Blogs and Stories

Mark McKinnon

Santorum Is Dangerous

Rick Santorum Scott J. Ferrell, Congressional Quarterly / Getty Images In the sixth in a series of posts on the 2012 landscape, former Bush and McCain strategist Mark McKinnon says that despite former Senator Rick Santorum’s actions and extreme ideology, he and his foray into Iowa should be taken seriously.

A Rick Santorum presidency would be very, very dangerous for America.

Unfortunately, he’s thinking about it. No matter what they say, assume that any politician who steps inside the borders of Iowa or New Hampshire has got the presidential itch. And Santorum just announced a series of Iowa visits to scratch himself before conservative activists.

Santorum represents, in my view, much of what is wrong the in the Republican Party. While I disagree with him on some fundamental issues, I am much more concerned with his lack of character.

Santorum is a strong neoconservative who represented Pennsylvania in the House of Representatives and the Senate over a 16-year period and rose to the No. 3 leadership position among Republicans.

Santorum once grouped gay sex with incest, polygamy, and bestiality, and he believes consenting adults have no constitutional right to privacy when it comes to sexual behavior. He is a strong supporter of teaching intelligent design. He is anti-gay, anti-immigrant—supporting the most extreme anti-immigrant legislative proposals though he is the son of an Italian immigrant father—antiabortion, and anti-anything that smacks of progressive thinking, centrism, bipartisanship, or moderation in the Republican Party.

Santorum was one of only two senators who voted against Robert Gates to be secretary of Defense because Gates advocated talking to Iran and Syria, which Santorum said would be talking to “radical Islam” and would be a grievous error.

Santorum represents, in my view, much of what is wrong the in the Republican Party. While I disagree with him on some fundamental issues, I am much more concerned with his lack of character.

Here’s why.

Early in 2008, Santorum claimed a John McCain presidency would be “very, very dangerous for Republicans.” OK, he was entitled to support the candidate of his choice, but launching vicious frontal attacks on McCain that continued well after he received the nomination did nothing but hurt the GOP and its chances.

But that’s not the worst of it.

A friend of mine ran into Santorum at a conservative think tank event in Washington, DC, in January 2008 and asked him why he had been bashing McCain on Sean Hannity’s show. He replied he thought McCain would be a terrible president and that he would rather have Hillary Clinton as commander in chief.

Wait, there’s more.

Back to Top
August 12, 2009 | 11:05pm
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Digg
|
|
Emails
|
print
Comments ()

Granite

Santorum only cares about himself. He proved that to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He is a terrifying prospect for POTUS--I shudder at the thought. At least I can get a chuckle out Palin and Jindal.

|
|
Reply
|
11:49 pm, Aug 12, 2009

SpeakEnglish

Obama only cares about himself. He proved that to the country. He is a terrifying prospect for POTUS--I'm still shuddering at the thought.

At least I can get a chuckle out of...nothing the left has brought upon this country. More tasex, higher deficit, higher unemployment, less freedomand an an enemies list.

It's Santorum time baby.

|
|
Reply
|
4:32 am, Aug 13, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
7:44 am, Aug 13, 2009

AlanD2

SpeakEnglish: You're just jealous that Democrats found a candidate that can think.

|
11:43 am, Aug 13, 2009

This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.

|
12:23 pm, Aug 13, 2009

honoluludon

SpeakEnglish - have you ever heard the saying it's better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are stupid vs opening it up and confirming the fact that you are?

|
12:58 pm, Aug 13, 2009

openhand

As distasteful as it is, Obama followed Reagans route and wrapped up the middle. Santorum would be no different to all the Republicans to the right of McCain, casting the GOP into complete obscurity. I don't see the Dems objecting here.

|
1:10 pm, Aug 13, 2009

sophia5

Time for everybody to hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
Both the right and left are "dangerous."
They seek the expansion of power.

|
1:29 pm, Aug 13, 2009

JohnnyAces

DanKenton. Great dig on the typos! That really added a lot to the conversation! You told her!!

|
1:44 pm, Aug 13, 2009

notacrazyperson

YOU are scary too, how sad to be so dumb.

|
1:51 pm, Aug 13, 2009

hmmmmmer

Wingnuts of the US are deplorable, ignorant, and hateful, you prove it.

