Greg Krehbiel's Crowhill Weblog - Content

crow
Thoughts on life — News, culture, politics, beer, art, science, education, religion and ethics

Other Crowhill sites:
Crowhill PublishingGreg's Book Publishing blog
Greg's Marketing blogGreg's Home Brewing blog




Does Santorum have a chance?

by Greg Krehbiel on 10 February 2012

So Rick Santorum has won a few small primaries and may be making an actual race out of this primary. I thought Gingrich would be in second place at this point, not Santorum.

I like a lot of what Santorum says, but I don’t think he has the charisma to beat Obama. However, he would be able to challenge Obama very effectively on a lot of issues — especially the things that appeal to so-called value voters.

One of the things Santorum pushes is the fact that if you follow some very simple life rules — like finish high school, get married, and don’t have children before you get married — then you have a very small chance of living in poverty. So government policies should encourage that sort of behavior.

Still, I don’t think he’ll be the nominee, and I don’t think the media will get their long-standing dream of a brokered convention.

-- 2012-02-10  »  Greg Krehbiel

Talkback x 15

  1. smitemouth
    10 February 2012 @ 1:24 pm

    Well, gays have a significantly lower probability of getting pregnant before marriage. ;)

    I think Santorum is sort of in the same boat as Paul–unelectable. Honestly, if Paul was the R candidate, I’d vote for him just to see what would happen. Santorum doesn’t have much charisma but he causes guys like Dobson and Wildmon to sport wood. If unencumbered, I have the fear that he would impose Sharia law–RC Sharia law…outlaw contraception and whatever true believer RCs believe in. But, the political system would never allow it even if he did want to do that.

    Santorum might be peaking at the right time. Maybe he should tell Gingrich to step aside so that the true conservative could get nominated? What’s fair is fair, right?

    Santorum still has to face the onslaught of Romney’s Super PAC attack ads. So far he hasn’t been perceived as a threat and has been ignored by them. That has changed.

  2. Greg Krehbiel Greg Krehbiel
    10 February 2012 @ 2:22 pm

    I don’t think he’s going to win the nomination, and if he does, I don’t think he’ll get elected. But I also don’t think he would try to outlaw contraception or impose anything like Sharia law.

  3. pentamom pentamom
    10 February 2012 @ 3:16 pm

    I think he’s made it fairly clear that his really scary position on contraception is that since he believes it’s an evil, the government shouldn’t pay for it.

    Which is not functionally different from the position many, many non-Catholics who don’t oppose contraception take — that the government shouldn’t pay for it.

    What next, stoning for not wearing burkhas?

    I don’t know how likely this is, but I’m wondering if he doesn’t have a shot at getting nominated for Veep.

  4. Greg Krehbiel Greg Krehbiel
    10 February 2012 @ 3:24 pm

    I’ve also wondered about Santorum for VP, but i think the “conventional wisdom” (or “conventional stupidity”) is that if you have a northerner you need a southerner.

  5. John Krehbiel John K
    10 February 2012 @ 4:42 pm

    I still think he’ll be the VP nominee. A colleague disagrees and says it will be Cristie from New Jersey.

    So whoever is right buys the drinks at Happy Hour. Not sure what happens if we’re both wrong.

  6. John Krehbiel John K
    10 February 2012 @ 4:46 pm

    Just saw this and had to share, from the Department of Clueless Dolts.

    I do hope he’s nominated. It will be even more fun than Palin.

  7. Greg Krehbiel Greg Krehbiel
    10 February 2012 @ 4:53 pm

    Here’s another article on it. Santorum Campaign Disavows Controversial Hanukkah Card

    It would be in bad taste to send that card to Jews, but it’s not at all clear Santorum was behind it.

    Of course it would be okay if he proposed regulations requiring everybody in America to provide pork subsidies for their employees.

