Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Believe It or Not, Santorum's Surge Is Scary
I've been told that it is way too early to begin showing signs of Rick Santorum derangement syndrome.
A well-meaning reader suggested that even if the Republicans were suicidal enough to hand the former Pennsylvania senator the nomination, his defeat in the general election would dwarf the blowout Barry Goldwater suffered at the hands of Lyndon Baines Johnson.
The argument goes like this: Rick Santorum is such an implacable foe of modernity that casting a vote for him is only possible if one shares his nostalgia for the chauvinism, authoritarianism and unbearable whiteness of the 1950s.
According to this argument, Mr. Santorum is a protest vote writ large across the Republican firmament by grass-roots conservatives repulsed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's malleability and phoniness. It isn't a vote for Mr. Santorum's political theology as much as it is a rejection of the likely apostasy of the Republican frontrunner.
This also happens to be the prevailing view of the pundits toiling daily in newspapers and the cable news commissariat. The assumption that Rick Santorum can't be elected president is axiomatic in the circles I frequent, too. He was a punch line long before he lost his Senate race by 18 points in 2006.
Yet, a mere half dozen years after what should have ended his dreams of ever holding elected office again, Mr. Santorum is poised to steal the Michigan primary from Mr. Romney, although the polls have tightened in recent days.
Many Democrats are salivating over the prospect of an Obama/Santorum showdown in November. The only contest that could possibly make a Democrat happier would be one in which Newt Gingrich or Donald Trump were the Republican nominee.
Ironically, Mitt Romney, the gelatinous Gibraltar of Republican politics, stands the best chance of making the race for the White House competitive among independent voters he has alienated in recent months. After a hard tack to the right, Mr. Romney wouldn't lose an ounce of sleep embracing the middle to beat Mr. Obama in November. It's that kind of mercenary pragmatism that enrages conservatives who value principle over short-term electoral victory.
Because Mr. Romney has residual appeal with independents, Democrats would rather Mr. Obama faced someone with more extremist views -- someone like Rick Santorum. I understand the logic. I just don't buy it.
I think it is irresponsible to underestimate the appeal of a demagogue when so many Americans are suffering and the public mood is so mercurial. All it would take would be a few weeks of $5 a gallon gas and a Democratic electorate demoralized because of some administration misstep to put even the strangest protest candidacy into play.
Mr. Santorum is a principled culture warrior who doesn't believe in evolution, man-made global warming, sex for purposes other than having children, separation of church and state, tax-financed public education (except by Penn Hills of his home-schooled kids), a Constitutional right to privacy, contraception, some forms of prenatal testing, or freedom of conscience if it contradicts his church's edicts or his party platform.
Mr. Santorum would like to see doctors who perform abortions criminally prosecuted. He has said that war with Iran to thwart its nuclear ambitions is in America's best interests, despite the painful lessons of the past decade and the skepticism of our own generals.
If he is elected president, women should expect an administration openly hostile to their interests on a number of fronts. As for "blah people" -- union members and academics -- well, they can just forget it.
The former senator's comments about Mr. Obama's "theology" over the weekend make it clear that his version of environmental stewardship is more about exploiting the earth than respecting it. It is a mentality closer to that of a 19th-century robber baron than someone informed by modern science or concerns about environmental integrity.
So, how did Mr. Santorum make it this far? How is his candidacy even possible in the modern world? Some pundits refer to his "likability" compared to his rivals. What are they talking about? What has he said or done during his surge that paints him in any way as likable?
There's some Rick Santorum derangement syndrome going around all right, but it's not affecting me.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
125 Comments so far
Show All"Mr. Santorum is a principled culture warrior..." I think that pretty much explains his rise in the polls. Santorum's honesty is so overwhelmingly obvious when compared to Romney and Gingrich, that it becomes difficult to not feel queasy when merely thinking of the general smarminess of his two nearest competitors. I have seen very little mention of Santorum's statements in Iowa saying we need to cut social security immediately. That will give the grey-hairs pause.
i agree - of the candidates running santorum is well within the normal range - in a bizarre post fascist amerika kind of way
is he scary - they all are
santorum is like newtie - he has one billionaire backer who keeps him in the race
the gop race is truly one billionaire's blow boy against the other billionaire blow boys
newtie's got sheldon adelson and rickie's got mr freiss
wall street owns the rest including obummer
that's amerikan democracy for ya
the only exception being ron paul who at least wants to stop the wars and end the fed, both of which are good ideas
santorum is a war monger which to me is odd for a mormon but then so is mittens
should either win it would make the third mormon pres in the last 100 years
hoover, nixon and mitts or rickie
i guess its the amish who are pacifists
(on edit - For the sake of clarity, the poster I was responding to, and their post, are now gone.)
