Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Compendium of The Goofiest Things That Rick Santorum Has Said So Far...
And why they make him unelectable
If a recent poll is accurate, Rick Santorum is now the top dog of the Republican pack with 38% approval amongst GOP voters nationwide in contrast to 23% for Mitt Romney, 17% for Newt Gingrich, and 13% for Ron Paul. Whether Santorum can maintain this lead is another matter. Until now, the former Pennsylvania senator has not endured the kind of media scrutiny that Romney and Gingrich have received, although this is beginning to change.
The grandson of an immigrant coal-miner, Santorum employs the somewhat dorky appeal of his sweater vests and earnest man-of-the-people manner to attract blue-collar Republicans, who are put off by Romney’s patrician stiffness. But Santorum’s Mister Rogers looks belie a demagogic social message which makes even Newt appear like a pillar of reasonableness and moderation."Everybody is guilty of some transgression somewhere against conservatism,” Rush Limbaugh has observed, “except Santorum."
But the views that make Santorum a favorite of the controversial radio host may not endear him to the majority of voters. In playing to the fears and resentments of some Americans, the candidate has felt free to routinely offend most of the rest... women for example.
Responding earlier this month to a Pentagon announcement relaxing the ban on women serving in combat, Rick Santorum said that he was concerned because “of other types of emotions that are involved.” Wait a second, does he mean that women are too emotional, or who knows tenderhearted, to be trusted with guns and other emblems of macho power?
No, that’s not what he was saying, Santorum clarified in an interview with ABC News. It isn’t woman’s emotions that he’s worried about, but men’s: “My concern is that being in combat in that situation, instead of being focused on the mission, they might be more concerned about protecting a woman in a vulnerable position.”
Right, the protective instinct that soldiers don’t feel for other guys in their unit, God forbid, but only for members of the weaker sex-- got ya! But wait, Santorum felt impelled to stick the proverbial foot still further in mouth with an assurance to Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin that, “It’s not a matter of not putting women in dangerous roles.” For example, women are “fully capable of flying small planes.”
Wow, that’s a relief, small planes are OK. What about helicopters, Rick? The B-1B bomber?
On the environmental front, Santorum called anti-fracking activists, (the people who don’t want methane gas to explode from your tap every time you turn it on) a “reign of environmental terror.” Ouch! What he neglected to mention is that-- as Salon reported on Monday-- senator Santorum was one of the top recipients of drilling company largesse, and he continues to rake in the big oil bucks in his campaign for the Republican nomination.
Flying in the face of the nearly unanimous scientific consensus on the manmade causes of climate change, Santorum has repeatedly dismissed global warming as a “liberal myth,” “bogus,” and “a hoax.”
“One of the favorite things of the left is to use your sentimentality, and your proper understanding and belief that we are stewards of this earth and we have a responsibility to hand off a beautiful earth to the next generation.” Santorum opined. “They use that and they have used it in the past to try to scare you into supporting radical ideas on the environment. They tried it with this idea, this politicization of science called man-made global warming... I stood up and fought against those things. Why? because they will destroy the very foundation of prosperity in our country.”
Well, that certainly sets the record straight! Those Bible verses advocating stewardship in the Book of Genesis and elsewhere were anti-capitalist agitprop all along. No doubt Santorum’s evangelical supporters will be relieved to learn that God never really intended for us to love and care for the world, but only to maximize corporate profits.
And while we’re on the subject of religion, Rick Santorum made an odd comment about the Crusades during a campaign stop in South Carolina: "The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom... What I'm talking about is onward American soldiers. What we're talking about are core American values."
Now there’s something we haven’t heard from a politician in a while-- a forthright defense of the Crusades, those bloody and ultimately quixotic campaigns of medieval armies to take back the Holy Land from the “infidels” (read Moslems and Jews.) Any thoughts on the Inquisition Rick?
Santorum prides himself on being a defender of religious values. Commenting on president Obama’s idea that insurers should cover the costs of contraception, the candidate predicted ominously: “What’s left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that, but if we do and follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.”
Whether Obama will “crush religion,” as Santorum darkly warns, and push for the decapitation of opponents of contraception is yet to be seen. But there are some folks that the Republican hopeful himself might wish to behead (or maybe castrate is more to the point.) That’s right gay people, whose sexuality Rick Santorum has famously compared to bestiality, “You know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.”
