This article was inspired by a tweet:

Important –> RT @KevDough: My father and I just discussed Santorum, told me he encapsulates what outsiders think all Republicans are like

— keder (@keder) February 20, 2012

 

First, I asked @KevDough — just to be sure — if that thinking were positive or negative, though I already knew the answer.  @KevDough responded “extrememly negative.”

Rather than focus on Republican Party politics, I keep going back to how the perception of frontrunner Rick Santorum is dividing conservatives into two broad camps: those who value social conservatism and those who do not.  The latter could be subdivided into many camps: those who agree ideologically with social conservatism but think it has no place in national politics, those who disagree because they are socially liberal, etc.  But my interest is piqued by my non-scientific observation that the former division – those who integrate social conservatism – used to represent mainstream America.

For certain, any colloquialism like “mainstream America” can take on many meanings.  I defer to Potter Stewart and his attempt to classify a somewhat subjective topic.  Mainstream America generally holds certain views in common, though perhaps to different degrees or in different ways, such as belief in God.  Fringe America would be the population holding views that fall outside of the mainstream, for example, the moral equivalency of a career as a drug dealer versus as a public school teacher.

From the Founders to the very recent time, social conservatism was the norm, a horizontal stroke of a cultural brush that crossed the political spectrum.  Many of today’s hot button issues would not have even warranted a serious discussion among parties and people from all walks of life.  One could spend hours reading quotations from the country’s founders, but here is a relevant example:

“He who is void of virtuous Attachments in private Life, is, or very soon will be void of all Regard for his Country. There is seldom an Instance of a Man guilty of betraying his Country, who had not before lost the Feeling of moral Obligations in his private Connections.”  – Patrick Henry

And now to the point: what is it about Rick Santorum that “outsiders” would hate?  Some MSM articles seem to suggest that Rick Santorum (or more properly, a caricature of him) is just eagerly waiting for the opportunity to seize all of America’s condoms.  A good (or “bad”) example article that is light on fact and heavy on opinion can be found on International Business Time (side note: why would an international newspaper focused on business care about an American social issue?  And why would anyone take that opinion seriously?)  The article focuses on an oft-quoted excerpt of Santorum’s: ”One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is, I think, the dangers of contraception in this country.  It’s not OK. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

The shaky logic hinges on a theoretical President Santorum cutting funding for contraception, thereby making contraception too expensive to use, and producing more babies to be aborted (yes, that’s really the argument in the article).  I would like to reserve the right to decimate this fascinatingly poor argument for another article, in order to continue the point.  In Santorum’s quotation above, one might not agree fully with every bit of it, but it doesn’t seem to be contrary to what “mainstream America” thought VERY RECENTLY.  And by very recently, I mean in my lifetime, and then again recent enough that I was old enough to even be aware of these issues.

Have we come so far that even Conservatives think funding something as non-Constitutionally-mandated as birth control is ok?  Or that we can’t even agree on simple tenets of generally Christian civilization, i.e. what the purpose of sex is?  The disclaimer I am seeing more often now on twit bios, blogs, etc is something like ‘fiscal conservative, social liberal.”  I think that in most cases, this is an attempt to placate certain audiences for the misguided purpose of increasing one’s appeal.  In other words, it is the same tried and failed policy of conservative appeasers, who think that ceding some ground buys them anything with liberal media or liberals in general.  So goes the social conservative disclaimant’s thought process: “if I disclaim social conservatism, more people will take my thoughts seriously.”

What else about the man is hate-inspiring?  He’s religious?  He’s married?  He dresses funny?  I’m at a loss to think of something that causes all of the hateful comments from the right I see in my timeline and my daily reads.  If there really are two Americas, then I could understand how Rick Santorum could be a cause for alarm, fear, anxiety, or hate.  But if, as I hope, we are not yet a nation divided, could Conservatives please dig deep and find the courage to stand up for some very rudimentary social conservatism?