As another poster said, "all of them represent a group of corporate interests that are in direct odds with the public interest." You (apparently, hard to tell) disagreed. Now you agree.
You seem pretty confused.
Hoover and Nixon were Quakers, not Mormons.
Thank you.
i apologize - my mistake...
Medmedude -- I concur with your general perspective on Amerikan politics but am a little mystified by your handle on political theology.
Hoover was a Quaker. Richard Nixon was also a Quaker. (The Quakers have some pretty good ideas as Christians go -- but neither of these guys impressed.)
Santorum is an extraordinarily right-wing Catholic. (He would have seen Franco as a bit far to the left.)
Romney is the Mormon and would be the first Mormon to occupy the White House, should he replace the current Wall Street executive.
President Obama is not a Wall St. executive, despite that uninformed nonsense fed the uninformed gullible who are too lazy to inform themselves from reliable sources, or at least learn to distinguish between credible and incredible information.
Here's a real simple lesson in political history and reality:
The vast majority is moderate. The extremes are minorities, and are relegated to the fringes because that is where they belong. We don't elect extremists because it is their view that their minority has the right to dictate to the majority.
Among the extremists:
Santorum.
Ron Paul.
The traditional term for the wingnut -- far-right -- extreme is "lunatic fringe" because it is two things:
1. Lunatic.
2. Fringe.
That fringe includes not only pro-aristocratic wealth Ron Paul and "Libertarianism" but also such as John Birch Society, Storm Front, KKK, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the whole array of anti-gov't zealots who claim to be about defending the Constitution while actually bent on destroying it, some of whom actually insist on the even loonier nonsense that the Constitution authorizes destruction of the Constitution.
Begin by keeping an actual copy of the Constitution -- not from online; until one has read it a few times one won't recognize the lies about it for what they are: lies -- at hand, and actually READING it, and comparing that standard against which politicians -- especially Ron Paul, and Santorum -- say about it. As example, the Commerce Dept. is mandated by the Constitution, so cannot be abolished -- Ron Paul's promise to the gullible that he will do that notwithstanding. (I don't think Paul is lying on the point; I think is ignorant of that fact.)
And, as example, separation of church and state is established by the First Amendment, Santorum's rejection of that separation notwithstanding.
Anyone who asserts views against the Constitution is not suitable for public office, the oath of those attaining such being the promise to uphold the Constitution and laws. They cannot be counted on to uphold those portions of the Constitution they reject.
ok - ok
its obvious that religion is not my major preoccupation
i just think its odd and telling that there are so many out there religious freaks who want to be the president
in santorum's case i guess i was just over dazzled by all those sweater vests. i thought they went out in the 60's...
never mind the mormon quaker thing - i am somewhat sobered by rickie's speech this weekend
"
"Satan has his sights on the United States of America!" Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has declared.
"Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition.""
http://drudgereport.com/flash3s.htm
hmmmmm....
Well Golly-jee, I agree with backward Ricky. I am pretty sure that Satan wears a 3 piece suit and tie and that his temple is Wall Street. I would just add a 4th great vice, greed.
You are a neophyte. One deals with the whole politician, not only those parts of the politician of interest to you, while ignoring the rest.
Santorum rejects separation of church and state, even though that separation is clearly established in the First Amendment, and he would be required to take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and laws.
The WHOLE Constitution, not only those parts of it he doesn't reject.
We are a secular country. We don't elect our representatives, President on down, based upon their religion, and or how they promise to implement that as gov't policy. In fact, if that is what they lead with, as does Santorum, we don't allow them anywhere near public office.
Nor do we elect those who make up the Constitution as they go along, as does Ron Paul -- who also rejects the parts he doesn't like.
Nixon was a Quaker. The Quakers were, and as far as I know, remain pacificists, yet Nixon was a fierce cold warrior. He told Kissinger that he would commit any atrocity necessary to win the Vietnam War. He wanted the Vietnamese to consider him insane and fear him for that. This bunch, including Romney are all crazier than Nixon was, but without Nixon's smarts.
The thought of President Santorum is truly horrifying, and his becoming exactly that is not outside the realm of possibilities. I certainly hope that it horrifies enough Americans enough that they would ensure that it never ever happens.
