 |
23 May 2012
Susan Mary Riley, We Will Miss You
It's her voice that I keep hearing in my head. "Susan," she would say, in that quiet, commanding … Read More.
|
|
18 May 2012
Boring
When my kids were young, about the worst thing they could say about something was that it was capital-b BORRRING.… Read More.
|
|
16 May 2012
Graduation Day
It's that time of year. What's the old song? "I can still remember..." And I do. It's what I talk … Read More.
|
|
The Santorum Surge
Could it really happen?
Could Rick Santorum be the Republican nominee?
Is God a Democrat?
Not to be mean, but early in this election season, Santorum was one of the funniest characters in the weekly Republican debate spoofs on "Saturday Night Live." He was the pontificating choirboy, earnest and entirely unpresidential. As hard as it was to see Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich as president, it was even harder to imagine Santorum surging — or his impersonator having a long shelf life on the show.
So what happened? Did Republicans everywhere suddenly wake up and discover that Santorum had the magic they'd been looking for? Did they suddenly realize that in the midst of difficult economic times, what Americans were looking for was a guy who thinks birth control is bad for women, and that America's economic problems could be solved by more religion in public life?
If you ask me, the Santorum surge has almost nothing to do with Santorum and everything to do with Mitt Romney. Or rather, with "not Romney." As in, who can conservatives vote for who is "not Romney"? At first, it looked like it might be Rick Perry, so Perry flew high until he crashed trying to remember that third Cabinet department. Then Gingrich got hot because he could remember Cabinet departments that existed 30 years ago, but he also had so much baggage that even his masterful attempts at damage control and deflection couldn't sustain his momentum.
That was the moment when the party was supposed to come together behind Romney. He won Florida. Even Donald Trump was impressed.
But a funny thing happened on the way to this summer's convention in Tampa. The smart money went to Romney, but the Republican ground troops and grassroots didn't follow. They went looking for someone else, and at least so far, their answer has been Santorum.
As far as I can tell, a lot of those supporting Santorum don't actually know that much about him. They can't detail his accomplishments or tell you where he stands on defense issues or what his plan is for the economy. They don't know exactly what to say about his support for earmarks, because who knew he supported them? This is what they do know: He is not a conservative-come-lately. He is, in short, not Romney.
Can a guy who thinks birth control is bad and intelligent design should be taught in school and who is not known for anything he's ever said or done about the economy really get elected president?
Would Republicans actually take the risk of nominating him?
Sure, it could happen. Christmas could come in November. Most of the smart Republicans I know shudder at the thought. The liberal blogs have just started digging for video on Santorum, and it isn't pretty. (Many married people, after all, also use birth control. Heck, so do a majority of Catholics, even if President Obama was naive, at best, to think he would be praised for requiring religious-affiliated institutions to provide it.) But stranger things have happened, which is why watching politics — if not always playing it — is such fun.
Obama is inching up to 50 percent, the magic number for an incumbent. Romney and Santorum are running neck and neck. It's one thing to have a primary season go all the way with a candidate who everyone knows can't win, a Jesse Jackson. It's one thing to have a primary season go all the way with two attractive and electable candidates who are supported, mostly with great congeniality, by the same wing of the party, say Hillary and Obama. But it's quite another when the contest is real and is being propelled not by the strengths of two attractive candidates but by the overwhelming reluctance of the base of the party to accept the guy who's supposed to win.
It's a dangerous situation for Republicans because Romney could be weakened in the process and, even more, because the "not Romney" could actually win. The word is that Democrats are beginning their opposition research on Santorum. Must be fun.
To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
11 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
So the lies start: Santorum was asked by leftist George Stephanapolis if the thought states could ban birth control. This must have been shortly after George stopped beating his wife. This we do know, concerning your ninth paragraph: Obama wants to unilaterally drop our nuclear defenses and leave us nearly helpless in negotiations. Obama's plans for the economy include further strangling of it with regulation and insurance demands. Earmarks? Obama doesn't need 'em, he just drives up the budget by trillions offering free anything to any greedy soul looking for an easy pass. We know Obama dislikes the constitution, it "has blind spots"; this from a man whose blind spots encompass a full 360 degrees. We know Obama will take away religious rights and freedoms. We know he is always anxious to pit one class of Americans against another. We know his food police inspect the lunches of 4 year olds at preschool What we do know about Obama is more frightening than what we don't know about any of the Republican candidates.
