John Kennedy Speaks the relationship of Religion, the Presidency, and American Politics
February 28, 2012 2:57 AM Subscribe
John Kennedy's powerful speech on the relationship among religion, politics and and the American Presidentcy A speech for the ages; no one has said it better.
Santorum requires virulent religious intolerance in order to keep his delicate intestinal flora in balance.
Fortunately for him, he can monitor it visually from where his head is inserted.
posted by louche mustachio at 3:25 AM on February 28, 2012 [35 favorites]
Fortunately for him, he can monitor it visually from where his head is inserted.
posted by louche mustachio at 3:25 AM on February 28, 2012 [35 favorites]
Why did they put the teleprompter down there? It confuses me when he keeps looking down.
posted by twoleftfeet at 3:35 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by twoleftfeet at 3:35 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
That was, of course, back in the day when religious insanity was seen as a minus.
posted by jaduncan at 3:36 AM on February 28, 2012 [14 favorites]
posted by jaduncan at 3:36 AM on February 28, 2012 [14 favorites]
I'm going to go ahead and clarify, for the benefit of the historically challenged, that the "Governor Romney" mentioned in the opening seconds of the video was George Romney, not Governor Mitt Romney.
posted by twoleftfeet at 3:50 AM on February 28, 2012
posted by twoleftfeet at 3:50 AM on February 28, 2012
As an über Catholic, you'd think Santorum would recall that Kennedy was actually defending the right of Catholics to run for public office.
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."
It is not that long ago that Catholicism was once viewed by "Christian" America as the equivalent of Sharia law and many protestant infidels feared that the Pope would use the American president to make them come correct. Of course Kennedy was fiercely anti-communist and he was so busy eradicating the left from the global public sphere, he didn't have time to convert the protestants.
Also it seems lost on Cardinal Santorum that most "Christians" would still never vote for a Catholic. Despite the fact that Roman Catholics - at 77 million - are the largest single denomination in the United States, Kennedy remains the only Catholic elected to be President.
posted by three blind mice at 3:58 AM on February 28, 2012 [9 favorites]
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."
It is not that long ago that Catholicism was once viewed by "Christian" America as the equivalent of Sharia law and many protestant infidels feared that the Pope would use the American president to make them come correct. Of course Kennedy was fiercely anti-communist and he was so busy eradicating the left from the global public sphere, he didn't have time to convert the protestants.
Also it seems lost on Cardinal Santorum that most "Christians" would still never vote for a Catholic. Despite the fact that Roman Catholics - at 77 million - are the largest single denomination in the United States, Kennedy remains the only Catholic elected to be President.
posted by three blind mice at 3:58 AM on February 28, 2012 [9 favorites]
I'm very much in favour of maintaining the separation between Rick Santorum and state.
posted by TheAlarminglySwollenFinger at 4:05 AM on February 28, 2012 [42 favorites]
posted by TheAlarminglySwollenFinger at 4:05 AM on February 28, 2012 [42 favorites]
As an aside, what did this part refer to?
posted by Malor at 4:06 AM on February 28, 2012
the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our powerThis was before I was born, so I have absolutely no idea what he might be referencing here.
posted by Malor at 4:06 AM on February 28, 2012
Actually, I think the second part of that - the Question & Answer part - is more interesting than the speech.
posted by twoleftfeet at 4:12 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by twoleftfeet at 4:12 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
I read this yesterday and was shocked at how far back we've slipped.
In no uncertain terms, he declared that “the separation of church and state is absolute.” ...he continued: I believe in a president whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office. I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test—even by indirection—for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it."
Santorum has, for whatever reason, been on my radar for a long time (pre-Savage, even, although that certainly solidified the impression) as a freaky-ass theocrat. One of the most worrisome things I heard over the weekend was the conjecture that the Republicans tend to give the nomination to the guy "whose turn it is" - McCain in 2008 (because he had lost it to W 8 years prior), Romney in 2012 (because he lost to McCain in 08) .. which means even if Romney gets it this time (and, presumably, loses), it'll be Santorum's turn in 2016.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 4:15 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
In no uncertain terms, he declared that “the separation of church and state is absolute.” ...he continued: I believe in a president whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office. I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test—even by indirection—for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it."
