Dan Savage Redefines "Rick"

And so in Savage's own words:

Now "Rick Santorum" isn't just a vile and disgusting politician—he's a vile and disgusting sentence.

What is it, you ask?



I'm getting to that. It's in today's Savage Love column.



A letter writer wrote in to the column with this:

If you do end up having to redefine the word "rick," which you threatened to do in your recent Funny or Die video, I have a suggestion: rick (v): to remove santorum orally. ("He was so grateful for the lay that he ricked his partner.")

To which Dan agreed. Hence the above sentence "Rick Santorum."



Though Savage fiddles the definition a little:

That said, I don't think someone would rick his or her partner out of gratitude; ricking someone—sucking the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex out of someone's ass—is something a person would do only under duress or under orders from a cruel BDSM top.

Rick Santorum - ew, yuck.

More On Rick Santorum's View On Slavery

What is it about the wingnuts and Slavery?



First we had Michele Bachmann. According to Rich Lizza's piece in the New Yorker:

In “Christianity and the Constitution,” the book she worked on with Eidsmoe, her law-school mentor, he argues that John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams “expressed their abhorrence for the institution” and explains that “many Christians opposed slavery even though they owned slaves.” They didn’t free their slaves, he writes, because of their benevolence. “It might be very difficult for a freed slave to make a living in that economy; under such circumstances setting slaves free was both inhumane and irresponsible.”

I mean The Bible does allow for slavery, doesn't it? - Just not cruel slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46):

If you want slaves, buy them from other nations or from the foreigners who live in your own country, and make them your property. You can own them, and even leave them to your children when you die, but do not make slaves of your own people or be cruel to them.

So as long as you don't whip them or anything, slavery's OK, I guess. Responsible thing to do, even, since setting them free in a bad economy would only make things really bad for them.



That's freedom and slavery for Michele Bachmann, winner of the Iowa straw poll for the Republican Nomination for the President of the United States.



Then there's Rick Santorum, one of the losers. Thinkprogress has video of our favorite ex-Senator discussing freedom:





Their transcript:

Our founders said [our] rights were given to us to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Does anyone here believe that first inalienable right is as whole as it was at the time of our founding? It isn’t. Does anyone believe that our freedom is as whole as it was at the time of our founders? It is not. [bold in original]

From the top of the field to the bottom: for the GOP, slavery was no big deal. Not even worth mentioning when cheering on the great traditions of America.



I guess the GOP doesn't count human slavery as the affront to human freedom that it so obviously is.

Ricky Santorum vows campaign will not fade away

Desperately seeking attention and a resurrection of his moribund presidential campaign, Lil Ricky Santorum (R-VA) has decided that the one thing "The Day the Music Died" needed was some santorum. Early rockers Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and J. P. "The Big Bopper" Richardson, as well as the pilot, Roger Peterson died in a small plane crash in Iowa on their "Winter Dance Party" tour in 1959. Santorum will be holding a "Santorum Summer Dance Party" in Iowa featuring the late Buddy Holly's backup band the Crickets and the Big Bopper Jr. The jokes write themselves on this one, but you can add your own in the comments section.



Rave on, Lil Ricky!





(No Ritchie Valens tribute by Santorum in Ames, IA for obvious reasons.)

Lil Ricky Headed to NY

Via 2012 Iowa Caucuses @ DesMoinesRegister.com:

Here’s some of Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s comments, in his own words, from his campaign stop at Cafe Diem in Ankeny.

(Radio Iowa captured the audio.)

ON GAY MARRIAGE: “I am not, as some in this race have said, OK with New York doing what they’re doing. What New York did was wrong. I will oppose it and I will go to New York, if necessary, and help overturn it.”

Proof that Santorum sucks

As if any more proof was needed...

More at Spork in the Drawer.
.

More On Bob Vander Plaatz's Pledge

There's been an update or two to The Iowa Pledge I wrote about on the 8th.

For those who don't know, a conservative group from Iowa called The Family Leader issued this "pledge" for all GOP candidates (and their supporters) to deal with. At the time of my writing that blog post, only Michele Bachmann had signed it.

And now there's two:

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum was initially “taken aback” by a pro-marriage pledge that asks presidential candidates to promise personal fidelity to their spouses, but said he ultimately decided to sign it.

