Santorum Owes Michele Bachmann an Apology

I’ve have not thought it necessary to repeat the stack of references that Pennsylvania Democrats have about Santorum’s unfortunate comments about women and gays.  Some come from a media  ignorance or antagonism of theology, a few are indefensible.  Like Mitt with Bain, Obama would overwhelm Santorum with statements like this one that would hamstring him to get his message out.

"...children's lives would be harmed if the nation had a female president" Jamie Johnson, Senior Santorum Advisor

OPINION, Jan. 14, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ -- Presidential candidate Senator Rick Santorum deployed a sexist strategy in IA. His IA Evangelical surrogates promoted the idea that a female cannot be an elected official or a commander-in-chief. The same Evangelical surrogates repeatedly called upon Rep. Michele Bachmann to withdraw from the race although she led the Senator and other male candidates in the polls. Bob Vander Plaats, CEO Family Leader and Santorum endorser, also, rejected two consensus votes in favor of Rep. Bachmann polled among Evangelical pastors at a meeting hosted by an organization close to the Family Leader. Home school parents circulated a treatise written in 2004 titled, "Should Christians support a female civil magistrate."

Further, the Des Moines Register ran a story on Friday, January 13, 2011 written by Jennifer Jacobs that published excerpts from an email written by the Senator's senior advisor, Jamie Johnson. Mr. Johnson sent out an email saying that "children's lives would be harmed if the nation had a female president". He continues, "The question then comes, 'Is it God's highest desire, that is, His biblically expressed will, ... to have a woman rule the institutions of the Family, the Church, and the State?'"

If the issue were "racism" or "anti-Semitics" I believe that Senator Santorum would terminate the staffer and apologize to Michele Bachmann. Sexism and misogyny require no less of an expeditious response.

The longer that the Senator takes to step up and apologize to Michele Bachmann, the guiltier he looks.

(Peter Waldron is the former National Faith Outreach Coordinator for Bachmann for President. He is based in Florida.)

As all 29 PolitiJim readers know, I am not on any side but (hopefully) that of objective truth.  I’ve been very hard on Bachmann who has been guilty of smearing other candidates as well, but there is no excuse for this. 

I was so happy to see Gingrich actually DO what he said he would, and condemn inaccurate ads being run on his behalf. 

I think Santorum is NOT a sexist and likely a very decent Christian guy. I also expect him to do what is right and continue to show integrity by denouncing this immediately.  It won’t change the certain juggernaut by the media to paint him as an “extreme” religious nut who wants to deprive women of the ability to think.

Rebuttal to Santorum being the true anti-Mitt

Daniel Greenfield wrote an article entitled, “The One True Anti-Romney,” which turns out to be much more balanced than the title would suggest.  However, it gets a couple of things wrong.  My rebuttal is below.

I must say I had a knee jerk reaction to the title that seemed to be another Canada Free Press writer who is completely blind to the facts of the so called "conservatives." I commend the writer for his balance, but disdain whoever gave it that title.

However.

The writer still demeans Gingrich as not being 'above' charges of 'big government' actions.  True, Gingrich advocated Medicare Senior Drug program.  But Santorum was actually in power to vote on it and did.  Also, Gingrich's reasoning for his support (although flawed) was a strategy to reduce entitlements eventually. Santorum on the other hand EMBRACES George Bush government solutions to "Compassionate Conservatism" for the SAKE of spending money. (his 2005 speech here - http://race42012.com/2011/11/09/what-if-_this_-rick-santorum-ran-for-president/)

Look at earmarks under their two respective terms in congress.  Rick was as bad as most in his attempts to obtain pork and even battled Jim Demint who wanted to eliminate them.  (Ref: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/04/this-wont-play-well-in-south-carolina/) 

Not only did Gingrich oppose Santorum and stand with Demint, Santorum yesterday LIED about Demint's position to make himself look better.

Graft?  Santorum's campaign STILL hasn't given any serious reason for the favorable mortgage he got from the bank for which he lobbied and obtained Federal money. 

Knock Gingrich all you want on Freddie Mac but A) Freddie was a private corporation that has assisted about 75% of all mortgages in America (likely including yours dear reader) B) Gingrich himself profited only about $35K a year and NONE for lobbying while being a PRIVATE citizen, and C) Bloomberg has corroborated that Gingrich told Freddie Mac to reform.  Be as ignorant as you want that somehow FNMA and FHLMC are evil entities but until the late 90's (after Gingrich was out of office) they packaged and resold GOOD loans on the market to provide liquidity to smaller banks and mortgage companies.

It sounds like I'm defending Gingrich here and I'm really not.  I've written extensively on my problems with his softness on climate change understanding, weakness on subsidies and ignorance on the Senior Drug Program.