Santorum has, for whatever reason, been on my radar for a long time (pre-Savage, even, although that certainly solidified the impression) as a freaky-ass theocrat. One of the most worrisome things I heard over the weekend was the conjecture that the Republicans tend to give the nomination to the guy "whose turn it is" - McCain in 2008 (because he had lost it to W 8 years prior), Romney in 2012 (because he lost to McCain in 08) .. which means even if Romney gets it this time (and, presumably, loses), it'll be Santorum's turn in 2016.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 4:15 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
Very nice speech! I'd expect JFK handled any santorum incidents during his lifetime with his customary decorum and class, avoiding any vomit. Too bad our modern "I think he doth protest too much" Republicans cannot similarly clean up their own santorum mess.
posted by jeffburdges at 4:18 AM on February 28, 2012
posted by jeffburdges at 4:18 AM on February 28, 2012
As an aside, what did this part refer to?
In 1959, President Eisenhower sent Vice President Nixon to the Soviet Union for a Summit meeting. The Kitchen debate.
posted by three blind mice at 4:19 AM on February 28, 2012
In 1959, President Eisenhower sent Vice President Nixon to the Soviet Union for a Summit meeting. The Kitchen debate.
posted by three blind mice at 4:19 AM on February 28, 2012
I miss the days when Presidents were actually respected. Have you ever seen JFK working the crowd? It's so hard to do that now, but we kind of still expect it.
posted by twoleftfeet at 4:25 AM on February 28, 2012 [5 favorites]
posted by twoleftfeet at 4:25 AM on February 28, 2012 [5 favorites]
As an aside, what did this part refer to?
More likely I would think to Nixon's disastrous 1958 visit to Venezuela.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 4:26 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
More likely I would think to Nixon's disastrous 1958 visit to Venezuela.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 4:26 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
Joke all you want but I hope Santorum keeps on going, whirling around in his self-created vortex of moral panic and theocratic outrage -- anything that helps him and wounds Romney (as though Romney needed any more help doing that all on his own) is a plus in my book.
One of the most worrisome things I heard over the weekend was the conjecture that the Republicans tend to give the nomination to the guy "whose turn it is" - McCain in 2008 (because he had lost it to W 8 years prior), Romney in 2012 (because he lost to McCain in 08) .. which means even if Romney gets it this time (and, presumably, loses), it'll be Santorum's turn in 2016.
If the Republican Party wants to commit mass suicide, which it increasingly looks like it does, yes, Santorum will be the nominee, either in 2012 or 2016. So "worrisome"? Not at all. A cause for festivity.
posted by blucevalo at 5:27 AM on February 28, 2012 [2 favorites]
One of the most worrisome things I heard over the weekend was the conjecture that the Republicans tend to give the nomination to the guy "whose turn it is" - McCain in 2008 (because he had lost it to W 8 years prior), Romney in 2012 (because he lost to McCain in 08) .. which means even if Romney gets it this time (and, presumably, loses), it'll be Santorum's turn in 2016.
If the Republican Party wants to commit mass suicide, which it increasingly looks like it does, yes, Santorum will be the nominee, either in 2012 or 2016. So "worrisome"? Not at all. A cause for festivity.
posted by blucevalo at 5:27 AM on February 28, 2012 [2 favorites]
Fortunately for him, he can monitor it visually from where his head is inserted.
And to think his ass is jealous of his head - the quality of shit coming out of it is amazing!
posted by DreamerFi at 5:31 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
And to think his ass is jealous of his head - the quality of shit coming out of it is amazing!
posted by DreamerFi at 5:31 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
I miss the days when Presidents were actually respected.
As Bill Maher recently pointed out, there seems to be something different about our current President that makes people more likely to disrespect him. Hard to pin down exactly what that might be, though.
posted by localroger at 5:32 AM on February 28, 2012 [33 favorites]
As Bill Maher recently pointed out, there seems to be something different about our current President that makes people more likely to disrespect him. Hard to pin down exactly what that might be, though.
posted by localroger at 5:32 AM on February 28, 2012 [33 favorites]
it'll be Santorum's turn in 2016.
