to our economy, to our nation, to our own families (what, you don't think we have parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins? Egad,) is not going well. What the man has not figured out is that we gays have gone and proved to those who know and love us that we are not at all what Santorum (and many evangelicals and Catholic clergy) claim we are. They will not force us into their religion, no. And we did not need any law for us, and in spite of laws against us, to prove this. And I can't vote for the man, that's for sure -- ever. I can't vote for Obama either, but hey, then what is my choice? And no one in my 60+ extended family could either.

And he's pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to "protect" marriage by banning it for some who would have no affect on divorce, out of wedlock births, single mothers and their attendant poverty and social program ills. Gays simply don't add to the 40% of the kids born without fathers in the household I assure you; it's the chief complaint about us few. As Maggie Gallagher, of the Orwellian named "National Organization for Marriage" is so fond of saying we're "infertile." And this amendment some are pushing is essentially a Bill of Attainder maneuver, merely abrogating marriage for those gays who are married in a few states -- and this push does nothing for the economy, for jobs, for taxes. All it does is push people to think he's gay obsessed, and he is. He's out of his mind on us, so what else is he out of his mind on? His constant calls for this vaunted amendment which will do absolutely nothing to "preserve" or "protect" marriage from anyone or anything is pushing a constitutional crisis at the expense of what truly matters -- the debt, spending, deficits, economy, jobs, etc. Santorum is going to lose on this issue. And the more he opens his mouth on the matter the bigger he'll lose. He should try just to completely shush on the issue for the next 10 months, and maybe, just maybe, he'll stop riling up people on a non-issue and get to some substance.

He's pushing a theocracy, and it's not going to wash with the American public. Hell, he's called for essentially rounding up all us gays and incarcerating us for the rest of our natural lives at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars; that is not fiscal conservatism, it's insanity.

Oh well, 4 more years of Obama because the Republican candidate and many in the party is obsessed with sissy smooching; and 1/2 of us lean Republican anyway. What a bizarre reason to hand the country back to the Socialist in office now, by simply focusing on gay folks. Egad, what brain dead stupidity. And so sad to watch, truly.

Simon Templar| 2.21.12 @ 6:44PM

Go away troll. You are pushing another religion called Secularism. Theocracy? You should live in a real theocracy. You would the be begging us to come and save your ass.

Jim Hlavac| 2.21.12 @ 10:29PM

Mr. Templar, I am far from a troll, but a reader of Spectator since I was oh, 20 years of age. Lo these many years, some 35 now, I have attempted to engage this magazine on the reality of gay folks.

But troll ain't it. Persistent for liberty, persistent for American values. Persistent for decency, yes.

And I have no intention of allowing some Muslim driven leftist socialist drivel come to this nation. You sir, are, like Santorum, more worried about my gayness, than you are about anything else.

I know real theocracies, whether of the communist sort (chcete mluvite ceske, muj pritel? Budim Vy ucit. Vim lze komunismus. Want to speak Czech, my friend? I"ll teach you, I know the lies of communism,) or of the Muslim sort, which is easy to see, or of the Catholic sort of Rick Santorum who has repeatedly made the case that I, a self-supporting American taxpayer, should be arrested, and thrown into jail for not marrying the girl of his choice, and bowing down to the pope of his liking. (Strc prst skrz prdl, shove it Rick, shove it.). Listen to him -- not me -- he's the theocrat, not me.

I push no religion, believe as you wish, don't impress it upon me. That has been the word of my Jan Hus forefathers since the Catholics burned him at the stake in 1415.

But don't call me a troll until you know who I am. Thanks so much. God bless you and yours, as much as He has blessed me and mine.

Simon Templar| 2.22.12 @ 12:10AM

Get this straight, no pun intended, I DO NOT GIVE A RATS ASS ABOUT YOUR SO-CALLED GAYNESS NOR DO I NEED TO BE EDUCATED ABOUT IT. The large letters perhaps will help you get that into your manipulative skull.

