Rick Santorum is an Ignorant Bigot

CNN's Rick Santorum: "We birthed a nation from nothing. I mean, there was nothing here. I mean, yes we have Native Americans but candidly there isn't much Native American culture in American culture" pic.twitter.com/EMxOEYDbg7

— Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) April 26, 2021

There's not great reason to really pay attention to Rick Santorum, former US Senator from the Commonwealth of PA, but it remains to be said, that if you ever do find yourself paying attention to him, it's probably because he's being an ignorant bigot, because he really, really is.

UPDATE: As a lot of people by now on Twitter have pointed out, by "we" he means "white people" and he's echoing the phrase "birth of a nation", after the 1915 movie also called "The Clansman" which revitalized interest in the KKK. What he's implying, by way of erasure of Native Americans, by erasure of African Americans and other non-white people, is that white people made this country and it's their inheritance. It's very much of a piece with the "blood and soil" language espoused by white supremacists and it is pure historical revisionism, but the political purpose of that language is pretty clear.

TWBG: No One Promised You a Rose Garden

This has been a pretty crappy week for President Trump so far, what with the ongoing search for a replacement for outgoing CoS John Kelly (who Trump blabbed was leaving without giving Kelly himself a chance to so announce, and who will presumably now stay on until the end of the year) going poorly enough that regular CNN commentator and former US Senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum pled out of the job, citing that he has a family, and sort-of front-runner Mark Meadows was let off the hook because Trump needs somebody in the House, and with setting his ownself up to basically own a government shutdown because being Mr. Art of the Deal, Chuck and Nancy got him flustered in front of a camera. And he stayed flustered, got his manhood questioned, and spent Wednesday morning up in his residence, watching cable and presumably still out of sorts.

The night before, Michael Flynn, Trump's top foreign policy advisor and hand-picked NSA until that totally blew up, offered a sentencing memo requesting no time to be served because of his timely cooperation once he understood his situation, and grousing that he sort of thought the FBI done set him up by not telling him to shut up and get a lawyer. This is very much in line with the sort of thing TrumpWorld seems to believe, with peripheral Trumpists sort of saying this one-sided statement from the Flynn defense should let him (and Trump) off the hook.

Let me get this out of the way--I do not know what is worse, assuming that one is so poor of reading comprehension to misunderstand the situation to the effect that a statement that there is a process to call on the White House Counsel actually equals a consultation not to engage an attorney, because then it would be some kind of thing and that a grown man who is not new to this rodeo somehow is receiving compensation from foreign governments (plural, Turkey and Russia) without filing the correct FARA paperwork, knows this to be true, and faces the line of questioning he should certainly expect without for a quick minute thinking of getting either an attorney consult or, maybe, and I'm standing out on a ledge over here--not lying; or being so disingenuous to have grasped these things and then presented them, however dim and unworthy of supposition, as one's best defense for a person who is already in a cooperating agreement and whose best defense in reality is coughing up information that sort of invalidates all pretense at innocence. I am unfamiliar with Byron York's compensation arrangement, but I personally would skip a paycheck before presenting anything this fucking stupid. Or demand a "walk-away" amount. 

But I digress, because the star of the day was clearly Michael Cohen, who was sentenced to 36 months and some fines and restitution. This is less than the 51 to 63 months that was recommended by the sentencing guidelines. Part of his sentencing included the plea regarding campaign finance violations, and before the claim that the Edwards defense might pertain to Trump (even though Edwards was indicted) escaped the lips of Trump defenders, AMI, the parent company of National Enquirer which helped facilitate the McDougal payoff, entirely agreed: this was all about the 2016 presidential campaign of--some guy. 

Now, Trump has a reason to be seething as Cohen maintains he was directed to do much of what he did by Trump (not the tax evasion stuff, and nothing to do with the taxi medallions, but hot damn the bribery things!) And really, who takes out a loan on their house to pay off a person who is only claiming to have had sex with a potential presidential candidate because that certainly sounds like a really great use of your credit rating, unless specifically told to by someone you anticipate will make good on the ask? Only Trump's direction makes sense. And the direction is because the claim is probably good (they did it) and Trump would for some reason, prefer not to have another credible claim against him (among already so many?) during a campaign that he now has to win because?

