Rick Santorum has a serious problem that has no answer.  He must appeal to the conservative base.  He must strike a chord with the values people.  He needs to appeal to those who are known as the 3 G’s”  God, guns, and gay (anti).  That should not be difficult for Santorum.  His reputation in the U.S. Senate definitely fits the bill as he was very anti-gay rights, pro gun, wanted school vouchers, school prayer and those sorts of things.  He opposed anything having to do with reproductive rights.  He was anti abortion, even the hard cases.  He eschewed contraception and anything that smacked of Title X to include Planned Parenthood. 

Santorum definitely passes the values test.  So what’s the problem?  He is so values oriented that he would never be able to succeed in a general election.  Let’s say, taking a huge leap of faith, that Santorum got the GOP nod of approval.  The Democrats, the Independents, and many of the Republicans would mop the floor with him.  Even conservative Republicans don’t fit in Santorum’s mold.  Not even close. 

According to the Washington Post:

But old Santorum foes believe the red-hot attention he’s received since his Iowa ascent will remind voters of some of his most controversial past statements — and turn off Republican voters who want to tackle Obama with an economic message and not get distracted by social issues.

A Washington Post-ABC poll in October found that 51 percent of adults thought the economy or jobs were the most important issues in their selection of a GOP nominee. An additional 13 percent said the deficit, debt or spending. Just 3 percent said morals or family values were most important.

Santorum’s record is rich with statements that could turn off independents.

In a 2005 interview, Santorum called birth control “harmful to women.”

“I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young,” he said.

(He said last week that while personally opposed to birth control, he would oppose any attempt to ban it. “The idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd,” he said.)

In another interview in 2003, he compared gay sex to bestiality.

“In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality,” he said. “That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be.”

“The more familiar people become with Rick Santorum, the more they look at him, the less they’re going to like him,” said Dan Savage, a columnist and gay rights activist who became Santorum’s chief antagonist after launching a 2003 contest among readers to protest Santorum’s stance on homosexuality by finding ways to mock the politician’s name.

Granted, Dan Savage is an old adversary of Santorum.  However, much of what Santorum is saying is not going to sit well with the rank and file voter.  Americans seem too fixated on the economy and getting back to normal to fall for someone who wants to entertain the ‘family values’ issues.  Most people are fairly comfortable with their own family values. 

It remains to be seen how Rick Santorum plans to transition from a far right culture warrior to mainstream America.  I simply don’t see it happening–not in a general election.   Rick Santorum’s social agenda may have helped him win over evangelicals in Iowa, but it seems to be giving  his opponents in New Hampshire plenty of ammunition.  I doubt if he ever gets to the general election.

 My question is, when is it going to end?   If the new Perry position isn’t extreme enough, perhaps one of the big Ron Paul supporters is.  IN fact, the Ron Paul campaign is doing nothing to distance itself from this YoYo, reported  by outsidethebeltway.com :

Four years ago, the Ron Paul campaign generated controversy by not repudiating the endorsement of the neo-Nazi group Stormfront, but at least back then they didn’t actually promote the fact that they had received the endorsement. This time, though, they seem pretty proud about getting the support of a Nebraska Pastor who has made some pretty vile comments:

Paul’s Iowa chair, Drew Ivers, recently touted the endorsement of Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, a pastor at the Dominion Covenant Church in Nebraska who also draws members from Iowa, putting out a press release praising “the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs.” But Kayser’s views on homosexuality go way beyond the bounds of typical anti-gay evangelical politics and into the violent fringe: he recently authored a paper arguing for criminalizing homosexuality and even advocated imposing the death penalty against offenders based on his reading of Biblical law.

“Difficulty in implementing Biblical law does not make non-Biblical penology just,” he argued. “But as we have seen, while many homosexuals would be executed, the threat of capital punishment can be restorative. Biblical law would recognize as a matter of justice that even if this law could be enforced today, homosexuals could not be prosecuted for something that was done before.”

Reached by phone, Kayser confirmed to TPM that he believed in reinstating Biblical punishments for homosexuals — including the death penalty — even if he didn’t see much hope for it happening anytime soon. While he said he and Paul disagree on gay rights, noting that Paul recently voted for repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, he supported the campaign because he believed Paul’s federalist take on the Constitution would allow states more latitude to implement fundamentalist law. Especially since under Kayser’s own interpretation of the Constitution there is no separation of Church and State.

