Monday, March 12, 2012

Principled NUTSS for Santorum - Part 3

NUTSS-3-PRINCIPLE-Header

This is the 3rd installment of of a rebuttal to a piece emailed to me by a Santorum supporter entitled:

WHY WOMEN WANT RICK.

I thought characterizing conservatives who wantonly jump from one candidate to another without truly scrutinizing their character and blindly supporting them would just SEE this was an accurate description.  Sleep Number Beds never called, so I just assumed we were good to go.

But let me apologize to those that have been offended.  It was in bad taste.  Since there are only 1 or two more installments after this one, I’ll not bother switching to my alternative title: Santorum Christians Absent Basic Syllogism.   Because that would be worse.

kn031112dAPR20120310104518 A Twitter friend lamented that I was taking glee in finding all these glaring character issues with Rick.  My reply was “NO!”  On the contrary, it is more like trying to get your teenage daughter to realize her boyfriend is a “player” or screaming at a 5 year old about to run into traffic. 
I am a caring compassionate Christian canary, and have been in the Santorum Research Mines – barely coming out alive, so you wouldn’t have to.

The background for this series is from an email referencing an article claiming Santorum is the perfect candidate for a female conservative.  According to this gushing swoon, Saint Santorum is the kind of man women want because he is:

  • Honest
  • Principled
  • Smart
  • Thrifty
  • Courageous
  • Safe

Never mind the glaring gaps in the article that cite CATO Institute’s Senate write up of him while ignoring CATO’s contempt for his current economic plan.  Why should a girl worry about such silly details, right? (And don’t tell me women are emotional and can’t be logical!! 
It’s sexist!
)

My problem is my deep felt concern for those about to get three rude awakenings from their Santarella fantasy.  They are:

  1. He is glaringly unelectable given his past gaffe’s and the media’s salivating hunger to Palinize and Bork him.
  2. He has no track record that he can actually RUN anything, and, where he has been an “executive” like his charity that ripped off donors, it has been disastrous.   We are hiring someone to RUN the government of the greatest country in the world and there is no objective evidence he has “run” anything well before. 
  3. As he did in his 2006 election, against REAL “secular world,” he will continue to fail at reinforcing the right wing stereotypes OR prove to be any better than his past record.  Opponents will make us feel worse than someone who believed Bill Clinton when he denied knowing Monica Lewinsky.  Our past Perry and Cain disappointments will pale in comparison.

Once again.  Rick Santorum is NOT evil.  He still holds an 88% lifetime ACU rating, a great National Right to Life rating and - although he is worse than weak on leadership and executive experience - his policies would be very equivalent to George Bush 43. (Based on what he actually has DONE – not on what he now says.)

In Part 1 we documented an inordinate number of outright lies and exaggerations Santorum has told (even recently).  It was an issue when he first ran in 1994, and just yesterday multiple Professors accused him of lying about his recent speeches about Penn State.

In Part 2 we documented just how terribly he has betrayed the pro-life movement in dozens of ways including endorsing AND CAMPAIGNING for Christine Todd Whitman – a pro-partial birth abortion advocate.

If conservatives still want to pretend he is totally Honest and Courageous, it is because they are unwilling to face objective truth.  No one is perfect.  No, not one.  But I totally distrust those who are not repentant and forthcoming about their faults.  King David the Psalm writer (and BFF of the Almighty) was still a man of integrity despite being a murderous, lying, adulterer.  He RECOGNIZED his faults and asked God to change him.

So how does Santorum stand up on the whole Thrifty, Safe and Integrity thing?


 NUTSS Myth #3: Rick is the most Principled of Conservatives.

Rick Santorum’s On Other People’s Sex Scandals

What would you think about a Christian who made Family Values, Marriage and Morality (aka The Ideal Man) the centerpiece of his campaign (and his identity) and was involved in the following scenario:

  • The IDEAL MAN received a letter from a husband whose wife was having an affair with the IDEAL MAN’s Co-Worker.
  • Both the jilted husband and his wife worked for the IDEAL MAN’s Co-Worker.
  • The Co-Worker FIRES both jilted man and his adulterous wife.
  • The IDEAL MAN says nothing. 
  • The jilted husband then comes to the IDEAL MAN (because he knew your IDEAL MAN claimed to be about integrity and Christian values) and asks the IDEAL MAN to help his marriage that is being torn apart by the Co-Worker.
  • The IDEAL MAN does NOTHING to help the broken marriage, but instead helps the Co-Worker COVER IT UP so he won’t get caught.
  • The IDEAL MAN later hypocritically moralizes that if it’s a Democrat, he would instead demand the Democrat Co-Worker resign.

