Tuesday, January 3, 2012

The latest whack-a-mole

After tonight, we'll finally see the end of 24/7 news coverage in Iowa and go on the 24/7 news coverage in New Hampshire. All of that is designed to have us on the edge of our seats over who the Republicans will nominate as their presidential candidate. As one after another not-Romney pops up - only to be taken down - its been a somewhat entertaining battle to watch.

But I'm sooooo ready to be over it. Trying to keep up with all the stupid things these candidates are saying would take more than 24/7 blogging. And I'm just not interested in whacking every mole that pops its head up for a few minutes. When we finally have an identified candidate - whoever it is - their record against President Obama will come to light and that's when the real fun starts. Because none of them are going to look good in that picture.

I suppose that some pundits share my feelings and that's why they come around to "Romney-the-inevitable." But as I've said before, until I see that 75% of Republicans who are wary of him begin to get on board, I'm not ready to go there.

So Santorum is the latest whack-a-mole that has surfaced. Al Giordano thinks he might win Iowa. That sounds like a pretty good prediction to me seeing as how it was only 4 years ago that a little-known Senator organized his ass off there and took out the "inevitable" establishment candidate. CNN is reporting that Santorum's fundraising is soaring after his recent poll numbers. Remind you of anyone?

Its pretty easy these days to call New Hampshire for Romney. But as I said before...then we're on to South Carolina where the Governor, Nikki Haley, is taking a lot of heat for her Romney endorsement. That 75% keep telling us that they will NOT go quietly into the night.

Some of you have probably heard that yesterday Santorum threw out the dog whistle and picked up the bull horn.

He talked about how Iowa is going to get fined if more people don’t sign up for Medicaid and then said, "They're pushing harder and harder to get more and more of you dependent upon them so they can get your vote. That's what the bottom line is. So I don't want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else's money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families."
(Emphasis mine)

But lets also remember that Santorum is the so-called "Christian" who believes that poor people should suffer.

During a town hall meeting in Ottumwa, Iowa Friday afternoon, Rick Santorum argued that Americans receive too many government benefits and ought to “suffer” in the Christian tradition. If “you’re lower income, you can qualify for Medicaid, you can qualify for food stamps, you can qualify for housing assistance,” Santorum complained, before adding, “suffering is part of life and it’s not a bad thing, it is an essential thing in life.”

I'm still searching through my New Testament to find the time when Jesus saw the hungry, homeless or sick and simply told them that suffering was good for them. Can anyone point me to where that happened?

This is the passage that keeps coming to my mind.

Then the king will say to those good people on his right, 'Come. My Father has given you great blessings. Come and get the kingdom God promised you. That kingdom has been prepared for you since the world was made. You can have this kingdom, because I was hungry and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was alone and away from home, and you invited me into your home. I was without clothes, and you gave me something to wear. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you came to visit me.' "Then the good people will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and give you food? When did we see you thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you alone and away from home and invite you into our home? When did we see you without clothes and give you something to wear? When did we see you sick or in prison and care for you?' "Then the king will answer, 'I tell you the truth. Anything you did for one of the least of these my brethren, you also did for me.'


  1. I agree to a point. The flip side is that the Republican candidates have had to out-crazy each other in order to get attention. That should have provided a gold mine for Democrats to use against whatever GOP candidate finally emerges.

    Good day and good nuts.

  2. Jesus was great. I don't know why Santorum is so confused about it.

    Now, there was a line in Senegal when I lived there that a lot of people with money used that it was a great thing there were so many beggars, because it gave an opportunity for people with money to give. This was seen in a Muslim light, though definitely not all Senegalese Muslims thought that way. A step up from Santorum, though.

  3. Hey Squirrel!

    I agree about how they're out-crazying each other.

    As I was writing this I was trying to get in their heads about that. Do they really think they're going to appeal to a 50+1 majority with that nonsense? Or do they think they can pivot once the primaries are over and voters will just forget?

    Either way - I think they're toast.

  4. Bill

    Fascinating how people are so adept at rationalizing their faith.

    The camel and the eye of the needle story comes to mind too.

  5. I might not mind the 24/7 coverage if it was actually exposing what the candidates are about in their own words, as horrifying as that might be. But 98% of it is pundits blabbing on about polls and horseraces. I really don't remember it being this bad 4 years ago. 5 minutes exerpts of speeches have been reduced to 5 second sound bite-ettes.

  6. I got such a laugh when Barney Frank proposed this slogan for Dems: "We may not be perfect but they are nuts!"

    I love that guy. He will be missed by me.


  7. What translation did you use?