Have You Come A Long Way, Baby? The Double Standard Continues

A few weeks ago, no one expected Rick Santorum to come in second in the Iowa Presidential Caucus. Therefore the speech he gave that night was less a concession speech and more a victory speech. And that is as it should be. Santorum pulled off quite an upset. I’ve been prepared to hate Santorum for quite some time given the only thing I really knew about him was his record of homophobia. Yet I must admit that the Santorum that I saw last Tuesday night was a down-to-Earth, sincere guy. I’m even almost willing to forgive him his attitudes about homosexuality because I don’t think they come from hate. I think they come from sincere Christian-based beliefs. The reference he made to his grandfather who made a life for the Santorum family in America, fleeing from Mussolini’s Italy was quite moving.

Later in his speech, Rick mentioned his youngest daughter who suffers from Edwards Syndrome, a severe genetic disorder. His daughter has already defied the odds relative to expected life span. Most children with Edwards Syndrome die within the first year of life.  As I thought more about this, my mind flashed back to 2008.

In 2008, the Sarah Palin haters leveled valid and totally invalid claims against her. One of the invalid claims was how could a woman with a special needs child (in Sarah’s case, a child with Downs Syndrome) be on the campaign trail or even want the demanding job of President when she had that child to take care of? The charge, of course, was ridiculous on its face. As long as parents make arrangements for the proper care of their children, it’s nobody’s business if they choose to pursue a career, no matter how demanding. Still, this was a major bullet in the arsenal of the anti-Sarah faction.

So, in 2012 I wonder to myself where is all the outrage about Rick Santorum pursuing the Presidency when he has a special needs child at home who needs attention? The knee jerk answer is that his wife, Karen, is currently a full-time homemaker taking care of their daughter. Isn’t it interesting that no one asked why Todd Palin couldn’t stay home to tend to his disabled child? The responsibility was immediately assumed to be Sarah’s.

For all the gains the women’s movement has made, the old attitudes still linger. Even with many families having two income earners, the woman is still assumed to bear the main responsibility of child rearing, especially for young children. Where Rick Santorum doesn’t get a second look for running an all-consuming campaign, Sarah Palin got smacked for supposedly abandoning her maternal duties.

You may have come a long way baby, but you’ve got a long way to go.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

Image: digitalart / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

213 thoughts on “Have You Come A Long Way, Baby? The Double Standard Continues

  1. Nice thoughtful post.

    Remember, Rutherford, these people all are actors – supported by a cadre of hangers-on, and some of these background people are honest-to-god experts as well. There is a tremendous amount of REAL expertise in the background, constantly honing and fine-tuning the candidate’s public persona.

    It has nothing to do with the real man, and you need to look for that real man before you get all soft and cuddly about the santorum you see before you.

    Think about how Bob Dole, under the influence of his handlers, became someone he was NOT – and lost the presidential race. He had always had the reputation as a jokester, good-humored and good-natured – on the Senate floor. But when he ran for president, is handlers were so careful with his every uttered word that he became a stiff, grumpy old man, and nobody could connect with him.

    The santorum you see is not the santorum he is. (It’s not just he that is that way; it’s everybody.) Look for the real santorum in his speeches given back when he was NOT a presidential candidate. Look for how he behaves in an unguarded moment -particularly, look at how he handles himself under stress. It’s always hail-fellow-well-met when things are going well; look at how he does when things are NOT sailing along. (A particularly good look at Newt Gingrich can be had when he has the smell of new pussy in his nostrils. That is the true indicator of his “principles”.)

  2. Dup post at M&H:

    I just googled santorum and clicked on the definition. BTW, it is now number one again.

    A lawyer I have used in the past actually has a really great book called, “Google Bomb.” Highly recommended if you would like to see how this stuff works.

  3. It is a fair question, Rutherford.

    However, I don’t recall that it was righties making that argument against Palin. I’ll admit that my memory on that point isn’t the best, so if you have a link on that, I’d appreciate it.

    Otherwise, I’d be inclined to think that it is as revealing as the “Are we going to be sexist or racist?” question that the party of Identity Politics has to engage in during the 2008 election season.

  4. “Sarah Palin got smacked for supposedly abandoning her maternal duties.”-R

    Well…..kind of. If it was a true gender issue, you would think that Sara would have been smacked not just by the left, but most of the apolitical majority in America.

    Yet, the normal Joe’s were silent on the issue. Only the left went after her for that kind of stuff.

    This isn’t an issue to step back and examine sexism in America. This is a moment to step back and examine the blatant hypocrisy in politics, particularly the leftist politics you so passionately defend.

    As usual, this is another slight of hand by you, R. I don’t even think you mean it.

    You made several comments claiming that Colmes shouldn’t have gone there, even though what he said had merit.

    This made you look like a complete butt-hole

    So, this latest post is a fake “I’m sorry honey here are a dozen roses”.

  5. “Isn’t it interesting that no oneI never asked why Todd Palin couldn’t stay home to tend to his disabled child?”

    That sentence needed a correction because many of us did ask that and were absolutely disregarded.

  6. More “SHUT UP!” from the “enlightened” left. I guess I didn’t catch it the first time around, what with St. Andy of the Power Glutes and Milky Loads spelunking in her uterus, Sandra Bernhard declaring her desire that Sarah be gang-raped by a bunch of black men, and the rush to attribute a commedian’s lines to her, and then defending it due to the “truthiness” of the remark.

  7. Iowa was a three-way tie, they gave Romney top spot and Santorum second place and put Paul in third.

    Romney is still the one.

    But Rick has done a good job at polishing his image and credibility throughout this process. He really seems a pretty decent guy, for a politician.

    It’s all just fluff.

  8. I’m too much of an idiot to figure out my Capital Gains Tax. Any one have Etrade?

    It counts my withdrawals as losses. How do I find out how much money I made and the time frame I made them. Do I have to actually go through all of them on my own and tally it up?

    I didn’t keep track of shit!.

  9. I don’t even think you mean it.

    Ah Rabbit, so now you’re able to read my mind? Do I lose sleep over Sarah being the victim of sexism? No. I don’t like the woman. But I can objectively call out sexism when I see it, even when it happens to someone I don’t like.

    Only the left went after her for that kind of stuff.

    This isn’t an issue to step back and examine sexism in America.

    No, you’re wrong. Being “left” was a constant between the Palin and Santorum incidents so the only difference was gender. That speaks to sexism.

    You made several comments claiming that Colmes shouldn’t have gone there, even though what he said had merit.

    If by merit, you mean some logical basis, then yes, Colmes had a logical basis for his stupid nasty comment. You can quote psychologists until you’re blue in the face, most parents would not have done what the Santorums did. In fact, recent psychological advice is against what they did although it was for it at the time it happened.

    Colmes was a scumbag for going there. That’s all I should have to say. Why you need for me to go the extra step and say I find it completely normal to transport your dead son to your home is beyond me. You’ve as much said you don’t know what you would have done in the circumstance …. so get off your f*cking high horse.

    So, this latest post is a fake “I’m sorry honey here are a dozen roses”.

    I guess that makes you “honey”. The only way I’m calling you honey is if we wind up in the same jail cell one day. 😐

  10. I just googled santorum and clicked on the definition. BTW, it is now number one again.

    My alter ego (i.e. the REAL me) wrote a blog post about whether or not Santorum might have an SEO (search engine optimization problem). Seems to me a really smart SEO guru could engineer his web sites to rank higher in Google and push the trashy definition down a few notches.

    His near win in Iowa did buy him a bit of relief albeit temporary.

    P.S. Dan Savage is a stinker. I got a kick out of this originally but after watching Rick on the stump lately, I’m starting to feel sorry for the guy. No one should be able to have their name lampooned like that, in such an apparently permanent way.

  11. However, I don’t recall that it was righties making that argument against Palin.

    Funny that you went in the same direction as Rabbit. I don’t recall writing that any particular political persuasion was to blame in either case. As I said to Rabbit, gender stands out as the differentiating factor … even more so since both targets for consideration were from the right.

  12. Regarding #5 … Huck how could I forget how enlightened you boys have been from a feminist perspective? A bunch of regular Phil Donahue’s, the lot of you! 🙂

  13. Your daughter is growing up in a world where she should be able to pursue whatever job that she wants.

    As long as she is a Democrat.

    God willing and the crik don’t rise!

  14. Scotttrade used to compute gains and losses quite nicely in reports. I have an e-trade account but it’s an IRA. I don’t trade on it. Poke around in there Rabbit and see if you can find reports. They must have them.

  15. I just saw a piece on Colbert that cracked me up, Apparently Rick said he wanted to get blacks off the dole and into jobs (or something like that) and then claimed that he didn’t say the word “blacks”. Thank heavens for YouTube. C’mon man … if you say it, own it. Besides I view the comment as pretty cool. It is better for blacks to be in jobs and off the dole.

  16. This is Santorum’s response that Colbert made fun of. He was saying bl….something. 🙂

    In his reporting Scott Pelley notes that over 90% of the folks on food stamps in Iowa are white. But then again, 99% of the folks in Iowa are white. 😀

    Can’t we all just get along?????

  17. When the head of NOW is saying Palin needs to stay home to take care of her kids, I think you lose the sexism aspect…other than to show that the left is…less….
    than sincere about it.

    And for someone you hate, you seem to have her on the brain. What DOES your wife say about the other womam, anyway? All that space in your head, and Palin occupies so much of it for free.

  18. Now, I’m guessing that if this was a Republican, MSDNC would be shitting itself to be the loudest, most crass, objectioner on the airwaves. You would be writing the instant post to bemoan the odious effort of “Republicans” to steal the life savings of the middle class.

    If it wasn’t for double standards, the left would have no standards…

    President Obama’s first chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once sat on the board of troubled federal mortgage giant Freddie Mac. Bill Daley, the president’s chief of staff whose departure was announced today, was previously a top executive at financial firm J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. So of course there should be little surprise that Obama’s latest chief of staff, announced today by the president himself, also has deep ties to the financial industry himself.

    From 2006-2008, Jack Lew was chief operating officer of Citibank’s alternative investments division. And it was his division that made billions of dollars betting “U.S. homeowners would not be able to make their mortgage payments,” as the Huffington Post reported.

    The piece also reported: “Lew made millions at Citi, including a bonus of nearly $950,000 in 2009 just a few months after the bank received billions of dollars in a taxpayer rescue, according to disclosure forms filed with the federal government. The bank is still partly owned by taxpayers.”

  19. That clip makes Santorum a racist?

    That needs some ‘splainin’.

