‘Where’s the Spirit? Where’s the Guts, Huh?’

posted at 3:50 pm on December 8, 2011 by The Other McCain

The first time I met Rick Santorum was on a Saturday in August at a barn in Roland, Iowa. Not only did I meet Santorum, but I met nearly his entire family, who were traveling with him that week before the Ames Straw Poll.  There were maybe 50 voters at that event at the home of Scott and Susan Hurd, and I wrote:

While I have no firm estimate of how many eligible voters were in attendance, I can state officially that the number of kids was ginormous. Lots of big home-schooling families showed up – families with seven, eight, nine kids. Santorum is traveling with his own family of seven kids, so the super-size families certainly seem simpatico with the former Pennsylvania senator. . . .
He was quite impressive, and I very much agree with Santorum’s complaint that the media has unfairly ignored his candidacy.

That was more than four months ago and, unfairly or not, the media are still ignoring Santorum’s candidacy — except when they mock it, as liberal writers like Timothy Noah of the New Republic have begun doing:

Tim McNulty of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a tongue-in-cheek “Daily Santorum” blog feature, just in case. And my former colleague at Slate, Dave Weigel, has started a “Santorum Surge Watch,” though I think he’s mostly kidding, too. In this environment, though, today’s wisecrack is tomorrow’s front-runner. Let the Santorum surge begin.

Keep in mind that Santorum is the only candidate in the Republican field who has visited all 99 counties in Iowa this year. He’s in Iowa today. He’ll be in Iowa tomorrow. He is going to be more or less a full-time resident of Iowa until Jan. 3, and you might think that would count for something in a state where social conservatives are supposed to be a key GOP constituency. Yet Santorum’s campaign is being treated like a joke.

Why, of all the main contenders for the Republican 2012 nomination, has Santorum never had his moment in the sun?

  • Theory One: Liberal media especially hate Rick Santorum because of his staunch advocacy of social conservative values, in particular his outspoken opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. So the media are ignoring Santorum out of spite, and the lack of coverage is effectively suffocating his campaign. This is Santorum’s own analysis of the problem. However, liberal bias can’t account for why even Fox News treats Santorum’s candidacy as an afterthought, which brings us to . . .
  • Theory Two: Republicans have finally surrendered on social issues. Nearly two decades after Pat Buchanan declared at the 1992 Republican National Convention that our nation was in a “religious war … a cultural war … a struggle for the soul of America,” the GOP has grown tired of fighting a losing battle. Lawrence v. Texas settled the gay issue, Roe v. Wade is never going to be overturned, and there’s no point arguing about it anymore: America is now, permanently, a nation that doesn’t blink an eye at “Heather Has Two Mommies” or a million abortions a year. Not only is the economy the main issue Republicans are supposed to be talking about in the Obama Era, but the Smart People like Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer seem to believe it’s the only issue Republicans should be talking about. According to this theory, Santorum is being punished by GOP voters for refusing to shut up about social issues where, as all the Smart People know, the battle has already been lost (if indeed the people in charge of the Republican Party were ever really serious about fighting such a battle).

Does Theory Two explain Santorum’s lack of traction in the polls? Has the Culture War ended in the unconditional surrender of social conservatives, so that whoever wins the 2012 Republican presidential nomination will have nothing to say on such issues?

Santorum’s low-budget campaign recently took out an ad in Iowa newspapers declaring “no surrender” on social issues, and none of the best-known spokesmen for conservatism — you know, the famous faces on Fox News — even bothered to notice. Have we now become a nation of sophisticated cosmpolitans, so that even self-declared conservatives are silent on social issues and everybody politely ignores those few holdouts like Santorum who didn’t get the memo?

Maybe. And maybe not.

Because I’m thinking of that famous scene in Animal House, after the Deltas have been expelled from Faber College and D-Day says to Bluto: “Let it go. War’s over, man.” Rick Santorum’s family-values supporters probably wouldn’t approve of Bluto’s memorably R-rated reply:

Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! … And it ain’t over now. ‘Cause when the goin’ gets tough…  The tough get goin’! Who’s with me? Let’s go! …
What the f— happened to the Delta I used to know? Where’s the spirit? Where’s the guts, huh? This could be the greatest night of our lives, but you’re gonna let it be the worst. “Ooh, we’re afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble.” Well just kiss my a– from now on! Not me! I’m not gonna take this.

