Let me state in no uncertain terms that I consider Rick Santorum to be as crazy, dangerous and misguided as any of them.
But, if he does very well in Iowa, I plan to send him money, and suggest that millions of others do too.
Why?
Because the country desperately needs to "have it out", to have a clear choice about alternative futures and to choose one. Unlike almost everyone else, I did not consider the 2008 elections a mandate for change, and said so just two days after that election, suggesting what the then president-elect needed to do to build a "working majority for change". He didn't.
Mitt Romney is not only a phony, he also takes so many shades of gray, often on the same day, on so many policies, that people who are unhappy with President Obama will be able to read into Willard whatever they think he ought to be favoring. Moreover, expect the Republicans to pretend, as they always do, that they have the interests of the 99% at heart.
The election will then become a contest between Republican lies and peoples' transferences to Romney -- not realizing that he is a tool of Wall Street and the neocons -- versus their experience with President Obama. Although the President has a long list of impressive achievements, the times in which he has governed have not been happy. Once again, the country will have failed to resolve its differences.
Santorum is different. Of course, Ron Paul is too, but a Paul vs. Obama election would merely tell us that we reject the truly bizarre.
Santorum stands for just about everything that Obama does not. Santorum wants the government to tell people how to procreate, whom and how to love, and how to have sex. Rape and incest victims would be forced to bear their misbegotten babies. At the same time, Santorum wants government out of its key historic roles of ensuring pure drugs, safe cosmetics, uncontaminated food, job safety, workers rights, clean air, clean water, safe cars, rebuilding roads and bridges, aiding education and so forth. In foreign policy, Santorum is certainly more trigger-happy than President Obama, less likely to pressure Israel to negotiate a workable peace with the Palestinians, disdainful of international organizations and allies, and believes the U.S. can, and should, go it alone.
In Santorum's America, the wealthy would become much wealthier and the middle class and poor would take whatever trickled down, if anything. Voter suppression would become nationwide. Budgets would be cut on the backs of the middle class. Medicaid would be block-granted to states -- which would then engage in a race to the bottom, encouraging those needing medicaid to go to more generous states. Social Security would be privatized. Medicare would become a defined contribution, i.e., a voucher system, rather than guaranteed care.
Anyone who wants to know what a Rick Santorum presidency would be like should just extrapolate those of the other Ricks -- Snyder (MI) and Scott (FLA) -- at the state level to the national level.
If America needs anything right now, it is clarity. More than any other candidate running for the Republica nomination, Santorum represents that side very well, and without the thuggishness of a Gingrich or the stupidity of a Perry to cloud the choice.
On the other side will be President Obama and the Democrats. They need to articulate what they stand for very clearly, not by trying to grab the center that Santorum abandons, but to ask the center to declare which America it wants.
Does the center believe in the social safety net, and is it willing to pay for it? Does the center recognize that the public good (education, infrastructure, caring for the least fortunate) is achieved through collective action, and that collective action is what government is established to do? Does the center believe that tax cuts that perpetuate income inequality, that zero-out estate taxes, that double-down on the policies that brought record deficits and financial and economic ruin to America need to be reversed? Does the center accept that one of government's functions is to serve as a "countervailing power" to large economic interests that can pervert the free markets and put the entire country at risk by their behavior? Will the center vote for candidates, and only those candidates, that will champion a constitutional amendment that says that money is not speech and that corporations are not people? Will the center reward or punish those politicians who blocked progress so that voters would be sufficiently unhappy to vote against the president?
My New Year's wish is that the 2012 campaigns for president and Congress provide these clear choices to the voters and that the elections result in a clear determination of which vision the American people choose for their future.
And, then, let us get on with the task of making that future.
Happy New Year to all!
Follow Paul Abrams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pabrams2001
Corruption is not a problem in our government--it has become our system.
This country has had enough. We want our representative's back to voting for what is best for this country-not for what is best for their donors.
Campaign Finance Reform can be done but everyone must be made to realize that it has to be first and foremost, otherwise any improvements will either be non-existent or temporary at the best. (wait till next election)
Our system being corrupt is a non-partisan issue. We must stop our shotgun mentality of arguing over everything under the sun (I’m as bad as anyone- lol) and fight together on the one thing we do agree on.
Campaign Finance Reform or Fascism—that is everyone’s choice whether they know it or not.
Corruption is tearing our country apart and laughing at us all the way to the bank.
