Just thought I’d share this gem from the Santorum campaign…

“Donate $100 or more to Rick’s campaign between now and January 11, and we will send your very own official Rick Santorum For President sweater vest. Perfect for demonstrating solidarity with true conservatives, this vest is a great way to show your support for Rick. It’s 100% cotton, made in the USA, comes in grey, and is yours for your contribution of $100 or more. Don’t let sleeves slow you down — donate today!

* Demand has been extremely high for this item. Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Thanks again for supporting Rick’s campaign.”

Photo via @FearRicksVest

Lolz.

Advertisements

Irony at its finest

Santorum wants to impose ‘Judeo-Christian Sharia’

By Dean Obeidallah, Special to CNN
updated 2:30 PM EST, Thu January 5, 2012
 Rick Santorum bows his head in prayer during a campaign rally in Iowa this week.
Editor’s note: Dean Obeidallah is a comedian who has appeared on Comedy Central’s “Axis of Evil” special, ABC’s “The View,” CNN’s “What the Week” and HLN’s “The Joy Behar Show.” He is executive producer of the annual New York Arab-American Comedy Festival and the Amman Stand Up Comedy Festival. Follow him on Twitter.

(CNN) — There are two Rick Santorums: The first one I might not agree with, but the second one truly scares me.

“Santorum One” pushes for less government regulation for corporations and shrinking the federal government. You may or may not agree with these positions, but they are both mainstream conservative fare.

Then there’s “Santorum Two.” This Santorum wants to impose conservative Christian law upon America. Am I being hyperbolic or overly dramatic with this statement? I wish I were, but I’m not.

Plainly put, Rick Santorum wants to convert our current legal system into one that requires our laws to be in agreement with religious law, not unlike what the Taliban want to do in Afghanistan.

Santorum is not hiding this. The only reason you may not be aware of it is because up until his recent surge in the polls, the media were ignoring him. However, “Santorum Two” was out there telling anyone who would listen.

He told a crowd at a November campaign stop in Iowa in no uncertain terms, “our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God’s law.”

On Thanksgiving Day at an Iowa candidates’ forum, he reiterated: “We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law.”

“Imagine if either of the two Muslim members of Congress declared their support for a proposed American law based on verses from the Quran. The outcry would be deafening, especially from people like Santorum.”
Dean Obeidallah

Yes, that means exactly what you think it does: Santorum believes that each and every one of our government’s laws must match God’s law, warning that “as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation.” I’m not exactly sure what “agitation” means in this context, but I think it’s a code word for something much worse than acid reflux.

And as an aside, when Santorum says “God,” he means “not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” So, if your god differs from Rick’s, your god’s views will be ignored, just like the father is on “Keeping Up with the Kardashians.”

Some of you might be asking: How far will “Santorum Two” take this? It’s not like he’s going to base public policy decisions on Bible passages, right?

Well, here’s what Santorum had to say just last week when asked about his opposition to gay marriage: “We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. … And those truths don’t change just because people’s attitudes may change.”

Santorum could not be more unambiguous: His policy decisions will be based on “biblical truths,” and as he noted, these “truths” will not change regardless of whether public opinion has evolved since the time the Bible was written thousands of years ago.

Imagine if either of the two Muslim members of Congress declared their support for a proposed American law based on verses from the Quran. The outcry would be deafening, especially from people like Santorum.

One of the great ironies is that Santorum has been a leader in sounding alarm bells that Muslims want to impose Islamic law — called Sharia law — upon non-Muslims in America. While Santorum fails to offer even a scintilla of credible evidence to support this claim, he continually warns about the “creeping” influence of Muslim law.

Santorum’s fundamental problem with Sharia law is that it’s “not just a religious code. It is also a governmental code. It happens to be both religious in nature and origin, but it is a civil code.”

Consequently, under the Sharia system, the civil laws of the land must comport with God’s law. Now, where did I hear about someone wanting to impose only laws that agree with God’s law in America?

So, what type of nation might the United States be under Rick Santorum’s Sharia law?

1. Rape victims would be forced to give birth to the rapist’s child. Santorum has stated that his religious beliefs dictate that life begins at conception, and as a result, rape victims would be sentenced to carrying the child of the rapist for nine months.