Here is the complete recount of how it will be replayed in the secular press:

That’s not the ONLY time Rick Santorum covered up, or excused, sexual affairs for other Republicans.  Or Priests.  At the beginning of the Priest pedophilia scandal, instead of universally condemning their abuse of power, Santorum actually made EXCUSES for their behavior by saying:

“In this case, what we’re talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We’re not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We’re talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a perfectly fine relationship as long as it’s consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that’s fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.”

Excusing, or diverting responsibility from, those abusing power is a habit of this Pennsylvanian.  Many cite the Foley pedophile scandal as one of the reasons the GOP lost the House and Senate in 2006.  Listen to what the #3 Leader of the Republicans says when asked about these young men abused by a fellow Senator.

Santorum Downplays Foley Scandal by Blaming Media

What is especially disturbing about this response is that Santorum is not only supposed to be for protecting virtue over economics, but Santorum was one of only 3 Senators responsible for the recruitment of these young pages.

The argument we hear over and over again is that Romney can’t make an argument against ObamaCare because he invented RomneyCare in Massachusetts.  How then does the “pure, principled” family values narrative help Santorum when EVERYONE will see him as a hypocrite?  (Answer: It not only doesn’t help, he brings the entire GOP down with him as Nixon did.)  And it will be a replay of 2006 all over again.

The Why Women Want Rick article included that he was desirable since: “He is the Sunday School teacher we wish we had—the one who actually fights for his faith rather than cowering for church attendance and tithes.  He has courage.”  Uh huh.  I would think after reading how he compromised his faith in forgetting the unborn, we wouldn’t allow him to be lionized for such lechery.

The Terry Schaivo Ordeal 

I, along with millions of pro-life Christians, prayed fervently for a miracle in the Terry Schaivo case.  Pro-Life leaders claimed that Terry’s husband was trying to kill her by pulling the plug against the wishes of her parents, her sister and some medical doctors.  Jesse Jackson even showed up causing some to comment:

As if Terri Schiavo’s fate were not enough of a circus, Jesse Jackson has now arrived on the scene.  George Will once wrote, “Nowadays no diplomatic farce is complete without a cameo appearance by Jesse Jackson.” Once again, this hypothesis is confirmed.

It now turns out that those “medical experts” that said she may have been abused, or was not as bad as thought were frauds or worse.  Most of us aren’t doctors so we relied on the Sean Hannity’s of the world for our news.  And even if we got the wrong information – it was on the side of SAVING a life.  The public disagreed however,(63% to 28%), that the courts should not intervene.  Many claim it was one of the reasons why Rick Santorum lost Pennsylvania in 2006 since he interjected himself into the story by publicly appearing in Florida to be at her bedside with her parents.  What does this have to do with Rick Santorum’s integrity?

First, this author shows how the recent battle over “social issues” is having the same polling it did both on the national perception of the GOP as it did during the Schaivo episode – and with Rick Santorum specifically.  (Hint: it’s not good.) Again, Santorum’s inability to stay away from controversial social issues cost the Republicans a Senate seat and perhaps more.

Secondly, Rick Santorum says the reason he interjected himself into the debate was because all he wanted was for the judges to look at the case "fairly."  There is only one problem with that.  That wasn’t what he DID or said at the time:

(Santorum) actively sought to use his office as senator to pressure them to abandon their fair reading of the case:

"For this judge in this district to ignore that is tantamount, I believe, to an offense that should be discussed in the Congress," Senator Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity in an interview Tuesday. "What we asked for in the Congress was a new finding of fact," Santorum said. "And this judge in this district ignored it, snubbed his nose at Congress, I think against the law. I think he should be held accountable for it."

Without naming him, Santorum also criticized Circuit Court Judge George Greer for ignoring subpoenas Congress issued seeking to question Terri, her estranged husband Michael and hospice administrators.

The subpoenas were issued in an attempt to stall removing Terri’s feeding tube, but Greer overruled them and reissued his order authorizing Terri’s death.