If Santorum doesn't win the nomination this year, he'll have an even harder time trying in the future. There are several big names (Rubio, Christie, Jeb Bush) that aren't in the mix this year, but probably will be in 2016.
posted by drezdn at 5:33 AM on February 28, 2012 [3 favorites]
If Santorum doesn't win the nomination this year, he'll have an even harder time trying in the future. There are several big names (Rubio, Christie, Jeb Bush) that aren't in the mix this year, but probably will be in 2016.
posted by drezdn at 5:33 AM on February 28, 2012 [3 favorites]
Have you ever noticed that the people who trumpet the "fact" that we are a "Christian" country are the first ones to promote the most hateful policies possible?
Yeah. Me, too.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:40 AM on February 28, 2012 [17 favorites]
Yeah. Me, too.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:40 AM on February 28, 2012 [17 favorites]
I don't think any sane Republican wants to win the Presidency. The smart thing to do would be to let Obama win by fielding some weaksauce candidate. Then in 2016, after eight years of an Obama presidency, where most of the errors of the Cheney regime are minimized, they can run on a clean slate.
posted by Renoroc at 5:40 AM on February 28, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by Renoroc at 5:40 AM on February 28, 2012 [2 favorites]
I wish someone would ask Santorum what he would do if his religious beliefs conflicted with his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" because based on his response to Kennedy's speech, it sounds clear which would take importance, and that should, no matter what your religious opinion, freak you out and disqualify him for president.
To put it terms a crazy person can understand, it would be like Obama going on stage and saying, "Actually, turns out you were right, I'm not a U.S. citizen. Vote for me."
posted by MCMikeNamara at 5:43 AM on February 28, 2012
To put it terms a crazy person can understand, it would be like Obama going on stage and saying, "Actually, turns out you were right, I'm not a U.S. citizen. Vote for me."
posted by MCMikeNamara at 5:43 AM on February 28, 2012
*blinks at renoroc*
....Now, that is an interesting thought. I'm no supporter of the GOP, but I can sort of appreciate the Machiavelian cleverness there.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:44 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
....Now, that is an interesting thought. I'm no supporter of the GOP, but I can sort of appreciate the Machiavelian cleverness there.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:44 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
I don't think any sane Republican wants to win the Presidency.
As long as the economy continues to improve, if you could win the presidency this year, you might have easy going the next few years as the economy goes on an upswing.
posted by drezdn at 5:47 AM on February 28, 2012
As long as the economy continues to improve, if you could win the presidency this year, you might have easy going the next few years as the economy goes on an upswing.
posted by drezdn at 5:47 AM on February 28, 2012
which means even if Romney gets it this time (and, presumably, loses), it'll be Santorum's turn in 2016.
I don't think Santorum is part of the mainstream GOP pecking order, or in any way likely to be given a "turn" as the anointed candidate. I'm not sure if I agree with the "turn" theory of candidate succession in the first place, but even if I did, there are high profile Republicans such as Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour, and Mich Daniels who have paid their party dues and command insider respect -- so if there's a "turn" they would be more likely to be tapped. In any case, one of the interesting aspects of this year's campaign is the sense the GOP leadership really do not have any control over the primary process and its parade of fringe candidates.
posted by aught at 5:53 AM on February 28, 2012 [2 favorites]
I don't think Santorum is part of the mainstream GOP pecking order, or in any way likely to be given a "turn" as the anointed candidate. I'm not sure if I agree with the "turn" theory of candidate succession in the first place, but even if I did, there are high profile Republicans such as Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour, and Mich Daniels who have paid their party dues and command insider respect -- so if there's a "turn" they would be more likely to be tapped. In any case, one of the interesting aspects of this year's campaign is the sense the GOP leadership really do not have any control over the primary process and its parade of fringe candidates.
posted by aught at 5:53 AM on February 28, 2012 [2 favorites]
More likely I would think to Nixon's disastrous 1958 visit to Venezuela.
I forgot about that one Horace Rumpole. Thanks for putting it up.