He told Kissinger that he would commit any atrocity necessary to win the Vietnam War. He wanted the Vietnamese to consider him insane and fear him for that.
_____
SUBSTANTIATE ANY of that.
We knew you couldn't.
I was as opposed to Nixon -- I was a draft-eligible adult at the time -- as much as anyone could be as a pacifist. But I never heard any of that.
That's what happens when one relies on "information" on the Internet without bothering to determine whether the "information" is actually true.
Worse is the perpetuation of it.
You could just look it up. It's actually pretty common knowledge. Here's one link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
Nixon explained the strategy to his White House Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman:
"I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just slip the word to them that, "for God's sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about Communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry—and he has his hand on the nuclear button" and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace."
Ron Paul is a doddering old fool who can't do what he promises -- which his "fans" (since when are those serious about politics as being something other than airhead entertainment "fans"?) would know if they'd READ the Constitution instead of relying on him to tell them about it.
Constitution: CONGRESS shall make the laws. The only power a president has in that regard is either to sign or veto the laws made by Congress. That means a president cannot abolish Federal agencies, which are established by means of Congressional enactments known as _statutes_.
Constitution: the Federal gov't shall regulate interstate commerce. The Constitution isn't implemented directly; it is implemented by means of _statute_. Thus Congress long, long, long ago enacted a statute to establish the Commerce Dept., the Constitutional purpose and responsibility of which is the regulation of interstate commerce.
For the especially dense: the Commerce Dept. is a Constitutionally-mandated department; it cannot be abolished, let alone abolished by the Executive branch.
Only CONGRESS can make, amend, and repeal statutes.
The purpose of the Federal reserve is to establish and maintain a stable economy. What Ron Paul wants is complete deregulation of Wall St. -- he blames gov't regulation for the bailout, rather than the deregulation of that which was criminal, which thus allowed Wall St. to legally rip of the taxpayer -- and for the entire economy to fluctuate minute-to-minute with the unstable stock market.
Read up on Weimar Germany.
Ending the Fed is STUPID, and based upon total ignorance of the purpose of the Fed.
Stupidity supports Ron Paul. And on what basis? Because he's a medical doctor -- which does not impart competence outside medicine, in such as economics or law. (His political expropriation of law mangles and subverts the law.)
Moreover, he is all for liberty for everyone -- except those insufficiently white. And he opposes abortion, though he says a woman subjected to an "honest rape" could go to an emergency room -- he says nothing of who will pay for it -- and get a shot of estrogen.
Is he actually a medical doctor? A shot of estrogen will not abort a pregnancy.
The young who know nothing, and fools, support Ron Paul, without the least knowledge of history, or the consequences of implementation of his lunatic fringe views. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the eventuation of history, not a "liberal" "conspiracy" against private property ownership. It did much to put a stop to a long history of lynchings of blacks by whites. It is opposed by white racists who want their "right" to lynch darkies to be restored to them.
What amazes is that those who imagine themselves leftists would actually express support for a loon from the far, far, far RIGHT.
Ron Paul wants to stop wars? He also wants to stop all foreign aid -- which would end all means of coercion short of war. Is that smart? No: it is blatantly stupid because it would result in MORE wars.
Paul's pie-in-the-sky nonsense is only applicable if one wants to run a world that exists only as fantasy. The real world is a whole other game of marbles; and Paul lost his marbles long ago, if he ever had any in the first place.
santorum is a war monger which to me is odd for a mormon but then so is mittens
_____
Santorum is a CATHOLIC, NOT a "mormon".
That's what frightens me: those who aren't dry behind the ears, but are old enough to vote, getting all their "information" from the Internet, without a standard of truth against which to compare and contrast that "information".
We all know -- from the Internet -- that the purpose of the militia is to "resist gov't tyranny". What the Internet doesn't tell you -- nor, especially, do wingnut politicians and other anti-Founders -- is what's actually in the Constitution on that point:
Art. I., S. 8, C. 15. The Congress (NOT the private citizen) shall have Power to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute (enforce the laws, which include the Constitution), (and) SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
Art. I., S. 8, C. 16. The Congress (NOT the private citizen) shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining the Militia, . . . reserving to the States respectively, (ONLY) the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.
Constitution: CONGRESS shall make the laws -- in the form of _statutes_, by means of which Constitutional provisions are implemented.