So is this just a case of another Santorum untruth?  No.
Far worse.  It turns out that the reason he went to Florida was NOT to give support to the Schiavo family.  He was already booked on a WalMart jet to give a speech on Social Security.  And while he made it seem like he was all about the pro-life issue and canceled the Social Security speech, HE CONTINUED TO HOLD FUNDRAISERS IN TAMPA WHILE SCHIAVO WAS DYING.  Some people will argue that Santorum certainly had no obligations to cancel the fundraisers for his Senate campaign. And it is my contention that those same people are the same people that could care less if we loose to Obama as long as we selfishly tell the world OUR views without discipline.  As was shown by the enormous disparity by the public over 2 to 1, they don’t want us interfering in private matters.  AND IF SANTORUM SAYS HE WAS THERE TO SUPPORT THE FAMILY – WHY DIDN’T HE CANCEL ALL THE SPEECHES OUT OF RESPECT TO THE FAMILY, not just the ones that weren’t to raise cash?  This plays as if Santorum only cared about money and did EXACTLY what we complain that Jesse Jackson was doing.  That is, using someone else’s misfortune to try score political points.  A PRINCIPLED person would have done 1 of 2 things:

  • Simply put out a statement that he supported the family and used the speech itself to press the pro-life argument, or,
  • Shown up, prayed with the family and cancelled ALL of the events to show your total devotion to the cause.

Social conservatives had better understand HOW THIS IS PERCEIVED BY ‘REGULAR” PEOPLE who make up the majority of voters. 

From Esquire:

There was the elementary school down the block that had to be closed because of bomb threats. There was the Haitian cook who got called a "Nazi" and a "murderer" on her way to work. There was the volunteer — a woman whom both George H.W. Bush and his son, Jeb, had commended for her work at the hospice — who had to stop coming because of the whackaloons who had laid siege to the place. There was the brave and strong Annie Santa Maria, who had to try and keep that good place running through all the foul madness that had been visited upon it and the people who do such great work there, every ***** day, and who once was unable to break up a near fistfight between priests in her lobby because she had to stay by a fax machine to wait for a congressional subpoena for Terri Schiavo that was being faxed from Washington by opportunistic Pecksniff yahoos very similar to Rick Santorum. These people wanted Terri to testify, despite the fact that she pretty much had no brain left to speak of.

The Schiavo case was a Moment, and the conservative movement in this country was revealed for the deceitful, arrogant, anti-humanity enterprise that it always has been. (I remember Barney Frank once telling me, with some amazement, that Democrats were telling their Republican colleagues that the party was going over a cliff on this case. It didn't help.)

So are conservative women swooning yet?  According to the writer of WHY WOMEN WANT RICK they are.  I bet they are swooning over him being AGAINST free pre-natal testing for poor women then too.  As my co-blogger @LibNeocon writes:

Santorum attacked free prenatal testing yesterday and sounded like a complete crank while doing it. I am against any government mandated benefits because they increase the cost of healthcare but even I think that prenatal testing is one of the last mandates that I would attack. There are quite a few pregnant women out there that don't take care of themselves and the more they go to the doctor to check on themselves or their baby, the better. Anyway here is what he said:

One of the things that you don't know about ObamaCare in one of the mandates is they require free prenatal testing. Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and, therefore, less care that has to be done, because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society. That too is part of ObamaCare -- another hidden message as to what president Obama thinks of those who are less able than the elites who want to govern our country.

And rather than address the real issue of the economics of mandates, or prevent an EASY sound bite for liberals, not only does he not have scientific support for his claim, he essentially says that HE DOESNT TRUST THE INTELLIGENCE OF WOMEN! You don’t think so?  Then why is he OK with MANDATORY ULTRASOUNDS?

He actually argues FOR MORE INFORMATION in mandatory ultrasounds, but NO INFORMATION in mandatory aminocentesis.

It seems Rick Santorm thinks women can not be trusted with information!  He claims the ONLY reason it is included in ObamaCare is because they want to abort babies.  (Forget for a moment that the PRIVATE MEDICAL INSURANCE COMPANY for whom he was a Director covers aminocentesis meaning – by Rick’s count – they wanted abortions).  He continues to see a religious bogey man under every argument.

That’s right.  Apparently Conservative women want Rick Santorum because – like all women – they want an emotionally unstable, paranoid schizophrenic. 

Think I’m kidding?  Even FACE THE NATION wonders why Rick Santorum decided to bring “THEOLOGY” and “CHRISTIANITY” into a speech on ENERGY POLICY below. (He also digs a deeper hole trying to explain the pre-natal bit.)