Not that Santorum has anything against homosexuals, mind you. "Is anyone saying same-sex couples can't love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?"
Well, heck no Rick-- not unless you have been having a kinkier relationship with your mother-in-law than you’ve been letting on.
Gays are not the only minority group that Santorum has got a beef with. "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money,” the candidate declared. “I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money." Strange that he should single out blacks when poor whites far outnumber people of color on the Welfare and Food Stamp rolls. But, hey, let’s not confuse ourselves with facts.
And it is not just blacks and their predilection for mooching off white people to achieve better lives that irritate Rick Santorum, it’s the whole disorderly mess of American cultural diversity. “Diversity creates conflict. If we celebrate diversity, we create conflict.”
But wait-- isn’t diversity what America is all about-- you know, land of immigrants, religious liberty, the melting pot, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free? But apparently not. Rick Santorum’s America is tribe comprised of white, heterosexual, Christian (but not Mormon) males, whose bigotries he skillfully exploits.
That exclusivity might present a problem for him at the polls. If you add up all of the non-Christians, the 99% of woman who use contraceptives, the blacks, the browns, the poor, the recent immigrants, the gays, the tree huggers-- all of the assorted Americans who Rick Santorum does not approve of-- that is one heck of a lot of folks who likely wouldn’t vote for him, even if Rush Limbaugh’s man succeeds in winning the Republican presidential nomination in August.
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...
47 Comments so far
Show All"You go, boy" and while your at it scrap that eyesore off the Jersey coast, copper prices are good now. Lets face it even the Liebrals don't want no wretched huddled masses living on Martha's Vineyard!
RP4-PRZ
The GOP was finished in '08 -- they are at the bottom of the barrel as we can well
see.Obama finished off the Democratic Party and I don't see any elected Democrats or Democratic Party officials complaining about what he did --
So -- let's move on -- that's the message of OWS -- i.e., both parties are finished. Both parties are at the bottom of their barrels or so corrupted as to be only capable of further corrupting government.
This is a liberal nation. We need to move this huge liberal voting bloc in the direction of a LIBERAL THIRD PARTY -- GREEN PARTY.
Voting for the "lesser evil" only moves the Democatic Party and the Congress further to the right. We need to turn things around and not give any further opportunity to either party to move to the right.
WAKE UP, AMERICA!!
The GOP was almost finished in 08, but Obama nursed it back to life so that he could achieve his goal of being the bipartisan President; and now he whines that the Republicans are preventing him from doing the things that should be done. When the Republicans win, they sweep every last Democrat out of goverment that they can.
Obama had the chance to apply the coup de grace but he lacked the will or the balls to do it. He is truly the General George B. McClellan of Presidents.
So i guess this author thinks Bush was elected? Geez. If Santorum is selected by the PTB to be president, he'll win, voters be damned.
ouch! rickie does shine an ugly spotlight on the gop and its current offerings of presidential candidates
let's not forget the ponies who came up lame at the first clubhouse turn - mr cain and ms obachman
no crazy list would be complete without them
thank god in heaven we got palin keeping an eye on them russian commies from her back porch - shotgun on her lap and a still bloody set of deer antlers at her feet watching the "first dude" todd race his snowmobile around the back yard
people seem to have forgotten that rickie was elected in 2006 as one of the most corrupt senaotrs in the country (probably not the kind of win he was looking for) - and that is saying something
"Washington, DC – Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released its second annual report on the most corrupt members of Congress entitled Beyond DeLay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch). This encyclopedic report on corruption in the 109th Congress documents the egregious, unethical and possibly illegal activities of the most tainted members of Congress. CREW has compiled the members’ transgressions and analyzed them in light of federal laws and congressional rules.
Two members have been removed from last year’s list of 13. Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA) is now serving an eight-year jail term for bribery and Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) has agreed to plead guilty to crimes that will likely result in a minimum two-year prison term.
CREW has also re-launched the report’s tandem website, www.beyonddelay.org. The site offers short summaries of each member’s transgressions as well as the full-length profiles and all accompanying exhibits.
CREW’s Most Corrupt Members of Congress:
Members of the Senate:
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Bill Frist (R-TN)
Rick Santorum (R-PA)"
http://www.citizensforethics.org/index.php/press/entry/crew-releases-second-annual-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report/
rickie always maintained that he was stealing for jesus who for obvious reasons is not able to steal for himself
let's not forget newtie's ethics issues - never more prominently on display than this moment
"House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) has abandoned plans to borrow money from former Senate majority leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) to pay the $300,000 ethics penalty the House imposed on him last year, officials announced yesterday.