It is your so-called gayness that you are puting above all else. Santorum has never advocated anything of the sort and the fact that you would put a fellow conservative in the same bracket as a Muslim or a communist is absolutely absurd and reveals what you ARE really about.

Homosexuals have been around since the beginning of time stretching all the way back to the birthplace of democracy, Greece. We do not need to be educated about their reality. You do not threaten me or any conservatives in the least, because if you did you would not be writing your post.

You live in a nation that tolerates much and has allowed you some of the greatest freedom this world has ever seen. I know exactly what you are by what you write and the crap you have tried to sell here. You should be directing your so-called concern for this nation and Obamas rule to your friends and fellow travelors.

What you want is not tolerance but complete capitulation, acceptance, and celebration of your "life style." Nothing short of that will due. Your agenda is obvious. You like most liberals, and you are not a conservative, believe that you are entitled to DICTATE to the rest of the world what is moral, what is not, how to think, what not to think, and what ideas are acceptable and what are not. You will destroy anything that gets in the way including the first ammendment.

Oh well 4 more years indeed because you can not keep your sex practices to yourself and tolerate others who have a different set of values.

Please let us keep God out of this discussion. You would be advised not to push your luck on that one.

Simon Templar| 2.21.12 @ 6:39PM

JimH,

Sorry, but your false premises and your constant bemoaning about your "persecuted" status is getting really old and tiring.

No one is interested in forcing you into religion or has passed any law against you. Stop with the lies.

It is you and your kind that have been forcing your views, your sexual practices, and your agenda on the rest of us. It is you that make the accusations, the attacks, and the hateful propaganda. It is directed to anyone that has a different view, opinion, or set of values other than those that you deem as acceptable.

Pal, I have come across plenty of your Left wing homosexual literature at left wing events that screams hatred for christians and heterosexuality in general. No, we are not just breeders but people living on this planet that have their own ideas and values just as you have yours. No one appointed you minister of culture and values yet or given you some divine right to define to the rest of us what is right and what is wrong.

Garfield| 2.21.12 @ 6:56PM

Simon,

JimH actually has a point, not sure if this is what he meant, but Santorum let's the left define the argument.

Santorum blunders right into it and he does it over and over.

Obama will have a field day running against Santorum. I think the only one Obama would have an easier time beating is Romney.

When Conservatives can advocate conservatism in an honest debate, conservatives win. When Conservatives let liberals establish the narrative in the debate and the Conservative lets them get away with doing so, Liberals win.

Santorum has a tendency of letting Liberals establish the narrative in the debate, because of this even if he's right in principle, he ends up losing the debate because he played right into the left's hands.

Obama will try to paint Santorum as a radical theocrat out to impose his religion on everyone else. Thing is, I think Santorum is actually helping Obama establish that narrative.

Simon Templar| 2.22.12 @ 12:30AM

Garf,

What Jim is doing is quite simple. He is trying to intimidate poeple into shutting up about their views on social issues, particularly on his homosexual agenda. He is willing to lie about Santorum and paint him, his christianity, and his faith as if he is somekind of extremist freak, a theocrat, and much worse an oppressor. Read his post more carefully.

Yes, Obama is doing just as you say, so is Jim.

Santorum is not pushing this, the MSM media is pushing and focusing on this and will create this narrative on EVERY conservative. Where have you been..let's see Perry, the racist, Cain, the oversexed black man and liar, Bachmann, the nut and religious wacko, Gingrich, the woman hater sexist, Romney the classist, greedy rich guy, and now Santorum, the next mullah.

Jim is not saying Santorum is being falsely portrayed or misunderstood because he has not communicated his views well, he is saying Santorum is a crazy, damn social conservative that has nor right to his views or say them out loud at anytime.

You have to stop accepting their narratives, fight back, and boldly not be intimidated in shutting up. What is it that you do not get about this? This intimidation, fear, and political correctness works because conservatives cooperate with it. We let them create the narratives, define them, and tell them. Start writing the narratives about them and stop letting them tell you what is acceptable to discuss, or say, or think.

