Rick Santorum (US Republican presidential candidate) trying to bring Jesus into the government

youtube.com/watch?v=bgeu21Xu3Mc
I can't believe anyone could support a person like this.

this isn't f*ing Saudi Arabia. Or at least it wasn't.

(not enough posts to make that a clickable link, just paste into your web browser and remove the space between the . and com if you want to watch)

edit: edited to fix broken link

 

I can't get your link to work.

 

a mod or someone made it clickable but broke the link in the process. I just fixed, try now

 

Still not working. And by that I mean that when I cut-and-paste it into my browswer, it doesn't find anything.

 

I just tried it and it worked for me. I had to add a space between youtube. and com in order to actually post it in the thread because of my postcount. Did you remove the space in your browser?

 

Thanks, I was deleting the wrong thing. I embedded it for you.

That said, this doesn't sound like anything new from Santorum. He's been saying the exact same thing for years. That's one of the reason that he has his "google problem".

 

american salafi. once you strip away the religious reactionary nonsense, however, he is a straight neo-fascist.

 

Santorum certainly represents the most radical religious social conservatives.

He played well in Iowa, where nearly half of the Republican voters are evangelical. He didnt play so well in more libertarian conservative NH and not looking so good in SC.

But radicalism on the right takes many forms.

Today, Ron Paul played the "states' rights card" suggesting that states should be allowed to determine which federal laws they should be able to ignore.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...8pwFww?docId=f1b9b0841e1949829bebe4a5a62c7775

So, in effect, Paul is saying the states should have the right to determine the constitutionality of federal laws rather than the federal judiciary.

If a state doesnt like the Voting Rights Act or the Clean Air Act or.... fuck it, just get the partisan state legislature/governor to declare it unconstitutional.

 

on the santorum thing...i make the distinction in part because when i use the term neo-fascist i am comparing us political discourse to western european neo-fascist organizations like the front national in france

http://www.frontnational.com/

which is an icky bunch of people who are not tangled up as the santorum is in the discursive fog created by ultra-reactionary protestant evangelicals---and the fn remains a kind of benchmark for mainstreamed neo-fascism outside the united states, where it's called just part of that strange patchwork called "conservative". but it's useful to have some yardstick against which to measure, so something to appeal to when questions of definition arise. what i don't know is whether that icky website has a english translation functionality. it would surprise me if it doesn't, any more than it would surprise me to find asshats like westboro baptist with an english-only site.

as for ron paul, that states rights thing should make the klan happy.

 

I really don't think Americans understand how far to the right the whole political paradigm here has shifted. Back in the days of, say, Eisenhower, being a Democrat (outside the South) meant that you were somewhat liberal, friendly to labor, interested in social programs, etc., and being a Republican generally meant that you were in favor of more conservative economic policies, and were more concerned about stuff like Communism. But for the most part (outside the South), nobody was really crazy.

It's bad enough that to be a Democrat today means that one is, at best, a moderate conservative willing to occasionally try and preserve some social programs. But these days, Republicans are increasingly drawing their leadership from frighteningly insane people. Rick Santorum is a religious fanatic and proto-fascist. The best thing he has going for him is that he's not Michele Bachmann, who appears to be not only a raging fascist but clinically delusional.

Pretty much the only thing that keeps me voting Democratic, rather than voting for independents or Green Party candidates or suchlike, is the need to prevent these insane Republican hyperconservatives from getting into office. Better do-nothing, weak-assed Democratic moderates who are willing to bend the knee to corporate interests, like Obama and his congressional pals, than another round of hyperconservative warmongering, subversion of justice, war on the poor, and laissez-faire corporate purchase of legislation, like in the previous administration.

If a guy like Santorum gets elected, I will seriously consider moving to another country.

 

what's concerning, really, is the reach and power of the republican political machine. and the bits of cookie-cutter legislation that is getting advanced around the country making it more difficult for voter blocks the republicans don't like to vote. maybe they figure they don't need to present a serious candidate, that their machine, in tandem with the usual back-room corruption one associates with the republicans of the past couple decades, is enough, that they could elect a hat to the office of president if they chose. i'd really like to see them go too far and snap their brand. but i'd also like to see the fairness doctrine reimposed on corporate media.

 

The states rights issue seems to be a very popular one these days. I do wonder if the proponents have really thought through the implications of true state independence from the federal government though. Probably not. Thinking in broad terms and poo-pooing the details seems to also be very popular these days.

I can't help but continue to regard Rick Santorum as comic fodder. My rational mind refuses to believe that all but a few really take him seriously.

I'm also well aware that I may have my head in the sand in this regard.

 

It's only "states rights" on federal laws you disagree with. But it's "this needs to be a federal law" when the states do things they disagree with (i.e. Gay marriage).

Hypocrites, the lot of them

 

Its all to complicated. I use to keep up with all of it, constant news programs, 24hr watch on who is running. Then something broke. I don't watch any of it now.
Maybe some day it will get fixed, but for now the TV stays off and I don't read about these folks online any longer.

 

Lets not forget the old trope: Jesus always was the foundation of our government it's only those godless socialists that are trying to take him out. You can't say the man is totally unelectable, nor is his brand of conservatism, which is not unique to him. I think much of the rest of the field thinks in very much the same terms, and happily say so when they're not in front of the cameras. They're just better about realizing that those kinds of comments will make it tougher in the general election, though I think our elections are determined mostly by who decides to show up rather than by what everyone actually wants.

Which is depressing.

It's somewhat interesting to me that I have not yet heard a cohesive argument for why gay marriage will harm 'families' or a mechanism by which it could. It's merely asserted that it will and then folks move on as if it's self-evident. Perhaps none of the opponents have ever heard of the term non sequitur.

You also don't have to be a crazy conservative to think there are some issues that need to be addressed regarding states' rights, but that's probably an issue best left for another thread.

 

Only thing to say.....he is very scary!

 

I remember expressing concerns about the risks Sharia Law in the US, I was mocked, told I was racist, and was being totally unrealistic. Why is the Santorum rhetoric the basis of legitimate fear and the risks of Sharia Law in the US not? I don't want anyone imposing religious view on me, and I am mindful of the rights of everyone to be free from forced morality when their actions do not harm or restrict the rights of others.