Plan B Forum

The latest polls now show him as the main beneficiary of the Gingrich collapse, moving into third, 6-8 points behind Romney and Paul (Perry and Gingrich are close behind with Bachmann trailing them in single digits)

As I've said before, I have frankly been surprised that this didn't happen sooner. It seemed to me that after Bachmann and then Perry went south that Santorum was the most logical candidate in the race for the social conservative (particularly the religious evangelicals) faction of the Iowa Caucus vote to gravitate to. (Which as I have pointed out, represents a disproportionately large percentage of GOP Iowa caucus participants.)

Santorum has certainly really lived the kind of life that these folks claim to believe is important to a far greater extent than either Cain, or God forbid Gingrich, yet for some reason they had their surges before Santorum did.

Part of that I'm sure has to do with money. Rick has worked his ass off in Iowa, doing it the traditional retail way, but up until last week he had spent a paltry $18,000 on media buys. However, in the past week, a Rick Santorum Super PAC has entered the field and dropped $222,000 into the race.

Also in the past week, Santorum has picked up several endorsements from Iowa Evangelical leaders (the most important thing about this is that these folks bring organizations to his efforts that are good at getting their people to the Caucuses; this logistical support played a major in Huckabee's upset win in Iowa ).

I believe that Santorum is probably also benefiting from all the negative advertising that has been aimed by the other candidates at each other. (Particularly Perry, Paul and Gingrich ) No one has been beating up on Santorum, (because his surge has come so late) and it's frequently the case that when you have candidates bitch slapping each other the one who isn't in the fight becomes more attractive to many voters. (This is what happened in the Democratic Caucuses in'04, when Gephardt and Dean were wailing the tar out of each other and John Kerry snuck up from behind.)

And finally, these improved poll numbers will have a positive affect of their own for Santorum; some voters who might have found him attractive as a candidate but were reluctant to support him because they didn't think he could win will probably now take another look at him.

Given the way that all of these factors are coming together at just the right time, it's not inconceivable that Santorum could actually surge to a second place finish, or even a narrow win in Iowa.

Santorum is far to my right on "social issues", (I've never made any secret of the fact that I'm really not much of a "social conservative"...I really couldn't care less what consenting adults choose to do in private, and while I'm certainly no fan of abortion, I believe that outlawing it would only make matters worse) but frankly I don't much care about a Presidential candidate's positions on these issues, and never vote based on them, because as a practical matter Presidents have almost no say about these things. (Congress, the state legislatures and the courts are where this stuff gets thrashed out)

The only time I would make an acceptation on this is if I got the impression a candidate was "obsessed" with these issues and on some sort of crusade about them. (Pat Robertson, for example)

I certainly don't get that impression about Santorum. I'm sure he makes the "values" points on the stump in Iowa, (though he's certainly been less obnoxious and over the top about it than scripture quoting "Reverend Perry" ) but in the debates and in interviews, he always stresses his foreign policy knowledge and positions, (which I largely agree with) and his emphasis on private sector based economic solutions. He's good on his feet and never loses his cool or good humor even with hostile interviewers, who he is not afraid to interact with, unlike some candidates. Hell a couple of nights ago he did an extensive interview with that left wing MSNBC clown, Crazy Ed Shultz...(I love that guy's program...it's the best original comedy on television)

I know that in the past, Santorum has said some things that some folks have found personally offensive, but he is hardly a gaffe machine. (like Perry Bachmann and Gingrich) For the most part, he seems to think before he speaks, and he exhibits a fairly broad knowledge and grasp of public policy issues.

My biggest problem with Santorum is electability. (Though I certainly think he's more electable than Gingrich; Santorum simply comes across as too affable, relaxed and easy-going a person for Team Obama to be able to credibly paint him as a mean, vicious, untrustworthy narcissist, which is the strategy we can definitely expect if Newt is the nominee)

But Santorum lost his last re-election bid in Pennsylvania by 18 points. (though it's also true that he did win statewide election for the Senate in Pennsylvania twice, and his loss came in 2006, which was a terrible year nationally...but never-the-less, 18 points is a serious spanking.) On the other hand, all the polling indicates that a Romney candidacy could put Pennsylvania in play.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08 ... dan-savage

For voters who decide to look him up online, one of the top three search results is usually the site SpreadingSantorum.com, which explains that Santorum's last name is a sexual neologism for "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."

