Daily Archives: January 3, 2012

DB

Our Miss Brooks is on a Tear: “FUNDIES OF THE WORLD UNITE!”

“The Republican Party is the party of the white working class. This group — whites with high school degrees and maybe some college — is still the largest block in the electorate. They overwhelmingly favor Republicans.”

The largest block in the electorate is of course Democrats.

“It’s a diverse group, obviously, but its members generally share certain beliefs and experiences.”

We’re quite familiar with Republican “beliefs and experiemces.”

TP

“The economy has been moving away from them. The ethnic makeup of the country is shifting away from them. “

Bobo’s punk at heart.

“They sense that the nation has gone astray: marriage is in crisis; “

JW

“the work ethic is eroding;”

“living standards are in danger;”

“the elites have failed;”

Clutch the pearls!

“the news media sends out messages that make it harder to raise decent kids.”

Translation: Teh Ghey.

“They face greater challenges, and they’re on their own.”

Pas de tout!

“The Republicans harvest their votes but have done a poor job responding to their needs. The leading lights of the party tend to be former College Republicans who have a more individualistic and even Randian worldview than most members of the working class.”

“Most Republican presidential candidates, from George H.W. Bush to John McCain to Mitt Romney, emerge from an entirely different set of experiences.”

Translation: They’re stinking rich.

“Occasionally you get a candidate, like Tim Pawlenty, who grew up working class. But he gets sucked up by the consultants, the donors and the professional party members and he ends up sounding like every other Republican. Other times a candidate will emerge who taps into a working-class vibe — Pat Buchanan, Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin. But, so far, these have been flawed candidates who get buried under an avalanche of negative ads and brutal coverage.”

“This year, Romney is trying to establish some emotional bond with the working class by waging a hyperpatriotic campaign: I may be the son of a millionaire with a religion that makes you uncomfortable, but I love this country just like you. The strategy appears to be only a partial success.”

though it’s a Broadway smash hit.

“Enter Rick Santorum”

AND HOW!

“In 1996, Rick Santorum’s wife Karen gave birth to a premature baby at 20-weeks. The couple then took the corpse, whom they named Gabriel, home to introduce “your brother Gabriel” to the other children.
“Your siblings could not have been more excited about you,” Mrs. Santorum wrote in her book, “Letters to Gabriel: The True Story of Gabriel Michael Santorum,” according to a New York Times magazine article on the matter. “Elizabeth and Johnny held you with so much love and tenderness. Elizabeth proudly announced to everyone as she cuddled you, ‘This is my baby brother, Gabriel; he is an angel.’”
To some, spending a few hours with a stillborn baby is an acceptable form of mourning, especially among people who view child rearing in religious terms, as Roman Catholic Santorum does. To others, like Fox News’ resident “liberal” Alan Colmes, such behavior is just plain “crazy.”
Remarking on Santorum’s recent surge in polls yesterday, Colmes guffawed, “Once (voters) get a load of some of the crazy things he’s said and done, like taking his two-hour-old baby who died right after childbirth home and played with it for a couple of hours so his other children would know that the child was real.”
Colmes’ comments definitely rubbed National Review editor Rich Lowry the wrong way, because Lowry immediately hit Colmes down.
Calling it a “cheap shot,” Lowry blasted Colmes: “To say it’s ‘crazy,’ something that’s that personal and harmful as losing a child, and to mock it, to mock him like that, is really beyond the pale and beneath you.”
Lowry also described Colmes’ comments as “contemptible.” “They lost a child, Alan. That’s very serious, and it’s not something you should be mocking on national TV.”
Colmes refused to buckle, though, and called Santorum’s an “unusual attitude,” saying, “I’m not mocking the losing of the child, but what I’m saying is I think it shows a certain unusual attitude to take a two-hour baby home that died to play with his other children.”
But Lowry was just as adamant in his position, and insisted that even “some of the dastardly characters we have in the mainstream media are not going to go as low as you just have, Alan, and make fun of that incident.”
As much as it pains me to admit it, I think I have to agree with Lowry on this one. It does seem a bit odd to me that Santorum and his wife brought the corpse home, but who am I — or voters — to judge how a family chooses to mourn? This seems within the realm of reason. Maybe having the parents stay at the hospital, away from the children, would have been more appropriate, but it’s not as if the family tried to raise the kid as if nothing happened. Now that would be crazy.
Apparently Colmes ended up having a change of heart, though, because he later called the Santorums to apologize for the “hurtful comment” and the Santorums accepted and now everything is hunky-dory.”

He should never have apologized. That family is permanently scarred.

RS

“Santorum is the grandson of a coal miner and the son of an Italian immigrant. For years, he represented the steel towns of western Pennsylvania. He has spent the last year scorned by the news media — working relentlessly, riding around in a pickup truck to more than 370 towns. He tells that story of hard work and elite disrespect with great fervor at his meetings.
His worldview is not individualistic. His book, “It Takes a Family,” was infused with the conservative wing of Catholic social teaching. It was a broadside against Barry Goldwater-style conservatism in favor of one that emphasized family and social solidarity. While in Congress, he was a leader in nearly every serious piece of antipoverty legislation. On the stump, he cries, “The left has a religion, too. It’s just not based on the Bible. It’s based on the religion of self.”

“Santorum does not have a secular worldview. This is not just a matter of going to church and home-schooling his children. When his baby Gabriel died at childbirth, he and his wife, a neonatal nurse, spent the night in a hospital bed with the body and then took it home — praying over it and welcoming it, with their other kids, into the family. This story tends to be deeply creepy to many secular people but inspiring to many of the more devout.”

Giving your child a dead fetus to play with should be creepy to the devout.

“He is not a representative of the corporate or financial wing of the party. Santorum certainly wants to reduce government spending (faster even than Representative Paul Ryan). He certainly wants tax reform. But he goes out of his way in his speeches to pick fights with the “supply-siders.” He scorns the Wall Street bailouts. His economic arguments are couched as values arguments: If you want to enhance long-term competitiveness, you need to strengthen families. If companies want productive workers, they need to be embedded in wholesome communities. “

“It’s hard to know how his campaign will fare after a late surge that he is experiencing in Iowa. These days, he is a happy and effective campaigner, but, in the past, there has been a dourness and rigidity to him. He’s been consumed by resentment over unfair media coverage. As his ally in the AIDS fight, Bono, once told a reporter, Santorum seems to have a Tourette’s syndrome that causes him to say the most unpopular thing imaginable.”

“But I suspect he will do better post-Iowa than most people think — before being buried under a wave of money and negative ads. And I do believe that he represents sensibility and a viewpoint that is being suppressed by the political system. Perhaps, in less rigid and ideological form, this working-class experience will someday find a champion.”

SEPARATED AT BIRTH!

rs

eg

“If you took a working-class candidate from the right, like Santorum, and a working-class candidate from the left, like Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, and you found a few islands of common ground, you could win this election by a landslide. The country doesn’t want an election that is Harvard Law versus Harvard Law.”

Cue Warren Beatty