Election

Breitbatty: Obama To ‘Surrender America’ To The Russians

Posted by on March 26, 2012 at 2:40 pm. 4 Comments :

In a meeting with Russian President Medvedev this morning, President Obama had an unfortunate ‘hot mic’ incident that will surely cause a few headaches in the West Wing for a day or two. The following exchange was recorded by reporters:

Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

There really isn’t anything controversial about that statement. In fact, it would be regarded as an obvious truism by anyone with knowledge of American politics. Election year negotiations, whether foreign or domestic, are always impacted by concerns that weigh more heavily on campaigning than on substance.

Nevertheless, it was an inconvenient soundbite that can easily be misconstrued by the President’s opponents. While the only message Obama was conveying was that difficult concessions by both sides would become more plausible without electoral concerns hanging over their heads, Republicans were quick to jump on the gaffe as having more sinister implications. But nobody went to further extremes than the hyper-conspiracy freaks over at Breitbart’s place where they headlined their story: Obama to Putin: I’ll Surrender America After Re-election.

Really? Breitbrat Joel Pollak seems to actually believe that Obama has a secret agenda to make America subservient to Russia. I’m not sure I can explain what purpose would be served by such an agenda, but the Breitbrats probably think that it’s just part of an overall plot to destroy America by the Kenyan-born socialist usurper in the White House. One question that remains is why Obama would surrender to the Russians rather than to the Iranians with whom he allegedly shares a belief in Islam. But trying to find logic in the delusional schemes of these right-wing extremists is not a recommended exercise. It will almost always lead to failure and probably a bad migraine.

The Fox Nation Is Suffering Full Blown Obama Derangement Syndrome

Posted by on March 16, 2012 at 3:48 am. 5 Comments :

In my ongoing series “Fox Nation vs. Reality” I have endeavored to expose some of the more brazen departures from truthful reporting that so often make their way onto the pages of the Fox Nation web site. But today the Fox Nationalists have ventured beyond even their typical separation from the facts by posting as their headline story this sensationalistic declaration: White House ‘Panicked’ Over Gas Prices, President Becoming ‘Incoherent’

Fox Nation

The associated article said nothing about the White House being panicked. It said nothing about the President being incoherent. Despite those words being put in quotes in the headline, they were not referencing any citation by any person. In fact, they were not a part of the story in any respect – not directly, indirectly, insinuated, implied, hypothetical, allegorical, or…well you get the idea. The entire piece consisted of a video of a Fox News report on the presidential campaign, an excerpt of results from a Fox News poll, and one paragraph that briefly abstracted part of the content of the video.

Where the Fox Nation editors got the idea that the president was panicked and incoherent is a mystery. The only explanation is that they are so infected with Obama Derangement Syndrome that they were in the throes of a hallucinatory seizure. Either that or their determination to slander the President is so overpowering that they could not resist the urge to invent derogatory adjectives to attach to his name.

It’s bad enough when the Fox Nationalists post stories with pejorative quotes from the likes of Hannity or Limbaugh as if it were news, but when they don’t even have a source and they still put their insults in quotes, they have crossed a line that could only be acceptable to the most untrustworthy purveyors of schlock journalism – aka Fox News.

Update: The Fox Nationalists edited the article this morning. They swapped out the video for one that consists of a panel discussion with Jonah Goldberg, who made the following statement in response to a question from anchor Bret Baier:

Baier: The president is out almost every other day, it seems, talking about gas prices. Is it a sign that this White House is concerned about this issue? What does it tell us?

Goldberg: I think it tells us they’re in something of a panic over it. We’ve seen his poll numbers drop precipitously. And you can’t prove it, but most people think the gas thing is a major driver of it. And the problem is that he basically beyond doubling down, he’s tripling down on the same stuff he was saying three years ago, and it’s fundamentally incoherent.

So now they have the basis for their quotes – a highly partisan right-winger with an agenda to peddle. However, from the same segment they completely ignored the statements by panelist Kirsten Powers who called it hypocritical:

Powers: This is a real exercise in hypocrisy because when George Bush was being blamed for high prices by Democrats, Republicans were saying the president doesn’t have any control over that and now we have the exact reverse.

