Of all the things I tweeted during last night’s Republican presidential debate in Iowa, none was more surprising — including to myself — than this one: “SANTORUM FTW.”
And I wasn’t being sarcastic. Rick Santorum, the archconservative also-ran from Pennsylvania, with whom I disagree about most everything — especially gay rights — thrilled me enough to bust out that unironic “FTW” (“For The Win”) because of this response to Michelle Bachmann’s (and Ron Paul’s!) ongoing cavalcade of sheer nonsense with regard to the debt ceiling:
He’s wrong, of course, about “focusing” on the Balanced Budget Amendment. But on the fantasy of never raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances, he’s dead on. Wonder of wonders, he actually does math, and throws some facts into the debate. Amazing!
As I tweeted afterward:
Rick Santorum actually does math, calls out Bachmann on “showmanship, not leadership” re: debt ceiling. THANK YOU!! #SantorumHaters4Santorum
Santorum did in 30 seconds what the bulk of the media failed to do for months. #ThankYouRickSantorum
Re: Bachmann, debt ceiling, facts & math, media should be utterly, deeply ashamed that RICK SANTORUM is doing its job for it. #4thEstateFAIL
“Showmanship, not leadership” was a reprise of a line he’d used a few minutes earlier:
He’s wrong on taxes (though I suspect he’s pandering, as all Republicans apparently must, to the Church of Norquist there, as it rather clearly contradicts his overall premise about compromise). But again, his overall premise regarding the necessity of compromise is right on, and makes Santorum seem almost like the voice of reason in this GOP field — a scary prospect, to say the least.
Okay, that was a dig, but in all seriousness, Santorum — who I’ve never really followed closely, viewing him mostly through the lens of reflexive liberal villification and caricature, not to mention vulgar Internet satire — really did impress me last night. Don’t get me wrong, I could never vote for the man. But he’s what a figure like Bachmann or Palin should be: a far-right, red-meat-serving lightning rod, conservative enough to make left-wingers apopleptic (as with his radical yet thoughtful answer on abortion, with which I disagree, but certainly respect as an intellectually and morally defensible position on an incredibly difficult issue), but one whose differences with the left are fundamentally based on different opinions, different values and a different worldview, yet grounded in the same facts rather than in alternate-reality lies and nonsense. He’s a radical, yes, but he’s not a demagogue. A wingnut, but not a dishonest, deranged wingnut. 🙂 At least, that’s how he came across last night.
As I put it in some follow-up tweets, I vehemently disagree with Santorum on many things, but unlike Bachmann, he seems to exist within a world of facts, so I can respect him. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. They’re not entitled to their own facts, yet Bachmann thinks she is. Santorum and I merely differ (if quite strongly) on opinions. That’s okay. That’s what democracy is, or should be, about. With someone like Santorum, a real debate is possible. With someone like Bachmann, you can’t have a discussion because she’s completely untethered to objective reality. And unlike Romney, or for that matter Obama — typical politicians who say plenty of half-true or somewhat implausible things for transparently political reasons — Bachmann appears to fully believe her own b.s., which is terrifying:
Michelle Bachmann, even when given a second chance, seemed genuinely to believe that the federal debt ceiling applied to future spending, not bills and tax cuts the Congress had already voted to enact. Not sure which is worse: that she knows better and decided this was an applause line to push, or she really doesn’t know the first thing about the Congressional budgeting process. I bet most Americans also think that holding down the debt ceiling is a forward-looking budgetary step — ie, that it’s like resolving to spend less next month. But they’re still wrong. The real comparison is resolving not to pay a credit card bill when it shows up. For a national candidate not to understand this??? Seriously, this is like discovering that your doctor thinks that your trachea is attached to your spleen.* …
* I am trying to think of a comparable previous case of a national candidate displaying a similar gross error of basic factual understanding. I’m not talking about non-mainstream views, or of controversial goals or interpretations. I mean someone who clearly did not know how the American government works, although being part of it. If someone can top this, I’ll be interested to hear it.
So the man impressed you…but you would “never” vote for him. As in, Barack Obama could start World War III, open a portal to hell through which comes a demon that eats your firstborn and takes your left arm, but by God if it’s a choice between the incumbent and Rick Santorum you’ll be damned if you’re voting for the crazy Republican son-of-a-b*tch.
Thank you for pointing out A. why I’m an independent and B. why I think we’re f*cked. And yes, I did take an offhand comment and run with it…but you do this all the time to conservatives (and some liberals) so I have no remorse. 😉
“open a portal to hell through which comes a demon that eats your firstborn and takes your left arm”
As they say, better to stick with the devil you know.
But, yeah, it’s a false choice. You can also vote for a minor party candidate, or do what the plurality of those eligible to vote usually do: decline to support any candidate.
