Posted on 02/29/2012 4:47:06 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Rick Santorum is stretching his criticism of President Obama's advocacy of universal college attendance into a broader attack on college itself. Santorum has three college degrees, which provides a good indication of how seriously one should take his assault on what he is labeling as Obama's elitism. As with so many of Santorum's statements, this criticism contains a grain of perception smothered in reactionary dogma.
[BIG SNIP]
In a nation in which almost everyone aspires to upward mobility, how is this a winning political argument?
Sure, colleges are hothouses of liberalism. They have been for generations. And yet Americans of all political persuasions continue to send their children there en masse.
"Enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions increased by 9 percent between 1989 and 1999," reports the National Center for Education Statistics. "Between 1999 and 2009, enrollment increased 38 percent, from 14.8 million to 20.4 million."
Santorum's message to these millions of Americans and their families is: Suckers. You fell into Obama's indoctrination trap!
Instead of attacking college, Santorum should be attacking Obama. The president's college promotion scheme is vulnerable to two criticisms that seem to have largely escaped Santorum's notice because they don't fit his '80s and '90s-era conservative talking points on the subject of higher education.
The first is the cost.......
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
What was your point in posting this article?
Your so brilliant your only attacks are snide personal attacks on Rick .
Just plan sad .
The anti Santorum attack ads are still running in Michigan this morning.
Your comments are snide personal attacks on others.
Really sad this morning, have a nice day.
And the way to attack “big education” is not the snob route anyway. There is a lot of corruption in big education and a lot of meaningless degrees - folks like David Horowitz and others have done a great job of deconstructing the education bubble. There is an issue here.
Santorum picked the right fight but the wrong angle of attack.
Santorum as well was unschooled on JFK’s statement regarding church-state seperation.
In context, the statement shouldn’t make someone want to throw up. All it was about is politics...the candidate’s need to reassure nervous non-Catholics that he wouldn’t be controlled by the Catholic Church when making government decisions. That was necessary because back then many people were afraid he WOULD be.
Newt corrected that, too.
This guy doesn’t get it, he was saying not every kid is made to go to college so why educate every kid the same?
Pray for America
One of the best, most honest posts here on FR in a LONG TIME, my friend. Very good.
You are right, that was another issue where RS took the wrong route. Which reinforces the notion that he just does not have the intellectual ammunition that Newt has. Just doesn’t. Not a crime. But it is a fact.
->>There is a lot of corruption in big education and a lot of meaningless degrees - folks like David Horowitz and others have done a great job of deconstructing the education bubble. There is an issue here.
Amen. Thanks for commenting.
You were the one posting strange snide comments about a total stranger and I just pointed it out .
The light hurts .
The food stamp program, part of the Department of Agriculture, announced that it is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of food stamps ever.
Meanwhile the Park Service, also part of the Department of Agriculture, asks us to "Please not feed the animals", because the animals may grow dependant and not learn to take care of themselves.
Someone also said Santorum is now picking up on Newt's "cost of gas" comments.
He's good at following a leader.
LOL nice.
Exactly.
Santorum has a point. The founders assumed that the body politic would be informed and guided by their religious faith. There is no founding wall of seperation. The document speaks of restraining government from interfering with religion, not the other way around.
But Santorum chose the wrong angle of attack. I know when JFK ran, the leaders of my non-Catholic church were very concerned and warned members that he was subject to the Catholic church and to be careful of that when considering who to vote for. His statement was meant to reassure and assuage people’s fears of that.
As was I, Newt was keenly aware of context, whereas Santorum merely read the words and didn’t like the sound of it. He had no context.
Newt is the professor.
And as did I, Newt lived the events of those days.
Santorum was 2 years old.
Which ones ?
Mittens or his partner Ronny.
Yes Mittens partnered y
Up with the 9/11 truther ,Code Pink candidate .
It is a problem. A caller mentioned it to Rush yesterday and he spent a few minutes talking about how it isn't a good thing for Santorum and his image to the voters.
Perhaps Rick is used to campaigning in a blue collar state, where that "attitude" of "rage against the man" plays well. Santorum needs to recalibrate his tone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.