Digest of Today's Posts (29 February 2012)

Romney Sells Out Congressional GOP - Comes Out Against Conscience Clause Bill Protecting Employers from HHS Contraception Mandate [UPDATED]

David Brooks Throws a Tantrum

Virgil Goode: Mr. Independent

(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (28 February 2012))

Romney Sells Out Congressional GOP - Comes Out Against Conscience Clause Bill Protecting Employers from HHS Contraception Mandate [UPDATED]

THIS is the REAL Mitt Romney:



Here's how Greg Sargent at The Washington Post is calling it:

Jim Heath, a reporter for ONN-TV in Ohio, just Tweeted a remarkable piece of news: Mitt Romney told him he does not support the Blunt amendment, which would empower employers and insurers to deny health coverage they find morally objectionable.

I just got off the phone with Heath, and he graciously played me the audio. Heath asks Romney if he’s for the “Blunt-Rubio” amendment, and defines it. Romney replies:

“I’m not for the bill. But, look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, husband and wife, I’m not going there.”

That’s pretty remarkable. If Romney knew what he was saying, the Senate GOP caucus, which is set to vote on this amendment tomorrow, may feel as if Romney has pulled the rug out from underneath them. And this has become an important issue for conservatives. So it’ll be interesting to see how the base reacts to this, particularly since the GOP primary is anything but over and Rick Santorum — who’s perceived as a more reliable social conservative — is likely to use this to attack Romney, who will be under continued pressure to connect with social and religious conservatives.

Perhaps Romney now feels confident enough in victory in the GOP primary that he’s willing to risk some ire from the base in order to begin his pivot to general election mode in advance of winning the nomination.

[...]

UPDATE III: The Romney camp now says he’s for it:

“Regarding the Blunt bill, the way the question was asked was confusing,” a spokesman told TPM. “Governor Romney supports the Blunt Bill because he believes in a conscience exemption in health care for religious institutions and people of faith.”

You can see that all the RINOs [LIARS!] are trying to spin this by explaining that Mitt was confused about which bill they were talking about. Bull!!! DO NOT let the post-interview spin fool you. Romney's initial reaction is what he REALLY believes, and the spin is the Romney campaign scrambling to clean up another one of his messes. Here's how you can tell:

Notice how easily Mitt adopts the language of the left in describing the bill. Notice how he uses this opportunity to get to the left of Santorum and try to paint Santorum as some sort of "bedroom police" - again utilizing the rhetoric of the left.

And then recall how comfortable Mitt was in getting to Rick Perry's left on Social Security and adopting the language of the Democrats in essentially arguing that Perry was going to force Grandma to eat dogfood, or worse, was going to push Grandma off a cliff. Romney seemed like a natural in making those arguments, just as he seems like a natural in his arguments against the Blunt bill and criticizing Santorum's support of it.

Now, contrast those two instances of Romney feeling comfortable in his own skin with those many, many, many times during his campaign in which Romney seemed ill-at-ease and downright uncomfortable trying to sound like a "severe conservative" in his attempts to appeal to grassroots conservatives (i.e. the base of the GOP).

Why is that? I'll tell you why: Because, as Romney has said on multiple occasions, he can't be who he is not, and can only be who he is. Well, THIS is who he is. The Romney in that video - selling out Congressional Republicans trying to do the heavy lifting of overturning the HHS mandate - is who Romney is. Should he win the nomination, we will have an entire campaign season of Romney being who he is to the chagrin of conservatives. And in the unlikely event he were to defeat Obama, we would have an entire 4 years of Romney being who he is and the Republicans in Congress going along with him, again much to the chagrin of conservatives. And in 4 years, he'd be running for re-election, being who he really is, again much to the chagrin of conservatives.

DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS MAN. Not in the primary, and not in the general election. Because I believe in my heart of hearts that the Romney in the video above, and the Romney who demagogued Rick Perry on Social Security, is just the tip of the iceberg of who Romney REALLY is, I will NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVER vote for him.

And neither should you.


UPDATE
Even Romney sycophant Britt Hume notes the opportunism evident in Romney's answer to the question, as he seemed downright gleeful at the opportunity to get to the left of Santorum:

@ByronYork I thought Romney skipped past the question, to seize a chance to stick it to Santorum on contraception. Not a considered answer.

It may not have been "considered" in the sense that Romney let his mask slip, but make no mistake: the answer Romney gave reveals the TRUE core of Mitt Romney. Romney's core impulse is to run to the left of his opponent - that's his comfort zone. Heck, he even ran to the left of Ted Kennedy for crying outloud. If you want to get Romney off his game, force him to have to run to the right; but he's on his turf when it comes to taking the discussion leftward.


UPDATE #2
Lisa Graas has more, including the response from the Santorum campaign:

Verona, PA – Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) proposed legislation that would prevent the government from forcing religious institutions to provide services against their faith doctrine. Today, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said he would oppose it. When Mitt Romney had the chance, he forced Massachusetts Catholic hospitals to go against their private beliefs and provide morning after abortion pills to patients. All the candidates are entitled to make misstatements here and there – but this is a much deeper issue.

Hogan Gidley, National Communications Director, said: “As Governor, Mitt Romney has a clear record of taking away the freedom of religion. We all know Romney’s liberal record on this, so when he’s asked a question about a bill that would protect our religious freedom – and Romney’s gut reaction is to say he’d oppose it – we shouldn’t be the least bit surprised.”

“On the other hand, Rick Santorum was asked the same question, but he wasn’t confused because Rick Santorum has consistently supported religious freedoms.”

UPDATE #3 (1 March)
New York Daily News: "Mitt Romney accused of flip-flopping on GOP-backed Blunt amendment on contraception".

David Brooks Throws a Tantrum

David Brooks took to the pages of The New York Times yesterday to throw a great big temper tantrum over the fact that his elitist, pseudo-sophisticated notions don't hold sway with the conservative grassroots of the GOP and that the RINO party elders just don't have the wherewithal to take back his precious party from the riff-raff:

... But, of course, this is exactly what has been happening in the Republican Party for the past half century. Over these decades, one pattern has been constant: Wingers [ED.: Really? "Wingers"? I thought you were too sophisticated and too "no labels" to engage in such rhetoric. Hypocrite.] fight to take over the party, mainstream Republicans bob and weave to keep their seats.

Republicans on the extreme ferociously attack their fellow party members. Those in the middle backpedal to avoid conflict. Republicans on the extreme are willing to lose elections in order to promote their principles. Those in the mainstream are quick to fudge their principles if it will help them get a short-term win.

[...]

All across the nation, there are mainstream Republicans lamenting how the party has grown more and more insular, more and more rigid. This year, they have an excellent chance to defeat President Obama, yet the wingers have trashed the party’s reputation by swinging from one embarrassing and unelectable option to the next: Bachmann, Trump, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum. [ED.: Whoa, whoa, whoa! Wait a minute, @$$hole. You were singing Santorum's praises back when Gingrich was challenging your boy and Santorum was considered the "principled alternative" who you were hoping would steal votes away from Gingrich. Now he's "embarrassing and unelectable"? Do you think we're so stupid that we can't remember what you wrote just last month? Talk about "embarrassing", the way you Romneybots have all followed the EXACT SAME template of praising Santorum when you believed he had no real chance of beating Romney to trashing him now that he poses the most serious challenge to Dullard's election hopes, is laughably embarrassing.]