Then in 2016, after eight years of an Obama presidency, where most of the errors of the Cheney regime are minimized, they can run on a clean slate.
It does indeed seem as if they are trying to loose on purpose and it is 1964 all over again and only a disastrous loss will give the establishment the capital it needs to finally kick out the John Birchers.
Recall that once Goldwater was defeated - and his supporters banished from the GOP - the Republicans held the White House from 1968 until 1992.
posted by three blind mice at 5:55 AM on February 28, 2012
I forgot about that one Horace Rumpole. Thanks for putting it up.
Then in 2016, after eight years of an Obama presidency, where most of the errors of the Cheney regime are minimized, they can run on a clean slate.
It does indeed seem as if they are trying to loose on purpose and it is 1964 all over again and only a disastrous loss will give the establishment the capital it needs to finally kick out the John Birchers.
Recall that once Goldwater was defeated - and his supporters banished from the GOP - the Republicans held the White House from 1968 until 1992.
posted by three blind mice at 5:55 AM on February 28, 2012
I wish someone would ask Santorum what he would do if his religious beliefs conflicted with his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"
You understand that in Santorum's distorted view of the United States this cannot happen. By definition his faith and his view of the righteous Christian nation are in lockstep.
posted by aught at 5:56 AM on February 28, 2012
You understand that in Santorum's distorted view of the United States this cannot happen. By definition his faith and his view of the righteous Christian nation are in lockstep.
posted by aught at 5:56 AM on February 28, 2012
the Republicans held the White House from 1968 until 1992.
Er, not quite.
posted by aught at 5:58 AM on February 28, 2012 [2 favorites]
Er, not quite.
posted by aught at 5:58 AM on February 28, 2012 [2 favorites]
the Republicans held the White House from 1968 until 1992.
Sorry. Except for Jimmy Carter whom I am desperately trying to forget. Without Watergate he never would have been elected.
posted by three blind mice at 5:58 AM on February 28, 2012
Sorry. Except for Jimmy Carter whom I am desperately trying to forget. Without Watergate he never would have been elected.
posted by three blind mice at 5:58 AM on February 28, 2012
You want to know how far backwards it's gone? Picard said this on network TV in the 80s.
posted by jaduncan at 6:04 AM on February 28, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by jaduncan at 6:04 AM on February 28, 2012 [2 favorites]
Sorry. Except for Jimmy Carter whom I am desperately trying to forget.
Yeah. I suppose he is key evidence that someone of moral character and deep sincerity, with a core interest in human rights, is now by popular consensus considered unfit to lead our nation. Very sad.
posted by aught at 6:04 AM on February 28, 2012 [37 favorites]
Yeah. I suppose he is key evidence that someone of moral character and deep sincerity, with a core interest in human rights, is now by popular consensus considered unfit to lead our nation. Very sad.
posted by aught at 6:04 AM on February 28, 2012 [37 favorites]
Renoroc: "I don't think any sane Republican wants to win the Presidency."
The bigger problem is that no sane Republican can win the primaries.
Let me qualify that a little: no Republican who acts sane can win the primaries. Romney is pretty middle-of-the-road down inside, I imagine. But his pathetic ambition leads him to say whatever crazy thing the Republican base wants to hear, and he's so bad at faking sincerity that everyone hates him for it.
And he's running against a theocrat, a conspiracy theorist, and a pathological narcissist. His emulated crazy just can't hold a candle to the real thing.
posted by adamrice at 6:18 AM on February 28, 2012 [5 favorites]
The bigger problem is that no sane Republican can win the primaries.
Let me qualify that a little: no Republican who acts sane can win the primaries. Romney is pretty middle-of-the-road down inside, I imagine. But his pathetic ambition leads him to say whatever crazy thing the Republican base wants to hear, and he's so bad at faking sincerity that everyone hates him for it.
And he's running against a theocrat, a conspiracy theorist, and a pathological narcissist. His emulated crazy just can't hold a candle to the real thing.
posted by adamrice at 6:18 AM on February 28, 2012 [5 favorites]
Er, not quite.
You beat me to it aught.
