Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Rick Santorum is the Most Dangerous Player on the Republican Field

Rick Santorum is the Most Dangerous Player on the Republican Field

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+2Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Rick Santorum is not the sort of person I would want to be my neighbor, let alone my country’s chief executive. An outspoken adherent of the Roman Catholic Church’s fundamentalist wing, his total lack of interest in what the majority of voters care about is so obvious that one must wonder how he ever got elected to any office in the first place. Despite America’s ongoing meandering through the depths of one of its worst recessions in history, what is needed most, in his view, is a mass moral reformation centered around the “family.” Job creation, the national debt, and social security stabilization matter not a whit; he intends to use the power of the Oval Office for extensive social engineering.

Recently, Intellectual Conservative columnist Andrew Atkins noted that the former Pennsylvania senator, who was booted out of office by a spectacular 18 point margin during the 2006 midterms, is not really running as a Republican during this year’s presidential primaries. Instead, he has opted to base his candidacy around a platform inspired by his religion. In Atkins’s own words, [for] “Santorum, the family, not the individual or the state, is the most important unit of society….the constitutionality of morality laws is a mere abstraction for Santorum, and he sees little conflict in supporting government overreach if it achieves his desired outcome.”

This is exactly the sort of attitude and strategy that have been utilized by virtually every tyrant since the dawn of civilization. For Santorum, the United States government serves merely as the means to an end for legislating a rigid set of moral codes. Never mind that the codes in question are inherently unconstitutional, as the First Amendment affords us the separation of church and state. As far as I can tell, the founding documents of this nation matter very little to him. I think Santorum is one who truly believes that he is a messenger of the divine; a modern day prophet of sorts. For such a person, what do the laws of mere humans matter when a much higher authority is answered to?

Like Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, he is truly beyond the worldly notions of good and evil, though with a propensity for far more sinister activity. Why? Because at least Zarathustra was a figure whose motives and actions could be questioned and held accountable squarely within the realm of natural existence. Santorum, meanwhile, derives his ideology from personal interpretations of the supernatural. This renders said ideology closed to reason; he can say and do as he pleases without recourse as it is impossible to disprove him in a scientific fashion.

Anyone calling him or herself an advocate of limited government must also keep in mind one of Atkins’ key observations; through Santorum’s lens, the family, not the individual, is paramount. An argument like this is so easy to refute on a reasonable basis that it is almost comical. For starters, barring the individual, families could not exist, let alone thrive. Furthermore, what if a certain family is dysfunctional to the point of becoming abusive? If only a minority of members are victims, then who is the government to place a smash in that fix; after all, family rights come before individual rights, correct?

That the hardline pseudo-Christian right has warmly embraced a man like Santorum is a sad statement about how many Americans posses a desire for dictatorship. Perhaps many have blurred the line between preacher and president, or maybe certain hot-button social issues have destroyed their capacity for common sense. Either way, Santorum’s sudden surge in popularity should be a huge cause for concern amongst those of us who actually value our liberties. While Ron Paul might be the craziest player on the GOP field, Rick Santorum is by far the most dangerous.

It is a true lifesaver that fewer than half of the states have him listed on their respective primary ballots. The alternative is far too unsettling to even imagine.

Powered by

About Joseph F. Cotto

  • Not buying that guy

    Sounds a lot like the Huckabee campaign 4 years ago.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Joseph, I think your characterization of Ron Paul as crazy is unfair.

    Both candidates are tilting at windmills, but at least Paul lets his actions be dictated by a document which was designed as a template for how the country is supposed to work.

    Santorum just pretends the bits of the document that don’t say what he wishes they said don’t exist.

  • SeeingRed

    This article is somewhere between absurd and BS.

  • Mystique

    This content of this article is somewhere between accurate and astute.

  • Baronius

    Joseph, I don’t think this analysis is fair. You question Santorum’s commitment to the Constitution, and implicitly question his commitment to fiscal conservatism. On what basis? You only cite an article that analyzes the candidate’s temperments.

  • Baronius

    candidates’ temperments

    Yeah, I know Clavos, I made a mistake.