The arrangement is the same on the state level: the commander-in-chief of your state's militia is your state's elected governor. I don't think it is necessary to point out that the governor is not going to "defend against" his own gov't.
And when the militia is Federalized, the Commander-in-Chief is the President. Is he going to "defend against" himself?
The "revolution" of which Jefferson spoke is at the ballot box, in lobbying the legislature, and in taking conflicts to the judiciary for resolution.
Last but not least: the assertion that the militia consists of all white males (and or women) between the ages of 16 and 45 is not a draft notice. All that does is stipulate who is ELIGIBLE to do militia DUTY. And there are only two ways to become a "member" of the militia: either by enlisting, or by being drafted.
Militia DUTY is not a "right"; it is a DUTY.
Santorum is a principled culture warrior? He is as principled as Romney: he'll say anything to the wingnuts to get votes. That's the extent of his principle.
He has no principle when it concerns knowing and relying on evidenced science. No principle, in short, as concerns giving truth primacy over a "theology" which is as backwards as his miniscule "base" of supporters.
They demagogue I fear more than he is Romney. Not because he necessarily has a chance of being elected -- he is seen by everyone as appealing to everyone and no one -- but because those who don't pay any attention to politics and current events until the last minute won't have a clue as to his history during the campaign, so are all the more liely to fall for his "I'll say anything to get votes".
And what I fear most are two things:
1. The Republican state legislatures' deliberate disenfranchisement of voters perceived to be pro-Democratic.
2. The election being so overwhelmed by bought-and-paid for lies that most of the electorate, which doesn't pay attention to politics and current events, falls for them and votes for the liar with the biggest pool of money for that purpose.
Santorum's theology remark is the one that still has me reeling. The only parallel to it I can come up with is when Glenn Beck villified Liberation Theology at his otherwise religiously enclusive Washington rally 18 months ago. As an atheist, who lives a moral and purposeful life, all religion is one form or other of a human made construct, which, if stacked up against some concept of "Truth" all end up as "phoney theology". For me theology is by definition "phoney". Now usefulness and function are very real, and can studied, and I know which side I can work with politically; years of Central America solidarity work showed me that.
Plucking daisy petals: ten - nine - eight - seven - six
I am not so sure if any of them including Obama are elected that the world is going to change in a meaningful way for the rest of us. Women will still be confined to auxilliary minor roles, if Israel wants a war with Iran we'll have one. The price of gas will be allowed to escalate whenever the princes of finance feel like it should. Our individual civil rights will all continued to erode. As long as money equals speech, nothing will change no matter which party is in office, because in the end they all work for the same "boss".
I wish these authors would begin by stating that a vote for any Republican or Obama will spell trouble for the American people. I really don't find Donald Trump (the poorest man in America!) any more repulsive than Obama, Santorum, Mitt or Newt. All of them represent a group of corporate interests that are in direct odds with the public interest, yet authors such as Tony Norman contribute to the problem by framing every election within the context of a Republican versus a Democrat. I find the use of the word 'Independent' especially insulting as Tony Norman frames this entire group as a bunch of people sitting on the fence deciding which corporate candidate they will ultimately throw their support behind. I would rather see an author state that "independents are generally disgusted by the corporate allegiance all candidates have blatantly shown in the election and are frustrated that none of the candidates representing the 99% will appear on the ballot yet again this November" instead of this alleged frustration at deciding between which candidate better represent our hopes and aspirations.
jars the mule opines: "wow. deep, dude." Your less than enlightened commentary is about as deep as that overused word which so many Americans like yourself are fond of using and that, of course, would be that vacuous and banal word called "dude".
jars the mule inquires: "what do vacuous and banal mean?"
Ah, yes, another shining example of the success of the American educational school system. I suggest that if you do not know the meaning of the words that I had written, then it might be worth your time to avail yourself of a good dictionary which would, to borrow from your word, enlighten you as to their meaning, such as The American Heritage Dictionary
Dude, that is so last week. Use the Google Dictionary App.
Comparison finds that the "American Heritage" is more conservative than "Webster's".
Sorry, dude, I actually use several dictionaries, some specific to fields of knowledge, and have for decades.
I also supplement that with recourse to encyclopaedia. And substantive sources relevant to whatever the field.
Very, very, very few of those sources are online, because very little online can be trusted as reliable. Too much of it is made up by pinhead anti-intellectuals and their dupes, which latter perpetuate the garbage.
