Rick Santorum for President

[Peter]

Michael wrote:

I just get sick of the nonstop spin, exaggerations and demonizing.

end quote

As do I. I truly dislike the liberal media’s spin but I also get tired of Fox’s Conservative spin and lack of substance.

William from Galt’s Gulch wrote:

That is why the country needs someone other than Santorum or Romney who are oblivious to the crisis we face financially. That someone is Ron Paul.

end quote

First a preamble. It is odd. My wife has been a big Mitt supporter since 2008 when she saw his evolution to a fiscal conservative who is not overtly religious policy wise, and SEEMS TO BE INCORRUPTIBLE. I switched to his side less than a year ago. She is aware, as am I, that he takes donations from the same panorama of questionable and sly ”you scratch my back” foxes as do all candidates but the big difference is personal integrity AND PERSONAL WEALTH.

Michael has speculated that Mitt is in the pocket of “big money” in America and that is where we disagree with Msk about Mitt. It pays to have wealthy friends but I don’t think Mitt’s commitment is to graft.

That story is to preface my wife, Barbara’s, switch to Ron Paul about a month ago. She agrees with Gulch. I cannot join her in her enthusiasm because of Ron’s foreign policy where I profoundly disagree, and in the fact that he is not elect-able.

The Progressive activists are very busy. If you see Rasmussen saying Rick can beat Obama, that would be significant but even there, with Scott’s poll, I worry that the polls are being manipulated to put the least elect-able Republican on the slate. Yahoo, and the State Run Media are touting Santorum right now by selection and quantity of stories that say Rick is the best candidate, which means the opposite is true. Likewise if Paul is touted as a potential winner by The Lame Stream Media it means the opposite is true. If only . . .

As an aside, my granddaughter, who just started day care two days a week, then her Mom, then my wife, and I have in quick succession contracted a viral infection of the intestines. It is bad news. Five or more days of being near a toilet. Saturday night I was up all night and going every fifteen minutes until I took the maximum 24 hour, allowed dosage of Imodium AND Pepto maximum in an eight hour period and then the roiling started again. The good news is I lost three pounds.

I went to a clinic with a good jingle called, “Your Doc’s In,” Sunday and got some tiny pills that are helping a lot. I am not seeking advice from any doctor’s on OL. I am just telling them that “Your Doc’s In” is a cash cow. They were packed, many patients with what I have. I asked the nurse who took my vitals about the prevalence of this viral infection and she said I was her third patient of the day and there were three nurses and one doctor. They took my MHIP (Maryland health insurance plan) card and did not charge me a cent up front, though the wait was too long. The patient’s were white and relatively affluent because it is cash, card, or insurance only. The rabble go to the emergency room or suffer. The Doc may have been overworked and working on a Sunday, but I am sure he takes other day’s off to spend time on his yacht in the Caribbean.

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Mr. "Antoinette" Taylor:

"The rabble?"

[Peter]

Adam wondered about my phrase, “The rabble?”

When my father in law was in a bad way, I saw the ER several times, about three years ago. It was horrible. I went around changing the channels on the “locked” TV’s which you have to know how to do, and I am not telling. I changed the room with the tiny furniture to Disney and the others to movies or Fox. The guards saw what I was doing, strolled over to see what I had done, then left me alone. I was also reconnoitering. They saw me giving brief cop looks to two questionable guys in two different rooms of the ER, (the rooms have glass walls,) and they understood I was communicating with them. Then, the guards edged closer to them. Both were arrested, though one not until he had destroyed a toilet in the bathroom. Whacked out rabble, is worse than Obama’s 99 percent-ers. I much prefer the rich people’s docs on “Royal Pains,” and I am planning on leaving the VA when I start Medicare and go back to my family doctor, even if I must make up the difference.

If you ever fly, and have some “training” quietly tell the stewardess. She will appreciate knowing you are there. It’s good to be appreciated.

In the meantime, gas is at $3.57 on average. In some spots it is much more. I saw a local California TV station interviewing people as they stopped for gas at just under five bucks a galloon. Everyone without exception was furious. One “green” defended the price by saying this is what must be done to cut back on driving, but even he was pissed. I guess he should have a special environmentalist whacko discount card.