  • REMF (MCH)

    ^ Watch out for Danny Devito’s red pen…

  • Lee

    I agree that Santorum is dangerous. Paul on the other hand is the same as our Founding Fathers: a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant libertarian. If you think Paul is “crazy” then you must also think Washington and Jefferson were “crazy” because he is simply following their views. I plan to vote for Paul in the upcoming caucus in Nevada. If he loses, I won’t vote in the general election because I am against Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney as much as I am against Obama.

  • Arch Conservative

    Ron Paul is crazy?

    The last time I checked he was the only GOP contender who wasn’t chomping at the bit to start a war with Iran. You must be steeped in the neocon school of foreign policy Mr. Cotto.

    I, like Lee, will vote for Ron Paul in my home state, New Hampshire, primary. However I will most likely vote for Mitt Romney in the general. It’s not so much of a vote for Romney as a vote against Obama. I hate Obama on a personal level with the fiery passion of 1000 burning super novas. Can those of you that are parents imagine how you would feel toward a person that had sexually molested and/or murdered your child? Well that is how I feel about Barack Obama.

  • Zingzing

    I’m sure Obama must have sexually molested and murdered your child then. Congrats on parenthood! Sorry for your loss.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    forget the key term, zing

    molested, murdered and mutilated has a far better ring.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    and under the circumstances, I should think congratulations are out place

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    Lee: Catholic delegates to the Constitutional Convention were Charles Carrol and Thomas Fitzsimmons.

    Other Founding Fathers were Cornelius Harnett, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, who were Deists. The man who penned Common Sense (Thomas Paine) was an atheist.

    You’ll have to drop the Protestant requirement. It has no precedent. The original Protestant Fathers joined with Catholics and even those who didn’t believe in Jesus, and pledged their lives, their properties and their sacred honor. That’s pretty significant. Who are YOU to turn up your nose at anyone because of their spiritual beliefs, if the Founding Fathers didn’t it.

    It’s also not in the Constitution that a President has to be Anglo-Saxon, or white for that matter.

    Lee, you are doing Ron Paul ZERO favors by promoting Ron Paul solely on the basis of your bigotry. I remember when Hillary Clinton was campaigning against Obama, and there were bigoted whites who supported her because she wasn’t black like Obama. Even though she herself was not a bigot, she took some flak for it.

    If Ron Paul were a bi-racial former altar boy, I’d vote for him, as long as he was still for the Constitution.

    You’re NOT for the Constitution, Lee, because you’re adding Faith amendments which are almost as bad as adding executive orders and sending in the military to fight without Congressional debate.)

    I’m not even sure you’re a Christian. If you are a Christian, you’re grossly misrepresenting Christ, who was a Savior for all races, and tribes, and languages.

    That’s even more disgraceful, to my mind, than your disgracing Ron Paul with your bigoted views. And the latter is pretty disgraceful.

  • Arch Conservative

    You’re right zing. I can’t possibly know how it would feel to have a child molested and/ murdered so I shouldn’t have said that. It was not appropriate and I imagine that if it ever did happen to me the rage I would feel toward that person would exponentially dwarf any animosity I could ever feel toward Obama or any other politician. Sometimes I just get caught up in the whole cyberspace not being reality thing……….

    That being said, let me try to convey my feelings toward Obama in the context of politics. I despise Barack Obama as much as it is possible for any citizen to despise a political figure. For the good of the nation and the world at large I hope he is removed from power as soon as possible. If he does lose the election I shall take great satisfaction in watching every second of watching the man as his disgustingly egocentric psyche struggles with reality.

    That’s me toning it down. hope it’s appreciated.

  • zingzing

    it is. but you don’t give much reason for your despising, just that you despise.

    so why?

    i just learned today that the new budget going into effect (which i don’t think has been signed yet, but i’m looking into that,) contains significant less funding for pell grants, something that affects my wallet. it also affects minorities and the poor disproportionately. obama said he’d fight to keep pell grants, and the cuts are somewhat less than expected, but they hit me right where it counts. most of the students i’m involved with do not have geds or high school diplomas, and they can now no longer receive pell grants.

    he also let himself get blackmailed into keeping guantanamo open and the whole 1021/1022 bits of the ndaa (if i have those bits numbered right). why? i dunno. maybe to save his political skin.

    i have some reasons to despise him. but what are yours?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    And YOU, Joseph Cotto, how DRIPPING with bigotry your first sentence is!