Smear away, as the last sentence suggest shall be done. Your guy isn't laying in a bed of roses.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Tom
Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:50 PM
|
|
|
|
I had to laugh, too. Santorum and his wife are pro-lifers, huh? So the lies start and what short memories we have. When Rick and Karen Garver, his now wife, started dating she described Rick Santorum, her new boyfriend as "pro-choice and a humanist". This statement was made to her lover of 6 years, Dr. Thomas E. Allen, the famous Pittsburgh abortion pioneer. For the haters out there, this is a fact and can be easily verified. "Let those without sin cast the first stone", one of the greatest teachings of the Bible overlooked by all the "Christian Choice Conscience Police".
When you stop trying to police our choices and start trying to be President, maybe we won't laugh.
Comment: #2
Posted by: demecra zydeem
Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:31 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Tom
Tommy, you were right about one thing: you sure can lie.
To assume that cutting the defense budget is going to leave us helpless is stupid; our defense budget is bigger than the sum of the next 23 largest defense budgets on earth. That hardly makes us "nearly defenseless in negotiations."
"Strangling us with regulation and insurance demands?" Maybe you liked being at the mercy of corporate lawyers instead of having a consumer protection agency. or maybe you didn't mind investing your money in a stock fund and having $10 billion disappear. Or, maybe you were one of those people who thought it was simply awful that Catholic organizations should have to pay for birth control pills, yet look the other way when the Pope said (last year) that it was morally responsible for countries to provide health care to their citizens. Or you don't mind that the United States is the only industrialized country in the world that won't provide health coverage for its citizens. We're Number 1 (in health cost), though.
"Driving up the budget by trillions?" That was Bush's budget you're thinking of, the one that drove up our debt from 56.4% of our gross domestic product to 83.4% of our GDP. And for those who think that Obama has increased our debt by $5 billion (I'm talking to you, joseph wright), Bush's spending showed an 88% increase from 2002 to 9/30/09 (the end of his budget), while Obama's spending increased 7.2%, and that's with an estimate through 2013, and including the stimulus. Obama isn't even close to Bush in spending. (And for the whiners that complain about blaming Bush for everything, why were these same people blaming Clinton for the 2008 recession?)
"Dislikes the Constitution?" As a Constitutional lawyer, he does? Prove it.
"We know Obama will take away religious rights and freedoms. We know he is always anxious to pit one class of Americans against the other. We know his food police inspect the lunches of 4-year olds at preschool. What we do know about Obama is more frightening than what we don't know about any of the Republican candidates."
Sounds like typical Republican slime attacks to me, without any proof, with extra vitrol and the same kind of mudslinging evidenced by the current Republicans running for president. Unprovable at any level, in any way, and completely without basis.
Yes Tommy, you did a fine job of lying. It was very sloppy lying, but lying nonetheless.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Winslow
Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:47 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Winslow: Great post.... for MANY reasons. If you can't kill them with kindness just give them the facts. I am a fan!
Comment: #4
Posted by: demecra zydeem
Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:20 PM
|
|
|
|
I'd like to know where Winslow got his/her "facts" because everything I read is manure, pure and simple.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Rich Duncan
Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:55 AM
|
|
|
|
Re Winslow
Slow, you protest too much. I mean way too much. Just look how happy Obama has made you! And your right, the country has never been in better shape, and we owe it all to Michelle and Barrack. My statements are all lies and smear and you are pure as driven snow. demecro admires you, we all do. Obama has not added to our debt. I think it should be a pleasure to give more money to the government. Obama did not tell Catholics they could not follow their religious consciences and remain in healthcare. Oh, those awful corporate lawyers! Beaurocrats are better, Solyndra even better, there may be flies on us but there ain't no flies on you!
Yes, Slow, you do a fine job of representing the fair minded principled liberal up to his eyeballs in self aggrandizement and delusion. Maybe you should lie down now, dear.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Tom
Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:10 PM
|
|
|
|
Hey Slow, when you wake up your big fan of facts demecra will tell your her story about how President Eisenhower started WWII. Give 'em the facts, you two.