Not winning queers his deal.

My best guess is Trump is indebted to do the White House thing until he is somehow removed from office, and I think he hates it, and I sort of like the prospect that this makes him suffer a little. As with the Trump Tower Moscow project, maybe doing this POTUS thing was a dream too far, with a serious price. 

But there definitely was a Moscow Trump Tower thing going, and Trump also may have met with people he thought might help him make it happen. Or for sure his son did, more than once. And we now understand that Mueller is looking more closely at these Russia/NRA contacts, especially now that Maria Butina is cooperating. Her boyfriend seems to have already produced interesting leads. 

Now, if his bind is what I think it is, Trump always has resigning and coming correct as a possible out (although being as crooked as a corkscrew and having to wind his pants on each morning makes this a remote possibility). But I really feel like the evidence here indicates that he's up to his orange peel ass in fuckery, and the other alternatives are not going to be pretty. 

Climate Monday: A Humble Media Suggestion

Trump White House issues climate change report undermining its own policy https://t.co/SZb2vFpdJg

— Vox (@voxdotcom) November 26, 2018

I don't think that the narrative that the Trump Administration is necessarily "hiding" their National Climate Assessment report is correct because I don't think news cycles really have a "Friday news dump" lacuna anymore, but I definitely agree that the actions of the administration serve to undermine it (or as they probably see it, the damned scientists are trying to undermine them). But this isn't something that's just peculiar to President Trump's anti-intellectual, conspiracy-minded, staring up at eclipses sort of nonsense. This is a problem we specifically have with US conservatives, and sadly, with how our media screws up reporting fact-based issues "for balance".

Take the Sunday shows. It's not hard for the chatty journalism format of the designated serious newsy shows to work in a "Friday news dump" item and give it a going over. Meet the Press, the ancient and venerable, bothered to mention it.

And they fucked it up. They let Senator Mike Lee get away with being stupid regarding the financial aspects of the substance of the report. The report specifically addressed the fact-based reality that real economic damage would be the fall-out of climate change, but libertarian Lee was able to burble that he saw no policy proposals that would not be economically damaging.

Let me rephrase that: is it that he sees no proposals that immediately address climate change that also permit entrepreneurs to capitalize on the deal? First off, that's short-sighted, but second, the turning a buck is their problem, not as a law-maker, his. His job would be legislation aimed at mitigating the effects for the safety and welfare of his constituents, which might not always be direct regulations (if he's so ideologically opposed), but could mean tax penalties or credits as a carrot and stick incentivization scheme to encourage better environmental practices. He doesn't seem to understand the question. He is, unquestionably, not a scientist--but you'd think he might understand the policy end a bit more, no?

Questions regarding the report were also put to regular MTP panel-member Danielle Pletka, of the AEI think tank. Her answers were also god-awful stupid.  And of course, she is not a scientist, and the AEI think tank she hails from gets a not-inconsiderable subsidy from Exxon, and maybe for all I know, other fossil fuel companies. This merits a disclaimer, I would think. But that MTP asked Pletka, and not, say, Tom Steyer, who was also on the program and actually has a committed and informed point of view on climate change, but was only asked about the 2020 horse race (really?) is, well.

Stupid.

But this isn't the worst stupidest thing. CNN actually pays my former senator, Rick Santorum of PA, for opinions about things when there is no evidence that he is actually, in any respect, a person with worthwhile and well-considered opinions. He actually fatuously repeated the dumb thing that Trump said about forest-raking, even though, once again, California does not manage all the forests, but the Federal government is in charge of most of it, and no, no one ever rakes forests because that is fucking stupid. Droughts are about less rain, and raking would actually pull more moisture out of the forest floor, and, you know, just read a book or something if you don't know why that is stupid. In the history of ever, there has never been a time when forest fires were managed by troops of people sent out into tens of thousands of acreage of trees, raking up shit.

