Drudge Makes 'People for the American Way' Story Against Santorum Lead

Today.

The left had the story five days ago here, and later here.





Is Drudge's sin of "talking like the left" the same as Newt's attacking "capitalism" back around January 11?

Dutch Protest They Euthanize At Most 3.2 Percent Of Elderly, Not 10 Percent

Jawohl. And the Holocaust of Jews is just exaggerated by Zionists.

See, we're not such bad people . . . we don't kill anywhere near the number extremists claim we do.

Buzzfeed has the story, here:

Dutch sources estimate that legal euthanasia is the cause of what the Christian paper Nederlands Dagblad put at 3.2% of deaths at the most liberal estimate, and others put around 2%. Public statistics, which have been reported since the practice was legalized in 2002, cite 3,136 reports of euthanasia out of a total of 136,000 in the Netherlands in 2011, a bit more than 2%.

From the Wikipedia entry on the Jews in the Netherlands:

Another explanation is that vast majority of the nation accommodated itself to circumstances: "In their preparations for the extermination of the Jews living in The Netherlands, the Germans could count on the assistance of the greater part of the Dutch administrative infrastructure. The occupiers had to employ only a relatively limited number of their own. Dutch policemen rounded up the families to be sent to their deaths in Eastern Europe. Trains of the Dutch railways staffed by Dutch employees transported the Jews to camps in The Netherlands which were transit points to Auschwitz, Sobibor, and other death camps." With respect to Dutch collaboration, Eichmann quoted as saying 'The transports run so smoothly that it is a pleasure to see.'".


The Dutch are as morally hollow now as they were then.

More On Santorum's Weaselly 'My Wife Wrote It' Excuse: Isn't He Now An Admitted Plagiarist?

From Dan Amira at New York Magazine here:

George Stephanopoulos brought up a controversial passage from Santorum's 2005 book, It Takes a Family, in which Santorum contends, "The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness." Santorum insisted to Stephanopoulos that he isn't saying women shouldn't work, only that there's nothing wrong with being a stay-at-home mom, if that's what they choose. The explanation wasn't new; Santorum has been asked about that quote many times. What was new was that this time, Santorum added that, oh, by the way, "that section of the book was co-written, if you want to be honest about it, by my wife." ...

You also have to wonder why Santorum is only now bringing up his wife's co-authorship of that controversial passage. When the book initially came out, in 2005, Santorum was constantly on TV defending this very same "radical feminists" quote. But, curiously, he never mentioned that his wife helped to write it, according to a search of Nexis transcripts — not in a July 25 interview on Hannity and Colmes, or in a Today show interview that same morning, or a July 27 interview on Hardball, or a July 28 interview on CNN's American Morning, or a July 31 interview once with ABC's This Week (deja vu!), or an August 5 interview with Tucker Carlson on MSNBC.

More recently, Santorum was asked about this very same passage during a May 2011 Fox News presidential debate in South Carolina, and again, he neglected to credit his wife.

A failure to provide proper attribution for someone else's words in order to make them appear to be your own is called plagiarism.

Sen. Rick Santorum's Anti-Protestantism: They are 'Gone From Christianity'

As usual for the senator, the following is inarticulately stated, but nevertheless it is clear enough that Sen. Santorum operates under an anti-Protestant Catholicism which was more common in the past and which finds the short-comings of Protestantism's more liberal denominations too good to pass up.

Excerpted from remarks made in Florida in 2008, referenced here and here:

"We all know that this country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic but the Judeo-Christian ethic was a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic, sure the Catholics had some influence, but this was a Protestant country and the Protestant ethic, mainstream, mainline Protestantism, and of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it."


A bunch of us Protestants think the same thing, but that's another story.

Rick Santorum Blames His Wife For Blaming Feminists in "It Takes a Family"

And you thought Newt Gingrich was the only two-timing traitor in the Republican race for president.

From The New York Times, here:

Asked on the ABC News program “This Week” about the book’s contentions, Mr. Santorum noted that his wife, Karen, had written that section — though only his name is on the cover and he does not list her in the acknowledgments as among those “who assisted me in the writing of this book.” ...

In the interview on Sunday, Mr. Santorum pleaded unfamiliarity with the citation, saying, “I don’t know – that’s a new quote for me.” ...

Nevermind there's nothing new about it, as the evidence adduced going back many years shows.