It has long been my belief that the Republican Party keeps making the mistake of trying to be the Omegas — arrogant, privileged bullies — when instead they should emulate the defiant Deltas. Not necessarily in the sense of throwing decadent toga parties, but in the sense of having fun, confidently being themselves and thumbing their noses at the liberal Dean Wormers who enforce the “double-secret probation” rules of political correctness: “No more fun of any kind!” (Feel free to substitute bogus accusations of racism, sexism and homophobia for “fun” in that sentence.)

None of the developments in this wild and crazy year have so shocked me as the latest strange turn in the road to the White House: When the Cain Train ran off the rails — Herman allegedly “took a few liberties with our female party guests,” as Otter says in another famous Animal House scene — the surprising beneficiary was Newt Gingrich, the most Omega-like Republican candidate in the 2012 field.

Do GOP voters really want to nominate Greg Marmalard for president? I don’t think so. So permit me to play the role of Otter in that pivotal scene at Delta house: Santorum’s right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part — and the voters of Iowa are just the guys to do it.

If there is anywhere on the planet where social conservatives still have anything to say about electing Republicans, it’s the Iowa caucuses, and there were two events last week that got my attention — first, Sarah Palin singled out Rick Santorum for praise on Hannity’s Fox News show. And second, Santorum was endorsed by Pastor Cary Gordon.

Pastor Who?

Yeah, I know. I never heard of the guy until he endorsed Santorum, but he’s the Sioux City evangelical minister who led a successful fight to defeat the re-election of three Iowa state supreme court justices who had voted to make gay marriage the law of that Midwestern land. Not only did Pastor Gordon endorse Santorum, but he recorded this 19-minute video explaining his endorsement:

Pastor Gordon might not be much of an Animal House fan, but he is in effect acting as the Eric Stratton of Iowa conservatives, providing the decisive approval of a madcap scheme proposed by the frat-house slob who, as we all know, is destined to become Senator Joseph Blutarsky. And the dramatic parallel is almost perfect, in that the major media seem to have decided for us that this year’s GOP race is going to be as orderly as a homecoming parade — “now that the GOP race has narrowed to a two-man contest between Gingrich and  Romney,” as Maggie Haberman of Politico said.

Really? Is that it?

The only choice is between Mitt RomneyCare and Newt the Scozzafava-Hugger?

Maybe. I dunno. I’m not one of those Smart People like Rove and Krauthammer.

Maybe social conservatives in Iowa are going to let Maggie Haberman tell them who to vote for. But forgive me for having the urge to walk into the five-and-dime store and ask the clerk, “Could I buy 10,000 marbles, please?” Because if the Iowa caucuses are the Faber College homecoming parade, then the Rick Santorum campaign is a float in the shape of a birthday cake, emblazoned with an immortal motto: “Eat Me.”

And if Sarah Palin should follow up her praise for Santorum’s consistent conservatism by answering the prayers of his supporters and actually giving him her public endorsement, she would be like D-Day inside the Delta Tau Chi Deathmobile: “Ramming speed!”

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

[Santorum] is also more knowledgeable and outspoken about the intricacies of national security/domestic terrorism than any candidate other than Gingrich.

Connie on December 8, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Really? He thinks conflict with Iran started in 1979. Ron Paul, of course, schooled him about our CIA-led overthrow of a constitutional monarch and installation of a brutal dictator. Santorum wants to go to war with (well, continue war with) Iran and launch a “pre-emptive” strike (nice propaganda word to replace “offensive” which the Executive is NOT allowed to do without a declaration of war from Congress). Yeah, that’s going to do a helluva lot of good for national security. Whereas, oh….minding our own business, would actually strengthen our national security.

Dante on December 8, 2011 at 8:19 PM

Social issues aside, Santorum is probably the most conservative candidate overall. He is an expert on foreign policy and fiscally, about as Milton Friedman as it gets. One reason he has been ignored might be because, he is the most Sarah Palin-ish of the field. BUT— They cant call him dumb or inexperienced. They cant find skeletons in his closet to bury him under SO, ignoring him is their best bet to get rid of him.

If Santorum were to get his time in the spotlight, he wouldnt give it up easily. He is as solid as they come. A good man and a good conservative.

He isnt a bold personality or known for a memorable sound bite, though, which hurts him while fighting for air time. He has been out of government for a few years, too, which is forever for the short attention spanned American.

I hope he does well in Iowa so he is at least given a chance to stick around for a while. We could do a lot worse than Rick Santorum. Miracles can happen.

He would be a good President.

He would actually be a decent VP pick.

alecj on December 8, 2011 at 8:20 PM

Santorum is someone I could support, but he cannot even hold my interest when he is in the spotlight. I really wish that was not the case, but you simply do have to have enough charisma to reach people to become the President of the United States of America.

astonerii on December 8, 2011 at 8:21 PM

I was not aware that evolution had been moved from the “theory” category to the “law” category. When did that happen?