|
2:54 pm, Aug 13, 2009

fleetw1978

Speakenglish, try this one on for size. Besar mi culo. If you want to know what that means, let me know. I'll tell you right to your face. I'll even give you some of your recently lost "freedoms."

|
3:43 pm, Aug 13, 2009

xbainx

That's right, run Santorum. In fact run him with Sarah Palin. It'll be a massacre. Obama will win in another landslide.

|
5:16 pm, Aug 13, 2009

Ritarita

HA!
Santorum is a has-been.
Obama could eat live kittens
On the teevee-
And still beat Santorum with one arm
Tied behind his back.

|
7:39 pm, Aug 13, 2009

elldeen

"It is better to be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" - Abraham Lincoln

|
9:23 pm, Aug 13, 2009

Loxafiya

I got more money in my paycheck, too. So give up that shuddering crap. We have a black president. Get over it!

|
10:52 pm, Aug 13, 2009

anghiari

Sorry, but Santorum does not have the look. Having worked for years on any number of campaigns...the successful candidate has to look appealing to all the voters. Santorum doesn't look like a nice guy. People have to be engaged ...why do you think anybody paid attenton to Palin? she was cute. Santorum isn't cute, he looks like a numbers cruncher with a mean streak!

|
12:19 am, Aug 14, 2009

sippewissett

Look, unless you plan to back up your accusations with facts, your postings only make you look like a jerk, not anyone with a thoughtful point of view. Go to a right-wing site that will appreciate your lack of reason. It's intellectually sloppy -- or malicious -- to pin all of our economic woes on Obama unless you haven't been in this country for the last 8 years and never read a newspaper.

|
11:42 am, Aug 14, 2009

Juniusforte

Another fruitcake added to the Republican candidate list. I know this guy was in congress for some time during the Gingrich years. But he was booted out by Pennsylvanians by a very wide margin. Once you are rest assured that these zombies are dead you hear of their comeback attempts (Santorom, Gingrich, Palin). We need to call Dr. Van Helsing to lay them to permanent rest once and for all.

|
|
Reply
|
5:46 am, Aug 13, 2009

karldaggerfield

Elected Senator, a role you could never achieve in a thousand lifetimes, but Santorum's a "fruitcake" simply because the brain-addled who chose the vapid teleprompter reader dislike Conservatives. But it will only be Conservatism that will save the country after Obama is spanked and kicked out like the illiterate socialist he is.

|
1:52 am, Aug 14, 2009

gak001

As a Pennsylvanian, I can only say that I hope that man never gets into another elected office. He is the pinnacle of counterproductive politicians: he is a reactionary and a hyperpartisan ideologue.

That being said, bringing up the way he mourned the passing of a premature child is questionably on limits. Sure it's strange, but it isn't completely unheard of. I'd rather stick to emphasizing his complete and total incompetence.

|
|
Reply
|
12:58 am, Aug 13, 2009

indie2009

He is the pinnacle of counterproductive politicians: he is a reactionary and a hyperpartisan ideologue" You mean like Obama?

|
|
Reply
|
9:45 am, Aug 13, 2009

AlanD2

indie2009: If you think a moderate Republican like Obama is "reactionary and a hyperpartisan ideologue", just way until we elect a liberal in 2016.

|
11:45 am, Aug 13, 2009

gak001

Well, let's look at this logically. Obama is a Democrat accused of socialist leanings, for him to be a reactionary would be a complete jump across teh spectrum.

Then, Santorum compared sitting US Senators who were Democrats to Nazis and Hitler - that's so unspeakably offensive, I'm surprised he didn't get censured. Obama has called for bipartisanship and has sat down on numerous occasions with Republicans seeking their input on legislation. Obama is anything but a hyperpartisan ideologue. Has he ever once said that the Democrats should forget about the Republicans since they have a majority? Has he ever said he doesn't value their opinions because they're inherently wrong?

Indie, you're wrong on so many levels. I'm not just throwing words around because I think they sound good; they actually mean something. Perhaps you should go and look them up.

|
11:45 am, Aug 13, 2009

GeraldFnord

We on the left are amazing, at least in stereotype: we own no guns, yet still are routinely capable of shooting ourselves in the foot.