But where have these party leaders been over the past five years, when all the forces that distort the G.O.P. were metastasizing? Where were they during the rise of Sarah Palin [ED.: How about backstabbing her with whisper campaigns and feeding "background info" to fellow traveling columnists like you only too willing to dish dirt, trash reputations, and abandon the candidate YOU supported ALL ALONG going back to the 2000 election just because he picked someone from the "riff-raff" to be his running mate?] and Glenn Beck? Where were they when Arizona passed its beyond-the-fringe immigration law? Where were they in the summer of 2011 when the House Republicans rejected even the possibility of budget compromise? [ED.: The question is: Where were YOU? Wherever it was, it was obviously someplace where you were unable to pay attention to the actual facts of what actually happened. Because it's pretty clear to everyone else that it was the GOP who compromised their principles on the budget and got absolutely NOTHING in return.] They were lying low, hoping the unpleasantness would pass.

The wingers call their Republican opponents RINOs, or Republican In Name Only. But that’s an insult to the rhino, which is a tough, noble beast. If RINOs were like rhinos, they’d stand up to those who seek to destroy them. Actually, what the country needs is some real Rhino Republicans. But the professional Republicans never do that. [ED.: Bullshit. Ask anyone who has dared to pose a challenge to Dullard Flip Rino during this election season whether the "professional Republicans" fight back and fight dirty. Ask the Tea Party candidates who defeated the Establishment-anointed candidates during the 2010 election cycle whether the "professional Republicans" fight back and fight dirty, even showing a willingness to lose elections on principle - just like you accuse the "purists" of doing - rather than be shown up by the upstart riff-raff.] They’re not rhinos. They’re Opossum Republicans. They tremble for a few seconds then slip into an involuntary coma every time they’re challenged aggressively from the right. [ED. Whatever. Crybaby.]

Without real opposition, the wingers go from strength to strength. Under their influence, we’ve had a primary campaign that isn’t really an argument about issues. It’s a series of heresy trials in which each of the candidates accuse the others of tribal impurity. Two kinds of candidates emerge from this process: first, those who are forceful but outside the mainstream; second, those who started out mainstream but look weak and unprincipled because they have spent so much time genuflecting before those who despise them. [ED.: Oh the humanity! Dullard Flip Rino has actually had to act like he really gives a rip about conservative principles in order to try to convince REPUBLICAN voters to award him the REPUBLICAN nomination. He should've just been anointed on the basis of ... wait a minute ... I'm sure I can come up with a compelling argument for his nomination if you give me another 7 years of his running for President.]

[...]

Leaders of a party are supposed to educate the party, to police against its worst indulgences, to guard against insular information loops. They’re supposed to define a creed and establish boundaries. [ED.: In other words, the Establishment RINO minority should call the shots, and the conservative majority in the grassroots (i.e. the "riff-raff") should shut up, respect its "elders", send in money, and march in lockstep to the voting booth to do the bidding of our betters in the "educated class".] Republican leaders haven’t done that. Now the old pious cliché applies:

First they went after the Rockefeller Republicans, but I was not a Rockefeller Republican. Then they went after the compassionate conservatives, but I was not a compassionate conservative. Then they went after the mainstream conservatives, and there was no one left to speak for me. [ED.: Oh, good grief. Get over yourself!]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

My Comments:
Leaving aside one of the more pathetic invocations of Godwin's Law that I have ever had the misfortune of reading, I don't know what's more sad: (a) that Brooks actually wrote this whiny piece of drivel; or (b) that the man who voted for Obama in 2008 based, at least in part, on an admiration for Obama's pant crease, actually believes himself to be a "mainstream conservative".

Mickey Kaus, one of a dwindling number of principled Democrats out there, does a fine job of taking Brooks apart for this little diatribe.

David Brooks’ Sad Elite: David Brooks says extremist “wingers” have taken over the Republican party–because those condemned as RINOs are too timid to “stand up to those who would destroy them.”

(1) It sounds like he’s not really upset with RINOs. He’s upset with primaries.

(2) [...]

(3) [...]

(4) Is this the inverted country club Republican version of the Dems Fight-Back Fallacy? ‘If only those RINOs had some spine and fighting spirit they’d beat those irresponsible wingers.’ No they wouldn’t.

(5) Brooks thinks he’s a “mainstream conservative”? If so, he is an “insular information loop” of one.

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
David Brooks, Self-Anointed Member of "Educated Class", Admits Unwashed Red-State Conservatives Smarter Than He Is

Comeuppance for "Conservative" Critics of Conservatism (Who STILL Won't Admit That They Were Wrong)

Self-Critical Navel Gazing for Thee, But Not for Me

Another Elitist "Conservative" Realizes Too Late That "This Obama Fellow Is Unequal to the Task"

David Brooks Wonders What Went Wrong [UPDATED]

"Educated Class" Waking Up to Fact That Us "Yokels" Were Right All Along

Noemie Emery on David Brooks and the "Educated Class"

Michael Barone on David Brooks and the "Educated Class"

The "Elizabeth Bennett Conservatives"

Brooksback Mountain

Today's Must-Read: "Palinphobes and the Audacity of Type"

A Conservative Manifesto

Another Elitist "Conservative" Likes the Cut of Obama's Jib

The Liberal Media's Elitist Conservative Rats Leave the Sinking Ship

Victor Davis Hanson: "What is Wisdom?"

Let's Get One Thing Straight ...

Virgil Goode: Mr. Independent

Yesterday, The Richmond Times-Dispatch ran the following opinion piece on my friend Virgil Goode, who is seeking the Constitution Party nomination for President:

Virgil Goode has run for office as a Democrat and as a Republican. Partisanship never has defined his career. He is a true independent. Goode is his own man, which may help to explain why in 2008 he lost his seat in the U.S. House.

For many years Goode represented a Southside district in the state Senate. He promoted rural interests. When the parties split 20-20 in the chamber, he compelled his reluctant party colleagues to share power with Republicans. The Democrats did not embrace power-sharing because they believed in comity. Goode gave them no choice. He also once challenged Chuck Robb in a primary for U.S. Senate.

Goode won election to the 5th House District as a Democrat. Later he became an independent before joining the GOP.

Goode now is seeking the Constitution Party's nomination for president. He concedes his election is unlikely, yet he has points he wants to make. The Constitution Party embraced a Tea Party agenda before the movement's birth. "To thine own self be true," advises Polonius in "Hamlet." Virgil Goode has not strayed.

(emphasis added)

The Atlantic also has a good piece on Virgil: "Virgil Goode: This Is What a Third-Party Candidate Looks Like".

... But it's that mix of social conservatism with economic populism that doesn't get much a hearing as it should, based on Americans' political views. As my colleague Ron Brownstein noted in his column last week "each side's electoral coalition is now bound together far more by shared cultural values than by common economic interests."