2. Gay marriages would be annulled. Santorum recently declaredthat not only does he oppose gay marriages, but he supports a federal constitutional amendment that would ban them, invalidating all previous gay marriages that have legally been sanctioned by states and thus callously destroying marriages and thrusting families into chaos.

3. Santorum would ban all federal funding for birth control and would not oppose any state that wanted to pass laws making birth control illegal.

4. No porn! I’m not kidding. Santorum signed “The Marriage Vow” pledge (PDF) authored by the Family Leader organization, under which he swears to oppose pornography. I think many would agree that alone should disqualify him from being president.

To me, “Santorum Two” truly poses an existential threat to the separation of church and state, one of the bedrock principles of our nation since its inception. Not only did Thomas Jefferson speak of the need to create “a wall of separation between church and state,” so did Santorum’s idol, Ronald Reagan, who succinctly stated, “church and state are, and must remain, separate.”

While there may be millions of Americans who in their heart agree with the views of “Santorum Two,” it is my hope they will reject any attempts to move America closer to a becoming the Afghanistan of the Western Hemisphere.

Let’s get the government out of our lives and into our pants.

Santorum Explains ’06 Loss, Still Supports State Right to Outlaw Contraception

Jan 2, 2012 6:59pm, Jake Tapper, ABC News

Rick Santorum is the man to watch in Iowa. After months near the bottom of polls, but living in the state and visiting all 99 counties, the former Pennsylvania Senator has surged into contention, placing third in the most recent Des Moines register poll.

He’s pointed to his ability to get elected statewide twice as a conservative senator in Pennsylvania. But he doesn’t as much  mention his blistering, 18 percentage point defeat there in 2006 to Bob Casey, a conservative Democrat.

Today he explained away that loss because 2006 was an historically bad year for Republicans, who lost control of both houses of Congress.

“It was the worst election year for republicans in the history of the state, this isn’t going to be 2006,” said Santorum, who stopped between campaign stops in Iowa to talk to ABC News.

“If I was the only guy that lost and everybody else won you could say that, oh well, that guy is in trouble. We stood up and didn’t flinch. We stood up and said this is what we believed the problem are… I was prepared to stand up and fight for what I believed in, and I wasn’t supposed to win any of the elections I ever ran, and I won the first four against odds no one would have ever taken. And they were decent election years, some good, some not so good. We were able to win those elections in heavily democratic districts, because we stood up for what we believed in, and you know what and when that went south in a big way we lost, its ok, this is not that election year.”

I pointed out that Democrats say that one of the reasons Santorum lost in 2006 was because they say he’s more conservative than mainstream America. One issue was Santorum’s opposition to the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling that invalidated a Connecticut law banning contraception. Santorum said he still feels that a state should be able to make such laws.

“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.  That is the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court, they are creating rights, and they should be left up to the people to decide,” he said.

“You shouldn’t create constitutional rights when states do dumb things,” Santorum said. “Let the people decide if the states are doing dumb things get rid of the legislature and replace them as opposed to creating constitutional laws that have consequences that were before them.”

No, Santorum, you definitely said that…

Rick Santorum Denies Making ‘Black People’ Remarks, Claims To Be ‘Bigger Player’ In 2012 Primary Race

Rick Santorum
The Huffington Post    First Posted: 01/ 4/12 09:15 PM ET Updated: 01/ 5/12 07:57 AM ET

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum denied recently making comments about “black people’s lives” after receiving criticism for the remarks.

Santorum took heat after saying, “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.” During an appearance on FOX News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” he denied ever making the comments, saying the remark was the result of “a little bit of a blurred word.”

“I looked at that, and I didn’t say that,” Santorum told O’Reilly. “If you look at it, what I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of — blah — came out. And people said I said ‘black.’ I didn’t.”

The GOP hopeful touted his past help of black colleges to further defend himself against criticism over the claims.

“And I can tell you, I don’t use — I don’t — first off, I don’t use the term ‘black’ very often. I use the term ‘African-American’ more than I use ‘black,” Santorum said. “I can tell you as someone who did more work for historically black colleges, I used to have — every year, I used to bring all the historically black colleges into Washington, DC to try to help them, because they get very little federal money through the bureaucracy, and so I help to try to introduce them to people in the Department of Education so they could have more resources.”

