Who’s on First?

Rick More Electable than Newt

Turning towards Santorum

By N. Richard Greenfield

Everyone paying attention to politics at this point in the cycle has read at least a dozen different mathematical calculations on how improbable it is for anyone other than Mitt Romney to win the Republican nomination for the presidency. While some of those equations make sense, only one thing is certain: Mitt will definitely prevail if the field is not narrowed further soon.

A primary/caucus ballot absent either Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich doesn’t guarantee a victory for the not-Mitt, but the arrangement does allow for those very circumstances. The math in Florida speaks to this: Mitt got 47% of the vote while Santorum (13) and Gingrich (32) got 45%.

The problem is, as it almost always is in politics, that we are dealing with egos, not math. But an objective look makes it clear, between Gingrich and Santorum, who should go and who should stay.

Of the two candidates, it is Newt who has been mortally wounded. In another era, he might be able to recover, but an arrogantly hostile media, a glaring lack of organization, and the absence of any broad supply of money won’t give him the time and resources to do that. His negative favorability numbers are so embedded in the equation that even the most organized and lavishly financed campaign would have difficulty making them move.

This is not to say that Newt is not the best person to be the candidate to run against the president, or that he is not the best in the field to serve in that office. That’s not the issue. What’s important is that from where Newt is now to where he has to go is just too far. Newt has been damaged beyond repair.

Santorum, despite being in the race even longer than Newt has, doesn’t have any deep wounds. Never a priority target because he too lacks organization and funds, he’s remained more or less unscathed. Though this would change if he were Mitt’s one real opponent, there’s little in his closet that will jump out and drag him down. This leaves Santorum free to devote himself to offense far more than to defense.

With his wife and seven kids by his side, Rick Santorum has got a reservoir of symbolism that protects him from much of what Newt has to overcome every day. In addition to this, Santorum has some constituencies that are yet to be heard from.

• First and foremost, he’s a more natural heir to the Tea Party mantle than Newt is. If a revival of the Tea Party’sfever-pitch of 2010 is going to happen, Santorum is more likely to be part of that than Newt is — and certainly more than Romney would be. Santorum is of the Tea Party; the other two are not.




• Rick’s roots are in that part of the Republican Party that were known as Labor Democrats during the Nixon years. They were the famousPeripheral Urban Ethnic majority that the Nixon staff found and focused on. Santorum still speaks to that piece of the party in Pennsylvania and throughout the battleground industrial Midwest. Though this demographic parted with Santorum in his last election in Pennsylvania, he’s won them before, and he can do it again.




• Rick Santorum is Italian.
  Not many people are aware of that…yet. Ethnic voting isn’t what it used to be, but Rick Santorumcan revive it in Italian enclaves and a bit beyond.




• The Santorums’ large family and religious background speak to Catholics, and the Obama administration just united that constituency in opposition to Obamathis past week. Santorum can tap into this in a way well beyond both Newt’s and Romney’s capabilities. Opposition to ObamaCare has just taken on a newpriority inside the Catholic Church, aninstitution that supported it the last time around.




• He’s got the “not-moneyed-guy” vote. Mitt’s wealth and Newt’s Tiffany charge accounts won’t let them easily grasp that newly createdrole. Whatever Rick has as his net worth, he doesn’t come across as a wealthy man. No doubt the Obamas’ thirteen-million-dollar income last year will be sculpted into a 527 headline that will compare better for Santorum than it will for Mitt or Newt.




• Santorum’s got a piece of the wonk vote. While not Gingrich, he can go deep into an argument if he needs to and won’t be out-debated. Presented strongly, Santorum’s positions on a number of issues will command respect. His legislative experience will match Obama’s teleprompter overview, and his depth might be an upside surprise for most of the electorate.




• Obama’s projected deep military cuts make the military astronger constituency forSantorum as well. Instead of just getting their votes, Santorum has the opportunity to mould our men and women in uniform into a vibrant voting bloc. He’s demonstrably sound on things like veterans’ affairs, military families, and the well-being of our troops. Even Democrats in the military are likely to cross over to him on these issues.




• Santorum is as strong on Israel as any candidate we’ve seen on the Republican candidate list, and that says a lot. Both Jews and Evangelicals can coalesce around his advocacy for Israel. He is both knowledgeable and steadfast in his support for Israel.




• Economics. Santorum’s ego rarely gets in the way of his policy decisions, and he’s readily able to acquire other positionshe thinks are right. His ego doesn’t demand “his” plan to move forward, and a Paul Ryan-type plan could fit nicely into his past efforts on economic growth.




• Energy. Santorum’s Pennsylvania base, with its coal and energy production, gives him a natural affinity for the development of domestic energy. In the wake of the Obama administration’s deficit in this area, Santorum has the credibility to push this issue easily to the forefront.




• One of the things Santorum needs, though, is help. If all of the above can be pulled together, he’ll need to upgrade his staff immediately to truly make it happen. He needs the professionals around him who can help him win.




• One example of this critical need is “the vision thing.” This is something that isn’t a staple of House or Senate elections as much as it is in presidential contests, and there’s much more that goes into it than just better speechwriting.

READ MORE

Is Contraception Controversy Just another ‘Obamacare’ Con?

Obama’s War against Catholics

What is Obama Doing?

In executing its HHS contraception edict, the Obama regime has simultaneously squelched Catholic military chaplains and promoted an inaccurate but state-sponsored version of “Catholicism.” This scary, couldn’t-happen-here stuff provides us with two very important lessons.

First, the facts. National Review has reported that the U.S. Army tried to strong-arm military chaplains into not reading their bishops’ letters of condemnation of the recent HHS contraception mandate. When this failed, the army was successful in editing the texts of the sermons to specifically exclude the statement “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.”

