47% and the Sfear of Influence

The sfear of influence Estase discussed a few weeks ago reared its head with the Mother Jones video where Mitt Romney discusses how he feels 47% of the nation is unwilling to vote for him since it pays no income taxes, and much of that same group receives government benefits.  The previous post said that if Romney went after the issue of cutting taxes, that the left would paint that as a self-interested statement rather than a matter of broader economic policy.  The controversy the left has attempted to gin up over Romney's remarks have followed this vein.  Although Romney didn't broach the issue of people unwilling to confront the fact that some draw benefits from the government, and hence stand to gain nothing from a tax cut in the most delicate way, he was absolutely right.  As Justice Holmes observed over 100 years ago, any time one offers to rob Peter to pay Paul, you will always have Paul's vote.  The only problem is, Paul won't like to hear about Peter's grievance, and will be altogether happy to have Mr. Politician tell him that he is entitled to have Peter "pay his fair share."  Paul will also go to the Occupy rally, and between episodes of public defecation, shout about how the 1% should have their money given to the 99%.  The statistics are of course, faulty.  It is the 47% who enjoy the benefits of the 53%.  And the top 5% pays almost half of the taxes in the United States.  Romney needs, of course, to confront this issue head-on.  But, just as he wants to steer clear of the social issues most Republicans care at least a little about, Romney also seems afraid of talking about economic issues.  So if Romney will let the left get away with their heuristic of how Romney doesn't care about the middle class, how does he expect to win the election.  Bitter a pill as it is to swallow, Romney must talk about his sfear of influence, because it is, right now, the main thing he has to run upon.

Kicking and Screaming, Part Two

Nicholas Hahn claims that being a good executive won Romney the Catholic vote.  Mr. Hahn also says Santorum caught "Potomac fever," whatever that is.  Well, Mr. Hahn, if being a Catholic means loving good executives, they must be mightily displeased with the ecclesiastical politicians calling themselves bishops.  The bishops put their weight behind Obamacare only to have the Contraceptive Mandate shoved down their throats.  If Santorum has Potomac fever, what disease do the other presidential candidates have?  After all, if wanting public office is wrong, then Mitt the Shit and Newt Gingerich have the same defect.  Estase has already given up on 2012.  He voted for Santorum, and the rest of the Illinois GOP chose someone who forced Catholic hospitals to hand out Plan B.  Mitt then lied about it, claiming that this provision of Romneycare was voluntary when it wasn't.  Like Lisa Graas, I see absolutely no difference between Obama and Romney when it comes to freedom for the Catholic Church, and if the Catholic vote went with Romney, that shows how stupid Catholics are. Petasus tip to Kresta in the Morning.

My thought is that if the water is too poisoned between Romney and Santorum for the latter to be his VP, Romney might gain some creditablity as a pro-lifer (where he has none now) by making Michele Bachmann his VP.  I might actually give a damn about whether or not Romney wins in that case.

Update: Justice Stephen Bryer sees nothing wrong with the government forcing people to buy burial insurance.  The 1930s threw most of the freedom to make contracts out the window--vide Wickard v. Filburn, the Social Security Act.  The 30s also were the decade that killed Common Law, and replaced it with an infinitely flexible constitution.

Fake Issues: 1996 and 2012

State Senator Judy Eason McIntyre poses with a sign saying "If I wanted government in my womb I'd F**k a Senator" at a rally against the Oklahoma personhood bill.  Ha ha. If I wanted government in my church, I would vote for Mitt Romney.

Petasus tip to the Clue Batting Cage.  Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill is now claiming that she is supporting the Contraceptive Mandate and opposing the Blunt Amendment because she wants to reduce the number of abortions.  Hilarious!  And I'm sure that's why Dick Durbin, Kirsten Gillibrand, and all the rest of the pro-aborts want to make the Church violate her own teachings too!  It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Obama and the liberals have made birth control the star issue of the 2012 election, and want to pretend that anyone who doesn't want government to force the Catholic Church to pay for contraceptives really wants no one to have contraceptives at all, would it?  Just like how the liberals made cigarettes the fake issue of 1996, and kept acting as though Bob Dole's whole raison d'etre was to make elementary schools hand them out like candy?  No, changing the subject from real to fake issues is never a liberal tactic!

