Why Scott Walker Won and the Democrats in Wisconsin lost

I was going to try avoid writing about this, but I am seeing some rather silly stuff being written about this win; So, I thought I would offer my thoughts as a former Democratic Party voter. Update: Greg Sargent over at The Washington Post hits the post a bit, but fails, as most progressives do; to see the full picture.

Putting it plain and simple, The Democrats in Wisconsin picked a fight that they could not win. — They were outspent, out-organized, and out-boxed; the Democrats had zero chance of winning this recall election at all. But yet, they still decided to fight for a recall election. They should have taken their cues from Michigan and left well enough alone. The Democrats in Michigan tried unsuccessfully to get Governor Snyder recalled here twice and both times they failed horribly. This is because residents of Michigan knew that the former Governor of Michigan was a incompetent moron who could not Govern worth a damn and they did not want a Democrat back in office again. Thus, the Democrats wisely dropped the issue and decided to try and win the 2012 election. Wisconsin should have followed their lead, but they did not and decided to try and force their hand and failed.

Mother Jones has some good ideas as well:

1) Campaign Money is King
Walker crushed his Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, in the political money wars. The governor raised $30.5 million while Barrett pulled in $3.9 million—a nearly 8-to-1 advantage in candidate fundraising. Walker banked on in- and out-of-state donors, including heavyweight GOP contributors such as Houston homebuilder Bob Perry and Amway heir Dick Devos. Walker was able to raise so much money because of a quirk in state law that lets candidates potentially facing a recall raise unlimited funds for their defense. (The normal limit for individual donors in $10,000.) Barrett did not get to raise unlimited funds in his recall campaign—which placed him at a great disadvantage.
All that money helped Walker pound Barrett in the ad wars. An analysis by Hotline On Call found that Walker and his GOP allies outspent Barrett and his backers 3-to-1 on TV ad buys in the three months before Tuesday’s recall. The dark-money-peddling Republican Governors Association itself spent $9.4 million to keep Walker in office.
Just as the political money advantage proved crucial to labor’s win last year in repealing Ohio’s anti-union SB 5 law, campaign cash appears to have played a pivotal role in the GOP’s Wisconsin wins .
2) The Candidate
Filing nearly one million signatures to trigger a recall election, Democrats and union leaders and members had their sights trained on the governor. The recall election’s Democratic primary forced them to take their eyes off the prize. A primary fight between Barrett and former Dane County executive Kathleen Falk splintered the labor movement. The major unions endorsed Falk early on, sometimes over the opposition of their own rank-and-file. Several other unions held out until late March, when Barrett entered the race, and then endorsed the mayor. This primary drama knocked the anti-Walker effort off course for weeks, if not a month, in a race where every single day counts. It divided a unified movement into Barrett supporters and Falk supporters.
3) No New Ground
Democrats and labor unions touted their massive get-out-the-vote operation, which was supposed to tip the scales in their favor. Turn-out was way up in the elections, at 2.4 million, but the left failed to win over the types of people who elected Walker in 2010. As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinelnotes, Walker’s Tuesday win is a mirror image of his 2010 victory—just with more voters. He won men and lost women; won independents and lost moderates; and won suburban and rural voters but not urban voters.
More notably, Walker won 38 percent of votes from union households—an increase of 1 percent from 2010. Remember, union members or their spouses didn’t know in 2012 that Walker planned to target them after the election with his anti-union “budget repair” bill curbing collective bargaining rights. Yet 16 months after Walker launched his attack on unions, just as many people in union households voted for him. The unions failed to rally their own ranks.

My thoughts on the Unions — One of the main reasons why the unions failed; not because of a lack of members or money. The unions failed because for the following:

They over played their hand, by storming the capital building and occupying it. This made them look like total buffoons in the eyes of the people, not mention the heavy handed tactics that were on par with communist gulags.
The second reason is a rather simple one; not all union members are on board with the progressive movement, just because someone has a union card, does not necessarily make him a Democrat. Some union members are free thinkers and some of them resent being culled in together with the socialist crowd.
The last reason is this; some union members are just not happy with the Democratic Party and with Obama. I believe Obama fatigue played a big part in the loss in Wisconsin. I believe it will also play out in November as well.

