GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 4

[MrsSpringsteen]

About that whole Woodstock (yeah, he's stuck in some time warp machine) orgy thing..Rick seems waaay more obsessed with sex than the average Democrat.



Rick Santorum on Sunday took on of separation of church and state.

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute," he told 'This Week' host George Stephanopoulos. "The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country...to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up."

The GOP candidate was responding to comments he made last October. He had said that he "almost threw up" after reading JFK's 1960 speech in which he declared his commitment to the separation of church and state.

Santorum also on Sunday told Meet The Press host David Gregory that separation of church and state was "not the founders' vision."




Rick Santorum took a swipe at the president's higher education push on Saturday.

"President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college," Santorum said. "What a snob.”

The GOP candidate was speaking to a crowd of Tea Party activists in Troy, Michigan.

“Not all folks are gifted in the same way,” he explained. “Some people have incredible gifts with their hands...there are good decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor trying to indoctrinate them. Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image. I want to create jobs so people can remake their children into their image, not his."

His comments echoed remarks he made on Friday, calling colleges "indoctrination mills."

As the Washington Post points out, Santorum's criticisms are curious considering his three advanced degrees. He holds a Bachelor's, a law degree and an M.B.A.

 

[Pearl]

"I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state are absolute," he told 'This Week' host George Stephanopoulos. "The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country...to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up."

How do you think I feel, Rick? I'm eating lunch now and you say that?

 

[BVS]

This is really embarrassing for the GOP.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Is Rick Santorum a Democratic operative in deep cover?

This guy is going to provide reams of Democratic talking points for this election and the subsequent midterms.

 

[PhilsFan]

I go to the same university that Rick Santorum did.

 

[Canadiens1131]

It seems like he liked your indoctrination mill so much,, he decided to keep going back for a couple more degrees!

 

[PhilsFan]

I do enjoy the irony that he hates libertarianism. He wants the government up in your business, and has stated this multiple times.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

"The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country...to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up."

1. Most people aren't saying that.
2. Funny, I could say the same thing about his views.

"President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college," Santorum said. "What a snob.”

The GOP candidate was speaking to a crowd of Tea Party activists in Troy, Michigan.

“Not all folks are gifted in the same way,” he explained. “Some people have incredible gifts with their hands...there are good decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor trying to indoctrinate them. Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image. I want to create jobs so people can remake their children into their image, not his."

Um, what?

O-kay.

 

[digitize]

I'm torn. Should I vote for this guy in the Texas primary? It's not like my vote will actually matter. But I know he will almost certainly be flattened against Obama... and it's also scary to have him that close to the presidency. Choices...

 

[anitram]

...to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up."

Nobody is saying that.

He's unbelievably offensive. I hope he wins on Tuesday.

 

[U2DMfan]

I do enjoy the irony that he hates libertarianism. He wants the government up in your business, and has stated this multiple times.

He's downright antagonistic with Ron Paul in debates. Right at a time when most young conservatives and center-right-moderates are moving towards libertarianism, the GOP is turning to classic Reagan/Bush authoritarians.

IMO, it's because Ron Paul's hard views on entitlements (which even most GOP'ers want) and isolationist foreign policy (which makes no good sense) are giving general libertarianism a bad image.

I like Ron Paul just for being a thorn in the side of the establishment, but he doesn't always help the cause.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I loved it when Ron Paul called Santorum a fake

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

the gift that keeps on giving

 

[U2DMfan]

I loved it when Ron Paul called Santorum a fake

I saw him on Meet the Press for about ten minutes yesterday.
It was long enough to hear him speak about the ills of Big Government.
And returning to "Limited Government".

I don't think he's fake. I don't even think he's dishonest. I think he's like many of his colleagues. He's a follower of a deluded 'religion'. Not speaking about his Christianity but the religion of modern day Republicanism.