Yeah, I know that this quote is from the left-wing rag Mother Jones but your use of the word "surge" was just TooFunny!

scooter mentioned it a while back.

Saying that homosexuality is akin to bestiality, which Santorum did, is pretty disgusting. Nasty little man. About the center of the Republican party though.

yrs,
rubato

Typical responses here.

Ricks actual comment was that the ussc's rationale could also be applied to laws banning incest and bestiality. Both prohibit private sexual behavior that arguably harms no one.

This is a typical santorum "problem.". He says something that is true or correct, and his political opponents distort it to basically slander him.

Santorum knows exactly what he is doing when he mentions homosexuality in the same sentence as behaviours that the overwhelming majority of people find grossly repugnant. If the alleged slippery slope had any truth to it, it would have long since come to pass in those countries where homosexual acts were decriminalized a half century ago or more. Putting incest/bestiality in the same sentence as homosexuality serves the same purpose as using the word "Nazi" or "Stalinist" in contemporary political discourse. So save the disingenuousness, it makes you look stupider than you need to.

Scooter-person, if you disagree with Santorum's analysis of the USSC decision, now would be the time to articulate that disagreement.

Using the Court's rationale (harmless, consensual, private sexual conduct is protected by the "Right of Privacy"), incest, bigamy, and bestiality would also be protected, and any laws prohibiting such conduct would be unconstitutional.

Please explain why you think Rick was wrong. How would the Court distinguish a case where an adult brother and sister are challenging an anti-incest law. BTW, the sister has had her tubes tied.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Bigamy is wrong because it involves fraud. Bestiality is wrong because it is animal cruelty. Incest is wrong because, except in those incredibly rare cases where people enter into a sexual relationship unawares and are horrified when they discover they are blood relatives, such relationships prey on a power imbalance that vitiates the ability to consent.

And if Santorum's legal analysis held up, it would have long since been successfully used to overturn laws prohibiting those behaviours in those states where homosexual acts have been legal for many decades. The fact that legalized homosexuality has never been successfully used to argue such a case proves his analysis to be the product of a diseased mind.

QED

So basically you have no argument. All of your examples presume facts that may or may not be the case. A man and two would-be wives come into court to protest the man's conviction on bigamy charges. They all say that the second marriage was knowing and consensual. No fraud. You have no idea whether bestiality involves animal cruelty (and neither do I; neither would any court). Who knows whether that sheep objects or finds it painful?

My example of a brother and sister has no relationship to your made up hypothetical, There is no imbalance of power or undue influence.

In fact, it is a spot-on example that illustrates the Court's rationale, as applied to a different law. Consensual, private conduct, harming no one.

The fact that the Court's analysis has not yet been challenged w/r/t polygamy, incest, or bestiality means nothing. With this court decision on the books, what knowledgeable State's Attorney would prosecute a couple for incest? it would be thrown out on appeal.

And who knows what cases are now making their way through the American court system?

I know you are Canadian, but try to follow: Under the court's reasoning, is an anti-polygamy law a violation of the "Right of Privacy" when applied to three consenting, legally competent adults? Would it be enforceable?

Why or why not?

dgs49 wrote:So basically you have no argument.

Because in your universe, completely refuting your bullshit constitutes "having no argument".

Bigamy is by definition fraudulent. Anyone who is marrying is attesting to not already being in a legal marriage, anyone who so attests while already married is obviously entering the marriage under false pretense i.e. committing fraud.

Produce an animal who has can express consent to sexual intercourse with a human and you will have proven it is not cruel. Between humans, sexual intercourse without consent is called rape, regardless of whether any physical harm is done. Would you prefer I call it animal rape? Fine, it's animal rape. Happy now?

And if you do not believe that siblings can exert control over each other then you are an idiot.

And your ignorance of successful prosecutions of incest, bigamy and bestiality since the SCOTUS's decision in Lawrence v. Texas is simply that, ignorance. That decision did not stop the world from turning on its axis just because you and Mr. Santorum did not like it.

And the fact that you cannot come up with a single case anywhere in the world, never mind just in the U.S., where legalization of homosexual acts has led to striking down laws against incest, bigamy, and/or bestiality, is all the proof that is required that the argument is bullshit.\

Again, QED.

A case directly on point:

A man attempted to use Lawrence v. Texas to get Utah's bigamy law declared unconstitutional. The Utah Supreme Court didn't buy it, and the SCOTUS refused to take up the case, meaning there weren't even four justices who thought there was any constitutional issue worth considering in the case.

