All posts in Mitt Romney

Mark Levin slams Romney for savaging Newt yet pulling back against Obama with Rev. Wright

Posted by The Right Scoop The Right Scoop

Levin is livid over the fact that Romney repudiated anything to do with bringing up Rev. Wright in this campaign even though in the primaries he went full throttle against Newt Gingrich, even with false attack ads:

Enhanced by Zemanta

Audio: Obama Describes Bullying Female Classmate Because She Was Black…

Via: Zip

According to the Washington Post’s cranky lib Greg Sargent, Romeny’s bullying 50 years ago is “fair game,” so I’m guessing he will say the same thing about Obama? Yeah, maybe not.

What does Mitt Romney’s bullying tell us? — WaPo’s Greg Sargent

The story of the morning is that 18-year-old Mitt Romney and a bunch of prep school buds bullied John Lauber, who had bleached blond hair that covered one eye and was relentlessly teased for his “nonconformity and presumed homosexuality,” as today’s Post puts it.

Romney and his pals held Lauber down and Romney clipped the kid’s hair as he teared up and yelled for help. One former classmate called the episode “vicious.”

Today, Romney apologized, though he didn’t cop to the actual episode:

“Back in high school, I did some dumb things, and if anybody was hurt by that or offended, obviously I apologize for that. . . I participated in a lot of hijinks and pranks during high school, and some might have gone too far, and for that I apologize.”

It’s hard to see why this story isn’t fair game in journalistic terms. The conservative complaint this morning that it’s an unfair hit piece seems absurd: the man is running for president. Every aspect of his life is going to get picked over. It comes with the territory. It’s a deeply reported piece. In journalistic terms, the story is totally legit.

Enhanced by Zemanta

No, anti-immigration activists don’t trust Mitt Romney

Via:, Wonk Blog

Forget the White House.

Protesters in front of the U.S. Supreme Court (Mark Wilson – GETTY IMAGES)For activists who want to stamp out illegal immigration, the presidency is rather besides the point, at least while Mitt Romney is the nominee.“I could write in my mother’s name. I really wouldn’t make any difference, because nobody’s listening to me anyhow,” says Dan Beck, a cop and former sheriff from Ohio’s Allen County, who still wears a sheriff’s pin on his jacket lapel.Beck was among the activists, policy wonks, and Republican legislators who are lending their voices this week to conservative radio hosts who’ve gathered in Washington to focus on illegal immigration. Organized by the Federation for American Immigration Reform — a leading advocacy group in the fight against illegal immigration — the confab made it clear that the presidency isn’t the movement’s primary battleground.

Many say they’re not entirely sure what Romney’s positions on immigration really are. And even they were, they wouldn’t believe the promises that he’s making anyway.

“At this point, we’re still trying to figure out — he’s still deciding his immigration position. I’d like him to be a little bit stronger on it,” says Rusty Humphries, a radio host from Atlanta, after he wrapped up a broadcast of his eponymous, nationally syndicated show. When I pressed him to elaborate, he stopped me. “Can I be honest? I’ve been in this room all day long, and this”— he gestures to a flyer — ”is the only thing I’ve seen, that’s been handed to me. So I honestly don’t have any idea what he’s said at this point.”

The flyer passed around the event highlighted a gaffe this week from Romney’s Hispanic outreach director, Bettina Inclan, who told reporters that the former Massachusetts governor was still deciding his stance on immigration. In fact, Romney has an entire section on his campaign Web site devoted to immigration: he wants to establish a verification system akin to e-Verify to screen employees on their immigration status, for instance, and “absolutely opposes any policy that would allow illegal immigrants to ‘cut in line.’” During the GOP primary, Romney routinely attacked Gingrich and other opponents for holding more moderate views.

But anti-immigration activists aren’t feeling too heartened: Inclan’s gaffe has made some even more wary about where Romney really stood, giving them even fewer reasons to believe that he’d stay faithful to his campaign promises. “I could not for a moment assure you that he would be a strong opponent of illegal immigration, or a strong supporter of illegal immigration. I don’t know. And I’m not sure he does,” former GOP Congressman and anti-immigration firebrand Tom Tancredo said outside the confab, shortly before a fan rushed up to get his autograph. (“Keep the faith!” he wrote in a copy of his book, “In Mortal Danger.”)