Obviously somebody at Fox Nation wasn’t paying attention when they first posted this item. But what’s worse is that the correction includes a clip of Fox’s chief news anchor, citing a Fox News poll, saying that “the majority said the president is to blame for gas prices.” Except that the majority in the Fox poll said exactly the opposite. The majority (52%) said the President is not to blame, and only 40% said that he is. So Fox News compounds their erroneous reporting even as they attempt to correct it.

Fox News Poll: Obama Beating All GOP Challengers

Posted by on March 15, 2012 at 1:59 pm. 3 Comments :

A new Fox News poll reports that President Obama is in pretty decent electoral shape despite the concerted efforts of Fox News to sabotage the administration.

The poll puts Obama’s job rating in favorable territory with 47% approving and 45% not approving. On Obama’s personal favorability, Fox finds him doing even better at 50-47. That exceeds the favorability of the GOP contenders who are all underwater: Romney (39-49), Santorum (35-47), and Gingrich (23-67).

Given those numbers, it is not surprising that the head-to-head match ups between Obama and the Republicans also favor the President: vs. Romney (46-42), Santorum (51-39), and Gingrich (53-35). The survey included an additional question that inquired whether respondents were voting “for” Obama or “against” Romney. On that measure Obama creamed Romney with 73% indicating that they were affirmatively voting for Obama, but only 40% said the same of Romney.

On a number of general attitude questions, Obama also fared well. When asked whether they thought that there were signs the economy was turning around, 58% said yes. When asked if the Obama administration had made the economy better or worse, 44% said better, 42% said worse. Even when asked about whether Obama was responsible for the increase in gas prices, 52% said that he was not, and only 40% said that he was. Again, this despite the incessant propagandizing by virtually everybody on Fox News.

The poll also included a rather peculiarly phrased question that inquired as to whether Obama was “happy” about increasing gas prices “because it will encourage the United States to find alternative energy sources.” In the article Fox published about the poll they included only the number of respondents who answered affirmatively (31%), but omitted the number who disagreed, which happened to be a majority (50%). There was no question as to whether Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum were happy about rising gas prices because it would benefit their electoral prospects. And, let’s face it, the notion that an incumbent president would welcome higher gas prices in an election year is just plain madness.

A couple of other curious notes: Fox had a breakout of responses by liberals, but not by conservatives. Also, they asked whether Obama had taken responsibility for the economy or was blaming others (38-47). But they didn’t ask to whom they thought responsibility belonged (Obama, Bush, congress, Wall Street, etc.), as most other polls do.

Some of the most interesting results in this survey concerned the Tea Party (remember them?). The Fox News article about the poll left them out entirely – not a single mention, as if they ceased to exist. However, the full listing of results may explain why. It confirms that the Tea Party is wildly out of touch with the public at large, and even with their fellow Republicans. On questions about Obama, health care, the economy, foreign policy, and gas prices, the Tea Party exhibits an extreme hostility. Their opposition to the president and his policies was often 20 percentage points worse than the GOP. For example, when asked if Obama is qualified to be commander-in-chief, 63% of Republicans said no, compared to 82% of Tea Partiers. The total of all respondents was 64% qualified, 34% not qualified.


This disparity may also explain why the Tea Party, according to this Fox News poll, was viewed favorably by 30% of respondents and unfavorably by a 51% majority. However, it does not explain why anybody in Washington or the media continue to pay attention to them. They are a widely despised extremist minority who contribute nothing but obstruction and division to the political discourse. It’s no wonder that even Fox is avoiding them.

Fox is also avoiding promoting the results of their own poll. Too much good news for the President? There has been little coverage of it on Fox News. The Fox Nation web site has ignored it completely, while publishing a competing poll from CBS News that showed the President’s numbers lower. One segment on Fox was on the O’Reilly Factor and had Bill O’Reilly interviewing that well known expert economist, comedian Dennis Miller, about the Fox poll results. Miller summed up his opinion with the usual substance and intellect of a Fox News contributor:

“I’m shocked he [Obama] has any approval rating. You know why? Because this is crap what’s going on. It’s crap right now. Everybody knows it’s crap. […] Everybody is telling them it’s great and this is exactly what they hoped for. But everybody knows it’s crap. […] They’re going to tell you it’s going great, but most people know it’s crap right now. And that’s why his numbers are going down. Because it’s coming to the end of his first term, and it looks like crap to people.”