Ask Pepsi to stop contracting with Senomyx!

Reliapundit Goes Anti-Catholic

The Astute Bloggers must be the most mis-named pile of garbage on the internet.  The mental state of Reliapundit can be accessed from the fact that he writes everything in capital letters.  I left a comment with him (which I assume they won't allow) complaining about their latest stunt, a graphic which mockingly depicts Rick Santorum as a Catholic Saint, the kind of cheap character assasination usually reserved for Daily Kos.  Reliapundit is deep in the hole for Romney, a pro-choice liberal whose ego seems to be such that he's had the delusion for ten years that he should be the Republican candidate for President.  The current controversy about the Contraception Mandate in Obamacare is a perfect example of why Romney is unsuited for the presidency--Romneycare forced Catholic hospitals to provide abortifacients.  So for Romney to condemn Obama for doing the same thing he himself did is the height of hypocrisy.  Is Santorum perfect?  Did he support earmarks?  Like Romney, he did.  But for a Romney booster to attack Santorum as too far to the left is risable.  Romney is a liberal in conservative's clothes, and no one but Ann Coulter and the rest of the establishment morons thinks anything different.

Joey Fishkin at Balkinization claims that the latest compromise on said Contraception Mandate is that insurance companies will mythically give free contraception to policy holders, and that no Church money will pay for contraception.  That is logically impossible.  If the Church pays for the policy, it necessarily pays for any service offered by that company.  Unless of course pharmaceutical companies intend to produce their product free of cost?  That seems impossible too.  So this "compromise" is nothing but the kind of logical make-believe casuistry that used to give Jesuits a bad name, before they started doing the things that currently give them a bad name.

Sandy Levinson at the same Balkinization questions Santorum's position on onanism, an odd question meant to equivocate between the types of onanism (right hand and contraception).  Of course, the right hand type of onanism costs nothing, and hence Catholic organizations could never be expected to pay for it.  Maybe Ms. Levinson wishes for Oh Blah Blah to now make the Church buy strokers and magazines for their employees?  It seems just the sort of all/nothing red herring that pro-aborts, and secondary liberals in general are so fond of.

Update:  On his site, Reliapundit calls me "an asshole" and "a fucking moron."  This is the mentality of Romney supporters.  The fact that Politico is reportedly the source does not change the fact that The Astute Bloggers used this piece of anti-Catholic mockery.

Endorsement

Mitt Romney for President!  Sure he's wishy-washy, created socialized health care in Massachusetts, and looks like a Ken doll, but he is soo acceptable to the people who write for east coast newspapers.  And you know who should be his veep?  Newt Gingerich!  Yes, Mr. Life-Begins-At-Implantation!  Mr. I-Left-My-Wife-On-Her-Deathbed!  There's a team America can believe in!

Whatever you do, primary voters, stay away from Bachmann and Santorum!  People of principle and integrity have no place in American politics.

Perry, Whether You Like It Or Not!

It seems to be the trend right now to impose a false dichotomy on Republican voters.  Liberal Romney or Rick Perry.  Neither, please?  It seems rather unbelievable, but the almighty Fox network seems to have put a hit out on Michele Bachmann.  Last night, their ticker told us that the Congresswoman mistakenly referred to Russia as the Soviet Union.  That's your idea of a big mistake, when the present POTUS doesn't know how many states there are, nor does he know how to pronounce "corpsman?"  Also, what about Herman Cain?  Surely he is more responsible in his economic claims than Gov. Perry, who said that Bernacke was a traitor?  Mr. Cain has actually run a successful business, which trumps any other Republican.  Rick Perry does not have pro-life chops like Rick Santorum, either.  Make Perry the nominee and that will be the wet dream of every liberal activist, because they already like to pretend that Republicans are all southerners with a race issue anyway.

I Heart Huckabee, Part Two

Mitt Romney has solidified his position with me by his rude disrespectful action towards Mike Huckabee at the CPAC conference. Romney had already displeased me by his disrespectful and sexist treatment of Sarah Palin, part of his ongoing campaign to be the next unprincipled Republican former governor to become an unprincipled liberal president. Estase will vote for this piece of excrement when hell freezes over.