At Gettysburg, PA (of all places!) Rick Santorum announced today that he’s throwing in the towel on his bid to become the Theocrat in Chief of the United States.
No surprise really, considering that in all probability he would otherwise have lost the primary later this month in his home state. Not only would that have been a crushing blow, but also a bitter personal reminder of the defeat that saw him ousted from the Senate in 2006. Better to end his improbable yet relatively successful campaign on a positive note rather than waging an ugly and futile campaign against Mitt Romney’s vastly better-financed attack machine.
Viewing his emotionally touching concession speech it’s not hard to see why so many people were attracted to Santorum – he comes across as warm, genuinely compassionate and, as pols say, “relatable”… What a tragic shame for Republicans that Willard Romney has absolutely none of those qualities to his credit.
When asked at the end of this week’s GOP debate to describe themselves in a single word, Ron Paul chose “consistent” as being the most appropriate moniker. But here Lawrence O’Donnell points out a glaring inconsistency in the old coot’s supposedly “libertarian” philosophy when it comes the matter of sex:
Of course, this is a logical problem shared by all so-called “conservatives” that claim to believe government should butt out of people’s lives, get off their backs, and otherwise stop interfering in the private affairs of citizens – EXCEPT when it comes to various social issues; most particularly those relating to sex. Then, it becomes an entirely different matter wherein the “small government” philosophy of so-called “conservatives” gets turned completely on its head.
In matters of contraception, reproductive choice, defining what constitutes a legitimate marriage under the law, and numerous other things involving their Christian “values” so-called “conservatives” and even some “libertarians” such as Ron Paul feel entirely justified by the imperatives of their religious beliefs in legislating their own dubious concept of morality and then forcibly imposing it on others.
Most recently we’ve seen that some so-called “conservatives” will even take their religious zealotry so far to the point of demanding by law that a transvaginal probe be inserted into a woman without her consent prior to an abortion – not for any medical purpose whatsoever, but solely to “enlighten” her about the consequences of the procedure.
It’s always baffled me how these so-called “conservatives” square the circle on their astounding hypocrisy and inconsistency in this regard.
Desperate Republican no-hoper Newt Gingrich is currently promising that, if elected, he will reduce the price of gasoline to $2 per gallon. Maybe a terrific prospect for gas-guzzling American consumers feeling the pinch of rising oil prices, but not one without consequences…
To realize the promise of $2 per gallon gasoline would require a per barrel oil price of approximately $67. Most estimates, however, are that a market price of $75-$90 per barrel is required to make the heavy oil (bitumen, tar sands, or whatever you want to call it) strip-mined in northern Alberta a profitable venture. So, in other words, a Newt Gingrich regime delivering on its promise would effectively shut down the Oil Sands, thereby collapsing the Alberta economy and seriously damaging Canada’s bottom-line as a whole…
Of course, it’s ridiculous to imagine that the President of the United States can actually control the price of oil… Or is it? Well, according to Republicans (and their surrogate right-wing media outlets), President Obama is DIRECTLY responsible for ALL increases in gas prices at the pump. If that is true and if what Newt is promising is true… well, you do the math. Or, it could be that both of those things are complete bullshit.
Vocalizing to a small group of carbon-based supporters in Michigan earlier this week, “Mitt Romney” – the android launched many years ago by a venture capital fund to become the first completely non-human Republican nominee for President – pretended to express his/its deep affinities with and positive responses to various aspects of the state where he/it was, so to speak, “born and raised”…
Amongst the utterly predictable elements of Mittbot’s pandering subroutine about his/its enduring “love” of American cars, lakes (both great and little ones), etc., a notable standout was the mysterious observation that, “It seems right here. The trees are the right height.”
Some political pundits found the remark to be oddly disturbing, but jokingly sloughed it off as yet another unfortunate “Conehead” moment where the logical analytics of Mittbot’s programming simply failed to connect with actual human experience.
That’s certainly one way of looking at it, but I really think the press should insist on a more detailed explanation of Mittbot’s curious expression, or at the very least attempt to gain a better understanding of what he/it regards as the qualitative indicators for optimal forestry.
Rick Santorum’s billionaire “sugar daddy” stuns MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell with his retrograde “joke” on the subject of contraception:
Hard though it is to believe that U.S. politics of late has shifted into the bizarre realm of ridiculous “culture war” issues like contraception, it’s absolutely no surprise whatsoever that the key backer of the current GOP frontrunner would reveal himself to be an anachronistic old codger who’s flippant notion of birth control is that “gals” should just stop spreading their legs.
Rachel Maddow (with the help of Doug Wead, a senior advisor to the Ron Paul campaign) describes how the wily old coot is attempting to exploit flaws in the present Republican caucus system to gather delegates to the GOP convention irrespective of how votes were actually cast in the caucus by people less than fanatical in support of their candidate.
As quirky, barely legal, and wholly anti-democratic as it may seem, I guess one can hardly fault the Ron Paul campaign from taking advantage of loopholes in the system that inadvertently enable crazed diehards to ultimately prevail as delegates.
Wearing a matching sweater vest, Foster Friess, the billionaire investor backing Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum’s frothy campaign to be Theocrat-in-Chief of the Free World, introduces his pet candidate at CPAC 2012:
After opening with a mildly amusing (albeit implausible) joke at the expense of Mitt Romney, Friess goes on to observe that rather than supporting hackneyed old political warhorses as the Republicans have too-often done in the recent past, Democrats have won presidential elections by bringing “fresh faces” like Carter and Clinton “from out nowhere”… A fair enough comment perhaps, but then he goes on to add, “they bring Oback Obama from beyond nowhere.”
So where exactly is “beyond nowhere”… Chicago, Hawaii – Kenya, perhaps? And how utterly puerile is it that this high-rolling billionaire doesn’t see fit to call the President of the United States by his proper name, but instead deliberately mangles it for comic effect?