    “Rick Santorum is not the sort of person I would want to be my neighbor, let alone my country’s chief executive. An outspoken adherent of the Roman Catholic Church’s fundamentalist wing…” So OK, then you go on to list the reasons you dislike his politics, but nothing about what would make Santorum a bad neighbor. As far as I know, there is nothing about being a Catholic that requires one to have loud parties in the middle of the night, or cars in the process of being cannibalized in one’s front yard, or a stingy attitude when the people next door come over to borrow a cup of sugar or an egg, or a fit of forgetfulness when it’s time to return the power tool he borrowed.

    I loathe Santorum’s politics too (mainly for the same reasons I loathe YOUR politics incidentally) but you, any domestic partners you may have, and the Santorums are welcome to be my neighbors.

    What sort of person IS fit to be your neighbor, Joseph Cotto? Are your requirements as stringent as our friend Lee’s presidential requirements? If they were Libertarian Catholics, would that be OK? You may not be a bigot, but your writing sounds as bigoted as Lee’s does.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Hi, Irene,

    Not to defend Joseph on the strength of the opening statement you cited, doesn’t he, somewhat, provides some of his reasons in the statement to follow?

    Inattentiveness to the average person’s concerns. That is a clue, sort of, as to what the kind of neighbor that Mr. Cotto would imagine Rick Santorum to be.

    (I agree the sentence construction wasn’t the most felicitous one.)

    Just asking.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    To put this in perspective, Baronius (#5), oddly enough, voices what would appear to be a contrary (to Mr. Cotto’s) complaint, namely of prejudging Santorum qualifications for office on the basis of personal characteristics.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    “…his total lack of interest in what the majority of voters care about…”

    The things an average person as a voter cares about are not the same things an average person, as a neighbor cares about.

    A candidate with a Marxist platform, for example, would not appeal to the average person in the voting booth, but if he maintained his property to neighborhood standards, etc, the average person would not object to being his neighbor.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/irene-athena/ Irene Athena

    Unless the average person noticed that he had “a Commie flag, tacked up on the wall, inside of his garage.” (1)

    (1)Uneasy Rider, Charlie Daniels Band

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Joseph –

    That the hardline pseudo-Christian right has warmly embraced a man like Santorum is a sad statement about how many Americans posses a desire for dictatorship. Perhaps many have blurred the line between preacher and president, or maybe certain hot-button social issues have destroyed their capacity for common sense. Either way, Santorum’s sudden surge in popularity should be a huge cause for concern amongst those of us who actually value our liberties. While Ron Paul might be the craziest player on the GOP field, Rick Santorum is by far the most dangerous.

    Quoted for truth – almost all of it!

    The only part that’s not accurate is that Ron Paul is crazy. He’s not. He is a racist ideologue who has publicly stated his opposition to the Civil Rights Act and that businesses have a right to discriminate on grounds of race, creed, color, ethnicity, whatever…but he’s not crazy.

    Who would be a lot closer to crazy are all those who – after being shown the racist statements made over a period of YEARS in Ron Paul’s OWN magazine – actually believe him when he says he never wrote those and that he wasn’t sure who did. How anyone with an ounce of cynicism could believe that the owner of a magazine would not know what’s being printed in his own magazine over a period of years – especially when it contains obviously racist and inflammatory statements – well, how any thinking adult could believe Paul’s excuse is beyond me.

    Well, maybe some who believe him aren’t crazy – maybe they’re as racist as he is. But the rest are either crazy or naive in the extreme.

    And for all – it looks like Santorum is either in first place or a very close second place in Iowa. Please, PLEASE let him be the GOP nominee!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Joseph is uneasy about bringing religion into politics, so his implications are not airtight.

    An average vote probably does care about economy, especially if he or she is out of a job. Rick Santorum position — we’re not going to help African-Americans through welfare but by creating equal employment opportunities (easier said than done).

    A possible though strained conclusion:

    Rick Santorum wouldn’t help a neighbor in need.