Needless to say, Scott Walker won big and the Unions and Democrats lost big. The results of this will be far-reaching and the Democrats in Wisconsin would be wise to lay low and try to hang on in 2012. But if they do not, they should learn the lessons of the massive over-reach that took place in Wisconsin and with the Democratic Party as a whole. However, knowing Democrats like I do; they will not learn a thing from this.

GOP house drops the ball: National debt up $1.59 Trillion Under GOP House

The next time some idiot from the Republican Party tells out that they are the party of fiscal responsibility; show them this please.

The story via the Cybercast News Service: (H/T to Freedom’s Phoenix)

(CNSNews.com) – The Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which took office in January 2011, has enacted federal spending bills under which the national debt has increased more in less than one term of Congress than in the first 97 Congresses combined.
In the fifteen months that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives–led by Speaker John Boehner–has effectively enjoyed a constitutional veto over federal spending, the federal government’s debt has increased by about $1.59 trillion.

You really cannot blame all of them; John Boehner is the leader of the house and he is constantly caving to the left on important issues like this one here.

Let’s look at the party that is in control of the house and see just how responsible they really are, shall we?

When Boehner became speaker on Jan. 5, 2011, the federal government was operating under a continuing resolution that had been passed on Dec. 21, 2010 by a lame-duck Congress. That CR expired on March 4, 2011.
On March 1, 2011, Boehner agreed to a new short-term spending deal with President Barack Obama and Democratic congressional leaders to keep the government running past the March 4, 2011 expiration of the old CR. Since March 4, 2011, federal expenditures have been carried out under a series of CRs approved by both the Republican-controlled House and the Democrat-controlled Senate and signed into law by President Obama.
At the close of business on March 4, 2011, the total federal debt was $14,182,627,184,881.03, according to the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Public Debt. At the close of business on May 31, 2012, it was 15,770,685,085,364.14. That is an increase of $1,588,057,900,483.11—in just 15 months.
All of the debt accumulated by the federal government throughout the history of the country did not exceed $1.588 trillion until October 1984.
Under the Republican-controlled House, the federal debt has been increasing at an average pace of about $105.9 billion per month.

Remember that Tea Party that I blogged about, went to bat for and supported? Remember all of the promises by the Republican Party to listen to that gathering of Americans fed up with DC? All of that, as far as this writer is concerned was nothing more than a bad joke and a horrible one at that. The Republican Party had no intentions of changing their ways at all. The Republican Party saw an organic. populist-type movement of the people, capitalized on it, whenever they could; and proceeded to put forth a moderate candidate and continue on with business as usual.

I have written this before and it is the honest truth; if these Republicans and Tea Party people believe that Mitt Romney is going to shrink the size and scope of Government one lousy iota; they are going to be in for a very horrible surprise. If these same Republicans and Tea Party people think that Mitt Romney will revoke “Obamacare” they are going to be in for a big, shocking surprise. Mitt Romney, like Obama; as the Democrats have found out, is a moderate and moderates never do anything ever that will change the course of history, ever.

Artur Davis writes one of the most honest articles I have read in a long time

If I ever had the chance to meet this young man, I would thank him for his bravery. This man gets it, and he sees that the Democratic Party is totally broken. I saw it in 2007 and decided that I just could not support them any longer. This was way before the huge economic melt down of 2008. After that, the deal was sealed for me. Never again would I vote for that party.

So, my hats off to this man for seeing that too:

And the question of party label in what remains a two team enterprise? That, too, is no light decision on my part: cutting ties with an Alabama Democratic Party that has weakened and lost faith with more and more Alabamians every year is one thing; leaving a national party that has been the home for my political values for two decades is quite another. My personal library is still full of books on John and Robert Kennedy, and I have rarely talked about politics without trying to capture the noble things they stood for. I have also not forgotten that in my early thirties, the Democratic Party managed to engineer the last run of robust growth and expanded social mobility that we have enjoyed; and when the party was doing that work, it felt inclusive, vibrant, and open-minded.
But parties change. As I told a reporter last week, this is not Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party (and he knows that even if he can’t say it). If you have read this blog, and taken the time to look for a theme in the thousands of words (or free opposition research) contained in it, you see the imperfect musings of a voter who describes growth as a deeper problem than exaggerated inequality; who wants to radically reform the way we educate our children; who despises identity politics and the practice of speaking for groups and not one national interest; who knows that our current course on entitlements will eventually break our solvency and cause us to break promises to our most vulnerable—that is, if we don’t start the hard work of fixing it.
via A Response to Political Rumors | Official Artur Davis.