    So does this:

    “No, you’re wrong. Being “left” was a constant between the Palin and Santorum incidents so the only difference was gender. That speaks to sexism.”

    Yes. . . the attacks are from the left not the right. . . go on. . . why is that? I don’t recall similar from the right. I think it speaks of “leftisim.”

    What were you saying about feminist perspective?

  20. I hate to sound like Tex but since he’s apparently on recess, here goes.

    Tigre, obviously science is not your strong suit. In science there is this thing known as the controlled experiment. You keep all factors but one the same between two experiments and then isolate the effect of the one variable on the outcome.

    Santorum and Palin both conservatives, therefore both likely targets of attack by liberals. There’s your constant. Gender difference, there’s your variable. So leftism is not the variable, sexism is. Sexism played a role, not leftism.

    If you’d like to suggest leftists are more likely to be sexists, that’s another discussion but that would need a different experiment.

  21. G, if I’m not mistaken, Lew had some budgetary role in the administration so I would argue that there is a HIGH risk that anyone working in the White House in a financial matter probably had some ties to those nasty banks/investment firms. It seems that that is the rite of passage for a lot of these guys.

  22. That clip makes Santorum a racist?

    That needs some ‘splainin’.

    Tigre, slow down and follow closely. In 20 I said Besides I view the comment as pretty cool. It is better for blacks to be in jobs and off the dole.

    The only reason the hypersensitive and spin doctors are pulling racism out of it is the assumption that blacks, and not whites are only on the dole. But Santorum never said that. What’s odd is that he was talking to a white audience and his original comments seemed aimed at everyone but then for some reason he pulled blacks into it … but AGAIN I actually viewed the comment positively.

    The desire to take Santorum down by liberals is palpable. His anti-gay, anti-contraception stance has a lot of libs almost convulsive. Markos Moulitsos who really needs to find another occupation, ran a piece a few days ago saying Santorum’s wife was a hypocrite (and that so was he). It went way over the line.

    I’m beginning to think the difference between libs and conservatives is when you cross a conservative, they get ugly. When you cross a lib, they TALK ugly.

  23. “Gender difference, there’s your variable. So leftism is not the variable, sexism is. Sexism played a role, not leftism.”

    Apparently democrats don’t have families.

    R, show me where similar attacks are made by conservatives.

    The constant is “female politician with family.” They exist among democrats you know.

  24. “The only reason the hypersensitive and spin doctors are pulling racism out of it is the assumption that blacks, and not whites are only on the dole.”

    First, I wasn’t commenting on your comment as much as the video introduction titled “Racist Rick Sanotorum.”

    Secondly, it looks like the criticism he got was for using the term “black” instead of “African American.”

    Third, there isn’t enough in the videos to divine the assumptions attributed to him (only or all blacks are on welfare).

    Fourth, accusing him of “racism” for daring to utter speech that references “blacks” is typical of the left. And here, I think the accusation (and subsequent comments on Daily Show) were because he used the term “blacks.”

    But I could be wrong. Maybe Santorum does thin most blacks are on welfare and he’s a racist for not wanting to give them money instead of a job. 🙄 Of course you were the one that asking about policies directed atelevating inner-city blacks if I recall comments form a prior thread.

  25. G, if I’m not mistaken, Lew had some budgetary role in the administration so I would argue that there is a HIGH risk that anyone working in the White House in a financial matter probably had some ties to those nasty banks/investment firms. It seems that that is the rite of passage for a lot of these guys.

    ” – R

    That’s ok how?

  26. Yet I must admit that the Santorum that I saw last Tuesday night was a down-to-Earth, sincere guy. I’m even almost willing to forgive him his attitudes about homosexuality because I don’t think they come from hate. I think they come from sincere Christian-based beliefs. – R

    Isn’t prejudice based on mythology even worse than prejudice based on factual history? You do still consider Christ a myth, correct? I know you said “almost”. Just teeing it up for Tex. 😉

  27. As promised Tex. Last thread #344

    1) How much of that debt came from Bush after being handed a surplus? How much of that debt is from the bogus war? Anyone that touts extending the Bush tax cuts and repealing the AHCA doesn’t care about the debt, both actions would increase the deficit, as scored by the CBO.
    2)Pass the AJA.
    3)Pass the AJA. BTW, infrastructure and an in. bank seemed to be golden on the debate stage the other night. How does it turn into fool’s gold communist bullshit by the time it reaches Boehner?
    4)How many of those graduates would be employed if Republicant’s weren’t slashing police, fire and teaching jobs or “parasites” as Rush calls them.
    5)Tell the job creators, they’ve had ten years of tax cuts to “create”.
    6)Tell the 1%, gov’t doesn’t create jobs, right?
    7)A shame in the richest country on Earth, but at least Newt has a plan, make them janitors.
    8)Tragic, but I would imagine it means we are engaging as opposed to just protecting, isn’t that what the addition of troops was for?. BTW, Osama and Ghaddafi deaths are reported to be up 100%
    9)Wide receiver.
    10)Green jobs have risen and have outpaced energy jobs. They were under a million in 2007. They are now at nearly 3 million, surpassing oil and gas. Just ask Issa. He has no problem soliciting it for Cali. At the risk of blowing my “rube” status, I will admit, this growth over oil is likely much more to do with green being in its infancy while oil is a mature, oliGOPoly driven market.
    11)Domestic oil production is UP under Obama, not down, and we are now net exporters of fuel. I would think an old fossil … er, oil guy like you would be aware of that.
    12)Hard to unite when your “partner” across the aisle says his number one job is to keep you from getting re-elected.

  28. Domestic oil production is UP under Obama, not down, and we are now net exporters of fuel. I would think an old fossil … er, oil guy like you would be aware of that.

    I actually clicked here by mistake on a bookmark – old habit.

    Misleading Thor, as always. Only because gasoline happens to be selling at $4.00 per gallon instead of $2.00, domestic crude has hovered at $100.00 a barrel, and petroleum companies are tapping their known reserves. You don’t have a clue about domestic energy, do you? 😀 You’d be cold and without transportation by the time you figured it out.

    If what you said even had a hint of truth, why are domestic hydrocarbon corporations bankrolling to the tune of millions to get rid of President Zero? I supposed you don’t have the depth to ponder those questions?

    Here is but one of hundreds explaining why you’re wrong.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/christopherprandoni/2011/12/16/obamas_war_on_domestic_oil_production/page/full/

    =====

    Thor, I’m physically repulsed by the content of this blog anymore. Frankly, this post reeks – too late for redemption, as Rutherford front in center of the Alan Colmes and Eugene Robinson’s of the world making sport of disable and dead children. Like the nail in the wall, you can pull the nail but the hole remains.

    Good luck to your Zags – possibly sweet 16, I would guess. OSU is beyond awful. You and I could shoot better.

    When the time comes, maybe I’ll talk politics here. Either way, I’ll be back in November to either pay up or be paid. Right now, I’ve got better things to do and more edifying people to associate than militant atheistic, abortionists, and baby bashers. Like watching a train wreck.

    Besides, if you’re still for Obama, OWS and trying to spin the myth of “green jobs” by this time, there may be little hope for you too. A vote for Obama is a vote against America. There is no other way to conclude.

    I leave my word for Pfesser, Huck and Rutherford. From the immortal words of one of those “scammed” men, there are so many brilliant minds that have been scammed over the centuries it does indeed boggle the mind, to three depraved without the sense of a goat:

    Book Shows Einstein’s Belief in God

  29. Misleading Thor, as always. Only because gasoline happens to be selling at $4.00 per gallon instead of $2.00, domestic crude has hovered at $100.00 a barrel, and petroleum companies are tapping their known reserves. You don’t have a clue about domestic energy, do you? – Tex

    More than you, apparently, I get my gas for $3.00 a gallon. 😉 Up here we use hydro, ever heard of Grand Coulee?

    “You’d be cold and without transportation by the time you figured it out.”

    I have a POS bike and I know how to start a fire. The key is to not discard your belly-button lint. 🙂

    “If what you said even had a hint of truth, why are domestic hydrocarbon corporations bankrolling to the tune of millions to get rid of President Zero?”

    Because he predicted this exact scenario and they can’t hide. He said drill away, it won’t solve the problem. And he was right. We still need to look toward other solutions. And, I imagine most rich oil people are Republicans. That probably doesn’t help.

    “When the time comes, maybe I’ll talk politics here.”

    Well, I hope it is soon. You’re leaving me with foes that think “retard” is a witty retort. My parting gift … ” ‘for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry.” Luke 15:24. The most I can say without saying too much.

  30. “police, fire and teaching jobs.”

    “Those are local.” – ET

    But not all locally funded.

    “According to the report, the $2.5 billion cut to local law enforcement funding could have prevented 36,000 police layoffs nationwide, and similar cuts made to grant programs could have prevented the loss of other state and local government jobs. Crunched by the recession and budget cuts, state and local governments shed more than 200,000 jobs in 2010 alone. Republicans not only cut such funding this spring but have now opposed the American Jobs Act — which included grants to state and local governments for the hiring of teachers, police officers, and firefighters.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/27/355181/report-house-gops-budget-cuts-370k-jobs/?mobile=nc

  31. Then raise local taxes to finance for those who receive the service.

    Just because the fed govt funds doesn’t mean it should.

    Think Progress.

    “Could’ve prevented. . . ”

    Good one. 😆

  32. The constant is “female politician with family.” They exist among democrats you know.

    No no no no no!! Tigre, you don’t get to create your own experiment. The experiment compares what happens when a male conservative does the same thing a female conservative does. The constant is NOT a female politician with a family, That is the constant in a different thought experiment. Or as Thor puts it … Santorum is a female?

    Damn!

  33. Secondly, it looks like the criticism he got was for using the term “black” instead of “African American.”

    Wrong again. It had nothing to do with using the word “black”. It had everything to do with implying that only blacks needed to be taken off “somebody else’s money” and given a job.

    I agree with you that that is not what the man said but there is indeed enough in there for a paranoid black man or woman to take it that way.

    Did you not get enough sleep last night? You’re downright wacky today.

  34. Isn’t prejudice based on mythology even worse than prejudice based on factual history? You do still consider Christ a myth, correct?

    Not to me. Prejudice based on mythology amounts to ignorance and I have some sympathy for the ignorant. I have zero sympathy for the hateful.

    To be clear, I don’t consider Christ a myth. It seems reasonable to me that he lived. It seems reasonable to me that he preached a gospel. It seems unreasonable to me that he was son of God (or God Himself if you go the trinity route) and that he rose from the dead and will return.

    But I could always be wrong.