  • Bubba Habermas

    I like how a guy claims Obama “disgustingly egocentric psyche struggles with reality” after admitting his own struggles with reality in the same comment. Conservatives are such a joke

  • Bubba Habermas

    and where’s the bigotry? He said he doesn’t want one guy living next door not a group of people

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Bubba –

    Roger’s not a conservative. He may agree with them on some matters, but on others he strongly disagrees with them.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And for all –

    Last month the Bureau of Labor and Statistics pointed out that for every job opening nationwide, there’s four people looking for work.

    So let’s say every single one of those jobs are filled and there are ZERO job openings – what do the rest do? Chances are that very few of them have the capital to open their own business, so exactly how are they supposed to eat, much less feed their families?

    If we get rid of the social safety net – as the conservatives would LOVE to do – then these people would have only one option: crime.

    That, people, is why nations without social safety nets are ALL third-world nations, with higher levels of crime and corruption.

  • Zingzing

    Glenn, I think you mistook Roger for Archie. There’s something a little magical about that.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doggone it – that’s not the first or even the fifth time I’ve done that.

    My apologies to both Roger and Archie.

    Thanks, zing -

  • Arch Conservative

    “it is. but you don’t give much reason for your despising, just that you despise.

    so why?”

    Obama is a thin skinned, condescending, narcissistic, megalomaniacal, douchebag of the highest magnitude. It’s not that just that I view him as a dangerously incompetent president but I think he is a sorry excuse for a decent human being.

    Glenn, Bubba was quoting me, not Roger. try to pay more attention.

    As for comparing me with your Obamessiah Bubba, I did admit where I had gone a little overboard, on a blogpost in cyberspace, that place where most, from time to time,do go a little overboard. On the other hand, your savior, Barry Sotero, is on national TV every 2 hours, live and in the flesh, up in everyone’s grill as he delivers his delusional tirades.

  • zingzing

    “Obama is a thin skinned, condescending, narcissistic, megalomaniacal, douchebag of the highest magnitude. It’s not that just that I view him as a dangerously incompetent president but I think he is a sorry excuse for a decent human being.”

    again, you fail to really give your reasons for believing those things. you don’t give any examples of it. i’ve rarely gotten any impression that he’s any of the things you say. weak-willed, maybe. all too willing to compromise with stupid shit, maybe.

    but these are all just opinions of his character that you can’t seem to provide examples of. from that, i gather that you’re judgmental, and that your judgment is rarely informed by anything.

    and “douchebag?” come on. a “sorry excuse for a decent human being?” he provides for his wife and kids plenty good. he keeps his lawn kept clean. what more do you want?

    there was a time when you said he was a dictator and a communist. or a communist dictator or something. and now he’s “dangerously incompetent?” how can he be both those things?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Something I heard on the radio –

    “Santorum in a three-way! (rim shot)”

    Not much grosses me out, but that came pretty close….

  • http://oneamericansrant.blogspot.com/ One Americans Rant

    I have to say that I am amazed, nay astounded, that Santorum jumped into second place. I had some vague hopes that Huntsman would move up the line some, but he finished dead last. The only brightness today was that Michele has backed out.

    Joseph, if Santorum is a danger as a religious dictator, what did you think of Bachmann?

  • Bubba Habermas

    Obamessiah? I didn’t even vote for the guy. Don’t mistake someone pointing out what a clown you are with support for Obama. It only reveals what a small narrow mind you have. Now leave the politics to the grown ups

  • Arch Conservative

    “and “douchebag?” come on. a “sorry excuse for a decent human being?” he provides for his wife and kids plenty good. he keeps his lawn kept clean. what more do you want?”

    I’m sure Hitler had many a tender moment with Ava Braun and had nice lawn. What’s your point?

    Obama’s vehement opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection act, a piece of proposed legislation that even NARAL did not oppose informs me of all I need to know about his character.

    Oh and Bubba the Obamessiah comment is just an instinctual reaction to the fact that every time I criticize Obama some kool aid drinking Obamabot has to bring up Bush despite the fact that you’d be hard pressed to find any comments since I’ve been a member of BC where I had anything nice to say about W.