Theories are more important than laws in science.

Yours is the recycled “it’s just a theory” argument, which isn’t really an argument.

Evolution is “just a theory” just as the germ theory of disease or the theory of relativity are “just theories.”

Good Lt on December 8, 2011 at 8:26 PM

While the abortion issue is and should be a litmus test for the GOP nomination (and a wholesale rejection of climate fraud arguably should be too), the fact of the matter is, democrats are so thoroughly destroying this society on every front that simply holding the country’s fiscal foundation together is job #1.

The Count on December 8, 2011 at 8:27 PM

We all know you are an atheist. We all know you think that anyone that has any religious faith is a stupid fool.

What does that have to do with the theory of evolution and Huckabee’s/Santorum’s apparent non-understanding of it?

Acceptance of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth =/= atheism.

Good Lt on December 8, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Santorum is much more than a social conservative. He is very outspoken about them because he is truly passionate about them. He is strong fiscal and foreign policy conservative.

People forget that he also started out as a reformer in 1992. When he was in the House he was part of the “gang of 7″ and exposed the house banking scandal.

If ever there was a true believer in conservatism, Santorum is it.

Utica681 on December 8, 2011 at 8:31 PM

Mr. Santorum, while a good and decent man, fiddled while Rome burned.

He was on the Senate Banking Committee prior to 2006 while some were well aware of a rising housing bubble. He did nothing.

He also had bad work habits in the Senate.

He hasn’t got a clue on the economy.

He also endorsed Specter over Toomey.

LibertyJane on December 8, 2011 at 8:31 PM

I think this is precisely why Rick is doing The Donald debate.

For one thing, he has absolutely nothing to lose, and, even more importantly, he’d have a sympathetic ear with Trump (what with The Donald being at least marginally conservative to the point of appreciating social conservatism).

More practically, even if Bachmann showed up, too, he’d have an immensely massive amount of essentially free air time to explain himself.

My two problems with Rick are that he doesn’t know how to concisely debate his points without going on for a three-minute filibuster and I still think he’s running a campaign at least 20 years too late.

OK, so I buy into the “social issues aren’t *the* top priority this time around” argument.

Phil_GA on December 8, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Republicans have finally surrendered on social issues. Nearly two decades after Pat Buchanan declared at the 1992 Republican National Convention that our nation was in a “religious war … a cultural war … a struggle for the soul of America,” the GOP has grown tired of fighting a losing battle.

And yet, that’s exactly what Gingrich is saying. Gingrich is moving up in the polls, by the way.

MeatHeadinCA on December 8, 2011 at 8:46 PM

Santorum has just come off as the negativity candidate. If he’s not whining he’s complaining about something. He has definitely not run a feel good return to prosperity campaign. Even when he talks about the greatness of America he sounds angry. I am very disappointed with his campaign.

LazyDog on December 8, 2011 at 8:46 PM

Republicans get to choose between the Catholic vote and the “gay” vote. The Catholic vote is 27%. The “gay” vote is 2%. Do the math.

gocatholic on December 8, 2011 at 5:10 PM

1. I didn’t realize the Catholic vote is monolithic.
2. There are no gay Catholics? Who would’ve thought it??

Hilts on December 8, 2011 at 9:09 PM

1. I didn’t realize the Catholic vote is monolithic.

Hilts on December 8, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Correct, while the gay vote largely is monolithic – maybe second to only black voters.

Probably about 40% of my Catholic family are libs, which is pretty consistent with US elections give or take a few points(though I think Obama took over 60%). I guess they believe that in utero baby executions are someone else’s problem (which really means they’re not in Communion with the Church and not really Catholic, if you want to be technical about it).

The Count on December 8, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Whoa! Everyone has backed out of the Trump debate except for Santorum and Newt. GAME ON!!!!

Utica681 on December 8, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Rick Santorum has been my pick from the beginning. He is more conservative than Romney and Gingrich, and from what I’ve read has been solidly in the conservative camp for a long while. Sure, he lost in 2006, which was a horrible year for Republicans, but he would not be the only candidate over the years who had lost a race but went on to be President. More importantly, I think that he is more trustworthy than most of the other candidates out there. My second choice would be Michele Bachmann, but I think Santorum would have a better chance anyway. I’d take him as VP as well, so he could have a shot at a latter date.

Othniel on December 8, 2011 at 9:55 PM

This infuriates me.