There are more riots and another bail out with 20 percent unemployment in Greece, and one quarter of the businesses have closed their doors. If Greece fails, and the EU collapses which will happen, it will further deepen our economic crisis. And we are further dependent on foreign oil. That is probably temporarily good news for the Republicans. Who could best get us out of the ditch? IMHO Ron Paul would be the best, followed by Newt, Mitt, and Santorum. Pump now - pump here. Know who said that? Newt.

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Republican presidential battle could get messy By Andrew Gully | AFP – 11 hrs ago

Should he pull off a win on February 28 in Romney's home state of Michigan, all bets will be off and the Republican establishment will be left facing the specter of a bitter fight all the way to its August 27-30 convention. There is no disguising the fact that Santorum's views on subjects like homosexuality and abortion are out of step with many Americans and some are predicting there will be panic in the Republican Party should he win Michigan . . . . In a sign of growing desperation, a prominent Republican senator told ABC News recently that if Romney loses Michigan, the party should try to entice a new candidate into the race. "We'd get killed," the unnamed senator replied when asked how Romney would then fare against Obama. "He'd be too damaged, if he can't even win in Michigan, where his family is from, where he grew up." What about Santorum, a former US senator from Pennsylvania?

"He'd lose 35 states," the senator said, predicting the same fate for former House speaker Newt Gingrich.

If no one reaches the magic number of 1,144 delegates in the state-by-state voting battle, it allows for what is called a brokered convention, when backroom deals are needed to push a certain candidate over the top. A new candidate could theoretically enter the later contests and win enough delegates to present themselves at the convention as the party's savior . . . . Names being bandied about are former Florida governor Jeb Bush, House budget committee chairman Paul Ryan, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, and even former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

end quote

Stuart Varney on Fox also just now touted Jeb Bush from Florida. But there are a lot of primaries to go. Could Marco Rubio win over Obama? Damned if I know. I could enthusiastically support him. In a general election Rubio would get 99 percent of the Hispanic vote, which is 16 percent of the voting population. I snipped these facts from a half dozen sources including the US Census.

Nearly half of the group (growing in Hispanic voters) is concentrated in just 10 large metro areas; two of them, Las Vegas and Albuquerque, fall in battleground states. In New Mexico, where 46 percent of the population is Hispanic, 41 percent of the state's voters in 2008 were Latino. This group voted overwhelmingly for Obama in the presidential election, with 69 percent of Hispanics voting for the Democrat. With their support Obama won the state by a 15-point margin over his Republican rival, John McCain. Major American cities with large Latino populations. The percents of some cities: Los Angeles 46% New York 20% Miami 48% Chicago 19% Houston 33% San Francisco 23% Dallas 24% Phoenix 26% San Antonio 53%.

End of snips.

A Presidential candidate Marco Rubio therefore has 16 percent or so of the vote guaranteed from Hispanics. And he would carry Nevada, Florida and New Mexico for sure. Christ! He could do it. He would have virtually all Tea Party votes. He would have virtually all of the Republican votes. I bet he would get the “youth vote.” We could be talking about 55 percent of the popular vote. Does he have skeletons in the closet? Rubio for President?

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Mr. Taylor:

Those scenarios are not only not realistic, they are based on a serious misunderstanding of the basic conservative nature of the prime voter in the US.

O'biwan's vote from several key groups that came out in droves in 2008 will be off by 6 to 20%.

Adam

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

. . . several key groups that came out in droves in 2008 will be off by 6 to 20%.

end quote

Do you know that for a fact? When will the next major earthquake occur? If Rubio were the candidate there would be youth groups for him, starting first with young Hispanics. I say that assuredly because the young congregate around the young. The young vote for who is the coolest. Is Rubio old enough and naturally born American enough to be POTUS? Don’t assume anything. Is he good looking enough? Charismatic enough? A purist Tea Party supporter? Yes, to all those last three questions. If the vote that went for Obama in 2008 is off by 5 to 20 percent, Rubio could pick up all those youngsters in that group, 18 to 30 year olds, who voted Progressive last time and those who are voting for the first time in 2012. They will have tears in their eyes like they were seeing The Beatles or an apparition of the Virgin Mary. Marco! Marco! Marco! Marco!

You tell me I have, “a serious misunderstanding of the basic conservative nature of the prime voter in the US.” Prime implies some votes are worth more than others. The only prime there is if votes win the delegate count in individual States. So prime voters would be those in the swing states. There is no normal, average, or prime voter by demographics, political philosophy, or some sort of purity - only by happenstance.