“When I first read it, I was taken aback by it. I can't argue that I wasn't,” the former Pennsylvania senator said in an interview airing Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“But I understand why they're saying it, because it does undermine people's respect for the institution, respect for the people governing this country. If you can't be faithful to the people that you're closest to, then how can we count on you to be faithful to those of us who you represent?”

There was some other stuff in there, too, that Rick's pledged to support:

Other provisions in the pledge include promises to only appoint conservative judges, to remove anti-traditional marriage provisions in the tax code and opposition to any constitutional redefinition of marriage.

And some stuff he doesn't have to.

For instance when he signed the pledge, there was this language in it:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an AfricanAmerican baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President.

Wasn't slavery great?? It kept African-American families together!

Until someone was sold, of course. Keeping families together is one thing, but property rights are property rights. And as Ron Paul said (in another context, of course) private business owners have an absolute right to decide what to do with their own property.

But I digress.

Luckily for Rick and Michele, there's been some changes to the pledge:

Responding to a growing controversy, an Iowa-based conservative group has removed a passage in a marriage pact signed by two GOP presidential candidates that suggested black families were in better shape during slavery.

“After careful deliberation and wise insight and input from valued colleagues we deeply respect, we agree that the statement referencing children born into slavery can be misconstrued, and such misconstruction can detract from the core message of the Marriage Vow: that ALL of us must work to strengthen and support families and marriages between one woman and one man," said Bob Vander Plaats, head of The Family Leader.

"We sincerely apologize for any negative feelings this has caused, and have removed the language from the vow, " added Vander Plaats, who is known as a king maker in Iowa.

The campaigns have done the CYA dance:

Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum signed the two-page document entitled "The Marriage Vow - A Declaration of Dependence Upon Marriage and Family," on Thursday, but their campaigns emphasized that the "candidate vow" portion of the pledge that they put their stamps of approval on didn't mention slavery. Instead, it condemned gay marriage, abortion, infidelity and pornography.

Here's some meat from the pledge that's still in force. In that section of the pledge that outlines why marriage is in such deep trouble in Amurika, there's this:

Social protections, especially for women and children, have been evaporating as we have collectively “debased the currency” of marriage. This debasement continues as a function of adultery; “quickie divorce;” physical and verbal spousal abuse; non committal co-habitation; exemplary infidelity and “unwed cheating” among celebrities, sports figures and politicians; anti-scientific bias which holds, in complete absence of empirical proof, that non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empirical evidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health.

I am not sure about the "absence of all empirical proof" part, but let's for the sake of argument assume it's absolutely 100% correct (which it isn't, but let's just go with this for a second) and being gay is a choice, that it's not (as they say) hardwired into the brain.

What possible difference would that make?

For any given person, their sexuality is either a choice or it isn't. If it isn't, then no civilized society should condemn that person for merely being what they were born to be. If it's a choice then no civilized society should condemn that person for exercising his or her free will.

There's one republican who disagrees with the pledge:

Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson thinks the pledge that an Iowa Christian conservative group is circulating is offensive because it condemn gays, single parents, divorcees, Muslims, women who choose to have abortions “and everyone else who doesn’t fit in a Norman Rockwell painting.”

And:

This ‘pledge’ is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn’t fit into a particular definition of ‘virtue’.

Proof that not all conservatives got teh crazie.

Good to know.

More Fun With Right Wing Math

This is something I've been waiting to see. From this morning's Midweek Briefing:

President Obama's handpicked economic advisers waited until the Friday before the long Independence Day holiday weekend to release a report showing how bankrupt the economic "stimulus" was. It cost taxpayers $278,000 per added or saved job. As The Weekly Standard's Jeffrey Anderson noted, "(T)he government could have simply cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the 'stimulus,' and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead." Consider "outlandish" redefined.

Here's Anderson:

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

Too bad this has already been debunked. By Calvin Woodward of the AP:

Some Republican lawmakers critical of President Barack Obama's stimulus package are using grade-school arithmetic to size up costs and consequences of all that spending. The math is satisfyingly simple but highly misleading.

It goes like this: Divide the stimulus money spent so far by the estimated number of jobs saved or created. That produces a rather frightening figure on how much money taxpayers are spending for each job.

Highly misleading? How?:

First, the naysayers' calculations ignore the value of the work produced.

Any cost-per-job figure pays not just for the worker, but for material, supplies and that worker's output — a portion of a road paved, patients treated in a health clinic, goods shipped from a factory floor, railroad tracks laid.