If Republicans have surrendered on social issues, then why the hell isn’t Mitch Daniels going to be our nominee? He is the one guy who could have united the whole Party and wiped the floor with Barack Obama next November. The ENTIRE reason he was hooted off the stage before he could even get on it was because he had the temerity to publicly ask for a “truce” on social issues. Yet the same people who were ready to burn him at the stake are falling all over themselves to support Newt Gingrich? And apparently they hgave not only declared a truce, but surrendered!

What’s wrong with this picture?

rockmom on December 8, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Theories are more important than laws in science.

Yours is the recycled “it’s just a theory” argument, which isn’t really an argument.

Evolution is “just a theory” just as the germ theory of disease or the theory of relativity are “just theories.”

Good Lt on December 8, 2011 at 8:26 PM

So the theory of evolution is more important than the law of gravity?

You’re a troll.

Why aren’t you co-blogging at JAWA?

Are they sick of your shit too?

Talon on December 8, 2011 at 10:01 PM

So the theory of evolution is more important than the law of gravity?

You’re a troll.

Why aren’t you co-blogging at JAWA?

Are they sick of your shit too?

Talon on December 8, 2011 at 10:01 PM

I don’t see anything in his comments that would make him a troll. He does have a point on importance (though it’s silly to say one is more important than the other). Science advances through the scientific method and in advancing and refining theories. Not so much with laws. It isn’t the goal of science to discover or add a “law”. But to use the word “theory” itself as an attempt to discredit something is pretty weak.

Dante on December 8, 2011 at 10:05 PM

What does that have to do with the theory of evolution and Huckabee’s/Santorum’s apparent non-understanding of it?

Acceptance of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth =/= atheism.

Good Lt on December 8, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Listen troll………..the thread is about Santorum, NOT evolution.You isolated and personalized evolution as a talking point. Alinsky would be proud.

Talon on December 8, 2011 at 10:11 PM

Santorum is a shrill busybody who can’t stand it that some people don’t need to follow his strict religious code. If you’re going to go with the strained Animal House metaphor, he’s Niedermeyer.

One good thing about Gingrich’s failed marriages: he doesn’t try to lord his moral superiority over everybody else in the country. He’s the closest thing that Republicans have to a Bluto. He’s obviously not against having a good time, he has a shaky grasp on history, and… well, just look at him.

RightOFLeft on December 8, 2011 at 10:39 PM

We all know you think that anyone that has any religious faith is a stupid fool. You made your point.

Talon on December 8, 2011 at 7:23 PM

You would one piece of evidence that that theory is true.

Pablo Honey on December 8, 2011 at 10:39 PM

This infuriates me.

If Republicans have surrendered on social issues, then why the hell isn’t Mitch Daniels going to be our nominee? He is the one guy who could have united the whole Party and wiped the floor with Barack Obama next November. The ENTIRE reason he was hooted off the stage before he could even get on it was because he had the temerity to publicly ask for a “truce” on social issues. Yet the same people who were ready to burn him at the stake are falling all over themselves to support Newt Gingrich? And apparently they hgave not only declared a truce, but surrendered!

What’s wrong with this picture?

rockmom on December 8, 2011 at 9:56 PM

Daniels didn’t run because his wife wouldn’t let him.

cschande on December 8, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Pablo Honey on December 8, 2011 at 10:39 PM

You get one response.

I have been here on HA for a few years now. I don’t post much but I read all the time,

I already know YOUR position on this issue like I know his.

Talon on December 8, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Dante on December 8, 2011 at 10:05 PM

You read one post?

He does not post UNTIL there is a religion thread.

TROLL.

Talon on December 8, 2011 at 11:12 PM

Dante on December 8, 2011 at 10:05 PM

What IS the goal of science then?

I REALLY want to know.

Talon on December 8, 2011 at 11:15 PM

Congrats Stacy! Nice post.

alwaysfiredup on December 8, 2011 at 11:49 PM

Overall, Santorum is the best of the current batch of candidates – he deserves more coverage and support. For Sarah Palin supporters especially, Santorum is a logical second choice – if Sarah doesn’t run, then Santorum is a good alternative, the best alternative from the current field.

Santorum is the most conservative candidate running and has the experience, passion and morals to be a great American president.

Pork-Chop on December 9, 2011 at 12:18 AM

Two points. First, Senator Santorum is the only candidate that I’ve heard explain that our fiscal crisis is inherently the result of our moral crisis. He did so in one of the earliest debates when he observed that our fiscal crisis is inherently one arising from our growing entitlement spending, which, in turn, grows exponentially with the continued breakdown of our families. When I heard Governor Daniels suggest that we should call a truce on social issues, I concluded that, regardless of his green eye shade bonafides, he was totally clueless about the cause of our fiscal crisis.