  35. I actually clicked here by mistake on a bookmark – old habit.

    Yeah right. Clicking doesn’t mean someone has to take the time to write in the comments box. You sound like a ten year old “I really don’t want to be here and I’m gonna stand here and hold my breath till I turn blue. Nanny nanny nana noo noo.”

    I think a terrible reality is hitting you Tex. Romney will be your nominee and Obama will win a second term. Your bench is empty. It’s a comedy. I wish the GOP could have given you a real contender to ease your humiliation. Tough break. (If by chance Romney wins … nothing and I mean nothing will change.)

    Book Shows Einstein’s Belief in God

    To which I retort Opened Coffin Shows Einstein Became Worm Food 👿

  36. G, who said it was ok? It’s pervasive and not limited to Democrat administrations.” – R

    It is, however, limited to Democrat regimes looking to get re-elected on class warfare and anti-Wall Street rhetoric.

    Hmmmmmmm, let’s consider:

    Barack Obama, second only to Chris Dodd, all time political donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were prime architects of the 2008 housing bubble crash. Obama has pumped hundreds of billions of dollars of good money after bad in repeated bailouts to Freddie and Fannie. NOW, we have a new WH COS who bet against the American people and made billions doing it.

    Tell me a single Republican politician running for President right now who is tied- in any way- to the crash in 2008?

    Does hypocrisy ever bother you? Is your intellectual integrity that low that you would be willing to whore slut (after all, you’re doing it for free) yourself out like that?

    Honest question: why does Obama have to do to lose your vote?

  37. Another bogus “climate researcher” exposed.

    http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/disappearing-glaciers-in-the-pacific-northwest-a-lesson-in-deception

    ***********

    re: Tex’s repulsion by the content of the blog.

    Now you see now a bully who has decided to push somebody around can poison the well, don’t you? You’ve done it for others, invading cordial communities, name-calling, referring to people who happen to disagree with you as “stupid,” “Dims,” ad infinitum ad nauseum, and it ain’t much fun when the guns get turned on you, is it?

    I’ve been lotsa places on the “blogosphere” – and many, many newsgroups before that, Sport. No social system works there except one of mutual respect with respectful disagreement – or an effective moderation policy. NO SYSTEM. Welcome to what happens when people piss in their own water supply. In the words of that great sage, Greg Lake – “Halleujah, noel, be it heaven or hell, the Christmas we get, we deserve.”

  38. “The experiment compares what happens when a male conservative does the same thing a female conservative does.”

    Then it’s a dumb experiment. If it’s gender alone, then party shouldn’t matter. It’s the left throwing rocks; it’s leftism that’s to blame.

    So, if we get a different result if party;s change, what happens to your hypothesis?

    Damn!

  39. “Did you not get enough sleep last night? You’re downright wacky today.”

    I am only working from the clips you provided.

    Santorum was defending his use of the word “black” — “bl then substitute the word” You’ve got to infer the rest of what you said from the disjointed clips.

    Perhaps you saw something I didn’t. If so post it. I wondered whether he was addressing the question you said should be addressed, i.e. “what is your agenda with inner-city blacks.” Of course answering but not asking that question would be racist. . .

  40. P.S. Dan Savage is a stinker. I got a kick out of this originally but after watching Rick on the stump lately, I’m starting to feel sorry for the guy. No one should be able to have their name lampooned like that, in such an apparently permanent way.”

    Dan’s been pretty clear on the why, the how, and all Santorum ever had to do was walk back his comparison of same-sex marriage to bestiality and pedophilia. He’s had since 2003 to do so. It is not his opposition same-sex marriage or contraception that garnered him the fury of the Savage Love followers, as he clearly states:

    http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/01/05/not-so-confidential-to-noam-cohen-at-the-new-york-times.

  41. I’m even almost willing to forgive him his attitudes about homosexuality because I don’t think they come from hate.

    Sorry, can’t buy this. Comparing same-sex partnerships to the heinous acts of (to use Savage’s preferred terms) “dog fucking and child rape” can only come from hatred. Or a complete minimization and devaluation of the criminality and horror of child rape. I’ll refrain from expounding on the all-to-easy reference to the Catholic Church.

  42. Honest question: why [sic] does Obama have to do to lose your vote?

    He doesn’t currently have it. But none of these other jokes and horrors are going to get it.

  43. I’d be willing to guess that there is nothing they could ever say or do for you to even consider them, which means you’re not objective on this in the first place.

    How can you defend what Obama has done against what you think they will do?

  44. Actually, I would have considered the Governor Romney who actually governed in Massachusetts. Not this fake. Santorum, never. Huntsman, I’d have taken a second look, but probably passed on social issues stance. But since he doesn’t stand a chance, I don’t bother looking into him so much. Bachmann–vaccines give you mental retardation?–nothing there to take seriously. And the idea of having to listen to a President Gingrich whine and snipe for four years? I can barely stand the last four months and I still have a Gingrich hangover from the ’90s. And I’m well aware of what having Republicans in control for 6 years accomplished. Not trusting the brand much less those vying to represent it.

    And as I said, Obama doesn’t currently have my vote or my defense.

  45. “Obama doesn’t currently have my vote or my defense.”

    That’s a throw away.

    Feel free to stay home. It has the same effect.

    What 6 years are you referring to?

  46. That’s a throw away.
    Feel free to stay home. It has the same effect.

    I might, first time ever. Haven’t decided yet. Or write-in as a protest vote.

    What 6 years are you referring to?

    The six years that Republicans controlled Congress and the White House.

  47. Tell me a single Republican politician running for President right now who is tied- in any way- to the crash in 2008?

    Although not tied to the 2008 crash, the business model of Mitt Romney’s company, Bain Capital, is symptomatic of capitalism gone awry. Romney was part of the problem, not the solution.

  48. Really? I’ll see your Bain Capital and raise you Solyndra, GM, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mai, Goldman Sachs, and GE.

    You can bemoan private enterprise all you want, but Obama’s the king of Crony Capitalism and an Epic Failure at picking successful business models.

  49. Likewise, how many jobs were saved by Bain’s taking over businesses and fixing them?

    Further, don’t dodge the question. How do you square Obama and his Administrations DIRECT CONNECTIONS to the housing bubble?

    What does it take for Obama to lose your vote? Simple question, why won’t you answer it?

  50. Sorry, can’t buy this.

    Kat, a lib who used to contribute here but now writes to me privately on each post said something akin to this:

    “Jerks who hate tend to worship Gods who are jerks who hate.”

    In other words, he also told me not to let Santorum off the hook. In the final analysis, of course I don’t let him off the hook. Gay intolerance is so 20th century!!!

  51. “Dan’s been pretty clear on the why, the how, and all Santorum ever had to do was walk back his comparison of same-sex marriage to bestiality and pedophilia.”

    Screw that

    People shouldn’t have to give in to extortion in order to preserve their reputation.

    I don’t agree with his position, but good for him for not giving in to that BS.

  52. You can bemoan private enterprise all you want, but Obama’s the king of Crony Capitalism and an Epic Failure at picking successful business models.

    You don’t get it. We’re not talking successful business models. We’re talking immoral business models. Bain was successful. So what? Successful at sucking the life blood out of companies.

    So now we get to watch the GOP tie itself in knots as some of them are forced to admit that not all capitalistic ventures are praiseworthy.

  53. Well I just learned something good about the apartment I’m living in. If there is a problem in one apartment, the fire alarm goes off in all attached apartments. Appears to be a carbon monoxide leak in one of them so I just had my ears unclogged by our smoke alarm. Fire truck outside as we speak.

    Now back to our originally scheduled broadcast.

  54. “You don’t get it. We’re not talking successful business models. We’re talking immoral business models. Bain was successful. So what? Successful at sucking the life blood out of companies.”

    Oh good lord, quit your fucking fake sniveling, already.

    Capitalism is a system of winners and losers. Period. End of discussion.

    You want to live in a system that doesn’t have winners and losers? Move your ass to China, where everyone loses.

  55. Belafonte:

    “Beeeeeeeeeeee O
    Beeeeeeeeeeeeee O
    Barack come and we send him back home.
    Beee
    I say Bee, I say Bee, I say Beee Ooooooooo
    Barack come and we send him back home.”

    🙂

  56. To answer G’s fair question. While I don’t vote in every election (I’m ashamed to admit most local politics bores me), I do vote for President. So this is simply a process of elimination at this point. I’m going to vote. I’m not going to throw my vote away by writing in Harry Belafonte. That means I either vote for the R (probably Romney) or I vote for the D (Obama). I don’t see how Romney will make anything better. He is the very definition of an empty suit.

  57. Rutherford, are you also going to shed tears for the thousands of military jobs that Obama is cutting?

    How about the peripheral companies that perform services for them? Some of those companies are going to die because of this policy. Others that don’t die will be forced to cut jobs.

    Will you then hold Obama to the same standards in which you are holding Bain Capital? Or will you have another one of your sudden epiphanies?

  58. You want to live in a system that doesn’t have winners and losers?

    Huck, no … that’s where you’ve missed the main point. Bain ALWAYS wins. That is not capitalism. That is not a system of winners and losers.

    The system that I think we both want to live in involves risk. Bain from what I understand, takes no risk.

  59. “I don’t see how Romney will make anything better.”

    Are you better off since you voted for Barack Obama?

    “He is the very definition of an empty suit.”

    I can’t believe you went there…..

  60. While I hate to quote Rick Perry, Bain is vulture capitalism, not venture capitalism. Although I had an interesting exchange over at BiW’s place where he says that basically, no VC’s lose their shirts. It’s the nature of the business. So maybe I’m wrong.

    Huck, your military base closing is a false equivalency. If a company closes a bunch of branches and lays off its employees, I don’t like it but I understand that is business. When a company says, I will “help” you but only if I’m guaranteed to come out smelling rosy, that seems underhanded to me.

  61. Here’s the bottom line, Rutherford.

    “Among the findings: 22% either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost.”

    I’ll save you the math

    22 + 8 = 30
    30 – 100 = 70

    Which means Bain Capital saved 70% of the companies in which it invested.

    Have you suddenly changed your position that financing a job for even $1 for even 1 day counts as a job saved or created?

  62. Rutherford, I encourage you to read the entire WSJ article I linked. It says there are arguments for both camps regarding Bain Capital. It seems relatively fair.

    Don’t listen to Barack, Newt, and Rick. Do your own research and learn things for yourself.

  63. Bain from what I understand, takes no risk.” – R

    Quite possibly the most uninformed answer I’ve ever heard. Period.

    No risk? No risk? They’re a venture capital company- EVERYTHING they touch is risk. They bought/buy failed companies hoping to fix them and resell the successful product. You do realize that Bain Capital saved Staples, right? How many jobs do you think they have (>90,000)?