"The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate."

Weasel.

h/t Chris

Sarah Palin at CPAC: Still a Vulgarian and a Believer in the Imperial Presidency

As reported here:

Palin zeroed in on President Obama. The current state of the economy "is not a failure of the American people," she said. "It is the failure of leadership. We know how to change that, oh yes we do. Oh yes we can," she said, echoing Obama's campaign line. "Hope and change – yeah, you gotta hope things change."

"He says he has a jobs plan to win the future. WTF, I know," Palin said, spelling out W-T-F. Palin hasn't endorsed any candidates and didn't do so today, telling the crowd that "For the sake of our country we must stand united, whoever our nominee is." Palin left the stage to an extended ovation, having managed to do what none of the candidates except Santorum could: get social conservatives truly fired up.

That's right. Never tell the people they have the government they deserve, especially that crowd. 

Ann Coulter Still Thinks Newt Gingrich Is The Main Threat To Mitt Romney

Quoted here:

So I ask you, CPACers, who are you willing to stake the future of this country on winning? Who is going to appeal to the most Independents? Because, if we’re betting the future of this country on Next Gingrich not being repellent to Independents, I want my money back. I’m not taking that bet.

So, the three back-to-back victories this week for Sen. Rick Santorum are chopped liver?

FL Exit Polls Show Women Go Big For Romney at 51 Percent, Gingrich Second with 29

As reported here:

Among women, Texas Rep. Ron Paul won six percent, Gingrich won 29 percent, Romney won 51 percent and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum 13 percent.

Why aren't Santorum's and Paul's negatives with women indicative of their (non-existent) infidelities?

Erick Erickson predicted here that Cain and Gingrich would do poorly with women and not progress to the nomination because of their alleged infidelities.

Republican women in Florida must be pro-choice big time.

Rick Santorum on Mandates: Romney's For Them, 27 States Disagree and So Does Santorum

From his campaign website, here:

"The Romneycare individual mandate is essentially the same as the Obamacare individual mandate. Both reform laws rely on the government’s ability to tax and fine individuals to coerce them into purchasing “approved” health-insurance plans. Because of his support for an individual mandate, Mitt Romney finds himself at odds with the governors and attorneys general of 27 states, who are currently suing the federal government on the grounds that it is unconstitutional for the government to force people to purchase anything, even health insurance.

"Romney’s insistence that Romneycare is somehow different from Obamacare, simply because it was implemented at the state level rather than the federal level, is misleading. Romneycare, like Obamacare, is a massive intrusion of government into the private sphere. Neither of these government-run, top-down approaches to health care is the right prescription for America."

New Republic Article by Timothy Noah on Rick Santorum's Healthcare Mandate Views is False

The evidence cited in Timothy Noah's article for The New Republic most certainly does NOT prove that Rick Santorum once favored a healthcare mandate. Noah lazily reads today's debate about compulsory coverage back into a 1994 debate that was about private vs. employer-provided coverage.

In one article here from 1994, the emphasis is clearly on drawing a contrast between privately purchased coverage by individuals vs. the common practice of employer purchased coverage for employees. A mandate to purchase coverage is not in view:

"Santorum and Watkins would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits. ... Santorum introduced the idea of a medical savings account, called Medisave, which has become part of the Gramm bill. Under it, workers would buy major medical insurance and could make tax-free contributions to a Medisave account, from which they would pay for preventive services."

It is insane to press this language to prove Santorum supported government compulsion to purchase insurance in a 1994 race against an incumbent Democrat who was running away from Hillarycare at the time.

The same is true of this story:

"Wofford supports a modified version of President Clinton's call for health coverage for all Americans, funded largely by requiring employers to pay most of the premiums, as many do today.

"For several years, Santorum has promoted a Republican alternative. It would require workers to buy their own health insurance and allow monthly tax-free contributions into "Medisave" accounts to pay for routine medical services."

The context of the debate as presented is entirely within the world of work and employer provided health plans. The issue of compulsory coverage, and of coverage for individuals NOT employed, is wholly unaddressed.

