Yes, I remember Barbara Olsen often and
miss her clear thinking very much.
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/29/2012 4:55:43 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator, reason:
dupe: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2852784/posts |
Posted on 02/29/2012 4:12:26 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
Even when I agree with Rick Santorum, listening to him argue the point almost makes me change my mind.
I also wonder why he's running for president, rather than governor, when the issues closest to his heart are family-oriented matters about which the federal government can, and should, do very little.
It's strange that Santorum doesn't seem to understand the crucial state-federal divide bequeathed to us by the framers of our Constitution, inasmuch as it is precisely that difference that underlies his own point that states could ban contraception.
Of course they can. States could outlaw purple hats or Gummi bears under our Constitution!
State constitutions, laws, judicial rulings or the people themselves, voting democratically, tend to prevent such silly state bans from arising. But the Constitution written by James Madison, et al, does not prevent a state's elected representatives from enacting them.
The Constitution mostly places limits on what the federal government can do. Only in a few instances does it restrict what states can do.
A state cannot, for example, infringe on the people's right to bear arms or to engage in the free exercise of religion. A state can't send a senator to the U.S. Congress if he is under 30 years old. But with rare exceptions, the Constitution leaves states free to govern themselves as they see fit.
In New York City, they can have live sex clubs and abortion on demand, but no salt or smoking sections. In Tennessee, they can ban abortion, but have salt, creches and 80 mph highways. At least that's how it's supposed to work.
And yet when Santorum tried to explain why states could ban contraception to Bill O'Reilly back in January, not once did he use the words "Constitution," "constitutionally," "federalism," their synonyms or derivatives. Lawyers who are well familiar with the Constitution had no idea what Santorum was talking about.
He genuinely does not seem to understand the Constitution's federalist framework, except as a brief talking point on the way to saying states can ban contraception. Otherwise, he wouldn't keep claiming, falsely, that Obamacare is the same as Romneycare.
Rick! We're conservatives! We believe the states can establish a religion -- and the federal government can't.
If he truly believed in the Constitution, Santorum wouldn't be promoting big social programs out of the federal government, such as tripling the child tax credit exemption and voting for "No Child Left Behind."
No federalist can support this man.
Most recently, Santorum assailed Obama for saying everyone should go to college by responding: "What a snob!"
No! No! No!
Santorum's response merely reinforces the insane liberal worldview that going to college is the preserve of our betters, a hoity-toity proof of social class, a desirable consumer product like a Louis Vuitton bag.
This isn't the '20s, when only the upper classes went to college. These days, every idiot who can scratch an "X" on his checkbook assumes hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to make himself less employable by taking college courses in -- for example -- "Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame" (University of South Carolina, Columbia), "GaGa for Gaga: Sex, Gender and Identity" (University of Virginia), "Arguing With Judge Judy: Popular 'Logic' on TV Judge Shows" (University of California, Berkeley), "The Phallus" (Occidental College), "Zombies" (University of Baltimore), "Comics" (Oregon State University), "Harry Potter: Finding Your Patronus" (Oregon State University), and "Underwater Basket Weaving" (University of California at San Diego).
My fellow Americans, Meghan McCain has a bachelor's degree.
It's not snobbery that compels liberals to promote college for all; it's a scam to manufacture more Democratic voters, much like their immigration policies.
Is a Valley Girl who takes courses in Self-Esteem at Cal State Fresno (an actual course at an actual college) a finer class of person than a skilled plumber with approximately 1,000 times the earning capacity and social worth of the airhead?
No. But she is more likely to vote Democratic.
Encouraging everyone to go to college creates an all-new class of people entirely dependent on the government, which is to say: reliable Democratic voters.
First, the taxpayer subsidizes the wasted human space teaching these moronic courses (at prices far outpacing inflation), and then the taxpayer pays the incomes of the graduates who are resigned to filling ever-growing no-show, self-paced and self-evaluated government jobs.
Who else would employ a graduate with a degree in Women's Studies, Early Childhood Education, Physical Education , Sociology or Queer Studies but the government?
Santorum can't be the one arguing for our side.
Even when he's asked to defend his own blindingly obvious point, Santorum manages to blow it. A few weeks ago, George Snuffalupagus asked Santorum about a perfectly reasonable quote from his book "It Takes a Family," where he suggested "that a lot of women feel pressure to work outside the home because of radical feminism."
Santorum disavowed the quote and gallantly blamed it on his wife: "Well, that section of the book was co-written, if you want to be honest about it, by my wife, who is a nurse and a lawyer."