Santorum also got defensive over his presidential run less than a day after he took a close second place at the 2012 Iowa Caucuses, saying this campaign “isn’t my first rodeo.”

“I’ve been in a lot of tough campaigns in Pennsylvania,” Santorum said when asked if he is “ready to be demonized.”

“We’re going to have resources,” Santorum said. “We’re going to be a much bigger player than I think everybody anticipates right now.”

Romney wins Iowa by 8 votes…

Preston: Short sprint or long haul to GOP nomination?

By Mark Preston, CNN Political Director
updated 5:27 AM EST, Wed January 4, 2012

Click to play

(CNN) — With a narrow loss, Rick Santorum scored a stunning victory and now heads to New Hampshire, hoping this momentum sets him up as the anti-Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

Santorum, who lost to Romney by eight votes in the Iowa caucuses early Wednesday, is following a well-worn path on his march as the new political battleground shifts from this Midwestern state to New Hampshire.

It is an uphill battle for Santorum, who faces a better-funded rival in Romney and questions about his own viability as a general election candidate.

Meanwhile, one-time leading contender Newt Gingrich is hoping to breathe new life into his campaign with a sharper message in a new state. Rick Perry, who came in a disappointing fifth in the caucuses, said he was heading back to Texas to “reassess” his campaign, a statement that all but seems to close the book on his presidential bid that took off like a rocket in August only to fall out of the sky in the ensuing months.

Perhaps, the second biggest surprise of the night — nothing can match the razor-thin margin that Romney won by — was Michele Bachmann’s refusal to bow out of the race even though she came in a disappointing sixth place.

She is scheduled to appear in South Carolina on Wednesday — hoping to open up a second front in the battle for the Republican nomination. For Bachmann, New Hampshire is not an option to restart her campaign, as her fate rests with the influential evangelical/born-again voters in South Carolina — the same group that failed to rally behind her in Iowa.

Even though Ron Paul came in third, he should get credit for building a strong ground game. Paul has proven he is an effective campaigner with a loyal following. He is not going anywhere, anytime soon.

Romney is heavily favored to win the New Hampshire primary and it should come as no surprise that he will take time this week to campaign in South Carolina — a political strike to try and suppress any momentum that might be building for Santorum or support for Gingrich.

Santorum will press hard for South Carolina’s evangelical/born again voters on January 11, but he is not willing to cede this valuable opportunity to draw a spotlight onto his campaign. A wealthy candidate, such as Romney, has the ability to pick and choose what states to play in. Santorum is no Romney when it comes to money, staff and resources.

“We are not just going to compete where we think we can win,” said John Brabender, Santorum’s senior strategist. “We think we are the best alternative to Mitt Romney and we are willing to go right into his backyard.”

The race for the 2012 GOP nomination, which has largely been an exercise in retail politics over the past few weeks, takes on the added dimension of a national campaign — which largely defined the race for most of the year. This weekend, the candidates will appear in two nationally televised debates — a setting that befits Newt Gingrich, who came in 4th place last night. Gingrich’s steady performance in the dozen-plus presidential debates helped fuel his rise in the polls in December only to come quickly crashing down under the barrage of negative advertising.

“This weekend’s debates are a big deal,” said David Winston, a veteran Republican strategist who is advising Gingrich. “This will be the first time the candidates will have been together since early December.”

Winston said he had never seen such a massive amount of negative television advertising directed at a presidential candidate as what Gingrich has endured over the past month.

“If you are trying to change the general narrative, this is where the folks are going to be,” Winston said of New Hampshire.

After New Hampshire, the next stop in the battle for the GOP nomination is January 21 in South Carolina, followed by Florida on January 31.

While Romney is likely to win New Hampshire, a big, strong showing by Santorum or Gingrich will determine whether this race comes to a quick close on Super Tuesday or continues on into the spring.

And then there is Jon Huntsman, is there any chance he will be able to soak up some of the spotlight that will now shine brightly on New Hampshire.