“Under a Ron Paul presidency, states would be freed up to not have political correctness imposed on them, but obviously some state would follow what’s politically correct,” he said. “What he’s trying to do, whether he agrees with the Constitution’s position or not, is restrict himself to the Constitution. That is something I very much appreciate.”

So basically this guy supports Ron Paul because he thinks a President Paul would make it easier for him and people like him to enact state laws that mirror the Book of Leviticus, and the Paul campaign welcomes his support. This is not libertarianism.

Great Scott!  Did this guy just advocate killing gays because the bible tells us to?  Ron Paul needs to issue a statement immediately saying this guy is not only unacceptable but also advocated committing murder which is illegal in all 50 states and all the territories.

I believe this primary season has shown me a few new lows in humanity that I never thought possible.  Rick Perry is pretty much out of the running but Ron Paul is a leader in the Iowa caucus.  Do people really think this behavior is acceptable?  Does Mike Huckabee believe what Rick Perry believes?  What is wrong with these people?  Kill the gays and force women to bear the offspring of their rapists.  I have to digest this information.  I am speechless.

This is a candidate that does not want to be associated with any political ideology, particularly the Democratic platform.

Let me share why I feel sorry for Mr. Candland.  I have had the privilege of working with people from many different perspectives in Prince William County on various issues, from land use, to power lines, to parks, to Silver Lake, to public school issues, et al.  I have built friendships with people that do not share the exact same political belief system as I do.  You know what, I am proud to call them friends. 

Ann Wheeler is telling Gainesville citizens that she is interested in solving problems based on best solutions not based on whether you have an R or a D by your name.  Isn’t that what we all want, people interested in coming together to solve problems! 

Does Peter Candland believe that Prince William County residents want our local government to emulate the  dysfunction we see happening the National level?  I for one do not.   Is Peter Candland’s message to the Gainesville District one of divisiveness? 

Does Mr. Candland understand that in order for a Democracy to be healthy, we must have differing opinions, and vigorous debate?  Mr. Candland being a Republican is no more unacceptable than Ann Wheeler being a Democrat.

Peter Candland clearly prefers to have a very small and myopic circle of friends and associates, ones that only share his point of view on all issues.

As an elected leader, it is critical that one have the ability and interest to reach out to those  with whom you may have differing opinions in order to find the best solutions.

According to the Des Moines Register:

The leader of an Iowa conservative organization Monday defended a statement about black children and slavery that it distributed in asking presidential candidates to vow their allegiance to one man/one woman marriage.

At least one presidential candidate, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, condemned the suggestion in the vow’s preamble that black children were better off during slave times. Also Monday, the think tank cited as the basis for the slavery statement denied saying anything like that.

The fact that two candidates, Bachmann and Rick Santorum, quickly signed the 14-point “candidate vow,” then later said they hadn’t read the entire four-page pledge document, highlights the pressure on candidates to prove their social conservative credentials to Iowa voters, politics watchers said.

The Iowa Marriage Vow Pledge can be downloaded here.

Both candidates  claim to have not read the verbiage.  Bachmann  further denounced slavery and argued that the statement was not part of the pledge, only background material. 

“I did not see that language. That was not a part of the vow,” Bachmann told reporters during a campaign stop Monday in Indianola.

Traditional marriage is the bedrock of society, Bachmann said. “Children need a mom and a dad in their life, and that’s why I signed it,” she said.

Slavery was a dark time in American history, and “certainly it would be absurd for anyone to think that a child would be better off raised in slavery than not,” Bachmann said. “That’s a terrible thing to say. I’m pleased that this has been taken care of.”

There is a lot more than the slavery statement that needs closer inspection.  There are 14 points that are actually part of the pledge.  The first 5 seem rather personal:

• “Personal fidelity to my spouse.”

• “Respect for the marital bonds of others.”

• “Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.”

• “Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage — faithful monogamy between one man and one women — through statutory-, bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.”

• “Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy.”

These points seem to require too much intrusion into the bedrooms of others.  I think we tend to assume that our elected officials will be faithful to their spouse.   Why should our candidates pledge something so personal?  Other points require opposition to women in combat, quickie divorces, (whatever that means),  action against pornography, forced abortion and forced prostitution.  Isn’t much of this simply asking candidates to uphold the law? 