How can you argue with crap-filled logic like that?

Rick Santorum: It Should Be Illegal To Read Off A Teleprompter

Posted by on March 13, 2012 at 11:48 am. 5 Comments :

Rick Santorum, March 12, 2012:

I always believed that when you run for president of the United States, it should be illegal to read off a teleprompter. Because all you’re doing is reading someone else’s words to people.

When you’re running for president people should know, not what someone’s writing for you after they’ve had pollsters and speechwriters test, focus group it, and all this kind of stuff, but you’re voting for someone who is going to be the leader of our government. Not of our country, but of our government. And it’s important for you to understand who that person is in their own words, see them, look them in the eye. Have a chance, as I’ve done, get around and talk to people. Get a chance to see what’s there and hear what’s on my heart and in my mind. Have a chance to answer questions as several of you did.

That’s what it’s supposed to be about. You’re choosing a leader. A leader isn’t just about what’s written on a piece of paper, or on a website, or what 30 second TV ad they can run. You’re trying to get a judgement of who that person is.

Rick Santorum's Teleprompters

Michael Gerson, Chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush, on speechwriting:

“It is a process in which a leader refines his own thoughts, invites suggestions by trusted advisers and welcomes the contributions of literary craft to political communication. […] It is actually a form of pride — in a politician or anyone else — to believe that every thought produced by the firing of one’s neurons is immediately fit for public consumption.”

The idiotic statement by Rick Santorum above is one of the best arguments for Teleprompters you will ever hear. Setting aside his embarrassing self-contradiction, the statement is full of stupid grammatical errors and ludicrous elocution (the leader of the government, not the country?). Based on his demonstrated inarticulateness, I certainly hope that Santorum refrains from using a Teleprompter for the rest of the campaign, but I would bet Mitt Romney’s $10,000 that he won’t.

Buzzfeed Scoops Breitbart: The Obama Harvard Video

Posted by on March 7, 2012 at 1:55 pm. 16 Comments :

At last month’s Conservative Political Action Conference, Andrew Breitbart said that he had videos of President Obama in his college days at Harvard. The implication was that the content of the videos was so scandalous that it would have an impact on Obama’s reelection. Breitbart gleefully announced that…

“I have videos. This election we’re going to vet him from his college days to show you why racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008. The videos are going to come out, the narrative is going to come out.”

Well, they came out today. But Breitbart’s survivors at BigGovernment.com had nothing to do with it. The “vetting” was done by Andrew Kaczynski at Buzzfeed. Kaczynski acquired video from WGBH TV in Boston of the future president speaking at a rally for more diversity in the Harvard faculty.

The Breitbart crew immediately blasted Buzzfeed for releasing what they said was a “selectively edited” copy of the video.

“[T]he video has been selectively edited–either by the Boston television station or by Buzzfeed itself. Over the course of the day, Breitbart.com will be releasing additional footage that has been hidden by Obama’s allies in the mainstream media and academia.”

Gee, I can hardly wait. This should be endlessly informative since the Breitbart clan is intimately familiar with the practice of selectively editing videos. BigGovernment’s Joel Pollak says that the unveiling of the uncut video will take place tonight on Sean Hannity’s program on Fox News. There’s another sign of how much credibility any of this will have. Hannity is famous for airing videos of sparsely attended Tea Party rallies that turned out to be from completely different, and crowded, events.


The most remarkable thing about this video is how little Obama has changed. He had the same oratorical style and poise then as now. At the time Obama was the president of the Harvard Law Review. He was speaking on behalf of Prof. Derrick Bell, the first tenured African-American professor in Harvard’s law school. The occasion was a rally in support of greater diversity in general, and specifically the hiring of an African-American woman in the law school.