Second, critics are counting the total cost of contracts that will fuel work for months or years and dividing that by the number of jobs produced only to date.

A construction project, for one, may only require a few engineers to get going, with the work force to swell as ground is broken and building accelerates.

Hundreds of such projects have been on the books, in which the full value of the contracts is already counted in the spending totals, but few or no jobs have been reported yet because the work is only getting started.

And:

Third, the package approved by Congress is aimed at more than direct job creation, although employment was certainly central to its promotion and purpose.

Its features include money for research, training, plant equipment, extended unemployment benefits, credit assistance for businesses and more — spending meant to pay off over time but impossible to judge in a short-term job formula.

Nor do the estimates made Friday include indirect employment already created by the package — difficult if not impossible to measure.

But why let math and logic get in the way when there's a highly misleading political point to be made?

By the way, this report also tripped up our very own Rick Santorum. Aside from Rick's huge math blunder, he echoes this point made by Anderson:

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

But what was Rick's math blunder? From CNN:

During an appearance on CNN's "American Morning" Tuesday, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum claimed the 2009 stimulus package resulted in a loss of jobs. He cited a government report that he said previously stated 280 million jobs had been created by December and now says only 240 million jobs were created.

When pressed by CNN's Ali Velshi, who said there's a difference between a loss of jobs and creating fewer jobs than initially reported, Santorum remained firm on his position that the current administration has cost Americans' jobs. [emphasis added.]

Think Progress here's a transcript:

SANTORUM: [Obama] passed a huge stimulus package that now we know, over the past two quarters, has actually cost American jobs, and that’s from the report of his own administration. They claimed in December that, uh, by the end of last year that they created 280 million jobs, and now they’re saying that they created only 240 million jobs. So look, in this, you’re talking about huge increases in spending.

ALI VELSHI: Senator, I’m going to ask you to restate that, I’ve never heard that in my life. Tell me again, what you just said.

SANTORUM: If you look at the report that came out on Friday, the President’s own economic advisers said that the jobs stimulus package actually created fewer jobs over the period of time, since the uh, since the stimulus package went in place than it did when they reported back in December. In other words, there’s 30 million less jobs as a result of the stimulus package.

VELSHI: That’s not a loss of jobs, Senator, that’s a smaller aggregation of jobs. You can’t go on a campaign, a national campaign with this kind of math Senator. It’s just incorrect…I know you’ve got a lot of interviews to do. You might want to check that math.

And did you see Rick's blunder? Thinkprogress again:

Velshi is absolutely correct that Santorum needs to check his math, but he missed the huge problem with Santorum’s numbers. The entire American civilian labor force is about 153 million people. There are currently 13.9 million people unemployed. If the Obama administration had created 240 to 280 million jobs, the unemployment crisis would have been solved several times over, and America would have so many jobs that it would need to start employing workers from all over the world just to fill all the available positions.

Ah, the joys of right wing math!

Governor Tim Pawlenty - Science Denier

From The Hill:

Climate change exists, but is due mostly to natural — not man-made — causes, GOP presidential contender Tim Pawlenty said Tuesday.

Pawlenty, the former Minnesota governor who's rejected his past support for cap and trade, said he believes the extent to which humans contribute to climate change is disputable.

"So there is climate change, but the reality is the science of it indicates that most of it, if not all of it, is caused by natural causes," he said on Fox News. "And as to the potential human contribution to that, there's a great scientific dispute about that very issue."

Actually, there isn't.

According to a survey done in 2008 by the University of Illinois at Chicago:

A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

And the results?

Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

But here's the real fun part. When they took a look at what sort of scientist answers which question, they found that:

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

Petroleum scientists are among the biggest doubters. Hmmm...petroleum. I wonder why they'd be doubters. But experts in the field are 33 to 1 in favor of the science.

And yet Pawlenty calls that a "great scientific dispute."

He's joined teh climate crazie deniers like Rick "There's no such thing as global warming" Santorum.

Good for him.

Anti-Science News (Climate Change Edition)

This week, our favorite Ex-Senator, Rick Santorum, came out and said it:

There is no such thing as global warming.

Watch it:


Rick must've missed the NOAA report that it was undeniable.

They got the charts, they got the graphs, they got the science.

Rick's got nothing.