Once again I think you are misjudging the electorate if you think Obama can’t win. Look at the Real Clear Politics graphic of the Dem, Swing, and Rep states. Obama is way ahead in the delegate count with locked in blue states like the entire Left Coast, New York, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, Hawaii, etc., and he is also very likely to win, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Maine. He goes into 2012 with a HUGE advantage.

The only state from the blue group that might change its mind if Rubio were the Republican nominee is New Mexico but what about those swing States? They are: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire. For sure, Florida would go for Rubio, perhaps Nevada. Does anyone else wish to look into their crystal ball? I keep seeing a belly button from “I Dream of Jeannie.”

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Mr. Taylor:

A Prime Voter is defined in the following Campaign Management Analysis from 2008 as:

"Common Breakdowns/categories

Knowledge of individual voting history allows you to streamline your outreach approach.

Breakdown by Voting History

 Extended Prime: people who have voted in any primary since 2001

 Standard Prime: people who have voted in any primary since 2005

 Double Prime: people who have voted in a minimum of 2 primaries since 2005

 Triple Prime: people who have voted in a minimum of 3 primaries since 2004

On average, the number of voters in each group is about half that of the tier above them- for example,

if you have 20,000 Standard Prime voters, you will likely have 10,000 Double Prime voters and 5,000

Triple Prime voters."

This is a standard analytical "term" in the industry and is heavily used in internal polling since it gives the most accurate probability of who will vote.

Adam

[9thdoctor]

There's a good piece on Santorum by Tracinski reproduced at the SLOP trough.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/8945

[Peter]

Ba'al Chatzaf wrote on the other Rick Santorum thread:

The son of a bitch is still willing to have women face death in child-bearing. He prefers that they face death and not know any adverse conditions. Can you deny that? The man is totally insufferable.

end quote

About Rick Santorum, Robert Tracinski in Intellectual Activist online wrote today:

As an atheist, I find all invocations of the supernatural to be, shall we say, unnecessary. But I'm not thrown for a loop by normal, conventional appeals to God for aid and comfort. There is something different about invoking Satan. Concretize it this way: suppose that, instead of bowing down to ask for God's help before a football game, Tim Tebow performed a ritual to ward off evil spirits.

end quote

From The Sixth Sense, 1999:

Cole: I see dead people.

Malcolm: In your dreams? [Cole shakes his head no] While you're awake? [Cole nods] Dead people like, in graves? In coffins?

Cole: Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're dead.

Malcolm: How often do you see them?

Cole: All the time. They're everywhere.

end quote

Did that scare you? Robert Tracinski is on the warpath against Rick. He wrote:

What People for the American Way found was a 2008 speech Santorum gave at a Catholic university in Florida, in which he gave this description of how he sees the political arena:

“This is not a political war at all. This is not a cultural war. This is a spiritual war. And the Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country—the United States of America. If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age? There is no one else to go after other than the United States and that has been the case now for almost two hundred years, once America's preeminence was sown by our great Founding Fathers.”

You may remember Pat Buchanan's notorious speech at the 1992 Republican Convention in which he declared, "There is a religious war going on in this country." This is worse. For Santorum, it is not just a religious war, but a spiritual war against Satan.

Somehow what I'm reminded of, however, is not Buchanan but Dana Carvey, who years ago had a recurring bit for "Saturday Night Live" in which he appeared as the "church lady," who would start discussing a topic in a mild-mannered, school-marmish kind of way, then at some point, she would suggest the real answer: "I don't know, could it be...SATAN?" It captures some of the loopiness of this perspective.

end quote

OK. After an Objectivist bombardment, I get it. Thanks to studio, Dennis and Gulch for helping a blind man see. My only objection is, if he were elected he might try to do the work of the Jesuits but he could nothing, in fact or law. He would give speeches. His mania will be fettered by the Constitution and a Do Something, Republican Congress. He is not OUR devil.

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

This is a standard analytical "term" in the industry and is heavily used in internal polling since it gives the most accurate probability of who will vote.

end quote

Thanks. I did not know that. Maybe you do know something. Can you break down the vote if Rubio were the candidate? I count a win if he can keep the “prime Republican” vote in 2012. That would be as astounding as the last “know nothing but bad” who won in 2008.

