Seems like great news... claims are dropping, the U.S. added a net 243,000 jobs last month, the unemployment rate dropped for the fifth month in a row to one of the lowest rates in years. Of course that rate is 8.3%, which is painfully high, and no president has ever won re-election with a rate above 8% or something like that, but that's okay.
The reason it's okay is because even though President Obama has obviously started campaigning-but-not-calling-it-campaigning for re-election, he doesn't really have to break a sweat as long as the Republican primary (in conjunction with Republican incumbents at the federal and state level) keeps bringing the crazy. As I watch or read up on the latest progress, I often feel like Peter Stormare in this clip from Fargo with the Republicans filling in the other role:
Rick Santorum is kind of maybe not really possibly the front-runner for the Republican presidential nominee. How did that happen? Here's one possible explanation:
The sweater-vest is as good an explanation as any since it can't possibly be his politics with running bits such as this:
The highlight quote that has made its way around the interwebs is, of course:
One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before I think is the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian fait have said, "Well, that's okay. Contraception's okay."
It's not okay because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that are counter to how things are supposed to be.
So Rick Santorum hates contraception. He's not alone, either. For some reason contraception has become a conservative target as part of recent anti-abortion Life Begins At Conception movements that have repeatedly failed (twice in Colorado and once in Mississippi). In Virginia, a similarly worded bill has already passed in the state House and should pass in their Senate.
Delegate Vivian Watts suggested an amendment that kept contraception out of this particular discussion, but the idea was shot down. Additionally, Virginia is also considering legislation that would make it mandatory for women considering having an abortion to be required to undergo a trans-vaginal ultrasound. It doesn't get much more intrusive than the state forcing women to be vaginally penetrated. Also in Virginia:
Short version - people can be denied adoptions from state-licensed private agencies if the placement conflicts with the agencies' religious beliefs. Obviously this unofficially affects gay couples the most, but it technically could apply to unmarried heterosexual couples, Jewish couples, Protestant couples, Catholic couples, atheist couples, Hindu couples, etc. And of course, the cliche cherry on top of all the recent Virginia crazy:
The details of the gun bill actually kind of make sense. Republicans argue that modern technology makes some gun restrictions written decades ago obsolete. Beyond that, the decades-old law includes scores of exceptions already. But it just goes to show that when it comes to guns, Republicans can get their small-government ducks in a row and make it happen. When it's a woman's vagina, on the other hand, they want to be all in like a SWAT team taking a door.
Back to Santorum, though, and his anti-contraception throwing of the gauntlet. I had planned on only quoting the opening to get his point across, but I think it's worth tossing a little more out there:
It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it — and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong — but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.
Sex is supposed to be 1) within a marriage 2) procreative in order for it to be the perfect sexual union. My first response to this was "can there really be people out there who think like this?" And of course, the answer is yes, and one of them is running for president. It's such a bizarro puritanical stance in its rigid extremity. I also like that the only part of the quote where Santorum might come close to admitting that sex is an absolute blast comes out as [inaudible]. Shame, talking under his breath... so dirty to even contemplate liking The Sex Act. The horrors of deconstructing The Sex Act down to only the unbelievably awesome parts if the participants should so choose.
Beyond that though, take a look at his picture:
And now imagine those words quoted above coming out of his mouth. Dude, you sound really creepy. It's uptight, nervous sweats, uncomfortable fidgeting, creepiness we expect out of bitter virgins chillaxing at the Christian Fellowship Alternative Senior Week Theme Dance Featuring No Slow Songs And Plenty Of Root Beer Floats To Go Around party. I'm not terribly cool, but I'm way cooler than that, and I refuse to let such a dweeb/creep represent me on the international stage.
But there's a chance that might happen despite my objections. Truth be told, the real meat of that Sweater Vest Strikes back article attributes Santorum's success simply to being the best non-Romney candidate out there for conservatives and his recent non-binding wins might be the momentum shift he needs going into Super Tuesday on March 6th. The article also mentions how embarrassing a Santorum win in Michigan would be for Romney given that Mitt grew up there. Current polls give Santorum a 34% to 30% lead over Romney, but we'll see if that holds up over the next few weeks. The point remains... Santorum could happen.
Romney's response is what his response always is, spinelessly blobifying into whatever-shaped blob he thinks the people right in front of him want to see. It started with a little CPAC speech where Romney went all "Severely Conservative Governor" on the audience.
The article enumerates the many instances where Romney (with some often repeated facts so I won't list them here) failed to live up to that giving-yourself-a-nickname label. The strongest case he might be able to make on that front might be the most effective, however, and that stance is the classic "I hate gays." He spent a lot of energy trying to undo the state's same sex marriage efforts even though he had been quoted many times before taking the opposite position. Regardless of the complete infallibility of a Mitt Romney-held belief, the real point is Romney needing to go all red meat in order to play catch-up.
"You want crazy? I'll give you crazy" appears to be the means to the end of finishing first in the 2012 Republican primary. I just wish they had the courage to say it outright. I also hope that the American voters finally come back to their senses after their wildly emotional and irrational choices in the 2010 voting booths. I don't mind crazies running on platforms of crazy, they just can't get within ten miles of winning.
No comments:
Post a Comment