Santorum has more to say about minorities…

Santorum’s Racist Welfare Rant: ‘I Don’t Want To Make Black People’s Lives Better’ With Taxpayer Money

By Marie Diamond on Jan 3, 2012 at 1:10 pm, Think Progress

GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum has been trying to pull off an upset in the Iowa caucus, but he’s drawing criticism ahead of tonight’s contest forracially charged remarks he recently made about welfare recipients:

At a campaign stop in Sioux City, Iowa on Sunday, Republican presidential hopeful RickSantorum singled out blacks as being recipients of assistance through federal benefit programs, telling a mostly-white audience he doesn’t want to “make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.” […]

It is unclear why Santorum pinpointed blacks specifically as recipients of federal aid. The original questioner asked “how do we get off this crazy train? We’ve got so much foreign influence in this country now,” adding “where do we go from here?”

It’s hard to say which part of the story is stranger — that Santorum spontaneously derided poor black people in response to a question about foreign money or his explanation of why he did it.

When asked about the comments in a CBS interview, Santorum bizarrely referenced a documentary about the education achievement gap, Waiting for Superman, to explain the context. “Yesterday I talked for example about a movie called, um, what was it? ‘Waiting for Superman,’ which was about black children and so I don’t know whether it was in response and I was talking about that,” he said. The movie actually portrays students of several races.

There had originally been some confusion about whether Santorum actually said the word “black,” which he appeared to clear up in the CBS interview by acknowledging that was in fact the statement he made. (The candidate seemed to think better of his words mid-sentence, so the line comes across garbled.)

CBS points out that only nine percent of Iowans on food stamps are black — and 84 percent are white. Nationally, 39 percent of welfare recipients are white, 37 percent are black, and 17 percent are Hispanic. So Santorum’s decision to single out black welfare recipients plays right into insulting — and inaccurate — stereotypes of the kind of people some voters might expect to want a “handout.”

Attacking families who receive government aid has been a theme among many of the Republican candidates. In nearly every speech, Newt Gingrich accuses President Obama of being a “food stamp president” and even said “really poor children” have bad work habits and no knowledge of how to make an income “unless it’s illegal.” (HT: Raw Story)

“Diversity creates conflict. If we celebrate diversity, we create conflict.” – Rick Santorum

 

Rick Santorum May Win Iowa — And Nowhere Else

Zeke Miller
BuzzFeed

 

(Getty Images / Win McNamee)

Posted about 3 hours ago

OTTUMWA, Iowa—Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and his aides were frantically refreshing laptops and phones to see the results of Saturday’s Des Moines Register poll yesterday evening, results that showed him within striking distance of Mitt Romney, but it probably didn’t matter: The last surging Republican candidate is uniquely ill-suited to snatch the nomination from Mitt Romney.

Santorum huddled with staff members outside a restroom here trying to access the poll following one of his largest rallies of the campaign. Like tens of thousands of other political junkies Saturday night, he was locked out of the results after the Register’s website crashed under the load, and only learned of the results after BuzzFeed’s correspondent showed him a tweet on his laptop.

The Pennsylvania conservative expressed little emotion after learning he was polling in third at 15 percent — up from just 5 percent in early December — or when he got the news that in the last two days of the survey he had surging to 21 percent, enough for second place.

Santorum maintained that the poll didn’t matter; he’s “the tortoise” and isn’t going to do anything differently. And in the grand scheme of things, he’s right:

Little changes if Santorum wins the Iowa caucuses. It will still be Mitt Romney’s game to lose.

Santorum lacks the organization and fundraising to compete in the next two voting states, South Carolina and New Hampshire. He was soliciting Iowa voters late Saturday to help him raise money for ads airing as soon as tomorrow.
What’s more, the single-minded focus on social conservatives, and the “moral crisis” on which he campaigns, has left him without a clear pitch to most voters’ primary concern, the economy.

Indeed, Santorum appeals to Iowa voters with a mix of unusual lines that won’t play outside the Hawkeye State.

“Diversity creates conflict. If we celebrate diversity, we create conflict,” Santorum told the audience in Ottumwa. When he was asked about homeopathic remedies, he said: “I believe in all types of medicine.”

“Santorum may pocket the anti-Romney conservative ticket out of Iowa, boosting him in South Carolina, yet it is difficult to see how he broadens his appeal within his party. Santorum still campaigns as if he is behind a church pulpit, not on a political podium,” the Republican consultant Alex Castellanos wrote Sunday. “Unless he learns to address the raging economic fire that concerns voters and not the moral meltdown that interests him, he’ll remain a tangential threat.”

The problem for Santorum: Romney has New Hampshire locked up, setting South Carolina as the site of conservatives’ last stand.