“[Romney’s] waffled so much. He claims to be a conservative, and he’s trying to convince people he’s truly conservative. Let me know the truth — I’ve been a cop for 30 years,” says Beck.

Instead, anti-immigration activists turning their sights to matters closer home: state laws to keep illegal immigrants away from the polls, bills to replicate Arizona’s police checks on immigration status, and initiatives by local law enforcement to carry out their own crackdowns. Beck, for one, wants more sheriffs to follow the model of Arizona’s Joe Arpaio — “my hero,” he says — and expand their efforts to identify and detain illegal immigrants, putting pressure on Washington from the ground up. Sheriffs “need to get out of their offices and band together as a group,” he says. “Then the group needs to come to Washington D.C. and start pounding on these legislators’ doors.”

They’ve also converged over voter ID laws, which have become a new battleground for conservative activists who want to crack down on voter fraud — and say that illegal immigrants are among the most common perpetrators. The Obama game plan, Tancredo claims, is “to identify those places, those cities and those states where you have high numbers of immigrants, welfare recipients, and that sort of thing, who can be energized to get to the polls — even if they’re not legally able to do so.” Tancredo, in response, is preparing to launch a project in Colorado focusing on the issue. “We’re going to be out in force in battleground states,” promises Tancredo. (As for Romney, he says, “I’ll take him.”)

The voter ID issue previously united the tea party and the anti-immigration movement in 2010, which came together to dispatch poll-watchers across various states and localities. Democrats cast that effort as voter intimidation and suppression, pointing out that there was little evidence of voter fraud in 2010, despite the right’s hullabaloo. But such grassroots focus on electoral nuts-and-bolts could end up helping the GOP ticket in 2012, Romney included: watching polling stations presumably also means voting at them.

Insurgent conservative candidates like Richard Mourdock, who just topped Richard Lugar in the Indiana Senate primary, could also inspire more enthusiasm from disillusioned conservatives. Anti-immigration activists hated Lugar’s support for the DREAM Act, which he originally co-sponsored. If Romney’s elected, Congress “is our only fallback position,” says Tancredo. If it’s Obama, “it’s the only thing we have.”

But like their counterparts on the left, the anti-immigration know that state and local efforts ultimately aren’t enough to overhaul the immigration system to their liking. If the Supreme Court strikes downArizona SB 1070, for instance, Tancredo admits that it will be “back to the drawing board.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

(Video) Bil Whittle: Man bites dog

Via: PubSecrets.com

Busy day today, but I wanted to share the latest Firewall with you. In it, Bill looks at the silliness regarding Romney “dog on the car roof” story and “Obama ate a dog,” and explains why it matters. First, because it illustrates in bright, neon colors yet another example of mainstream media hypocrisy: the New York Times disapprovingly mentions the Romney story 56 times, but dismisses Obama’s self-confessed chow-down on a Chow as a distraction. Typical.

But his larger point is the more important one: Obama eating dog meat, in addition to all the other elements of his early life, shows how he just isn’t one of us. Not in the silly sense of being a “sekrit Mooslim” or the equally nonsensical birther fantasies, but that the sum total of his life experience leaves him unable to understand or empathize with his “fellow” Americans. While Bill focuses on Obama’s early life, I’d toss in his collegiate years and his life in Chicago within the echo chamber of Socialist community organizing and leftist academia. Bill Clinton feeling our pain, he isn’t.

Enjoy:

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Enhanced by Zemanta

War on Women: Senate Democrats plan another trap for Mitt Romney with female voters

The strategy is simple: They will declare war employers and men to help facilitate the appearance of a war on women. You really have to read this.

(The Hill) — Senate Democrats are planning a new ploy to put Mitt Romney and Republicans on the defensive with female voters.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will bring to the floor in coming weeks legislation to protect women from retaliation by employers if they inquire about salaries paid to male colleagues.

Republicans voted in unison to block the bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, when it came to the floor in November of 2010.