I have to agree with the man; he is right. The Democratic Party used Barack Obama to get elected, because they had no one else. They threw off Clinton, because they chose identity politics over experience. You see, I remember 2000 and 2004. In 2000, the Democratic Party used a elitist out of touch buffoon, who could not get elected Mayor of a City; much less a President. Al Gore might have been from the south, but he lacked Bill Clinton’s likeability. In 2004, The Democratic Party ran a out of touch, elitist, limousine Liberal who, again, was seen by most as stiff and not of the people. Which he really is not, John Kerry is an incredibly wealthy man.

So, in 2008, the Democratic Party basically had Clinton, Edwards, Biden and yes, Obama. There were people in the Democratic Party, who did not want the Clintons back in the White House at all. So, the party rallied behind Obama for a number of reasons. Yes, race was one of the bigger reasons. Also too, I tend to believe that there were people, who Clinton “did dirty” back during his term in office and they wanted revenge; and revenge they got.

It was with the election of President Barack Obama that the Democratic Party went from being a party of the “New Left” to being a party of the “Neo-Left.” That was the whole changing of the guard within the Party. Saul Alinsky’s dream was finally realized. This is the change that Artur Davis is referring to and it is one that is only going to drive more and more people away from the Democratic Party and I do not mean just white people. Minorities, including blacks, are going to wake up and see that they being played like fiddles in that party. The quicker the better, if you ask me.

All what I wrote above, Reagan knew, long ago — he saw the changes that were happening behind the scenes and promptly changed his political stance. Mainly because he saw what was coming down the pike. Reagan saw that the Communists were changing tactics and embracing “social justice” as opposed to party loyalty. So, he left and embraced his Midwestern upbringing. The truth is Reagan did not change; The Democratic Party changed and they have since gotten totally worse.

Again, Kudos to Mr. Davis and I hope he comes to embrace what he knows to be right.

Audio: Pattrico’s swatter calls into show, insults Patterico and Michelle Malkin

This is unreal and it is the same person. Via Patterico:

This dude is obviously off his rocker. Accusing Michelle Malkin’s cousin of “offing herself” and Malkin of covering it up? How sick! 😡

Patrick Asks:

Two questions come to mind as you review these supremely creepy audio clips:
First: why did the caller make that call now? What does he have to gain?
And second: why did Erick Erickson get swatted last night?

Good questions. Although I will say one thing. Glenn Beck warned us; for that, he was called crazy by the left and by some on the establishment right. Andrew Breitbart warned us too. That this sort of stuff was coming and some dismissed it as fear-mongering. It is not. This is what happens when the left begins to lose the war of ideas; this is what happens when leftist fascists see that they have lost control of the conversation. This is what happens, when Liberals see their President weakened and losing the election. They stoop to this sort of a level.

My advice is simple. Girt your loins, arm yourselves. Prepare for the worst. Keep your faith; if you are truly saved and washed in the Blood of Christ Jesus the Lord. The Devil and his minions on the left cannot destroy you, unless God gives them permission. Let me assure you, that if the Lord continues to tarry, this will only get worse. The left knows no honor any longer and they will stop at nothing to destroy those who disagree with them. As the Christians who were fed to the lions and destroyed; we are standing for that which we know is right. The blessings will come in the life to come.

It is scary, I will admit that, but we must not fear them; that is what they want. They want to silence the right, they want to see the Conservative/libertarian opinions silenced; they want control — just like Al-Qaeda did in 2001. We must not allow that to happen. We are Americans, we have looked in the face of tyranny before and said, “This shall not stand!” We did this in 1941, we did this in 2001 and we can and will do it again. We have the truth, we have the facts and we are right; and they are wrong. We will not submit to their fear.

To the swatters, I have a message for you sirs!

God Bless America.

Excellent Michigan Blog

I like to help other bloggers out.

