The problem with Santorum

Rick Santorum, whose Google problem has been well documented don’t bother clicking on those links , since they all go to the same place ; I merely link to exacerbate Rick Santorum’s well-documented Google problem—really blew it in the GOP debate last night.

The moderator sandbagged him with a YouTube question from a gay soldier serving in Iraq, and Santorum did his Santorum thing, saying that the repeal of DADT was “social engineering” and that if he were elected President he would reinstate DADT.

The audience, of course, booed… the gay soldier. Of course. Nothing to say about that except that the Republican base seems intent on completing their devolution into knuckle-dragging yahoos.

Let’s talk about “social engineering.” That’s Republican code for “lifting of statutory discrimination against People Who Are Not Like You And Me,” and here I am speaking as an upper middle class white male, which to the Republican brain is the only possible You and Me that could be considered.

So what would you call it if you enacted a law to suppress a naturally occurring segment of the population in an organization, to hide them utterly, and if they dared show themselves, expel them from the organization? In other words, you crafted a law to make sure that this naturally occurring segment of the population vanished. What would you call that? That would seem to me to be the quintessence of “social engineering.” But that certainly will never occur to the Republicans. (Actually, I’m sure it has. They’re just manipulating the yahoos.)

The rest of the GOP field last night maintained a discreet silence. After the debate, when asked about the booing, the only comment from anyone, including Santorum’s people, was that the booing was “unfortunate.”

I’ll say it was unfortunate, only not in the way that the GOP minions want you to think they meant it. They didn’t mean that it was a shame and a disgrace to the Republican party that audience members for their Presidential candidate debate booed one of our troops. They meant that it was unfortunate that the rest of the nation saw what knuckle-dragging yahoos their candidates are trying to appeal to.

“Unfortunate.” Really? That’s the best you can do, boys? What about “My candidate condemns in the strongest terms the lack of respect these audience members showed one of our fighting forces. There is no place for this kind of homophobia in my Republican party.”? Did we hear anything approaching the sort? Will we ever?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the modern Republican party. Vote for them at your peril.

2 thoughts on “The problem with Santorum

  1. You use too many words.

    The problem with these candidates is that they are douche bags.

    See how easy that was?

    Fight global warmingCoolingClimateChange. Use less words.

  2. Douche bags were at one time necessary and useful things. Time, technology and the movie Sybil changed all that, I realize. But I would offer instead:

    Shit bags. Or, better, with one less word:

    Shits.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.