Democrats say it will be difficult for GOP senators to back out of their opposition, especially because the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has staunchly opposed the legislation.

Mitt Romney will either have to split with Republicans and an important business group or take a position that could further erode his support among women.

“Romney’s going to be on defense on the Paycheck Fairness Act,” said a senior Democratic aide.

“Women are making 70 cents on a dollar of what a man is making. This will resonate with females across the spectrum. If Republicans to a person are coming down against it, it will be at their political peril,” the aide said.

A spokeswoman for Romney’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

The bill would prohibit employer discrimination for inquiring about, discussing or disclosing the wages of another employee.

It would expand the definition of wage discrimination by allowing employees to compare the pay of male colleagues not only within the same office but also with colleagues in other local offices. A female employee could allege wage discrimination if she is paid less than a male working the same job for the same employer across town.

Not a single Republican voted to advance the legislation when Reid brought it to the floor during the 2010 lame duck session, after Republicans scored a huge electoral victory but Democrats still controlled the House and Senate.

Continue reading »

Enhanced by Zemanta

HANNITY PANEL EXPLODES OVER DISCUSSION OF PRESIDENT‘S ECONOMIC ’SUCCESSES’

“I am going to be working so hard. We have an amazing story to tell. This President has brought us out of the dark and into the light,” First Lady Michelle Obama said while stumping for her husband.

These comments, and the possible “return of Obamamania,” became a hot topic of a debate on Sean Hannity’s Fox show on Wednesday.

“Michelle Obama can tell all the amazing stories she wants but she’s not going to be able to rewrite the sordid history of these last four years,” conservative authoress Michelle Malkin said.

Hannity Panel Explodes Over Discussion of Presidents Economic SuccessesFox News contributor Tamara Holder, Sean Hannity, and Michelle Malkin

“There seems to be here,” host Sean Hannity said to Fox News contributor Tamara Holder, “a disconnect because the president … he lectured George Bush about $4 trillion in eight years. We now passed the $5 trillion in debt mark.”

“Do you think this deserves comparisons to Jesus?” Hannity asked, referring to the First Lady’s biblical-esque claim that her husband has “brought us out of the dark and into the light.”

“I think that’s a little bit of a stretch in your own right Sean,” Holder responded.

“What’s a stretch?”

“The stretch is that the average person does not really understand that the large enormous debt that you continue to talk about really doesn’t hit the person at home …”

“Five trillion, we just passed the five trillion in 39 months!” Hannity interjected.

“Which is because the Republicans, they wanted to go to this war, or I’m sorry, two wars to go find somebody,” Holder snarked.

Steering the conversation back on point, Hannity said: “It seems to me that on every measure the President fails and on every account those that are deeply, almost hypnotically, entranced by Obama, they go back to some excuse.”

At that moment, Malkin jumped in: “One of the main talking points they use is the one that Tamara just invoked which is that ‘average, ordinary people just don’t understand.’”

“Really the average person isn’t so excited about Mitt Romney. The average person knows that they are actually coming back to work, they’re getting jobs,” Holder said, “their foreclosure rates are down. There are certain things that people are seeing, the person next door, nobody understands five trillion.”

Malkin unloaded:

Conservatives online are not accepting these fables that have been shoved down our throat. The idea that Obama has brought us out of the light when he’s plunged us deeper into the sinkhole of debt, that somehow Obama has opened up Washington D.C. to make it as transparent and open as possible, when they’ve done all of these deals and subverted the rule of law behind closed doors.

That somehow Obama is more likeable than any Republican and somehow he’s a nice guy. I hate hearing this from Mitt Romney. He’s got to get this talking point out of his mouth. Barack Obama is not a nice guy.

At this point, Hannity himself felt compelled to challenge Holder and asked her to name at least one economic success the president can claim as his own.

Holder tried to use  unemployment as an example but, as could be expected on the Hannity program, she didn’t get very far.

“No unemployment is higher … You’re wrong,” Hannity said.

Apparently, the combination of being challenged on the president’s economic “successes” and having to do battle with Michelle Malkin proved too much for Holder.