More than four out of every ten children born in America are now born out-of-wedlock, the vast majority of whom are of European ancestry. Virtually everyone of those children begin their lives on some form of state or federal social assistance. They get their health care paid for by Medicaid or CHIPs. The get school breakfast and lunch. They will eventually become indebted to the feds for their student loans.

Democrats always seek to expand the number of those who qualify for federal largesse, either by lowering standards or incentivizing the birth of bastards. We will never get our financial house in order without reforming entitlements and we will never be able to successfully reform entitlements without addressing the root causes of the increase in entitlement spending, all of which arise from our moral crisis. We simply cannot survive the Left’s continued infatuation with the Sexual Revolution. Senator Santorum is the only one courageous enough to make this point and, by extension, to do something about it, if given the opportunity.

Second, I had the opportunity to speak with Speaker Gingrich last year after one of his speaking engagements; I told him that judicial accountability reform would be a powerful issue in this election if properly handled. I observed that the single biggest issue in Iowa in last year’s election was whether to retain three members of the Iowa Supreme Court after they not only mandated gay marriage, but gratuitously stuck their collective fingers in the eyes of their constituents by holding that there is no evidence that children require the presence of both a mother and father in the home for optimal development. All three got canned by the Iowa electorate. With the endorsement of this pastor, Senator Santorum apparently has apparently obtained the support of one of the chief architects of that movement.

Whether Senator Santorum ultimately catches fire or not, we cannot “divorce” our fiscal crisis from our moral crisis, and our nominee needs to be able to articulate this connection.

Mongo Mere Pawn on December 9, 2011 at 12:40 AM

This nation is finally in a deep enough financial hole that “social issues” have to take a backseat for a while.

mbecker908

Awww, it’s cute how you believe there’s no relationship between the two.

Since the democrats haven’t put social issues in the backseat, does that mean we just let them push through whatever they want until they finally get around the important stuff?

xblade on December 9, 2011 at 1:10 AM

I observed that the single biggest issue in Iowa in last year’s election was whether to retain three members of the Iowa Supreme Court after they not only mandated gay marriage, but gratuitously stuck their collective fingers in the eyes of their constituents by holding that there is no evidence that children require the presence of both a mother and father in the home for optimal development.

I am sorry, but, whether you would like to hear it or not, there are currently no studies in psychology or sociology that prove that children who are raised by a male parent and a female parent are better off socially, intelligently, or mentally than children who are raised by a single parent or two parents of the same gender.

Regardless of what the AFA, AFTAH, and FOTF will tell you, the biggest impact on a child’s development is not the gender of their parents, but rather their family’s social status, economic status, and the method in which their parents choose to raise and discipline them.

Let’s say that you have two families. Family A has a mother, a father, and a child. Family B has a same-sex couple and an adopted child. Both Family A and Family B are in the same social class, they both make around the same amount of money, and they both send their children to good schools. But, let’s assume for a moment that, like many families in the U.S., the father of Family A happens to be an alcoholic, and sometimes ends up getting drunk and hitting his wife. Is the child of Family A still better off than the child of Family B, simply because his parents are of different genders?

Whenever I hear people say that same-sex couples are incapable of raising a “normal” child, I always like to point them to this speech made by a young man who was raised by a lesbian couple, who spoke before the Iowa House of Representatives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

theoddmanout on December 9, 2011 at 1:15 AM

Whenever I hear people say that same-sex couples are incapable of raising a “normal” child, I always like to point them to this speech made by a young man who was raised by a lesbian couple, who spoke before the Iowa House of Representatives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

theoddmanout on December 9, 2011 at 1:15 AM

Have you ever heard someone say all same-sex couples are incapable of raising a normal child? Because I’m pretty sure that’s not the argument. The argument is that on the whole, kids tend to do better when raised by a mother and a father, and, at least compared to single parenting, the studies have born that out. Of course there will be exceptions (perhaps the kid in the video is one such exception, and good for him, if so), but you can’t pretend exceptions are the rule.

Frankly, we don’t yet know how kids raised by parents of the same gender will do compared to kids raised by opposite sex parents because we just don’t have any good studies. Those that have been done have been done by people pushing an agenda (on both sides) and don’t really tell us anything because of small sample sizes, missing control groups, and other methodological flaws. The left pushed no-fault divorce down our throats back in the 70s citing “research” that the kids would be better off. One giant social experiment later and we now know those studies were bunk, and the kids whose parents go through a divorce actually tend to be much worse off (the exceptions notwithstanding). Now the left are back citing so-called “studies” arguing kids raised by same-sex parents will be fine and dandy. Have we learned our lesson, or are we going to let them fool us into foisting yet another social experiment upon America’s children? I, for one, would rather we take our time this go around. I think we owe it to our kids not to make the same mistake twice.