That means Republicans, increasingly dependent on the support of blue-collar voters, are campaigning on cuts to popular entitlement programs that may rankle some of the GOP rank-and-file. And it means that Democrats can't effectively win over these voters with populist appeals because the party's views on litmus test cultural issues, like immigration and abortion, are well out of step with their personal beliefs.

That's why former Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode's third-party presidential candidacy should be receiving more attention. The Democrat-turned-Republican congressman is campaigning on a platform of reducing immigration (legal and illegal), protecting Social Security and Medicare and balancing the budget immediately.

Goode, by virtue of his relative anonymity and likely lack of funding, probably won't get much traction -- even if he emerges with the Constitution Party nomination. But he's the prototype of a third-party candidate that would have the potential to get support from a swath of voters who would see both President Obama and Mitt Romney as elites disconnected from the concerns of working-class Americans. Americans Elect isn't jumping to his side, but he's the type of candidate whose positions could resonate with a significant minority of voters.

The media tend to think that the impetus for third-party candidates comes from Americans who are just plain sick of politics-as-usual and want a truth-teller to come in and shake things up. Hence, the regular Bloomberg boomlet in certain circles. In reality, the greatest demand for a third-party candidate would come from the voters whose views are most out of line with the political establishment and most newspaper editorial boards.

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
Some background on the candidate: Virgil is 65 years old, although he looks and seems younger than that. He served in the Virginia Senate for 24 years, from 1972 to 1996. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1996 and served for 12 years until 2008, when his seat was targeted by national Democrats because Charlottesville was part of his district.

(Incidentally, Tom Perriello, the ObamaCath co-founder of Soros-backed Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, who defeated Virgil in 2008 thanks to Soros and the Democrats' focus on the 5th District seat, himself went down to defeat in 2010 - in no small part for selling out his Catholic faith in service of Obama and ObamaCare.)

Virgil is a solid conservative of a definite Southern populist bent. He was a Democrat for most of his political career, but like so many conservative Demcorats, left the party as the party lurched leftward. He was one of only 5 Democrats in the House who voted to impeach Clinton (again, remember that C'ville was part of his district, so that was something of an act of political courage). He then became an independent caucusing with the Republicans in the late 90s, and eventually became a Republican during the early Bush years.

As for policy, he is solidly conservative, especially on the issues that matter most to me. NOTE: Just as I disagree with Rick Santorum, who I am currently supporting, on his harsh immigration rhetoric, neither am I in agreement with Virgil on immigration - and Virgil is far more belligerant on the topic than Santorum has been. That said, his views on immigration are not disqualifying for me, and I could gladly cast a ballot for Virgil Goode based on his record and his views on other issues of importance to me. Virgil's views on the issues can be read on his campaign website.

A personal note on former Congressman Goode: Virgil was of immense help to me when I was Mayor of Columbia, Virginia, in my work on Columbia's revitalization plan. He took a personal interest in the town, and actually made a public appearance at a town festival to promote the revitalization process. Note that this was a town of only 50 people whose electoral value was probably close to zero compared to other localities in Virgil's district such as Charlottesville.

Digest of Today's Posts (28 February 2012)

A Bit of Irony That the Lamestream Media Appears to Have Missed

Georgetown Law Student: Georgetown Should Pay for Us to Have Sex Because We're Going Broke Buying Birth Control

Dale Price on Today's Michigan GOP Primary

Paul Zummo on Rick Santorum and It Takes a Family

(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (27 February 2012))

A Bit of Irony That the Lamestream Media Appears to Have Missed

That there IS a candidate running for President this year who wants to use the federal government to impose his views regarding contraception upon people who don't share those views, and his name IS NOT Rick Santorum.

Georgetown Law Student: Georgetown Should Pay for Us to Have Sex Because We're Going Broke Buying Birth Control

Unreal:

At a hearing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee yesterday, a single witness — Georgetown law student and “reproductive rights activist” Sandra Fluke — told sympathetic policy-makers that the administration’s so-called contraception mandate should stand … because her peers are going broke buying birth control.

“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy (Georgetown student insurance not covering contraception),” Fluke reported.

It costs a female student $3,000 to have protected sex over the course of her three-year stint in law school, according to her calculations.

“Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school,” Fluke told the hearing.

Craig Bannister at CNSNews.com did the math — and discovered that these co-eds, assuming they’re using the cheapest possible contraception, must be having unprotected sex about three times a day every day to incur that kind of expense. What Fluke is arguing, then, is that her fellow law students have a right to consequence-free sex whenever, wherever. Why, exactly, especially if it costs other people something? When I can’t pay for something, I do without it. Fortunately, in the case of contraception, women can make lifestyle choices that render it unnecessary...

[More]

Lady, if you want to be promiscuous to the tune of $3000 during your time at Georgetown Law School, that's your business. Knock yourself out. No one is going to stop you. Y'know, free will and all.

But to demand that the Catholic Church violate its teachings by providing you with the means for you to engage in your promiscuity is beyond arrogant. It's perverse.

This witness was called by "ardent, practicing Catholic", San Fran Nan the Theologian. Does she REALLY think testimony like this bolster's the Obama Administration's position on the HHS mandate? As one commenter at Hot Air put it:

Yes, PLEASE, trot out more privileged poster children like this. This is like an ad for our side.

Exactly.

Dale Price on Today's Michigan GOP Primary

My friend Dale Price explains his support for Santorum in "A choice, not an echo":

... I won't pretend that Senator Santorum was my first choice. I've always liked him, especially up close and personal. But I was looking for a candidate with solid executive experience, and he didn't have it. Never the less, the Pawlenty "Brave Sir Robin" act and Rick Perry's inexplicable flameout took those options off the table.

I still think Santorum needs to develop the discipline to steer away from hot-button trap questions he really wants to answer, but at least you know what's on his mind.

[...]

Back to the Senator: yes, he's got pork and massive entitlement (Medicare Part D) issues, but he also is someone who can take the credit for ending a lifetime entitlement with welfare reform. He also has a vision supportive of more limited government, with support for a civil society with its "mediating institutions." He has also shown the ability to win over voters in a purple-blue state, which says something for his campaigning skills. He's aware that America is faced with people in the world who wish her ill, and he feels the HHS assault in his guts. There will be no backdown on that. No, he's not a perfect candidate (I'd like him softer on certain issues like immigration, for a start), but I'm surprised by how well he laps the field.

[...]

I'm looking for a choice, not an echo. Santorum for President.

[Read the whole thing]

Paul Zummo on Rick Santorum and It Takes a Family

My friend Paul Zummo writes at The American Catholic on why he is supporting Rick Santorum:

I recently completed Rick Santorum’s It Takes A Family. I quipped on Twitter that had I read this before the campaign started then Santorum would have been my top Rick pick before that other Rick entered the race (though I still maintain that Governor Perry would have been an outstanding nominee, but no need to go there)...