If we could produce food and shelter (effectively) ex nihilo as well...well, we will soon, if the corporatists don't block that tech....

|
12:03 pm, Aug 13, 2009

JohnHedtke

Yes, I have to say that I'm willing to let someone mourn the stillbirth/near stillbirth of a child largely any way they want. It's harder than almost anything you can think of, and it takes YEARS to deal with. This is weird, yup, but it's what they needed to do as part of their bonding/grieving process and I'm not going to fault them for it.

That may be the only thing I don't fault him for. I think the man is an opportunistic scumbag. Anyone who is busy banging on the "morals" drum is someone who will represent the most ignorant and lowest parts of the mob in their skewed vision of the way the world should work.

|
|
Reply
10:05 am, Aug 13, 2009

shortcourse

As a Pennsylvanian, I can only say that I hope that man deserves an elected office Senator or higher. He was the pinnacle of democratic representation to the people of Pennsylvania. He was a reactionary to socialistic thought, and a hyperpartisan to abortionists. Thank you Mr Santorum.

|
|
Reply
|
10:15 am, Aug 13, 2009

Cforchange

"hyperpartisan to abortionists" - too bad he and his crowd didn't give a damn about how the middle class would support their living children in his district.
The problem with the GOP and what's left of the PA GOP is that issues of life are the primary focus - the voters have told you all no.

|
11:16 am, Aug 13, 2009

hmmmmmer

Republicans, championing the plight of the unborn, but could give a crap once the life leaves the birth canal.

|
2:58 pm, Aug 13, 2009

pennsykid2000

He was also corrupt. He was Tom Delay's right-hand man in the K Street Project, funneling corporate money to lobbyists only if they hired Republicans. He also didn't live in Pennsylvania while in the Senate despite charging the state to educate his kids on-line in Virginia. When called on all this, he lied about it. Even if he decides to run, his Repub primary opponents will rip him apart with negative ads, if they even think he could get more than single digits in the polls.

|
3:27 pm, Aug 13, 2009

sippewissett

Oh, Santorum is "hyperpartisan" all right. He;s Far Right on all social issues and does not represent the majority of his state (hence not re-elected), let alone the rest of the country. Santorum and Palin and other fringe candidates stir up the right-wing base, but they are not who we want to represent us nationally. I hope he falls on his backside soon and doesn't get up.

|
11:45 am, Aug 14, 2009

hmmmmmer

Sorry, the loss of a child is beyond horrendous, but his actions were beyond belief and that alone shows he is a little unstable.

|
|
Reply
|
2:57 pm, Aug 13, 2009

jezoebel

Sorry, but if my parents brought my dead baby sibling home like that I would have nightmares for days.

|
11:12 pm, Aug 13, 2009

fleetw1978

Well stated. However the media hates to focus on performance and competence. It's not a real ratings grabber. We'll see in 2010 if the electorate actually remembers anything prior to January 2010.

|
|
Reply
|
3:45 pm, Aug 13, 2009

sippewissett

Don't worry. The electorate at large will get a memory jolt when competitors launch ads about Santorum's past. And, of course, there is always YouTube, our new "national archive of the good, the bad and the ugly."

|
11:52 am, Aug 14, 2009

lyleleander

"That being said, bringing up the way he mourned the passing of a premature child is questionably on limits."


Sure, I probably agree. But, ask yourself this question: If Obama and Michelle had done exactly that at some point in the past, after having a miscarriage, what do you think honestly would be the conservative/Fox approach to analyzing it? Would it be classy and respectful, or would it be odious, hateful, slimy and ridiculous?

Anybody with two firing brain cells has to think for about a nanosecond before they come up with the correct answer to that question.

|
|
Reply
4:58 pm, Aug 15, 2009

Chetw3

Santorum was defeated in his last election for very good reasons. He was the wrong man to rep. Penn and would be the wrong man to have in the White House. That is not to say that Oklahoma,Texas,Alabama,LA, ARK, would not just fall head of heels in love with him.

|
|
Reply
|
1:36 am, Aug 13, 2009

ThinkAgain

Let's see you got Murtha saying the war is lost and we need to cut a run. Murtha who spends a whole hunk o money on a airport to nowhere. Murtha who calls his own constituents racists.. Yup, those Penn voters are brilliant.

|
|
Reply
|
10:18 am, Aug 13, 2009

AlanD2

ThinkAgain: I see that you are still refighting the Vietnam war.