Then there's this at the Trib:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled correctly that the Environmental Protection Agency -- not judges -- should lead "greenhouse gas" regulation under the Clean Air Act. But EPA's fallacious classification of carbon dioxide as a pollutant was left unaddressed.

The 8-0 decision rejected a lawsuit that sought to use public-nuisance laws to force utilities to cut CO2 emissions.

And then:

Not at issue was EPA regulating CO2 as a pollutant -- an absurd label for a substance intrinsic to nature and living creatures that stretches the Clean Air Act too far.

The anti-CO2 efforts of the Obama administration's ideologically driven, anti-growth EPA are an end run around congressional rejection of "global warming" legislation premised on junk science.

A case involving that issue can't reach the Supreme Court soon enough.

See that last sentence? Scaife's braintrust has to know that that issue already has reached the Supreme Court. In 2007 and they found that CO2 can be regulated by the EPA.

From Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Court held that:

Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant,” EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. That definition—which includes “any air pollution agent..., including any physical, chemical,...substance...emitted into...the ambient air...,”—embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe. Moreover, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are undoubtedly “physical [and] chemical...substance[s].”

Justice Stevens even began his decision with this:

A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species—the most important species—of a “greenhouse gas.”

Yet another example of Scaife's braintrust misleading his audience.

Then there's the scientist. Again from today's Trib:

A professor emeritus at Colorado State University who's a credentialed longtime member of the American Meteorological Society blasts the AMS for allowing a small band of administrators to "hijack" the group's mission in support of "climate change."

Bill Gray, on the website Climate Realists (climaterealists.com), writes of his "disappointment" with the AMS' "downward path" over the last decade in advocating anthropogenic global warming. This, he says, when many AMS members do not support that conclusion.

"We believe that humans are having little or no significant influence on the global climate and that the many Global Circulation Climate Model (GCM) results and the four (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports do not realistically give accurate future projections," Mr. Gray says.

The link leads ultimately to this piece at Icecap.us. Go read it. Then go back to NOAA's assertion that climate change is undeniable.

Then ask yourself the question "Does Gray's complaint about the AMS uproot all of that science?" If it does, then he's made his case. If it doesn't, then the science stands.

Simple and undeniable as that.

A Facebook Mystery Solved But Another Emerges...

On June 13, New York magazine posted this about our favorite ex-Senator's "Google problem" and one loyal Santorum follower's attempt to fix it. The piece is titled:

Determined Supporter Is

Trying to Fix Rick

Santorum’s Google Problem

And here's the text:

The only thing stopping former senator Rick Santorum from clinching the GOP presidential nomination, besides the utter indifference of the entire electorate? His well-documented Google Problem. Search for "Rick Santorum" and, thanks to Dan Savage, the top results identify him as a "frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." Earlier this year, Santorum had seemingly come to terms with his fate, but one supporter isn't giving up so easily. He/she recently created a Facebook group for mobilizing the dozens of Santorum loyalists out there in an effort to undo this evil, gay curse.

The piece even quotes the facebook page:

Rick Santorum is a God-fearing man who wants to save unborn children and protect traditional marriage. Because of this, radical left-wing activists launched a Google-bombing campaign so that people searching for his name will find pages full of vile, disgusting filth instead.

However, if you actually go to the facebook page linked in the New York piece, you'll find this:

Rick Santorum is a vile man who wants to be in everyone's bedroom but his own. His attempts to legislate his own special brand of morality have led him so far as to compare loving, committed relationships to bestiality and incest. Rick Santorum should be ashamed of himself. Instead, he is running for President.

And this image that looks like a bumper sticker:

What is going on?

Turns out that sometime on the morning of June 15th (2 days after the New York article), the admin of the original Pro-Rick Santorum Facebook page abandoned it and the current admin (who's obviously not a fan of Rick's) took over.

BUT THE LINKS FROM THE NEW YORK PIECE ARE STILL IN PLACE.

That means that anyone who's a fan of Rick and who searches for the facebook page that's trying to fix Rick's google problem will find, among other things, the bumper sticker image above.

That's a problem for Rick.

One mystery solved but that leaves another - Why abandon the facebook page in the first place? Why not just shut it down or close it off to the public?

Is Our Children Learning History?

Rick Santorum certainly isn't.