Instead, Gingrich, whose income has been buoyed by book sales, said he will pay the entire penalty "through wholly personal funds." In May of last year, the speaker cut in half the funds he said he would need to borrow from Dole, now a Washington lawyer, saying he would need no more than a $150,000 loan.
The speaker has paid $100,000 of the levy for violating House ethics rules and is due to make two remaining payments in November and January, the House Committee of Official Conduct said in a brief statement. It also disclosed that Gingrich had formally released Dole from their earlier loan agreement."
Dole "feels relieved that he can now talk to his old friends""
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/091598.htm
rickie's got one backer financing his campaign - mr freiss
newtie's got one backer - mr adelson
and who said amerikan democracy was in trouble
Thank you for this useful, relevant data, MED.
Because they know they can't win, but have to run a candidate, the GOP will sacrifice anyone willing to run. They are down to four basket cases with unlimited funds to make total asses out of themselves and thereby guaranteeing an Obama win. What a country.
Hoa binh
This guy is preaching to the choir here. Why bother?
Very true. And this guy obviously has nothing to say for himself. Just threw together some soundbites that anyone would have heard by now if they are walking around in the u.s. I guess NPR thinks this is real radical.
People who want us to focus on deviants like Santorum, but then also do not point out the much more numerous similarities Santorum has with ALL the rest of the corporate candidates, are themselves being devious.
"Be afraid, be afraid, look at this insanity!" this is their favorite technique.
Meanwhile, Obama pisses on the Constitution while he, Romney, and Gingrich are working overtime to appease the greediest 1%.
If you read this article and think that Santorum is distinctly worse than the rest of these frauds, then you have allowed yourself to be deliberately manipulated to ensure the corporate agenda.
Equal justice needs to be applied to them all.
All of them believe in murdering innocent children, especially those children who are not christian, for money and power. They are all Unconscionable corporate servants.
good stuff bird...
Exactly.
What stuck with me most was Rush Limbaugh's comment that Santorum was the only GOP candidate who had not "transgressed" against conservativism. Does that mean that Santorum is the perfect conservative candidate? Does that mean that Conservatism is now a religiion? Wish he'd said what Ron Paul's transgression was.
Rick insane is not just a minor problem, but he can be stopped in the GOP contest. Best option! Infiltrate the GOP. It sounds better every time I say it. I love it.
We're always getting attacked for this. Let's do it.
We need a second party. What's all this with a third one now?
Rick insane is a mad dog but so was the Gipper. He won. W was another mad dog.
We need to stop him in the GOP contest, then go about electing as many decent people as we can in the fall and continue supporting the OWS movement.
Also NPR. Anything which comes from it be on your guard for hot air. It's like the New York Times and the rest of the mainstream media. These people are robots for this president or even further right. Read more of Alexander Cockburn.
This country still exists with Reaganism who had an incapacitated mind with Alzheimer's disease. Reagan's policies are considered sacrosanct by Repubicans and Democraps alike. Meanwhile the USA has become dysfunctional and the Wall St., Wash.,DC is the Axis of Evil, a criminal conspiracy funded with the FORCED CONTRIBUTIONS, withholding taxes, taxing labor, for the CommuFascist Capitalist Corporate, WELFARE KINGS,which then bribe the politicians with the FORCED CONTRIBUTIONS. A society misgoverned and dysfunctional because it has followed the dictates originated by Reagan who had Alzheimer's disease. and the society doesn't even wonder why? This in itself is dysfunctional. Reagan worship is predicated on his happy talk psychobabble of flattering an ignorant gullible public. The truth of Reaganism, due to political correctness, and his Alzheimer USA created society as the reason why the USA has devolved into the Axis of Evil criminal conspiracy dysfunctional government and society is how and why the USA is a failed country and society
Rick Santorum is the logical result of the corrupt bargain (first done by Grandpa Caligula [Reagan], and cemented by Dubya, Cheney, & Co.) that the GOP made with Christian Conservatives. Those lunatics / Sturmabteilung are in the process of taking over their asylum from the GOP 'establishment,' who fear that the crowd that Santorum appeals to would be quite happy to down in electoral flames a la Barry Goldwater while maintaining their 'purity,' whereas the establishment only cares about winning.