|
11:46 am, Aug 13, 2009

Juniusforte

Think Again, and Again. Do you think the war in Irak has been won?? What exactly has been won? Trillions of dollars down the drain, thounsands killed and maimed? If the war was won it was won by Shiite Iran.

|
3:02 pm, Aug 13, 2009

ThinkAgain

I don't think it's over so I wouldn't declare victory. But cutting and running at the point Murtha called for it would have been a disaster. Wars cost money, wars kill people. That's a reality. When the world is all nicey nice like a John Lennon song, that will end. But thinking one side refusing to take on the bad guys will bring that about, instead of enabling the bad guys is foolish.

|
7:02 pm, Aug 13, 2009

sippewissett

Huh? It's bad to want to get out of a war we shouldn't have been in? The colossal arrogance ofthe Bush administration in starting a war in countries Bush couldn't spell, let alone understand has left us a quagmire that will continue to absorb trillions for years to come. Murtha's military experience makes him better qualified to say "get out" than the Bush administration that never served at all.

Murtha saw and heard an ugly racist streak in sentiments of some of his constituents and called them on it. That says something positive, not negative, about his character in calling attention to ugly behavior. Good for him.

|
11:56 am, Aug 14, 2009

stevechaney

Knew you way back in Austin. We enjoyed beers. It's possible you remember me (check with J. Schwartz).

But here's the deal: you helped create the worst Presidency at least one hundred and forty years. Dowd's not a folk singer...at least you've got that to fall back on.

As far as politics goes, your act is pure evil. Don't try to reinvent yourself. You're Ron Zeigler. Get off the stage.


|
|
Reply
|
1:43 am, Aug 13, 2009

littlelamb

Yes! YES! YES!!! McKinnon, Cheney, and all others responsible for the disastrous Bush admin need to go away!

|
|
Reply
11:59 am, Aug 13, 2009

applebutter

What a cryptic way to say "Bush is bad". Zeigler didn't create Nixon's problems any more than Santorum created Bush 43's. But you do get the door prize for obfuscation.

As far as the worst Presidency in one hundred forty years, Carter almost made it under that bar, and I believe the current guy is probably going to undercut Andrew Johnson by quite a bit.

|
|
Reply
12:18 pm, Aug 13, 2009

aperturemad

"He and wife brought the child home and introduced the dead infant to the rest of their children as "your brother Gabriel" and slept with the body overnight."

Okay, imagine my head tilted to the side and my face looking just like Stan from Southpark:

"REALLY?!"

|
|
Reply
|
7:33 am, Aug 13, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
|
Reply
|
8:09 am, Aug 13, 2009

obamallama

okay. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61804-2005Apr17.html

|
1:31 pm, Aug 13, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
8:48 pm, Aug 13, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
9:14 pm, Aug 13, 2009

Kuranes

I don't like Santorum any more than the next person who is not insane, but I think the baby issue is personal and not to be second-guessed by people who haven't lived through that kind of heartbreak.

|
|
Reply
7:13 pm, Aug 14, 2009

tehixe

With this many nutjobs in line for 2012, with any luck one of them will run as an independent, capturing the wingnut vote (i.e. the Republican Party's base) and driving the Republican party into further irrelevance. Cross your fingers folks!

|
|
Reply
|
7:41 am, Aug 13, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
|
Reply
|
8:08 am, Aug 13, 2009

mredder4

Both liberals and conservatives are valid targets for both words. "Wingnut" and "nutjob" are party-neutral descriptions.

|
8:26 am, Aug 13, 2009

tehixe

...coming from someone who seems to have misused the word superstitious.

I realize that the Republicans don't have a monopoly on crazy, the difference is that crazy is all they've got left after the Bushies demolished the party.

|
6:01 pm, Aug 13, 2009

tehixe

Oh, I see. Your reference to superstition was from me telling people to cross their fingers. The point about vocabulary was unrelated. I didn't make the connection because the idea of crossed fingers actually mattering is absurd to me, I didn't think anyone would take that for serious and try to insult me for saying it. So you didn't misuse the word, you were just being incredibly petty. Good job, sir!

|
7:09 pm, Aug 13, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
9:16 pm, Aug 13, 2009

tehixe

No conservative has every claimed the radical left to be crazy? You know this somehow?