Pollak further promised to expose Bell as a “radical academic tied to Jeremiah Wright.” I’m surprised that he isn’t also tying him to George Soros, Van Jones, Saul Alinsky, and Che Guevara. However, Bell was a respected legal scholar and author who served in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, at the NAACP as an associate counsel, as the dean of the University of Oregon School of Law and, in addition to Harvard, also taught at USC, Stanford, and NYU. Clearly a dangerous anti-American. But Breitbart’s ghost is already setting in motion the smear campaign.

Perhaps Pollak has portions of the video where Obama advocates the violent overthrow of the government by black nationalists or discloses his Kenyan birthplace, but somehow I doubt it. It appears that the Breitbart folks are just upset that their phony plot to trickle out snippets of an entirely harmless video in order to create a fake controversy has been foiled by the lamestream media (if Buzzfeed qualifies as that). Now they will have to resort to smearing the name of a deceased law professor and pretending that there is something wrong with Obama supporting a more diversified Harvard faculty. Fox Nation has already jumped in with an item about this story headlined: Obama Harvard Video: Rally for Race-Based Hiring. So there’s your talking point, righties. Go at it.

Late Breaking: Breitbart’s site released the “uncut” video and the only additional footage on it is of Obama embracing the professor he had just introduced. It was not exactly a secret that Obama admired his Harvard law professor. But the real problem for the Breitbart clan is that they have been bashing Buzzfeed all day long about having “selectively edited” the video, but now they have been shown to be lying.

PBS/WGBH posted the REAL uncut video here.

Hannity and Co. spent over 20 minutes discussing this embarrassing flop of a scandal, even though the exclusive broadcast of the uncut video offered nothing new. The pair from Breitbart.com (Ben Shapiro and Joel Pollak) fidgeted nervously as they desperately tried to set some sort of fire under this non-event, but they utterly failed to come up with anything other than a bumper sticker criticism of Bell which they repeated incessantly to make sure the brainwashing stuck: Derrick Bell is the Jeremiah Wright of academia.

Just as I suspected, that’s the talking point they are running with. It’s so pathetic that I actually feel a little sorry for them. Their leader passed away last week and now they are floundering like lost orphans. What a sad spectacle.

Andrew Breitbart’s Vetting Of Barack Obama Begins With A Dud

Posted by on March 5, 2012 at 11:13 am. 2 Comments :

The recently deceased Andrew Breitbart delivered a stem-winding speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last month. In it he dangled a tempting treat before the assembled disciples of rightism in the form of a promise to expose the radical, Marxist roots of the young Barack Obama. Breitbart announced that…

“I have videos. This election we’re going to vet him from his college days to show you why racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008. The videos are going to come out, the narrative is going to come out, that Barack Obama met a bunch of silver ponytails in the 1980s, like Bill (Ayers) and Bernadine Dohrn, who said one day we would have the presidency, and the rest of us slept as they plotted.”

That’s pretty heady stuff. It got the CPAC crowd worked up and initiated a stream of anticipation throughout the conservative community. What does Breitbart have? Are there videos of Obama conspiring with fugitive members of the Black Panther Party? Does the future president show up on film plotting the overthrow of the government?

Not exactly. The first part in the presumably continuing series of slander is not a video at all, but consists entirely of a poster for a play about conservative bogeyman Saul Alinsky.

Breitbart-Alinsky Poster

The play “The Love Song of Saul Alinsky” was staged in 1998 in Chicago. Obama was a state senator at the time and, as a student of local history, had some knowledge of Alinsky and his work in the city. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Obama would participate in a post-play panel discussion about the author and community organizer. Nevertheless, Breitbart’s survivors at BigGovernment think they have unveiled the next Watergate via their crack investigation of the world of the theater.