  64. Tell me a single Republican politician running for President right now who is tied- in any way- to the crash in 2008?

    Newt pushed the drive to erase Glass-Steagall when he was speaker. Of course, he was forced to resign in disgrace before the actual vote. Newt himself recognizes the folly of this act.

    What does it take for Obama to lose your vote? Simple question, why won’t you answer it?

    Limbaugh endorsement.

  65. “no VC’s lose their shirts”

    VC’s of an investment firm don’t necessarily invest their own money.

    Rule #1: You don’t shit in the same place you eat.

    The alternative is that they get fired. And if the investors of Bain Capital would have been dissatisfied with the company’s leadership to the extent that it started losing investors, then those guys would have been ass-out, too.

    Also, from the WSJ piece….

    “Seventeen of the 77 private-equity targets filed bankruptcy petitions, usually Chapter 11 reorganization, or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain’s investment.

    Of these, at least five clearly were still controlled and run by Bain at the time. In three other cases, Bain was a minority investor in a deal run by another buyout firm. In some of the remaining cases, Bain still held a small stake or had just sold out when the bankruptcy filing or shutdown occurred, while in other cases the trouble struck several years after Bain’s exit.”

    Bain wasn’t even in control of 12 of the 17 companies that make up the 30% stat above.

    15 minutes of research is destroying this BS meme.

    Wake up, Rutherford. You’re being played like a fiddle.

  66. “Have you suddenly changed your position that financing a job for even $1 for even 1 day counts as a job saved or created?”

    That question needs to be forcibly rammed down the throat of every Bain Capital/Mitt Romney critic from this moment through Nov. 2012.

  67. Agreed. I have issues with Romney, but not because of his Bain Capital ties. Newt is barking up the wrong tree on this.

  68. “Dan’s been pretty clear on the why, the how, and all Santorum ever had to do was walk back his comparison of same-sex marriage to bestiality and pedophilia.”

    ‘Screw that

    People shouldn’t have to give in to extortion in order to preserve their reputation.

    I don’t agree with his position, but good for him for not giving in to that BS.’

    Well then, as the great Rush Limbaugh is so fond of saying: Actions Have Consequences. If he still wants to defend his position on “man-on-child” or “man-on-dog” then santorum is seeing the consequences of those actions. So be it.

  69. Even vultures serve a purpose in the ecosystem.

    VC by its nature assumes risk. I’ll have to shuttle to BiC’s place to see where he disagrees.

    Actually, I don;t get a damn thing you said Rutherford. I do see though that you’re repeating talking points without understanding them.

    And that’s because it doesn’t matter to you. You will vote for Obama no matter what.

  70. Just finishing up my commercial rating for fixed wing, thinking about adding a rotor wing endorsement.

    Quiz: What is the second most important advantage of a helicopter, after vertical take-off and landing?

  71. “Well then, as the great Rush Limbaugh is so fond of saying: Actions Have Consequences. If he still wants to defend his position on “man-on-child” or “man-on-dog” then santorum is seeing the consequences of those actions. So be it.”

    Actions have consequences…

    A shopkeeper chooses not to give a thief his money and gets killed. Actions have consequences, therefore, the shopkeeper deserves what he gets.

    A woman chooses to walk unescorted down a dark street and is attacked. Actions have consequences, therefore, the woman deserves what she gets.

    I am in no way a fan of Rush, so quoting him won’t win you any arguments with me.

    The facts are that Santorum is the victim of lies and extortion. That’s what it is called when someone says “if you don;t do something I want, I am going to do X to you.”

    And it is indefensible….

  72. PF, what if some anti-abortion advocate told you that he was going to make attempts to destroy your livelihood and reputation within whatever circles you run in?

    All you’d have to do is state publicly that you are no longer in favor of a woman’s choice to abort a pregnancy, and that you agree life begins at conception, making abortion at any stage murder.

    Would you bow to that threat?

    When (not “if”) you refused to bow to it, will you have asked for what you get? Would it be cool if your family name was suddenly the internet definition of “the frothy mixture of an aborted fetus and an abortion doctor’s lubricant”?

  73. And that’s because it doesn’t matter to you. You will vote for Obama no matter what.

    What a cynic you’ve become. 😦

    I still need to read Huck’s link but BiW is actually starting to persuade me that I may be jumping the gun on this one.

    I’m actually a huge fan of the show “Shark Tank” so it is kinda ironic I’d find Bain offensive.

  74. Why is it ofensive if you don’t understand what a VCs does?

    I made comment at BiC’s. I have corporate clients that depend and plead for venture capital to save their businesses. I don’t get the “unfairness” in an organization that obliges and does so to make a return on their investment.

  75. “I’m actually a huge fan of the show “Shark Tank” so it is kinda ironic I’d find Bain offensive.”

    Not if you’re just saying anything you can to bolster your irrational support for Obama no matter what.

  76. People shouldn’t have to give in to extortion in order to preserve their reputation.

    The facts are that Santorum is the victim of lies and extortion. That’s what it is called when someone says “if you don;t do something I want, I am going to do X to you.”

    Santorum equated same sex partnerships with child rape. I presume his intention is that same-sex partnerships are so horrific they are as equally horrific as raping children.

    My interpretation is that he thinks raping children is as innocuous and harmless as a consensual adult relationships between members of the same gender.

    If that is the reputation he wishes to preserve, then yes, there are consequences and judgments to preserving that reputation.

  77. GK, do you have a link to the statements. I have suspicion that the import of what he was saying is not what you say it is. That is, I suspect he was drawing logical equivalencies in response to arguments made in furtherance of same sex marriage. I could be wrong. . .

  78. To clarify, why is that the state should recognize gay marriage while excluding other relationships (polygamy, adult/child, adult animal etc.). If that was his point, the treatment he got for offering it is doubly wrong.

  79. You got to love the fake ass GOP. Turn on Capitalism in a hot minute, as per usual.

    Bain Capital would acquire the business model of version of broken down trucks and either scrap them for parts or get them running again. I suppose Gingrich the fraud would like to see Bain forged from more of the Fannie Mae or TARP.

    As for the stimulus, I can say it did save one job at my work. They took a known village idiot and created the most inane position imaginable. She can’t do shit in the class room, but her full time job, paid for 100% by stim cash, was to give us these drab power points on literacy. Her title? “Literacy Coach”. She made power points for a year. Didn’t even have one student. She was tucked away in some hidden office like a medieval monk for 12 months.

    The funny part is she had so much time on her hands she got qualified for everything under the sun. I used to teach an AP European History class. For a nimrod like me, it was a ton of work.

    The key to teaching smart kids is keeping their interest peaked and their morale up (they will do the rest), and I was able to do that. So my scores were awesome. But fuck all that pressure. It’s not like it gave me a pay raise. So, I dumped those classes on said village idiot, the “Literacy Coach”. They couldn’t stop me or they would look like complete frauds. So, I’m back to working with knuckleheads, the way I like it and she has been an abysmal failure at my old smarty pants gig.

    Hell, if it was our money, I’d probably say fuck it, who cares. We voted in a big spending, big bank Dem in office. Elections have consequences. But it aint like that. We don’t pay for any of this trite crap. The future did. And they never had one say in it.

    Check this motherfucker out. Delivered to my door today.

    Shit has a dragon on it. A 10 ounce dragon. Seriously, even if an investment goes south, can you really lose when your holding a motherfucking dragon in your hand?

  80. “To clarify, why is that the state should recognize gay marriage while excluding other relationships (polygamy, adult/child, adult animal etc.). If that was his point, the treatment he got for offering it is doubly wrong.”-Tigre

    Particularly polygamy.

    It’s hilarious hearing gay marriage advocates suddenly defining marriage.

    “But….but…..we don’t care if there is a cultural tradition through out the world….marriage is defined by …blah blah blah.”

  81. “My interpretation is that he thinks raping children is as innocuous and harmless as a consensual adult relationships between members of the same gender. ”

    I see.

    So because you think he has tarnished the reputation of gay men, he deserves to have his reputation tarnished, in return.

    You have no problem admitting that you think the first action is wrong, yet you use it to justify similar action against him as right.

    I think the internet definition of that is “hypocrisy”.

  82. “I still need to read Huck’s link but BiW is actually starting to persuade me that I may be jumping the gun on this one. ”

    And while you are thinking about it, keeping asking yourself this question:

    “Do I still believe financing a job for at least 1 day for at least $1 counts as a job saved or created?”

    I, for one, do not. And I never did. The same can’t be said of you, Rutherford.

    If you are going to credit Barack Obama for saving and creating jobs, then you have to recognize that Bain did the same.

  83. Not if you’re just saying anything you can to bolster your irrational support for Obama no matter what.

    Why do you see everything through the lens of getting Obama reelected? I’ve actually been paying very little attention to Obama lately. I’ve been immersed in conservative politics. Since there is a chance of Obama not getting reelected, it’s in my best interest to understand the dude who might defeat him.

    You can call off the dogs. I think I’ve allowed Romney’s total lack of connection with the common man to skew my assessment of everything he does. I had no problem with Bain until Gingrich started whining about it.

    Can we at least agree that Bain operates at the deep end of the pool from a business POV? Not for the faint of heart.

  84. Huck @ 95 and 96:

    At no point did I say he “deserved what he got,” so your analogies about the other things are not applicable. I said “actions have consequences.” They do.

    re: Limbaugh. I’m not a fan either, but others here are. Thought it might be interesting to quote him on a topic with which I am sure he, himself would disagree.

    re: destroying someone’s reputation via dirty trick when he was just being true to his beliefs. Point well-taken. No argument or comeback there.

    I guess my problem with santorum is that his rhetoric was way, way out of line. “Man-on-child” or “man-on-dog” is IMHO a very sleazy way of characterizing homosexual acts which, to my eye at least, are none of anybody’s damned business except those involved. So Dan Savage’s response – which would be out of bounds against someone like, say, Obama, who just said he was against gay marriage because of tradition and personal beliefs – seems to me to be pretty OK against the kind of offensive, over-the-line drivel espoused by santorum.

  85. To clarify, why is that the state should recognize gay marriage while excluding other relationships (polygamy, adult/child, adult animal etc.). If that was his point, the treatment he got for offering it is doubly wrong.

    Well that is indeed the point he was making in NH this week when he got raked over the coals by some liberals in the audience. He stayed away from pedo and bestiality and stuck with polygamy (maybe a veiled shot at Romney’s religion). I hate to say it, but his slippery slope argument about gay marriage vs polygamy had logical merit and left his liberal opponent (a college or high school kid) looking pretty foolish.