The book title really says it all. The heart of Rick Santorum’s political philosophy is the family, meaning that to him strong families are the heart of any functioning society. The family has been undermined both by big government programs and by the culture at large. Santorum mocks the “village elders” who view more government programs as the solution to all problems. Santorum acknowledges that many of the problems we face don’t have quick and easy fixes, and often no legislative action can be taken. Santorum offers a series of small policy proposals that are aimed at giving parents and individuals in tough economic circumstances some tools to help, but he also emphasizes the doctrine of subsidiarity. Ultimately we must rely principally on local institutions, starting with the family.

Santorum understands what even some on the right fail to appreciate, and that is we can’t divorce social issues from economics. The breakdown of the family coincides directly with economic hardship. If we want a healthier economy, we need healthier families...

[...]

I would like to end on a personal note. When I was a kid I dreamed of running for the presidency in 2012 – the year I turned 35 and became constitutionally eligible. Obviously that has not happened. Yet, running for the presidency now is a slightly dweebish, socially conservative, Italian-American. It’s kind of the next best thing to running myself. Well, when I see the passion with which Santorum writes about issues that matter to me, I can’t help but respect the man. The second half of this book is terrific, and the sincerity of his convictions particularly shines through when he is discussing abortion. Some of you remain skeptical that such a man can actually win a general election. I am not gonna link to the polls that suggest otherwise. I just want you to consider that if you’re like me and believe as I do on the issues that matter most, we might not ever again get a chance to put someone who shares so many of our convictions in the White House. So don’t cast your vote out of some fear of what might happen in November.

[Read the whole thing]

I am in complete agreement with Paul's assessment. Just put up my Santorum yard signs yesterday, and will gladly pull the lever for Santorum in next week's Ohio Primary.

Digest of Today's Posts (27 February 2012)

Romney Attacks Santorum for Focus on Social Issues

Rick Santorum's Economic Freedom Agenda

Just Another of My Occasional Reminders ...

Romney Attacks Santorum for Focus on Social Issues

Just more evidence for why I will NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVER vote for Dullard Flip Rino: He doesn't care about (and, in fact, is on the opposite side of) the issues that matter most to me.

Rick Santorum's Economic Freedom Agenda

Rick Santorum writes in today's Wall Street Journal:

... my opponent in the Republican primaries, Mitt Romney, had a last-minute conversion. Attempting to distract from his record of tax and fee increases as governor of Massachusetts, poor job creation, and aggressive pursuit of earmarks, he now says he wants to follow my lead and lower individual as well as corporate marginal tax rates.

It's a good start. But it doesn't go nearly far enough. He says his proposed tax cuts would be revenue neutral and, borrowing the language of Occupy Wall Street, promises the top 1% will pay for the cuts. No pro-growth tax policy there, just more Obama-style class warfare.

By contrast, in my first 100 days as president, I'll submit to Congress and work to pass a comprehensive pro-growth and pro-family Economic Freedom Agenda. Here are 10 of its main initiatives:

• Unleash America's energy. I'll approve the Keystone Pipeline for jobs and energy security, and sign an order on day one unleashing America's domestic energy production, allowing states to choose where they want to explore for oil and natural gas and to set their own regulations for hydrofracking.

• Stop job-killing regulation. All Obama administration regulations that have an economic burden over $100 million will be repealed, including the Environmental Protection Agency rule on CO2 emissions that's already shut down six power plants. I'll review all regulations, making sure they use sound science and cost benefit analysis.

• A pro-growth, pro-family tax policy. I'll submit to Congress comprehensive tax policies to strengthen opportunity in our country, with only two income tax rates of 10% and 28%. To help families, I'll triple the personal deduction for children and eliminate the marriage tax penalty.

• Restore America's competitiveness. The corporate tax rate should be halved, to a flat rate of 17.5%. Corporations should be allowed to expense all business equipment and investment. Taxes on corporate earnings repatriated from overseas should be eliminated to bring home manufacturing. I'll take the lead on tort reform to lower costs to consumers.

• Rein in spending. I'll propose spending cuts of $5 trillion over five years, including cuts for the remainder of fiscal year 2013. I'll propose budgets that spend less money each year than prior years, and I'll reduce the nondefense-related federal work force by at least 10%, without replacing them with private contractors.

• Repeal and replace ObamaCare. I'll submit legislation to repeal ObamaCare, and on day one issue an executive order ending related regulatory obligations on the states. I'll work with Congress to replace ObamaCare with competitive insurance choices to improve quality and limit the costs of health care, while protecting those with uninsurable health conditions. In contrast, Gov. Romney signed into law RomneyCare, which provided the model for ObamaCare. Its best-known feature is its overreaching individual health-care mandate. But it shares over a dozen other similarities with ObamaCare and has given Massachusetts the highest health-care premiums in the nation, and longer waits for health care.

• Balance the budget. I'll submit to Congress a budget that will balance within four years and call on Congress to pass a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution which limits federal spending to 18% of GDP...

[More]

Just Another of My Occasional Reminders ...

... that I won't be voting for Mitt Romney (a.k.a. Dullard Flip Rino) UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Not in the primaries, and not in the general election should he be nominated.

NEVER. NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. EVER!

I'm rooting for Santorum to win the nomination. Should he fail (and I believe he is the only one left with a real shot at denying Romney the nomination), I will not settle for being force-fed yet another establishment RINO.

But should Romney wind up being the GOP nominee, this year I will have a real 3rd-party choice: my friend, Virgil Goode who is seeking (and should win) the Constitution Party nomination.


(And please don't come here spouting such nonsensical and demonstrably false platitudes as "A vote for an unelectable 3rd-party candidate is a vote for Obama". Should anyone ever feel so inclined, just keep such inane rhetoric to yourself. It's not convincing, and such nonsense will not change my mind. In fact, the more I hear it, especially to justify a vote for Dullard Flip "Obama Lite" Rino, it only further entrenches me in my views. So save your energy - you'll need it to continue to justify the unjustifiable to an increasing number of skeptical conservative voters. For my part, should Romney win the GOP nomination, I will actively campaign against him and in favor of Virgil Goode, and will try to convince as many conservative and independent voters as I can not to waste their votes on a candidate they don't believe in, but to support a true conservative like Virgil Goode instead.)

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is a Coward - Sells Out Pro-Lifers for Spot on Romney Ticket [UPDATED]

Some "pro-life Catholic". I can't believe I ever wanted this d-bag to be President some day:

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, a Romney supporter and leading contender for the VP spot on a Romney-headed ticket, demonstrated his complete philosophical alignment with Romney yesterday by flipflopping on a bill he has championed and in the process hanging VA GOP delegates out to dry.

For those who haven’t been paying attention, Virginia’s legislature has been going after the abortion industry root and branch. Last year they passed a law requiring aborttoirs to be regulated as if they did what they do: perform a surgical procedure which can be life threatening. This year a bill is being finalized that requires a woman seeking an abortion to see ultrasound pictures of the baby. Somehow this bill, which does not require any medical procedure the woman was not going to receive in the first place, has the pro-abortion lobby in a tizzy. Dahlia Lithwick at Slate has predictably styled this as rape.

Up until yesterday, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell had unconditionally supported the bill.