"If you add up all of the non-Christians, the 99% of woman who use contraceptives, the blacks, the browns, the poor, the recent immigrants, the gays, the tree huggers-- all of the assorted Americans who Rick Santorum does not approve of-- that is one heck of a lot of folks who likely wouldn’t vote for him..."
Except that one of those groups, the poor, are also generally uneducated (witness the demonization of teachers and reductions in education funding- uneducated people are easily controlled people), they are legion (and growing) and they are easily manipulated to blame thier situation on women, blacks, browns, environmentalists, gays and immigrants.
You have presented the essence of "progressive" elitism.
It is this kind of snobbery that makes it so easy for the Right to split working people away from progressive ideas and politics.
Please tell me how the hell it is possible for a successful movement for change to be built without the poor? How is it possible to attract the poor -- millions and millions of people -- to the progressive cause when they are insulted and demeaned by people calling themselves progressive?
Please tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that the poor -- many of whom are women, blacks, browns (Latinos?), environmentalists, gays, and immigrants -- are the ones who hate these groups?
Santorum's willfully ignorant frothings fit well into a bigger picture. Author Schifffman is probably right. Santorum probably scares people with his cranky medieval absolutism and he probably can't win the nomination or the Presidency. But in a sense, by merely legitimizing the complete insanity that comes out of his obviously tormented mind, he, the media AND the Democratic Party are pushing the debate farther to the Right and farther toward fascism. I.e., even in the likely event that he loses the election, Santorum still wins politically. The Democratic Party is guilty of collusion in this because they will NOT attack Santorum's delusional underlying premises. They'll say he is "out of the mainstream" as if there were anything worthwhile in the mainstream of American politics. They'll say he is "too extreme", which, in addition to being redundant, is also meaningless and valueless: "extreme" compared to what? They will never answer that question. I'd say an unconditional, rushed and barely debated $780 bil bailout was "extreme" but nobody asked me.
Santorum is a dangerous, ambitious, theocrat and some kind of creepy panty-sniffer who can't stop obsessing about other people's sex lives. The mere fact that he gets a public platform in this country from which to whine, froth and lie is a damning condemnation of a political and media system that has gone utterly brain-dead. I used to think of American politics as a kind of kabuki or shadow puppet show. Now I think it is becoming a "zombies in the shopping mall" movie. Dead but still able to cause a lot of damage. Santorum is just one of the bigger, uglier, louder zombies.
Reilly - "Santorum is a dangerous, ambitious, theocrat and..."
You give him too much credit. He doesn't believe anything, holds no values beyond his own promotion. He's just punching hot buttons. There's nothing there at all; he's an empty sweater vest.
I'm surprised they let him cross the street without a Boy Scout.
and BTW - if Santorum is the descendant of an impoverished coal miner in Pennsylvania, then he is the indirect beneficiary of one of the most militant, anti-capitalist labor movements ever seen in this country. The Pennsylvannia miners fought like hell and took no shit from the operators. They opposed just about everything Santorum stands for. Santorum is also a magnet for gas, oil and coal operator money and staunchly anti-union. In those days, mine operators openly cheated on wages and working conditions and even honest pay was not enough to live on. The miners lost many a strike, many a member was killed or beaten by scabs or "private security" goons. Their unions were defeated repeatedly but in the end, mines became safer, wages and working conditions improved and the descendants of those miners had a better chance at a good life. Read "Labor's Untold Story" if you can find it. Too bad Santorum's granddad didn't tell him about all that. Of course, Grandpa Santorum might have been a scab.
Another good reference about coal mining, but in the U.K., is Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier.
Wasting time focusing on the ridiculous, staged-managed, corporate media orchestrated, spectacle that we call "election campaigns" diverts attention from what is happening behind the curtain.
Who cares? the incumbent treasounous war criminals will "win" in 2012. So all the D-brand cheerleaders have nothing to worry about.
It is very disappointing how so many are still caught up with the puppets that the folks behind the curtain are dangling in front of us. The shallow, superficial nonsense is disgusting. This article is a waste of space.
War Criminals 2012!
I agree 100%, socialist.
But the socialists and other progressives have failed to offer a compelling alternative to the corporate pageant. Not a competing pageant, but a serious politics that expresses the concerns of working people and offers radical solutions to deal with them.
Occupy has been helpful in this, but they lack the analysis and the organization needed to bring large numbers of working people into political activism. Without that, no real change can be expected.