Peter

[Peter]

Rush said on today’s show about Santorum’s religiosity, “It’s not ordinarily what you will hear a candidate talk about.” And he read parts of the article, “Sex, Lies and Rick Santorum.”

William Mcgurn from the Wall Street Journal in “Sex, Lies and Rick Santorum” wrote:

That has led some folks to suggest that Mr. Santorum simply drop these issues altogether. Their hope is that by concentrating his energies solely on Mr. Obama's management of the economy and foreign affairs, Mr. Santorum might avoid dividing his party and America. However reasonable the argument may be on paper, it is simply not practical.

It's not practical, first, because Mr. Santorum is running as what he is, a conviction politician. Having been dismissed for months by Republicans hostile to his social views, he is not likely to take their advice now. He appreciates that he did not get where he is today by trimming his sails.

Indeed, that's one reason he has now overtaken Mitt Romney as the front-runner in Michigan. Mr. Romney is behind because Republican voters have yet to be persuaded he stands for anything. Mr. Santorum is ahead because even those who might not sign onto all his social particulars are hungry for a nominee who does not bend with the wind . . . . These are important issues. They have large implications for society, and those few who have actually read "Humanae Vitae," as Mr. Santorum has, might be surprised to find how prophetic that document was in its warnings about the consequences of the contraceptive mentality for society, including the weakening of the marriage bond. A presidential debate, however, is simply not the vehicle for clarifying the coherence of the Catholic Church's view of human sexuality. That doesn't mean Mr. Santorum should compromise his views. To the contrary, he needs to keep his comments simple, clear, and focused on the political point he is hoping to make. That in turn will require letting pass a great deal that he might be itching to respond to. Mr. Santorum cannot change the double standard. With a little discipline, however, he need not let himself be defined by it.

end quote

So, I think Rush’s view is “the strategy for Rick Santorum should be, don’t drop the moral issues, but be a bit more discreet. Social conservatives have you pegged. Start talking about fiscal conservatism and Constitutionalism.”

That’s good advice.

Peter Taylor

[studiodekadent]

OK. After an Objectivist bombardment, I get it. Thanks to studio, Dennis and Gulch for helping a blind man see. My only objection is, if he were elected he might try to do the work of the Jesuits but he could nothing, in fact or law.

The Progressive movement managed to get around the entire Bill of Rights. Santorum is essentially a Catholic Progressive (remember that the Progressive movement (I'm speaking hear of the New-Deal-era progressives) were strongly religious, nationalist and socially conservative, and believed that the government could regulate people to virtue).

His mania will be fettered by the Constitution...

Whilst constitutional protections do have some meaning, it is naive to think he could "do nothing."

and a Do Something, Republican Congress.

Republican legislatures don't have a particularly good record at restraining Republican executives.

He is not OUR devil.

On the contrary; his philosophy and ideology are pretty damn close to the exact opposite of our own, he is a devout hater of the entire philosophical foundation of the United States (its actual philosophical foundation, not his distortion of the Founders), he has a proven legislative record of supporting the omnipotent State, he desires even more war in the Middle East (sacrificing yet more American blood and treasure), and has extensive political support.

Santorum has re-energized the religious right. Remember them? The people that, by the end of the Bush Administration, had lost heaps of political capital and credibility? Santorum could ressurrect them like that zombie-jesus they all pray to.

President Obama has so far been Bush's Third Term. Santorum will be Bush's Fourth Term.

I often disagree with Robert Tracinski, but he is right about this. Santorum Delenda Est.

And if Objectivists, we proudly godless, anti-authoritarian, rebels against millennia of mysticism and collectivism and selflessness and misanthropy, if we give even the slightest level of sanction to Santorum, then we will have earned the disdain which the left currently heaps upon our philosophy.

[GALTGULCH8]

Peter,

It is evident to me that the Republican establishment has chosen Mitt Romney as the more electable candidate despite his shortcomings. E.g. they tweaked the caucus returns in Maine in his favor.

So I expect that if i wear a Romney button to the meetings here in MA which are scheduled for April 28th in each congressional district in which registered Republicans will choose actual delegates to go to Tampa, three from each district, perhaps we can succeed in selecting a Ron Paul devotee to become one of those delegates. He or she would be initially bound to vote for Mitt Romney on the first Tampa ballot, but if the first ballot does not yield enough votes, then the delegates would be free to vote for anyone else.