But if Noah had actually bothered to read this article which he also cites (conveniently with a broken link), it should have been crystal clear to him that Santorum was operating in a healthcare environment which "offered," not "compelled," and that Santorum explicitly declined to offer the marginally employed person coverage of the type he was advocating at the time. Santorum's idea of healthcare restructuring was not universal, not compulsory, and wholly confined to the world of work:

U.S. Rep. Rick Santorum, R-Pittsburgh area, and Joe Watkins, a Philadelphia businessman who worked in the Bush White House, are seeking the Republican Senate nomination, creating the only true Senate primary race. ...

Santorum and Watkins both oppose having businesses provide health care for their employees. Instead, they would require individuals to purchase insurance. ...

They also oppose government-run health care and disagree with controls on doctor or hospital fees. They would cap malpractice awards. ...

The candidates split on offering health care for "marginally employed" people, with Watkins supporting it. Both oppose federally funded abortions.

Heritage Foundation Director Responsible for Healthcare Mandate Idea in 1989

It's one of three dirty little secrets about the Republicans that they are intellectually responsible for the healthcare mandate idea which we have so vehemently opposed but which now stares us in the face in ObamaCare. If ObamaCare were in fact a Bolshevik plot, that must mean the commies own also the Republican Party, not just the Democrat.

A Heritage Foundation director named Stuart Butler presented a paper in 1989 which contains the idea of the healthcare mandate, backed up by some of the absurd reasoning many of us had been attacking in the debate over the Senate healthcare bill, for example, the analogy between car insurance and health insurance.

The link to the full paper is here.

And here's an excerpt on the mandate:

This paragraph sounds like a Newt Gingrich talking point.

Boobs like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity incessantly promote the Heritage Foundation to their audiences, while claiming the mantle of conservatism. But as we all come to learn sooner or later, saying doesn't make it so.

Government compulsion continues to be the nexus of political conflict in America. Unfortunately for us, the Republican establishment is for it as much as our enemies on the left.

For more, regrettably, see here:

It wouldn't have been at all odd for any of these Republicans to support the individual mandate in the past, because it was a Republican idea, hatched by Stuart Butler and some others at the Heritage Foundation. (Documentation here.) Heritage has desperately tried to disavow it, but to no avail. Even James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal, apparently present at the creation, concedes the point. You sometimes hear conservatives defend their past support for the individual mandate by saying that something was needed to head off more ambitious health insurance schemes like Hillarycare, but that's another way of saying that whenever a conservative proposes any solution to the health care crisis he or she does so in bad faith. Vote Republican if you like, but don't kid yourself that a Republican president would replace Obamacare with anything at all. Not even Romney would. You might even say especially Romney, since the issue has brought him nothing but grief since the 2012 cycle began.

What a Shock: Washington Post Users Think Romney Won Debate

They also want him to have won. So they can beat him.

Conservatives think Gingrich was put on the defensive by Romney and that it was Santorum who scored the most important points against Romney. Gingrich was in a tough position, having to counter the Romney character assassination team without looking like the caricature of intemperance Romney is painting.

Insisting on audience participation also doubled back on Gingrich. Romney packed the house through his superior campaign organization, giving him the appearance of persuading.

Jan. 31 will tell the true tale, however, as elections always do.

Mitt Romney To Tea Party: ObamaCare's 'Not Worth Getting Angry About'

From the debate last night, as reproduced here:

Santorum said, “Just so I understand this, in Massachusetts, everybody is mandated as a condition of breathing in Massachusetts, to buy health insurance, and if you don’t, and if you don’t, you have to pay a fine.”

Moments later, as the discussion over Romneycare and Obamacare continued, Romney rebuked Santorum, saying, “First of all, it's not worth getting angry about.”

Tim Carney Draws Blood and Larry Kudlow Proves it By Losing His Cool

Kudlow didn't like being exposed for a hypocrite, and beat up on the young guy (video here) just to show who's in charge, but the point still stands:

Republicans shill for high finance and free trade at the expense of Main Street and American manufacturing workers. Protestations that government must not pick winners and losers to the contrary, it's high time in this country that American business and American government started picking America to win instead of some libertarian notion of the bottom line, which is poison to our communities.

Tim Carney speaks up against it here, noting how Rick Santorum's populism has rankled Kudlow.

Both Santorum and Gingrich Endorsed Liberal Republicans. Expect the Same as President.

endorsed Spectre

endorsed Scozzafava

Props to Erick Erickson: Republicans Are Insane

It's not a long post, but a good one:

The Republican Party has gone insane.

