Rick Santorum for President

[Peter]

David Limbaugh in Townhall Magazine online:

Republicans can reasonably disagree about who is the best presidential candidate. Unfortunately, however, there's a lot of acrimonious infighting on the right, much of which is centered on the hysterical charge that Rick Santorum is some kind of theocrat who wants to outlaw contraception and surveil our bedrooms. It's a spurious claim and one that Santorum has specifically denied, saying he would not attempt to impose his personal views on contraception through policy. He would appoint strict constructionist judges, just as the other Republican nominees say they would, and his worldview would doubtlessly inform his policies -- a universal, inescapable phenomenon.

Just because we must focus our attention on reversing our national financial free fall doesn't mean we have to abandon our traditional commitment to social conservatism, long reflected in the Republican platform. It doesn't mean we have to fecklessly surrender to the noxious notion that authentic, outspoken Christians are now a threat to religious liberty when in fact no other group is more committed to preserving it. It doesn't mean we have to roll over to this progressive trend to coarsen our culture and denigrate traditional values.

The Republican tent is plenty big enough for conservatives of all stripes -- and Libertarians -- but Reagan's three-legged stool of economic, national defense and social conservatism will topple if any of its legs is severed. Leftists have succeeded in redefining many issues. Will we allow them to redefine us, as well?

[Peter]

Dear Patriot,

This is where we wanted to be. We have planned and strategized in preparation for this very moment. We have demonstrated that we can unite Conservatives and win states- even states that Mitt Romney won four years ago.

Now, according to a new poll from Public Policy Polling, I am LEADING Mitt Romney nationwide by a double digit margin.

Here are the results:

• Santorum 38%
  
• Romney: 23%
  
• Gingrich 17%
  
• Paul 13%
  

We know this race has seesawed back and forth so we don't expect for a moment that Romney and his allies in the liberal media are going to let us stay there.

But this does confirm what we already knew: we are picking up momentum and are in the right place to take advantage of it. We have a strategy that has produced victories and can win us the Republican nomination. And we need to keep it going.

Will you help us?

This poll comes on the heels of three huge wins last week in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. Conservatives across the country are coming together and uniting behind this campaign.

Everything is going our direction for the moment, but that's the very reason we can't let up--the Romney campaign is starting to get desperate. Governor Romney does not have a consistent record of conservatism that he can run on. Because of that, he can't talk about his story and will instead spend tens of millions of dollars in negative, dishonest, personal attacks on my record and my character.

I saw what Mitt Romney did to Newt Gingrich after he lost South Carolina. Romney is right now making plans to do the same thing to me in Michigan--carpet bomb the state with dishonest ads. We need to be ready so we can fight back!

That's not going to be good enough to defeat President Obama. The GOP standard bearer must convey a clear vision of Reagan Conservatism to the American people if we are going to win this election. Running an inauthentic, Massachusetts moderate is not going to fire up conservatives, and it's not going to appeal to independents. We can't do it if we're going to defeat President Obama.

Every four years, people say, "This is the most important election of our lifetime." I think that's true this year, but I'll go even farther than that: this is the most important election in American history.

President Obama's vision for this country is to fundamentally change us from a free market, capitalist system to a Republic in the mold of the faded, decrepit Republics of Western Europe. We simply cannot allow four more years of this.

We are winning elections and the polls are all trending our way. I am going to win the Republican Nomination for President and defeat Barack Obama. But it's not going to happen without your help, right now. Not tomorrow, not next week. Right now.

Let's get it done!

For America,

Rick Santorum

Conservative Republican for President

[caroljane]

Uh-oh Peter, graphoanalysis of that signature shows an overconfident optimist who is easily influenced by others and likely to collapse in a crisis.

[Selene]

Uh-oh Peter, graphoanalysis of that signature shows an overconfident optimist who is easily influenced by others and likely to collapse in a crisis.

What about this left handed signature?

No higher resolution available.

Barack_Obama_signature.svg‎ (SVG file, nominally 182 × 44 pixels, file size: 6 KB)

This image rendered as PNG in other sizes: 200px, 500px, 1000px, 2000px.

[Peter]

Daunce wrote:

Uh-oh Peter, graphoanalysis of that signature shows an overconfident optimist who is easily influenced by others and likely to collapse in a crisis.

end quote

Of course, I noticed that salient fact, Carol. There is no “punking” you! And the style is so reminiscent of martyr and former Vogue model, Jeanne D’Arc. I was surprised the art came across to OL. All I did was cut and paste instead of trying to manipulate the text. Lesson learned.