“I don’t understand why you have me on the show and you don’t have to like what I say but you’re fine with Michelle and everybody talking about their conservative flowery talking points and you don’t want me to finish my position,” Holder huffed.

She then turned the conversation away from a defense of the president’s economic record and instead chose to focus on the presumed Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.

“The guy [Romney] is borderline brain-dead,” Holder said, demonstrating for all to see that “new civility” we’ve heard so much about.

Video via Fox News Insider.

This article has been updated.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Flashback: Obama Warned Republicans, “Lay Off My Wife”…

This was a few months after Mooch declared, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.”

(May 19, 2008) — Sen. Barack Obama ripped into a Republican ad today that targets comments made by his wife, Michelle, and called the GOP tactic “low class” and “detestable.”

The Illinois senator told “Good Morning America” that he expects hardball tactics from the Republicans if he becomes the Democratic presidential nominee.

“But I also think these folks should lay off my wife,” he told “GMA” as his wife chuckled beside him.

Obama told “GMA” that he believes he will win a majority of the Democratic delegates once the votes are counted after Tuesday’s primaries in Kentucky and Oregon. Obama is favored in Oregon while rival Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York is expected to win Kentucky.

Obama was careful not to act as if he had already clinched the nomination, but he also tried to present himself as the candidate who will be taking on Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona in the fall.

The Republicans seem to have come to the same conclusion and a GOP Internet campaign in Tennessee has an ad featuring Michelle Obama’s comments during the long Democratic campaign that “for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.”

Michelle Obama was asked about the ad on “GMA,” but her husband said, “Let me just interject on this.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

BREAKING: Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate

image

Had Michigan not been as close, the Democrats would have waited to spring this on us in the general election. Luckily we have it now and I hope Ohio voters are paying attention.

English: Governor Mitt Romney of MA In July 2009, Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in USA Today urging Barack Obama to usean individual mandate at the national level to control healthcare costs.On the campaign trail now, Mitt Romney says the individual mandate is appropriate for Massachusetts, but not the nation. Repeatedly in debates, Romney has said he opposes a national individual mandate. But back in 2009, as Barack Obama was formulating his healthcare vision for the country, Mitt Romney encouraged him publicly to use an individual mandate. In his op-ed, Governor Romney suggested that the federal government learn from Massachusetts how to make healthcare available for all. One of those things was “Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.”

Health care cannot be handled the same way as the stimulus and cap-and-trade bills. With those, the president stuck to the old style of lawmaking: He threw in every special favor imaginable, ground it up and crammed it through a partisan Democratic Congress. Health care is simply too important to the economy, to employment and to America’s families to be larded up and rushed through on an artificial deadline. There’s a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it.Romney continues further down in the op-ed bringing up the individual mandate dreaded by conservatives.

Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn’t have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn’t cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.

Friends, if Mitt Romney is the nominee, we will be unable to fight Obama on an issue that 60% of Americans agree with us on.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tancredo on Kudlow: “Barrack Obama most left winged candidate we have ever had”

Begins at 6:45 mark.