At least one candidate, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson,  has voiced some common sense objections to this ‘purity test.’

Republican candidate Gary Johnson objected to the candidate vow itself, saying 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.”

“Government should not be involved in the bedrooms of consenting adults. I have always been a strong advocate of liberty and freedom from unnecessary government intervention into our lives,” Johnson, a former New Mexico governor, said in the statement.

When will the social values crew realize that there are just some areas that are personal?  What does a pledge really do?  Is this like one of those high school chastity pledges?  Will they give the candidates a cheesy little ring to show that they have’taken the pledge?’   This pledge is so fully of litmus tests that it resembles a chemistry lab. 

Bring on the adults to lead the country.  This test reads like it belongs in high school rather than for serious candidates for president of the United States.   I agree with Gary Johnson who calls the pledge:

 ”offensive and unrepublican,” an “[attempt] to prevent and eliminate personal freedom,” and finally, the “type of rhetoric” that “gives Republicans a bad name.”

The Richmond Federal Reserve is flying the rainbow flag to acknowledge gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender  pride month.  The request was made by PRISM, an advocacy group for the aforementioned groups.   The Fed is a private establishment.  Its first vice president, Sally Green acknowledged:

“We are flying the pride flag as an example of our commitment to the values of acceptance and inclusion.”

Sounds good to me.  Pretty flag, commitment to inclusion.  Gay people make and have money.  What could anyone find wrong?

Enter side-show Bob Marshall, 13th delegate district who claims  that flying the rainbow flag represents

“…a serious deficiency of judgment by your organization, one not limited to social issues.”

According to the Richmond Times Dispatch:

In a letter to Richmond Fed President Jeffrey M. Lacker, Marshall says the homosexual behavior “celebrated” by the bank “undermines the American economy” and is a class six felony in Virginia.

“The Richmond Fed’s endorsement of costly, anti-social, immoral behavior is rejected by 6,000 years of Western Religious and moral teaching,” writes Marshall, who is among the General Assembly’s most conservative members and has long been outspoken on gay-rights issues. “You want the American people to trust your [judgment] in economic matters when your spokesperson celebrates an attack on public morals?”

The entire text of his letter reads as follows:

Oh Bob, give it a rest.  Don’t bring  Thomas Jefferson in to it. 

Del.  Marshall continues to be an embarrassment to Virginians, whether he is sticking his nose into right to die issues, contraception issues, abortion issues, or any other topic relating to what normal people consider private matters. 

Mr. Marshall is one to question other people’s judgement.  I have seen questionable judgement on his part first hand.  He needs to think about his own past actions before accusing others.  Hopefully, with the newly acquired constituents in the 13th district, Mr. Marshall can be retired and simply send his ridiculous letters as a private citizen. 

WASHINGTON — President Obama will call this week for a broad plan to raise revenues and cut deficits, as the battle over fiscal issues moves past this weekend’s budget deal and into a broader and more consequential debate over the nation’s long-term fiscal health. 

In a speech to be delivered at a university here on Wednesday, Mr. Obama will call on Congress to join him in writing a multiyear debt-reduction plan that would depart significantly from the one proposed by House Republicans, administration officials said.

The Republican plan includes an overhaul of Medicare and trillions of dollars in tax cuts, while sparing defense spending. Mr. Obama, by contrast, envisions a comprehensive plan that would include tax increases for the richest taxpayers and military spending cuts as well as savings in Medicare and Medicaid, along with changes to Social Security that the administration says will ensure its solvency for decades — much like his fiscal commission recommended in December.

The Radical Republicans will have their targets still, like Planned Parenthood, PBS, NPR and other government subsidized entities and will go after them with a vengeance.  Education will also be targeted.  Mental health and substance abuse programs have already been targeted.  HCR will also have a nuke aimed at it. 

Before the 2012 budget is considered, Congress must raise the debt ceiling.  Failure to do so will ruin any chance of recovery and in all probability will limit our ability to borrow at low interest rates.  Congressmen who try to play political reindeer games with the debt ceiling will pay for it at election time.

It is not known if the President will assume the same mediator role as he did for 2011 budget.  Little is known how the Democrats will respond.  What will be that target from either group?  

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rachel Maddow finds herself in the middle of an over-reach by a conservative group.  She has found that she is the subject of a FOIA request at 3 state universities. 