So Santorum has been proven wrong.

What's that, Dave? I can't hear you with your foot stuck so deeply in your mouth.

dgs49 wrote:You have no idea whether bestiality involves animal cruelty (and neither do I; neither would any court). Who knows whether that sheep objects or finds it painful?

Where's Strop when you need him?

Santorum is as crazy as a bug, he wants to overturn "Griswold v Connecticut" !!


How stupid is this Republican field?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... raception/

____________
"....
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 right, 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.” "
________________________


yrs,
rubato

Bottom line: There is no "right of privacy" in the United States Constitution. It is made-up law, by a branch of government that has no authority to make up laws.

Griswold and all of its progeny - all based on the made-up right of privacy - are all bullshit.

And people who would prefer to believe - without any rational argument or evidence to support it - that there is a right of privacy in the Constitution, are reduced to calling those who point out the truth, "stupid."

There is really not much more to be said.

dgs49 wrote:Bottom line: There is no "right of privacy" in the United States Constitution. It is made-up law, by a branch of government that has no authority to make up laws.

The right to privacy derives both from the common law and the Constitution. It is the fundamental right to be let alone in one's private affairs and protected from unreasonable intrusions into one's personal life. Whether the legal rationale is based on considerations of constitutional due process (14th Amendment) or the unenumerated rights retained by the people (9th Amendment) or the safeguard against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment) hardly matters. If you think otherwise, you would be in a very small minority of Americans who think it's perfectly okay for government agents to spy into your home and prosecute you for how you and your (consenting adult) partner have sex, or whether you choose to use contraception, or how you raise your children, or how you talk to your mother.

dgs49 wrote:Griswold and all of its progeny - all based on the made-up right of privacy - are all bullshit.

Griswold and its progeny are, in fact, the law of the land -- every bit as much as every Supreme Court decision since Marbury v. Madison. The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it "bullshit."

dgs49 wrote:And people who would prefer to believe - without any rational argument or evidence to support it - that there is a right of privacy in the Constitution, are reduced to calling those who point out the truth, "stupid."

This from the guy whose claims laws he doesn't like are just "bullshit."

Contrary to Mr. Santorum's ridiculous claim, the reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas is not merely that the right to privacy gives you the right to do anything you want. It is that you cannot prohibit same-sex partners from doing things that are permtted to heterosexual partners. And because the government cannot prohibit heterosexuals from engaging in anal or oral sex, it cannot prohibit homosexuals from the same practices.

What Santorum said in his infamous "man-on-dog" interview was that the "right to privacy lifestyle" (whatever that is) mandates that "if ... you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," and that "Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family."

This is just pure crap. There is no basis whatsoever for concluding that a right for two consenting adults to have sex any way they please in the privacy of their home is somehow "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family" or that it necessarily requires a right to bestiality, incest, sex with children or state recognition of plural marriage. But Santorum is not even attempting any kind of rational parsing of legitimate privacy rights. Instead, it is his aim to conflate homosexuality with bestiality, incest, adultery, etc., in order to pander to the homophobic reactionary right in a calculated and cynical attempt to get their votes. Alternatively, he is an idiot.

Amusing editorial in the Boston Herald today, comparing Mittens to Dukakis (this is the paper that kissed his special underwear clad ass every way they could when he was Governor), and predicting Santorum the winner tonight. The comedy continues.

Oh, pleeze pleeze pleeze, 4 teh lulz!

Anyway, ON THE LIGHTER SIDE, the manager at one branch of a Christian conservative-owned pizza chain in Iowa has now dubiously titled one of its menu items “Santorum salad” under the hilarious premise that this would make a human more inclined to eat such a thing (seriously, does Iowa not have Google?), which is somehow made even more awful/tragic/creepy because one of the pizza chain’s evangelical nutjob founders spent time in prison for molesting his teenaged male employees, for Family Values. [RawStory/ TPM]

Kirsten Boyd Johnson, for Wonkette

one of its menu items “Santorum salad” under the hilarious premise that this would make a human more inclined to eat such a thing

Sue, can I take this to mean that you have no interest in tossing the Santorum Salad?

Lord Jim wrote:Sue, can I take this to mean that you have no interest in tossing the Santorum Salad?

Wow, I really didn't think this story could get any grosser, but you, sir, have exceeded all expectations.

HULL Iowa? OMG.