  • Bubba Habermas

    who mentioned Bush on this thread? keep working on comprehending reality

  • Clavos

    Arch, like a lot of us, has been around BC for years. Though you may be right bubba that no one has mentioned W on this particular thread, it has happened innumerable times whenever a conservative opens his mouth on these threads.

    Interestingly, W was anything but a conservative, the way he spent our money was pure democrat.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Interestingly, W was anything but a conservative, the way he spent our money was pure democrat.

    When was the last president to balance the budget? Clinton.
    What about the one before that? LBJ – it was 1969, but the first budget Nixon submitted was for 1970
    When was the last Republican president to balance the budget? Eisenhower.
    When did our deficit really begin exploding? Under Reagan.

    Your trite assumptions about ‘tax-and-spend’ Democrats sounds really good, but fail miserably when exposed to the hard, cold light of history.

  • Clavos

    Glenn,

    If you spend AND tax, you “balance the budget,” thereby rendering the concept meaningless to those of us who are against irresponsible, reckless government spending.

    It’s that simple. Bush spent without taxing — he had it half right.

  • Clavos

    Glenn,

    Here’s the real story on the Reagan deficits…

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Dangerous in the sense that we’ll see a mass exodus from the party if he is nominated for anything.

    Dave

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    You cannot – CANNOT – have a balanced budget without having enough tax revenue to pay for the government spending. Bush was warned by the CBO that his tax cuts would bust the budget…and they did.

    If you’ll remember, if Bush had left the budget alone, we were on track to have ALL our federal debt paid off THIS YEAR…and then, instead of the third-largest item in our budget being the INTEREST on our national debt, we could have taken a tax cut that did NOT bust the budget.

    That’s what y’all just don’t get – if you want to pay off the national debt, then in addition to responsible government spending, you MUST have the tax revenue in order to do so! We’ve proven this already in the 1950’s! To balance the budget on cutting government spending alone is a pipe dream and nothing more. Ain’t gonna happen, Clavos.

    And BTW, who is it that is supporting cuts to the DOD that every BC conservative I can think of supports (with the possible exception of Warren)? And who is it that is raising hell that right now is the wrong time to cut defense spending? FYI, those DOD cuts are going to affect me personally and cost me at least a couple thousand a year or more (since like all retirees my coverage will be downgraded from Tricare Prime to Tricare Standard)…but I know it’s necessary, so unlike most of my fellow retirees who are strongly conservative and so will raise hell about it, I’ll consider it as the needs of the nation over the needs of the individual…and that’s what military service is about.

    In summary, Clavos:

    Obama’s given America’s tax payers the lowest overall tax burden we’ve had in almost SIXTY YEARS, and you still gripe about his taxes killing the economy, and

    Obama’s cutting the DOD budget (though not as much as most BC denizens would like), and the GOP’s whining about it (and y’all still complain about how much he spends).

    Face it, Clavos – Obama could cure cancer, walk on water, and invent free and endless energy all at one time, and you’d STILL complain how he’s destroying the nation.

  • Clavos

    Glenn,
    Obama’s given America’s tax payers the lowest overall tax burden we’ve had in almost SIXTY YEARS, and you still gripe about his taxes killing the economy

    No, Glenn, because along with those low taxes, he’s the biggest spending president in history.

  • zingzing

    archie: “I’m sure Hitler had many a tender moment with Ava Braun and had nice lawn. What’s your point?”

    really? hitler? he who fucked his niece and told eva to kill herself after he’d locked her in the basement? and his lawn?! my god… it was smoldering by the time he was done.

    nice try, but you know what i mean.

    “Obama’s vehement opposition to the Born Alive Infant Protection act, a piece of proposed legislation that even NARAL did not oppose informs me of all I need to know about his character.”

    well, that would be jumping to all sorts of conclusions. why does he oppose it? prolly because he gets his kicks by killing babies, yeah? no, no… there must be another reason. you don’t seem to have any clue about who he is, but you’re willing to (admittedly) base your opinion of him based upon totally emotional claptrap. congratulations, you’re ignorant…

    my point, archie, is that you STILL haven’t really brought up much of anything that explains your hatred. character attacks don’t really count if you don’t know the man. abortion shit is just too divisive. i support abortion (doesn’t mean i like it), but that doesn’t give you the right to call me a despicable human being… or at least i won’t give a shit if you do. it could just as easily be said that you hate women as i (or obama) like abortion. you fucking woman-hating man thing. see? doesn’t work like that.

    so what, other than your emo- or abortion-based criticisms, which i don’t really care about, is the problem? i don’t want your opinion of the man, i want your fact-based criticisms of things he’s actually done.

    he’s been pissing me off lately, so here’s your chance to prove that right-wingers have more than hissy fits and obviously stupid shit to throw at him. i’m open right now. show me he’s a bad president. but please, leave the inane bullshit at the door.