Santorum's appeal is identidy politics. Those who vote for him hardly know or care what he thinks. The big thing about Santorum is that he convincingly asserts that he is one of us--and the frightening thing is that as ignorant, mean spirited and suspicious as he is, as authoritarian by nature as he is, for the ones who vote for Santorum--he is one of them.
True, but Republicans tend to vote in lockstep for whoever their party puts on the ballot and with redistricting and potential voting machine fraud it is possible that someone more ignorant than "W" could end up in the White House.
How did this guy get to the 21st century from Puritan times? Bringing back Witch-Hunting will appeal to only the kinkiest of Repubs (tho there seem to be quite a few of them....) If only just THEY could fall into the fiery pit for their sins--as they so fervently desire--without taking the rest of us with them. Amazing article, amazing that he is a major public figure in our country, instead of sitting muttering to himself in the waiting room of a psychiatric clinic.
Everybody gets 15 minutes of fame, but if you're a Republican candidate you get 30 days of fame, unless your name is Ron Paul.
Santorum is pretty much the bottom of the Republican candidate barrel (Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Chris Christie, Newt, Mitt, and... I need the Daily Racing Form to prep me on all these guys) for some honest reasons. As an incumbent United States Senator, he lost his last election 6 years ago. Not easy!
As the guys hawking score cards at ball games used to say: "Get your score cards here. You don't know the players without a score card."
Ron Paul gets loads of coverage. He gets to take part in the debates. He gets a profile in the New Yorker. He gets interviewed all the time, respectfully, by the likes of Wolf Blitzer and many others. Never is he called on his "Austrian" economic theories. Never is his pre-Civil War interpretation of the Constitution challenged. He is quickly forgiven for writing racist garbage in his own newsletter after pleading ignorance of what goes out of his own office under his own name. (Imagine if Obama tried that one).
Your real complaint is that the more people hear his loony economic and states rights arguments, the less they support him for president. Politics is tough, isn't it.
It doesn't take a brain to konsume more. It takes a brain to consume less.
Forget about Rick insane for just a moment. Let's look at some common sense progressive alternatives below.
Depressed by the candidates for Congress in your district?
Here are three candidates that could use your help and have both spine and heart.
Share this action on Facebook
Share this action on Twitter
Lets face it: U.S. elections often pit heartless Republicans against spineless Democrats.
But there are rare candidates of exceptional courage and compassion who can be counted on to fight – alongside RootsAction activists – for a fair economy, environmental sanity, civil liberties. . . and against a military machine that is draining our society while creating ever more enemies overseas.
Today we want to tell you about three outstanding candidates for Congress.
NORMAN SOLOMON: Running in a new district (no incumbent) on California’s progressive North Coast, Norman doesn’t just support the RootsAction agenda, he cofounded RootsAction. A lifelong activist and author for peace and justice, he will hit the ground running on these issues in D.C.
Norman has built one of the strongest grassroots campaigns ever. He can win this seat and become “America’s Congress member.” He’s endorsed by labor unions, peace groups and advocates like Dan Ellsberg, Dolores Huerta, Jim Hightower, Phil Donahue and Rep. Raul Grijalva.
You can help Norman by donating to his campaign; his opponents include a couple of corporate-connected Democrats while Norman refuses corporate money.
And you can VOTE for him in the "Grassroots All-Stars" online straw poll (it takes 5 seconds) – which will give Norman access to additional grassroots $$ and volunteers.
As Barbara Ehrenreich commented in her endorsement: “We need independent progressive Democrats like Norman Solomon in Congress, not business-as-usual Democrats.” Check out Norman’s website.
DENNIS KUCINICH: On issue after issue, Dennis has stood up bravely and often alone in the U.S. Congress – from working to impeach Bush & Cheney to cutting funds for endless war.
Incumbents often don’t need much grassroots support, but GOP redistricting has thrown two Democratic incumbents into one district. The other Democrat gets donations from war contractors like General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin.
That’s why an antiwar stalwart like Dennis Kucinich needs donations and activist support now.
In endorsing Dennis recently, Rep. Barney Frank touted the work he and Dennis have done together on behalf of “substantially reducing America’s military activity across the world.”
Former Congress member Alan Grayson said it best: “Congress is full of replaceable parts. But Dennis Kucinich is not one of them. Dennis is unique.” Check out the Kucinich website.