Despite the dishonest headline that calls the play “Barack’s Love Song To Alinsky,” he had nothing whatsoever to do with it. This is another attempt to smear the President by association with a demon that the right invented. Alinsky was not the Marxist menace that Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich, and Fox News make him out to be. In fact, he explicitly rejected the communists of his era saying…

“My only fixed truth is a belief in people, a conviction that if people have the opportunity to act freely and the power to control their own destinies, they’ll generally reach the right decisions. The only alternative to that belief is rule by an elite, whether it’s a Communist bureaucracy or our own present-day corporate establishment. You should never have an ideology more specific than that of the founding fathers: ‘For the general welfare.’ That’s where I parted company with the Communists in the Thirties, and that’s where I stay parted from them today.”

Alinsky was always, first and foremost, an advocate for the underclass in society that was abused and oppressed by the powerful. That’s a message that Tea Partiers could adopt if they weren’t such tools of powerful manipulators like the Koch brothers.

It is a sad and ironic tribute to Breitbart that his web site has published his last article and it is brimming with the sort of lies and distortions for which Breitbart was famous in life. If this is any indication of what Breitbart meant when he claimed to have explosive materials that would impact the President’s reelection, then the Democrats don’t have much to worry about. But I wouldn’t rest too easy because the Breitbart machine is still alive and it is probably working overtime to fabricate its next batch of propaganda.

Fox News’ Neil Cavuto Exposes GOP Camapign Ad Lie

Posted by on March 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm. 9 Comments :

A new campaign ad for Rhode Island congressional hopeful Barry Hinckley employs Hinckley’s adorable five year old son, Hudson, delivering a lecture on America’s debt crisis.

As it turns out, Hudson is just another GOP hack fronting for the ultra-wealthy power brokers of the right. There is obviously something unsavory in Hudson’s past because his Google history prior to 2006 has been completely scrubbed from the Internet.

Thank goodness for Fox News and Neil Cavuto. In a contentious interview, Cavuto got the devious toddler to admit that the positions he took in the ad were nothing but political hokum designed expressly for the purpose of advancing the electoral prospects of a member of his family (his father).

It remains to be seen what the impact will be to Hinckley’s campaign now that his primary spokesman has confessed publicly that he does not believe the debt crisis assertions in his fathers ad. Equally damaging to the campaign may be Hinckley’s answer to Cavuto asking whether or not Hudson knew what he was doing. Hinckley responded that “He sure did. We talked about it for a long time.” This suggests that Hinckley’s budget policy is so simplistic that a five year old can understand it. No one wonder Hinckley is running as a Republican.

Further evidence of Hinkley’s strong GOP credentials is that, when asked what he wants to do when he grows up, Hudson said that he “wants to be in a war and save the country.” What better answer for a future representative of the hawkish GOP that is presently trying to make little Hudson’s dream come true by inciting a new with Iran? Here’s hoping, for Hudson’s sake, that they fail.

Koch Brothers Whine About Obama Fund Raising Letter

Posted by on February 28, 2012 at 1:03 pm. 9 Comments :

For a couple of multi-billionaires with virtually unlimited resources who vigorously engage in hardball political activity, the Koch brothers are an awfully lily-livered pair of wusses.

The Koch brothers created and bankrolled the Tea Party, an AstroTurf, corporate funded, pseudo-movement, that incessantly disparages President Obama as a communist, a Nazi, a Muslim, an atheist, a Kenyan, and a Manchurian agent whose mission is to deliver America to its enemies and/or Satan. The Kochs are also the money behind numerous think tanks and organizations whose purpose is to destroy the presidency through propaganda or outright manipulation and suppression of the vote (such as the American Legislative Exchange Council).

Despite their prominent role in attacking the President, the Kochs are wetting their britches because the Obama reelection team mentions them in a fund raising letter. The exchange looks something like this:

Obama Fund Raising Letter: In just about 24 hours, Mitt Romney is headed to a hotel ballroom to give a speech sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, a front group founded and funded by the Koch brothers. Those are the same Koch brothers whose business model is to make millions by jacking up prices at the pump, and who have bankrolled Tea Party extremism and committed $200 million to try to destroy President Obama before Election Day.