Whenever I hear people say that studies (or a kid speaking before the Iowa House of Representatives) have proven that same-sex couples are just as good at raising kids as opposite-sex couples, I like to point them to the following:

http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/publications/nobasis.pdf

(Notice my link is to an extensive body of research conducted by a couple of Ph.D.’s, not a kid on YouTube making a political point)

cschande on December 9, 2011 at 1:49 AM

Whenever I hear people say that studies (or a kid speaking before the Iowa House of Representatives) have proven that same-sex couples are just as good at raising kids as opposite-sex couples, I like to point them to the following:

http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/publications/nobasis.pdf

(Notice my link is to an extensive body of research conducted by a couple of Ph.D.’s, not a kid on YouTube making a political point)

I do not put much faith into a scientific study conducted by someone who believes that sexual orientation is a choice, nor does the fact that the study was created for the “Marriage Law Project” help to get rid of my reservations.

Here is a study conduced by three PhD holding professors on the topic of same-sex adoption:

http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf

Here is a statement by the American Psychological Association about same-sex adoption:

http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/parenting.aspx

Here is a statement by the American Psychiatric Association about same-sex adoption:

http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200214.aspx

Here is a statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics about same-sex adoption:

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341

Here is a study conducted by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute on the topic of same-sex adoption:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=26&ved=0CGUQFjAFOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adoptioninstitute.org%2Fwhowe%2FLesbian%2520and%2520Gay%2520Adoption%2520Report_final.doc&ei=yrvhTof8CYnf0QHtwIm9BQ&usg=AFQjCNF–oihE9P6_jd3ES5bfPZOJtshXw

theoddmanout on December 9, 2011 at 2:45 AM

Evolution is “just a theory” just as the germ theory of disease or the theory of relativity are “just theories.”

Scientific theories are generally understood to be driven by much confirming evidence. The problem with calling evolution a scientific ‘theory,’ is that it doesn’t actually have the weight of demonstrable, empirical evidence to merit the title of a true scientific theory. A better way to put it, would be to call it a ‘scientific hypothesis.’

Why do I say that? Well, 1) because the backbone of the ‘theory’ is an argument based upon the fact of biological similarity; which in and of itself is interpreted to be evidence only because of an already assumed belief that evolution is true.

2) We have often heard of genetic similarity, or fossil evidence which indicates transitional organisms, but this argument too is based upon the idea of an assumed truth of evolution. I can just as easily base all of this same evidence on the assumed truth that biological design is clearly the product of an intelligent agent. Everything makes sense based on what you presuppose to be the truth.

Scientific investigation has always operated by empirical information. Testing and observation is required to verify hypothesis’. Evolution, being an alleged historical phenomenon (which allegedly is happening now at an non-observable rate), does not fall in line with the requirements of scientific validation. Since it is mostly circumstantial evidence, it is literally much too ambiguous to validate on scientific grounds.

Of course, we will always see biological change at some level. There is nothing in biology that says, however, that this change will lead to the grand scope of transformation that evolutionism states. We mustn’t confuse evolution the hypothesis, with the idea that things are always changing, but not in a addition to what is already there. An extra eye will not a appear as new genetic information, or a new limb will not grow. The genetic material for what is already in an organism is only shifted or changed in order to suit new environmental challenges.

Of course, the debate is a never ending cycle of emotional bullying on the part of ‘evolutionists’ who will never concede to the fact that evolution the hypothesis is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. It is too malleable and flexible, which will not allow it to be pinned down to be so. If we could see a new growth emerge that added to the functional complexity of an organism, that would be nice; but alas, we must accept the lame argument that evolution is just ‘too slow and always in process so that we cannot see it,’ and the ‘any change over time will create the change evolution requires.” These are not valid claims, that are unsubstantiated hypothesis’, that will always be too elusive to truly substantiate.

popularpolitics on December 9, 2011 at 5:10 AM

From my perspective, there are a few problems with Santorum’s candidacy:

In the debates, he comes across as childish and immature…at least to me, he does. He had a legitmate complaint about the lack of questions coming his way, but he pouted and complained about it like a teenager, and it rubbed me the wrong way.

In addition, I get the impression he recites the conventional conservative position by rote without having thought anything through himself. Maybe that’s unfair, but it’s the same feeling I get from Sean Hannity sometimes. I don’t want a candidate who accepts dogma unquestioningly. I want someone who came to his philosophy and ideology through life experience, knowledge, and logical thought.

