Santorum's excess goes over the line

Rick Santorum is going all out to capture the right-wing Christian voters.  He accuses President Obama of waging "war against religion."   He says that when he hears about separation of church and state, he feels like throwing up.  In his view, the separation should be absolute in one direction (the state cannot interfere with religion) but not the other (religion should very much influence the state).

He's running out of new accusations to throw, so now he's saying that Obama is a "snob" for wanting all Americans to engage in higher education, because not everybody wants or needs to go to college.   Sunday on ABC’s This Week, he doubled down on that point by adding that it's part of the war on religion.  He declared that “62 percent of kids who enter college with some sort of faith commitment leave without it."

Get the message?   Higher education is ruining our young people, turning them away from their faith.  There's a slight problem with that:  multiple studies have found that the opposite is true — including the one that Santorum has reportedly been referring to.

Although his spokesman did not respond to a request for their source, PBS concluded that he was probably referring to a study published in 2007 in the journal Social Forces, which found that 64% of students in four year college programs experienced a decrease in their frequency of attendance at religious worship services.

However, that is only half of what they found.  The other half (inconvenient for Santorum's purpose) was that those who don’t go to college at all have an even steeper decline (76%) in their attendance.

Another self-report study (Harvard 2006) found that 25% of college students said they had become more spiritual during college, while only 7% said they had become less spiritual.

These numbers are completely beside the point, of course.   Santorum is going after people who want confirmation of their paranoid mistrust of science, education, and reason.   Remember that infamous quote during the Bush administration from one of his insider staff people who differentiated those who live in the "reality-based" world from those who live in the "faith-based" world?    He was talking about people in the Bush administration who live in a fantasy-based world.

Santorum will go on believing that college is dangerous, and some of his followers will too.

But it is not a winning strategy, and many Republicans know that and are worried. Governor Chris Christie and even right-wing Gov. Bob McDonnell (VA) have spoke out in defense of Obama's educational policies.

The Obama team could not possibly write a better script for the GOP primary battles if it had free rein over the process.

Ralph

Romney wrong on auto bailout

Mitt Romney tried to reframe his opposition to the government bailout of General Motors and Chrysler in 2008-09 by saying that what he had said was that the government should have stayed on the sidelines and allowed the auto industry to go through "an orderly bankruptcy procedure."

He now likes to add, "I was right."   GM and Chrysler did go through bankruptcy and now they are thriving again.

Not so fast, says Steven Rattner, who was the lead adviser to the government's auto task force that oversaw the bailout.   Rattner writes in a New York Times op-ed:

That sounds like a wonderfully sensible approach — except that it’s utter fantasy. In late 2008 and early 2009, when G.M. and Chrysler had exhausted their liquidity, every scrap of private capital had fled to the sidelines.

I know this because the administration’s auto task force, for which I was the lead adviser, spoke diligently to all conceivable providers of funds, and not one had the slightest interest in financing those companies on any terms. If Mr. Romney disagrees, he should come forward with specific names of willing investors in place of empty rhetoric. I predict that he won’t be able to, because there aren’t any.

Without government financing — initiated by President George W. Bush in December 2008 — the two companies would not have been able to pursue Chapter 11 reorganization. Instead they would have been forced to cease production, close their doors and lay off virtually all workers once their coffers ran dry. . .

Now, less than three years later, G.M. and Chrysler have markedly exceeded our expectations. . . .And they are hiring new workers for the first time in many years. . . .  All of this was accomplished at relatively low cost; taxpayers will receive back the vast preponderance of the $82 billion that was invested.

 So, let's be honest here, Mitt.   Your plan would not have worked, and you can't have it both ways.   If your plan had been followed, says Mr. Rattner -- himself a long-time Wall Street executive -- "More than a million jobs would have been lost, at least for a time. Michigan and the entire industrial Midwest would have been devastated."

What enabled the companies to survive and continue operation (and preserve jobs) was the government's bailout money.   Without that, they could not have continued operating enough to go through bankruptcy.  They would simply have failed and closed.