Transcript: first up, it’s just under an hour before polls close in michigan, arizona later. cnbc’s john harwood joins us live from detroit. good evening, john? reporter: larry, there are some polls that will be open until 9:00 in michigan, as well so we’ll have to wait a bit for those results, but we already know this is a very, very close race in michigan. pretty high stakes for the norm nation. my take is that mitt romney wins michigan in arizona he’ll be the nominee, and i think he’ll be the nominee even if he loses michigan, but it will take longer and much rougher. both went after each other by name and mitt romney singling out rick santorum. mitt romney said he’s late to that party. i’m glad he ridiculoecognize is a campaign about the economy. it’s time for him to focus on the economy and for you to all say okay, if the economy is going to be the issue we focus who has the experience to actually get this economy going again? senator santorum is a nice guy, but he’s never had a job in the private sector. but, of course, rick santorum makes the argument that it’s not only about economic issues. social issues especially those conservative christians in the western and northern parts of this state are key targets for him and so he makes a much broader, tack on mitt romney for his health care plan and imp implications for social issues. it’s about government control of economic lives and regulating you, taxing you, forcing you to buy things and forcing their values on you and your religion. which, by the way, romney did to catholic hospitals in massachusetts by forcing them to distribute the morning-after pill. why would we give those issues away in this general election? at the core of what’s at stake in this country, why would we put someone out there who is uniquely unqualified to make that case? so we’ve still got a turnout operation going on. mitt romney, larry, is at the superior organization here as in other states and what rick santorum hopes is that some of those inflammatory comments he’s made may comp state by stirring up some of those conserve tich christians, evangelicals or tvangelicals. many that cross over from the tea party. thanks for this. now let’s turn to republican senior strategist steve schmitt. he was top dog in the mccain campaign in 2008. steve, welcome back to the show. you’re welcome, larry. i want to ask you about president obama a minute. president obama talking to the uaw says this, my bailouts of the car business saved detroit, saved michigan and saved the economy and steve, we are getting better consumer confidence and we are getting better jobs. the dow is over 13,000. let me just ask you, can obama really be beaten in a better economy? well, larry, it’s a closely-divided nation. it continues to be, this has been a terrible stretch for the republican candidates and a lot of good things are happening for the president and the real clear politics average has him up about five points over mitt romney and six points over rec santorum. it’s a close election, but boy do republicans have some work to do. we are talking about things that are irrelevant to the lives of average americans. we are ceding economic arguments to the president talking about 52-year-old speech that president kennedy did in houston and talking about contraception, making from senator santorum’s perspective and i think ludicrous charges about the president wanting people to go to college so they can be indoctrinated and so republicans will have to offer to win this election a pro-growth opportunity message that explains and defines what opportunity looks like to the american people in the 21st century. we need an update in a modern, conservative argument. steve, did mitt romney get that done. that’s still obama’s area of vulnerability and i presume the budget deficit and the debt also. no doubt. did mitt romney get that done in his economics club of detroit’s speech. was he able to sell it and will he be able to sell it? no, i don’t think he got it done and i don’t think he’ll be able to make the pivot until he gets into a general election contact. the season has been disappointing for a lot of reason, but i think it’s on the course that it is right now. we’ve not yet had the candidates looking over the horizon, explaining to the american people what a 21st-century vision of conservatism is. how do you create prosperity? how do you create opportunity. how do you resuscitate the manufacturing base in the country? you know, this race has been about small things and it’s been about personal attacks and one of the consequences of it, larry is we have a fractured conservative base in the republican party, but independents who had soured on the president just a few months ago are going back to them and they’re going back to them in a big way. so we’re going to be starting this general election whoever the nominee is in a pretty good sized hole of our own making. steve, extremism in the culture war doesn’t sound like a winning issue to me. is that going to play a role tonight. did santorum lose the lkt lkt ability argument because he’s gone too far on contraception, on prenatal care, on the jfk speech on four-year colleges and so forth. will that hurt santorum tonight? well, it should hurt santorum if republican voters are focused on beating president bush. let’s look at one state, larry, virginia. republicans have to win back virginia. northern virginia is a moderate swing state area. there is no market for these issues in the american electorate that rick santorum is talking about. this is the