BARBARA LEE: Although she faces no risk of defeat in her Oakland-Berkeley, CA district, we wanted to give a shout out to this unbending voice for peace and justice on Capitol Hill. Barbara stood alone in Congress in 2001 against giving President Bush carte blanche to wage war – anywhere – in the wake of 9/11; she is a hero in the powerful War Made Easy documentary based on Norman Solomon’s book.
Follow Barbara Lee's leadership efforts in Congress here.
So even if you’re disappointed in the candidates and choices on your ballot, here are opportunities for us to band together to help three candidates we can be proud of . . . candidates with spine.
Please forward this email far and wide.
Aimee, David, Sarah
and the RootsAction team
Some well informed people said some of the same kind of things about the Gipper in 1980. But they were wrong. Best to take the offensive on this and not let up until he loses in the GOP contest. This is where the action is. Rick the insane must be stopped. Stop him in his own party. Do what people did in 1976 to the Gipper. Beat in his own party.
"AD"
If any of these people meant what they say, they could NOT be democrats.
To say you are "progressive" and to belong to a corporate owned party which is helping destroy beneficial social programs and is promoting unregulated banking and is part of the gutting of the Bill of Rights is, at best, DELUSIONAL, but beyond that pathetic state of existence, these people are actually
preventing the development of any party which would challenge the corporate agenda.
They are, at best, corporate controlled hypocrites and deserve repudiation like every other republican, libertarian, and democrat.
You can NOT be a democrat and be beyond corporate control.
"Roots Action" - Why is this NOT a third party? Is it because it is just one more PHONY corporate democrat scheme? There is no real reason to believe otherwise.
So we are to understand that you are a better, more consistent progressive than Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee, are we?
Where's your proof? Please list your activities that demonstrate progressive credentials, and show how they are more credible than those of the people you have criticized.
Thank you.
"You!"
I will take that to mean that you have no proof to offer. Case dismissed.
“My concern is that being in combat in that situation, instead of being focused on the mission, they might be more concerned about protecting a woman in a vulnerable position.”
-------
Yeah, tell that to all the women who have been raped by her fellow soldiers...
medmedude:
Your information on Burns is true, but dated. He was defeated by Jon Tester who ran a campaign attacking Burns for being a special interest whore who used language such as "ragheads" in public.
The problem now is that Jon Tester has learned rather quickly perhaps from Baucus how to rake in special interest money. Check out Montana's favorite independent opinion writer operating outside of the box.
Sins of omission
Who owns Montana's next senator?
by George Ochenski
http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/sins-of-omission/Content?oid=1535129
"Yet, as Tester and Rehberg sling mud at one another, leveling charges and counter-charges, there is a far greater question that Montanans should be asking as they try to navigate the rapids of this race for the Senate. Tester is the leading recipient of lobbyist donations in the House and Senate. Rehberg has no problems with special interests dumping contributions in his campaign war chest. The seminal question, therefore, is who will Montana's next U.S. Senator wind up representing? Will it be the special interests and lobbyists who dump millions into their campaigns or the little people of Montana who cannot afford what it takes to play in this high-stakes game?"
And there are some choice comments with the article. Tester ran on a campaign of bringing the troops home, yet not long after arriving in Washington, he took the position that we needed to "redouble our efforts in Afghanistan" which means more troops deployed and more death.
comment:
"Perhaps we should call Tester Porky Pig, feeding at the public trough in Washington. Unfortunately Rehberg is worthless bottom feeder thus forcing us to choose the lesser of two evils, unless a viable independent shows up.
And on the illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, I have been searching online for information on the bogus Big Oil "war on terror" ever since the Pentagon attacked Afghanistan on behalf of corporate special interests. The Pipelineistan agenda has been censored from U.S. mainstream corporate media. This is common knowledge in Asian media (especially Asian Times) but Americans remain in the dark.
The following brief summary is one I just found today. Small world, at one time ENRON was a player in Afghanistan as they were building a huge (now rusting away) electrical generating plant near Bombay and needed cheap natural gas to make a profit. This is of course is the same ENRON that MT. Governor Racicot conspired with while in office to shove deregulation down our throats creating a cruel economic burden for everyone in Montana.
Origins of Afghan War
Andrew G. Marshall - Sep 14, 08
http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/origins…
Geopoliticalmonitor.com
September 14, 2008
http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/origins…
"The purpose of this report is to examine the truth behind the October 2001 NATO invasion of Afghanistan, specifically relating to the politics of oil pipelines, the US' relationship with the Taliban, and war preparations taken against Afghanistan prior to 9/11."