|
10:04 pm, Aug 13, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
|
Reply
9:17 pm, Aug 13, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
|
Reply
|
8:03 am, Aug 13, 2009

nailbunny

@pricklypear:
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of the Opinion piece? In terms of sources, what are you looking for? An MP4 of the video McKinnon took from his phone at the fundraiser where the guy said what he said? Go back through and type up what you think could possibly be cited as sources.

|
|
Reply
|
11:18 am, Aug 13, 2009

ynot4tony2

nailbunny got the name because of his/her practice of crucifying rabbits on small wooden crosses every Easter. No, I don't have a source, but nailbunny him/herself is on record saying I don't need one. After all, I'm just giving my opinion on nailbunny...

|
12:35 pm, Aug 13, 2009

obamallama

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61804-2005Apr17.html

|
|
Reply
3:00 pm, Aug 13, 2009

Cforchange

Santorum will be dangerous only to the GOP, his candidacy wouldl produce similar if not identical results as 2008. This will be accetable for the majority Republican today because winning isn't the objective - they're are crusaders. Their focus is very limited.

Rick overlooked the dire needs of his contituency to march on with his personal mission. He dismmissed our woes as deserved and revealed his manner as not very evolved from his humble roots.

Western PA will not forget and I would imagine that the message PA would deliver to the nation could be quite compelling and negative and will not result in a winning majority.

The elimination of the steel idustry had it's grief pretty localized to Cleveland, Buffalo and Pittsburgh and you know the general reaction including from Santorum - who cares, who would go there??? Now that the malaise of outsourcing has spread like the plague, I would think there would be plenty of comrades in misery who would determine - Santorum not good for an employed nation. It's just not a priority to him.

|
|
Reply
|
8:08 am, Aug 13, 2009

Pupster

Yes, McKinnon is making a valiant effort to save his party from certain defeat, so forgive me if he's being a little disingenuous about saving the country. There is NO WAY that Santorum can be elected President, as much chance as Palin. Instead, McKinnon is afraid the Repub Party will be stuck with this loser and marginalize the GOP even more.

Santorum, however, with his white-centered, Christianist ideology could peel off a good chunk of the GOP's aging xenophobic base from whatever mainstream candidate the Repubs put up. Especially so if it's someone like Jindal, who doesn't look the part. And like what Perot did to Bush, leave the Democrat an easy road to the WH even if he/she doesn't manage to get a majority of the votes. A plurality will do when your opponents are destroying each other.

So as far as I'm concerned, enter the race Santorum. Yes, he'll do well in Iowa and SC (not NH), and that will give him enough juice to pull the mainstream candidate (Mittens?) further to the right, leaving the center clear for Obama. And I'll be happy with the image of the calm rationality of Obama next to Santorum's crazy eyes anyday.

|
|
Reply
10:41 am, Aug 14, 2009

KateTheGreat

*YAWN* Who care who the Republicans run in 2012? They are a marginalized, highly-suspect, fringe, radical, political dare-I-call-it party. Run whomever you want, each one is crazier/more bigoted than the last -- I am guessing at some point soon an anti-women's sufferage, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-non-white, GI-Joe-clone, who sweats radioactive waste, pisses oil, has red-white-blue eyes, and was born with a bible-shaped birthmark will crop up in Oklahoma and start "sniffing around" Iowa...good grief! Santorum? Hahahah! What a joke!

|
|
Reply
|
8:31 am, Aug 13, 2009

indie2009

The country will be in such disaray at the end of 4 years of Obama, if he makes it without impeachment, that Americans, not Alinsky-ites like yourself will be looking for a way out.

|
|
Reply
|
9:48 am, Aug 13, 2009

AlanD2

Better make that 8 years of Obama, indie2009. I doubt that you guys on the lunatic fringe will have any impact in 2012. Especially now that the economy seems to have bottomed out, since employment should perk up in another year or two.

|
11:50 am, Aug 13, 2009

Pupster

Really? They're already trumpeting the end of the worst recession since the Great Depression. He seems to be doing ok.

Feel free to emigrate to some other country, indie2009.

|
10:42 am, Aug 14, 2009

socialworklady

Kate for Queen!
Rita for Mayor!

|
|
Reply
10:35 pm, Aug 13, 2009

OffenbachStutz

Almighty God has already anointed him. Bring on The Rapture!

|
|
Reply
|
8:54 am, Aug 13, 2009

notoriousbig

Do you still believe in Santa too?

|
|
Reply
|
11:01 am, Aug 13, 2009

Pupster

Recognize sarcasm.

|
10:43 am, Aug 14, 2009

oliverckerr

Each of the political parties will receive upwards of $80 million taxpayer dollars to run their post-convention election campaigns. Regardless how much is checked off the gnereal fund will be tapped for the diff rinse.