The problem with "Common Dreams" is not the articles; they are accurate and informative because usually written by those competent in the areas on which they are commenting. The problem is the sucking up of it by those who have no knowledge of context, no framework, no knowledge of political history by means of which to gain perspective on what they're reading.
So they adopt the usual cliched name-callings against everyone mainstream -- "mainstream" is representative of the majority, because the mainstream is the majority -- and promise to vote for one or another lunatic fringer as "alternative" to the mainstream. One doesn't change the mainstream by avoiding it.
The best alternative -- and those who know history know this -- in this election is President Obama. And old saw is correct on this point: he who stands for nothing will fall for anything.
Stand for truth, and inform yourself from reliable sources. Little online is reliable, especially when unsourced so one can't trace it back to wherever it may or may not have come from.
The country is far dumber today than ever before because religious belief has grown by leaps and bounds as has the corruption of the political and economic system. Blind support for Israel will lead inevitably to war with Iran driving oil prices through the roof which will make more people turn to the only alternative within the rotten two party system which coupled with the suppression of the black and minority vote could well mean that the idiot Santorum could win. There is an increasing possibility of a third party which will certainly be another variarion of the two right wing parties that exist now and it is too early to predict what effect this would have on the election.
Let it all out. You know you want to.
The country is far dumber today than ever before
_____
Substantiate.
We knew you couldn't.
It's exactly that sort of unsupported assertion and the perpetuation of same that is accomplishing the dumbing down.
And we know you aren't an expert in the history of education in the US.
And "thalidomide" -- some of us actually remember that scandal -- is not a word to be used lightly.
If only Tony Norman could have seen fit to have written this as his headline:
"Believe it or not, electing either a Democrat or a Republican would be scary for this country"
But alas, that was not done. For Tony Norman to write that headline would then mean that he would be skeptical of the two major parties who rule over this country and that is something that a member of the corporate media is most loath to do.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Were that you know history, instead of hysterical infotainment crap swallowed from the Internet. President Obama is the change; you just don't know the difference.
Let us know when you're old enough to wear diapers.
The oligarchy sacrificed the republican show to achieve their objectives and now has the democrat show firmly in hand to continue on. The remaining function of the scraps and tatters of the republican show is to assure that the Obama machine stays in control. It's kabuki. A replacement cast of viable republicans is waiting in the wings for the 2016 act.
Absolutely right. Obama has sold torture, the police state, and an aggressive, amoral militarism to self-described "anti-war" liberals with a success even the most skeptical of us would have been reluctant to predict 4 years ago. Democrats have proven that the lives of non-Americans mean as little to them as they do to Republicans.
Yes, The plan was laid some time ago. It is just for show to maintain the allusion that voting matters.
Yeah. Sure. For certain. It's all a conspiracy, even though the evidence for it must also be lied into being.
Excellent post. And I think in the current act of kabuki theater the oligarchs are actually having a little fun too... how utterly ridiculous can we make the repub clowns and still have voters and pundits alike take them seriously. Maybe in 2016 they'll have an actual elephant as a candidate!
I had not previously realized how much Santorum and Obama had in common.
The main difference between them (and I suspect this is true of the rest of the candidates) is (possibly) on matters involving sex and religion, but even on these matters, I do not think Obama is a great deal different.
None of the corporate candidates believe in global warming, none of them want to fund public education, none of them want equal justice or even Habeas Corpus, and none of them want less militarization.
Santorum is, in his own stated devotion to hypocrisy and sadistic manipulation, more honest than the rest of the candidates, especially Obama.
Voting for ANY corporate-owned candidate (and all of these frauds are) is the same as voting for most of what Santorum wants.
So, ridicule the mouthpiece as a way of feeling superior, but if you vote for any of these creeps, YOU are the biggest hypocrite.
"All we have to FEAR is fear itself" has become All we have is fear, greed, and an ever-growing arsenal.
Since my wife has Parkinson's disease, the only thing that I will concede that Obama has done that was laudable was to sign the Stem Cell Research bill. Other than that, there is, as you point out,no reason to vote for either a Democrat or a Republican.
"Erroll"
I am sorry to hear about your wife and I hope that Stem Cell research will help.
I also have no reason to believe that Obama signed that bill for the same reasons for which you wanted it signed. Maybe the reasons are the same, but his love of corporate profits (his and theirs) will always be in the back of my suspicions about his motives.
I truly wish you well.
Birdbrain Alley...