From thinkprogress:

According to a national test released last week, “just 13 percent of high schools seniors” demonstrated proficiency in U.S. history. Speaking to the Story County GOP Central Committee in Ames, Iowa, presidential candidate Rick Santorum attributed the poor scores to a leftist plot to keep students in the dark about U.S. history so they don’t learn American values

And they quote Lil Ricky:

We don’t even know our own history. There was a report that just came out last week that the worst subject of children in American schools is — not math and science — its history. It’s the worst subject. How can we be a free people. How can we be a people that fight for America if we don’t know who America is or what we’re all about. This is, in my opinion, a conscious effort on the part of the left who has a huge influence on our curriculum, to desensitize America to what American values are so they are more pliable to the new values that they would like to impose on America. [Bolding in original.]

For Rick, everything's a lib'rul plot to take over Murika. Simply everything.

Here's the NAEP's summary of the assessment if you wanted to take a look. And how do they see things? A few bullet points:

• At all grades, the average U.S. history scores in 2010 were higher than the scores in 1994, and the score for eighth-graders was also higher than in 2006.
• Twenty percent of fourth-graders, 17 percent of eighth-graders, and 12 percent of twelfth-graders performed at or above the Proficient level on the 2010 U.S. history assessment.
  
• At grades 4 and 8, the percentages of students at or above Proficient in 2010 were higher than the percentages in the first assessment in 1994, but over the same time period the percentage of twelfth-graders at or above Proficient was not significantly different.
  

While it's not a good picture, at least it's an improving picture - except for 12 graders.

Anyone have any idea on why? From the AP:

"The history scores released today show that student performance is still too low," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a statement. "These results tell us that, as a country, we are failing to provide children with a high-quality, well-rounded education."

Education experts say a heavy focus on reading and math under the federal No Child Left Behind law in the last decade has led to lagging performance in other subjects such as history and science.

"We need to make sure other subjects like history, science and the arts are not forgotten in our pursuit of the basic skills," said Diane Ravitch, a research professor at New York University and former U.S. assistant education secretary. [Emphasis added.]

Assistant Education Secretary under George H. W. Bush, by the way.

Then there's this, also from thinkprogress:

The Texas Board of Education has been meeting this week to revise its social studies curriculum. During the past three days, “the board’s far-right faction wielded their power to shape lessons on the civil rights movement, the U.S. free enterprise system and hundreds of other topics”

Yes, the lib'rul Texas Board of Education did this:

• The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.”
  
• The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.”
  

And then there's more on Rick's own understanding of US History.

Yes, our nation's collective ignorance is all a lib'rul plot.

Just a Reminder

This is just a reminder that when Lil Ricky Santorum said at the GOP presidential candidate debate on Monday:

"Not only have I been consistently pro-life, I have not just taken the pledge, but I've taken the bullets to go out there and fight for this and lead on those issues."

That there are actual people who have taken real bullets over providing women with legal abortions:

Dr. Gunn was murdered in 1993.
In 1993, Dr. Tiller was shot but not killed.
In 1994, Dr. John Bayard Britton and his escort, James H. Barrett, were assassinated.
In 1994, Dr. Garson Romalis was shot but not killed.
In 1995, Dr. Hugh Short was shot and killed.
In 1997, Dr. Jack Fainman was shot but not killed, the shooter was a suspect in an unnamed NY physician's murder
In 1998, Dr. Barnett Slepian is shot and killed. His murderer, James Koop, was the suspect in 1997's shooting of Dr. Fainman and the other unnamed doctor.
In 2009, Dr. Tiller was shot, again, and killed.

In 1994, Shannon Lowney and Leanne Nichols were shot and killed at clinics in MA.
In 1998, Officer Robert Sanderson was killed during a clinic bombing and nurse Emily Lyon was severely injured.

What a douchebag.
.

Indecision 2012 - The Awakening

For my money, the best bit is two minutes in-- the look on Lil Ricky's face is priceless.

Lil Ricky And The Personhood Dog Whistle

Via Thinkprogress, we learn of former Senator Rick Santorum's extreme position on a woman's right to choose. He was being interviewed by David Gregory when this exchange occurred:

QUESTION: Do you believe that there should be any legal exceptions for rape or incest when it comes to abortion?

SANTORUM: I believe that life begins at conception, and that that life should be guaranteed under the Constitution. That is a person. [Emphasis added.]

QUESTION: So even in the case of rape or incest, that would be taking a life?