Imagine: you’ve been dealt 4-of-a-kind in your weekly poker tournament (never actually betting on it, since that would be illegal). You’ve got four jacks, and are feeling pretty good. Even better, you find out your opponent, by reading his ‘tell,’ has a busted hand, and is desperate.

Now, with this scenario, do you:

a) lure him in with a long, steady series of betting rounds sure to empty his pockets?
b) fold your hand since it’s impossible to get five jacks, and hey, you’re a perfectionist.
c) tell your opponent you’ve got four jacks to make him fold

Well, if you’re Republican candidates, you go for..

d) let your loser opponent change the game to Chutes and Ladders, rendering your four jacks worthless.

The Republicans have a winning hand right now. Obama, due to his failed policies and horrible economy, is reeling and being forced to actually run on his record. Gas prices are the highest ever for this time of year. We are in the longest string of high unemployment since the Great Depression. The “right-track/wrong-track” numbers are 34 and 60, a -26 spread. The national debt is over $15 trillion, and Obama’s budget is a total joke, failing to address our country’s spending problem and cut the deficit.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what Obama has to run on. This is his crappy hand.

All the Republicans have to do for 9 months is talk about this, incessantly, in an endless, nonstop loop. This is what’s called holding four jacks. This is a winning hand.

So what are we talking about?

Birth control.

Are you freaking kidding me?

This was settled in the 1970s with the advent of The Pill.

Did you ever hear Ronald Reagan talk about birth control? Remember all those times Reagan lectured hippies on their IUDs? What about all the times Reagan said he wants to ban condom vending machines?

You don’t remember it because he was kind of busy on something more important at the the time. You know, like ending the Soviet Union.

We have our own threats. We have Iran. We have a saber-rattling Russia. We have a nervous Israel. And brinkmanship in the Strait of Hormuz.

And don’t forget the threat to our liberty of Obamacare, and all the debt that future generations will need to dig us out of.

We need to win in 2012.

We need to end Obamacare.

We need to get the economy on track.

Yes, the liberals are baiting Rick Santorum, the not-Romney Republican poll-leader. They know he’s passionate about his conservative positions, so they are baiting him with questions about his social positions. Yes, the mainstream media is dangling what must look like softballs in front of Santorum, who just.. cannot.. pass… up the chance to explain just how passionately he believes birth control is wrong.

Rick Rick Rick. I love you, but this is stupid. We know you’re the social issues guy. Work on the independents. And giving the MSM juicy fodder to make an uninformed populace think you’re going to invade their bedrooms is not the way to win hearts and minds.

As Kurt Schlichter said on Twitter:

Santorum 2012: Because spending 9 months explaining his views on contraception is a winning strategy. #caring #unicorndreams

Exactly.

Republicans have a winning hand. All they need to do is talk about the economy. All they need to do is stay focused on Obama’s record. All they need to do is to practice a little bit of discipline and staying on message.

The bishops were doing just fine fighting the Obamacare “religious liberty” issue.

Politicians, by getting drawn into this battle, are letting the liberals re-define the debate, move the goal posts, and… no. Worse than that. It’s like having a winning poker hand and letting the opponent change the game to karaoke because he sings like Adam Lambert.

You’ve got a winning poker hand, GOP.

Play it.

Some in talk radio have derided the Santorum win here in Colorado and in Minnesota as, ‘These caucuses were self selecting of the ultra conservative and so there is no application to the campaign at large.’

Somehow those of us that don’t believe ‘the party’ does a very good job of picking candidates (Bush I,Dole, McCain vs Bush II, McCain vs Obama), and who remember how different things were with Ronald Reagan are titled the anti-establishment and lumped into the ‘Ultra-conservative, Anti-Romney’ vote.

Am I Ultra-Conservative? Or is this old establishment party that rewards the old horses that have ‘earned’ their place on a ticket, a group who are willing to sacrifice the future of our country simply for the preservation of their own shot at personal power? Somehow my being motivated to search for a President that could fill the grand shoes of Ronald Reagan is something belittled and considered harmful to Republicans and worse to our Nation as a whole.