For the better part of the last three years the Republican Party has exercised itself into a frenzy over the need to repeal Obamacare. For the two years leading up to November of 2010, mostly middle aged working white people took to the streets in sizes rivaling a NASCAR race to protest the socialization of the American health care system.

The individual mandate and TARP draw the ire of scores of primary voters.

And our two front runners for President? They both support an individual mandate and they both supported TARP.

Not only that, just last year Mitt Romney was saying he’d keep parts of Obamacare. Like supporting amnesty, he has changed his position just in time for an election cycle.

Are we really going to do this?

I just want everyone to make sure they understand this and remind them that Perry, Bachmann, Huntsman, and yes, even Rick Santorum are still in the race.


A movement that doesn't understand what's happened to itself and can't come up with a candidate deserves everything it's going to get . . . in spades.

Net Worth of Poorest Republican Candidate for President is 10 X More Than 75 Percent of America

Here's the minimum net worth of the Republican candidates for president:

Sen. Rick Santorum: $880,000

Gov. Rick Perry: $1.1 million

Rep. Michele Bachmann: $1.8 million (Congressional disclosure is average of minimum and maximum)

Rep. Ron Paul: $3.6 million (Congressional disclosure)

Newt: $6.7 million

Gov. Jon Huntsman: $16 million

Gov. Mitt Romney: $190 million

Discussed here (link).

75 percent of the American people have a net worth in 2007 of $80,000 or less.

Phyliss Schlafly Likes Herman Cain's Corporate Tax Reforms

As reported here:

We should reduce or eliminate taxes on businesses that employ Americans producing goods and services inside our own country, while increasing taxes on the profits that corporations earn by outsourcing or manufacturing overseas.

Above all, we should eliminate the foreign tax credit, a self-destructive provision that allows corporations to pay China, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia the money they would otherwise owe the U.S. government. Let's also cut out the deductions that U.S. corporations take for hiring foreigners to do work that Americans can do. ... 

Of Republican presidential candidates, only Herman Cain and Rick Santorum understand that what corporations need is lower taxes on their operations inside the United States rather than on the profits they earn in other countries.

Herman Cain's So-Called Abortion Flip Was Nothing of the Kind: He Clearly Endorsed Private Choice For Adoption, Not Abortion.

What it was was a poor attempt to entrap the still too trusting Herman Cain to make it appear that his position on abortion is incoherent.

The transcript of the controversial interchange shows Herman immediately grasped Piers Morgan's attempt to bait and switch when Herman TWICE interjects the comment "you're mixing two things," namely "bringing up the baby as her own" and "abortion."

The media and the left, like Ed Kilgore of The New Republic here, are hoping that if they repeat their lie enough that we'll all believe it.

Piers Morgan starts talking about abortion, and suddenly introduces a hypothetical about raising a child who was conceived in a rape "as her own":

MORGAN: Abortion. What's your view of abortion?

CAIN: I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances. And here's why --

MORGAN: No circumstances?"

CAIN: No circumstances.

MORGAN: Because many of your fellow candidates -- some of them qualify that.

CAIN: They qualify but --

MORGAN: Rape and incest.

CAIN: Rape and incest.

MORGAN: Are you honestly saying -- again, it's a tricky question, I know.

CAIN: Ask the tricky question.

MORGAN: But you've had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?

CAIN: You're mixing two things here, Piers?

MORGAN: Why?

CAIN: You're mixing --

MORGAN: That's what it comes down to.

CAIN: No, it comes down to it's not the government's role or anybody else's role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you're not talking about that big a number. So what I'm saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.

Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn't have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.

MORGAN: By expressing the view that you expressed, you are effectively -- you might be president. You can't hide behind now the mask, if you don't mind me saying, of being the pizza guy. You might be the president of United States of America. So your views on these things become exponentially massively more important. They become a directive to the nation.

CAIN: No they don't. I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn't be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make.

MORGAN: That's a very interesting departure --

CAIN: Yes.

MORGAN: -- from the normal politics.

CAIN: Exactly.

There is absolutely nothing controversial here about Herman Cain saying a president has no business telling people to raise such a child as their own.

And Rick Santorum should be ashamed of himself for piling on.

Incidentally, Herman is correct about the relative rarity of the adoption question: statistics show just under 250,000 total children per year waiting to be adopted and adopted, in about equal numbers.

That's because our advanced civilization murders about 1,210,000 unborn children every year.