*I am trying to think of a comparable previous case of a national candidate displaying a similar gross error of basic factual understanding.”
Well to accomplish that Mr. Fallows needs to reach Waaay back in time — to 2008 and Representative Bachmann’s BizarroWorld twin, Governor Palin. :>
Granted, Sarah suffered a Distributive Injustice vis-à-vis her ideological sister when the IQ’s (not to mention, the wolf-faced-crazy devil-eyes 😉 were being allocated; but just because one Twin is always Smarter than the other, doesn’t necessarily put her any more in Touch with objectiive Reality. ;}
Yes, commentator Fallows could have Pre-emptively Struck down my point here, by writing “a Presidential candidate” instead of “a national candidate” — but, he Didn’t. 🙂 His defense must rest — uneasily — on linkage of “a comparable previous case” to “…someone who clearly did not know how the American government works, although being part of it. OK, so Sister Sarah technically wasn’t Part of it, in the National sense. She governed only Alaska — constitutionally an American sub-polity — and admittedly she Did seems to know, or quickly learn, how that government works, with the record suggesting that she Worked its workings to the Hilt. / Anyway, it’s an Arguable rebuttal to my case — but, Weak! ;}
At the End of the Day (does anybody ever Say that any more? If not: Good! 🙂, pragmatically it doesn’t Matter. The Republican nominee will be Rick Perry. His VP runningmate will be Gov. John Kasich of Ohio. They will Win. // Remember, you read it here First.
🙁
Just out of curiosity, Joe … is there a similar “error of basic factual understanding” on Palin’s part that you had mind, or are we supposed to guess? It may just be that you cleverly hid it somewhere underneath all that jibber-jabber and I didn’t see it, but I can’t really stand to go back and reread it …
Why Kasich rather than Rubio?
As for Perry, the best hope to prevent him from becoming the nominee is…….none other than Michelle Bachmann. She needs to win Iowa and stick around long enough to split the early conservative states (or at least their delegates) with Perry, while Romney coasts in the liberal and western states. If she bows out early, and it becomes a Perry vs. Romney one-on-one battle, Perry wins.
So… GO MICHELE GO! BUT ONLY TO A POINT! 😉
JustCurious JoeMama: yes, you are supposed to Guess. :} But, you have an Extraordinarily broad range of likely Guesses for to Hazard. IOW, for once the odds don’t Favor the house, so Guess away. (Hint: examine any ’08 campaign Video in which her lipsticked soccer-mom Lips were Movin’. 🙂
“Why Kasich rather than Rubio?”
Because Perry will carry Flor-i-DUH! anyway — but not necessarily Ohio. (Whereas, he can take back VA & NC, Irregardless of his Veep.)
Granted, Rubio would help — somewhat — with the Latino vote Elsewhere. / But, he’s of veryconservative Cuban-exile descent. Will that win back NV? NM? Will it flip CO?? Maybe — but, I’m skeptical.
“…while Romney coasts in the liberal and western states.”
Isn’t it Ironic? Invincibly armored in the Mitness Protection Plan, Romney wins the GOP Nom with a grand Republican Coalition of effete Bi-coastal and Upperwidwestern RINO quasi-moderates & hardcore Intermountain Mormons. // Fuggedaboud it. ;}
#4: In the month before the 2008 election, she listed one of the responsibilities of the VP as:
“they’re in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to, they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes”
While the VP is indeed the President of the Senate, I think Adams was probably the last one who actually thought himself to be “in charge” of anything.
Re #8:
So basically, Palin was correct as she usually is, but her answer could be twisted into an attack on her as it usually is?
I do not view Palin’s response on the role of the VP as showing an understanding of how the government works. The VP doesn’t have the privilege of speaking from the floor during debate. VPs are rarely called upon to break ties (especially with the bipartisan practice of the routine filibuster), and indeed quite a few vice-presidencies have gone by without the VP ever having the opportunity to vote.
If you really think that Palin was correct, what are some “good policy changes” that a Vice President has been able to make, which were accomplished by “getting in there with” the Senate, since…Reconstruction?
1) Regardless of your evaluation of the powers of the President of the Senate, the V.P. is the presiding officer of the Senate according to the Constitution, even though it has become custom for the Senate to select a pro tempore president to do the job most of the time. So she was right, the VP is in charge of the Senate. Sounds like she understands that part of the government and Constitution much better than most.
2) Just because Vice-Presidents have failed to attempt to “get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes” in the past doesn’t mean they can’t in the future. In fact, I consider her desire to do so a feature, not a bug. In fact, wasn’t V.P. Biden attempting to do exactly that the last six months?
1) I guess it depends on your definition of “in charge.” Anyone who paid attention during their elementary school civics lesson knows that the VP is the titular presiding officer, but that title is virtually meaningless. You don’t need to take my word for it; you can determine this empirically by observing the VPs’ behavior. If the President of the Senate held any meaningful power at all, then when the VP was not of the same party that held the majority in the Senate, he would show some shred of reluctance to cede that power to his political opponents.