The MSMedia calls my neck of the woods ‘fly-over country’. I wonder if those radio hosts have a similar blind spot about us little folks in the Mountain and Mid-West. Have they adopted this North-Eastern discounted view of the rest of the nation in their, blinders on, fluffing, for Mitt Romney?

I can tick off the success stories for each of the failed candidates that were put forward for our consumption. It’s just another way of requiring support for someone that can’t motivate people with passion to act on their behalf.

In my world a leader walks the walk and encourages people to follow. A manager tells the others what they should be doing while looking down their nose at those that don’t comply. I’m looking for a leader that can change the course my country is on, not another manager that will adjust the lights on the tennis courts of the White House and tell us all to do our part.

I believe Mitt Romney will just be another ‘party candidate’ and is incapable of empathizing with and understanding the problems facing the rest of America. His privileged upbringing (top 1% of the 1%) and NE heritage have created someone that appeals there and belly-flops here. I was born in Lexington, MA while my dad was at MIT but raised in Colorado. I have a 4×4 diesel crew cab pickup and put ATCs (3 wheelers, they aren’t illegal) in the back to ‘pollute’ the wild environment of the mountains to the west. I’ve worked for big NE insurance and mutual fund companies. They don’t understand me or the world that I live in.

Mitt’s comments and attitudes belie the same disproving parental attitude about the rest of us. His extreme wealth insulates him from the concerns of us little people. It is the same North-Eastern discounting that belittles the Tea-Party (‘Baggers’ at the office or dinner party or on late nite TV) that has driven a process the NE press has titled, ‘anybody but Mitt’ vote in the republican primary. It’s not we want anybody but Mitt, it’s that Mitt refuses to hear all us little cusses say, we don’t want another one..(see the list above). He’s the same as all the others. Sixty percent of us recognize he will lose and our ‘little’ world will get worse, not better.

Michael Dukakis. John Kerry. Mitt Romney. It’s the same tin eared candidate with the same foibles, but supposedly different politics and values. How much imagination will it take to write an advertisement that shows rich privileged Mitt against the defender of the poor, Obama? The, Which Mitt are you voting for? “flip flopper” advertisement because he said ‘Romney-care’ was great but wrong as ‘Obama-care’ and for the rest of the people. There will be the ex-Mormons Pac that will be Mitt’s Swift-boaters.

Lee Atwater will be reincarnated in David Axelrod. The Dems will just change the pictures from the ’84 campaign but they will spend 1.2 Billion dollars to keep the White House. The saddest part is the Dems will win, if Mitt is the nominee, because the rank and file republicans won’t vote. We recognize this guy. He has lost way too many times before. Even when when he won, we lost because it, ‘wouldn’t be prudent’.

We are the group that won’t settle for Mitt Romney. We are willing to risk it to find the “new” Ronald Reagan. Call me the Anti-Anti Mitt Vote. Call me a supporter for what America could be.

Call Rick Santorum my candidate.

For this primary season, like many other conservatives I know, Perry was my man.  If he jumped in the race today, he’d still be my man.  Nevertheless, I believe in moving on, and I’ve been earnestly searching for a replacement since the great state of Texas took back the great hope of conservatism.  CPAC provided a great opportunity to gain insight from many people who’s opinions I highly regard.  What it did not do, however, was provide a clear answer as to who I should cling to in the bitter fight for my Bible and guns.

I’ve been in the anyone but Romney camp since the beginning; apologies to those that are in the Romney camp who I know and love.  I simply can’t get behind a guy who couldn’t even beat McCain.  While he seems smoother and slightly less robotic after 6 years of campaigning, he still stands behind his government mandated healthcare.  America just isn’t going to care about the nuances between RomneyCare and ObamaCare and that gives the Democrats a huge strategic advantage.  One of the biggest issues facing our country today will be off the table for discussion; unless you can get a country full of politically disinterested people to hone in on the intricacies of federalism when most are already tired of politics not even midway through the primary season.  It shouldn’t go unnoticed either that the media has been working extra hard to beat us into the submission that Romney is, in fact, our eventual candidate and we should fall in line as quickly as possible or risk being alienated (since we don’t know what that feels like). Anyone backed by the media is worthy of a healthy dose of skepticism.