Slow, stay semi-conscious, you're probably better company thay way.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Tom
Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:24 AM
|
|
|
|
Winslow seems to have gotten certain facts mixed up. Whining about the Bush deficits, most of which were incurred when Dems controlled Congress, is almost funny, considering the way the Obama has squandered money. And thee result ? Thee only thing that seesm to have improved under Obama is his golf score.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Walter Lawrence
Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:11 PM
|
|
|
|
Re: Winslow
I do not visit this site often now because Estrich and her inane constitutionally illiterate banal writings cease to amuse. However your post really did make me laugh. You, are most certainly and typical of all Democrats dumbed down and stuck on stupid. Never has the old adage that declares those who know not and know not that they know to be fools been more adequately proven than by you. I am addressed presonally and so some response is warranted. These are the facts dummy
Deficits Year on Year.
Bush 2007, $161 billions, 2008, $459 billions, 2009 $1.413 trillions and these are with a runaway spendthrift Democrat House and Senate
.
Obama 2010 $1,293 trillions. 2011 $1.300 trillions, 2012 $1.327 trillions. Projected hereinafter never under a trillion.
National debt year on year under Bush 2001 $5.943 trillions, 2002, $ 6.405 trillions, 2003 $7.001 Trillions, 2004 $ 7. 596 trillions, 2005 $ 8.170 trillions, 2006 $8.68 trillions, 2007 $9.229 trillions, 2008 10.669 trillions. Democrats had House and Senate 2007, 2008.
National debt year on year under Onama 2009 $12.311 trillions, 2010 $14.025 trilliuons, 2011 $15.125 trillions. In just three years obama added almoat $5 trillion dollars in just three years. Current projected debt 2012 $16.4 trillions that is an increase of nearly $6 trillion in four horific years.
As for Bush the highest debt to GDP rationwas 74.1% which was way way to high. Under Obama it rose to over 100% of GDP and will never get under 100% of GDP. Entirely deliberate and wholly unsustainable. obama seeks the ecomomic destruction of America. 42% of every dollar spent by the federal governmentn is borrowed.
Contrary to the spin, obama has never been a constituional lawyer any more than any liscensed lawyer or anyone holding a law degree. He may have taught constitutioinal law or more accurately his own brand of constitution hating bs, but what is clear from his every action since the fools elected him president, is his hatred of the freedoms cryatalized within our supreme law.
Now sober up and educate yourself. Fool!
Comment: #9
Posted by: joseph wright
Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:17 AM
|
|
|
|
I returned to this page to comment because I researched the numbers presented by Winslow and have just been checking Joseph Wright's numbers. Seems depending where you look or whose opinion you trust, the numbers can and have been manipulated to such a degree as to keep the argument alive. It's a draw, but tilts more to Winslow's numbers.
What hasn't been noted by Republicans who admit the Bush years brought about our debt crisis but blame it on the Democratic Congress is of the utmost importance.
Democratic congress approved Bush's spending/budget requests and allowed him to put it all on the credit card because of 9/ll and the War On Terror when we invaded Afghanistan and Iran. The Democratic Congress was put in the untenable position of having to approve the Bush/Cheney credit card full of inflationary excesses to pass due to the threat level at code Orange. If one could put aside their bias and answer the question: Did the Congress really, I mean really, have any other choice but to get behind our Commander in Chief and sign off on whatever the administration wanted and felt we needed to do protect the United States and it's citizenry?
Our country acted like any family would in an emergency, put it on the credit card and we'll worry about paying for it later. Knowing this, I think the argument is moot. Well "Later" is here and Instead of attacking each other for spending, suck it up and allow the current Commander in Chief his response to our war on debt as we allowed Bush to realize his response to the war on terror.
President Obama's credentials are as a Civil Rights Lawyer graduate of Harvard Law School and Columbia University and Professor of Constitutional Law. He taught Constitutional Law at University of Chicago Law School for eight years.
It's obvious the abstract notion such as "war on debt" will bounce off concrete thinkers and they'll attempt to use it as a weapon.Your hatred of President Obama is palpable and may I suggest you take the same advice you offered Winslow in your last sentence. Fool!
Comment: #10
Posted by: demecra zydeem
Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:05 PM
|
|
|
|
If these were 'normal' times with 'normal' people, Mickey Mouse could beat Obama. The question is: are we 'normal'?
Comment: #11
Posted by: Early
Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