SANTORUM: That would be taking a life, and I believe that any doctor that performs an abortion, I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion, should be criminally charged for doing so.

And in doing so, in using the word "person," Rick's blowing a dog whistle to the anti-choice crowd he's hoping would support him in his presidential race.

Not that his anti-choice position was much of a secret. He recently debated Rev Al Sharpton on this topic in the philosophically friendly confines of the Sean Hannity show. In doing so, he brought up a hitherto unknown (at least to me) racial position on choice/personhood:

Former Sen. Rick Santorum, perennially a potential Presidential candidate, is not going on the defensive for his recent comment that President Barack Obama’s stance on abortion was particularly shocking based on his race. In fact, he is so sure of his position that he was willing to defend it in the face of one of America’s loudest race crusaders, Rev. Al Sharpton. Sean Hannity gave the a couple of segment on his show tonight, popped the proverbial popcorn, and let the games begin.

But this is a good opportunity to take a look at the "personhood" legislation oozing through some state legislatures. NARAL has a definition:

Members of the anti-choice “personhood” movement are launching a comprehensive assault on reproductive rights at the state level through legislation and ballot initiatives. These measures attempt to redefine "personhood" either by creating a legal definition for when life begins or by conferring legal rights upon a fertilized egg. In addition to outlawing abortion, these efforts could lead to bans on many common forms of birth control, and on stem-cell research and invitro fertilization.

By doing so, these proposals are designed to challenge Roe and eliminate the constitutional rights recognized therein. According to the anti-choice group Personhood USA, which claims operations in at least 30 states, “the common thread among all of these efforts is the goal to fill what is becoming known as the ‘Blackmun Hole’ in Roe v. Wade. This is where Justice Blackmun implied in the Roe v. Wade decision that if the case were established that the pre-born was a person, the argument for abortion collapses.”

On the "What is Personhood?" page of the PersonhoodUSA webpage, we see something familiar. After giving their definition of "personhood" (which more or less matches NARAL's) they explain:

A person, simply put, is a human being. This fact should be enough. The intrinsic humanity of unborn children, by definition, makes them persons and should, therefore, guarantee their protection under the law. For more than thirty years, however, this has not been the case. The situation we are left with is this. In America today, there is a huge and singular group of living human beings who have no protection under the law and are being killed en masse every day. Is that not astounding?! It is astounding, but not wholly unprecedented.

There have been at least two other instances in American history in which specific groups of human beings were stripped of their rights of personhood as a means of justifying their horrible mistreatment. African-Americans and Native-Americans both felt the brunt of a system which denied their humanity, stripped their personhood and subjected them to horrors beyond measure. While the legal framework that made such injustice possible has now been removed, it remains firmly in place for unborn Americans.

Unfortunately, Thinkprogress points out:

Moreover, Santorum’s position that the Constitution compels laws protecting fetuses places him at odds with the Supreme Court’s most conservative members. In DeShanney v. Winnebago County, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution’s guarantee that no person shall be denied “life . . . without due process of law” does not actually require the government to criminalize anything — a decision that runs directly counter to Santorum’s position on abortion. Justice Antonin Scalia, who has gone so far as to say that the Constitution does not prevent gender discrimination, was in the majority in DeShanney.

Personhood Legislation could also, NARAL asserts, ban contraception. It would ban abortions for rape and incest and if Rick Santorum who supports "Personhod" had his way, criminalize the doctors performing them.

Tell me again what his chances are for actually winning?

Lil Ricky, Climate Change, And Teh Gays

I'm not sure if former(because he lost by 18 points)Senator Rick Santorum is trying to out crazie Representative Michelle Bachman and former(because she quit)Governor Sarah Palin, but he's certainly giving it the old college try.

First he's on Rush Limbaugh's radio show and calls climate change "absurd":

Former Congressman and current Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is turning up the heat on the issue of man-made global warming, calling it "patently absurd," a stance putting him at odds with perceived frontrunner Mitt Romney.

"I believe the Earth gets warmer and I also believe the Earth gets cooler, and I think history points out that it does that," Santorum said on Rush Limbaugh's radio show this afternoon.

"The idea that man – through the production of CO2 (carbon dioxide) which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the man-made part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas – is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, patently absurd."

Oops. I stand corrected. I should have said "patently absurd."

And yes, I got that from World Net Daily. Who better to track teh crazie than teh crazie itself?

But let's take a look at Rick's "evidence" shall we?