Ralph

It's beginning to look like an easy ride for Obama

I know we shouldn't get complacent.   The economy could go sour again;  there could be bad news from Europe's financial woes;   Iran is a problem and hawks are rattling sabers and criticizing Obama for not doing the same;  another war could flare up.

But the more sober Republicans are beginning to panic.  So why shouldn't we feel good?

The way Romney and Santorum are both shooting themselves in the foot is astounding.

Romney's major speech in Detroit yesterday was supposed to shore up his relations with Michigan and the auto industry (given his opposition to the bailout).   So what does he do?  He wants them to know how many Detroit made cars he and his wife own.  So he says that he has a Mustang and a pickup truck, and "Ann drives a couple of Cadillacs."

A couple of Cadillacs?

How well do you think that's going to go over with the guy who just lost his job and may lose his house?   Romney just can't break the habit of goofily reminding us that he belongs to the 1% -- actually the 0.001%.  It's not that he's a snob.   His vocabulary just isn't from the same economic lexicon as ordinary people who worry about money.

Remember these lines:  "I'll bet you $10,000" (to Rick Perry).   "It wasn't very much money that I earned from giving speeches" (turns out it was several hundred thousand).   "I really don't worry about the very poor;  there are government programs to help them."

And then there's Rick Santorum -- earnest Catholic altar boy that he is.   Here's what he said about Obama's plan to help students with college tuition:

“I understand why Barack Obama wants to send every kid to college, because of their indoctrination mills, absolutely.  The indoctrination that is going on at the university level is a harm to our country.”

Take that, Harvard !!!    Eat your heart out, Yale !!!   Down with scholarship !!!

These schools that teach children and young adults to think for themselves are very very bad.  They're ruining the country.   Public education is no good;  everybody should home school their kids;  universities are harmful -- don't let your kids go there.  Even Notre Dame teaches science and philosophy.   EEKKK !!!   The sky's falling !!!!  Downfall of theocracy, folks.

Seems like either of these guys would be pretty easy to dispose of in the general election.

Ralph

If they'd only listen to me #2

Two days ago I wrote about the hairstylist in Santa Fe who declined to cut the governor's hair because of her opposition to gay marriage.   And I renewed my call for a strike of all the wedding-providing service industry to not put on any more weddings until marriage equality is a reality.

Here's a followup.  Antonio Darden says he has received an outpouring of support "beyond belief," from as far away as Hong Kong.   Other hairstylists, including one from Toronto, have told him they are joining him and will not accept clients who publicly oppose gay marriage.

He may be an unlikely leader, but he's on the right track.  Here's what he said:

"It makes me think more, why don’t gay people, because of the service industry we provide, start doing the same thing and get our rights? We are not asking for something outrageous. . . .   "I do believe we should be able to refuse the service.  If our equal rights are being violated, I think I should refuse the service."

As the drag queens led the Stonewall uprisings, maybe the hairstylists will spearhead the marriage activism.

Ralph

Some good trends

1.  The Virginia legislature passed a modified ultrasound anti-abortion law -- having scrapped the requirement for the more invasive vaginal procedure in favor of an external ultrasound exam.

   It's still a politically motivated, completely unnecessary procedure, mandated by the radical right wing intent on overturning Roe v. Wade.    But at least more moderate voices are beginning to be heeded.

2.  More evidence of that:   the same Virginia legislature also tabled the controversial "personhood" bill that was about to be passed.   Officially, they voted to postpone consideration for the next legislature;  but by then the 2012 election will be over and what's politically popular may have changed.

3. In the month of February, three (3) state legislatures voted to legalize same-sex marriage:  Washington (signed by the governor), New Jersey (vetoed by the governor), and Maryland (awaiting the governor's signature).   WA and MD join six other states (MA, IA, NH, VT, CT, NY) and the District of Columbia, with CA's Prop8 pending a decision in the federal court of appeals.