But he also said a funny thing regarding climate change and the scientists who study it, to wit: they propound that global warming is real because of the sweet cash involved:

"I think the point that Donald Trump made is true, which is, uh… Look, if there was no climate change we’d have a lot of scientists looking for work," Santorum said. "The reality is that a lot of these scientists are driven by the money they receive, and of course they don’t receive money from corporations and Exxon and the like. Why? Because they’re not allowed to because it’s tainted, but they can receive (money) from people who support their agenda and that, I believe, is what’s really going on here."

Is he saying the people who support the thing where the established companies with all the money are going to have to make less money are somehow offering more compensation than the companies with all the money?* Because that is either really stupid or exactly what somebody who has been getting fossil fuel money and is also really stupid would say. And if Exxon and the coal companies and the natural gas guys and them could pay for Rick Santorum to say stupid stuff on tv (and also get paid by CNN, and provide no disclaimer about that whatsoever), than frankly, whatever stopped them from paying an actually very intelligent person or a hundred to put a scientifically shut-up-shutting up empirical stake in the heart of climate change science for once and for all?

Except, you know, the empirical facts?

So, my humble suggestion is this: If you have a political operative who might be swayed because of their income streams into siding with a corporate enterprise or entire industry opine on a subject pertaining to that industry, make it abundantly clear or don't have their asses on at all. And it you want balance, instead of "not a scientist" viewpoints dueling in a nebulous policy arena, maybe try to actually be informative and have a scientist weigh in! Also, maybe dedicate more of your staff to knowing this shit cold so they can respond to actually brain-damaged statements about raking forests and the glamorous pay of research scientists in real time.

I think it could be very helpful and serve the public a lot more than this farcical coverage.

*No. Tom Steyer is not paying all the other guys. It's, like 97% of scientists. He and Al Gore are not behind the whole global warming thing. The greenhouse effect was first described in 1824.

The Trump Problem 2: What the Elites Don't Know, but the Base Understands

This morning, the Oracle of Wasilla Sarah Palin made a curse against Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and all his doin's, to the effect of her being in support of Rep. Ryan's being primaried and cast in the place of darkness, there to wail and gnash his teeth, like Eric Cantor was. 

This is not an absurd thing to say. There is a Republican challenger for Ryan's seat, and if I know anything about the good folks of Wisconsin, it's that they voted for Walker three times and produced a Glenn Grothman, so? Maybe the pride of Janesville should feel a little discomfort. (Or maybe, if freed from having to appeal to everybody as the guy both begged to become Speaker of the House and arm-twisted until he had to deny wanting to make a run at the convention for president in the event it was contested, the sigh of relief.) But how vast this former VP candidate's (Ryan, I mean, not Palin) heresy is depends on your POV.

After all, when I derided Paul Ryan's response to Trump's nomination as he was "just not ready" as being willing to be brought to "yes",  I considered that he was going to get there, eventually, but it was just possible that he was aware of a certain ticket with a flashy, but under-informed VP candidate with great right-wing bona fides, but which, nonetheless, lost to a celebrity-quality POC with a funny foreign name and a gaffe-prone 70's vintage Democrat Congresscritter.  And even Sarah Palin knows the weaknesses of that particular ticket. In other words--Ryan is just being cagey about whether the entire country is ready to swallow what the GOP base drinks in every day.

I remember when that very question was very much on the minds of a handful of high-profile names in the GOP circa 2009. Rep. Eric Cantor, former Gov. Mitt Romney, and former Gov. Jeb Bush were all keen to take what they learned from the post-mortems of the 2008 election and try to reconcile it with a listening tour of the Republican base.

There's a pretty impressive "Where are they now?" Romney lost in 2012, Rep. Cantor lost in a primary, and Jeb Bush's 2016 Presidential Primary bid was a subject of pity and awe. Whatever they were listening to--it could not help them.

The Difference a Caucus Makes

You know, the best thing that happened in Iowa was Ted Cruz winning the caucus. First of all, that made Donald Trump a loser, because no one remembers second place (except we will, for the moment, just fondly look on Trump as "Number Two"). But besides that, it's a good story: a lot of people mention that Cruz's campaign simply had a better ground game--true. Donald Trump claimed that he never even heard of a "ground game". (So much to learn! Also about internal polling versus media polling. Also about knowing which things to blow off, which to take seriously.)