If there was ONE area I thought I – PolitiJim Jesus Freak – would agree with WHY WOMEN WANT RICK SANTORUM, it would be on issues of government and religion. They said:

The press’ contention that the social issues don’t matter smack of government constrained churches to us, and we won’t have it.  Women need the freedom to worship where they want, how they want, and they don’t want this government threatening their spiritual freedoms.

But instead of trying to keep government from infringing on spiritual freedom, Rick seems intent on bringing religion into EVERY discussion!  And mandating that women SHOULD have information if it helps our cause, and NOT if it doesn’t isn’t right.  It isn’t smart.  And it isn’t principled.  And it damn sure isn’t conservative.

MORE SEXISM IN THE SANTORUM CAMP

WHY WOMEN WANT RICK says: Work at home moms like him.  He has been outspoken and boldly spoken up for women to have the choices they deserve—to work outside the home, or not.  He even placed the blame for taking away these freedoms where real women know it belongs—on the radical feminists.

Unless they want to run for President.

Guess whose campaign staff said this about Michelle Bachman:

“The question then comes, ‘Is it God’s highest desire, that is, his biblically expressed will, … to have a woman rule the institutions of the family, the church, and the state?’ ”

We called for an apology from the Santorum camp then, to no avail.  Instead of simply apologize the Santorum campaign said it was a “private” email.  I GUESS CONSERVATIVE WOMEN WANT A CANDIDATE WHO THINK WOMEN CAN’T BE PRESIDENT PRIVATELY.

FOR ME BUT NOT FOR THEE

PolitiJim covered how this “man of principle” is as blind as the lady with the scales of justice in making fair decisions.  On justifying why he was justified in undercuting true pro-life candidate Mike Huckabee and instead endorsed the man who told abortion advocates he would be their stealth candidate – Mitt Romney; his rational was that he wouldn’t endorse the former pastor on principle alone because:

  • Huckabee had lost South Carolina and Florida
  • Huckabee didn’t have a lot of money

When Rick lost South Carolina and Florida it seemed his principle no longer applied.  If you are Senator Rick and YOU are running for President there apparently is a loophole for when selfish gain is at stake.

AGAIN, I’m not trying to be overly hard on my Christian brother.  But ALL he had to do was to make a choice to say either he was wrong, or that he has changed is views.  Instead – principle is kaput for the Pennsylvanian.

UPDATE: A Typical Politician Who Only Cares About Himself

From Pennsylvania sources:

Santorum put the party in a hard place 10 years ago when he pushed through an ambitious partisan redistricting of the state’s congressional districts. It promised more Republicans in Congress but delivered the opposite.

“He tried to be the head of the party and really got himself involved in a lot of political fights,” said a prominent GOP campaign strategist who did not want to be identified.

What does he do to OTHER Christian conservatives in the race?

“He went to an extra level of vindictiveness and nastiness against Pat Toomey,” said Shafik, the former Santorum aide, who worked on Toomey’s failed 2004 campaign. “He called up donors and said, ‘Don’t give to Pat.’”

And he recorded a TV ad discounting criticisms of Specter as a liberal that finished with him saying, “I’m proud to endorse Arlen Specter.”

After the campaign, Santorum bragged that Toomey lost because of his endorsement, Shafik said.

Toomey, now a rising Senate star, declined to comment, but his disdain for Santorum is infamous. Specter also declined to comment.

Rick’s relationship with the true conservatives in his state:

By 2006, Santorum was in the midst of his own star-crossed re-election campaign against Bob Casey Jr. Fearing his imminent defeat, he called a State Street reconciliation meeting on a hot July afternoon with about a dozen cynical party activists who had been with Toomey in 2004.

“He was so desperate,” Shafik recalled. “He had been ignoring us, and it was only until he needed us that he tried to get us back.”

The meeting started genially, but according to people in the room, Santorum erupted when his support of deficit spending and earmarks was questioned. Turning the earnest gathering into a come-to-Jesus conflagration, Santorum reportedly yelled and cursed at the people he’d come to ask to help him.

“Rick was very combative and extremely arrogant,” said Jason High, a former chief of staff to Blair County state Sen. John Eichelberger who attended the meeting. “He told us the conservative movement in Pennsylvania began with him and would end if he lost to Bob Casey. Afterward, someone who’d been at the meeting called me and said he was voting for Bob Casey because, ‘This man has to lose.’”

And he did — by 17 points.

“I discount him totally out of hand because of the way he ran his last race in Pennsylvania,” an influential state GOP figure said of Santorum’s presidential aspiration. “His last campaign was a disaster. His attitude wasn’t a little bit abrasive. It was a lot abrasive. You just couldn’t tell Rick anything.”