Maddow is quoted in the  Huffington Post:

The latest incarnation of this breed of conservatism weirdly involves this show,” Maddow said. As she described it, a conservative think tank in Michigan called the Mackinac Center submitted a FOIA request seeking any emails from labor professors at the University of Michigan, Wayne State University and Michigan State University. The center demanded any email that includes the words “Scott Walker,” “Wisconsin,” “Madison,” and “Maddow.”

Maddow said she thought that the Center’s interest in her was due to her highlighting of a controversial bill in the state that seeks to allow the state government to declare a financial emergency in a town and send in an unelected official who can actually dissolve the town.

“This show was the first national news outlet to report in detail on that policy, and now, the Mackinack [sic] Center is demanding the emails of anybody who could be an expert on that subject who might have the temerity to type the word ‘Maddow’ in any context in an email,” Maddow said. “How’s that leave me alone personal liberty thing working out for you?”

First of all, can the Mackinac Center do this?  Sure.  The bottom line is that the computers are owned by the state.  They could also do the same thing to students.  The question becomes what kind of pissing contest do they really want to get in.  Scott Walker and is ilk were ushered in by people who valued personal liberties.  This behavior is direct intrusion into other people’s business. 

College and university professors, instructors, and students have generally enjoyed a great deal of academic freedom with very little interference.  To target those who have mentioned those words is intimidation and  comes close to being a first amendment violation.   It continues the war on public employees.  Make no mistake.  It is a war and it is on all public employees, in particular, those who are educators. 

The Mackinac Center and the Scott Walkerites will not win.  He and other governors like him have already had serious drops in the polls.  Once again they overstepped their bounds.  Americans don’t like what they saw. 

How long will it take before they are out of office?  Extremists always screw up.  They are so certain of their own rightness that they invariably overstep until many who put them in office have buyer’s regret. It’s only a matter of time. 

Guest poster

From News and Messenger:

Del. Bob Marshall is at it once again. In a recent diatribe before the Virginia General Assembly, Marshall chose to compare scientists doing stem cell research with World War II Nazi “doctors” who performed “experiments” on hapless Holocaust victims.

Marshall’s conduct in this case is reprehensible and to make things even worse, it has been learned that Mr.

Marshall has never been to the Holocaust Museum in Washington to see what really took place. He invokes the Holocaust and Nazism when it fulfills his need for publicity.

Shame on him for using a Nazi comparison to impugn the good works of honest scientists seeking cure to horrible diseases and conditions.

Disclaimer: All guest posts are the opinion of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views of moonhowlings.net administration

M-H 

Since when was ‘human life begins at conception’ implanted into the Virginia curriculum? Didn’t see that one coming.

More to the point, Bob ‘Sideshow’ Marshall is shown comparing scientists who conduct and study stem cell research to Nazi war criminals during WWII. Bobby, that is just too cultural warrior for the floor of the General Assembly. No, he didn’t say the words but he painted the picture. You might want to ask your local, state and national legislators if they support Sideshow’s proposed ban on stem cell research.

Stem Cell Information from NIH

Most people don’t give a rat’s ass about the politics of PBS, if there are any.  Most people just like NOVA, Antiques Road Show, Masterpiece, and American Experience.  There are numerous kids shows, some entertainment and some educational.  At least 2 or 3 generations grew up on shows like  Sesame Street and the Electric Company.  These shows were on the airwaves.  No cable was needed.  Poor kids got some solid education, even if their parents didn’t have cable or if there were no satellite TV. 

American Experience is one of the best documentaries on television.  The presidents series highlights a president’s life and accomplishments, without over-exposure to politics or without straying away from some of the real disturbances during that term of office.  We need to be able to see all sides of history without being beaten over the head with the politics if we are truly to be an educated society.

Some truly great shows have been shown on Public Broadcasting Service.  Ken Burns’ Baseball, The War, and The Civil War, The West, just to name a few, have been featured on PBS.  These documentaries have given us an inside peek at history without censoring us because of controversy. 

Read what Ken Burns has to say about the proposed defunding of PBS, from the Washington Post  on February 27, 2011:

Public broadcasting, a ‘luxury’ we can’t do without

By Ken Burns

Sunday, February 27, 2011

 Like millions of my countrymen, I am profoundly concerned that the debate over government spending, while necessary, has come to threaten the cultural, educational, informational and civilizing influences that help equip us for enlightened citizenship. Suddenly, these are dismissed as “unaffordable luxuries” when in fact we have never needed them more.