  86. “To clarify, why is that the state should recognize gay marriage while excluding other relationships (polygamy, adult/child, adult animal etc.). If that was his point, the treatment he got for offering it is doubly wrong.”

    Children cannot consent. Animals cannot consent. Because of the math attendant a population of 50/50 male/female, taking more than one wife leads to other serious problems, which often include forcing children into sexual relationships with men much, much older than they. (Personally, I don’t see how anyone could handle more than one woman, anyway…).

    Two consenting adults engaging in anal sex is nobody’s business, since it affects nobody but them.

    The omniscient moral busybodies need to find something else to occupy their time.

  87. “it’s in my best interest to understand the dude who might defeat him”

    That’s my point. You didn’t. You’ll take any criticism of a Republican candidate and run with it, while offering any excuse to defend Obama.

    Connection to the common man? Where does Obama fit in with that? Mr. private school, Columbia, Harvard law school etc. is the antithesis of common man.

  88. “Two consenting adults engaging in anal sex is nobody’s business, since it affects nobody but them.”

    So there’s a reason it’s not recognized. Perhaps that was his point, e.g. gay marriage like other relationships are not recognized for a reason. I had a debate once with someone that insisted that marriage was human right that was dependent entirely on their own choice of spouse, and that choice alone. So what if the dog liked it? We were talking about Mohammed and his six year old bride the other day.

    Can someone get me what he actually said and why he said it? Was it about marriage or was it about sex? Did he say it was his business to get involved in gay sexual relations? Did he really equate the three acts? I am repulsed by the act gay male sex as well as the others. Am I not allowed to express that without being subjected to “the consequences?” I would like the context and so far I can see that others haven’t troubled themselves with finding out before condemning the guy.

    My problem is with someone being subjected to the treatment he got if all he was doing was offering his rationale for opposing someone’s viewpoint — whether it has merit or not. Look at all the outrage when no one has told us what he was trying to convey. If he views gay sex and abomination, why is the consequence of such delight to some here?

    Does no one see the irony in the “consequnce of intolerance” being absolute intolerance?

  89. Connection to the common man? Where does Obama fit in with that? Mr. private school, Columbia, Harvard law school etc. is the antithesis of common man.

    Ok now you really are starting to smoke the herb. Did Obama’s father run a major auto company? Was Obama born rich?

    C’mon.

  90. Silly me. Since this is first “job” seemed odd to me that you think him a “common man.”

    Let’s call him “elitist prick.”

    So why would you vote for an elitist prick?

  91. 1) It seems to me that there is conflagration of homosexual sex with homosexual marriage;

    2) “Because I wanna” and “I don’t think this affects anyone else” is not a sound basis to change a legal definition that has existed for centuries;

    3) If you think the “slippery slope” argument is invalid on the basis of consent, then I submit that is a naive view that shows ignorance of law and history itself, if only because most people wouldn’t know what they can and cannot legal consent to.

  92. The whole gay marriage thing is boring as hell. “Marriage” should be left to religious institutions who can set whatever rules they deem appropriate for its definition. Everything else, hetero and homo, gets governed by civil unions with defined legal obligations and benefits.

    It’s a simple solution that solves the problem for everyone.

  93. R –

    It’s just a name. Just pass a law which states “We give these folks the same right as everybody else who agree to be bound by a connubial contract. We the State are agnostic as to what it is called and don’t give it a name in the statute.”

    Now everybody can go home and claim victory and we can get on to something important, like the economy and the sovereign debt crisis that threatens the well-being of all of us for the next forty years.

  94. Actually, I don’t have an objection to civil unions, or as we call them in Washingtonistan, “Registered Domestic Partnerships”, because it doesn’t change the legal definition of a word that is already “given a name in the statute”…and quite a few of them, too.

    However, having the same legal rights is not satisfactory, for people who got the ball rolling with some false flags about what they were not allowed to do, and their burning desire to have the same legal rights, which is why even in states with CUs, like this one, there is still the press to redefine the term.

  95. Nice shiny dragon, rabbit. That LOOKS of value.

    I’m done with politics myself. What a waste of resources. Still in for RP.

  96. I have pretty much come to the position that if 2 consenting adults want to get married, they should be able to. Life is too damn short. Why tell someone what they can and can’t do with it when what they want to do doesn’t affect you or anyone else?

    Gay marriage doesn’t affect me. It doesn’t affect my marriage.

    I just don’t see where it hurts anything or anyone.

  97. “At no point did I say he “deserved what he got”

    No. You have instead said that it is “pretty OK” that he is getting it.

    So take a position now. Does Rick Santorum deserve this internet campaign against him? Yes or no?

  98. “Not for the faint of heart.”

    Capitalism is not for the faint of heart. It’s a system that either rewards or punishes risk. That IS the game. It doesn’t matter the level at which it is played. The rules are the same.

    Producers gamble that you will like their products on today’s shelves. Investors gamble that you will like products on tomorrow’s shelves. And consumers gamble they will like the products they purchase off those shelves.

    As I said before….there are winners at that game and there are losers at that game.

    Mitt Romney’s a winner.

  99. BiW and Huck, I’m with you (althoug I think BiW meant “conflate” rather than conflagrate). The first ceremony my son went to was a union with my lesbian aunt and her girlfriend (in their 70s) in Vermont several years ago. For the record, I don’t have problem with binding union in the gay community. In fact, I believe that many of the problems within the gay community are the product of a relationship without formal commitment.

    Some weren’t around when I told of a case I had in our state Supreme Court that proscribed most contractual relationships between gay couples (and straight unmarried couples) that would replicate rights between lawfully married adults.I’ve never changed my mind about that and I have no problem with what consenting adults do within the confines of their personal space.

    However, I do have a problem with the justifications being offered here for the Santorum gag. He too is entitled to speak on the subject and even be wrong without some self-righteous liberal puke deliberately working to harm his standing in the community and family.

    Just like I think it’s wrong to expose someones real identity on blog because they don’t like his opinion on a subject like abortion. Right R?

  100. GK, do you have a link to the statements. I have suspicion that the import of what he was saying is not what you say it is. That is, I suspect he was drawing logical equivalencies in response to arguments made in furtherance of same sex marriage. I could be wrong. . .

    I already provided one link that provided multiple links to the sources. But since the powers of independent Googling are obviously failing, I’ll spoon feed it to you.

    The excerpt from the AP interview: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm.

    The exact quote: “Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —”

    Reaffirmed in August of last year: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/01/now-its-santorums-turn-learn-downside-media-attention/47042/

    “And the quote that I have been, quote, ‘criticized’ for was almost identical to a quote in a 1980 Supreme Court case where the majority decision basically said what I said… that if the Supreme Court establishes a right to consensual sexual activity, then it’s hard to draw the line between what sexual activity will be permitted under the Constitution and it leaves open a long list of consensual activities that most people I think would find rather unappealing.”
    “And so, that’s what I said. I stand by the comment.”

    The Supreme Court is perfectly capable of differentiating between adult consensual relationships and child rape and fucking German Shepherds, Pitt Bulls, and Chihuahuas (as well as any other animal breed).

    To the comment: To clarify, why is that the state should recognize gay marriage while excluding other relationships (polygamy, adult/child, adult animal etc.). If that was his point, the treatment he got for offering it is doubly wrong.

    Um, because animals can’t consent and child rape is a human rights violation as well as one of the most horrific crimes I can or should imagine. There is absolutely no equivalency between those two things and adult consensual relationships; and anyone who draws one is minimizing child rape and abuse of animals to the innocuous behavior of two consenting adults engaging in a consensual relationship of any kind. As for polygamists, they–as consenting adults–are welcome to articulate their case in a cogent manner if they too want to advocate for their rights. They haven’t. Consenting adult homosexuals have.

    You have no problem admitting that you think the first action is wrong, yet you use it to justify similar action against him as right.
    I think the internet definition of that is “hypocrisy”.

    The first action–equating consenting adult relationships to child rape and horrific animal abuse–is absolutely wrong. Punishing someone using legal and technological mechanisms for minimizing child rape is not wrong nor hypocritical because there is no–NO–equivalency between child rape and consensual adult activities.

    Two consenting adults engaging in anal sex is nobody’s business, since it affects nobody but them.

    Correct. Nor is there anything wrong with two consenting adults engaging in any sexual activity (news flash, lesbians generally don’t engage in anal sex without AND news FLASH, heterosexuals play in that area too). The issue is NOT anal sex.

    So take a position now. Does Rick Santorum deserve this internet campaign against him? Yes or no?

    Yes. He deserves whatever cultural judgement and retaliation he gets for a) elevating consensual adult activity to the horror and crime of “man on dog” (dog fucking) and “man on boy” (child rape) and b) reducing the horror and criminality of “man on dog” (dog fucking) and “man on boy” (child rape) to the every day relationships of consenting adults.

    I guess I’ll have to go there. What else should I expect from a Catholic.

  101. The most recent recap of the Savage/Santorum history is here: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/01/10/the-gay-guy-who-smeared-santorum

    In short, Santorum gets to equate legalizing two adults’ consensual relationship with animal and child rape, and virtually everyone, including Rutherford, lets him off the hook because it comes from “sincere Christian beliefs.” And one of the many reasons I’m an atheist. Because my sincere atheist beliefs do not include equating the rape of children or animals with adults wanting to fuck other adults of the same gender (or adults of different genders engaging in anal sex, toy play, or any other sexual activity that all parties consent to).

    I’m perfectly comfortable with my moral high ground here.

  102. He too is entitled to speak on the subject and even be wrong without some self-righteous liberal puke deliberately working to harm his standing in the community and family.

    Oh yes, he’s entitled, under the first amendment, to equate child rape to consensual adult activity. He is not entitled to be protected from the backlash when people (like Dan Savage’s fans/followers) decide that child rape and adult consensual relationships (and the legal protection of the latter) are not at all the same thing. That the former is horrific, a human rights violation, and probably the only scenario in which I would like to support the death penalty.

  103. However, having the same legal rights is not satisfactory, for people who got the ball rolling …

    Well honestly BiW this part kinda confounds me. To me, the biggest objection to gay “marriage” is a religious one and why gay folks insist on embracing religions which for the most part consider them depraved sinners is totally beyond me.

    Gay folk need a two step process:

    1. Get a civil union.
    2a. Find a religion that tolerates homosexuality and get “married” – OR –
    2b. Drop the religion thing altogether and live happily (or is that gayly) every after.