2) It’s admirable to want to (Palin) or to try to (Biden) do something. Past Vice-Presidents haven’t failed to attempt to influence policy, through, they’ve attempted and failed. You’re correct that this don’t guarantee future failure, but nor does it provide any reason to expect success.
I guess it depends on your definition of “in charge.”
In this case, I (and apparently Palin) base my definition on the U.S. Constitution. What do you base your on?
The only reason that the title is “virtually meaningless” (which is different from meaningless, as I believe even you are willing to admit) is because previous VPs chose not to attempt to use the office to influence the Senate.
“In this case, I (and apparently Palin) base my definition on the U.S. Constitution.”
How, pray tell, does the Constitution define the phrase? I define it the way other English speakers do: having control and responsibility (or some similar variation).
POTUS is “in charge” of the Executive Branch, because, within the authority granted by law, he can tell Executive Branch officials and employees what to do, what not to do, he can hire them, fire them, etc. When they do something right, he gets credit, when they do something wrong, he gets the blame. Can the same be said of the relationship between the VP and the Senate? No.
Think about who past Vice Presidents have been. Sure, some have been losers, but most have been men of ambition and desire, with deeply held beliefs, ideological or pragmatic agendas, political savvy, experience, connections, etc. That’s how they get to be a heartbeat away from leading the free world. In so far as they chose not to attempt to influence the Senate, why would they make that choice? Are they the sort to just let things slide? To not do every morally-acceptable (or perhaps even unacceptable) thing in their power to accomplish their goals. To not try to use every tool available to them – especially one which is served up on a silver platter by the Constitution? What motivation do you propose for that choice, unanimously made by, if I understand correctly, all modern-era VPs (except Biden, who, as you said, did indeed try).
The Vice President of the United States is designated by the Constitution as the President of the Senate…….While vice presidents used to regularly preside over the Senate, modern vice presidents have done so only rarely…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_Senate#United_States
The Presiding Officer is the person who presides over the United States Senate and is charged with maintaining order and decorum, recognizing members to speak, and interpreting the Senate’s rules, practices and precedents. The Presiding Officer is a role, not an actual office; whoever is presiding at the time is the Presiding Officer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presiding_Officer_of_the_United_States_Senate
Preside: : to exercise guidance, direction, or control
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/preside
In so far as they chose not to attempt to influence the Senate, why would they make that choice?
Direction of the president? Realization of the fact that the senior Senator from the majority party might ignore them? Cowardice? Th e fact that their goals are different from the president and/or the majority party in the Senate? Lack of desire? Who knows?
The fact is however, the Vice President can control the Senate and is tasked to do so by the Constitution, even if it has become the tradition for them not to do so. The Vice President can use their influence in the Senate, and preside over it when it is in session if they chose to do so.
Again the basic fact is, Gov. Palin was entirely correct in her answer, and the common consensus was wrong.
Next you are going to tell me Gov. Palin really said she could see Russia from her house………..
Venerable Loy …
Have you forgotten these , mayhap, perchance ?
(yes, they are four *different* examples of democrat genius in action …)
Ah, yes, and then Obama spent the next month trying to convince everyone that there really are 57 states, and that anyone who claimed there were only 50 states was a partisan hack twisting the truth to viciously attack him.
“Next you are going to tell me Gov. Palin really said she could see Russia from her house………..”
No, because I try to base my statements on reality (except when they’re obvious satire or jokes). You can indeed see a remote, barren scrap of Siberia from some remote, sparsely inhabited bits of Alaska. I don’t believe that this fact gives her any particular insight into the complex relationship between the United States and Russia (compared to what one could learn from anywhere in the world with access to a library or the internet). I’m unaware of any specific ways in which it gave her any practical experience in international relations, and certainly not comparable to the degree of experience gained by leaders of states with land borders with Mexico or large immigrant populations, or of people who have served in Congress or relevant Executive Branch offices, or of business leaders who participate in international trade.