Santorum is a dangerous candidate because he can appeal to working class people as a member of an assimilated ethnic minority group (Italian Americans), as the grandson of a working class guy who worked hard to build a future for his kids and grandkids, and as a young, dynamic guy with a pleasant personality.
His ideas are a version of conservative Catholicism, which was supported by Pope John Paul II and is now supported by Benedict XVI. The Vatican Council went too far in liberalizing the Church and watering down its doctrines, these Catholics believe. They want a more authoritarian Church, that preaches boldly against the secularization that has undermined the Church's power in Europe and North America.
This movement within the Church is analogous to the authoritarian conservatism of many Evangelical Protestants in the US, though it differs from it in being more intellectual and in continuing the tradition of criticizing the "excesses" of capitalism initiated by Pope Leo XIII.
Santorum's Catholicism is in line with that of the strongly Catholic fascist regimes of Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal; with the ideas of Cardinal Spellman and Pope Pius XII, with the support Senator Joe McCarthy had from many Catholics (especially irish Americans) who saw him as a man persecuted because of his heritage.
The fact that this form of Catholicism is so easily able to link up politically with conservative Protestantism, after centuries in which these two sects were passionately opposed to one another, is worrisome. Santorum represents that link, since he gets so many votes from Evangelicals even while being so fervent in his Catholicism.
Santorum has established himself as the most conservative and "Christian" of the Republican candidates. Now he would be smart to switch over to economic issues and establish himself as a representative of the white (including assimilated ethnic) working class, ready to fight hard against the newer, less assimilated immigrant groups Obama represents for the rapidly diminishing remnants of the American economy apportioned to the working people and the poor by people like Romney.
Santorum is a serious threat, and jokey articles about his "gaffes" are likely to have about as much effect as those books on "Bushisms" had in stopping George W Bush from being president.
Unless progressives are content to feel that they may lose the political game, but they sure are a lot smarter than the winners (watch Jon Stewart to learn more about this).
I agree.
I also think one of the main functions of "Identity Christianity" in America is to aggregate people of common personality and psychological orientations. The brain research is definitive: there is something called a 'diversity continuum' with two opposing ends, fundamentalism and pluralism. Fundamentalists want a limited number of ideas. Pluralists want moderated diversity. These are both necessary evolutions of the human creature. Fundamentalism means conserving life-giving basics. Pluralism means exploring beneficial options. Movement deep into either polarity causes problems: fundamentalists can't adapt, pluralists can't remember what's important. Positively stated: fundamentalists remember what's important (like how to start a fire when you're a tribe living in caves), pluralists can adapt (migrate to new places and mingle with new people if food becomes scarce). When the food gives out, the fundamentalist sits in the cave and dies in place. The pluralist says "We're outta here, leaves and lives." Likewise, pluralist tribal folk might miss the need for, you know, a defensible bungalow, something fundamentalists are good at constructing. Pluralist's are out exploring the countryside and all the interesting plants and trees and rivers and rocks and other tribes. Night comes and predators invade their unprotected camp, wiping them out.
The Bushisms explanation resounds with clarity. Bush was very communicative in a folksy way, and so is Santorum. Bush appealed to the naked power thirst; Santorum, even more so. When Bush said "Sometimes a show of force can really clarify things" -- about Israel's use of force -- he was appealing not to force, but to the fundamentalist simplicity that the use of force brings. Many people enjoy the use of force because is simplifies things, not because they enjoy using force as such. Santorum is the logical extension of Bush: force not turned outward against external enemies (both real and perceived), but inward against America's perceived internal enemies.
People think of Santorum as a 'hater.' He is not; he is someone who craves order and simplicity, a byproduct of which is his intolerance for continuums: sexually defined or otherwise. This kind of person is not a conservative in either a religious or political sense, but a fundamentalist. A conservative wants slower, measured political change and religious axioms to apply in daily life. A fundamentalist envisions a return to strict political and religious order via authoritarianism.