For that reason (the money, baby) these people listed above are contendors for positions of leadership. They are not inspitational "leaders," people we admire, respect and look up to. In that sense the world is leaderless. In their place we have bureaucrats.

Some bureaucrats are faceless, in place - others we vote for. But none of them are actual leaders.

michaelslevinson.com

|
|
Reply
9:09 am, Aug 13, 2009

WestVillager

Is it just me or has McKinnon described the Anti-christ?

|
|
Reply
|
9:11 am, Aug 13, 2009

daniel66

LOL....close, but not quite. Santorum is not going to get the Republican nomination. Palin has a better chance..ok...this was not to open the door to Palin jokes..I swear!

|
|
Reply
10:55 am, Aug 13, 2009

Pupster

More like a demagogue with a Jesus complex.

|
|
Reply
10:43 am, Aug 14, 2009

johnnyapplecd

Oh, Santorum is dangerous, McKinnon? Like Bush, the walking travesty you helped to get elected that almost fucking financially destroyed America?

Is that what you mean?

All nearsighted stupidity is dangerous. Don't be fooled by pleasant morons.

|
|
Reply
|
9:33 am, Aug 13, 2009

JohnHedtke

You may've had a typo there, Johnny; wasn't that supposed to be "peasant morons?" :)

|
|
Reply
10:07 am, Aug 13, 2009

peppermint

Hey Mark, the list of luke warm pres. candidates is only missing the mushy Colin Powell. What's wrong? oh yeah he voted for Obama. How'd that campaign for McCain work out for the both of you? No kidding, he lost. Already you are starting a viscous smear job on him and it makes you look pretty bad. How you can define yourself as a Republican I don't know, but at least Santorum speaks his mind and alas, he's got religion too and gets hell to pay for it. I would put him near the top of the list but that's me. How's the Hope/Change working out for you guys? You were a big help.

|
|
Reply
9:42 am, Aug 13, 2009

indie2009

LOL. you people really bow down to your God Saul Alinsky regularly I can see. It seems every article coming out of this so called independent site has republicans as being "dangerous". Just like Saul said, pick the target freeze it polarize it.
I loved the term "neo con" used for Santorum. However to keep schooling indoctrinaire libs on the use of the term neo con is quite boring.
And perhaps you arent aware that we have a neo marxist in the White House. Oh sorry my bad. He's just a marxist. Because to call BHO a neo marxist would mean that he's held either conservative or republican views and then just became a new marxist.
Santorum was always a conservative and built his life and career on those principles. There was never a time in his career where he was once a liberal and then switch to new (neo) conservativism.
Also, what's this crap you are all slinging about Santorum being "anti immigration". He's not he's anti ILLEGAL immigration. There's a difference you know. Santorum is the son of Italian immigrant, he's not anti immigration just illegal immigration. Please get it right.
But we're all on to you shit head marxists. You're in the minority and not all who voted for this fraud Obama was a marxist. MOst were independent and we're not buying it anymore. The polls show it, he's slipping.

|
|
Reply
|
9:43 am, Aug 13, 2009

OffenbachStutz

Where were you when Bush's numbers bottomed out? Sore loser!

|
|
Reply
|
11:01 am, Aug 13, 2009

ynot4tony2

Bush served two terms, which is one more than Obama will.

|
12:37 pm, Aug 13, 2009

OffenbachStutz

Yes, Santorum or Palin will kick his Marxist ass. Dream on!

|
2:10 pm, Aug 13, 2009

indie2009

oh you mean the poll numbers bottoming out of Obama by the week? August is supposed to be typically easy months for polls for new presidents.
Keep bringing up Bush that's all you idiots have. I didnt vote for Bush or Kerry in 04. I thought bush was moving to much like a liberal.

|
4:21 pm, Aug 13, 2009

indie2009

Hey at least Bush, when conservatives and independents held his feet to the fire when he started going liberal with illegal immigration amnesty, harriet meyers and the dubai ports deal, he back off. he actually listened to the public that he served and he didn't pursue those policies. cant say that for Obama.