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell is backing off his unconditional support for a bill requiring women to have an ultrasound before an abortion, focusing new attention on one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in Virginia’s General Assembly this year.

Until this weekend, McDonnell (R) and his aides had said the governor would sign the measure if it made it to his desk. McDonnell, who strongly opposes abortion, will no longer make that commitment.

[...]

There is only one explanation that fits all the facts. McDonnell wants to be Mitt Romney’s choice for vice president should Romney almost certainly win the GOP nomination. The ultrasound bill is causing too much controversy and probably has Romney’s handlers wearing brown trousers at the thought of having to actually take a pro-life position in a general election campaign. McDonnell takes to opportunity to look moderate and abandons ship...

[More]

My Comments:
I already knew Dullard Flip Rino was a pro-abort squish, so his discomfort with the recently-passed Virginia pro-life law comes as no surprise to me. But for an allegedly "pro-life Catholic" like Bob McDonnell to suddenly go wobbly and hint opposition to signing the pro-life law just to appease Romney's handlers? May he rot.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote in regards to Bob McDonnell:

When Romney does finally go down to an inglorious defeat (and he will, be it either in the primaries (hopefully, to Santorum) or in the general election), I hope like hell he takes people like Bob McDonnell down with him.

McDonnell's egregious sell-out of the pro-life cause (much worse than Santorum's sell-out of pro-lifers by endorsing Specter) for the sake of raw political ambition and a potential spot on a Romney ticket makes that outcome inevitable. May he fall far and fall hard.


UPDATE:
Here's McDonnell's statement from today on this matter:

I am pro-life. I believe deeply in the sanctity of innocent human life and believe governments have a duty to protect human life. The more our society embraces a culture of life for all people, the better country we will have. Over the course of my 20-year career in elected office, I have been glad to play a leading role in putting in place common-sense policies that protect and defend innocent human life in the Commonwealth. One of those bills was Virginia's informed consent statute, of which I was the chief patron in the House of Delegates, finally seeing its passage in 2001. This session, the General Assembly is now considering amending this informed consent statute to include a requirement that any woman seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound in order to establish the gestational age for appropriate medical purposes, and to offer a woman the opportunity to voluntarily review that ultrasound prior to giving her legal informed consent to abortion.

Over the past days I have discussed the specific language of the proposed legislation with other governors, physicians, attorneys, legislators, advocacy groups, and citizens. It is apparent that several amendments to the proposed legislation are needed to address various medical and legal issues which have arisen. It is clear that in the majority of cases, a routine external, transabdominal ultrasound is sufficient to meet the bill's stated purpose, that is, to determine gestational age. I have come to understand that the medical practice and standard of care currently guide physicians to use other procedures to find the gestational age of the child, when abdominal ultrasounds cannot do so. Determining gestational age is essential for legal reasons, to know the trimester of the pregnancy in order to comply with the law, and for medical reasons as well.

Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.

For this reason, I have recommended to the General Assembly a series of amendments to this bill...

You can read the snivelling rest if you'd like, but it's the weasel words of a liar, a hypocrite, and a coward, so take it for what it's worth.


UPDATE #2
And for those of you keeping score at home, rack up another huge victory for Planned Parenthood.

Between (1) electing the most pro-abortion President in history, (2) passing Obamacare, (3) successfully rallying the Democrats to hold out and defeat the Stupak Amendment thereto, (4) having the President take the government to the brink of shutdown rather than deprive Planned Parenthood of one penny of taxpayer money in the federal budget, (5) getting the opportunity to put the screws to their arch-enemy the Catholic Church by being invited to help write the HHS mandate requiring the Church to violate its teachings by covering contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization, (6) cowing Susan G. Komen back into the Planned Parenthood fold via a campaign of intimidation, and now (7) cowing an allegedly pro-life Catholic governor who previously had strong social conservative bona fides into backing down on signing one of the more pro-life pieces of legislation to have passed in a long time, Planned Parenthood is on quite an impressive role.

It would be difficult to argue that any private organization in the country comes close to matching the power and clout of Planned Parenthood. They certainly seem to always get their way.


UPDATE #3
“You know what I’m concerned about? I’m concerned about the budget.”

And the transformation to Establishment-RINO-Fiscal-Conservative-Social-Moderate (and don't bother me with all those divisive social issues) is complete.

Jerk.


UPDATE #4
Posting this update just because I want to use this word, and didn't think of it when writing any of my previous descriptions of McDonnell:


CRAVEN

That is all.

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell: Romney's Anti-Santorum Hatchet Man [UPDATED]

Ron Paul: Social Issues a "Loser" in This Election

Congressman Paul is currently my second choice for the presidency behind Rick Santorum. But I may have to re-evaluate that based on the fact that it doesn't appear that the issues that are most important to me are all that important to him:

Yesterday on CNN’s State of the Union, Candy Crowley asked Ron Paul about the new focus in national politics on social issues and whether a national debate focusing on them would help Republicans in November. Paul called it a “losing position,” but neglects to mention that he has campaigned on his opposition to abortion at least since the Ames straw poll, an omission caught by CNS News:

“Do you–are you uncomfortable–certainly Rick Santorum is the one who has been in the forefront of some of this talk on social issues, but there have been others in the race,” Crowley asked Paul. “Are you uncomfortable with this talk about social issues? Do you consider it a winning area for Republicans in November?”

“No,” said Paul. “I think it’s a losing position.

“I mean, I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how difficult problems are to be solved,” Paul continued. “And they’re not to be at the national level. We’re not supposed to nationalize these problems. The founders were very clear that problems like this, if there needs to be legislation of sorts, the state has the right to write the legislation that they so choose. And that solves a lot of our problems.”

Back on Dec. 19, Paul signed the “Personhood Pledge” published by PersonhoodUSA. This pledge says in part: “I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting ‘the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,’ and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I ‘support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”

The current context of the debate on social issues hinges on federal mandates, a point which Paul acknowledges in this interview. Why would that be a loser? It’s practically the entire context of his campaign — reducing the power of federal government to issue the kind of mandates like the HHS mandate for employers to essentially provide free contraception to their employees. Tying that in with social issues should make the argument stronger, at least if it’s handled correctly.

Matt Lewis argues that not only is Paul wrong, but history shows that Republicans do well when social issues are in play...

[More]

(emphasis added)

I keep hearing from Dr. Paul's supporters that he is the "REAL" Catholic choice in this race. But it sounds to me as if the issues of utmost importance to faithful Catholics in this election are not going to receive the attention they deserve from the so-called "REAL" Catholic choice. He's forfeited the field of play, since it is the LEFT who is pushing these issues at the federal level, and the social conservative pushback is merely a reaction to the federalizing of the culture wars. And citing the 10th Amendment is simply NOT going to be a successful response to the next leftist incursion in this ongoing battle for the soul of America.

As I am often asked why I support Rick Santorum over Ron Paul, especially since I do have some major disagreements with Santorum's stance on foreign policy, torture, immigration, etc., allow me to just go ahead and state here for the record why I have backed Santorum. Winning this blasted culture war is what animates me to get involved in politics in the first place. I detest politics, but feel compelled to get involved because I see the daily attacks on my values by people who consider me and mine to be backwards and brainwashed. This culture war is one of attrition that can be won, IF and only IF we are willing to fight it.