There was a time; about 7 years ago, when I was a new blogger and no one knew who the heck I was, and could have otherwise cared less. but, nonetheless, I kept plugging away.

Along the way, I befriended bloggers and some of them helped me out, by adding me to their blogrolls and because of that, my site grew in readership.

So, I am returning the favor.

I was contacted by a Jeremy from MichiganStandard.com. I was looking around at his site and it seems to be something that I would be interested in reading. I encourage you to do the same. I give Jeremy credit, he is brave soul, anyone who dares to blog about Detroit and Michigan’s ills — while being white — is a brave person. 😯 I tend to avoid it, as you end up being accused of being racist. So, I tend to shy away from it.

Anyhow, thanks to whomever it was that contacted Jeremy about my site. I really do not see my site as being anything that great. Compared to some of these other sites, which are written by political insiders; I consider myself to be quite low on the totem pole.

So, there you are, a blog promo posting. Go check out MichiganStandard.com. The home of Jeremy, the bravest white man on the planet! 😉 😛 😀 😆

The BEST article on the Republican Party and True Conservatism…ever

My friends, this below is the most likely the best article ever written about true Conservatism and the Republican establishment. It is really worth the click through and the read.

It should come as no surprise that the Republican National Committee has been “covertly” supporting Mitt Romney throughout the primaries, as POLITICO recently “revealed.” It was the worst-kept secret in Washington
The RNC has always been the center of Republican insiderism — what the insiders call pragmatism. Consider, back when Roger Stone was at the Young Republicans, in 1975, he hung up a portrait of Ronald and Nancy Reagan in his office. Within hours, the order came down from the chairman’s suite: Take the picture down. At once.
(****)
Many conservatives have, in fact, decided that their beliefs have become permanently inconsistent with Republicanism. This may be more apparent in 2012 than ever before. No offense to Romney, but he is the perfect nominee for the Republican Party in 2012 because he — like the GOP — has adopted a variety of positions over the years in order to acquire power. The Etch A Sketch comment was stunningly accurate.
The “lesser of two evils” argument is now settling over the landscape. Perhaps. The “conservatives have no place else to go” storyline is being pushed. Maybe.
On the other hand, some conservatives now view this election as a clear Hobson’s Choice or possibly a Morton’s Fork. One choice is bad or nothing; the other between two bad options.
Conservatives should be clear-eyed, though. The job of the Republican Party is to deceive conservatives into handing over their support. This does not mean that conservatives can’t arrive at the conclusion that this choice is between the lesser of two evils.
But they should prepare to be disappointed.
via Conservative-GOP marriage over? – POLITICO.com

In this writers opinion, the Republican Party has not been a real Conservative party since around the time that Senator Berry Goldwater decided that the lobbyists were a bit too much and decided to not run for another term. Since that time, anyone who dared run as a true conservative, like Pat Buchanan; has been cast as an extremist, a racist, an anti-Semite and so on. Only reason Ron Paul lasted as long as he did, is because he was the only person in that part of Texas that actually could get elected. Besides that, Ron Paul’s supporters in his district know him well and have voted for him for years. That is because his district is filled with true Conservative Christians.The reason why Ron Paul never got elected is because the Neoconservatives or the Rockefeller Republicans have controlled the Republican for many years.

Either way, the article is great and it tells the truth about the Republican Party. Sad thing is, the Republican Party will never change; this is why Sarah Palin was quickly kneecapped. She was running against the Republican establishment in Alaska and when you that, you pay the price; same goes for Paul, Buchanan, and many others. I will not be voting for Obama, that is for sure. But, I will not be voted for a RHINO like Mitt Romney. He is very much a Republican establishment candidate — or as I like to call him, George W. Bush — with really nice hair. 😛

Needless to say, I am voting libertarian; because I am not about to be blamed for either of these piss poor excuses for Presidential Candidates, least of all the one who claims to be a Conservative.

Michelle Malkin is wrong about racism in the Tea Party

First off, let me say this; I do not believe that the Tea Party movement itself was racist at all. In fact, it never was a centralized movement. In most movements, like the Tea Party movement; there will be people who do things that do not represent the movement as a whole.

So, when I see Michelle Malkin blatantly denying the fact that there were racists in the Tea Party movement, I have to say, “oh really?”