In the midst of the Great Depression, our government managed to fund some of the most enduring and memorable documentaries, photographs, art and dramatic plays this country has ever produced. Our need for such cultured and civilizing influences is no less urgent now.

Difficult decisions will have to be made – but not on the back of an infinitesimally small fraction of the deficit that the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and public broadcasting represent. These institutions are in their fifth decade of unmatched service. With minimal funding, PBS manages to produce essential (commercial-free) children’s programming as well as the best science and nature, arts and performance, and public affairs and history programming on the dial – often a stark contrast to superficial, repetitive and mind-numbing programming elsewhere. PBS supplements the schedules of hundreds of other channels. It produces “classrooms of the air” that help stitch together statewide educational activities and helps create cradle-to-grave continuing education services that are particularly appreciated in rural states. Alaska, Oklahoma, Arkansas, West Virginia are among the states that depend on PBS shows daily, belying the canard that this is just programming for the rich and bi-coastal.

Polls consistently show that huge majorities of all Americans support public broadcasting. And false arguments of bias in public broadcasting often cut both ways; members of the Clinton administration bitterly complained to me about criticism they perceived as coming from NPR. PBS is the place that gave William F. Buckley a home for almost 30 years. In an age when nearly everyone selects their media on the basis of their political views, it’s refreshing to have an in-depth option that periodically upsets the powers-that-be in both parties. Our founders would be delighted.

Many say that what can’t survive in the marketplace doesn’t deserve to survive. Not one of my documentaries, produced solely for PBS over the past 30 years, could have been made anywhere but on public broadcasting. Each time a film of mine happens to reach a large audience, I am “invited” to join the marketplace. Each time I patiently explain to my new suitor what I have planned for my next project – an 11-and-a-half-hour history of the Civil War, perhaps, or a 17-hour investigation of the history of jazz, or a 12-hour history of the national parks – I am laughed out of their offices, sent, happily, back to PBS.

The marketplace can be wonderful. Its relentless forces do weed out many unnecessary things, but there are some things the marketplace cannot do. It won’t come to your house at 3 in the morning if it’s on fire, it doesn’t plow the streets in a blizzard and it doesn’t have boots on the ground in Afghanistan. I don’t mean to suggest that PBS or the endowments have a direct role in the defense of our country; no, they help make the country worth defending.

In the late 1980s, I had the honor of meeting President Ronald Reagan at a White House reception. I told him I was a PBS producer working on a history of the Civil War. His eyes twinkled as he recalled watching, as a young boy, parades of aging Union veterans marching down the main street of Dixon, Ill., on the Fourth of July. Then, in almost an admonishment, he spoke to me about the responsibility he saw for a private sector-governmental partnership when it came to public broadcasting and the arts and humanities. (His administration was very supportive of these long-standing institutions.) I told him that nearly a third of my budget for the Civil War series came from a large American corporation, a third from private foundations, and a third from the National Endowment for the Humanities, an agency then led by Lynne Cheney. He smiled and then held me by the shoulders, and his eyes twinkled again. “Good work, he said. “I look forward to seeing your film.”

Today, our funding model remains essentially the same. But proposals to defund CPB and the endowments will put some of the best stuff on the tube and radio out of business. Somewhere, I imagine, the twinkle would be extinguished from Ronald Reagan’s eyes.

The writer is a filmmaker.

 The proposal to defund government support of PBS is nothing new. It has been going on for years. Recent government spending cuts is just an excuse. Let’s talk about issues, not money. What is it that is good about PBS and what do people not like? Is the mark of a civilized society not somewhat about the arts? When we have Olympics and football teams, is there no room for shows on TV that aren’t pock marked with advertising? Can we have shows like Masterpiece Theater and American Experience? How about some of the great music shows like the Doo Whop Concerts, Celtic Woman, various folk artists for some variety? I rather like the non-exposure to Lady Gaga. The Ken Burns documentaries have been extraordinary. Not everyone can afford HBO. Does that mean we are cut off from anything that might be considered ‘the arts?’ In a time when football, hockey, Charlie Sheen and numerous comedies permeate the airwaves, how nice to be able to kick back for an evening of Downton Abby.

Note:  The new Virginia budget cut funding for  public television by 10%.  That seems fair.