On the one hand, Ron Paul has just stated that he doesn't have the stomach for the fight. Rick Santorum, on the other hand, for all his flaws, appears willing to take the fight to the left. In this race, I am backing the guy who will be a warrior for the preservation of what's worth preserving and for restoring what needs to be restored. The guy who just said the fight's already lost need not apply.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Social Conservatism a Winning Formula for GOP

Digest of Today's Posts (18 February 2012)

Social Conservatism a Winning Formula for GOP

If Santorum Beats Romney, Watch for GOP Establishment to Replace Him With Jeb Bush [UPDATED]

(Digest of Friday's Posts (17 February 2012))

Social Conservatism a Winning Formula for GOP

James Taranto writes in The Wall Street Journal:

If you're a Republican in New York or another big city, you may be anxious or even terrified at the prospect that Rick Santorum, the supposedly unelectable social conservative, may win the GOP presidential nomination. Jeffrey Bell would like to set your mind at ease.

Social conservatism, Mr. Bell argues in his forthcoming book, "The Case for Polarized Politics," has a winning track record for the GOP. "Social issues were nonexistent in the period 1932 to 1964," he observes. "The Republican Party won two presidential elections out of nine, and they had the Congress for all of four years in that entire period. . . . When social issues came into the mix—I would date it from the 1968 election . . . the Republican Party won seven out of 11 presidential elections."

[...]

In Mr. Bell's telling, social conservatism is both relatively new and uniquely American, and it is a response to aggression, not an initiation of it. The left has had "its center of gravity in social issues" since the French Revolution, he says. "Yes, the left at that time, with people like Robespierre, was interested in overthrowing the monarchy and the French aristocracy. But they were even more vehemently in favor of bringing down institutions like the family and organized religion. In that regard, the left has never changed. . . . I think we've had a good illustration of it in the last month or so."

He means the ObamaCare mandate that religious institutions must provide employee insurance for contraceptive services, including abortifacient drugs and sterilization procedures, even if doing so would violate their moral teachings. "You would think that once the economy started looking a little better, Obama would want to take a bow . . . but instead all of a sudden you have this contraception flap. From what I can find out about it, it wasn't a miscalculation. They knew that the Catholic Church and other believers were going to push back against this thing. . . . They were determined to push it through, because it's their irreplaceable ideological core. . . . The left keeps putting these issues into the mix, and they do it very deliberately, and I think they do it as a matter of principle."

[...]

The roots of social conservatism, he maintains, lie in the American Revolution. "Nature's God is the only authority cited in the Declaration of Independence. . . . The usual [assumption] is, the U.S. has social conservatism because it's more religious. . . . My feeling is that the very founding of the country is the natural law, which is God-given, but it isn't particular to any one religion. . . . If you believe that rights are unalienable and that they come from God, the odds are that you're a social conservative."

[...]

"I think the tea party is an ally of social conservatism, because it also seems to go back to that idea in the Founding. . . . The tea party brings absolute values, normative values, to a whole set of issues where they really weren't present, namely economics and the size of government." Another commonality is that both arose in reaction to an aggressive left.

The populist nature of social conservatism perplexes liberals, who think less-affluent Americans ought to side with the party of statist economics. The libertarian social scientist Charles Murray presents a more sophisticated variant of the puzzle in his new book, "Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010." Mr. Murray shows that upper-middle-class Americans lead far more conservative lives than the less affluent do, by such measures as marriage, illegitimacy, churchgoing and crime.

Yet Mr. Bell notes that social conservatism is largely a working-class phenomenon: "Middle America does have more children than elite America, and they vote socially conservative, even though they might not necessarily be behaving that way in their personal life. They may be overwhelmed by the sexual revolution and its cultural impacts."

[...]

Even without immediate gains among minority voters, Mr. Bell sees social issues as the path to a GOP majority in 2012. They account for the George W. Bush-era red-blue divide, which Mr. Bell says endures—and, he adds, red has the advantage: "There was one state in 2000 that Bush carried that I would say was socially left of center, and that was New Hampshire," the only state that flipped to John Kerry four years later. "By 2004, every state—all 31 states that Bush carried—were socially conservative states." Those states now have 292 electoral votes, with 270 sufficient for a majority.

By contrast, not all the Kerry states are socially liberal. "The swing vote in the Midwest is socially conservative and less conservative economically," Mr. Bell says, so that "social conservatism is more likely to be helpful than economic conservatism."

Among states that last voted Republican in 1988 or earlier, he classifies two, Michigan and Pennsylvania, as socially conservative, and two more, Minnesota and Wisconsin, as "mildly" so. That adds up to 35 states, with 348 electoral votes, in which social conservatism is an advantage...

[...]

Mr. Santorum is the most consistent and unapologetic social conservative in the race, but Mr. Bell rejects the common claim that he places too strong an emphasis on social issues: "I think that's unfair to Santorum. He goes out of his way to say that he has an economic platform, he isn't just about social issues."

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)

If Santorum Beats Romney, Watch for GOP Establishment to Replace Him With Jeb Bush [UPDATED]

One "brave" anonymous U.S. Senator has already said it should happen:

Silly me; I thought that when one candidate in a primary race lost a state, it meant that another candidate was stronger. Not so, according to an unnamed but “prominent” Republican Senator contacted by ABC’s Jonathan Karl. If Romney can’t win, it’s time to call in … Jeb Bush?

“If Romney cannot win Michigan, we need a new candidate,” said the senator, who has not endorsed anyone and requested anonymity.

[...]

It would have to be somebody else, the senator said. Who? “Jeb Bush,” the former Florida governor.

The Secret Senator believes that Rick Santorum would lose 35 states in a general election, and apparently thinks so little of Newt Gingrich’s chances that he doesn’t even raise him as an alternative. No, it would be better to call the younger Bush and skip over the rest of the primaries, apparently, since it would be almost impossible at this point for a new candidate to qualify on enough ballots to win a majority of the delegates.

[...]

How about this for an idea: let’s hold a primary among those candidates who had the courage to put themselves on the line for almost a year, and stop worrying about those who sat on the sidelines. Stop looking for a Deus ex machina and start building the organization that will help whomever the voters choose as the nominee win the general election.

[More]

If the GOP tries this, it will forever sever ties with social conservatives and with grassroots GOP voters, and will consign itself to permanent minority status.


UPDATE
Yeah, what Patrick Archbold said: "I Hate Republicans"

... Dear Senator Jerk, I would rather go down with Santorum than win with your type. And if Santorum does lose, I hope to God that he takes you with him.

I hate Republicans.

My sentiments exactly.

Digest of Today's Posts (17 February 2012)

Susan B. Anthony List Endorses Santorum

Pelosi: Yes, of Course, the Catholic Church Should be Forced to Cover Contraception — Even If It’s Self-Insured [UPDATED]

Santorum the Hot Name Among Ohio GOP Voters

(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (16 February 2012))

Susan B. Anthony List Endorses Santorum

Santorum scores a big-time pro-life endorsement from the Susan B. Anthony List:

The anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List plans to endorse Rick Santorum for president.