Which is Big Government acting as "Limited Government", and actually believing it is true. They've been raised in the hyper-partisan bullshit paradigm and the talking points have gone from (their origin as) 'political tools' to win elections, to somehow becoming truth. I think they actually believe this shit. And by "they" I mean at least some of them.

 

[yolland]

He had said that he "almost threw up" after reading JFK's 1960 speech in which he declared his commitment to the separation of church and state.

Watch it and vomit:
Houston, Sept. 12 1960
Andrew Sullivan had an interesting blog entry today analyzing Santorum as the culmination of 30 years of Christian Right influence on American conservatism--and making a case for Santorum as the GOP nominee:

What's fascinating to me about Santorum's outburst yesterday was not its content, but its candor. In fact, one of Santorum's advantages in this race, especially against Romney, is that we can see exactly where he stands. There can be no absolute separation of church and state, let alone a desire to keep it so; and in their necessary interactions, the church must always prevail, or it is a violation of the First Amendment, and an attack on religious freedom.

The church's teachings are also, according to theoconservatism, integral to the founding of the United States. Since constitutional rights are endowed from the Creator, and the Creator is the Judeo-Christian one, the notion of a neutral public square, embraced by liberals and those once called conservatives, is an attack on America. America is a special nation because of this unique founding on the Judeo-Christian God. It must therefore always be guided by God's will, and that will is self-evident to anyone, Catholic or Protestant, atheist or Mormon, Jew or Muslim, from natural law. Hence the notion that America could countenance abortion or same-sex marriage is anathema to Santorum and to theoconservatism. It can only be explained as the work of Satan, so alien is it to the principles of Judeo-Christian America. Hence the resort to constitutional amendments to ban both: total resolutions of these issues for ever must reflect what theocons believe was in the Founders' hearts and minds.

This has long been the theocon argument; it was the crux of what I identified as the core Republican problem in "The Conservative Soul". It is not social conservatism, as lazy pundits call it. It is a radical theocratically-based attack on modern liberal democracy, and on modernity as a whole. It would conserve nothing. It would require massive social upheaval, for example, to criminalize all abortion or keep all gay couples from having any publicly acknowledged rights or status. Then think of trying to get women back out of the workplace or contraception banned--natural, logical steps from this way of thinking. This massive change is radical, not conservative. It regards the evolution of American society these past few decades as literally the work of the Father of Lies, not the aggregate reflection of a changing society. It is at its essence a neo-Francoite version of America, an America that was not the pinnacle of Enlightenment thought, but an America designed to destroy what the theocons regard as the catastrophe of the Enlightenment.

PM Carpenter is right to note...that "Kennedy was emphasizing an institutional separation; he never denied that his conscience was influenced by his faith." But to say that Santorum is attacking a chimera is unfair to both men. Yes, of course, Kennedy's conscience was informed by his faith; how could it not be? But what Kennedy asserted was that his public pronouncements would be defended by non-sectarian reason, devoid of explicit religious content. Moral content--yes. Religious content--no. Which is why I have long found Obama's occasional digression into defending, say, universal healthcare by invoking Jesus as depressingly part of the problem. Money Kennedy quote:

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.​

This is an explicit public denial that this country is a Christian nation. It is a reaffirmation that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." The most important feature of today's GOP--and the fundamental reason I have long abandoned it--stands foursquare against that idea. Moreover, in its fusion of explicit religion and explicit politics, it is itself, in my view, an attack on America--and the possibility of a civil republic. Its religious absolutism is the core underpinning of this country's polarization--because when religion becomes politics, negotiation and compromise become impossible. Bring God into it, and a political conversation must become a culture war.