Koch Response: [I]t is an abuse of the President’s position and does a disservice to our nation for the President and his campaign to criticize private citizens simply for the act of engaging in their constitutional right of free speech about important matters of public policy. The implication in that sort of attack is obvious: dare to criticize the President’s policies and you will be singled out and personally maligned by the President and his campaign in an effort to chill free speech and squelch dissent. […] the inference is that you would prefer that citizens who disagree with the President and his policies refrain from voicing their own viewpoint. Clearly, that’s not the way a free society should operate.

Apparently the way a free society should operate, according to the Kochs, is that critics of the administration are permitted vast leeway to spew any and all slander that they like, but if the other side seeks to respond they are guilty of squelching dissent. That’s not debate. That’s a one-sided harangue. And it becomes media propaganda when the right-wing press links arms with the Kochs to take their side and whine about free speech. Seriously? Fox News is grumbling about free speech?

The Koch brothers have absolutely no case when they are actively orchestrating nasty campaigns against the White House and other Democrats, but expect their targets to stay silent. They have recruited Fox News, who spent six minutes on this topic this morning with Megyn Kelly and Laura Ingraham, but no opposing view. They recruited Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago by planting an article written by the Kochs’ attorney on their editorial page. Fox Nation joined in with a featured item that linked back to the Kelly/Ingraham segment on Fox News. Kelly even plugged the Wall Street Journal article to bring the noise machine gears around full-circle.

The Kochs need to quit crying like toddlers lost in a Wal-Mart. They are not merely private citizens engaging in free speech. They are political powerhouses who have committed more than $200 million dollars to defeating the President. The Bush administration was quite vocal in denouncing their critics, including Cindy Sheehan, who was not a billionaire, but the mother of a slain soldier in Iraq. Vice-President Cheney actually did seek to chill free speech by explicitly warning people to “watch what you say.” But we never responded by whimpering about the White House being mean to us. We continued to press our case, get our message out, and speak truth to power.

If the Koch brothers think that they can persuade people that they are sympathetic waifs being put upon by a mean president, they are out of their minds. They are only embarrassing themselves by appearing to be wealthy weaklings who want to dish it out but run away weeping if the victim of their vitriol raises his voice.

Mitt Romney Working To Shore Up The Greedy One Percent Vote

Posted by on February 27, 2012 at 12:29 am. 16 Comments :

Politics is a complicated pursuit that requires a well thought out game plan. An experienced professional knows that the path to victory cannot be left to chance. Mitt Romney seems to have done the meticulous research and deep analysis necessary to advance a serious campaign. While unorthodox, Romney has identified a constituent base amongst the nation’s wealthy and is working hard to solidify his dominance of it.

Mitt Romney

What else could explain his persistent pandering to the GOP (Greedy One Percent) and the corporations he thinks are people? Romney casually makes $10,000 bets. He likes to fire people, but isn’t concerned about the poor. He brags about owning numerous cars, including two Cadillacs. He is best known for having a net worth of a quarter of a billion dollars but only pays a 14% tax rate, about half of what average, middle class Americans pay.

The stream of statements that cast a spotlight on the differences between Romney and the rest of America cannot be accidental. After all, despite Romney’s insistence that he is essentially a businessman, he has spent the past decade in politics. He is aware of the presence and influence of media. And he knows quite well that he has a reputation for failing to connect with ordinary voters. Nevertheless, he continues to say things like what he said today at the NASCAR 500 in Daytona. When asked if he followed the sport he said…

“Not as closely as some of the most ardent fans. But I have some great friends that are NASCAR team owners.”

Of course he does. Why would anyone expect Romney to rub shoulders with the unclean peasants who sit in the stands when he can have cocktails with celebrities in the VIP section? Romney spent his morning in Daytona at breakfast with the billionaire owners of NASCAR. He toured the grounds, gave a short address to the crowd and cameras, and left without without ever intending to watch the race.

All of this leads to one inescapable conclusion: Romney is focused like a laser beam on locking up the vote of the richest Americans. It’s a bold strategy considering the composition of the voting blocs that control the wealth in this country. The 400 wealthiest Americans control about the same amount of wealth as the 150 million at the bottom of the income scale. It’s hard to see how that equation leads to a Romney victory, but he must know what he’s doing. Right?