Jim Hlavac| 2.21.12 @ 10:42PM

Mr. Templar, I am not a Left Wing anything. You are besodden with dreams of some other existence, perhaps talk to Mr. Santorum, who is insistent that I must be a lefty, for "gayness" comes from Communism. Such is not the truth. Indeed, throughout the Cold War era, the Communists running Russia were quite sure that gayness is from Right Wing Capitalist Decadence, while the Right was quite sure that Gayness was from the left.

And do you know, sir, where gayness comes from? It comes from God. My God. My faith that I am decent and pure and do my best to make this a better country, to pay my taxes, and treat my fellow citizens, friends, family and strangers alike as Jesus Himself commanded: Treat thy neighbor as thyself, Love thy neighbor as thyself. Let not the mysteries of life sway you from being kind to all. Yes, gayness is difficult for all at this publication to deal with. This has been my experience for some 35 years of reading it. But for the life of me I can't figure out why you many will not accept us few. You are fearful, like seeds on stony ground. But I was planted in the thick earth, and grown to a mighty tree, and I shall not sway, I shall not be pulled down, I shall not be accused of what I did not do -- I have never been, "Pal" to any Left wing gay confabs, though I have been at Left wing hetero confabs, and yet, here, I do not find you lambasting Heterosexuality for the Rampant Marxism coming from Heterosexuality. I find you only complaining about gay lefties. Well, when you are done blaming Hetero Lefities for heterosexuality, do let me know. For if I find one Hetero at a lefty confab, by your Santorum-esque logic, all heteros are lefty. Egad sir, Take your allies where you can get them -- and stop trying to chase away my vote! What brain dead lefty stupidity as to chase away votes. But don't dare call me a lefty, unless you have proof -- and who I smooch is not proof, but your dreams and bizarre fetid imagination.

Cheers, and God bless you, and I'm sorry for the rant, but some times, such stupidity infuriates me. I pay taxes, damn you sir, I suffer from high gas taxes, damn you sir -- etc etc etc, I wish not for me or for thee -- and I won't question whom you smooch, but don't dare question whom I smooch. Cheers again, God Bless.

WL| 2.21.12 @ 11:27PM

Mr. Jim H...

I just can't sit here and watch this anymore without saying something.

What part of "WE DON'T GIVE A %*$() about whether you are GAY or not" don't you understand??!!!

But you do understand that don't you...
Yes, I believe you do.

But that isn't enough is it? No, you want everyone to stand up and congratulate you for being gay...you want everyone to toss their beliefs into the garbage because you say they should...
It's about control. That's all you leftists (and save the crap about you not being a leftist. You are either a liar or you don't know what the heart of leftism is...OR BOTH.

You are the Thought Police...or what I refer to as the State Sponsored Mental Tyranny.

So Mr. 20 year reader...what's next...will Kathleen Sebelius (AKA Obamas Stooge) decide that we should pay for special San Francisco monogrammed contraceptives? or hospital rooms decorated by RuPaul? or HIV testing in Gay bars???? huh? what's next MR. FREEDOM?

I know you don't get the points offered...and you will spew more about how we don't like gay people blah blah...because that's what leftists do.

Come on leftist...say I'm a bigot...you know you want to...

Simon Templar| 2.22.12 @ 12:57AM

What infurates me more than stupidity is an arrogant liar.

You are a liar. Yeah, gayness comes from God. Yeah, we are all fearful of homosexuality here at the Spectator. Yeah, qoute the very religious text that calls you an obamination. Even an atheist can see the ridiculousness of your claims, the contradictions, the fictions you create, and the obvious manipulation. Damn me, you say?

The proof you seek is in your post and the classic lefty lies, accusations, and illogical arguments you make to justify your position. No pun intended.
Once again you make the same lame accusation. I do not give a frigg'n rats ass you as to what you are buggering.

Your political history is not worth addressing as it so fraught with lies, misconceptions, and inaccuracies, it is not worthy of any attention.
You are not an ally but a simple minded troll that thinks he is very clever.