This happened while, at the same time, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and others were subverting true Catholicism and promoting their own state-sponsored religion with the slimy use of schoolyard peer pressure.

Obama, from www.barackobama.com and repeated in USA Today:

Most women — including 98 percent of Catholic women — who have had sex have used contraception, according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute[.]

Even if accurate, this 98% statistic is a typically dishonest Obama utterance in that it describes “sexually experienced” Catholic women who have ever had sex and ever used birth control — not those who are currently using it, or those who once used it but choose no longer to do so. Using this logic, Obama could pass a law requiring all Catholics to sin simply because we know that 100% of Catholics have sinned (this, of course, is exactly what HHS has done).

When the same Guttmacher study turns to current usage of contraception, it considers only women who refer to themselves as “sexually active women who are not pregnant, postpartum or trying to get pregnant” and as “at risk of unintended pregnancy.” Excluding Catholic women who do not identify as “sexually active” or “trying to get pregnant” while including those who do identify as “at risk of unintended pregnancy” is blatant data-mining, on the very verge of excluding observant Catholics by definition…which suits Obama just fine.

Nancy Pelosi maintained Obama’s fiction with her creepy take on the situation:

First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it.

The Army-Obama-Pelosi coordination is obvious and troubling. Read more

Religious freedom is not the only issue invoked by this non-discussion. Why we’re suing over the HHS birth control mandate The bigger issue is the state mandate. This as been the argument all along around Obamacare in general, and this HHS mandate in particular. It turns the United States government into an “group” insurance agency, and we all know how well the government manages … anything! Non-medical people make medical decisions for the people. Aren’t the HMO’s bad enough? The government does not own the American people health insurance. It does, perhaps owe the people tort and insurance industry reform … Just sayin!

We Hold These Truths

How “intimate” do you want to be with your Uncle Same?

Even with the “compromise,” the bottom line is not changed: the government is usurping more and more control in our private lives! We can roll over and play dead, or we can unite and put Obama in the unemployment lines, and throw our support behind Santorum – the strongest candidate up there fighting for freedom!

How dare the “Government” order the American people to purchase GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OR PAY A FINE!

How dare the “Government” threaten to us with the new 2012 NDAA which for the first time eliminates the “Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus,” and empowers the military to immprison any American at the Government’s will … indefinitely!

How dare our Government arm the TSA to inimidate the American traveling public to exchange their freedom for a hint of security!

How dare this administration mock and deride the Constitution of the United States, disregarding the oath he has sworn?

How dare this administration strip our freedoms further in order to affect his agenda to redistribute the wealth of America in accordance with … Who knows?

Just a partial list off the top of my head! There’s plenty more MANDATES coming our way! SMILE … We voted him in!

FREE SPEECH ALERT – Another Surgical Cut to Remove All Traces of God from America

Among other things, the Rapid Capabilities Office at Air Force headquarters in Washington is responsible for technical integration of Department of Defense classified activities, and for reporting these activities to the Air Force leadership, the office of the secretary of defense, Congress, and the White House. The symbol in the background of this patch is a black and gray image of the earth, representing the "black world" of classified activities. The Latin at the bottom of the patch translates as "Doing God's work with other people's money."

Air Force office removes ‘God’ from logo

Rick Moran

It’s a minor Air Force office; the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO). But it’s who requested the removal of the Latin word for “God” from its logo that makes this move ridiculous.

Huffington Post:
Dozens of members of Congress are upset that the Air Force has removed the Latin word for “God” from the logo of an Air Force acquisitions office.

Led by Rep. J. Randy Forbes, co-chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, 36 lawmakers Monday (Feb. 6) sent a letter to Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz objecting to the removal of “God” from the logo of the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO).

The logo was recently removed, according to Forbes, after objections by the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers.

Jason Torpy, president of the association, said the word “God” had no place in the logo because not all members of the military are religious. “We just hope (the Air Force) can provide more equal opportunities for atheists and humanists in the military.”

“The action taken by the RCO suggests that all references to God, regardless of their context, must be removed from the military,” the congressional letter states. “We ask that you reverse this perplexing decision.”

The “Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers?” What? All 5 of them? I had to double check this story to make sure it didn’t originate on The Onion.

If the atheists don’t like it, let them sue. Caving in to a tiny group of malcontents is nonsense. A tiny minority should not be allowed to dictate to the clear majority.

If you ask me, there is nothing “freethinking” about their request. In fact, it is closed minded, anti-religious bigotry.

“If there were no God, there would be no Atheists.”

The first amendment guarantees you and I EACH the right to worship as we choose. Puzzle me this: How does one “worship” non-god and still allow me to worship my God? Here’s my argument:

If there is no god, what on earth is the harm of allowing a few people to worship as they please? What harm does it cause you? On the other hand, if there IS a God, and I am prevented from worship, it may in fact, cause me harm – not talking about hell here … but the harm from “bullying!” Isn’t that exactly what this is? One group FORCING or IMPOSING its will on another group is bullying just as surely as if one individual imposes his will on another! My worship of God does not have anything to do with you, except I may wish to share the joy and purpose I find in my worship. I do not believe faith should be “forced” or imposed onto unwilling people either! My position is, however, that it makes more sense logically to permit the worship of God as most of us a familiar, than to refuse it. It is not simply a case of majority rules, but … that may be part of it.

MISC Associated thoughts: If there was no darkness, we could not know light. It is one of those paradoxical but true thoughts that the negative proves the positive. Order is not automatic or “natural,” chaos is natural, so the presence of order presumes One who brought Order out of chaos.