  • Arch Conservative

    “well, that would be jumping to all sorts of conclusions. why does he oppose it? prolly because he gets his kicks by killing babies, yeah? no, no… there must be another reason. you don’t seem to have any clue about who he is, but you’re willing to (admittedly) base your opinion of him based upon totally emotional claptrap. congratulations, you’re ignorant…”

    He claimed his opposition to the bill was because it was a back door attempt to curb abortion rights. If the bill was good enough for NARAL, it should have been good enough for him. As far as I’m concerned there was no decent reason to oppose it.

    The last time I checked zing you were not the supreme arbiter oh what I deem is or is not relevant to me about the character of a politician or any other person. You may think 3500 babies a day in this country being killed is “emotional claptrap” but I do not and I don’t feel particularly inclined to justify my views to any koolaid drinking Obamabots that believe so. You view the matter of these babies being killed with all the seriousness and sense of importance that one has when changing the oil in their car, all the while cheering on those that enable more and more abortions every year and you have the nerve to call me ignorant?

    The point is that I’m not you zing (thank jeebus for that) so you will never comprehend the reasons for most of the things I believe and I will never care that you don’t.

  • Zingzing

    Archie, the point is that abortion is a divisive issue. You understand that, yeah? Do you hate women? No, probably not. Do I like killing babies? Do you think I do? No, you probably don’t. So your point is wasted if you think that obama’s position on abortion is going to make me see the light.

    So, forgetting abortion for the moment, what makes Obama such a bad guy? Something, anything will do, as long as it’s not your personal feelings on the man’s character. You know what I’m looking for and what I’m not, but you still haven’t been able to come up with anything.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    No, Glenn, because along with those low taxes, he’s the biggest spending president in history.

    First, which president is responsible for the largest federal deficit? That would be George W. Bush with his 2009 budget. The most recent Obama budget is $300M BELOW that amount. Now of course you know that the huge deficits we’ve had beginning in 2008 were all because our federal tax revenues plummeted thanks to your boys’ Great Recession.

    Second, with the exception of the stimulus package (which most economists credit with PREVENTING a full-fledged depression, but which most economists also state was too SMALL), President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal was the ONLY budget proposal in recent memory which was actually SMALLER than that of the previous year…and this is despite the continuing rise of health care costs, pension costs, and an additional $200B in interest on the federal debt (only a small part of which is interest due to the stimulus package).

    Again, Clavos, we can’t balance the budget simply by budget cuts. If your conservative fellows hadn’t blown the budget all to hell when they took over in 2001, we wouldn’t be having this argument now, because we’d have ZERO federal debt. But NOOOOOOOO, they just had to give huge tax cuts.

    And one more thing – bear in mind that I hold CLINTON as responsible as the Republicans for the Great Recession. Why? Because he went along with them when it came to rampant deregulation of our financial markets, our banks, and our housing systems – not to mention the free trade agreements that have sucked tens of thousands of our factories overseas.

    If you really want to lay blame for our economic woes, blame conservative economic ideals that driven our economy into the dirt since Reagan took over with what George H. W. Bush rightly called “Voodoo Economics”.

  • Arch Conservative

    Glenn seems to have forgotten that during many of the Democrats presidents administrations we had a GOP majority in Congress (ie when Glenn claims Clinton single handedly balanced the budget) and conversely when Reagan was president he had a Democrat controlled House for most of his administration.

    But I guess acknowledging Congress as another branch of government whose actions affect the economy of our nation didn’t serve the purpose of your previous posts Glenn.

  • Clavos

    He also ignores the trillions Obie has spent on totally useless “stimuli,” by trying to ascribe Obie’s staggering debt to a piddling tax “cut” being extended — by Obie.