Today, Santorum of Pennsylvania was adamant in his stance against man-made climate change, saying there were numerous factors that help regulate the temperature on the planet, specifically citing El Nino, La Nina, sunspots, and moisture in the air.

He said the political left uses the issue to its benefit no matter what the temperature is: "It's really a beautifully concocted scheme because they know the Earth is going to cool and warm. And so, if it's been on a warming trend for a while, [they say] 'Let's take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it's getting warmer.'

"Just like they did in the '70s when it was getting cooler. They needed the government to come in and regulate your life because it's getting cooler. It's just an excuse for more government control of your life and I've never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science between the whole narrative."

Ok, let's establish the baseline here. The earth is warming. Here's a graph from NASA:


In one sense Rick is right. The Earth does cool. Sometimes. But then it warms up more. Just saying that the earth warms and cools is a knowing distortion. Of course the earth cools. It was cooler last night than it was during the day. It was cooler last December than it will be this July. There are always cycles but none of those change the fact that over time Rick, the earth is getting warmer and warmer.

I guess he hasn't read that NOAA has declared global warming undeniable. But given the fact that a few years ago he wanted to limit the public's access to NOAA in favor of his campaign contributors at Accuweather.

Via ThinkProgress we learn of Rick's future plans:

During an appearance on CNN this evening, GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum (R-PA) hinted that he would push for a federal constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage if he were elected president, arguing that gay or lesbian relationships could destabilize the culture, rob children “of the potential of having a mom and a dad,” and undermine religious liberties

And he was quoted as saying:

nce people realize the consequence to society of changing this definition, it’s not that we’re against anybody. People can live the life they want to live. They can do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their home with respect to that activity. Now you’re talking about changing the laws of the country. and it could have a profound impact on society, on faith, on education. Once people realize that, they say, you know what, we respect people’s life to live the life they want to lead but don’t change how with that definition.

Really? People can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes? That's not what he said in 2008:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday.

Ok, I'll make the cheap shot.

Rick Santorum is patently absurd.

All that really needs to be said about Rick Santorum's run for the presidency

Click here.
(Or you can wallow in the frothy mix at Early Returns.)
.

Lil' Ricky's Gonna Announce!

The AP (and everyone else) has the story:

Former Sen. Rick Santorum plans to formally enter the GOP presidential race next month, starting his bid in the western Pennsylvania coal fields where his immigrant grandfather once worked, advisers said Thursday.

But not all the news is good for Camp Santorum. First (and a HUGE hat tip to Tim McNulty at the Daily Santorum) there's this from The Atlantic:

His High School Yearbook Picture
Then there's Miley. From PoliticsPA:

Even Miley Cyrus is getting in on the 2012 action. In a reaction to a recent controversy over retailer Urban Outfitters allegedly copying jewelry designs, Cryus last night aired her criticism of UO President Richard Hayne’s campaign contributions to former Senator Rick Santorum.

Here's the tweet:

IF WE ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE NEXT THING U KNOW PEOPLE WILL BE MARRYING GOLD FISH’ – Rick Santorum UO contributed $13,000 to this mans campaign

Needless to say, Cyrus is not among those who are fans of Rick's anti-gay bigotry.

PoliticsPA notes that:

Cyrus has over a million followers on the social networking site, and this particular remark was re-tweeted by hundreds if not thousands of people.

So that can't be good for Rick. I am not sure how many of those million followers are old enough to vote or how many would have voted for the man with politics so vile Dan Savage named the frothy mixture after him but still it can't be good.

Ok, I am feeling a little guilty about posting that picture.

Happy Belated Birthday, Rick!

Via the Daily Santorum, we learn that yesterday (05/10/11) was 53rd birthday for Pennsylvania's own fabulously anti-gay ex-Senator Rick Santorum.

Did anyone else know this? The birthday part, we've known for a while Rick's position on gay sex.

What a wonderful coincidence, then, that the Blog for Equality Day occurred this year on the exact same day. What a wonderful birthday present for the Senator! Kudos to Sue!

That being said, I wanted to turn everyone's attention to this clip I found at the Huffingtonpost.

Rick was asked about Governor Mitch Daniel's calling for a "truce" on moral issues among GOP candidates in this election cycle. Here's what Rick said:


James Peron characterized it this way:

Apparently, he believes that respecting the rights of others to make their own choices is anti-American. He said that the idea of a truce on attempts to control people's private lives means one "doesn't understand what America is all about." It now appears that what America "is all about" is denying people freedom and equality of rights before the law.