Another party boss was more critical.

“What is there about Rick today that will be able to reverse the 17-point loss to Bob Casey, who is no Barack Obama?” he said.

In other words PA conservatives felt he was so obnoxious THEY SET OUT TO MAKE SURE HE LOST.

What PA Tea Party thinks about his PRINCIPLES:

It’s support Santorum will eagerly accept in light of his criticisms of the tea party and libertarians in 2010. Then, just as he was taking steps to launch his presidential bid, he told the Pennsylvania Press Club that tea party activists and libertarians were dangerous elements in the GOP.

“Now to show up and act like he was the original tea party candidate is absurd,” said High, the former Eichelberger aide. “But he’s phony. He’ll go to extreme lengths to be perceived as the most conservative guy in the room, but when it’s time to cut a deal to advance his political career, he’ll do it in a heartbeat.”

Added another: “If Santorum is our candidate, then that’s a sure victory for Obama, and we’ll just concentrate on other state races.”

 UPDATED 4/2/2012: Santorum Applauds Attacks on Christian Values and ... (VIDEO)

Part 4 Preview

The (possibly) final chapter in our series.  All (smart) men know women like financial security.  (How else do you explain smoking hot babes and bald saggy billionaires?

WHY WOMEN WANT RICK has this to say:

He is every businesswoman’s handy banker. He is every school girl’s slightly geeky, but deliciously smart favorite math teacher.   Women feel the financial strain created by this administration’s $1 trillion  per year spending habit more than our sexier counterparts.  We are the ones who have to abandon our choices and go to work.  We have to clip coupons, stretch dollars, walk the tightrope between what our kids want and what our struggling budget allows, and we know we couldn’t do it without our spiritual strength.

So how did the heavenly homeboy hold up on the hay and
high finance?

  • His charity gave away so little of the money he collected, it wouldn’t even pass the Bethlehem Better Business Bureau.
  • He lied about where his children lived so that the State of Pennsylvania could pay $100,000 for his children’s homeschooling in Virginia.
  • HIS OWN RE-ELECTION BROCUHRE gave these qualifications of how he was a good conservative money manager for the country:

    • Sponsoring FAIR CAIR act to force companies to
      pay benefits to laid-off workers.
    • Working with John McCain on campaign finance reform.
    • Bragging about bringing home federal tax money
      for clean energy projects.
    • Working with Bono to spend tax money on poverty
      in the third world.
    • Working with Bono to spend tax money on AIDS.
    • Sponsoring legislation to regulate gas prices.
    • Authoring the Pet Animal Welfare State Bill. (Huh.)
    • Voting for record tax funding of Pennsylvania public schools
    • Authoring The Care Act: funding for Non Profits
    • Working with Joe Lieberman on Working Families Act
    • Supported increased tax funding for Chesapeake Bay

HOW MANY TIMES has Rick told us that we should elect him because he knew how to get elected in a blue state as a strong conservative?

And how did that “strong conservative” come across to Pennsylvania?

Apparently WHY WOMEN WANT RICK is because he pretends to be fiscally conservative and principled.

This excerpt from a 2005 Pennsylvania newspaper says it best:

Two Saturdays ago, I spoke to the Rogues, a spirited Republican group in Pittsburgh's South Hills. These are real conservatives -- rock-ribbed GOPers who generally have great disdain for what Republicans have become. They're more likely to have photos of Barry Goldwater on their walls than Ronald Reagan. And they take no guff from the party's power brokers.

They lament that Republicans can be elected but cannot lead. They're tired of capitulation. They've grown weary of the lip-service. They actually moan when you mention Rick Santorum's name.

There's lots of moaning going on around the state within similar groups of grassroots Republicans who are fighting to take the party back and force it to stand for something -- anything.

Read more: The problem with Rick Santorum - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_317352.html#ixzz1pPCEjpcY


Part 1: NUTSS for SANTORUM: TRUTH

Part 2: Pro-Life NUTSS for Santorum

2 comments:

I am just so livid right now. I am listening to Rick Santorum talking to Mark Levin and he is literally trashing Newt over Cap & Trade and also saying he supported RomneyCare.

I don't know what we have to do to STOP this, but I think a few radio hosts need to have their eyes opened about Mr. Santorum. What do you think?

You have done a magnificent job outlining and referencing all the facts. I appreciate what you have done.

thanks Jim, great article.

Post a Comment

Share

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More