I suppose he is key evidence that someone of moral character and deep sincerity, with a core interest in human rights, is now by popular consensus considered unfit to lead our nation.
Only evidence that sincerity and good moral character is not correlated to being a successful President.
Bob Novak wrote a book after the 1964 election "The Agony of the GOP" which discusses the how the John Birch Society forced Barry Goldwater onto the ticket - much like the religious right is trying to do with anyone other than Romney. In 1964 Rockefeller was the establishment's man, but they lost the nomination and the election because of the influence of the far right.
Johnson destroyed Goldwater in 1964 and after that, Williiam F. Buckley's views dominated the GOP. Buckley was instrumental in seeing the Birchers to the exit and the result was Nixon being elected in 1968 and then again in 1972 by a huge landslide.
It is not beyond that pale as renroc suggests that this is a deliberate strategy with an eye to winning the long game.
posted by three blind mice at 6:19 AM on February 28, 2012 [2 favorites]
You beat me to it aught.
I suppose he is key evidence that someone of moral character and deep sincerity, with a core interest in human rights, is now by popular consensus considered unfit to lead our nation.
Only evidence that sincerity and good moral character is not correlated to being a successful President.
Bob Novak wrote a book after the 1964 election "The Agony of the GOP" which discusses the how the John Birch Society forced Barry Goldwater onto the ticket - much like the religious right is trying to do with anyone other than Romney. In 1964 Rockefeller was the establishment's man, but they lost the nomination and the election because of the influence of the far right.
Johnson destroyed Goldwater in 1964 and after that, Williiam F. Buckley's views dominated the GOP. Buckley was instrumental in seeing the Birchers to the exit and the result was Nixon being elected in 1968 and then again in 1972 by a huge landslide.
It is not beyond that pale as renroc suggests that this is a deliberate strategy with an eye to winning the long game.
posted by three blind mice at 6:19 AM on February 28, 2012 [2 favorites]
Oddly enough, the father of the Koch brothers (bankroller of the Tea Party) was one of the founders of the John Birch Society.
posted by drezdn at 6:27 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by drezdn at 6:27 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
twoleftfeet: "Why did they put the teleprompter down there? It confuses me when he keeps looking down."
The view-through type of teleprompter was pretty new then, he was probably just reading his notes on the lectern.
posted by octothorpe at 6:32 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
The view-through type of teleprompter was pretty new then, he was probably just reading his notes on the lectern.
posted by octothorpe at 6:32 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
It is not beyond that pale as renroc suggests that this is a deliberate strategy with an eye to winning the long game.
Actually, it is beyond the pale. No party is going to intentionally pass up a chance to regain the White House. You're giving them way too much credit if you think the GOP as a whole is willing to take a pass on the Presidency. Several individual politicians might decide that, strategically, this is not the best year for them to run, but Republicans want a Republican president. And as drezdn said:
As long as the economy continues to improve, if you could win the presidency this year, you might have easy going the next few years as the economy goes on an upswing.
There is good reason to be hopeful that this recession has almost played itself out, barring the (very real) possibility of a collapse in the Eurozone that stifles the recovery in America. Whoever is in the White House during the recovery is going to get credit for it, whether or not they did anything that helped. My concern is that if Romney (or whoever) edges out Obama in the election, all he has to do is not screw up too badly and then ride the wave of gradual economic recovery to an easy re-election.
If Obama wins again, though, he could solidify his legacy as the President who managed to ameliorate, if not fix, Bush's biggest errors.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:37 AM on February 28, 2012 [7 favorites]
Actually, it is beyond the pale. No party is going to intentionally pass up a chance to regain the White House. You're giving them way too much credit if you think the GOP as a whole is willing to take a pass on the Presidency. Several individual politicians might decide that, strategically, this is not the best year for them to run, but Republicans want a Republican president. And as drezdn said:
As long as the economy continues to improve, if you could win the presidency this year, you might have easy going the next few years as the economy goes on an upswing.
There is good reason to be hopeful that this recession has almost played itself out, barring the (very real) possibility of a collapse in the Eurozone that stifles the recovery in America. Whoever is in the White House during the recovery is going to get credit for it, whether or not they did anything that helped. My concern is that if Romney (or whoever) edges out Obama in the election, all he has to do is not screw up too badly and then ride the wave of gradual economic recovery to an easy re-election.