But the interesting thing is that part of Cruz's last-minute poll-defying support came at the expense of Ben Carson. Cruz campaign workers spread a message that Carson was likely to drop out, possibly spurring some Carson supporters to throw in with Cruz to avoid throwing their efforts away on a candidate who wasn't in it for the long haul. What's fascinating to me about this is that there was something a little odd about the claim the Carson was going to Florida to get "fresh clothes". (Is one to believe there is no dry cleaning to be had in Iowa?) And that campaign is, well, same as it ever was. But still, that sort of thing is just further evidence (some might suppose) of Ted Cruz's bottomless skullduggery.

The second best thing is that the results finally persuaded Huckabee, Santorum, and Rand Paul to just stop. Huckabee, instead of doing anything to raise his profile during the course of the campaign, really hit some distasteful notes, and Rand Paul certainly has reasons to concentrate on his Senate re-election campaign. Former PA senator Santorum, is typical bumbling fashion, not only dropped out but threw his endorsement to third place finisher Marco Rubio--for reasons he struggled to explain. (Let me help the gentleman from PA--he can't support the libertine Trump, and no one likes Cruz. But the truth of the matter is, the pretend-moderate character Rubio is just as huge a smarmy social conservative as Santorum. Twinsies!)

The third best thing is Rubio may well be getting a bump from a strong third-place showing in Iowa, and while I don't love Rubio, man, he sure does irritate me less than Cruz and Trump!

On the Democratic side, we bid farewell to Martin O'Malley, who for some reason just never took off. There doesn't even seem to be one specific thing about him that was objectionable. He just didn't take off. The finish between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders was as good as a tie in my opinion. Meh. Social media is showing me that there are some people with deep "battle for the soul of the Democratic Party" feelings about the two-person contest. I'm not one of those people. I'm sort of a knee-jerk pragmatist: I'll take better over worse.

Trump Fatigue

Many apologies to my regular readers for my temporary absence from blogging, but I have been mentally laid up with a tremendous case of Trump Fatigue. The recent episode of Donald Trump vs the Media, pitting His Nibs against Fox News (and particularly Megan Kelly) was just a stunt too far for me to go on trying to write about this as politics, and it isn't even exactly media criticism--the only way to discuss this is as a television review for a reality show.

I had long wondered what debates mean to people who don't follow policy minutia. I no longer do. They are a talent contest for political spokesmodels. Who delivered cleverer lines? Who looked poised? Did one candidate or the other seem nervous or badly prepared for some ambush question? It's superficial--and backing out of the tiresome thing makes sense for a frontrunner who considers himself far enough in the lead to get no benefit out of it whatsoever--and already anticipates he won't get slammed for it. So Trump created his own counter-event. It even drew two of the undercard debate performers, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, who seek attention like blind snakes seeking warmth. Did they realize they were practically signaling an endorsement? (Who knows what people with this little likelihood of winning the nomination, who still claim to be in the running, actually are aware of?)

Without Trump, the debate went on, arguably with more discussion of the issues. Sen. Ted Cruz took his shots at the absent frontrunner--but it looks like none of the other stiffs on the stage felt like that was their cue to take advantage of the opportunity to bury Trump while he was offstage. I found it a source of disappointment, but not surprise. They could have said he "cut and run" and challenged his seriousness, but no. Jeb Bush tussled with Marco Rubio. Rubio tussled with Cruz. Boring.

So Trump gambled that he wouldn't get painted as unserious for ditching the debate to have a rally for disabled vets--and was proven absolutely right. He flatfooted the competition, who simply did not know how to respond. And he won the media cycle, because once again, he was all the news could talk about.

I don't know when everyone else will be as exhausted by this sort of thing as I am, but I feel like the media should catch on that they are being played for publicity, and maybe his nasty little habit of turning on journalists who displease him only stops when they do what his GOP rivals refused to.