Santorum launched into rhetoric about the right to liberty and how people need "to be free" to "pursue their own dreams," but he seemed to be saying that the dreams they had to follow was "to serve their God, and to serve their family and community." This is not individual rights, only the right to be servant to others. This was followed by some comments about "strong families" and that "if we abandon that, we have given up on America."

He didn't directly answer the question and he certainly blew a lot of hot air, but the essence of his answer was that if the Republican party doesn't hammer away at people it dislikes, on private moral issues, then the Republican party is giving up on America. The only way to protect freedom is to stop people from being free, in the name of the family.

But then again, Peron characterized Rick this way:

When it comes to big government moralism, few Republicans can match Rick Santorum. He has always been one of the more extreme theocrats within the GOP and nothing has changed since Pennsylvania voters wisely threw him out of the U.S. Senate in 2006. Santorum is an advocate of the junk science called "intelligent design" and is a leader in the anti-gay movement.

He said that polygamy, adultery and sodomy are all "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family." An ultra-orthodox Latin-Mass Catholic, Santorum went so far as to blame the epidemic of Catholic priests molesting children on "political and cultural liberalism," based on the assumption that Boston "lies at the center of the storm." Apparently, the senator was unaware that the problem was worldwide and just as prevalent in conservative areas as liberal ones. Nor can one ignore the fact that priests are part of a very conservative Catholic culture.

Happy Birthday, Rick!

Karen and Rick Santorum Go to War!

Love Campaigning is a Battlefield
Karen and Rick Santorum were interviewed recently on CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) and Karen wants you to know that God wants Lil Ricky to run (natch) and that running for president is not like being on a battlefield, it's literally a battlefield.

Karen Santorum:

"For me it’s not just another political race. It’s about going on to the battlefield and defending God’s truth in the World. Defending the sacredness of marriage. Defending the sanctity of life. So I see it a little differently because I know it's going to be literally on a battlefield, and it's going to be really hard. So there is a lot of reservation. But it really boils down to God's will. What is it that God wants? ...And believe with all our hearts that this is what God wants."

(h/t to Gyma @ A Spork in the Drawer)
.

Ladies And Gentlemen...

CBS News reports some sane words from a prominent Republican:

Former Senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) was asked on MSNBC last night what he thinks of the Republican presidential field. After calling New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie - who says he is not running - "quite awesome," Simpson lambasted his party's social conservatives for their positions on abortion and homosexuality.

Simpson, a fiscal conservative and pro-choice Republican who co-chaired last year's bipartisan commission to address the federal deficit and debt, complained that there are "homophobes" in the Republican Party. He went on to say that likely GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum has "said some cruel things, cruel, cruel things about homosexuals."

"We won a governorship there in New Jersey, one in Virginia, by not talking about social issues," Simpson said. "Who the hell is for abortion? I don't know anybody running around with a sign that says, 'Have an abortion, they're wonderful.' They're hideous. But they're a deeply intimate and personal decision, and I don't think men legislators should even vote on the issue."

On the flip side:

Rick Santorum's appearance on Fox News's "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren" on Wednesday night is expected to shed light on his next steps toward a potential White House bid, possibly including the formation of an exploratory committee.

The former Pennsylvania senator has already said he plans to participate in the first presidential debate of the campaign season, one that requires participants to have formed a presidential committee first. The May 5 debate, sponsored by the South Carolina Republican Party and Fox News, will be held in Greenville, S.C.

While I don't expect Rick to get any traction in the next election cycle (with Michelle Bachman and/or Sarah Palin in the race there'd be little room for Rick's frothy brand of teh crazie) I could be wrong. Perhaps running an anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-any religion but Rick's platform might garner him some votes. Who knows? Crazier things have been known to happen. I mean a struggling single mother smuggled her new born baby from Kenya to Hawaii 50 years ago in order to fake his citizenship in order to make him President of the United States in order to destroy the country with his radical socialist Muslim agenda!

Whew - sorry. Caught a little of teh crazie myself just then. I'm better now, thanks.

But honestly, when it's a surprise to hear a prominent Republican point out the cruel homophobia in God's Own Party, one has to wonder how deep the intolerance, in fact, is.