The group is announcing Friday it will back the former Pennsylvania senator over Mitt Romney and the other Republican hopefuls. It's the first time the group has endorsed in a presidential primary.

Jane Abraham, an anti-abortion activist in Michigan and chairman of the group's board, says none of the other candidates has the "record of consistent leadership" Santorum has shown on abortion.

Romney has struggled to win over social conservatives nervous about his previous support for abortion rights. Last year, Romney refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony List's anti-abortion pledge, saying it was too broad.

The group plans to organize activists, particularly in Michigan, before the state's Feb. 28 primary.

(emphasis added)

More on this major endorsement from LifeNews.com.

I wonder if any of the so-called "pro-life" activists and "pro-life" organizations (i.e. Republican first, pro-life second) who endorsed Dullard Flip Rino early on are now having second thoughts.

Pelosi: Yes, of Course, the Catholic Church Should be Forced to Cover Contraception — Even If It’s Self-Insured [UPDATED]

Good Lord! What does it take for someone to get their ass excommunicated anymore?


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
And While They're At It ...

"Ardent, Practicing Catholic" Nancy Pelosi Says She Stands With Her "Fellow Catholics" in SUPPORTING the HHS Mandate


[UPDATE]
More from The Weekly Standard.

Santorum the Hot Name Among Ohio GOP Voters

The Columbus Dispatch reports:

He’s the right kind of conservative.

He cares about the problems of average people.

He’s got a small unfavorability rating.

Oh, and Rick Santorum is also the “hot” candidate.

In a nutshell, that’s why the former Pennsylvania senator has wrangled the lead in the Ohio presidential primary less than three weeks before voters head to the polls, a survey released yesterday shows.

Santorum is the new favorite of Buckeye State Republicans, leading ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney among likely voters by 7 points, 36 percent to 29 percent, in the Quinnipiac University poll. Romney was ahead with registered voters two months ago; Herman Cain was on top two months before that.
[...]

“Santorum’s a hot candidate,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
New Poll Shows Santorum Trouncing "Mr. Electable" by 18 Points in Key Swing State of Ohio

Poll: Santorum Ahead Of Romney In Buckeye State

Digest of Today's Posts (16 February 2012)

Romney Lying About Santorum's Record on Spending

New Poll Shows Santorum Trouncing "Mr. Electable" by 18 Points in Key Swing State of Ohio

As the Debate Over the HHS Mandate Heats Up ...

(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (15 February 2012))

Romney Lying About Santorum's Record on Spending

But when you're a liberal RINO who governed like Obama-lite who is pretending to be a conservative in order to win the GOP nomination but who has no conservative record to run on (like Dullard Flip Rino), smearing your opponents with lies is all you have.

But here's the truth:

Mitt Romney is now arguing that Rick Santorum’s record exposes him as one of those Republicans who “act like Democrats” once they get to Washington. Romney surrogate Tim Pawlenty adds that Santorum “clearly has been part of the big-spending establishment in Congress.” Another Romney surrogate, former senator Jim Talent, says of Santorum, “He certainly has been outspoken on social issues . . . but when you get outside those issues into fiscal, spending, regulatory issues, his record shows that he’s been in the liberal wing of the Republican party.”

[...]

So, is Romney’s claim true? Was Santorum a spendthrift in the Senate? Fortunately, credible third party analysis is available to help us answer this question, so we need not merely accept the Romney campaign’s verdict as the final word on the matter.

The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been rating members of Congress for 20 years. NTU is an independent, non-partisan organization that — per its mission statement — “mobilizes elected officials and the general public on behalf of tax relief and reform, lower and less wasteful spending, individual liberty, and free enterprise.” Steve Forbes serves on its board of directors.

For each session of Congress, NTU scores each member on an A-to-F scale. NTU weights members’ votes based on those votes’ perceived effect on both the immediate and future size of the federal budget. Those who get A’s are among “the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies”; they receive NTU’s “Taxpayers’ Friend Award.” B’s are “good” scores, C’s are “minimally acceptable” scores, D’s are “poor” scores, and F’s earn their recipients membership in the “Big Spender” category. There is no grade inflation whatsoever, as we shall see.

NTU’s scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorum’s 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.

Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.

This much alone would paint an impressive portrait of fiscal conservatism on Santorum’s part. Yet it doesn’t even take into account a crucial point: Santorum was representing Pennsylvania.

[...]

Among the roughly one-third of senators (18 out of 50) who represented states that — based on this measure — were at least as far to the left as Pennsylvania, Santorum was the most fiscally conservative. Even more telling was the canyon between him and the rest. After Santorum’s overall 3.66 GPA, the runner-up GPA among this group was 2.07, registered by Olympia Snowe (R., Maine). Arlen Specter, Santorum’s fellow Pennsylvania Republican, was next, with a GPA of 1.98. The average GPA among senators who represented states at least as far left as Pennsylvania was 0.52 — or barely a D-.

But Santorum also crushed the senators in the other states. Those 32 senators, representing states that on average were 16 points to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections, had an average GPA of 2.35 — a C+.

In fact, considering the state he was representing, one could certainly make the case that Santorum was the most fiscally conservative senator during his tenure.

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)

Fortunately, Santorum is running an ad that will hopefully innoculate him from Romney's attack machine:

New Poll Shows Santorum Trouncing "Mr. Electable" by 18 Points in Key Swing State of Ohio

Let me repeat that: SANTORUM LEADING ROMNEY BY 18 POINTS IN OHIO!

While Rick Santorum courts the blue-collar vote in Michigan, he’s already looking forward to at least one Super Tuesday state — Ohio. He has spent quite a bit of time in this Rust Belt swing state, and according to the latest Rasmussen poll, that investment has paid off handsomely. Santorum now leads Romney by eighteen, 42/24 ...

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Poll: Santorum Ahead Of Romney In Buckeye State

As the Debate Over the HHS Mandate Heats Up ...

... just a reminder:

"As a debate involving the Catholic Church (either a discussion about the Church specifically, or a discussion in which the Church is taking a position) grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning the sex scandal approaches one."
~ Anderson's Law

As longtime reader and commenter Terry points out in the comments at another post, these days it generally only takes one or two comments for it to happen.

Digest of Today's Posts (15 February 2012)

Doug Kmiec Back in Obama's Embrace

Poll: Santorum Ahead Of Romney In Buckeye State

George Weigel on Obama's "Divide and Conquer" Strategy: Obama, Not Bishops, Now Calling Shots for Catholic Church in U.S.

(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (14 February 2012))

Doug Kmiec Back in Obama's Embrace

"The Passion of the Kmiec" continues, as erstwhile Obamaphile, Doug Kmiec, resurrects his love affair with The One following the so-called "accomodation" on the HHS mandate.