Dead Campaign Walking

This sort of news from the Huckabee campaign makes me think he might want to consider going back to doing radio. What's going on is:

Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign is slashing salaries for senior campaign staff in the wake of poor polling and difficulty fundraising, sources told Politico on Thursday.

Campaign officials said the austerity measures will help redirect more funds toward evangelical-heavy Iowa, where Huckabee, a former pastor, won the 2008 Republican caucuses.

The salary reductions took place over the last few weeks, amid the abrupt departure of communications director Alice Stewart. 

Take a look at the GOP Iowa spread, and you can not think that by February 1st, with what Huckabee has on hand, he's going to do much to break what looks like a toss-up between Cruz and Trump.  Then he goes on to New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada and Super Tuesday.

He's got to make absolutely absurd gains to get there. He isn't going to make them in New Hampshire, and even if he figures out a way to score points in South Carolina, it isn't enough to encourage donors through Super Tuesday.

I totally had Santorum as next on the drop-dead rota, but I don't even know if he has staff to cut the salaries of anymore. I don't know what he's running on. Hope that at least he's doing better than that bastard Pataki?  (I know why Senator Graham is in, I think. Keeping it real, FWIW.)

Anyhow, I call Huckabee sensible enough to creep out of the race before massive campaign debts accrue. That's the best I'll say for him.

The Often-Backwards Santorum

I'd been lamenting that I was seldom getting the opportunity to rake Rick Santorum over like a gently-aged pile of mulched garbage, but Hark! He's actually been caught by media people saying things:

“This president has been following, this president makes excuses for not acting, and if you look at what this president has done with ISIS, it is the worst foreign policy in the history of America,” the former senator told Brian Kilmeade during an episode of his program Kilmeade and Friends. “The president’s policy toward ISIS is to contain ISIS. ISIS’s policy in order to gain credibility as a caliphate, in the Middle East, and around the world, is to maintain their territorial integrity.”

“Let me repeat that: The president’s policy is to keep ISIS within their bounds; ISIS’s objective is to keep their territorial integrity,” continued Santorum. “Now, what does that sounds like? It sounds like president Obama is in cahoots with the strategy of ISIS to maintain their territorial integrity.”

“And he doesn’t realize, by having this strategy he provides the greatest recruitment tool for ISIS, which is: America is fighting us, and we are maintaining our territorial integrity, and we are winning this battle,” he added. “The president is helping ISIS every single day by the policies we have, and he doesn’t even know it because he refuses to accept the reality that ISIS is a caliphate.”

Every part of that is completely backwards. All of it. The US is engaging in airstrikes in the region and is leading a coalition to combat Daesh.  Daesh's "territorial integrity" is being contained, and even shrunk. The strategy isn't mere containment, although that's a start--it's beating them back. Because they are not, as Santorum wants to insist, a caliphate, although they would like very much for people to acknowledge that they are. They're an occupying force.

The airstrikes are intended to weaken Daesh's hold on occupied areas so they eventually can't hold them. They aren't building a bloody wall around the area and calling it a day. It just takes time.

Oh Look. Bobby Jindal Dropped Out.

Damn. I had Santorum next on the 2016 Death Watch, but I guess it really is time that Jindal, who was making no headway at all, hung up the old campaign. In a primary that has really outside figures like Trump and Carson who sort of burn up all the oxygen, getting attention is hard enough, but Jindal never seemed to really find the right red-meat tone. He once took on the "stupid party", but in the end, they took him in, and they took him down.

I don't think his run did him any favors in his state, or made him look any better for a possible 2020 go at things. I'm still for Santorum as a sooner rather than later exit, but Graham's support is probably more vaporous.

Missed Connections 2016: Rick Santorum

Sometimes, as a political blogger, you do a piece o' prognosticating, as I did five months ago, opining that if Rick Santorum were to run again, I would be on that like spaghetti sauce on a particularly nice white blouse, and many hits to my blog would ensue because curiosity would reign about who, exactly, this 21st century Savonarola is.

This has entirely not manifested. I am sure he is delivering the speeches most derpulent, but they are like the tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear. The profounder nonsense of Trump, Carson, Huckabee, and even Jeb! take center stage.