The best line in this article is the truth: There are no Porshe's here. (And if we were honest we'd find out that Reagan, Thatcher and other supposed canonized conservatives weren't quite so clean and pure on these issues as we remember.)

But the title seems to assume Santorum is the best chance against Romney when, in actual fact, his record is WEAKER as a conservative than Gingrich save his unwillingness to go with Heritage Foundation and majority of conservatives on the mandate against HillaryCare.  And he should get kudos for that.

So if these mutually admitted "very good friends" are essentially the same in policy (give or take), do you want someone that lost his seat by 18 percent against a Democrat and facilitated the Democrat control of the Senate - or someone that engineered the most historic conservative takeover of the Congress in US history?  Do you want someone who cant even inspire a majority of the Tea Party to follow him or perhaps the greatest rhetorical leader we have today?  Don't forget,  only about 22% of American voters are as socially conservative as Rick Santorum.  Not only does he have to convince the remainder of the GOP and the Independents to follow him, he has to sell and defend his initiatives amidst an extremely agitated, hostile and social-conservative-fearing MSM and electorate.  This idea that somehow middle American voters are going to suddenly just accept that gay marriage is wrong because Rick believes it is truly naive.

I am NOT saying he can’t do it.  But it is an uphill battle for someone that is not shown ANY leadership quality among his own peers, let alone set a national agenda the way Gingrich has.  Santorum has YET to get a major endorsement FROM ANYONE in Congress.  Yes there are a bunch of RINO’s there and if it’s John McCain – you can keep it.  But not even among CONSERVATIVES has he picked up an endorsement.  When people like Thomas Sowell and Art Laffer endorse someone, it’s not a guarantee of any future victory or a prophecy of future success in governing – but these hero’s of conservative thought putting their reputations on the line isn’t “nothing” either.

I suspect Santorum would be as good or better than Gingrich in foreign policy and certainly on everything except his economic plan.  What he needs to do to galvanize the conservative vote and beat Mitt is found here. 

I promise you it’s entertaining if nothing else.

Hey Rick! Congrats! (And Lets Get Real, Ok?)

 

Congratulations Rick Santorum.  YOU ARE THE NEW NON-ROMNEY!

You have no money, no infrastructure, no real campaign staff and are about to get hit with $4 Million in negative ads from the PR (Perry/Romney) professional misleading ad team.  And if Crazy Uncle Paul couldn’t find primo stuff in Sioux City to soothe his little Soros-lovin’ heart, he might be just PO’d enough to jump on you too.

But hey!!  CONGRATULATIONS!!  YOU are our new Conservative LEADER!

I’m willing to concede that you, Rick Santorum,  are our most conservative candidate.  I mean when Don Wildmon of the American Family Association thinks you’re too conservative - you win!  You’re the uber-conservative!  (And AFA might not even be considered Christian anymore since they picked that adulterer Gingrich.  Yeah, he repented a long time ago, but all that mercy and forgiveness crap is for the liberal Christians, right?)

And don’t you mind those pesky little admissions that you LIKED earmarks, you voted for more big government programs than Newt, or that you chose to endorse a pro-abortion specter over a truly pro-life case of conservative.   You and I will continue to believe you are the ONLY principled candidate just like Bachmann was the ONLY true conservative, ok?  Our little secret.

But you have a couple of problems we need to address before you take on the Mormon-in-Chief or the Marxist-in-Chief.

The first is your image.  You are so preppy looking, at first glance it might seem you’d have a tough time against 13 year old Malia let alone her father.  I’ve got a little mantra I need you to repeat.  “Don’t Be Dukakis.”  You remember him right?  The guy who shot down his chances to beat Bush 1 for President by looking like a scared second grader on a field trip to the armory in a tank. (And against the ultimate preppy George HW that took some doing.).  Maybe carry one of your rifles with you at all times.  Just don’t wear any plaid or the aviation thermal cap like Elmer Fudd.  And by the way…please burn every sleeveless sweater you own.  It ain’t workin.’

Also you might like to start practicing speaking in a lower register.  You were downright annoying at times in the debates, and against Obama’s Mr. Cool lounge act, you will come off as that annoying kid we never wanted to sit with at lunch.  At the end of the day Obama won NOT because of ideas but because he seemed like a President.  The last 20% of voters who didn’t tune into until October 25th flipped on NBC, watched half of a debate, and tried to figure out if he looked and sounded like he knew what the hell he was doing.  Did he look like a President, you know, someone who could be “in command” at all times.  I hate to break it to you Rick, but God did not bless you with the Gary Cooper/John Wayne/Clint Eastwood thing.  Reagan had it in spades and Bush had just enough to make himself likeable.  JFK didn’t beat Nixon on debating points and you somewhere you have to reach into your inner Julio Iglesias.