A quick search of Google Images brings up quite a few racist signs and images:

and this is not racist Michelle? (even though it is misspelled...)

Here is the one that really bothered me, and this dude ended up in jail for this too:

A "Death to Obama" sign... But, that's not racist, so says Michelle Malkin

tea-party-racist-signsback-to-kenya — Nope, No racism here! Only thing missing here is the N-word and that makes okay, according to Michelle Malkin

This image was used on signs and passed around in e-mails, by Tea Party supporters. (I know, I used to see it on facebook and in e-mails I would get from other Tea Party supporters. That until I told the idiots to quit sending me racist crap like that….)

But this is not racist according to Michelle Malkin (Willful blindness much Michelle?)

There is more, much more to see, just click this link to look at the results of a Google Images search.

Again, let me be clear; I am not calling the entire Tea Party movement racist as a whole, that is collectivism and this blogger is not a collectivist. In other words, I do not dismiss the movement in it’s entirety, as racist; but I will say that there were people who were carrying racist signs, not to mention doing stuff like this:

This is Chris Broughton, and yes, he is black, and he is a Ron Paul fan and yes, he was carry an assault rifle at a Obama event. My question is why? I think I know the reason and I think you do too. But, the Tea Party is just peaceful people... Most of them anyhow...

My point to this posting is this; The OWS crowd are a violent group and yes it does include anarchists, who do try and blow up bridges. However, the Tea Party is not without its own individual nuts and looney tunes, who did bring a tarnish to the good name of the Party. Not to mention all of the infighting that went on with various groups.

However, my more intellectual point is this; to what end was all of this even done? I mean, the Republican Party did not change one wit. Oh sure, there were a few Senators who were elected as result of the grassroots surge. However, the Republican Party’s coronation of a Mormon George W. Bush is telling; and let me tell you something, if you think for one second that Mitt Romney is going to rip out Obamacare, you are crazy. Oh sure, he will remove the mandate and anything else that seems to infringe on basic American rights. However, I do not believe that he will remove the entire package.

Which makes me have to really wonder aloud, what exactly did the Tea Party accomplish; outside of the rhetorical flourishes? Absolutely nothing. Government is still there and it is still imposing upon our basic human rights. All of those borderline racist signs, all of the verbal clashes, all of the excitement were for naught.

This was not to hurt Michelle Malkin herself; but it was to point out the Republican/Conservative/Fox News/Sean Hannity right’s willful blindness to the racism of the Tea Party — which was, and is still there very much so, to this very day.

Why I am not a big fan of John Podhoretz

I support Israel and all; but this right here, is why I am not a huge fan of John Podhoretz.

Glenn Greenwald reports:

One reason I think this discussion is so important is because the manipulation of the term “terrorism” this way permits and bolsters (even if unintentionally) an extremely ugly, destructive, and toxic worldview, one which the Editor-in-Chief of Commentary Magazine, John Podhoretz, vividly expressed last night on Twitter when discussing the firing of Keith Olbermann by Current TV:
That’s about as overtly racist a statement from a media figure with a platform as you’ll see (and the it’s-just-a-joke excuse is obviously irrelevant: just imagine analogous “jokes” about how disfavored journalists would be punished at The Jerusalem Post, or Black Entertainment Television, etc.). To Podhoretz, Al Jazeera is filled with Arabs and Muslims, which means: The Terrorists (for many years after 9/11, that was virtually official U.S. government policy). Podhoretz is the same person who wrote a New York Post column in 2006 lamenting that in the early stages of the Iraq War, “we didn’t kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything,” suggesting that the big U.S. mistake in the war was allowing “the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35.” Remember, though: it’s those Muslims who are The Terrorists (when influential American “terrorism experts” start talking about the John Podhoretzes of the world as terrorism advocates, and about “Shock and Awe“, the assault on Fallujah and the bombing of Gaza as terrorism, and about Ronald Reagan as a “state sponsor of terrorism” for his funding of El Salvadoran death squads and Nicaraguan contras, and about the parties responsible for the assassination of Iranian civilian scientists as international terrorists, then I’ll start to take the honorific more seriously).
I have no doubt that most respected “terrorism experts” would find Podhoretz’s comment about Al Jazeera repugnant. But the mentality on display here — and it’s quite pervasive (which is why this is one of the few remaining forms of overt bigotry that provokes no real sanction) — finds nourishment in the constant discussion of Terrorism, the Supreme Evil, as: acts of violence by Muslims directed at us (but not violence by our own government or those of its allies directed at Muslims).