This effort will be repeated in every state where delegates to Tampa will be elected after being nominated and where a little speech will be given before a mini election takes place. The trick will be to swamp such meetings with Ron Paul folks surreptitiously posing as supporters of Romney or Santorum or Gingrich. This is more likely to work because there are so many candidates to divide the vote in Tampa on that crucial first ballot.

According to the other thread on this board WWIII will be starting long before this election takes place. So all bets are off.

How does one make long range career goals in this context?

That is a rhetorical question.

Point is the prospect of Romney as president is almost as bad as another Obama term. But a Santorum presidency is like a return to the Dark Ages with our very own Inquisition.

Our military is exhausted and spread too thin and our currency is collapsing just as a WWIII is about to begin! All the more reason, from my point of view, that Ron Paul ought to become the next president.

gulch

[Selene]

So I expect that if i wear a Romney button to the meetings here in MA which are scheduled for April 28th in each congressional district in which registered Republicans will choose actual delegates to go to Tampa, three from each district, perhaps we can succeed in selecting a Ron Paul devotee to become one of those delegates. He or she would be initially bound to vote for Mitt Romney on the first Tampa ballot, but if the first ballot does not yield enough votes, then the delegates would be free to vote for anyone else.

This effort will be repeated in every state where delegates to Tampa will be elected after being nominated and where a little speech will be given before a mini election takes place. The trick will be to swamp such meetings with Ron Paul folks surreptitiously posing as supporters of Romney or Santorum or Gingrich. This is more likely to work because there are so many candidates to divide the vote in Tampa on that crucial first ballot.

Gulch:

Now this is at least a coherent political strategy that I can respect. Operation Subliminal.

Adam

[Peter]

Studiodekadent eloquently wrote:

And if Objectivists, we proudly godless, anti-authoritarian, rebels against millennia of mysticism and collectivism and selflessness and misanthropy, if we give even the slightest level of sanction to Santorum, then we will have earned the disdain which the left currently heaps upon our philosophy.

end quote

Well said. You have a future in speech writing. But I will never equate modern Christian Conservatives with Marxists, progressives, or any combination or variation of the supporters of Alinsky, Mao, Che, Lenin or Stalin. Barrack Hussein Obama quotes those guys.

Voting for the better candidate is giving them your sanction? Seriously, Santorum is not Satan. Check your premises. You claim the mantel of Ayn Rand but She did not flee America with its Christian population. Your statement is hyperbole. Of course there is some of the “Witch Doctor” in all religions. And modern Christian religions even have acolytes of the archetypical, “Attila” but Obama’s philosophy is the *embodiment* of the Witch Doctor and Attila. Religion is separated from the state in America. Obama and his ilk have found a way to combine our Constitution with Fascist and Socialism.

Who is Ron Paul actively collaborating with? Mitt. Calls and coordination weekly. Paul understands the anti libertarian stance of Santorum as do I. But Ron Paul will vote Republican come November. Should Ron Paul be giving his sanction to Mitt Romney? Sure. Theoretical Purism can lead to dogmatism and losing your soul out of spite. Ron Paul. Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich. Rick Santorum. But, Not Obama.

Peter

[Peter]

gulch wrote:

So I expect that if I wear a Romney button to the meetings here in MA which are scheduled for April 28th in each congressional district in which registered Republicans will choose actual delegates to go to Tampa, three from each district, perhaps we can succeed in selecting a Ron Paul devotee to become one of those delegates.

end quote

Excellent idea, Puck. I thought that guy during the Nixon era they called “Puck” after the Shakespearean character in “A Midsummer’s Night Dream,” was hilarious, calling up and pretending to be a spokesperson for a candidate and canceling rallies. He cancelled buses for the Press and ordered champagne and lobster for Fire Hall dinners and rallies that were supposed to serve roast beef. And Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos was superb. Shenanigans are a part of American political history.