Until EVERYONE starts talking and blogging and marching for Campaign Reform we are just spinning our wheels discussing anything that might challenge the special interests
http://www.getmoneyout.com/
Especially for such an intelligent comment.
Welcome
Worse is the idea that the liberal/conservative divide has been boiled down to a couple of social issues. There is NO choice between Santorum and Obama when it comes to the corporate oligarchy continuing to crush us. Both will continue to serve the 1%.
Give your money to an OWS group, or the Justice Party. Vote "uncommitted" in both party's caucuses and help keep changing the conversation to the economic issues that are most crucial right now.
Deficit hawks are more willing to increase taxes in addition to cutting spending to balance the budget than libertarians, who want to "starve the beast" by cutting taxes for the purpose of decreasing tax revenue which they hope will cause the government to spend less, and supply-siders, who believe the best way to gain tax revenue is through deep across-the-board tax cuts that they believe will end up completely paying for themselves through the economic growth they cause. (STUPID OF THEM) They know absolutely zilch of history or common sense.
As far as social -- just look at no taxed churches - by doing that we have already violated the church and state doctrine.
Why should I - a practicing agnostic - have to pay taxes - while I have a brother-in-law - who happens to make a living as a preacher -- who makes much more money then me - pay nothing
re: "Faith is believing things not justified by reason. If it were justified by reason, it wouldn't be faith." Colin McGinn
When citizens insist on voting morality rather than reason leaders will continue to use social ostracism to get their votes.
Ex: You are not a patriot You are not a good christian Use of racism (concealed if possible)
Abortion, prayer, 10 commandments in courthouses, NRA, & homosexual bias will always win out over good sense in our bible belt.
Even when the facts are obvious that they are voting against their own best interests peer pressure prevents them from going against the herd.
Thus, since they are too cowardly to face the facts, they have no choice but to resort to faith to justify their idiocy
Reagan was the first President since WWII to increase the debt/GDP ratio. Clinton reduced it, but then "W" accelerated it again.
The Republican “Jobs†program?
40,000 factories went overseas during the bush years. The states lost this tax base. This is why they are going broke, and it was done intentionally by the right.
This is what made Romney rich. Google (Romney + Bains Capital)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001854367_bushecon10.html
2004 President's Economic Report.
BUSH: SENDING JOBS OVERSEAS HELPS U.S
February 10, 2004
WASHINGTON — The movement of American factory jobs and white-collar work to other countries is part of a positive transformation that will enrich the U.S. economy over time, even if it causes short-term pain and dislocation, the Bush administration said yesterday.
Recessions lead to consolidations. That puts small business out of business.
Plus they move production to the cheapest source.
Obama looks better if you only look at private-sector jobs," said Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute. Overall, Obama inherited an economy halfway through shedding 8.8 million jobs when he took office.
It was burdened with much more public and private debt, hamstrung by budget deficits, chaos in a housing sector that led the 1984 recovery and the fact that interest rates are already at historic lows,
Bush performance benefited from big gains in government employment: the economy added 821,000 government jobs during his first term
Why don't you look at the facts?
Does partisanship override the best interests of your country?
The Bush administration embraced deficits as a good way to reign in government. goal: to strangle government social programs.
Orrin Hatch (R) ..... "Six years ago under President ["W"] when we [Republicans] had the majority, it was standard practice not to pay for things,"
In August of 2001, as the federal budget surpluses began to disappear and new deficits began to loom, the president (GWB) had an unusual fit of candor and described these developments as "incredibly positive news," arguing that this would now put Congress in a "fiscal straitjacket."
As conservative Rick Santorum explained it, he first hated deficits, but then came to like them because they made it harder to pass any new spending bills.
“I came to the House as a real deficit hawk but I am no longer a deficit hawk. I’ll tell you why. …Deficits make it easier to say no.â€
Targeted programs – Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Planned Parenthood, health care for the elderly and poor, welfare and food stamps, military retirement, drug abuse centers, unemployment compensation, aid to education, college student loans, nursing homes, employment training, childcare centers, housing subsidies for the elderly and disabled, WIC, Head Start, and school nutrition.
The bankruptcy of this nation was intentional.
http://www.letbuddydebate.org/
He doesn't stand a chance, and the poor guy believes he needs only pray harder.
You don't win a war against religious extremists by preaching a strengthening of intolerant faith.
One jihad does not cleanse another ... because there is no such thing as a righteous jihad.
Only love conquers evil.