4.  Another federal judge has ruled that parts of the Defense of Marriage Act are unconstitutional.   This was the case that the Department of Justice declined to mount a defense for, citing legal scholars that the law is unconstitutional.  But then John Boehner and his House GOP crowd authorized $500,000 of tax payer money to pay legal fees for a defense.  They lost.   Boehner should apologize to the taxpayers for squandering half a million for a fool's errand in a time of slashing funding for people in real need.

5.  The media is beginning to fact check Newt Gingrich's wild claims and outrageous charges.  His charging Obama with "supporting infanticide" is really just ridiculous and needs no check.  Supporting legal abortion rights is not the same as killing babies, Newt.  Just get over it.

6.  Newt's off the wall claim in the recent debate that he would save $500 billion a year by overhauling the civil service system was easily checked.   Josh Marshall found that the entire federal payroll (including military, which is not civil service) adds up to $432.6 billion.  So even if Newt fired every government employee, it would not save $500 billion.

7.  This one is silly, but it shows how Newt will just say anything for effect.   He's been peddling a line that gets attention, criticizing Obama for expecting fuel-efficient cars to be enough to make us energy-independent.  He says:  "You can't put a gun rack in a Volt," the volt being the new Chevrolet all electric car.

   Truth is, it's been tried.  And you can easily mount several different, commercially available gun racks in the back of a Volt.

8.   And let's add this on to the list:   Economic indicators continue to improve, and there is a palpable lifting of the mood in this country.   Maybe the best proof of that is Obama's rising approval ratings, plus his outpolling each of his potential opponents.

All in all, a good week.

Ralph

Newt's last hurrah

There are no more debates planned for the GOP primary campaign, so last night could very well have been Newt's last hurrah.   And it wasn't much to shout about.

The big action was between Romney and Santorum, with Paul chiming in with his quirky appeal.  Newt kept out of the fray for the most part, throwing in a few zingers as only Newt can hone them.

His claim that, as a state legislator, Obama supported "infanticide" is just not worth spending any time on.  No, Newt.  Supporting legal abortion rights is not the same as baby-killing.  So just get over it.

The other one left people scratching their heads, because it came from out of the blue and has no factual basis.   Newt declared that reforming the federal civil service system -- which he, of course, will do as president -- "could save a minimum of $500 billion a year."   Wow !!   Could it be?

Josh Marshall of TPM did some math.   The entire federal payroll -- even including the military -- is only $432.6 billion a year.    So, he concludes, if you fired every single person who works for the federal government (which includes far more people than the civil service system), it would not amount to $500 billion.

As of this writing, Newt's campaign had not returned Marshall's request for clarification.

Ralph

Why didn't I think of that?

OK.   Less than an hour ago, I posted my "If they'd only listen to me" blog.   And now the news has answered me back with this item -- Democrats in the State Legislature are way ahead of me on the clever comeback.

Remember a few weeks ago when the proposed Virginia law requiring (unnecessary) ultrasound exams for women seeking abortions was countered by an amendment requiring that all men have prostate exams before they could get Viagra prescriptions?

Well, now here in Georgia, there is a new anti-abortion bill being considered that would set the limit on abortions at 20 weeks instead of 24 weeks.    Look how that's being countered (thanks to Huffington Post):

A group of female Democratic legislators in the Georgia House of Representatives has proposed a bill that would ban men from seeking vasectomies.

"Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies," said bill author Yasmin Neal. . . . It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women's ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States" . . . 

"The Republican attack on women's reproductive rights is unconscionable," said House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams. . . What is more deplorable is the hypocrisy of [the anti-abortion bill's] author. If we follow his logic, we believe it is the obligation of the General Assembly to assert an equally invasive state interest in the reproductive habits of men and substitute the will of the government over the will of men."

Don't you just love it when someone uses logic to expose the hypocrisy of conservative bigots?  They want to control women's reproductive lives but yell like stuck pigs if anyone wants to regulate anything in their lives (like guns or their freedom to impose their will on others)?

Ralph