  104. Poolman, Jon Stewart delivered a blistering commentary on Paul’s second place finish and its total dismissal by the pundocracy. In particular Lawrence O’Donnell said that Paul’s win was nothing more than a statistical anomaly and Huntsman really came in second. Stewart opined (and I paraphrase here) “Yeah and if we add a couple of zeros to Huntsman’s vote tally he’s the winner in New Hampshire. But it didn’t happen that way and it doesn’t work that way.”

    Folks are afraid of change and Paul is the only candidate suggesting true sweeping changes both economically and in FP.

    I know you’ve given him a pass on the racist/homophobic stuff but I just can’t. Damn shame. If it weren’t for that, I might be all in.

    I don’t know whether I posted this before but Chris Hayes of MSNBC/Nation magazine, nailed why Paul is a non-starter.

    Either:
    A. Ron Paul believes and/ or authored that crap from the 90’s. or
    B. Ron Paul does not believe it but let it go so he could gain favor with wealthy influential racists. or
    C. Ron Paul does not believe it and exerted no control over what went out under his name.

    A and B show moral turpitude. C. shows executive ineptness. Sorry Poolman, it’s a no-win.

  105. Just like I think it’s wrong to expose someones real identity on blog because they don’t like his opinion on a subject like abortion. Right R?

    Let me repeat … I initially found the Santorum thing both funny and a fair smack back at a blatant homophobe. But particularly after watching the man over the past couple of weeks, I am disturbed by the permanence of the smear. It’s one thing to say on a blog in an off hand comment “wouldn’t it be a kick if Rick’s last name was synonymous with feces mixed with lube?” It’s quite another to launch a well thought out campaign that results in a high ranking site on the Internet. That is a step too far.

    I had a search engine optimization guru comment on my professional blog yesterday and he said what I suspected. Santorum doesn’t have the right people managing his “web reputation”. There are ways to push that offensive web site further down the Google search page or even get it off the first page altogether. Santorum’s web guys either don’t know how to do it or don’t want to spend the time/money doing it.

  106. Kat I appreciate your argument here and believe me, I don’t side with homophobes. But surely you see there are logical seams in your argument that make the whole house of cards real shaky.

    The entire political agenda of NAMBLA is that young boys not only want, but need adult men as sexual mentors. Now this may sicken you. That’s fine and dandy but your constant use of the phrase “child rape” does not square with the political views of “radical pedophiles”. As strange as this may sound, not all pedos violently rape children. I agree they all coerce children. And I fully agree a child cannot freely consent to sex with an adult (although, let’s be honest, they can and do consent with sex play with peers).

    OK, I’m rambling. Let me try to wrap this up. For every act you find “horrific” there is a lobby that would like to see that act legitimized in society at large. So the question of where we draw the line on acceptable behavior must come into play when we talk about changing laws. Santorum’s contention is that if you tell a guy that he has no right to lick his dog’s balls, then you’re in no position to tell Santorum that he cannot prohibit that guy from licking another guy’s balls.

    Sorry to be so graphic but it’s late and I’m trying to get the point across as clearly as possible.

  107. “At no point did I say he “deserved what he got”

    No. You have instead said that it is “pretty OK” that he is getting it.

    That is from two separate posts, in the second of which I said that I was basically somewhat conflicted about the campaign. It is in theory not appropriate, however neither is referring to gay sex as equivalent to “man-on-child” or “man-on-dog.” Appropriate? Probably not, but I have to confess to a certain amount of schadenfreude when someone gets a little dose of his own medicine.

  108. GK, you unwittingly made my point. R got it. Now I’ll go read the links, but why would you highlight the one section of a quote that belies your interpretation:

    “It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —”

    GK @ 126.

    Feel comfortable with your self-righteousness You’re riding on another train. The quotes you provided are precisely what I was talking about from what I can tell.

    And here we were discussing Muhammad’s 6 year old bride and prepubescent sex being amoral depending the societal constricts of the time.

    Sigh. *scratches head*

    Well, I guess the state should recognize sibling marriages too if it’s consensual. Oh, sorry. That would be equating gay sex with incest. . . 🙄

  109. For every act you find “horrific” there is a lobby that would like to see that act legitimized in society at large. So the question of where we draw the line on acceptable behavior must come into play when we talk about changing laws. Santorum’s contention is that if you tell a guy that he has no right to lick his dog’s balls, then you’re in no position to tell Santorum that he cannot prohibit that guy from licking another guy’s balls.

    Dogs cannot consent to sex with humans. Children cannot consent–and do not want to–sex with adults. Are you seriously equating children exploring sexuality naturally with other children to NAMBLA? Are you seriously equating NAMBLA with adult same sex relationships? Are you seriously equating abusing an animal with adult relationships?

    I think we have developed a pretty good line on acceptable behavior when it comes to child and animal rape. Don’t think there’s much ambiguity there. Apparently Santorum does think there’s ambiguity and there’s an equivalency (and some here apparently) and hence the backlash from someone–a gay man living in a long term relationship with another man and their son–who used his own personal power to lash back.

  110. Kat, the very fact that we have differing age of consent laws means there is ambiguity in “child rape”. Tigre or BiW who are attorneys can correct me on this but I am pretty sure there is no federal age of consent. It varies from state to state with some states being as young as 16 if I’m not mistaken. Perfectly legal sex in one state is statutory rape in another.

    What I’m getting at is you are trying to make your standard universal, the very “crime” that Santorum is guilty of. I’d say public opinion (and mine) are on your side presently. But things change. 80 years from now it may be perfectly acceptable to have sex with 13 year old girls and completely unacceptable for a man to have sex with another man. (Not likely but possible.)

  111. Jeezus, Rutherford. You’re getting as squishy as some of your commenters.

    We are not talking about the mores of 2000 years ago or 80 years from now. We are talking about NOW, and you can’t squirm around and avoid the “man-on-child” or “man-on-dog” stuff. HERE and NOW that is unacceptable. Nice try at nibbling around the edges with the “13 year-old” stuff and the “mutually consenting teens” having sex with each other, but that’s not what santorum meant and you know it. His very POINT was that of unacceptable ages and unacceptable species, wasn’t it?

  112. Hey Rabbit, if you happen by here today, please explain this to me. I saw a headline that said “orange juice futures soar 10% on news that Brazilian imports may be contaminated with a pesticide”.

    Why would bad news about oranges help orange juice futures? Is there some kind of shorting going on? I’m not familiar with the futures market.

  113. So Pfesser, to put it simply, you reject any slippery slope argument and you suggest that only social liberals get to call the shots on acceptability?

    You’re very familiar with the adult film industry. There’s an entire range of “entertainment” out there, satisfying varying tastes. Who should decide what’s cool and what isn’t? Santorum or GypsyKat? And why?

  114. Actually, the shorts can play a role too.

    The bad news about oranges can cause a “short squeeze”. Basically, the shorts are forced to buy the stock to protect themselves from losing their ass. This causes the prices to rise even faster, ending with a bubble pop when the shorts unload the stock they never wanted in the first place. . Its exactly what happened with silver last May.

  115. “He is not entitled to be protected from the backlash when people (like Dan Savage’s fans/followers) decide that child rape and adult consensual relationships (and the legal protection of the latter) are not at all the same thing.”

    So you’re the hypocrite.

    Justifying a wrong by basing it on another wrong is…well…wrong.

    The fact is….Santorum thinks he is right. But Dan Savage knows his own “definition” is a lie.

    It’s childish.

  116. Ok Pfesser, let’s give this one more shot.

    The Santorum/Savage battle comes down to who decides what is acceptable behavior. To answer Kat’s question … Santorum does not trivialize child and animal rape. On the contrary, he thinks (wrongly in my estimation) that sodomy (and other homosexual behavior) falls within the same general boundary of unacceptability as child and animal rape. He believes acceptance of one softens our opposition to more extreme sexual behaviors.

    His argument is easy to dismiss based on child rape and bestiality because they are such strong taboos in this society. But his argument becomes stronger when he talks about polygamy.

    The young liberals in NH with whom he debated, got their dander up over polygamy. Why? It’s all consenting adults. So quite frankly, the young libs came up looking like hypocrites. They reserve their right to draw a line in the sand but deny that same right to Santorum. That’s hypocrisy.

    On a side note to BiW or Tigre, seems to me Savage skirted prosecution for libel/slander by never actually saying anything bad about Rick himself. So he could besmirch Rick’s name without legal consequence.

  117. While I’m not in perfect harmony with Gypsy’s tone and volume, I think she’s right when when she says:

    ”The first action–equating consenting adult relationships to child rape and horrific animal abuse–is absolutely wrong.

    Santorum equated. He compared. He sort of separated, but he did not clearly contrast. It’s hard to grok exactly what he is saying, and you can drive a truck through the gaps in clarity and sensativity in his remarks. His bad.

    I don’t think he ought to be punished for his beliefs – which is how I see the grotesque prank.

    Sorry El Tigre, I was going to post (evidently repost) the info you asked for but I miscalculated something. In any event, I think you called it correctly on a number of fronts there.

    As far as Dan Savage – I think he’s a sick dude, having nothing to do with his sexuality.

    One thing GypsyKat, with regard to Catholicism, I’m no expert but I’m willing to conclude that Santorum makes no distinction between priests having sex with grown women and homosexual acts. I hope I’ve made it clear that there are no excuses for (certain offending parts) of what he said, but I wanted to add that I think the crux of his meaning lies somewhere along the lines of that he makes no exception for homosexuality when it comes to laws and statutes. That he thinks that makes it all better is his blind spot.

    As slick as politicians are, I can’t think of anyone, except perhaps Ron Paul, who speaks eloquently about his personal faith and how it relates to his role in the politics of this country. He’s the one guy I can say understands his audience perfectly. He doesn’t make the mistake of thinking that he is “among friends.”

    I was raised Catholic. My mom decided after 5 children that she and my dad were all done making babies, but not done with making the luv. Mom went to Father Mike (an awesome guy) and said, “alrighty then I’m going on the pill.” He laughed and told her that he himself would do the same if he were in her shoes, and further stated that he felt such an action would be alright with the God he knew. He completely supported her.

    The vow of celibacy would be an interesting topic to delve into. I think it’s a manmade law based on an interpretation of a particular passage in the Bible. Is Catholicism the only religion that practices that their leaders take a vow of celibacy?

    All of this hubub over Santorum makes me wonder who really was behind the Cain garbage and why it so suddenly died down. I’m not ruling out “friendly fire” either. Gingrich and Perry are playing right into the hands of the “enemy” regarding Romney. :-/

    ~~~

    Rutherford, #131 gets an Amen from me.

    Actually I Amen’d quite a few comments, and the last line of the post itself.