|
4:36 pm, Aug 13, 2009

rpopstar

uhhhh, indie...."neocon" refers to a certain type of foreign policy outlook, which includes, among other things, strong support for the country of israel, as well as the "war on terror."

after his electoral loss, little ricky took a position as senior fellow at the neoconservative "ethics and public policy center," where he established the "america's enemies" program.

|
|
Reply
11:12 am, Aug 13, 2009

AlanD2

indie2009: All presidents slip in the polls as they get into their terms. I'll start to worry when his approval ratings get down to 20%, like George W. Bush. Please wake me up if this happens...

Just a quick question: with 25% of Americans identifying themselves as Republicans, how does this make you the majority party?

|
|
Reply
|
11:55 am, Aug 13, 2009

indie2009

not this early. not in august. august is supposed to be easy for presidents. not Obama. Liberal is the ideology thats in the minority. The country is conservative independent leaning in the majority. which is why obama's polls are down do much. if you guys were in the majority, his poll numbers would be in the 60's still.
I guess you will have to rely on BET entertainment polls that show his numbers in 80s. Do you want my email addy so that you can send it to the fascists in the White House at flag@whitehousedotgov for that comment?
It's about big intrusive government stupid and that's why he's failing. the majority doesn't like it.

|
4:33 pm, Aug 13, 2009

indie2009

not this early. not in august. august is supposed to be easy for presidents. not Obama. Liberal is the ideology thats in the minority. The country is conservative independent leaning in the majority. which is why obama's polls are down do much. if you guys were in the majority, his poll numbers would be in the 60's still.
I guess you will have to rely on BET entertainment polls that show his numbers in 80s. Do you want my email addy so that you can send it to the fascists in the White House at flag@whitehousedotgov for that comment?
It's about big intrusive government stupid and that's why he's failing. the majority doesn't like it.

|
4:34 pm, Aug 13, 2009

GeraldFnord

No, 'neo-Marxist' refers to a full-on Marxist who wishes to distance themself [sic] from traditional such, much as neo-conservatives originally didn't want to be associated with the older Right in America (because they did things like revelling in the use of names like 'Saul Alinsky' to embody Alll Evil.)

Sharing some views with Marxists does not make you a Marxist, much as sharing some views with GWB doesn't make you a callow spendthrift.

Though I am not a Marxist or a neo-Marxist (more of a Stirnerist communist), we'd be better served if Obama were in fact one, (say) keeping some of the analysis but few of the prescriptions and none of the ascientific Historical Inevitabilism...as it stands, it is not surprising that the first black president would basically be a go-along-to-get-along sort of person, hence his plan's kow-towing tot he insurance industry, and his acquiescence in past crimes against humanity (see Colin Powell and My Lai). Not that I blame him: I think he's about as good as we can get, given our love of ignorance and superstition.

You are right in mocking the use of the term 'neo-conservative' for Santorum: he's a nationalist, theocratic, militarist conservative corporatist of the de Maistre school---not a neoconservative, though he will ally themselves with them when they're obnoxious, not a fascist (though he will be an approving and enthusiastic collaborator with them until they come for him).

And it takes a certain special someone to call others 'shitheads' when he is so enamoured of sucking on a frothy mixture of semen, fecal matter, and lube.

|
|
Reply
11:59 am, Aug 13, 2009

OnionVolcano

Indie! Santorum is bad news; you should back someone else. How come you guys don't support Romney more; he's got some brains and is reasonably electable. His wife is beautiful and knows her place. He'll send our kids to kill overseas. He's afraid of a lot of things. What's not to love?

|
|
Reply
|
12:43 pm, Aug 13, 2009

nortonclybourn

He has to back Santorum, because the Rapture is coming in 2012 and if he votes for a Mormon he'll be Left Behind.

|
9:07 pm, Aug 13, 2009

Pupster

McKinnon is a Repub. Go ahead, go after him. Eat your own. I've got my popcorn out.

|
|
Reply
10:45 am, Aug 14, 2009
Leave a comment

Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.

View Comments

Santorum Is Dangerous

by Mark McKinnon

Info
RSS
Mark McKinnon
Emails
|
print
Single Page
|
text
-
+
Facebook
 | 
Twitter
 | 
Digg
 |