Santorum's babble doesn't even set off alarms anymore. He's not competing with Huckabee over the social issues stuff, and is just touting his boring flat tax. I don't know if Santorum can credibly do the Steve Forbes thing better than Steve Forbes did the Steve Forbes thing. Ted Cruz is already there, and also has the Bible-bangy bits, too. I'm not sure what Santorum has left to work with.

I'm calling him for next fish to float.

Walker: Leading, Following, and Getting out of the Way

The Man from ALEC is going back to Walkerstan because he has been called to drop out of the 2016 Presidential race by God, and more likely the donors, saying:

“I encourage other Republican presidential candidates to consider doing the same, so that the voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive conservative alternative to the current front-runner,” Mr. Walker said in the short appearance, at which he took no questions. “This is fundamentally important to the future of the party and, more importantly, to the future of our country.”

So it seems like all at once, he is simultaneously following in the polls, hoping to lead a pack of "never-gonna-get-its" out of the race, and getting out of the way so a "positive conservative contender" can clearly emerge.

I have to say, nothing so becomes Walker in the entirety of his campaign like his leaving it. He never caught on, I would say, specifically because the persona of reality TV celebrity Trump forced the other candidates to also try crafting personas or working on their gimmicks, like wrestlers going into a Battle Royale. Walker's persona remained elusive--there was no "there" to hang a campaign on. Bowing out with .05% poll numbers is pretty bad, but if he can save face by starting an "Anyone But Trump" movement, that at least is face-saving.

There are some questions though--clearly, throwing his .05% interest at any candidate isn't such a big ol' help to them. And can you convince flop-sweaty oddballs like Rick Santorum, who wants to do away with the State Department because diplomacy is apparent too gay for him, or Mike Huckabee, who seems like he's had the mask pulled off his cheery jocular normal guy character to reveal he was, like, a really homophobic creep all this time, that they just aren't going to win, so they should let--

Jeb Bush win?

Seems like a big order.

And of course, who will be the next "coulda been" to Walker away?

He's a Rhodes Scholar!

We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.

— Gov. Bobby Jindal (@BobbyJindal) August 17, 2015

The illegal immigrants don't get birthright citizenship. Kids born here do. If they are born here, they aren't immigrants, because they did not come from somewhere else. Sure, you can say "But, we know what he meant."

Yeah. I know what he meant. My husband's parents were documented legal residents, but not citizens, but my spouse is a citizen. And Bobby Jindal, Donald Trump, and Scott Walker aren't probably talking about him, anyway, because his parents were coming from a European country (although there are some Birthers who actually have an issue with Sen. Santorum's immigrant father, so who even knows?)

I think we can understand what these candidates are saying very well. Every now and again, people say gays, liberals and atheists should be deported, too. If any of those ideas got a bandwagon going, I almost think you could count on Gov. Jindal to hop on so hard his ankles would hurt.

Rick Santorum and his Grimy Oxymoron

Regarding the recent SCOTUS decision re: marriage equality, Senator Rick Santorum, as is his wont, could not be silent, and issued a bit of word-salad:

“Roe v. Wade is the cancer that is eating away at the body of American freedom and we’re turning into this oligarchy of judges who can impose their will on the American public,” Santorum said. “This is so troubling on so many levels. You have the abuse of the court and really robbing us of our republic. You have the abuse of the First Amendment and imposing their religious doctrine — You can say, ‘What do you mean, religious?’ Their sexual orthodoxy, let’s call it that, their morality — on the rest of this country and the destructive element of that. And then finally the destructive element being the impact on the nuclear family. I’ve been warning about all of these things and they’ve all come together in this one suit.”

Santorum went on to chide fellow Republicans who want to “move on” following the court’s ruling: “What is it about losing our republic, losing our First Amendment and losing the family that’s not worth fighting about?”