As for his competition, Rick Santorum had a presence in Daytona as well. He didn’t make it personally, but he sponsored a car in the race. In a pre-race statement Santorum disclosed his strategy and his hopes:

“I recommended he stay back in the pack, you know, hang back there until the right time, and then bolt to the front when it really counts. So let’s watch. I’m hoping that for the first, you know, maybe 300, 400 miles, he’s sitting way, way back, letting all the other folks crash and burn, and then sneak up at the end and win this thing.”

What a lovely sentiment. Santorum is hoping that the other drivers “crash and burn.” That’s the way he hopes to achieve success – via a fiery holocaust of twisted metal and flesh. It’s probably a metaphor for the way he hopes to succeed in his campaign, and for the way he thinks people in all walks of life should advance their interests. Just pray for your opponents to meet some dreadful fate, then raise your arms victoriously. We already know that he hopes that there will always be income inequality in America and that he opposes expanding access to education for all citizens. So his new statement is consistent with his philosophy that hinges success on the failure of others.

There is an ironic symmetry between the positions of Romney and Santorum. One seeks to prop up winners, the other seeks to bash down losers. Neither cares much for the less fortunate among us who simply want a fair shot on a level playing field. They are two sides of the same coin and, if it weren’t for the horrible things they’ve said about each other, they’d make a pretty good GOP ticket.

Rick Santorum And The Anti-Intellectual, Theocratic Legacy Of The GOP

Posted by on February 26, 2012 at 1:43 pm. 8 Comments :

The Republican Party has been advocating ignorance for decades. They Reject the 98% of scientists who affirm that climate change is real and the result of human activity. They scoff at evolution in favor of Biblical affirmations that put the age of the Earth at only 6,000 years. They belittle Harvard graduates as elitists and revere candidates they think would make good beer drinking companions.

Now Rick Santorum, the current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, has said aloud what has only been alluded to in the past. At a forum for the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity, Santorum said…

“President Obama wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob!”

Really. How elitist of Obama to suggest that all Americans have access to the same opportunities to improve themselves personally and professionally. What a pompous, exclusionary attitude. Santorum continued saying…

“There are good decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor trying to indoctrinate them. Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image. I want to create jobs so people can remake their children into their image, not his.”

Exactly. Heaven forbid that kids should be encouraged to learn things taught by college professors when all they are capable of is manual labor and assembly line work. Santorum is squarely opposed to kids having higher aspirations. He castigates Obama for wanting to remake kids in the image of someone who began poor, from a broken home, and rose to become president of the United States. But Santorum prefers the image of kids who skip school, get a job, and never achieve anything greater than their parents did. Never mind the fact that most parents sacrifice selflessly to give their kids the opportunity to reach their highest potential.

In Santorum’s world ignorance is the goal. It would have to be in order to persuade people to vote for him. And his followers are fully on board with this. They applauded enthusiastically at his “snob” comment. But this is a relatively recent position for Santorum. In is last campaign for senate, his web site told a different story:

“In addition to Rick’s support of ensuring that primary and secondary schools in Pennsylvania are equipped for success, he is equally committed to ensuring the {sic) every Pennsylvanian has access to higher education.”

Critics will surely jump on that reference as evidence of Santorum’s hypocrisy. But not so fast. He was only in favor of “every Pennsylvanian” having access to higher education, not every American. Screw the Kansans and the Carolinians. Obama has the temerity to favor people from Arizona to Maine earning college degrees. That is unconscionable, but it’s OK for PA.

This weekend also saw Santorum describing the parts of the Constitution that make him vomit.

“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country… to say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes me want to throw up.”

Of course, I don’t know of anyone who says that people of faith should have no role in the public square. They can and do in great numbers. However, having “involvement in the operation of the state” is another thing entirely. It’s called theocracy, and it’s what you get when there is no separation of church and state.

The combination of viewing education as a character flaw and the Bible as an addendum to the Constitution is what defines the modern Republican/Tea Party. But it is not what this country is based on and it is not the path to peace and prosperity. And when discourse devolves to the point that the Constitution makes candidates wretch and advocating greater access to a college education makes you a snob, you know that a line of reason has been crossed.