The above is exactly why the libertarian crowd hates the Zionist crowd with a passion. This is why I am not a huge fan of John Podhoretz and his ilk. It is because they can make statements like this, without any repercussions. If someone, who is not a Zionist made a similar statement about Israel and Jews; they would be excoriated from one end of the blogosphere to the other. Mr. Glennwald has a very good point and I think everyone on the Jewish Conservative side of the political isle, ought to take a hard look at this and take it very seriously. If the Zionists want respect, they have to learn to respect others. Because not all Arabs out there are terrorists; just like not all blacks are murders, robbers, and so forth —- not all white people are robe and hood carrying Klansman. Some black liberals might think that, but I digress. Furthermore, not all Jews are evil bankers trying to overthrow the Country. See? It goes both ways. Someone needs to tell Podhoretz to keep his damned bigotry towards Arabs to himself.

Also too; anyone who believes that Jews can be insulted like this, and can get away with it —- ought to have a nice long talk — with Rick Sanchez.

Just a thought.

Rick Santorum commits the worst political gaffe ever

First of all, before I get started here and before anyone comes into the comments section yelling at me. I really do not have a dog in this fight at all. I am not voting Republican this time around either in the general election. This is because I am of the opinion that NONE of these candidates really fit the bill of what I consider a small Government Conservative. Romney is a flip-flopper, a serial liar, and basically said that the big three should be allowed to fail; which pissed me, my family and a good part of Detroit off. Which explains why nobody showed up at his little event at Ford field. Rick Santorum is an anti-libertarian and, as all pro-lifers are, a big Government Statist and a Theocrat. Not to mention that Santorum and Gingrich are both Catholic, something of which I have some serious issues with; it is simply that I happen to know what the Roman Catholic Church did to my Baptist ancestors. I cannot and will not vote for someone who is Catholic. As for Ron Paul, while I can appreciate his stance of economic issues; I just cannot and will not support someone, in the general election, who is not supportive of Israel. Because of all this, I am voting libertarian in the general election. I am a principled voter, not a “go along to get along” voter.

Now that I have said all of that, let’s get to the gaffe already!

Here is the video via HotAir, in which AllahPundit almost caused a civil war! 😯

AllahPundit posted that last night with the following quote:

Faced with the reality that his chances have collapsed, the Sweater Vest begins to unravel…

Based on the comments, all 1,650 Comments of them; I have one thing to say to you Allahpundit — not to rip you off, but — Good Lord. 🙄 I thought I was a poop-stinky starter! I have nothing on AP man, nothing at all. 😀

Of course, this earned him a good smack down by Ed Morrissey, who is a Republican and a level headed Conservative. Ed offers this bit of advice to Santorum:

It seems that Senator Santorum has forgotten the purpose of the Republican primary. It’s to choose the most successful candidate to beat Obama in the general election. It isn’t to test a few candidates to see whether the goal of beating Obama is worth the bother.
And why do we need to beat Obama? The economic policies of this administration have been an utter disaster. The Senate won’t pass any budgets, not even the President’s, while he’s in the Oval Office. Energy prices are going through the roof thanks to the massive regulatory hurdles his administration has created to production and refining, especially on federal lands. An ObamaCare repeal will only happen if Obama is no longer President, assuming that the Supreme Court doesn’t throw the whole law out this summer.

I suggest you go read the rest of that; because I happen to be of the opinion that Ed is very much correct in his assessment.

Of course, Santorum issues a statement, of course, blaming Romney for the mess, which is quite stupid, because Romney did not make the gaffe — Santorum did. Idiots deluxe as always! 🙄

Here is the statement:

“I would never vote for Barack Obama over any Republican and to suggest otherwise is preposterous. This is just another attempt by the Romney Campaign to distort and distract the media and voters from the unshakeable fact that many of Romney’s policies mirror Barack Obama’s. I was simply making the point that there is a huge enthusiasm gap around Mitt Romney and it’s easy to see why – Romney has sided with Obama on healthcare mandates, cap-and-trade, and the Wall Street bailouts. Voters have to be excited enough to actually go vote, and my campaign’s movement to restore freedom is exciting this nation. If this election is about Obama versus the Obama-Lite candidate, we have a tough time rallying this nation. It’s time for bold vision, bold reforms and bold contrasts. This election is about more than Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Rick Santorum – this campaign is about freedom and I will fight to restore your freedoms.”