This is of a piece with his notions about a "secular theocracy" and he's not alone in using this idea--Mike Huckabee has used the same concept. But it's a very curious idea--secularism implies that no God is involved in a proceeding--so how could any part of government that is secular, also be a theocracy? I guess a sophisticated argument could go into how secularism places the onus for law upon materialism, and that those laws then become the ritual (the must-do's) of the secularist, making government the de facto "God" of the Godless. In a democracy, where the people elect the lawmakers who make our laws--"Vox populi vox dei."  (which is the radical concept lurking behind our American notions abut equality and "consent of the governed"). I'll admit, I like the US Constitution better than I like religion. I know who made it. But I do not worship my government, because I know people are people, and they have limits. Our government might be as good as it can be, but will often fall shades short of fully ethical and moral. It isn't to be worshipped--it is to be dealt with. That is a significant distinction.

One is the Loneliest Number Rick Could Ever Do

Apparently, low turnout at Iowa events is all part of former Senator Rick Santorum's strategy:

"It's not glamorous, and you're not out there raising money, but you're doing what the money is ultimately supposed to do — getting votes," said Santorum, who earlier in the day drew 10 people to a noon meeting in nearby Panora. "This is a lot more fun than being on the phone raising money."

So in the middle of the workday in Hamlin, a township of under 300 people, Santorum said he saw one person as a good crowd.

Actually, that's a hell of a fair point--anything sounds better than having to do a one-on-one call to wheedle money out of some rich folks. It sounds like operating a phone sex line for nasty people with a cutting food stamps fetish where they are especially turned on when you call them.

And I also wonder if low turnout is probably going to be a thing now that we've got so very many people running for 2016 and hanging out in Iowa generally.

"Say, there's nothing new at the Cineplex, what do you want to do?"

"Well, there's a presidential candidate in town, want to go stare at him?"

"Oh, you know I hate that. They always seem so sad, like they'd rather be someplace else."

(Sometimes the wanting to be someplace else is actually palpable.)

I think Santorum probably isn't going to have quite the success he did in 2012--but who knows? At least he isn't being objectively pro-molester, like Mike Huckabee, and isn't under indictment for anything.  Still and all, I don't see a happy ending for Santorum.

Rick Santorum is Wrong on All the Science Things

So, I guess the idea that former Senator Rick Santorum is an anti-intellectual is pretty much "old hat" by now, right?  But do you know how far out of his way wrong he's willing to be for the business interests that exist in and around Rick Santorum without openly paying for his ass like Foster Fries would?  Seriously?

Pretty damn far. Steve M. picks up on where Sen. Santorum would respectfully suggest that the Pope leave science to the scientists. Notwithstanding that the Pope is trained in science.  The science is pretty much determined. And that Rick Santorum himself is just some wanker who got elected to office on a fluke.  And hasn't since been in office for awhile--but he wants to tangle with the currently popular Pontiff?  That's some cheek! That's some face!

That's some backpfifengesicht. The earth is warming, India has melting roads  Alaska is in the 90's F even if it isn't but June.

Climate change is real. It just is.

And Santorum Makes...Damn, I've Lost Count

 

In the increasingly-crowded GOP field for the 2016 Presidential nomination, I'm actually sort of pleased to see former Senator Rick Santorum throw his hat in--not that I agree with a lot of what he says, mind you. It's just that, as I have pointed out before, he always provides interesting blogging material. And I think it is refreshing that he's choosing to craft an economic message for working people. This field of competitors has a lot of people who have burnished their social conservative and religious right ties--Santorum doesn't necessarily need to push that aspect of his narrative, it's just always there. It's who he is. Bringing up a discussion of economic policy, though, might bring the political conversation around to something a little less fraught and more productive than the culture war.

That said, I'm going to address something I don't want to do on this blog--the Dan Savage thing. I've written about how Santorum has a kind of "name herpes", now. But the more I think about it, the more unfair it seems. His family share his name, and there are certainly other Santorums out there, and they didn't really do anything to deserve their surname being given nasty connotations. It's not that I'm above calling out and even cursing out boneheaded POV's. I've just decided that it's unkind and hits outside the target. And as for Savage wanting to make "duggary" a thing--that's not cool. While what Josh Duggar did was wrong, and what his parents did in covering it up was terrible, nonetheless his sisters share that name. There are still little children in that house, and Josh Duggar's own babies, and however I feel about their upbringing, it is tragic and unfair for them to have their name made filth. They will have enough to carry in this life without people just being mean for the association, which they can hardly help.

