Gingrich verse Romney

[LeoChopper]

Looking at the Republican party platform finds a lot about sanctity of the flag, reaffirming Judeo-Christian symbols in courts, controlling who can marry, what drugs people take, and the like. Some of these things are actively about marginalizing other religions and homosexuals, which is awful. Many others aren't bad in themselves, but stop being laudable when making sure people are actually healthy, not discriminated against, or well-off in various other ways takes a back seat. For those the social conservative position always seems to be "it would be nice, but we shouldn't worry about it, we need to discuss important things like whether schools can teach religion." It reflects totally alien priorities.

Also upsetting is how easy many social conservatives slide from emphasizing self-reliance to victim blaming. Whatever bad things might happen to people, you don't worry, it's their own fault. Dying without being able to afford medical treatment is no concern because honest people always find the money; government spying and police brutality are ok because good people never have problems with them; assault against women is little concern because decent women won't provoke it; and so on. This isn't a conservative value per se or something unique to them, but nonetheless it's something you hear from politicians, other public figures, and their supporters all the time, and it's infuriating.

[Kea]

It looks like Santorum's the last hope of the anti-Romney social conservatives, and keeps saying things that make him sound like a prehistoric horseshoe crab that crawled out from under a rock. A guy who claims that environmentalism is theologically unsound? Er... You want to oppose environmentalism on the grounds that you think economic growth is more important, okay. But "God doesn't mind if we trash the earth"?

[AlternateTorg]

Makes no sense to me. I would think that anyone who believes that God created the earth would also think that He'd want people to take care of it. "Here, I made this wonderful planet for you to live on, but it's cool with me if you trash it." Regardless if whether you consider yourself an "environmentalist" or not, wise and efficient use of resources just makes sense.

[Jorodryn]

Makes no sense to me. I would think that anyone who believes that God created the earth would also think that He'd want people to take care of it. "Here, I made this wonderful planet for you to live on, but it's cool with me if you trash it." Regardless if whether you consider yourself an "environmentalist" or not, wise and efficient use of resources just makes sense.

Biblically, we are commanded to be good stewards. I would not consider myself an environmentalist by a long shot, but definitely am a conservationist.

[Steave]

I'd be interested in the distinctions you make between the two though I think it might call for a new thread.

[Jorodryn]

I'd be interested in the distinctions you make between the two though I think it might call for a new thread.

Well, I would say there are a lot of commonality in some respects and complete divergence in others. For instance. I am all for responsibly drilling for oil. Where I would think an environmentalist would be completely opposed. I don't think we should be pumping crap into our lakes and rivers or the air all willy nilly for the purpose of advancing industry because we have to drink and breathe I would say that is a commonality. I could go on all day making a list... though that would be from my point of view on the differences.

[Kea]

I think that the main difference between conservationists and more radical versions of environmentalism is that the conservationists are anthropocentric. You should conserve resources because people may need them later. You should protect biodiversity for future generations to appreciate. Whereas more radical versions say that you should protect the environment because it is valuable in and of itself, regardless of whether humans are around to appreciate it. And this is what leads to complaints about environmentalists "valuing nature over people", such as when they oppose oil drilling in Alaska's national parks.

I think this is the point that Santorum was attempting to make, but he botched it by a) bringing God into it and b) calling Obama a theologically unsound radical environmentalist. The man who suspended the EPA's scheduled tightening of air quality regulations in an attempt to appease industry? Really?

Also, does anyone else find it hilarious that Santorum, of all people, is picking a fight with contraceptives?

[s.i.l.]

Also, does anyone else find it hilarious that Santorum, of all people, is picking a fight with contraceptives?

He is just being a good Catholic.

Edit: I know POOP is not supposed to be a funny forum like the others. My point is highlighting the ridiculousness of a current candidate so out of touch a 29 year old bit of comedy becomes relavent.

