1. Washington’s Governor signs same-sex marriage bill into law. (Congratulations, Washington.)
2. Rick Santorum runs neck and neck with Mitt Romney in race for Republican nomination.
Maybe I wouldn’t find this dichotomy so jarring if Senator Santorum would ever walk back these remarks.
Ricky-poo’s comments are from 2003, but I don’t think his position on SSM has changed since. He’d definitely benefit from mixing a little anthropology into his reading, though. He might just realize that claiming that “[e]very society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman” is just wrong.
On Hit and Run, someone made the comment that perfectly encapsulated the problem with the GOP today. (I’ll paraphrase because I can’t find the exact quotation.)
“The Frontrunner is talking about contraception.”
That said, if the modern GOP is going to have a Goldwater moment, I’d infinitely rather it happen because Santorum is on the ballot than because Paul is.
Taking that analogy down its normal road, though, (the one that leads to Reagan), I’d rather it be Paul.
I suppose that’s true.
How about “a Stevenson moment”?
McGovern Moment? Dukakis Moment?
When’s the last time they ran a Liberal from the North East?
2004?
I think Kerry is too recent for us to say that the dems have learned anything.
But Dukakis was from Massachusetts and Kerry… oh.
They have not nominated a Greek-American since. What more do you want?
“I think Kerry is too recent for us to say that the dems have learned anything.”
I think the pattern is a bit too repetitive to say that either party is ever really going to learn anything until it’s hit upside the head with a hammer a couple dozen times.
Even then they can forget over 20 years.
Jaybird, Other than Paul’s disdain for foreign entanglements, could you give this semi pacifistic liberal an example of something I would like to see become law?
An end to the drug war?
Well of course states can each have their own stupid drug war.
I imagine that a Drug War without Federal Agents forcing the hands of everybody in the state would be a Drug War that would be much more pleasant for everyone involved.
The War on Drugs would fall apart if it went state-by-state.
Ever been to Texas?
It becomes an insurmountable, and expensive, task to try to keep drugs out that are legal to grow in New Mexico. It disrupts the thin illusion that it is a solvable problem. Arguably, taking federal dollars out in and of itself can change the approach. I’ve seen that with Meth.
Jaybird, Now there are two reasons not to dislike Congressman Paul. Now, could you tell this ardent enviromentalist why I would want to get rid of the EPA?
Because it’s a politicized agency that does what it’s told rather than one that operates independently of political considerations?
I don’t understand what you’re arguing against.
What do you think I meant by “A Goldwater Moment”?
The EPA, FDA, pretty much any –A, are “politicized agenc[ies] that [do] what [they’re] told rather than one[s] that operates independently of political considerations”.
However, with few exceptions, they are much MUCH better than what came before.
Thank you, no, in this regard Dr Paul can go muse on the carcass of Dr Kellogg.
Maybe I am missing your point. I thought that you were saying that if there was going to be a 44-6 victory for the dems, you would prefer it to against Santorum instead of Paul so Paul wouldn’t be toast forever.
I agree that the EPA is partially, or even mainly, controlled by the corps, but I think it is better than nothing and I hope that someday will do the job intended.
Yeah. I find Santorum to be completely odious and the opposite of what I want in a politician.
He doesn’t believe that the government has any limits to its jurisdiction whatsoever.
I can see how liberals might like his assumptions about government even as they disagree with his policies… but they disagree about specific policies, not about whether government ought to have an opinion in the first place.
I’d rather have Santorum discredited publicly than Paul.
If you’d like to know why I think you should support a politician who wants to abandon the Department of Education (now??? in our moment of triumph???), I can throw something together.
I would love it if you would tell me why you would abandon the DoE. You might want to know that I live in a state where one parish school system is going to a four day week because it is broke and mostly black (the whites go to private schools) and the one next to it has one of the best systems in Louisiana. I believe it would be even worse without federal money. The number one system for a couple of years belongs to a nearby town. They aren’t racist. Almost all the kids go to the public school and the district raised enough money to pay the teachers well. You might want to know that if it weren’t for the feds Darwin would be verboten and the earth would only be 6,000 years old. For me, it is the same as with the EPA. Things are bad in the American education, but would be much worse without the Feds.
I don’t like government, but I fear life without one would be worse. I would like to see an argument strong enough to change my mind.
Because the other choice is a president who thinks that it’s okay to assassinate American citizens without so much as a hearing.
But I’m sure that the Department of Education will help those children any day now.