Note this too from Kennedy:

I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.​

This is a defense of private conscience as the core bulwark of religious life--emanating from the Second Vatican Council. And that too is what today's radical GOP is attacking. For Santorum, as for Ratzinger, if your conscience says one thing, and the Pope says another, you obey the Pope, not your conscience. And for the Christianists, if your conscience or intelligence says one thing, and the Bible says another, you obey the Bible, not your conscience, and certainly not your intelligence. Because beneath Christianism is a deep fear of the human mind--as if they actually believe that reason is stronger than religion and therefore must be restrained. As if the human mind can will God out of existence. This is Santorum's fear-laden vision. Which is why he is not a man of questioning, sincere faith and should not be flattered as such. He is a man of the kind of fear that leads to fundamentalist faith, a faith without doubt and in complete subservience to external authority. There is a reason he doesn't want many kids to go to college. I mean: when we already know the truth, why bother to keep seeking it? And if we already know the truth, why are we not enforcing it as a matter of law in a country founded on Christian principles? It is not religious oppression if it is "the way things are supposed to be", by natural law. In fact, a neutral public square, in his mind, is itself religious oppression.

We can also see here the collision of the Second Vatican Council and the current hierarchy. Kennedy was a Catholic of another era, unafraid of modernity, interested in other paths to God, publicly humble and cheerful, privately devout and deeply connected to others of all faiths and none. Santorum is of a different kind: authoritarian, deeply suspicious of freedom when it leads to disobedience of the Papacy's diktats, and publicly embracing a religious identity as his core political one.

I am relieved he is at least candid. For now we can see in plain view the religious fanaticism that has destroyed one of the major parties in this country, a destruction that is perilous for any workable politics. It must be defeated--and not by electing a plastic liar and panderer like Romney. But by nominating Santorum and defeating him by such a margin that this theo-political Frankenstein, which threatens both genuine faith and civil politics, is dispatched once and for all.

I don't share Sullivan's confidence that defeat "by such a margin" is an inevitability were Santorum to be the nominee, and most days of late my feeling is I'd rather have the Fake Plastic (Mormon) Liar than take the chance--and there is a chance; look at the unnerving inconclusiveness in the latest national polls--on Santorum becoming President. Absolute convictions, no matter how extreme, can seem very appealing when voter disaffection and anxiety are running as high as they are now.

 

[deep]

yes, I was fairly young in 1980, but most Dems felt pretty good about right-wing Reagan getting the nomination over the more moderate Bush

and even in 2008, Limbaugh and his ilk were pushing Obama over Hillary, even going so far as to urge GOP to go to the polls in open primaries and vote for Obama.

In all truth, the GOP nominee is guaranteed to come in first or second, so having the best nominee for the whole country should be the desired outcome.

 

[deep]

whatever Santorum ends up with in Michigan tomorrow
you can bet many of the people that vote for him will be voting for Obama in Nov.

Rick Santorum courts votes from Michigan Democrats | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

[cobl04]

 

[BVS]

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

i hadn't thought of that comic in forever, because it's my dad's favourite, which has always amused me because my dad's republican (or so he says).

 

[BoMac]

Great news! Romney got the all-important Kid Rock endorsement!

 

[diamond]

Romney and Lenny Kravitz ?

Redirect Notice

 

[corianderstem]

That is faulty comic logic.

The pursuit of the orgasm leads women to buy vibrators, which leads to zero abortions.

Although that probably just makes us sluts. Shameful.

 

[BVS]

Romney and Lenny Kravitz ?

Redirect Notice

Someone's trying to get street cred...

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

That's what I was thinking, doesn't Santorum even get the context of that Kennedy speech?

WASHINGTON — Newt Gingrich disagrees with Rick Santorum's harsh criticism of the famous speech on religion that John F. Kennedy delivered as he campaigned to become the nation's first Roman Catholic president.

Gingrich and Santorum, each a Catholic seeking the GOP nomination, view Kennedy's words differently. Santorum says he felt sick after reading Kennedy's 1960 speech and believes it advocated absolute separation of church and state.

Gingrich calls it a "remarkable speech." He told Fox News Channel on Tuesday that Kennedy was reassuring voters that he wouldn't obey any foreign religious leader. Gingrich said Kennedy was declaring "that his first duty as president would be to do the job of president, and I think that's correct."