    ~~~

    And so phase two begins – the flattery of the locals. Magic 8 ball says “Don’t celebrate too soon, pops.”

  118. Muffy, I’m quite sure the “Cain garbage” was a hit job and I agree with you, I don’t at all rule out friendly fire.

    I think Ron Paul speaks eloquently about his faith because he talks about it the least. As a strict constitutionalist he probably understands better than any of the other candidates the wall of separation and the prohibition against a religious litmus test for public office.

    I know no more about Catholicism than I do about any other flavor of religion but I wonder if the celibacy thing is more a manifestation of the believe in the sin of sexual behavior and less about being “married to God”.

  119. Muffy, I have no idea what I have enabled in my browser but whenever I type a misspelled word it gets highlighted and all I have to do is right-click it to find a proper spelling. It’s the only reason my spelling is near flawless in these comments. Otherwise, I’d look like a moron. I don’t know if it’s a browser thing or an operating system thing (i.e. Windows).

    I will tell you that you should be careful what you wish for. I’ve been on forum sites with sophisticated comment boxes including spell check buttons and they can be nightmares. I’m actually thankful for WordPress’ simple approach.

  120. Rutherford –

    OK – I think you have cut through the fog and have stated the issue fairly, in contradistinction to other analyses here which are geared clearly only to winning points.

    To save space and back-and-forth, I am going to assume your issue is that of the attack on santorum for stating his feelings honestly.

    In the purest sense, the highly effective attack on santorum’s name by Dan Savage is wrong. So was santorum’s original comment, which I believe was grossly inappropriate (because of the consent issue, which clearly separates man-child, man-dog from man-man.) That was a grossly unfair and inappropriate comment, IMHO, and while Savage’s response was equally bad, it’s hard sometimes to get exercised when somebody meets fire with fire. Do two wrongs make a right? No, but three do. (HT to Tony Hendra)

    I am less convicted about the polygamy issue; I don’t really know why it is treated as such a crime these days except that it secondarily leads to child-brides and is generally very disruptive to the social order vis a vis the young men who did NOT get wives. I know very little about polygamy; (polyamory however sounds like it might be fun (for a while.))

    Savage made this point in a post listed (above) here somewhere. He didn’t go after Obama on the same issue because Obama said, Look, “I don’t believe in gay marriage because of my personal religious beliefs and because of tradition.” (paraphrasing). That’s fair enough. santorum’s little rant? Way over the top. Does it justify what was done to him? hmmm….tough one. Probably not, but I gotta think some more about that…

  121. yeah your probly rite. 😉

    On Ron – yes, the scarcity of his remarks is skillful on his part. Also noteworthy is he speaks the (his) simple truth about it and lets it alone. Again, understanding pretty well who he’s talking to.

    When’s the last time Ron Paul was asked about his beliefs in a debate?

    Oh, I might have missed it if it was mentioned but I heard that the Santorum remarks were made in an interview with a woman who evidently is married to a Democratic strategist. A minor fact, not an overwhelming one, but it did give me pause.

    Debbie W-S reminds me of a vulture.

  122. “Why would bad news about oranges help orange juice futures? Is there some kind of shorting going on? I’m not familiar with the futures market.” – R

    Watch “Trading Places” again. The supply will be restricted, meaning the price will go up. Futures are contracts to deliver assets at a point certain for a set price. The buyer expects to purchase an undervalued asset, the seller hopes to sell an overvalued asset. The contracts themselves can be traded as well.

  123. “I wonder if the celibacy thing is more a manifestation of the believe in the sin of sexual behavior and less about being “married to God”.”

    R, if you mean that you don’t believe it’s based on sex as a distraction, I disagree. I think that’s exactly what it’s based on.

    I also think it’s misguided, and problematic for the Catholic Church.

  124. Catholic priests take a vow of celibacy based on the NT writings of Paul that claim some people are blessed with the “gift” to remain celibate. It is not something that ALL have been given “strength” in living out. If it isn’t your personal gift and you have sexual desires, you are better off to marry and avoid living in sin, per these teachings.

    I don’t know if other religious sects promote celibacy.

    Sexual sin is as old as mankind. Sexual acts (intercourse specifically) are said to compromise and join us spiritually with the others we involve ourselves with. The result of sexual “sin” affects each of us negatively in our own lifetimes. It is a “sin” against our flesh and will harm us, whether it is evident physically or not.

    It is said that we carry all our past sexual relationships with us when we engage in sex with a current partner.

    There is a dynamic with sex that is beyond the physical realm we are familiar with. It is a very powerful force at work in all of us that we often don’t realize. We have been very negligent in providing good information and examples to our children as a nation and we are suffering for it.

  125. Watch “Trading Places” again.

    One of my fav movies Thor. I particularly love when they’re explaining “the game” to Eddie Murphy and Eddie replies” oh so you guys are bookies.” 😆

    Thanks for adding to Rabbit’s explanation.

  126. #162 continued…

    Re: sex as distraction: I should say the distraction of marriage, family, and the whole “home life” aspect of service, of work – not just sex. Of course it would have to be sex in the context of one man, one woman, and monogamy.

  127. Muffy. a distraction from what? From worship?

    I agree it is misguided. It compels humans to repress one of their strongest urges and contributes to some of them acting out in anti-social ways (i.e. the kid-sex scandals).

  128. At risk of an “upgrade” from E.T. I think the Bain stuff is crap. It’s legal and it’s PRIVATE equity. You are never going to know how many jobs they made or crushed. Hell, they probably don’t even know. And I think his pushback (it’s what Obama attempted with the auto industry) is pretty good. Now, if it comes out that they robbed pensions and parked it offshore to avoid taxes, that would be a huge image problem. But without any indication that that happened, I doubt it will fly, certainly not in the R. nomination process. I think in S.C. it would be more productive for Santorum and Gingrich to go after Romney’s abortion flip flops and Romneycare. However it goes down, it’s always fun to watch the Republican’ts eat their young, no matter which hypocritical brew they use to wash down the chunks.

  129. R – mm, more from service to the Lord, to the flock. From work – teaching, leading the congregation in mass and all. It’s supposed to be a demanding gig requiring lots of study and commitment. Lots.

    I’ve seen – experienced – corporations that may even have mission statements about respecting your life outside of work – and they don’t. Maybe women get this more than men (SWIDT?)

  130. This Bain Capital bashing crap is a classic example of how fake the Republican Party really is.

    A bunch of self proclaimed free market vanguards ripping on a free market guy who was for abortion before he was against it.

    Its hard to stomach these politicians.

  131. A bunch of self proclaimed free market vanguards ripping on a free market guy who was for abortion before he was against it.

    Every now and then you produce a money quote. That was truly classic.

  132. I have yet to watch this but this is the film Newt’s superpac has launched against Romney. Just reading the verbiage on the front page is enough to scare most folks.

    The Bain attack may be BS but I’m telling you, I think Romney has to hit this head on or he may have problems on his hands. Neither the Tea Party nor OWS will sign up for the profile offered in this film.

    http://www.kingofbain.com

  133. Rutherford,

    I watched the Romney film you linked. The thing is most so called conservatives are going to like Romney all the more after seeing what a cutthroat businessman he is/was. Capitalism on steroids.

    They visualize themselves being as successful.

    That is where the problem lies. Romney represents their ideal wheeler dealer. That is considered desirable in those circles.

    F**k everyone else, I got mine. 👿

  134. That Shawn Hannity could be related to Romney. They have a very similar look. He and Sarah sure do act cozy together.

    And you guys said she’d fade into the woodwork. Ha!

  135. Poolman, you and R project too much of your fears/distaste on to Romney and the others, yet are blind to the associations of Dear Leader. Palin’s got a bead on the Tea Party folks. No shit Romney would be coziness to her. He’s running for office You think Obama respects Biden or the Clintons?

  136. (unless you meant Palin and Hannity looking cozy. Hell they about tongue kiss when they’re together from what I’ve seen. But there again, take a look at the orgy at MSNBC with its guests and line-up)

  137. Tigre,

    I meant Palin and Hannity. I swear the guy has got a hard on from just interviewing her.

    As far as “fears/distaste on to Romney” goes, I think I see him for what he is. I am not blind to Obama’s associations, either. He gets no free pass. Many are the same folks Romney hangs with.

    The same “investors” are behind them both. They are heads and tails of the same coin.

    That’s why I am putting my support behind Ron Paul. But between Obama and Romney, I’ll go for Obama. I perceive him the lesser of two evils.

  138. I’m not a football fan but that Tebowie vid was great. Fallon is actually one of the best impersonators we’ve got going. The dude nails everyone he impersonates. He does a great Mick Jagger.

  139. I heard rumor that there might be a Ron Paul – Jesse Ventura ticket if Paul gets the nomination or decides to run third party.

    That is why the Chris Kyle (SEAL sniper) interview was put out, per some sources. The video that rabbit posted maybe last thread. It is purported to discredit Ventura.

    I also heard that the Chris Kyle character was promoting his own book. There is a couple of versions of the story now making the rounds, and plenty of criticism of him and his “hit and run” story.

  140. I gave up on football many years ago – Tom Landry and the Dallas Cowboys era.

    But this Tebow stuff goes beyond the game and has become mainstream media fodder. I really have not kept up with all the hoopla, but assume the Tebow is obnoxiously outspoken regarding his faith in Jesus.

    Kurt Warner, a believer also, was critical of the public displays. I guess to each his own. Like the apostle Paul commented (I paraphrase), at least the gospel is being preached, no matter the intent of the preacher.

    Football players are our modern day heroes and role models. And we sure invest plenty of time and resources in these forms of entertainment.

    I really could care less who wins or loses. It is nice when the Cardinals do well, as business and attitudes pick up here in my local society. People are really emotional about their sports.

  141. “I watched the Romney film you linked. The thing is most so called conservatives are going to like Romney all the more after seeing what a cutthroat businessman he is/was. Capitalism on steroids.”

    That is….if it were true…

    Which it isn’t.

    ” The 29-minute video “King of Bain” is such an over-the-top assault on former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney that it is hard to know where to begin.”

    And neither is this bullshit….

    “A previous story incorrectly reported that Mitt Romney’s former firm, Bain & Co., was part of a team of consulting companies that advised President Barack Obama on a decision to shutter car dealerships during the auto bailout.

    Bain & Co. said it has no connection to the “Bain Consulting” firm referenced in government documents.”

    Dan Rather must be doing the research over there…..