Candidate Rick Santorum is genuine. What you see is what you get. Once again, as with the other three American Republican candidates, I think his victory, along with a Republican Congressional majority, could save America.

Wow. Adam has fast and furious’s Hussein’s, or that der fuhrer’s signature? What a shame President Hussein cancelled the Keystone Pipeline. What was it supposed to bring in? Jobs, a sure source of oil, prosperity for Americans and a billion dollars a day for Canada. Doctors would start to immigrating to Canada, first from India, and then the Western World, to cash in on those minimum National Health Care payments, which won’t seem so minimal after the collapse and chaos in 2013. Imagine walking into a clinic today and having your gall bladder out tomorrow. How about a nose job, face lift, or a shapelier butt? Done in a day. For Free! All lost to America's Green Party vote.

Peter

[studiodekadent]

Ahhh yes, Rick Santorum. The man that on one hand claims that one needs to read the Constitution in the context of the Declaration of Independence (correct, even if his interpretation of the Declaration of Independence is incorrect), and on the other hand complains that the pursuit of happiness is destroying America.

Who claims that the Declaration of Independence backs his worldview by saying people have responsibilities to God... when the word "responsibilities" isn't mentioned even once, and all the references to God are sufficiently vague and deistic rather than any specific Christian formulations (we hear "their creator" and "nature's God" but we never hear any invocations of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" and we never hear anything about Jesus). And then there's the complete lack of any mention of God in the Constitution, as well as the No Religious Test clause...

Rick Santorum, a serial basher of libertarianism and individualism... this man KNOWS his philosophical enemies, names them and is very clear about his hatred of them.

Also, it should be remembered that in various election simulations, Santorum loses to Obama by a larger margin than either Paul or Romney.

If the Republicans annoint Santorum as the nominee, then the US will deserve four more years of Obama. And I don't say that with any relish or joy.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's a reason I'm for Newt.

Not gung-ho, but he's the most viable candidate I see who is on a similar wave length to my values.

Incidentally, I believe his lack of consistency around the edges is a plus. Not ideal, but in his case a plus.

Michael

[caroljane]

Uh-oh Peter, graphoanalysis of that signature shows an overconfident optimist who is easily influenced by others and likely to collapse in a crisis.

What about this left handed signature?

No higher resolution available.

Barack_Obama_signature.svg‎ (SVG file, nominally 182 × 44 pixels, file size: 6 KB)

This image rendered as PNG in other sizes: 200px, 500px, 1000px, 2000px.

An introvert and logical thinker with a medium sex drive (unusual in a US president)!

[Selene]

Uh-oh Peter, graphoanalysis of that signature shows an overconfident optimist who is easily influenced by others and likely to collapse in a crisis.

What about this left handed signature?

No higher resolution available.

Barack_Obama_signature.svg‎ (SVG file, nominally 182 × 44 pixels, file size: 6 KB)

This image rendered as PNG in other sizes: 200px, 500px, 1000px, 2000px.

An introvert and logical thinker with a medium sex drive (unusual in a US president)!

Well that establishes the fact that graphoanalysis is really suspect! He is completely illogical when confronting reality. However, he is very logical in following his marxist mythology.

Split decision.

Does it indicate his hidden rage for America and his white half?

[Peter]

Daunce wrote:

An introvert and logical thinker with a medium sex drive (unusual in a US president)!

end quote

How would you know?

Really? You were friends with Monica?

Tell me about your internship at the White House, Carol.

Peeking Tom

[caroljane]

Studio's "rant" is one of the best observations on the state of GOP politics that I have read.

Hypocrisy and betrayal are common coin in politics, of course, but it is frightening to contemplate the characters of those who would bend all their talents to refining those qualities, in order to become President.

Is PUS really that great a job?

[caroljane]

Daunce wrote:

An introvert and logical thinker with a medium sex drive (unusual in a US president)!

end quote

How would you know?

Really? You were friends with Monica?

Tell me about your internship at the White House, Carol.

Peeking Tom

It was Parliament Hill, Mr T, and I will never tell until I get a good book deal.

[Selene]

Studio's "rant" is one of the best observations on the state of GOP politics that I have read.

Hypocrisy and betrayal are common coin in politics, of course, but it is frightening to contemplate the characters of those who would bend all their talents to refining those qualities, in order to become President.