You very well may be right concerning the reasons why Obama signed the Stem Cell Research bill. But certainly neither my wife nor myself are going to quibble over that by examining in minute detail why he decided to sign that bill. To us, the reasons are relatively unimportant. What is much more important is that, for whatever reason, he did, in fact, put his name on that bill.
But as I mentioned before and to again emphasize, what Obama did does not in any way obviate what he has done both domestically and overseas which is why I will, in all likelihood, be voting for the socialist candidate Stewart Alexander.
I did not and will not vote for B. Obomber or any of the republican clowns seeking to be the POTUSoA. Tricky Dick Nixon looks good compared to this duopoly of charlatans.
Unfortunately, in the US you realistically have a choice only between the Republicans and the Democrats.
Although both parties are corporate owned and corrupt, the Democrats are marginally less insane than the Democrats. To say that both parties are equally bad is not true. For example, I believe that there was a great difference between Al Gore, who was very intelligent, rational and well informed, and George W. Bush, who was none of these things.
I think the Obama is similarly, far more informed and rational than any of the Republican candidates, and although he is a corporate hack, as is almost every politician in the US, he is less likely to do something truly stupid and disasterous, such as launch a war against Iran, than the Republican are.
A third party candidate has no chance of being elected, except for Bernie Sanders in Vermont, so voting for a third party candidate in this election will be the equivalent to voting for a Republican. A Republican victory would be the final nail in the coffin for American democracy.
The group that claims to be fire fighters is not necessarily better than the arsonists, when they rarely put out fires, fail to investigate arson, take kickbacks from the arsonists, are caught setting a few fires themselves, and viciously suppress any other efforts by any other group to put out fires.
No, they are not better, they are not the "lesser of two evils," they are not "marginally less insane." They are much worse, they are the greater evil, and buying into their deception can definitely cause some pretty insane thinking.
I can't help but read this as another "team player" Democrat hoping for a weaker team for Team Obama to play against in the big game so he can celebrate another Pyrrhic victory.
Writers like this should consider discussing issues instead of politics for a change, but my sense is that issues aren't really all that important to them, except as a factor in their team's ranking. They love having a Republican spouting racist, homophobic religious nonsense because it takes Obama's policies off the table.
The Republicans have put forward a group of very weak candidates. Obama didn't tell the Republicans to do that, they did it all by themselves. How is saying that being a "team player" for Obama? it seems to me it's just stating the facts.
Here's the first paragraph of James Kunstler's blog entry of yesterday:
"The misalignment of politics and reality threatens to scuttle both major parties, but it's especially gratifying to see the Republicans sail off the edge of their own flat earth on the winds of religious idiocy. For forty years it has not been enough for them to just be a conservative party. They had to enlist the worst elements of ignorance and reaction, and they found an endless supply of it in the boom regions of the Sunbelt with its brotherhood of TV evangelist con-artists and a population fretful with suburban angst."
Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, an exhibition of political depravity.
As for Paul, he is political incoherence incarnate.
Obama, front man of the corporate and military cartels.
It's even worse Mr. Norman; andI think the article is great. You state with respect to Mr. Santorum , "It is a mentality closer to that of a 19th-century robber baron ". Robber barons raped the earth for mere profit. Mr. Santorum would do as part of his biblical view of things, a Christian mandate to go forth and have dominion over the earth. After all, no ill can come of it because God would never let it happen (until of course it is time for the Rapture and Armageddon).
What must the rest of the world be thinking of the United States when we seriously consider such people for our leaders?
"chuckdk"
Look at US actions regarding Israel. Santorum and Obama are on the same page and it is the the same for all of the worshippers of the religion of so-called Free Market Economics, which has replaced the Constitution of the USA.
To the vast majority of corporate-owned Washington, the rest of the world is just resources to be used for monetary profits. They don't even really care about anyone in this nation who isn't rich.
Santorum is a fascist and given the dumbed-down electorate, the Weimar-like conditions, and a press ready to paint him as a "working class guy with a "rags to riches" story along with unlimited corporate lucre, we should fear his rise.
I don't like Obama and his deadly police state but he has yet to round us up for slaughter. While I can't bring myself to vote for him, I will speak out against the danger of the extreme right. We all must.
What is vital in this election is Congress and state legislatures. We have to clean house and get the extreme right out.
Now there is a ringing endorsement for Obama!
"He has yet to round us up for slaughter!"
Wonder if the Democrats will use that as a slogan?