Another thing is that whenever he talks about his record of taking down “unbeatable” Democrats, he conveniently forgets that he lost his last election by 18 points! And he lost that election by focusing on peripheral issues like abortion and Terri Shiavo, instead of taxes, jobs, and the economy. In 2012, when the economy is such an important issue, would he allow himself to be taken off track like that again?

Don’t get me wrong, I would vote for Santorum over Obama, but I’m not very impressed by him (to say the least).

DRayRaven on December 9, 2011 at 6:08 AM

Good Lt on December 8, 2011 at 8:29 PM

What does that have to do with being President of the United States? Considering the Dept. of “Education” is unconstitutional, it doesn’t much matter what the president’s views are in this regard–his intention should be to shut it down. In any event, is evolution really the ball you want to keep your eye on in this election?

DrMagnolias on December 9, 2011 at 7:55 AM

Scientific theories are generally understood to be driven by much confirming evidence. The problem with calling evolution a scientific ‘theory,’ is that it doesn’t actually have the weight of demonstrable, empirical evidence to merit the title of a true scientific theory. A better way to put it, would be to call it a ‘scientific hypothesis.’

There is more evidence for evolution by natural selection than any other scientific theory.

Pablo Honey on December 9, 2011 at 9:00 AM

What does that have to do with being President of the United States? Considering the Dept. of “Education” is unconstitutional, it doesn’t much matter what the president’s views are in this regard–his intention should be to shut it down. In any event, is evolution really the ball you want to keep your eye on in this election?

Perhaps because believing in creationism is a good indicator of being an ignorant fool.

Not good qualities for a chief executive.

Pablo Honey on December 9, 2011 at 9:02 AM

Perhaps because believing in creationism is a good indicator of being an ignorant fool.

Not good qualities for a chief executive.

Pablo Honey on December 9, 2011 at 9:02 AM

Wow, you sound like that stupid actor who wanted to know if Sara Palin believed in dinosaurs.

dmn1972 on December 9, 2011 at 10:00 AM

I am sorry, but, whether you would like to hear it or not, there are currently no studies in psychology or sociology that prove that children who are raised by a male parent and a female parent are better off socially, intelligently, or mentally than children who are raised by a single parent or two parents of the same gender.

Oh please. The majority of our prison population was raised in single parent homes, and there is very little research into the relatively new phenom of single-sex parenting effectiveness.

Regardless of what the AFA, AFTAH, and FOTF will tell you, the biggest impact on a child’s development is not the gender of their parents, but rather their family’s social status, economic status, and the method in which their parents choose to raise and discipline them.

My gosh! A child’s social and economic status is generally determined by whether he is in a two parent or single parent home!

Let’s say that you have two families. Family A has a mother, a father, and a child. Family B has a same-sex couple and an adopted child. Both Family A and Family B are in the same social class, they both make around the same amount of money, and they both send their children to good schools. But, let’s assume for a moment that, like many families in the U.S., the father of Family A happens to be an alcoholic, and sometimes ends up getting drunk and hitting his wife. Is the child of Family A still better off than the child of Family B, simply because his parents are of different genders? theoddmanout on December 9, 2011 at 1:15 AM

That’s asinine. Given that sex perverts have much higher drug and alcohol problem rates than normal people, you invented an odd scenario.

Akzed on December 9, 2011 at 11:04 AM

I would vote for Santorum over Romney and Gingrich.

Unfortunately, I don’t think he’s going to be around much longer. Too many Republicans have decided it’s going to be a two-man race betwen Flip and Flop.

Mycroft on December 9, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Akzed on December 9, 2011 at 11:04 AM

You seem to think that the best way to raise children is with two hetero christian parents. Santorum obviously believes this as well.

Why then, do Christians in the USA have the highest divorce rate ? I know what you’re thinking, that those weren’t really believing born again types. Trouble is, the more important your faith is to you, the higher the rate goes. That really makes me question taking any family planning advice from so-cons.

Haldol on December 9, 2011 at 12:14 PM

Why then, do Christians in the USA have the highest divorce rate ?

Probably because they still actually get married..Divorce is way to easy IMHO. And BTW, I have been married (first marriage) to the same man for 20 years- so some of so-cons actually do consider marriage and family sacred.

melle1228 on December 9, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Rick seems like a decent sort. I would vote for him if he made it to the General. However he is so far to the right that its hard to imagine many independants voting for him.

poljunkie51 on December 9, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Does Theory Two explain Santorum’s lack of traction in the polls? Has the Culture War ended in the unconditional surrender of social conservatives, so that whoever wins the 2012 Republican presidential nomination will have nothing to say on such issues?