You wrote:

Point is the prospect of Romney as president is almost as bad as another Obama term. But a Santorum presidency is like a return to the Dark Ages with our very own Inquisition.

end quote

NO IT IS NOT. Do you see Santorum wearing sackcloth and flailing himself with a switch? Is he calling for “The Inquisition?” Of course not. He wants to return to 1950’s family values, not the Dark Ages. What does he carry around with him, every day? It is not the bible. It is the United States Constitution. Demonizing someone is not Objective. It evokes an image of a lonely, loony old lady, condemning, shunning, and adding to her “Enemies List.” That was Ayn Rand at her most demented and pitiable.

Santorum is a prig and a jerk. Obama is a villain, but not a demon. Villains need to be defeated. Demons need a stake through the heart. Or a bullet in the head. Don’t go in that direction, Sovereign Citizen.

Gulch wrote about the coming war and potential collapse:

All the more reason, from my point of view, that Ron Paul ought to become the next president.

end quote

I heartily agree. A President Ron Paul would defend his country with valor if we are attacked. My lament is the same as the pollsters and pundits, “If only Ron Paul were elect-able!” A majority of veterans are for Paul, and as you noted they have been spread thin. If the polls ever indicate he is elect-able I would be ecstatic and pumped up. Paul / Rubio has a nice ring to it. If Paul could get Rubio to be his running mate NOW it could swing the primaries and the election his way.

Peter Taylor

[Backlighting]

During one of the early debates Santorum said individual freedom was not as important as family values. Ugh!

[Selene]

During one of the early debates Santorum said individual freedom was not as important as family values. Ugh!

LV:

He is what he is. A blue collar Catholic from Pennsylvania. He is a very religious guy from a religious family.

No surprises here.

Certainly not to me.

Adam

[studiodekadent]

Studiodekadent eloquently wrote:

And if Objectivists, we proudly godless, anti-authoritarian, rebels against millennia of mysticism and collectivism and selflessness and misanthropy, if we give even the slightest level of sanction to Santorum, then we will have earned the disdain which the left currently heaps upon our philosophy.

end quote

Well said. You have a future in speech writing.

Thank you.

But I will never equate modern Christian Conservatives with Marxists, progressives, or any combination or variation of the supporters of Alinsky, Mao, Che, Lenin or Stalin. Barrack Hussein Obama quotes those guys.

I'm not asking for them to be equated. I'm attempting to convince you that the philosophy of Christian Conservatism is just as anti-enlightenment, anti-market and anti-individualist as the philosophies of the New Left.

Voting for the better candidate is giving them your sanction?

Apparently this is the area we disagree on; whether or not Santorum is the better candidate.

To be absolutely blunt, I can't even see him as better than Obama. From his voting record (big government "compassionate conservatism" with a moralistic nanny-state) to his explicit philosophy (which we've already discussed), Santorum is (in my evaluation) just as bad as Obama.

You claim the mantel of Ayn Rand but She did not flee America with its Christian population.

The vast majority of Rand's life and writing occured before the rise of the Religious Right (although the true inception of the Religious Right happened because of William F Buckley Jr, but it didn't become so virulent until the Carter and Reagan years). The big threat, back then, was secular statism.

Rand also lived in California and New York; i.e. the more socially liberal parts of America.

She, like all of us, had a specific context of experiences and knowledge which led to her prioritizing her targets and picking her battles to the ones she believed, at the time, were the most critical.

But times have changed. Just because she believed Enemy Number One were the Marxists and Progressives does not mean we are bound to make the same evaluation today.

Religion is separated from the state in America. Obama and his ilk have found a way to combine our Constitution with Fascist and Socialism.

The US Constitution protects property rights and free speech as well, yet the FCC and a vast number of regulatory bureaucracies which violate both free speech and property rights still exist.

The Establishment Clause is just as vulnerable to every factor that can undermine any other clause of the Constitution.

In short, the Bill of Rights does not compromise the need for vigilance.

And Santorum is the precise kind of person that we must be vigilant against.

[Peter]

Studio wrote:

And Santorum is the precise kind of person that we must be vigilant against.

end quote

No questioning that. Santorum wants to take us back to the days of “Mayberry” and “Leave It To Beaver.” Going to first base and even second base is shameful if you were on a date, unless going steady, but no home runs allowed, so there was no need for birth control. If you went to the drug store to sheepishly try to buy condoms the pharmacist would try to counsel you out of it. And your parents would hear about it. California girls were known for their oral solutions which was a nice substitute for the male libido. Ah, the bad old days.