But as in Iowa, Romney will face a divided mass of conservatives in the Palmetto State: Barring a low-single digit catastrophe on Tuesday, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry will almost certainly still be in the race when South Carolina Republicans cast their primary ballots.
Santorum’s surge has been isolated to Iowa — he’s still in single digits nationally — and only came about because of his relentless retail politicking, and an ostentatious fealty to the “Iowa way” that won’t stir voters elsewhere. Gingrich and Perry can’t win a three or four way split of the conservative vote.

Santorum won’t have the same level of success in South Carolina as he might in Iowa since he’s made only a symbolic effort to meet voters in the state, staging about three hundred fewer events there than he has in Iowa.

He needs to be able to wage a media war, and in a state where retail politics is less important, that means Santorum needs cash — and he doesn’t have any.

Santorum very well could win the Iowa caucuses, but it doesn’t make Mitt Romney more vulnerable. Rather, it means Romney’s getting perhaps the only social conservative he could beat even in the Baptist heartland.

“We’re headed in the right direction,” Santorum said in Ottumwa. But there’s clear path for Santorum to stop Romney’s sprint to the finish.

The tortoise may win Iowa, but he won’t go very far.

Rick Santorum’s Brilliant Plan for the Economy: Demonize Nontraditional Households

Gay Marriage Destroyed Economy but Hetero Marriage Can Save It?

October 13, 2011
By , PoliticusUSA

So if you’re really, really stupid and want to suggest a way to revitalize the economy, what do you do? As our most prominent stupid candidate proposes, incentivize marriage! It’s stupid as it gets, but it’s just what you’d expect of Rick Santorum(R-PA) and exactly what he proposed the other night at Bloomberg/The Washington Post Republican Presidential Debate at Dartmouth College.

I know…take a deep breath.

Yes, incentivizing marriage will fix the economy and put an end to poverty. And here we thought all we had to do was kill all the gay people and a wholesale genocide of the middle class. Who knew?

But no, says the anti-genius: He told debate moderator Charlie Rose that “the biggest problem with poverty in America, and we don’t talk about here, because it’s an economic discussion — and that is the breakdown of the American family.”

“You want to look at the poverty rate among families that have two — that have a husband and wife working in them? It’s 5 percent today. A family that’s headed by one person? It’s 30 percent today. We need to do something, and we need to talk about economics. The home — the word ‘home’ in Greek is the basis of the word ‘economy.’ It is the foundation of our country. We need to have a policy that supports families, that encourages marriage, that has fathers take responsibility for their children. You can’t have limited government — you can’t have a wealthy society if the family breaks down, that basic unit of society. And that needs to be included in this economic discussion.”

In the long, long history of stupidity, this proposal has to be one of the most absurd and it cements Santorum’s place at the bottom of an already dismal Republican heap. The Democrats offer Barack Obama, and this is the best Santorum can come up with? Incentivize marriage? Really?

Given the Republican inability – and complete lack of desire – to create jobs, it’s difficult to imagine adding a jobless mate to an already jobless mate and expecting that a small monetary incentive will revitalize the single family in question let alone the entire economy. Low wage Republicans don’t seem to realize that 0+0=0. Nothing plus nothing is still nothing. It will always be nothing. And nothing is all they want us to have.

But hey, we’ll be married!

And as they say, misery loves company.

And of course, Santorum isn’t proposing gay folks get married. We’ve seen how he feels about marriage equality:

  • “We have made the decision that the best way to raise a family is with a man and a woman.” – On CBS’s Face the Nation
  • “Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.” – On Fox News Sunday.
  • “In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality.” –  AP interview

In fact, according to Santorum, speaking earlier this year, same-sex marriage actually destroyed the economy. Somehow, a principle of morality comes into play here – a moral marriage will be good for the economy but an immoral marriage won’t – you have to wonder where Santorum studied his economics because they didn’t discuss that when I was studying economics in college.

Republicans, including Santorum, can’t admit that class warfare is the problem, that our economy was destroyed by unregulated moneyed interests, and not by single-parent families. He’s right in saying families need to succeed but he can’t seem to wrap his feeble little mind around the idea that maybe giving people jobs would actually accomplish that – even for single parent families. And it’s incredible that if his thesis is that marriages will fix the economy that he isn’t also supporting marriage equality.