Pretty much, the social issues are stupid and a lost cause. Dont like gays, cool thats your choice. Dont want an abortion? Cool, dont get one, but leave other people the hell alone. Rick Santorum represents all the worst impulses of the right.

snoopicus on December 9, 2011 at 2:43 PM

If every other candidate bails on Trump’s debate, I pray Santorum shows up. He will have an evening to spar with Trump. Both men are clever.

Santorum has nothing to lose by taking the Trump challenge. Trump does not lose if he keeps the time slot

The public would quickly find out how clever the two of them were.

Trump is a master salesman. He has an opportunity to go past the snubs and sell himself or fail to outsell Santorum.

I would watch, no question. If they are wise enough to not be petty about the snubs, they can turn the snubs to their advantage. We need some good will, and some good humor, and someone to say the things the others are too prissy to say. Be bigger men

We are forgetting how American men (and women) have acted in the nest of liberty. When did the hissy fit or the vapors become so common?

Newt already red carded himself. Maybe he won’t show, but he could use the time to regain what he lost. I see the cowardice about the Trump challenge as a bad sign for the GOP.

They are so afraid they will make Trump look good, or Trump will make them look bad? If he is going to be third party they need to argue with him now. A debate is a great way to test Trump too.

entagor on December 9, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Pretty much, the social issues are stupid and a lost cause. Dont like gays, cool thats your choice. Dont want an abortion? Cool, dont get one, but leave other people the hell alone. Rick Santorum represents all the worst impulses of the right.

snoopicus on December 9, 2011 at 2:43 PM

We wish abortionists would leave those unborn babies alone, but they just can’t seem to bring themselves to do it.

Stoic Patriot on December 9, 2011 at 3:32 PM

I think Santorum’s biggest problem is that he lost his last election by 18 points. Plus, he was a senator. Governors make the best Presidents because of their executive experience.

That’s why I never think twice about him. Nothing against him personally.

Bachman’s lack of executive experience is why I wouldn’t consider her, either. That, and her hypocrisy on Gardasil.

NbyNW on December 9, 2011 at 3:43 PM

Republican party keeps making mistakes? No kidding. I’d vote for Santorum over the media selected front runners any day.

And they better not “place” two white guys on the ticket. That will not go well.

sdbatboy on December 9, 2011 at 4:04 PM

The thing one should ask themselves about Rick Santorum is whether his firm stance on social conservative issues coupled with his legislative record on fiscal issues equals leadership that can be embraced by the republican party nationally. I suspect that the majority of voters that are unhappy with the current administration might grow to appreciate Santorum after all of the “frontrunners” have their warts exposed over the next few months. A Palin endorsement could be the fuel that his camaign needs to break into the top tier.

pcola71 on December 9, 2011 at 5:01 PM

Haven’t read the comments, but didn’t Santorum jump all in and help the worthless Arlen Specter get re-elected? That would be my beef with him.

silvernana on December 9, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Rick picked up a big endorsement today. Rick might be peaking at the right time.

Aspydad on December 9, 2011 at 7:25 PM

silvernana, yes Santorum did do that. As a conservative activist in PA Santorum made it very clear to us why he did what he did:

Toomey couldnt beat Hoeffel in 2004 (and he couldnt). If we lost specter we would lose the head of the Senate Judiciary committee. Santorum gave us assurances that Specter would confirm conservative judges should they be nominated.

Robert Bork was still a painfully recent memory, but Rick argued that it was essentially a question of strategy with Specter. Both Alito and Roberts got nominated and confirmed. Specter has been a canker sore but he did what Santorum said he would do.

Utica681 on December 9, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Theory Number Three: The audacity of running for president when your last “accomplishment” was losing your senate seat in a landslide might be somewhat off-putting. Got nothing against the guy or his policies, but this is like being fired from McDonald’s and then applying for a job at a five star restaurant.

bocat on December 9, 2011 at 10:19 PM

Santorum doesn’t seem to be particularly insightful. The extent of his social conservatism seems to be the mere fact that he opposes abortion and gay marriage. There’s something a bit charmless and apolitical about it, which in one sense makes him respectable for holding strong on his convictions, but in another makes come off like an ideologue who can’t gauge shifting political winds. Santorum’s just not a good politician when it comes to espousing social conservative views. It takes a shrewd politician to speak to those issues in a way that seems relevant. That’s not Santorum.

jas88 on December 9, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3