Well, the debate seems to have favored Mitt in Michigan last night. It is time for Santorum to fade and for Newt to reemerge from under his leaf as the south rises again during the upcoming Dixie primaries. “Let’s get ready to rumble ! ! !”

Peter

[Peter]

Newt Gingrich who was a founder of the Drill Here, Drill Now Movement predicted in the debate last night, $2.50 a gallon gas under his Presidency, after expanding the domestic supply, okaying the Keystone Pipeline and giving the green light to fracking, which means a court battle with the environmentalist whackos. Bring it on.

Why so high? In free market America our oil producers will sell to the highest bidders. Obviously our supply line is shorter to Texas or North Dakota but if China or Japan bids five cents more, they get the oil. Or more accurately, the refined oil or gas. Imagine being a sailor on a tanker hauling gasoline. My Dad was on an oiler (and I think they also hauled gas) during The Vietnam War and he and his buddies talked about how they could blow up like a small nuke if The USS Ponchotoula was hit by an armor piercing bullet. My Dad remembers taking small arms fire from the Vietnam shore. As he slid down a stairway he slipped and broke his tail bone. No Purple Heart was awarded but he had one from WWII for being wounded twice. He thought he should get another battle ribbon.

If inflation is brought under control and the gas supply is abundant it could drop to under two bucks. I want to see those idiotic mileage standards dropped. That and excessive regulations. Of course if Honda and Toyota USA can make a profit, will GM or Chrysler need to be bailed out again?

I liked that sit down debate style. I think they thought better, off their feet.

Rush is quoting Buzzfeed that Rubio was a member of the Latter Day Saints as a child before his family went back to the Catholic Church. Marco confirms it. Who knew? Two Mormons on the ticket?

Peter

[Dennis Hardin]

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.

Gene Healy at reason.com:

"This idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do," Santorum complained to NPR in 2006, "that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues ... that is not how traditional conservatives view the world."

Apparently he has heard rumors that sometimes people put their sexual organs in places other than where God intended.

How long before President Santorum proposes denying federal funds to states that do not have anti-sodomy laws? Or states that legalize prostitution? Or states that do not outlaw or impose strict limitations on pornography?

How about some creative "revenue enhancement" like a sin tax on all contraceptives?

Zealots who believe God has called on them to legislate morality and declare war on sin will let nothing stand in the way of righteousness.

Rick Santorum: American Taliban.

From my prior post of February 19:

"How long before President Santorum proposes denying federal funds to states that do not have anti-sodomy laws? Or states that legalize prostitution? Or states that do not outlaw or impose strict limitations on pornography?"

As it happens, I was far too charitable in my predictions about what we could expect from the "pro-liberty" candidate Rick Santorum:

Rick Santorum wants to ban hard-core pornography

Rick Santorum wants to put an end to the distribution of pornography in the United States.

"America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography," Santorum's official website reads. "Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."

The former Pennsylvania senator states that, "as a parent, I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture."

Santorum criticized the Obama administration for turning "a blind eye ... to the scourge of pornography" and for refusing to enforce obscenity laws.

"If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so," Santorum writes. "While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration."

[Selene]

Dennis:

I saw that yesterday.

It was a really stupid piece of pandering. His value went down considerably in my opinion with that public announcement.

Adam

[J.S. McGowan]

I'm being really lazy here in asking so bluntly (I'm not in the mood to traverse the posts in the election related forums) but:

which presidential candidate/ candidates does the Objectivist community sympathize and support most?

(a little brief explanation as to why would also be appreciated )

[Selene]

I'm being really lazy here in asking so bluntly (I'm not in the mood to traverse the posts in the election related forums) but:

which presidential candidate/ candidates does the Objectivist community sympathize and support most?

(a little brief explanation as to why would also be appreciated )

Jacob:

Predominantly Dr. Ron Paul would be my best guess.

His positions on:

1) cutting Federal spending to balance the budget and roll back the destructive debt disaster;

2) ending the Federal Reserve;

3) ending the wars and returning the troops to the US;

4) eliminating Federal Agencies and Departments;

5) ending regulations;

6) strict adherence to Constitutional protections of individuals rights;

7) strict enforcement of all Constitutional clauses; and

8) a return to the gold standard;

These are basically the positions that I am aware of. There are others of course.

Adam