  142. Boehner is in Brazil, Cantor is in Turkey via France and McConnell is about to leave for Southeast Asia, all while Congress is “in session”. C’mon Republican’ts, put on your shiny, non-hypocritical armor and attack these guys for wasting taxpayer money, being insensitive while others are struggling and acting like, well … Obama. 😉

  143. Thor, please link. I’d love to rag on each of them. Don’t disappoint. I want a real “let them eat cake” moments on our dime like the Obamas tirelessly deliver.

  144. “attack these guys for wasting taxpayer money, being insensitive while others are struggling and acting like, well … Obama.”

    I looked at each of your links. Are you kidding?

  145. Glad I didn’t bother to read the links … no matter what they said Tigre would have rejected them. When a conservative goes abroad it’s business. When a liberal does it, it’s a junket wasting our tax dollars.

  146. R, the opposite cane be said of you.

    So, why don;t you try your hand at what Thor posted rather than making ad hominem comments about me.

    And whn I said I;d like to rag on the guys, I meant it .

    When it came to Obama the discussion centered on vacations in France and unnecessary extravagance. Please enlighten me. The posts are extremely short.

    Your point is not won by saying, “I knew the other guy would disagree, so you are right.” 🙄

  147. I’ve watched the Gingrich smear film against Romney. One question remains which is not answered by the film or the Washington Post fact check. Did all these companies go to Bain for “help” or did Bain essentially do hostile takeovers of the businesses? I think the answer to that question matters.

    If companies go to Bain for financial assistance and understand the consequences of the “deal” the same way I do when I ask a bank for a mortgage or a loan, then I have no problem with Bain. If on the other hand these companies (or some of them) are extorted to do business with Bain and then get sucked dry, then yes I have a big problem with that.

    As for the fact check, hopefully the boys at the Post are not in the tank for Romney in which case their fact check needs a fact check. Sadly, it’s hard to know who to believe anymore. Assuming the Post credible on this, “When Mitt Romney Came to Town” is a work of manipulated fiction unlike the SuperPAC ads that were launched against Gingrich in Iowa which were fact.

  148. Your point is not won by saying, “I knew the other guy would disagree, so you are right.”

    If I read Thor’s links I might end up agreeing with you Tigre and where’s the fun in that? 😉

  149. “Did all these companies go to Bain for “help” or did Bain essentially do hostile takeovers of the businesses? I think the answer to that question matters.”

    Why does that make a difference?

    (And frankly, I don’t know that I understand what you mean by “hostile takeover” in the context of venture capital — hostile is not synonymous with “unfair.”).

  150. Why does that make a difference?

    It makes a difference because one of the memes in this thread is that no one put a gun to the head of these companies to do business with Bain. That Bain provides a “service” in essentially “lending” money to institutions in need. That these companies go into these deals with eyes wide open and the outcomes are the natural consequences of good old fashioned capitalism so the companies have no right to gripe.

    The entire premise of the Romney smear job and Rick Perry is that Bain was “predatory” suggesting that these deals were not freely entered into by all parties involved. That to me makes a difference.

    hostile is not synonymous with “unfair.”

    Tigre, I suspect you subscribe to a philosophy that I often subscribe to: LIFE IS NOT FAIR. Hence I get the feeling that cries of inequity don’t particularly move you. I don’t say this as a put-down or a judgment. I just think from a practical POV your habit is to say “yeah that sucks now move on.”

    Hostile takeover implies to me the one doing the taking over has advantage over the one being taken over. Unfair advantage? Well isn’t an advantage by definition unfair?

  151. R, I hate when you use your own ignorance of a topic to avoid a point. In fact, you are so illiterate on this subject you can’t distinguish literal from figurative in my coments.

    I meant unfair in its most literal sense:

    Hostile takeover is the “acquisition of one company (called the target company) by another (called the acquirer) that is accomplished not by coming to an agreement with the target company’s management, but by going directly to the company’s shareholders or fighting to replace management in order to get the acquisition approved. A hostile takeover can be accomplished through either a tender offer or a proxy fight.”

    Ownership resides in the shareholders. Hostile means “antagonistic to the management (Board). So when you say unfair, I say “to whom?” Perhaps you are watching the Wallstreet from the 80s as your paradigm?

    But that’s besides the point. I don’t see how”hostile takeover” applies to the discussion of “vulture capitalism,” VC or Bain.

    R, the “life is unfair” thing is off the mark entirely. It seems to me that your ad hoc determinations of “fair” turn your perceptions of whom you perceive the “losing party” not any process that was improperly taken advantage of ethically, morally or legally.

    The breakdown in our communications on “fairness” universally relates to competitive environments where those with an advantage win (be it product, cost, market, infrastructure, prospects etc. etc). So no. Advantage is not “unfair.” Unfair is breaking the laws or the rules of the game with impunity. We’re not talking about that. That’s wrong. And I haven’t seen anybody that says Romney did that.

    Now, on a figurative level, I said earlier that “vultures” serve a purpose in the ecosystem. That fact they’re pickins’ are easy or it’s just icky that they consume rotting flesh doesn’t mean what they’re doing is wrong, unfair, or harmful. You can link it from there if you care to understand my point.

  152. The difference between an ecosystem and capitalism is that an ecosystem is self-sustaining and in balance whereas capitalism needs continual expansion and growth. Some of these creations of capitalism are more cannibal-like in nature leaving only skeletal remains in many once thriving communities.

  153. Rutherford, you may find this article interesting as it delves into Bain Capitol.

    The Dark Side of Mitt Romney

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/02/mitt-romney-201202

    “Starting almost immediately, Bain proposed, Romney would become the head of a new company to be called Bain Capital. With seed money from Bill Bain and other partners at the consulting firm, Bain Capital would raise tens of millions of dollars, invest in start-ups and troubled businesses, apply Bain’s brand of management advice, and then resell the revitalized companies or sell their shares to the public at a profit. It sounded exciting, daring, new. It would be Romney’s first chance to run his own firm and, potentially, to make a killing. It was an offer few young men in a hurry could refuse.

    Romney’s phrase, “leverage up,” provides the key to understanding this most profitable stage of his business career. While putting relatively little money on the table, Bain could strike a deal using largely debt. That generally meant that the company being acquired had to borrow huge sums. But there was no guarantee that target companies would be able to repay their debts. At Bain, the goal was to buy businesses that were stagnating as subsidiaries of large corporations and grow them or shake them up to burnish their performance. Because many of the companies were troubled, or at least were going to be heavily indebted after Bain bought them, their bonds would be considered lower-grade, or “junk.” That meant they would have to pay higher interest on the bonds, like a strapped credit-card holder facing a higher rate than a person who pays off purchases more quickly.

  154. Wrapping up my take on this topic before moving on. I’ve had a hellacious week at work, but damn this entire topic has pissed me off. The level of false equivalency puts David Brooks to shame, and on a much more horrific level than he ever does.

    Who should decide what’s cool and what isn’t? Santorum or GypsyKat? And why?

    I’m not talking about what’s cool. I’m talking about what’s equivalent and legal (or should be legal).

    One thing GypsyKat, with regard to Catholicism, I’m no expert but I’m willing to conclude that Santorum makes no distinction between priests having sex with grown women and homosexual acts [GK insert: or pedophilia obviously]. I hope I’ve made it clear that there are no excuses for (certain offending parts) of what he said, but I wanted to add that I think the crux of his meaning lies somewhere along the lines of that he makes no exception for homosexuality when it comes to laws and statutes. That he thinks that makes it all better is his blind spot.

    That Santorum makes no distinction between homosexuality, heterosexuality that doesn’t involve the missionary position, contraception, child rape, and dog fucking is exactly Savage’s point. These are not equivalent behaviors or actions.

    Santorum’s contention is that if you tell a guy that he has no right to lick his dog’s balls, then you’re in no position to tell Santorum that he cannot prohibit that guy from licking another guy’s balls.

    Again, to allow him to get away with this false and disgusting equivalency is the problem and specifically why Savage targets Santorum and not anyone else who holds opposing positions.

    Kat, the very fact that we have differing age of consent laws means there is ambiguity in “child rape”.

    No, there isn’t ambiguity between statuatory rape and pedophilia. Are you seriously telling me that sex with a post-pubescent teen is the same thing as fucking a pre-pubescent child and comes down to age of consent laws? And that “man on boy” (an obvious play on Man/Boy Love Association which is absolutely about pedophilia) really means post-pubescent teens who just happen to be below the age of consent or pre-pubescent boys that fall below the age of consent in some backward state?

    But things change. 80 years from now it may be perfectly acceptable to have sex with 13 year old girls and completely unacceptable for a man to have sex with another man.

    Yeah, that’s how we’re trending and how we want to trend (puhleeze!). Going backwards to sex with girls the instant they start menstruating. And that’s the equivalent to same-sex marriage. Or did you just recently discover The Handmaid’s Tale and think that was a missing work of Nostradamus?

    Santorum does not trivialize child and animal rape. On the contrary, he thinks (wrongly in my estimation) that sodomy (and other homosexual behavior) falls within the same general boundary of unacceptability as child and animal rape..

    The very definition of minimizing child and animal rape.

  155. In 206 Tigre rightly calls me on the carpet for the careless use of the phrase “hostile takeover”. As I wrestle with exactly what the hell Bain does, I understand hostile takeover is the wrong description. (Heck I had to re-read Raji’s comment three times and I’m still a bit flustered. I’m going to read her link to see if that helps me some.)

    Regarding fairness, strictly speaking a fair competition exists between two parties neither of which have an advantage over the other. Hence the phrase “it’s wrong to take advantage of someone”. So unfair advantage is to my mind a bit redundant.

    But isn’t it interesting how Tigre closes the comment? He basically says “but hey, if Bain are immoral assh*les, so what? They serve a purpose in the ecosystem.”

    That’s the way we live with capitalism in this country and particularly capitalism on “the bleeding edge” (credit default swaps, etc, etc.). We park our conscience at the door in the name of preserving the ecosystem.

    I’m not sure a good economic system has yet been tried but I will acknowledge capitalism is the best of a bad lot.

  156. Kat, I’m afraid you’re coming away from this discussion thinking I agree with Santorum. I hope that is not the case. The only reason I have persisted is to simply get you to at least acknowledge that all discussion of human behavior is a discussion of boundaries and different folks set those boundaries at different places. It’s really as simple as that.

    Move on to my next post … I’d be surprised if you find much to differ with me on that one. (But one never knows. 🙂 )

  157. No, Rutherford, I don’t think you agree with Santorum. But he’s getting a pass on a wildly offensive and wrong equivalency, I guess because it’s religiously based? Screw that. And Savage isn’t the horrible person for directly responding to Santorum in kind.

    On to the next!

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s