Mrs. Santorum is neither listed as a co-author nor thanked in the acknowledgments of the book. (Rick should read his book! It's probably chock full of interesting quotes like that.)
Then, when asked about another criticism of radical feminists from his own book, he said: "I don't know -- that's a new quote for me."
My imaginary beagle could have defended Santorum's book better.
(The only worse quote in the campaign so far was from Newt Gingrich explaining why he denounced the Paul Ryan plan on Social Security as "right-wing social engineering." Newt went on Fox News and said: "Let me say, on the record: Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood.")
It was the same thing with Santorum on gays serving openly in the military. Again, Santorum is right -- but he still manages to lose the argument.
Back in October, when Chris Wallace was interviewing Santorum on "Fox News Sunday," he fell into a trap a 14-year-old high-school debater wouldn't have walked into, by agreeing with a quote -- without knowing who said it.
Wallace asked Santorum if he agreed with the following quote: "The Army is not a sociological laboratory. Experimenting with Army policy, especially in time of war, would pose a danger to efficiency, discipline and morale and would result in ultimate defeat."
To no avail, I screamed at the TV: "NO! DON'T AGREE! IT'S PROBABLY A HITLER QUOTE! SAY YOU'LL USE YOUR OWN WORDS!"
Santorum agreed with the blind quote only to be informed that it was a quote from someone arguing in 1941 against blacks in the military. (I didn't catch the segregationist's full name ... Franklin Delano something.)
He still could have recovered by demanding to know if Wallace was suggesting, therefore, that the Army IS a sociological laboratory and a splendid place for social experimentation in time of war, but Santorum just shrugged sheepishly and mumbled something about how that was different.
The problem is not Santorum's conservative positions, it's that he can't defend them.
lol
ftw.
I’m watching MeTV, an old M.A.S.H. episode...I think Ann would have been a great wife to Winchester at this point.
She’s full of hot air and crap. Ann Coulter has morphed into a Washington insider and North East RINO.
Agree. Santorum would be an utter disaster of a general election candidate. The man would manage to talk his way into a 10-20 point landslide defeat that would take our candidates down across the nation. Rick can't help it, he is not disciplined and, at heart, really WANTS to talk about these social issues. He will be so easily baited into yakking about condoms and porn that he will alienate nearly every moderate, indie and young(er) voter(s) who will hear our candidates out on the economy, debt, etc, but will not vote for someone who sounds like they are preaching and judging people's personal lives.
Sadly, I've come to believe that some segment of the socon voter block almost want to lose. I now suspect many want to nominate a "righteous" guy like Santorum so that when he gets crushed it will be the proof they are looking for that they've been right all along and the nation really is done for and going to hell in a handbasket.
Newt may not be the best candidate to ever come along, but he at least has a chance to really change the dynamic and some shot at winning a general election. Odds are good Romney would simply lose narrowly, but we might not get wiped out in races across then nation because of him. Santorum, on the other hand, is a ridiculous candidate only a party determined to commit political suicide would nominate. Rick would lose so badly he'd deliver Obama and the Democrats a nightmare mandate they really would use to "fundamentally transform" America.
Different of opinion is what makes a horse race exciting. We all don’t think alike. I really was never one of her fans anyway. So what she thinks means little to me...but she did have a lot of fan’s on FR that she lost...
Ann has gone to the Elite Side. Stopped paying attention to her a while ago.
NO Romney under any circumstance. Will vote Third.
Santorum 2012
Santorun reportedly will be begging Dimocrats to vote and skew the results of 7 of 10 Super Tuesday contests.
If individual voters want to crossover to screw up an open Republican primary, fine. If Move On tries to encourage voters to crossover to screw up an open Republican primary, that’s still fine.
But for a fellow Republican to join forces with Obama and the unions and pay for ads and robo calls encouraging Dimocrats to crossover and vote for him against his Republican opponent, that definitely is not fine. That is going way over the line. It’s a sleazy dirty tactic you would expect from sleazy Dimocrats.
Santorum - despite all his posturing about being a religious person - has no honor. None whatsoever. I could not and would never vote for him now.
And considering that 4 years ago, I had to lower myself and vote for McCain, that’s saying a lot.
BTW, the poll on Special Report tonight said by a margin of 87 to 13 that Santorum’s tactics were dirty. 87 to 13! And he’s going to continue doing it. Santorum has no honor.
Since Santorum has 80 plus electorals to Newt's 30 plus, its more likely Newt boosters here are secret Obama supporters, since a socialized blueblood like Willard Romney hasn't a chance in the general election in the current environment.
Or, you could save your bile for the liberals.
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.