Very much not backed by the media is Santorum and I’ll admit to having been on the fence with the guy.  I love the role his faith plays in his everyday life.  He understands what it means to be a Christ follower and he’s unafraid to stand firm in his beliefs; a rare find in the political world.  He also gets conservatism and what it stands for.  Unfortunately, he follows that up with big government solutions that would further confuse the public, many of whom already think Bush represents conservatism.  So while Santorum gets it … he kind of doesn’t.  What really threw me over the fence, however, was the difference between his public persona and his personal one.  People that I know (and trust) who have met him in person have found him to be as whiny as his reputation.  I haven’t personally met Santorum, which is funny because I was supposed to at two different times during CPAC.  Only, while he said he was going to be available for the little people like me, he stood us up; not once, but twice.  I can take a hint.  You love Jesus, but you don’t love me.  It’s cool.  You’ll be stuck with me in Heaven, maybe we can chat then.

That leaves me with Newt, who I voted for in my primary.  His personal life has never been an issue for me.  As a Christian, I understand the power of redemption and I stand with Newt and everyone else on the planet as a sinner.  If you don’t understand the concept of Jesus’ saving grace, I’d be happy to discuss it with you. ‘Nuff said.  As for his record, he presided over the first Republican congressional majority in decades.  Budgets were passed, taxes were cut, welfare was reformed.  But like Perry, the people simply aren’t responding.  The reaction to him at CPAC was tepid and it comes as no surprise that he placed third in the straw poll. Overall it seems he has the credentials, but for some reason he’s just not that exciting.

So I’m left in nobody’s camp.  It’s becoming a comfortable place actually.  I don’t mind my friends criticizing each other’s candidate, I’m not married to anyone.  I can still hope for a VP that may infuse some excitement into the race; as long as the media doesn’t rape them as they did Palin.  Unlike the lackluster McCain candidacy, this campaign doesn’t have to blow away the competition.  America has lived in Obama-Land for some time now and many are ready to reclaim the freedoms, and jobs, they’ve lost over the last four years.  I look forward to backing whoever wins the GOP nomination and, in that sentiment, I know I’m not alone. Being ready for this dreary primary season to be over is the only camp we all seem to agree on.

‘It’s not about contraception,” thundered GOP presidential contender Rick Santorum. “It’s about economic liberty. It’s about freedom of speech. It’s about freedom of religion. It’s about government control of your lives. And it’s got to stop!”

– Jonah Goldberg, NRO

Rick Santorum scares people. He thinks crazy things. It puts him out of step with America! On issues such as birth control, working women, women in combat, gays in the military and abortion, Rick Santorum is an unabashed heretic against the secular religion of post-modern hedonism. The guy practically walks around saying. “If it feels good, take out your own d— wallet and pay for it!” I hope his cave has a nice warm fire and lot’s pretty charcoal paintings.

Read More →

‘It’s not about contraception,” thundered GOP presidential contender Rick Santorum. “It’s about economic liberty. It’s about freedom of speech. It’s about freedom of religion. It’s about government control of your lives. And it’s got to stop!”

– Jonah Goldberg, NRO

Rick Santorum scares people. He thinks crazy things. It puts him out of step with America! On issues such as birth control, working women, women in combat, gays in the military and abortion, Rick Santorum is an unabashed heretic against the secular religion of post-modern hedonism. The guy practically walks around saying. “If it feels good, take out your own d— wallet and pay for it!” I hope his cave has a nice warm fire and lot’s pretty charcoal paintings.