A fundamentalist Christian can't easily follow Jesus in the fullest sense because the desire for moral, social, spiritual and political simplicity inherent in fundamentalism always gives rise to the tendency to judge negatively those elements of thought, society or humanity which can't be corralled into their proper holding pens. If a fundamentalist and pluralist each read four books and you ask the fundamentalist which book he liked best, he'll tell you which one. A pluralist will tell you about something good from each book. The fundamentalist appraises and judges. The pluralist compares. Santorum teems with judgment, in contradistinction to what Jesus actually said: "Judge not." Jesus appears to have been in both camps, which makes sense to me. In order to live well you have to mingle your mind and life with all kinds of experiences and ideas. Ultimately though, it helps to reduce everything to some type of simplified framework -- it's only the malleability of the framework that fundamentalists and pluralists disagree about.
It is worrisome that large swaths of religious Americans aren't receiving the authentic gifts of religion: tolerance, love, respect, moderation, integrity. Instead religion is increasingly seen, in both fundamentalist and pluralist domains, as an ideological framework with which to buttress viewpoints along the diversity spectrum.
Ironically, the crash of the economy and the rise of economic hardship shows how little faith we American's actually have in god, and how much we actually do trust in money.
KIP: Thank you for sharing this lucid elaboration. Great info, and very apt.
Santorum is a dangerous candidate because he can appeal to working class people as a member of an assimilated ethnic minority group (Italian Americans), as the grandson of a working class guy who worked hard to build a future for his kids and grandkids, and as a young, dynamic guy with a pleasant personality.
His ideas are a version of conservative Catholicism, which was supported by Pope John Paul II and is now supported by Benedict XVI. The Vatican Council went too far in liberalizing the Church and watering down its doctrines, these Catholics believe. They want a more authoritarian Church, that preaches boldly against the secularization that has undermined the Church's power in Europe and North America.
This movement within the Church is analogous to the authoritarian conservatism of many Evangelical Protestants in the US, though it differs from it in being more intellectual and in continuing the tradition of criticizing the "excesses" of capitalism initiated by Pope Leo XIII.
Santorum's Catholicism is in line with that of the strongly Catholic fascist regimes of Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal; with the ideas of Cardinal Spellman and Pope Pius XII, with the support Senator Joe McCarthy had from many Catholics (especially irish Americans) who saw him as a man persecuted because of his heritage.
The fact that this form of Catholicism is so easily able to link up politically with conservative Protestantism, after centuries in which these two sects were passionately opposed to one another, is worrisome. Santorum represents that link, since he gets so many votes from Evangelicals even while being so fervent in his Catholicism.
Santorum has established himself as the most conservative and "Christian" of the Republican candidates. Now he would be smart to switch over to economic issues and establish himself as a representative of the white (including assimilated ethnic) working class, ready to fight hard against the newer, less assimilated immigrant groups Obama represents for the rapidly diminishing remnants of the American economy apportioned to the working people and the poor by people like Romney.
Santorum is a serious threat, and jokey articles about his "gaffes" are likely to have about as much effect as those books on "Bushisms" had in stopping George W Bush from being president.
Unless progressives are content to feel that they may lose the political game, but they sure are a lot smarter than the winners (watch Jon Stewart to learn more about this).
Montana has put some real sleaze balls in the congress lately.....
Tester has proven to be not up to the task - and simply takes the advice from corporate leaders - the guy couldn't even talk in complete sentences when discussing the banking debacle - much less make sense -
I wouldn't be surprised to see rehberg win that race thus delivering the senate to the repubs -
And the previous governor was a true piece of work - Judy martz - she didn't even have a college degree - and was basically a petty real estate criminal using her connections in any way thatcould deliver a profit.
And the current governor - who I once liked - is a tar sands ra-ra guy - He'll fit in perfectly in the next Obama admin -
And best yet - the Montana congress actually passed a law saying global warming was a positive thing as it extended the growing season -
mtdon:
Another catastrophic problem is that Tester has become so obese that he can no longer climb on a horse. The lobbyists must be feeding him well.
Not to worry his fat ass is a one termer.....
Then again rehberg is an absolute disaster of a corporatist.....
So once again not much difference in substance between the dems and the rethugs....
Only a difference in rhetoric. One party will screw you by saying 'this law is really in your ineterest" While the otherparty will say ' by helping the corporation stay profitable we're helping the job creators'
The laws will read the same o matter who is there - tester or rehberg....
And of course I can't let a post go without the gratuitous baucus insult - now there is a real corporate sellout piece of shit if there ever was one in the senate.... I'd put baucus at or near the top of any 'most corrupt shit bird senator 'list -
I think it is fair to say that Santorum is the most hawkish of all the candidates.