November 21, 2011--Santorum?
Since Newt Gingrich is likely to turn into the next Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, or Rick Perry--having his week at the top of the Republican polls as the latest non-Romney before experiencing free fall as the result of either gaffs or the public finding out, as in Newt's case, about his blatant lying and hypocrisy, I will save the GOP from the heartbreak of falling in love next with Rick Santorum by preemptively reminding them about the real Rick.
Out of human concern, the last thing we want is to see is him rising from his current 2 percent in the polls to 23 percent (topping Romney) before plummeting back to Bachmann territory (6 percent) or like Tim Pawlenty or Bobby Jindal or The Donald having to drop out entirely.
He at least is the real deal--a genuine ultra-conservative who believes in less government than perhaps even Ron Paul. In response to Herman Cain's radical tax plan, he said, “Herman Cain has his nine-nine-nine plan, I have a better plan, zero-zero-zero.”
He refuses to be specific about how money would be raised to fund his favorite government jobs program--the Defense Department--but unlike the other Rick, Rick Perry, he is able to come up with a full list of government departments to eliminate, starting with Education, Commerce, and Energy.
When it comes to Medicare his position can only be considered bizarre. He fervently supports Paul's Ryan's plan to privatize it--to give Americans the right to choose their own health care plans, including not to have one at all, and for government to stay out of the way. Fine. But his idiosyncratic spin is to link an optional Medicare system to D-Day. Yes, that D-Day when American soldiers hit the beaches of Normandy 67 years ago. In fact, last June 6th, to mark the occasion, Santorum said--
For years I have been reading about the history of World War II never realizing that we went to war to enable "average Americans" to make decisions about "their own health care plan." All along I thought it was about defeating Hitler and Nazism.
With Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich, I now see that the Republican field is replete with historians.
And then, of course, there are Rick Santorum's views about modern science (he is in effect against much of it-- from being opposed to stem cell research to not believing in climate change) and, most famously, about homosexuality.
Actually, much of Santorum's political life has involved itself with sexual issues. Enough so that one might well be waiting to learn more facts about the candidate's own private life. In the spirit of he doth protest too much.
He never fails to remind audiences about his children. Not just that they are being home schooled so as to protect them from blasphemous "theories" such as evolution and to allow them to pause frequently in their lessons so that they can pray, but more that he has seven of them. A father's pride, yes, but also clearly to demonstrate his own virility and potency.
When it comes to condemning homosexuality, he predictably says he would reinstate don't-ask-don't-tell on Inauguration Day, but also that he would work to pass the Defense of Marriage Act because if gays are allowed to marry there would be even worse consequences:
These latter views, I suspect, may wind up winning him the votes of many social conservatives in Iowa where the first caucuses are just weeks away. By that time Gingrich should have dropped in the polls and with no other challenger to Romney in sight, Santorum might turn out to be the one.
But beware, his radical views and perhaps personal skeletons-in-the-closet may be waiting to derail his ultimate chances. Thus, why not get over looking for a Romney alternative among the current announced candidates and see if Jeb Bush or Mike Huckabee might be persuaded to step in to save the day.
Out of human concern, the last thing we want is to see is him rising from his current 2 percent in the polls to 23 percent (topping Romney) before plummeting back to Bachmann territory (6 percent) or like Tim Pawlenty or Bobby Jindal or The Donald having to drop out entirely.
He at least is the real deal--a genuine ultra-conservative who believes in less government than perhaps even Ron Paul. In response to Herman Cain's radical tax plan, he said, “Herman Cain has his nine-nine-nine plan, I have a better plan, zero-zero-zero.”
He refuses to be specific about how money would be raised to fund his favorite government jobs program--the Defense Department--but unlike the other Rick, Rick Perry, he is able to come up with a full list of government departments to eliminate, starting with Education, Commerce, and Energy.
When it comes to Medicare his position can only be considered bizarre. He fervently supports Paul's Ryan's plan to privatize it--to give Americans the right to choose their own health care plans, including not to have one at all, and for government to stay out of the way. Fine. But his idiosyncratic spin is to link an optional Medicare system to D-Day. Yes, that D-Day when American soldiers hit the beaches of Normandy 67 years ago. In fact, last June 6th, to mark the occasion, Santorum said--
Almost 60,000 average Americans had the courage to go out and charge those beaches on Normandy, to drop out of airplanes who knows where, and take on the battle for freedom.
Average Americans. The very Americans that our government now, and this president, does not trust to make a decision on your health care plan. Those Americans risked everything so they could make that decision on their health care plan.
For years I have been reading about the history of World War II never realizing that we went to war to enable "average Americans" to make decisions about "their own health care plan." All along I thought it was about defeating Hitler and Nazism.
With Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich, I now see that the Republican field is replete with historians.
And then, of course, there are Rick Santorum's views about modern science (he is in effect against much of it-- from being opposed to stem cell research to not believing in climate change) and, most famously, about homosexuality.
Actually, much of Santorum's political life has involved itself with sexual issues. Enough so that one might well be waiting to learn more facts about the candidate's own private life. In the spirit of he doth protest too much.
He never fails to remind audiences about his children. Not just that they are being home schooled so as to protect them from blasphemous "theories" such as evolution and to allow them to pause frequently in their lessons so that they can pray, but more that he has seven of them. A father's pride, yes, but also clearly to demonstrate his own virility and potency.
When it comes to condemning homosexuality, he predictably says he would reinstate don't-ask-don't-tell on Inauguration Day, but also that he would work to pass the Defense of Marriage Act because if gays are allowed to marry there would be even worse consequences:
[I have] a problem with homosexual acts, as I would with what I would consider to be acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships . . . If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.
These latter views, I suspect, may wind up winning him the votes of many social conservatives in Iowa where the first caucuses are just weeks away. By that time Gingrich should have dropped in the polls and with no other challenger to Romney in sight, Santorum might turn out to be the one.
But beware, his radical views and perhaps personal skeletons-in-the-closet may be waiting to derail his ultimate chances. Thus, why not get over looking for a Romney alternative among the current announced candidates and see if Jeb Bush or Mike Huckabee might be persuaded to step in to save the day.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
5:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home