    …[stimulus] which most economists credit with PREVENTING a full-fledged depression, but which most economists also state was too SMALL)

    “most economists?” No — only the Keynesians, whose premises have been debunked by the economic history of the past 70 years.

    And he ignores the decades of prosperity that followed Reagan’s “voodoo economics.”

    I think Glenn must spend a lot of time behind the wheel, because many of his ideas about government and governing appear to have been gleaned from bumper stickers.

  • zingzing

    so do yours, clavos. you say keynesian “premises have been debunked by the economic history of the past 70 years,” but that’s merely something argued, not necessarily fact. the entirety of your comment follows a similar pattern, wherein you ascribe to your beliefs absolute certainty, while dismissing competeing ideas as necessarily false. “bumper sticker” indeed.

  • zingzing

    i hate internet explorer.

  • Igor

    48-clavos is overreaching: “…the Keynesians, whose premises have been debunked by the economic history of the past 70 years.”

    What nonsense. Can you present one premise that has been debunked?

    Would that include Keynes’ 1923 theory of the “Tax flexibility curve”, which Arthur Laffer swiped as his own in 1980 at lunch with Rumsfeld and Cheney and built into an entire (unearned) career? Without the carefully prescribed boundary conditions that Keynes included in 1923.

    I suggest that you know NOTHING about such matters.

    Incidentally, had Bush followed Keynesian counter-cyclical principles in 2001 he would have banked the surplus and paid off the debt and we wouldn’t have these financial crises.

  • Arch Conservative

    OK zing so the notion that keynsian economics does not work has only been argued and is not fact?

    I guess it must irk you then whenever Obama or one of his cultists claims that were it not for the stimulus we would have, with all metaphysical certitude, slipped into another great depression.

  • zingzing

    well, archie, something had to be done. the stimulus may very well have prevented a far worse development. hard to say at this point. maybe you don’t think that was the best solution (however much of a solution it has been), but would you have done nothing? next time you see a ball rolling down a hill, do you think it will lose momentum in the middle of the hill or at the bottom?

    i think you can come up with a better example.

    but that wasn’t really the point. clavos accused glenn of spouting empty shit with a whole load of empty shit, where his side is absolutely right and the other is absolutely wrong, with no reason other than his say-so to back it up. that was the point.

    but yes, that kind of stuff does piss me off sometimes, especially when it comes with a healthy dose of hypocrisy. but i’ll admit i’m more willing to hear it from my side than the other. just as you are. clavos just should have left off that last sentence…

  • Arch Conservative

    You yourself just used the words “may very well have prevented a far worse development,” indicating that you do not believe it would be definitively possible to know what would have happened without the stimulus. Yet we’re told by Obama and his minions that there would have been, with absolute certainty, another great depression were it not for the stimulus.

    So why does it bother you that someone says the evidence has shown keynsian economics to be fatally flawed but ti does not bother you that our own president and his supporters are claiming to have an economic crystal ball when it comes to the stimulus. Sounds like a double standard to me

  • Zingzing

    I doubt “Obama and his minions” have been that definitive about it, and I think you’re purposefully misreading them. Plus I already admitted to a double standard so I don’t know what you think you’re accusing me of.

  • http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-fort-worth/becky-boydstun Becky Boydstun

    I could not agree with you more. Now it has even gotten worse. I know you wrote this is a while back but I was just linked to this from twitter. It is scary to me that now he is polling the way he is. Fortunately his numbers seem to be dropping.

    Like you, I would never want him as a neighbor. The 1st time I heard him say the things he said about public school was a direct hit on my children. I would have had to have a conversation with him about that, and his sanctimonious attitude. Who does he think he is? He has no qualifications for his opinions.

    If the voters would take note of his enormous loss the last time he ran for Senate, it should be obvious why he should never be given a chance to win a single state in the primary. Obviously Pennsylvania knows him best.

  • Marne B

    Wow would you look at that. What a great guy and I think I’ll vote for him cause I like what he has to say. Just a straight shooter all the way. Would ya look at that. I really mean it what a great guy and just a real pleasure to have over for company to meet the family.