I mean, we all KNEW this was going to happen, right? That's why so many greeted Kmiec's love / breakup letter to Obama with the outright contempt it deserved. All the signals were there in that letter that Kmiec would go rushing right back into the arms of his beloved at the first hint of an "I'm sorry". Not that Obama actually had to SAY "I'm sorry", or actually BE "sorry", or even change his ways. Just an acknowledgement that "I still need you" was enough for the battered ObamaCath to reconcile with his abuser.


The Passion of the Kmiec - A Pro Ecclesia Timeline:

February 2012
Doug Kmiec Back in Obama's Embrace

Doug Kmiec Thinks He's Breaking Up With Obama, But Obama Already Jilted Him First


September 2009
Kmiec Lies Again: "Obama Has Taken Some Steps Towards [Protecting Life], Perhaps Not as Fast as Some Would Like"


July 2009
"The Passion of the Kmiec" ... The Saga Continues


May 2009
Kmiec Tells Another Lie in Service of Obama

Robert P. George on "Obama and His Pro-Life Apologists"

Robert George vs Douglas Kmiec: How Should a Pro-Life Citizen Respond to Obama? [UPDATED]


April 2009
Cardinal Rigali Calls Out Kmiec on His ESCR Lies

A New Front in the Church's Civil War

Fr. Z Fisks Pathetic Sycophant Kmiec on Notre Dame's Obama Invite

Prof. George Schools Prof. Kmiec ... Again


March 2009
Scholar vs. Hack: Prof. George Schools Prof. Kmiec re: "Did Obama Allow Human Cloning?"

Kmiec Brushes Aside Another Non-Negotiable by Coming Out Against Prop 8


February 2009
Kmiec Calls Pope's Comments "Intrusive"

Catholic World Report: "Douglas Kmiec and His Misinformation Offensive for Barack Obama"


January 2009
Kmiec Claims He's In the Loop for Vatican Post

American Papist's Open Letter to Prof. Kmiec

Kmiec the Martyr

Prof. Kmiec Eulogizes Fr. Neuhaus in a Manner That is All About Prof. Kmiec and Justifying his Obama Vote [UPDATED]


December 2008
Prof. Bainbridge on Doug Kmiec and U.S. Diplomatic Relations with the Holy See


November 2008
Vatican Official Says Kmiec Will Not Become New Vatican Ambassador

The Kmiec Catholic Re-Education Camp

Former Student of Prof. Kmiec Calls Him Out on "Revealing His True Colors"

A Modern-Day "Vicar of Bray"

Douthat Smacks Kmiec

Amy's "Wrap-Up" of Pre-Election Abortion Coverage

Pathetic


October 2008
George Weigel on Kmiec's "Flawed Thinking"

Archbishop Chaput: Kmiec Doing a "Disservice to the Church"

Mainstream Media Compliant in Obama's "Faith Outreach" Pitch

Bill Donohue: "I'm Catholic, Staunchly Anti-Racist, and Support David Duke" [UPDATED]

Debate Over at Amy's: Should Catholics Work for Legal Restrictions on Abortion?

Deacon Fournier Puts Smack Down on Prof. Kmiec

Kmiec's Payoff? [UPDATED]


September 2008
The Obama-Kmiec Magical Mystery "Faith Tour"

Deacon Fournier: "Doug Kmiec’s ‘Can a Catholic Support Him?’ Asks the Wrong Question"

Ponnuru Raps Kmiec for Defending Obama's Born-Alive Vote

"Separate But Equal" Redux - Pro-Life Edition

Mark Stricherz: "Why the Democratic Abortion Strategy is Worse"

Whither the "Catholic Vote"? Some Interesting Posts at the Fidelis Blog


August 2008
Darwin Catholic: "Douglas Kmiec, Master of Dissembling" [UPDATED]

Prof. Rick Garnett on Kmiec's "Missing the Point"

A Former Student of Prof. Kmiec Speaks Out ...

Prof. Kmiec Shifts the Goalposts

Kmiec's "Bridge Too Far"? Obama's Attacks on Justice Thomas

Without Further Ado: Doug Kmiec on McCain v. Obama at Saddleback [UPDATED]

Paging Prof. Kmiec ...

Doug Kmiec Claims Democrats Making "Steps Toward Honoring Life" in Platform

Prof. Garnett Takes on Prof. Kmiec ... Again

Casey Jr. to Get Prime-Time Slot in Denver to Appease Catholics [UPDATED]


July 2008
Fr. Neuhaus Responds to Doug Kmiec

Deal Hudson's Open Letter to Doug Kmiec

National Catholic Register on Catholics, Kmiec, and Obama

Prof. Hadley Arkes: "Political Distraction Among the Catholics"


June 2008
Doug Kmiec - What He Said Then vs. What He Says Now Re: Constitutional Jurisprudence

What is the "Pro-Life Position" Regarding Abortion?

Traumatized

Unrequited Love

Doug Kmiec: "After Meeting with Barack" [UPDATED]

Cranky Conservative: "But At Least He Says It with a Smile"

Doug Kmiec Again Places Platitudes Above Policy [UPDATED]

Prof. Bainbridge on "Obama, Abortion, & Catholics"

Prof. Rick Garnett on Kmiec's Latest Nonsense

Deacon Keith Fournier: "Why I Disagree with Doug Kmiec, Once Again"

Give It a Rest Already, Prof. Kmiec!

Doug Kmiec's Newfound Celebrity Status Among Those on the Left

Doug Kmiec Soon To Be Sorely Disappointed

E.J. Dionne on Kmiec Being Denied Communion [UPDATED]


May 2008
Deal Hudson on Prof. Kmiec and Blurring the Lines Between "Pro-Choice" and Pro-Abortion

Did Doug Kmiec Just Now Catch On That Obama and NARAL Are Politically Conjoined? [UPDATED]

Deal Hudson on "How Obama's Catholics Will Dodge the Infanticide Question"

Kmiec's Dishonesty [UPDATED]

Catholic Teaching and Political Risk Taking: When Credit Isn't Given Where Credit is Due [UPDATED]


April 2008
Kmiec's Wishful Thinking on Obama and Abortion


March 2008
The Curt Jester: "Shameless Garment" [UPDATED]

So-Called "Catholic Reaganite" Doug Kmiec Endorses Obama [UPDATED]

No'bama for Me, Thanks"

Can a Catholic Vote for Obama?


February 2008
Obama's Pledge to Planned Parenthood: "I Will Not Yield"

"Why American Catholics are Supporting Barack Obama"

How the Catholic Left Will Tackle McCain

Why Does Kmiec Criticize McCain for Positions on Which He Gave Romney a Pass?

Deal Hudson on "Douglas Kmiec and the Lure of Obama"

Douglas W. Kmiec on "The Moral Duty to Inquire"

Professor Bainbridge: "Will Catholic Reaganites Go for Obama?"

Deal Hudson: "Preacher Man: Barack Obama and the the Gospel of Liberalism"

"Sorry, Doug Kmiec, But This Catholic Isn't Buying Obama"

Ramesh Ponnuru on Douglas Kmiec and "Catholic Reaganites for Obama" [UPDATED]

Romney Advisor Says Obama "a Natural for the Catholic Vote"