Why can’t the man just say, “oops. I blew it. I am sorry, will not happen again.” and be done with it? This is why I could not be a politician. Either that or even better, “Yes, I said it and I am proud of it!” Why this walk-back crap? It isn’t like Santorum is going to be the nominee anyhow. So, why do this? I just do not get it.

Either way, should it be any surprise that Romney is doing well in the polls now? You think it is bad here? Wait till the later polls come out, when this all has had to time to get to the public. I am think Santorum will be backing out soon here. Now, I am not saying that Santorum should back out; I am simply saying he might have suck his foot in his….political campaign.

Baptist Pastor Dennis Terry introducing Rick Santorum, tells liberals “Get out of America!”

I suppose you all might be expecting me to cheer this guy. Well, surprise! No, not this time. In fact, I even feel a bit sorry for Rick Santorum.

What am I talking about?

This: (Via Right Wing Watch)

Phew! Grumpy old feller ain’t he? Well, he is a Baptist and he is old and he is from Louisiana. I would tend to guess that this sort of thing is basically par for the course; at least with him anyhow. In other words, yeah, he is one of ours. 🙄

For the record, I do not believe for a minute that Rick Santorum believes any of that stuff that Dennis Terry was preaching from his bully pulpit. In fact, he said as much yesterday; over to you ABC NEWS:

MOLINE, Ill. – Rick Santorum told reporters Monday he did not agree with a controversial statement about non-Christians made by a Louisiana pastor at a church service Santorum attended Sunday in Greenwell Springs, La.
[…..]
After an event in Moline Monday evening, Santorum was asked repeatedly by reporters if he agreed with the pastor’s words.
“If the question is, do I agree with his statement that America shouldn’t do that? No, if he was speaking for himself he’s obviously allowed to believe what he wants to believe but, obviously I believe in freedom of religion and all religions are welcome and should be. I think I’ve made that pretty clear throughout my campaign that I believe very much in freedom of religion, and folks should be able to worship whoever they want to worship and bring their thoughts in the public square and have at it and give them the opportunity to make their faith claims, and make their claims to reason and any other claims. That’s what America’s all about. As far as I’m concerned they should be here and make their arguments the best they can,” said Santorum.
Santorum said he did not clap when the pastor made these comments.
“I didn’t clap when he said that. I do remember him saying that, I said, well, I wasn’t quite sure he was saying it for himself, I wasn’t quite listening to everything to be honest with you. But I wasn’t sure whether he was speaking for himself or speaking generally, but I didn’t clap when he said that because it’s not how I feel.”

Here is why I feel a bit sorry for Rick Santorum. Because quite frankly, there are times when these guys who are running for President, will find themselves in awful situations like these and to be quite honest with you; there is not much he can do about it. I mean, it would be totally disrespectful for Mr. Santorum to try and interrupt, or worse, get up and leave. Now, I am sure liberals would think he should have done that; but some things are just best left alone.

For the record, and this is for the Conservatives and Republicans who will actually read this; I do not fault this Pastor for what he believes. Pastor Dennis Terry is an old salt from the America that once was; and I do not think he should be punished for his remarks, no more than I would want a far-leftist liberal Democrat punished for he believes. Like Rick Santorum said, that is what makes America great, diversity of opinion and beliefs. If we all believed alike, this Country would be more boring than watching a Martha Stewart peep show.

I have been known to fault Rick Santorum on many things; one being his big Government Statist stupidity. But, this one here, I just cannot muster the outrage. I mean, it just is not his fault that Pastor Dennis Terry believes the way that he does.

Liberals who are not happy about it: blogs.telegraph.co.uk, Rumproast, Mediaite, his vorpal sword, Washington Monthly, Wonkette, CBS DC, Holy Bullies …, The Agonist and Good As You