I like a good debate, or even a fight for something that matters. Sometimes name-calling is satisfying. And sometimes it's just hurtful, and not really the way to make a point.

If Santorum Enters the Race, It's Like I Get All the Hits

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Check out Rick Santorum, Everybody.

My former Senator, Rick Santorum, is probably going to try running for president again next year. In the above video, at a National Security-related to-do in South Carolina, he is being questioned by a lady who believes President Obama is not a citizen (so he is, presumably, a Muslim Kenyan) who tried to nuke Charleston.

He does not challenge the parts that are so far out there the buses do not connect to them. He changes the subject from nuking Charleston (has anyone checked on Charleston, lately!?) to immigration.

What I want to know is: while I can see where it's probably a safety concern to challenge someone who might not be fully tracking with reality, and there is such a thing as manners, is there not any very well-mannered way to tell this "former teacher" that her head has very misfortunately been stuffed with bovine waste?

...Good News for Mitt Romney?

I'm not even sure I'm being facetious about claiming that the announcement of former AR Gov. Mike Huckabee that he was dropping his FOX News show to explore a White House run in 2016 is "good for former MA Gov. Mitt Romney".  On one hand, I'm just basing this on the likelihood that the affable Southern pastor is more likely to catch on with the FAMiLY Leader folks in Iowa than will my former senator, Rick Santorum.  Sen. Santorum camped out in Iowa for 2012 for a long time, and so barely squeaked out a win over Romney in that primary race that it simply did not register until after New Hampshire was over. As I recall, Huckabee took Iowa pretty solidly in 2008. Second place finisher in 2012 or not, with Huckabee's entrance into the race, Santorum can expect his race over before it's begun.

Which would be great for Mitt Romney if, as sort of expected, he does run again--even if some family members suggest he never really even wanted it last time. Which I don't believe for an instant because when I last saw him in 2012, he was running like somebody who wanted the job. But then there's Bush, Jeb Bush.

Rick Santorum Misses Every Point About WMD's in Iraq

My former senator, Rick Santorum, followed up a bit on the NYT story recently published regarding the aftermath of US troops exposed to aged chemical weapons in Iraq with a column in The Daily Beast that seems genuinely mystified about why the Bush II Administration didn't tout the existence of these weapons to the rafters.

This mystification is quite odd. The information itself was part of the earlier ISG report. There were news stories; it's not like it was "hushed up"--it just wasn't advertised. When my Rumproast colleague Bette Noir posted regarding the "WMD truthers" following in the wake of the NYT story, most of us jaded commenters were like. "And this is new?"

We don't even really need to point a finger at conveniently Machiavellian figure Karl Rove to figure out why the existence of very old chemical munitions in Iraq isn't actually supportive of claims that included yellowcake uranium, nuclear centrifuge tubes or whatever the hell other "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" rhetoric was being used circa 2002-2003. Because the Defense Department told then-Senator Santorum as much when they responded that these were not the munitions that the case for the Iraq invasion was built on back in 2006 when he hyped these claims at the tail-end of his dramatic losing campaign.

In the long-running war against Iran during the 1980's, Iraq originally used mainly Soviet weapons but eventually acquired some rather good sources of US-make materiel. This build-up was winked at. And then along came GHWB and his need to not be a wimp. From 1991 to 2001--are we really saying Hussein should have known where every bit of munitions were anymore? We set a real high bar--but don't forget--the US pulled weapons inspectors just before invading, interrupting the process that might have found them anyway. But still and all--this is no Jedi mind trick--these are not the WMD's we were looking for.

Now, that Santorum (I can't be arsed that Pete Hoekstra is also on the byline because who else gives a rip?) wants to hype intel that is irrelevant now anyway and was dead-in-the-water for him in 2006 to, I'm thinking, build up foreign policy cred for 2016 as if he were right all along is, so, so like him. But that is the point. It's him. He still thinks this is the info you run with. He's wrong, but sincere. Sincerely wrong. And cannot be told otherwise. And that last bit? That's the disqualifier.