  8. smitemouth
    10 February 2012 @ 4:54 pm

    Well, to be fair, I figured that card was probably photoshopped since I didn’t think he could be that stupid. It wasn’t photoshopped, but was sent by some guy in the South Carolina office. Santorum was unaware. Generally, Catholics don’t try to proselytize Jews (anymore) whereas Baptists still do. I wonder if the guy sent a ham over to them for Thanksgiving…

  9. smitemouth
    10 February 2012 @ 4:56 pm

    Well, I’m sure there a government pork subsidies and I’m sure that there are Jews that pay taxes to support said subsidies. I’m sure there are JW employers that have to pay for blood transfusions in their employees’ health care plans.

    Of course, if you are too poor to afford contraception, or too stupid to know how to practice it, you shouldn’t be having sex.

  10. Greg Krehbiel Greg Krehbiel
    10 February 2012 @ 11:00 pm

    My point is that somebody who works for Santorum offended the Jews while Obama himself is offending Catholics.

  11. kdeb
    11 February 2012 @ 8:23 am

    What is with all of the funding arguments over contraception and such?
    Does no one think through all of this?
    There used to be Catholic schools with signs saying “this school saves Maryland taxpayers $$$$$$$ dollars.”
    But any reasonable person can answer and say, well you could have saved us all a lot of money if you had only had one kid. (rude but fair point.)

    So if I say I don’t want to pay for contraception for reasons of conviction, someone should set up health insurance accounts that don’t pay for contraception. Then when the daughters of folks with these policies buy into the dumb ideas they hear at school and get pregnant, or they go to Planned Parenthood for the Pill and get their minds warped, well, that’s just what happens, right?
    And if these insurance policies cost more because pregnancies cost more, then they will have to pay more for the policies. As long as everyone is happy with that, I see no problems. Contraception is not “health care” unless the mother’s life is endangered or pregnancy is unsustainable.

    As far as Sontorum goes, isn’t he getting a surge from the “I’m not a Mormon but I still stand up for the kind of things you do” thing?

  12. John Krehbiel John K
    11 February 2012 @ 12:04 pm

    I’m really not all that convinced that the policy really offends Catholics. Catholic women use birth control at rates just about indistinguishable form those of non-Catholics. It’s the Bishops who are offended.

    And employers do provide their employees with pork subsidies. It’s called a wage. You don’t get to tell your employees how to use their compensation, whether that compensation is in cash or in health insurance.

  13. Greg Krehbiel Greg Krehbiel
    11 February 2012 @ 5:06 pm

    And employers do provide their employees with pork subsidies. It’s called a wage. You don’t get to tell your employees how to use their compensation, whether that compensation is in cash or in health insurance.

    Fine, then Catholic schools are already providing their employees with birth control and abortion and sex change operations and the ability to have monkey heads attached to their butts and anything else they want to do — because they’re already paying them.

  14. pentamom pentamom
    11 February 2012 @ 5:59 pm

    “You don’t get to tell your employees how to use their compensation, whether that compensation is in cash or in health insurance.”

    But you DO get to pick the kind of compensation you give.

    My husband’s employer gives us a plan that includes an $XXX deductible and coverages for A, B, and C, but not X, Y, and Z. They COULD give us a different one that covered more, or another one that covered even less — but they don’t.

    How is “birth control” being one of the things not covered, and allowing the employer to make that decision, any different? It’s not. It was ALWAYS that way until this law was promulgated.

  15. pentamom pentamom
    11 February 2012 @ 6:02 pm

    “And if these insurance policies cost more because pregnancies cost more, then they will have to pay more for the policies.”

    Except that’s a red herring that is now a talking point. The number of women who actually have household employment income and would consistently use medically prescribed birth control methods but don’t, ONLY because it’s not part of an employer-provided health plan has to be ridiculously small. The notion that all of a sudden the women covered by this plan would have a lot fewer babies and save the insurers all kinds of money is just absurd.

    I know you’re not agreeing with the approach, I’m just saying, don’t even fall for that line.