[Weremensh]

Also, does anyone else find it hilarious that Santorum, of all people, is picking a fight with contraceptives?

He's merely being true to the slightly sotto voce right wing value of keeping down women. It's like the discussion we don't have; there are a few purists who actually have the value professed (no killing, no carefree sex); the rest are simply looking to make sure that women are still stuck with the repercussions of sex while men remain free to skate away. They all profess to be purists, of course; but most strangely never support the parts of the purist package which would infringe on themselves.

[drachefly]

It's quite possible to oppose oil drilling on conservation grounds - even if you don't believe in anthropocentric global warming. Ocean acidification is already a serious conservation problem, and could get much much worse.

[weatherwax]

Given his past, I'm not so much laughing at Santorum's position on contraceptives as fuming. Particularly now that he's a legit candidate.

Actually, the GOP's recent attack on all fronts of female liberties that were settled nigh on 40-50 years ago is starting to freak me out. The pill as controversy being pulled from the right-wing fringe into the mainstream conservative pool? What the hell are they thinking? What conservative woman (not part of some crazy neo-fundi church) would walk into that firepit just to make sure their fiscal conservatism pushes through? Planned Parenthood has been attacked before, but in my lifetime I've never seen them so pummelled as they have been in the last 18 months. Virginia passing that ultrasound law is gross -- that procedure is particularly uncomfortable, fyi if you've never had it. Like a gyno visit on crack.

As for the top running candidates: Santorum has openly declared his beliefs about women staying at home with the kids, and had a staff member who said that a woman could never be president because it is "against God's will." Both Santorum and Gingrich site "physical issues" for keeping women out of the infantry -- Gingrich basically equating periods to infections, showing his severe lack of knowledge of female anatomy. At least Mitt Romney's talking points on women aren't insane. No record I can find on women in the army, but he's cool with working women, he's cool with contraceptives (though he's against sex-ed) and he's conventionally pro-life, which feels like a breath of fresh air.

Finally, this recent spat in the last year against the Girl Scouts is particularly weird. Apparently, letting a trans girl into Girl Scouts is the equivalent of spitting on Jesus.

[Kea]

Santorum does sound pretty looney-toon; he makes me glad I don't live in the US anymore. I was just remarking a bit too obliquely that it seems especially apt that the man whose name is a neologism for a byproduct of anal sex is running around declaring that we don't need no stinkin' contraceptives.

We're seeing the Rumpification of the Republican Party. The more moderates that get kicked out (or back away in horror), the crazier the remaining ones get as the median member shifts ever rightward. I hear a similar thing happened to the British conservative party after Tony Blair won in the 1990s. It became the party of increasingly xenophobic old men, and it took over a decade before it managed to spit out someone electable (Cameron).

[Grillick]

I wish people would stop pointing out the fact that Santorum shares a name with a term related to anal sex. It's not like his views are ironic in light of that. The word exists because the gay community wanted to get back at him for his political views. The word was coined in 2010, for chrissakes!

[weatherwax]

Actually, the word sanorum, with its current sexual definition, was coined in 2003 in response to an interview Santorum gave in which he equated gay sex and sodomy (yes, he thinks blow jobs are bad no matter the sexual orientation of the couple) to incest and man on dog. Someone wrote into Dan Savage's column asking for Savage's help in naming a sex act after Santorum since he was so keen on poking his head into other people's bedrooms and judging. Savage did a write in contest, the best entries were voted on by column readers, and the current definition won out. The word has been in circulation for long enough that in some communities it is the accepted term for that particular mess. In fact, before Santorum ran for president, Savage got letters from people 'round 2007-2009 from folks who knew the sexual definition long before they knew about the man behind it. Of course, now that Santorum is national news, the name and act are once again linked. But when the man is gone, it is likely that the term will remain.

[Kajin]

Has anyone ever pointed this out to him? And video taped his reaction? Seems like the kind of thing that would make a hit youtube video.