Is PUS really that great a job?

Carol:

PUS is only "acronymed" that way since the infection of the office on January 20th, 2008.

Prior to that it was POTUS.

Adam

always helpful reminding the world what a piece of absolute refuse occupies the White House now...

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

PUS is only "acronymed" that way since the infection of the office on January 20th, 2008.

end quote

Good simile, Adam. Prior to that it was POTUS. And Bravo, Daunce! You screwed up again, which will get you your tell all book deal.

Who would want the job of POTUS? You must be given the calling like a priest, totally sure of it, and truly messianic to want to “RUN” for President of the United States. I could handle the job, at least for one term if offered, but I would rather be the pick of a deadlocked convention. And I would refuse to debate and rely on my PAC’s and personal ads to get elected. Once in the Oval Office I would do a better job than any politico because I would do exactly what is constitutionally right. Paul Ryan would be my Veep, and Marco Rubio, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul would be in my cabinet. That asshole, O’Reilly would be my Press Secretary.

Peter, Czar of All the America’s

[Robert Campbell]

The good thing about Rick Santorum: he isn't Mitt Romney.

The bad thing about Rick Santorum: he's actually worse than Mitt Romney.

What a year!

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

Bob:

Do you know this fellow? If so, is he worth hearing?

"Why Marxism," a lecture by Professor C. Bradley Thompson

03.03.2012

Register Now

We invite you to join us on Saturday, March 3, 2012 from 6:15 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., for an Evening at FEE* event with guest lecturer Professor C. Bradley Thompson of Clemson University. The lecture "Why Marxism?", is an examination of why so many people are still attracted to Marxism despite the history of totalitarianism and genocide.

The Evening at FEE event will begin with a small reception at 6:15 p.m., the lecture will begin at 7:30 p.m.

*FEE is located at 30 South Broadway in Irvington, NY (map).

[caroljane]

Bob:

Do you know this fellow? If so, is he worth hearing?

"Why Marxism," a lecture by Professor C. Bradley Thompson

03.03.2012

Register Now

We invite you to join us on Saturday, March 3, 2012 from 6:15 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., for an Evening at FEE* event with guest lecturer Professor C. Bradley Thompson of Clemson University. The lecture "Why Marxism?", is an examination of why so many people are still attracted to Marxism despite the history of totalitarianism and genocide.

The Evening at FEE event will begin with a small reception at 6:15 p.m., the lecture will begin at 7:30 p.m.

*FEE is located at 30 South Broadway in Irvington, NY (map).

Marx also beat his wife and neglected his children. I hope that will be mentioned in the lecture. While beating and neglecting them he often spoke of his hopes for a world order of genocide and tyranny

[Selene]

Bob:

Do you know this fellow? If so, is he worth hearing?

"Why Marxism," a lecture by Professor C. Bradley Thompson

03.03.2012

Register Now

We invite you to join us on Saturday, March 3, 2012 from 6:15 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., for an Evening at FEE* event with guest lecturer Professor C. Bradley Thompson of Clemson University. The lecture "Why Marxism?", is an examination of why so many people are still attracted to Marxism despite the history of totalitarianism and genocide.

The Evening at FEE event will begin with a small reception at 6:15 p.m., the lecture will begin at 7:30 p.m.

*FEE is located at 30 South Broadway in Irvington, NY (map).

Marx also beat his wife and neglected his children. I hope that will be mentioned in the lecture

Actually, you are correct Carol. His son was not his. I do not know about him beating his wife though.

In Mary Gabriel's book Love and Capital, "Gabriel’s heroine is certainly Marx’s wife, a beautiful aristocrat. As the author puts it: “Jenny von Westphalen was the most desirable young woman in Trier,” so well connected that her brother later became Prussian interior minister even while Marx was planning the downfall of the reactionary kingdoms of Europe."

"When they have sex before they actually marry, she writes to him: “I can feel no regret. When I shut my eyes very tightly, I can see your blessed smiling eyes. . . . Oh Karl . . . I am happy and overjoyed. . . . Each happy hour I lived through again."