Gingrich does share Santorum's position on President Barack Obama, however. Gingrich said Obama's administration is "anti-religious."

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Romney and Lenny Kravitz ?

I think they just happened to be at Daytona at the same time, don't think Lenny is endorsing Mitt. I doubt Mitt even knew who he was.

Did Mitt cause that explosion, fire..whatever it was? He probably had too much product in his hair and got too close to some sparks or a gas tank or something.

Any dogs strapped on top of any of those cars?

 

[U2DMfan]

....so having the best nominee for the whole country should be the desired outcome.

IMO, that's irrelevant, deep.

So let's accept the conventional wisdom, that despite selling his soul to get what he wants (the Rep nomination) that Romney - at his core- is genuinely "moderate" and would be more digestible to most of American than the others.

His agenda will still be dictated by the establishment in the Congress.
Look at what happened to GHW Bush when he thumbed his nose at them.
Pat Buchanan ran against the sitting President and did well for awhile, winning about 25% of the overall vote. That arguably hurt GHWB that November.
The Liberal Ted Kennedy wing did the same to Carter in 1980. And in both cases the sitting President was not re-elected. Gerald Ford was the sitting President in 1976, he was challenged by Reagan and lost to Carter.

The moral to the story is, I think Presidents will do anything they can to avoid those kind of large fissures in the party. And Romney would obviously always want to be re-elected in 2016. He would govern just like the rest of them. When it gets right down to the practical matter, there is no difference between those three candidates as to the real effect on the country in 2013.

The biggest distinction for Obama supporters is getting (or hoping for) the least digestible Republican candidate in November. If you want Obama to win, you should hope it is someone other than Romney. That's my view.

 

[diamond]

IMO, that's irrelevant, deep.

So let's accept the conventional wisdom, that despite selling his soul to get what he wants (the Rep nomination) that Romney - at his core- is genuinely "moderate" and would be more digestible to most of American than the others.

His agenda will still be dictated by the establishment in the Congress.
Look at what happened to GHW Bush when he thumbed his nose at them.
Pat Buchanan ran against the sitting President and did well for awhile, winning about 25% of the overall vote. That arguably hurt GHWB that November.
The Liberal Ted Kennedy wing did the same to Carter in 1980. And in both cases the sitting President was not re-elected. Gerald Ford was the sitting President in 1976, he was challenged by Reagan and lost to Carter.

The moral to the story is, I think Presidents will do anything they can to avoid those kind of large fissures in the party. And Romney would obviously always want to be re-elected in 2016. He would govern just like the rest of them. When it gets right down to the practical matter, there is no difference between those three candidates as to the real effect on the country in 2013.

The biggest distinction for Obama supporters is getting (or hoping for) the least digestible Republican candidate in November. If you want Obama to win, you should hope it is someone other than Romney. That's my view.

I think the landscape has changed so much you can't use old models. All those comparisons were relevant up until the Cold War ended w Reagan.
We now find ourselves in many more gray areas where there are no simple answers.

I see Mitt being savvy the same way Bill Clinton was savvy in working w the opposing political party if he is to get elected POTUS.


Mitt is fit for office, those w sweater vests, cellulite, or attitudes need not apply.

<>

 

[BVS]

Mitt is fit for office, those w sweater vests, cellulite, or attitudes need not apply.

<>

I just get the feeling that very few in your party really believe this. He's the alternative to Obama, but that's about it for most Republicans. He's the John Kerry of the GOP.

 

[diamond]

I just get the feeling that very few in your party really believe this. He's the alternative to Obama, but that's about it for most Republicans. He's the John Kerry of the GOP.

No, Mitt is honorable, faithful to wife family and country.
Mitt made his own money - didn't marry it.
Mitt is no John Kerry.

Try again.

<>