antithesis of limited government conservatism. i believe it was a mistake for the congress to intervene in a family court decision in florida with the terry schiavo deci with the terry schiavo decision, but you now see rick santorum out there on a daily basis talking about these issues which are mainstreaming schiavoism into all manner of different areas in the party and then he spent a paragraph or two paragraphs or three paragraphs explaining and that’s a recipe for disaster? apparently he reneged on the jfk thing so he’s coming and going. absolutely. you were great to give us your time tonight. i know you’re busy. thank you ever so much. thank you, larry. let’s bring in two more experts to make the case for romney and santorum. we have gop chairman and current romney backer saul onassis and former colorado republican congressman tom tancredo. tom tancredo, you heard steve schmitt. he had harsh words for your man and saying this was is the antithesis of limited government conservatism on jfk and contraception. what is your response to what steve schmitt said. most of the stuff will not be relevant come the general election. what both of those candidates are trying to do today, what four of them are trying to do and the two really and truly at the top of the heap are trying to win a primary and in the a primary election and in the republican primary you’re going to talk to conservatives and you’ll be more conservative than you would otherwise be. we’ve seen that happen a hundred times. in this case i think santorum really is the conservative and mitt romney is trying to be because you’re going after republican primary voters. after the primary’s over with we enter into a brand new phase, but let’s talk about the issue that came up in terms of the economy. i am concerned. i think we all should be that bill clinton’s admonition to his campaign, remember, it’s the economy, stupid. the economy’s being looking better. if it looks better, that’s right — it’s even — romney loses his main issue, right? that’s his thing. if the economy is better than you’ll fight it out over ideas. saul, let me ask you. steve schmitt did not think that mitt romney got the job done with the 20% tax cut and his overall economic plan to the detroit economics club, and i presume that that’s one of the reasons this race is too close to call, saul. what’s your take on that criticism? well, look, first of all, mitt romney’s argument is going over well in michigan. i’m cautiously optimist take he’s going win tonight. i think he’s doing extremely well in the messaging. i’ve been traveling around the state and yesterday i was listening to his pitch. they want to make sure we have jobs and we have a lot of midwestern states that are hurting economically. tom tancredo, democrats may be very important to this race today. michael moore is out on the tape some place saying all his friends are going vote for santorum because he’s the weaker candidate and they want to cause mischief. what about the democrat turnout, tom? how will that impact things? i don’t know. i understand that’s an interesting thing because i know the democratic party has done a robocall for that purpose to encourage people to vote for santorum and santorum has done a robocall to democrats asking them to vote for him. so one of the two — i mean, the democrats are hoping that if santorum is the weaker candidate, but i’m telling you you better be careful what you ask for, democrats. here’s the thing, honest to goodness, here’s what gives santorum an edge and perhaps in a different election with a different candidate or incumbent things would be different. against a clinton, probably santorum would not have much of a chance. this is not a bill clinton. this is barack obama. he is the most left-wing candidate that — i mean, candidate for re-election we have ever had. you don’t have a right wing candidate against a moderate and i’ll tell you, barack obama is far more left wing than santorum is right wing and when you get those two together america votes, i think — more to the right. i understand, but saul, i’ll give you the last word. basically, do you believe that mitt romney’s economic growth message, not only the 20% tax cut, but reforming entitlements, slashing spending, getting deficits and debt down, do you think that trumps the extreme culture war and is the best way to beat obama? that seems to be the issue this evening. absolutely. i think when mitt romney is talking about the economy and he’s talking about jobs he’s winning. when rick santorum has to bring in democrats, and labor to vote in his favor, republicans all over the country i think will reject santorum’s campaign tactics here. this is about the economy. if we focus barack obama and his message, if we can focus on the economy, gas prices, unemployment mitt romney’s going to win. i think that rick santorum is basically doing a disservice to the party right now. i think that he’s being a little bit hypocritical being the washington insider and trying to run as an outsider. if you want to draw contrast between obama and a republican candidate, mitt romney is coming from the outside and run a business and can run a state and make a difference. saul, thank you very much. tom tancredo, thank you again. coming up on kudlow, eric cantor reveals his jobs act to jump-start small business start-ups. next up, live and exclusive, turns out obama may agree with cantor. free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. i think it’s a pretty good campaign message, too, on kudlow, we’ll issue right back.