"Between Marx’s lovers and his work, Jenny’s life was never easy: “While she pleaded with his family for assistance,” Gabriel writes, “he was having sex with Lenchen on Dean Street." (At exactly the same time? How does she know where?) Lenchen was the family’s companion and housekeeper, Helene Demuth, with whom Marx fathered a child. Or as the author explains unnecessarily: “It isn’t known whether this was the first or the last time the two had intercourse.” Why this either-or? Surely it may have been the second or the 20th time — and, at the risk of challenging Gabriel’s eerily omniscient sexual-Marxist research, things worth doing once are often worth doing again. Either way, Lenchen gave birth to a son, Freddy. Engels pretended to be the father of the boy, who became one of the secrets of Marx’s biography: Stalin himself ordered it buried in the archives.

When Jenny died in 1881 and Karl in 1883, their surviving children, Tussy and Laura, and the men in their lives, became the leaders of the movement, especially after Engels left them a significant portion of his $4.8 million estate. But it’s hard not to feel that somehow Karl’s obsessive mission destroyed those who came after: both daughters committed suicide, Tussy in 1897, driven to it by a callous partner; Laura in 1911, in a death pact with her ­husband.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/books/review/love-and-capital-by-mary-gabriel-book-review.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

[studiodekadent]

The good thing about Rick Santorum: he isn't Mitt Romney.

The bad thing about Rick Santorum: he's actually worse than Mitt Romney.

I concur.

[Dennis Hardin]

Robert Tracinski has an excellent article on Santorum on his website (TIA Daily).

Tracinski mentions Santorum's infamous claim that "the pursuit of happiness is harming America." and quotes the following passage from a 2005 speech by Santorum:

"America's conservative heritage never pursued a limitless freedom to do whatever one wants so long as no one is hurt. That kind of "freedom" to be and do whatever we want, irrespective of the choice is a selfish freedom that cannot be sustained or afforded. Someone always gets hurt when masses of individuals do what is only in their own self-interest....

"Freedom is liberty coupled with responsibility to something bigger or higher than self. It is a self-less freedom. It is sacrificial freedom. It is the pursuit of our dreams with an eye toward the common good. Freedom is the dual activity of lifting our eyes to the heavens while extending our hand to our neighbor.

"The only orthodox conservative philosophy that matches with this is compassionate conservatism."

Tracinski:

This is an attack on American individualism at its root. There is a reason why "the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence.

The opposite view, the view openly championed by Santorum, is that the individual is owned by society, which has first claim to his efforts and can direct his decisions for the greater good.

Here is Santorum’s response to the ObamaCare mandate on contraception:

"One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea.... It's not okay because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal...but also procreative.

"That's the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that's not for purposes of procreation, that's not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can't you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it's simply pleasure. And that's certainly a part of it—and it's an important part of it, don't get me wrong—but there's a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special....

"I'm not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues."

And then there is Santorum’s recent call for a ban on gambling:

"I'm someone who takes the opinion that gaming is not something that is beneficial, particularly having that access on the Internet. Just as we've seen from a lot of other things that are vices on the Internet, they tend to grow exponentially as a result of that....

"Freedom's not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations. You might want to say the same thing about a whole variety of other things that are on the Internet—"let everybody have it, let everybody do it." No. There are certain things that actually do cost people a lot of money, cost them their lives, cost them their fortunes that we shouldn't have and make available, to make it that easy to do."

Makes you wonder what other limitations Santorum might propose on "access to the internet."

Tracinski:

With Santorum, voters feel that they have at last found a man of principle. But that's the problem. Santorum is an open, dedicated, and principled opponent of liberty, of individual rights, and of the distinctively American philosophy of individualism.

This is exactly the same philosophy championed by Barack Obama. The only thing that makes Santorum's version "conservative" is a difference in emphasis. Obama emphasizes society's need to limit our freedom on economic issues, while Santorum emphasizes society's need to limit our freedom in our personal lives.

Leave it to the Republicans to offer up a candidate who is even worse than 4 more years of Barack Obama.

[Peter]

I agree with Robert Campbell, Dennis Hardin, studiodekadent, Robert Tracinski and others, that Santorum is not my favorite Republican candidate. I started this thread because he was about to become the next Nott Mitt if he wins in Michigan.

Dennis wrote:

Leave it to the Republicans to offer up a candidate who is even worse than 4 more years of Barack Obama.

end quote

I profoundly, unequivocally disagree with that view. That is absurd and reflective of rampant, subjective emotionalism, from all those named in my first sentence, AND unfortunately most Objectivists. That view is reflective of Peikovian Subjectivism.

Barack is better than Stalin, Adolf, or Mao but between Santorum and Obama, Santorum has light years of better philosophy than Obama, and is the better candidate. Measure the amount of harm Obama WILL do vs. the harm Santorum COULD do.