Laird Alasdair, thanks for that entertaining trip down 4 amusing Memory Lanes, to a few of the innumerable instances of random Dumb-bunnyism by Dimmycrats. 🙂 In which category — in Modern times at least (*see further below) — I’d say that Veep Biden is winner & still Champion. :>
Of course the Issue was not whether it’s Only Repubs who make often-Trivial goofs & gaffes & suchlike ‘misspeakings’ which are sometimes Funny. The question was whether there is any Antecedent to Mrs. Bachmann, in the sense of a national candidate whose stated understandings of how the federal government works exhibited Major errors, misconceptions & deficiencies. And for That honor, I stand by my nomination of Mrs. Palin. (And no, I’m sure she does Not stand Alone in this regard. It’s just that she stands Out so incandescently. 🙂
*Two of my favorite Dimwit Dem locutions from times long gone by (i.e., my Era 🙂 are from the incomparable 1969 campaign of NYC Comptroller Mario Angelo Procaccino (RIP) for the Mayoralty of the Big Apple. Tagged as what was in those days known as a “white backlash” candidate (having Squeaked through the 5-way D primary on a “law-&-order” platform), Mario tried to repair his street cred with a skeptical Harlem audience by assuring them, “My heart is as black as yours.” It was also reported that when Advised by an Advisor that his speeches were too corny, Mario replied: “Corn is in the Ear of the Beholder.” 🙂
Behold, Procaccino lost to incumbent Mayor John V. Lindsay (RIP), the Liberal candidate. But I think it was back when Hizzoner was still a “Republican” [sic] — on which ticket he was first elected Mayor in ’65 (and Congressman before) (and if you think you’ve got some RINO’s around nowadays, you have NO idea 🙂 — that Lindsay explained: “The future lies ahead of us” — as stunning an insight into the Arrow of Time as ever I’ve read in any of my beloved Cosmology-for-Idiots books. ;}
Oh look, someone else who has read the Constitution and realizes Jimmy Madison sorta _knew what the f__k he was doing_!! I too have often wondered why a Veep doesn’t just walk down to the Senate and start wrecking shop…I’m sure there’s probably something in the Senate rules about it and/or they want to maintain separation of Executive/Legislative branches. (After all, it’s kinda hard to talk about those SOBs down in the Senate if, you know, your guy is the one playing traffic cop.)
The demon analogy is somewhat of a false choice, yes…but you note that our host did not say, “Well, yeah, okay, f*ck it…in that case I’m voting Libertarian.” Probably because he, like most Americans, consider voting for a third party a wasted vote as opposed to a refusal to be, in any way, an active participant in an act of national buggery. I leave it up to Brendan whether or not he wishes to clarify that he is indeed someone who is capable of voting third party (and not from a rooftop) in the case of two completely unpalatable choices. Myself, I think that it’s going to be a Chtulu/Voldemort write in come 2012.
P.S. The debt limit does, by its nature, imply to “future” lending. After all, it wouldn’t be much of a “limit” if it read “the limit is the amount currently drawn on the Federal Treasury at time of this passage” now, would it?
Personally the more and more I look at it, the more and more I think that it needs to be redone or, yes, abolished–because otherwise it’s like allowing someone to swipe the credit card to run up a $1 trillion (I’m saying for an individual, not that the country’s at that point) tab then say, “But, but, it wasn’t at $1 trillion in the billing cycle that I used the card!” On the other hand, not having a limit, in my humble opinion, would end extremely poorly.
Venerable Loy – to put you silly scion’s sophistry in suitable scorn, it is simply sufficient to *quote* the context with a little pointing out of reality …
“Not sure which is worse: that she knows better and decided this was an applause line to push, or she really doesn’t know the first thing about the Congressional budgeting process. I bet most Americans also think that holding down the debt ceiling is a forward-looking budgetary step — ie, that it’s like resolving to spend less next month. But they’re still wrong. The real comparison is resolving not to pay a credit card bill when it shows up. “ {my emphasis} ..
1) She’s actually *in* Congress, and, as far as I know, has not merely been voting “Present” – perhaps she is familiar with the Committee on Financial Services work, at least more than the indignant Brendan ?
2) She is actually *doing* something real to try to get the federal budget under control … and that includes voting on and passing a budget … how’s the Dem-controlled Senate doing on that since 2009 ?
3) The relevant comparison is not with refusing to pay a credit card bill when it shows up … the relevant comparison is with committing to *not* taking future delivery of unnecessary and expensive purchases (like which have been discussed and agreed upon by the spendthrift roommates without allowing responsible roommates any say and have only been able to be dealt with responsibly by the responsible roommates once the irresponsible roommates are no longer in the majority … so the bottled water is being cut back on or stopped … the super premium cable packages are being canceled … the daily maid service is being scaled back or stopped … it doesn’t have to mean that all those are continued but the bills for them not paid …
As for your favourite former Governor, it is still my hope that Alaska will find the time to name an Alaskan airport with has bilateral symmetry the “Palindrome”, just to watch the MSM and its supporters who lack critical thinking skills go into headline after whiny self-righteous headline about ” … but … but … but … that’s not what the word “palindrome” means !” … it still amazes me how the Left in the US can so easily be started into two-stroke sounding mode by individuals like Reagan or Palin or Buckley …
I do have to ask …
When did Brendan join the Newsweek staff ?
If Rick Santorum actually did dress up like a vampire, in today’s society, that would be a more effective way of raising money for his Presidential campaign than whatever his current strategy is.