Read More →

Feb 13, 2012 by jacobsonlv
There are so many violations of our conservative values within society that picking one is a tough task.
The separation of church and state has been an area of controversy in America, and while the Constitution clearly defends against a national, mandated religion, the meaning of this statement has been skewed over the years. It is important that the GOP candidates understand the importance of religion in this country’s founding principles.
Countless questions have arisen about the faith of GOP front runner Mitt Romney, a proud Mormon, and one whom many feel is the Republicans’ best chance at reclaiming the White House in 2012. Newt Gingrich has picked up where Rick Perry left off, attacking the Democratic administration’s “War on Christianity.” A war that he claims has oppressed religious freedom within our nation, as he states during a recent debate.

Just this week, President Obama has come under fire from the Catholic Church for a mandate that requires employers to provide their employees access to artificial contraception, sterilization services and birth control pills through their existing health plans. According to the words of Newt Gingrich, this new mandate is “another example of President Obama and his promoting of anti-religious policies.”
Over the last few decades, the Ten Commandments have been removed from our federal buildings, prayer has been banned from schools and other public meetings, and marriage and life have been redefined. Not to mention our very own President Obama publicly declaring that America is “no longer a Christian nation.”
These things are not merely just good ideas they are truths that our nation stands upon and when we begin to remove or dilute them from their intended state we lose our identity as a nation. There are some reading this that will cite the argument over the words “Separation of Church and State,” however many fail to recognize this ideology of how the church and government should interact was taken completely out of context. This idea that our government should operate separated from the church was taken from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in response to a constituent in which he was stating the government has no ability to establish a national religion or interfere with religious activities, not to keep these activities out of the government. This idea is illustrated here in his response entitled the Danbury Baptists Letter.
“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
Over the decades many candidates hide or diminish their religious beliefs in order to avoid offending others and to give themselves a better chance of gaining election to their intended office. However, we fail to realize just how large the religious majority is within America. In the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey conducted by Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar of Trinity College, we find that over 76% percent of Americans call themselves Christians. If this is the case it would seem hiding ones Christian views in order to appeal to the masses would be counterproductive.
This is certainly not an issue that can be fully examined or analyzed in one column, however, I feel it is important we are reminded and for some enlightened to these realities. Our nation is under attack on many fronts however history has shown us that the Judeo-Christian beliefs our nation was founded upon are quickly becoming extinct. Not only as conservatives but as Christians, it is our responsibility to speak up and take a stand for what we believe in. We are blessed to live in a nation in which we have a democracy that allows us to elect candidates that reflect our views and beliefs, ones who will stand and fight for the values that make our nation great.
Jacob Harmon :: University of California at San Diego :: San Diego, California :: @Jacobsonlv

Cross-Posted: TobyToons.com (Conservative Political Cartoons

Cross-Posted: TobyToons.com (Conservative Political Cartoons

Pro-Life's Last Stand In 2012

If you watch politics long enough, you’ll see a moment where the tragedy of a losing campaign gets so bad that you actually stop and laugh. It was the “Taliban Dan” ad back in 2010 that convinced me that Alan Grayson was off to his next stop on his professional career. Examples of this have abounded in the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary. Who can forget the Michelle Bachman “Retardasil Interview?” By throwing in with Dr. Wakefield and the vaccination nut-jobs, she ended her campaign before the first Caucus convened. With Governor Perry, it was the “Vulture Capitalism” comment that finally branded him as ready for the Presidency as Ronald Reagan – in 1968.

So suffice it to say, there seems to be a conspiracy afoot to force me into supporting Mitt Romney athwart my instinct, values and will. The latest member of The Borg, attempting to assimilate me into the unpalatable, was none other than Newton Leroy Gingrich. Once you’ve ordered up a few thousand robocalls that accuse your opponent of denying holocaust survivors a proper kosher menu, Stephen Colbert throws up his hands. You are now impossible to effectively parody. Like Herman Cain just now realizing that The People’s Liberation Army liked developing nuclear weapons, “Nuke” Gingrich has successfully self-immolated. He’s cute, funny, but should now do Conservatism one final favor and please just go away.

Read More →