The coming Palinization of you.  Now I have to be honest with you on the next one Congressman.  Not only are you going to have to face a billion dollars of negative ads on Obama, and a hostile press who hate the in your face faith mantra you just can’t quit talking about; you will face a militant gay mafia who will forgo whip cream latte’s from now until November just to fund another billion dollars of ads to publicize your rather unfortunate remarks about banning adultery as well as sodomy.  Unlike anyone but Michele Bachmann, they are convinced you will turn the Constitution into Christian sharia.  What they did to Cain is nothing compared what you will face.  And unfortunately it will work because you don’t have much money to buy TV ads to establish your image yourself.  They will do it for you.

Even if you (finally) convince the 22% of all Americans who are dedicated social conservative voters to back you fully, it is the OTHER 29% of American voters who are non-liberals you have to convince.  They not only have to see you as “presidential,” but likeable and mainstream.  (I know, right?  How weird that the truly normal Pennsylvania American has to worry about being “mainstream” against a [possibly] Hawaiian born, private schooled, drug abuser who embraced Marxism and didn’t even grow up in America during his childhood?  Crazy.)  Bachmann really couldn’t stand the heat.  Perry tried to be even goofier by making fun of himself which may be great for likeability, but doesn’t make him any more Presidential.  It certainly doesn’t erase the perception he’s smart enough to be President.  You don’t suffer that problem.  But you will need some help to start attacking this perception now and you failed most recently with Chris Wallace who would talk of nothing else.

I honestly don’t know how you are going to do to this.  You don’t have the rhetorical skill of Gingrich or the smooth con man thing Mitt does.  While you are able to argue foreign policy and specific legislative minutia, we have yet to see you inspire anyone including, if we are honest, most conservatives.  Sorry, but you’re kind of like the last available girl to go to primary prom and we haven’t even had the nerve to do a slow dance with you yet.  Somewhere you are going to have develop some “non-needy” speaking skills not just to sell Americans on you, but on the big programs and legislative initiatives the Democrats won’t want to go along with.  You simply won’t survive the media long enough to get a crack at the Obamanator himself.

TEAM. Frankly, it worries me you lost your Senate seat by 18 points while GW was still in the White House.  If you couldn’t sell yourself to your own constituents you’d been serving for 14 years, you are going to have pull some magic mouth-mojo out of your pretty Pennsylvania top hat.   And somehow you’ll have to explain why not a single Federal lawmaker would endorse you when even Radical Ron had 3 sitting congressman endorsement. (Any of your sons old enough to run for Senate in Kentucky?)  I mean, Gingrich got Ronald Reagan’s son and perhaps the  most famous living economist who was directly responsible for the greatest economic growth in history.  You’re going to need to somehow bring some street cred to the brawl with President Obama.  A few more years than the Illinois Senator, no executive experience and few votes won’t make a clear enough banner for people to flock to.  You’d still be the uptight “fundamentalist” Christian who spent too much on PA according to Obama with LESS executive experience.  BUT, you can combat some of that with not just endorsements, but with a “TEAM” people will acknowledge.  Gingrich has been very smart to start telling people not just that Palin likes him (as you did), but PAINT IN THEIR MINDS who else would be running this thing with him.  Palin as Energy Secretary or VP, Bolton as Secretary of State.  (Perry has Sheriff Joe to arrest Barack Obama – you get the picture.) 

Now onto the hard stuff. 

It’s the economy stupid! I’m not sure how it managed to pass the notice of your fawning conservative followers but you have perhaps the weakest economic plan of all the conservative candidates.  No fair tax.  The highest income tax of all the candidates.  Twelve percent capital gains taxes when every other candidate is zero.  The second highest corporate tax rate for everyone but manufacturers (What, service companies and sales people can’t be incentivized too?)  Word is Herman is shopping an endorsement for someone to embrace his 9-9-9 plan.  Although you made it sound like Cain was crazier than Pelosi on peyote – you might want to have a “flip-flop” of your own and actually adopt a CONSERVATIVE economic plan since you are supposed to be THE conservative.  Cain’s could still be yours… if the price is right.

And don’t worry about the earmark thing.  In a general election no one will give a crap.  But bury THIS 2005 speech where you basically say you like big government.  You’re overall positions and votes are better than Barack’s and frankly it will negate the “cold heartless Republican” line Obama will want to use on you.  But you need to start talking about a “Big” economic plan and frankly, you ain’t got one.

You have got some serious work to do now that you are the CONSERVATIVE SAVIOR!  But you can do it!  No one thought you would actually WIN Iowa and you did!

And don’t worry about all that crap Romney and Paul were throwing at you this past week on the campaign trail.  As long as you can beat Obama we not only will take you to EVERY dance this next year, we’ll go steady!  We only have IOW-AYES for you!

(You can beat Obama, right?)

Pssst, Perry? Gingrich?  Stick around just in case ok?