Enhanced by Zemanta

YES, SANTORUM CAN BEAT OBAMA

One of the most reliable truisms in politics is full of irony: When it comes to predicting presidential elections, conventional wisdom is nearly always wrong.

Washington pundits talk and write mostly for themselves, and certainly not for the history books. If they were paid according to their track records as political prognosticators, they would all be on food stamps.

The conventional wisdom in 1960 was that John Kennedy could not win a debate against the experienced Richard Nixon. In 1966, the conventional wisdom said a lightweight movie actor named Ronald Reagan had no chance to unseat the popular incumbent Democratic governor of California. Conventional wisdom in 2008 said Barack Obama has no chance to beat the popular wife of a popular ex-president.

The conventional wisdom a year ago said Mitt Romney would run away with the Republican nomination.

Is there a pattern here? Politics is full of surprises, and 2012 is no different.

Forgive me if I am not impressed with today’s conventional wisdom about Rick Santorum and the handicap imposed by the so-called social issues: “A social-issues conservative like Santorum cannot win the presidency.”

Supposedly, social issues are “divisive.” So, this means economic issues are not? The class-warfare rhetoric of Barack Obama is the most divisive and demagogic rhetoric we have seen since the Progressive campaigns of the 1890s.

The rhetoric of the environmentalist lobby is not “divisive”? Oil companies who want to drill in the Gulf of Mexico are “raping Mother Earth”?

It’s easy in hindsight to see the errors in past predictions; their assumptions were all wrong. So, looking at Rick Santorum the candidate, let’s ask, how smart are today’s assumptions about his “electability”?

The first thing to understand about the 2012 presidential race is that it is unlike any other election in our history. It’s not comparable to 1948, nor 1960 or 1980, and not to the campaigns against incumbents in 1996 or 2004.

Our country is at a crossroads that is unparalleled in our history – and people know it. They may not understand why, but they know it in their hearts and feel it in their guts.

Put in the most simple terms, we are at a crossroads because Barack Obama has brought us there. He is the first genuine Marxist to sit in the White House, and his agenda is to dismantle our capitalist economy and destroy American influence in the world.

Obama’s policies place us at this crossroads of history. This year is different because there will be no turning back from the road to European-style socialism and Caesarism if Barack Obama wins a second term. Rick Santorum understands this.

Now, forgive me, but I cannot take seriously some celebrity pundit telling me Rick Santorum cannot beat Barack Hussein Obama because he has misgivings about the wisdom of schools distributing free condoms to 12-year-olds. And Santorum has the audacity to wonder aloud if rampant promiscuity promoted by popular culture might have a corrosive effect on our social fabric. As another prisoner of conventional wisdom once said in similar circumstances, “Please don’t throw me in that briar patch!

The “social issues lose elections” mantra is historically ignorant and embarrassingly shallow in its political correctness. Ordinary folks understand that many issues dismissed condescendingly as “mere” social issues are in fact loaded with economic significance. Remember the “welfare reform debate” of the1970s and 1980s? Was that a social issue or an economic issue? How about the civil rights revolution? Was that about jobs or was it about freedom and human dignity? The Vietnam War? Was that about oil or student loans?

Closer to home in 2012, how about the “jobs debate”? Is our ability to generate good jobs only a debate about the principles of economics? Is this not equally a religious debate between two contrasting worldviews? In truth, White House energy policy is not based on economics, Keynesian or otherwise. It takes the religious fervor of extreme environmentalism to block the Keystone Pipeline and offshore drilling while insisting on taxpayer subsidies for the Chevrolet Volt.

The unemployed pipe fitter or underemployed truck driver probably understands there is something deeper at work here. Obama’s ideology has abandoned economic development as a cornerstone of public policy: Obama simply does not give a damn about jobs in the energy sector unless they are taxpayer-subsidized “green jobs.”

And what happens if the economy continues to improve, gradually but steadily? Should the election be canceled and Obama declared president for life? Do these purveyors of moral myopia and intergenerational piracy have a “Plan B” for the Republican Party?

Come to think of it, why do so many self-styled “pragmatists” talk about the spiraling national debt as only an economic issue? Isn’t passing unsustainable debt to our children and grandchildren as much a moral issue as an economic one? Living in denial of approaching catastrophe is as much a case of moral indifference as it is economic sleep-walking.

What seems to upset so many Republican “strategists” is that Rick Santorum is as comfortable talking about these moral issues as he is discussing marginal tax rates or the cost of Obama’s failed stimulus program. Why is that a handicap?

When every pillar of American prosperity, every principle of American virtue and every article of constitutional liberty is under attack by Obama’s bureaucracy and its allies, why is it not an asset for a candidate to be able talk about all of these issues, not just unemployment trends? If “all of the above” is good energy policy, why isn’t it good politics as well?

Enhanced by Zemanta