Is it in the realm of possibility that Rick Santorum will:

Excise the phrase, “The pursuit of happiness,” from the Constitution?

Change the nature of American individualism?

Ban contraceptives? Make Catholic doctrine on birth control a matter of important public policy?

Put homosexuals into reeducation camps?

Make federal laws against promiscuity?

Curb free speech on the internet?

Ban gambling?

Santorum may want to manage our spiritual well-being, but a President cannot do those things except through persuasion, and Rick Santorum is no Ronald Reagan. My opposition to Santorum has nothing to do with his personal convictions. His convictions cannot become the law. Let me repeat, HIS CONVICTIONS CANNOT BECOME THE LAW. Santorum’s personal convictions are relevant as a guide to his character but his convictions are not relevant to enact-able public policy during his administration.

My major worry about Santorum is his elect-ability in the general election so let me repeat what Robert Trancinski wrote:

Santorum's views have zero cross-over appeal; there will be no "Santorum Democrats." They have no appeal to independent voters, who will peg him as a self-righteous prig who wants to impose his religious views on them. And it's worse than that. The resurgence of the right that produced the Tea Party movement and the huge Republican victory in 2010 is based in large part on an alliance between two wings of the right: the more religious wing and the more "libertarian" wing. They have been able to work together because of a de facto truce on the "social issues" while we drop everything else to save the country from a government takeover of the economy.

end quote

I implore all Objectivist to NOT THINK EMOTIONALLY. Work for Mitt, Newt, Ron, or a candidate who will emerge from a deadlocked convention, but if Santorum wins he could be a good President. His religious side will have little or no affect on policy. His fiscal Conservativism will.

Peter Taylor

[Dennis Hardin]

I profoundly, unequivocally disagree with that view [that 4 more years of Obama are preferable to Santorum]. That is absurd and reflective of rampant, subjective emotionalism, from all those named in my first sentence, AND unfortunately most Objectivists. That view is reflective of Peikovian Subjectivism.

With all due respect, Peter, that’s a load of crap. The danger that Santorum represents is that his unique brand of anti-Americanism could critically warp conservatism as a political philosophy and further estrange American voters from their pro-freedom heritage. The one thing conservatives have going for them is their tradition-based defense of the value of freedom, and Santorum could significantly undermine that during his time (God forbid) as president. Santorum's views are not only wrong and mistaken and even stupid--as is the case with all the other candidates, including Obama--but deeply and profoundly evil to an alarming degree.

In addition, there is considerable basis for questioning Santorum’s credentials as a “fiscal conservative.” He appears to be a G.W. Bush clone with regard to his lack of frugality when it comes to government spending. He seems to be a proponent of tax cuts, but tax cuts will become less and less feasible if spending cannot be reigned in in a major way. It is highly questionable whether he would make much of an effort to restrain the growth of government, and his expressed philosophy would obviously work in the opposite direction.

It does not help your case to whitewash those who might consider Santorum a worse choice than Obama by categorizing us as emotionalists or subjectivists. There are a lot of complex factors to consider here. It sounds a lot more emotionalist to take the knee-jerk view that any Republican is automatically preferable to Obama, regardless of what he offers as his political philosophy. I will definitely vote for Romney or Gingrich if either is the Republican alternative. Whether or not I would vote for Santorum will require a lot more thoughtful deliberation, all the way to November.

[Selene]

Dennis:

What about Dr. Paul, or in a hung convention, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, or Jeb Bush?

Adam

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis:

What about Dr. Paul, or in a hung convention, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, or Jeb Bush?

Adam

Adam,

I would most likely support any of them over Obama. To my knowledge, none of those four engage in the sort of rabid, explicit, anti-freedom rhetoric we hear from Santorum. I would have major qualms about Dr. Paul because of his pollyanaish approach to foreign policy, but we all know he has zero chance of being the Republican nominee.

[Selene]

Dennis:

What about Dr. Paul, or in a hung convention, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, or Jeb Bush?

Adam

Adam,

I would most likely support any of them over Obama. To my knowledge, none of those four engage in the sort of rabid, explicit, anti-freedom rhetoric we hear from Santorum. I would have major qualms about Dr. Paul because of his pollyanaish approach to foreign policy, but we all know he has zero chance of being the Republican nominee.

Fair enough.

I just was not sure Palin would qualify in the with teat test.