If Obama wins again, though, he could solidify his legacy as the President who managed to ameliorate, if not fix, Bush's biggest errors.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:37 AM on February 28, 2012 [7 favorites]
So one of the more interesting leaks from that wiki leak break of the security firm was some speculation that the GOP deliberately nominated McCain in 08 as a way of getting rid of him, apparently they barley gave him any money and held back on support knowing full well that they'd have to throw this election and hey why not rid yourself of a gadfly no one liked anyway in the process?
Prediction, the GOP establishment types use this as way of distancing themselves from the crazy fringe they've relied on to win since the 60s, the fringe finally notice they haven't been well served by the GOP and leave forming thier own whatever ( political party or doomsday cult ) and the GOP runs a Return To Decency campaign in '16 with Jeb Bush as the face.
X factor: the American further left becoming as organized and reliable as the further right which IMHO needs to happen like yesterday and I'm seeing more evidence of it on the local level that will hopefully creep up.
posted by The Whelk at 6:51 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
Prediction, the GOP establishment types use this as way of distancing themselves from the crazy fringe they've relied on to win since the 60s, the fringe finally notice they haven't been well served by the GOP and leave forming thier own whatever ( political party or doomsday cult ) and the GOP runs a Return To Decency campaign in '16 with Jeb Bush as the face.
X factor: the American further left becoming as organized and reliable as the further right which IMHO needs to happen like yesterday and I'm seeing more evidence of it on the local level that will hopefully creep up.
posted by The Whelk at 6:51 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
Today, I am the victim, but tomorrow it may be you, until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.
I am slightly puzzled by how willing the Catholic right and the Mormons are willing to empower the Protestant right which does not have a great track record on religious tolerance. It's not like the KKK didn't also target Catholics and Jews, after all....
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:54 AM on February 28, 2012 [3 favorites]
I am slightly puzzled by how willing the Catholic right and the Mormons are willing to empower the Protestant right which does not have a great track record on religious tolerance. It's not like the KKK didn't also target Catholics and Jews, after all....
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:54 AM on February 28, 2012 [3 favorites]
he could solidify his legacy as the President who managed to ameliorate, if not fix, Bush's biggest errors.
Looking forward to seeing him get started on that legacy.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 6:55 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
Looking forward to seeing him get started on that legacy.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 6:55 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
Only Santorum could view separation of church and state as a bad thing.
posted by crunchland at 6:58 AM on February 28, 2012
posted by crunchland at 6:58 AM on February 28, 2012
I don't think any sane Republican wants to win the Presidency. The smart thing to do would be to let Obama win by fielding some weaksauce candidate.
As said above, the winner of this year's contest will get credit for any economic recovery in the next four years.
Also, the chance to replace Justice Ginsberg and alter the balance of the Court is too tempting for the party overall to pass up.
Both are powerful motivators to win the presidency. The reason that the GOP did not field a stronger slate this year is that a lot luminaries in the party thought that they either could not beat Obama, or win the nomination in a year where the far right is very strong.
posted by spaltavian at 7:05 AM on February 28, 2012
As said above, the winner of this year's contest will get credit for any economic recovery in the next four years.
Also, the chance to replace Justice Ginsberg and alter the balance of the Court is too tempting for the party overall to pass up.
Both are powerful motivators to win the presidency. The reason that the GOP did not field a stronger slate this year is that a lot luminaries in the party thought that they either could not beat Obama, or win the nomination in a year where the far right is very strong.
posted by spaltavian at 7:05 AM on February 28, 2012
Well, he had to say it because everyone was terrified of electing a Catholic.
posted by delmoi at 7:06 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by delmoi at 7:06 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
I'm going to go ahead and clarify, for the benefit of the historically challenged, that the "Governor Romney" mentioned in the opening seconds of the video was George Romney, not Governor Mitt Romney.
Actually, because the voice-over at the beginning was part of C-SPAN's 2008 election coverage, it might be a reference to Mitt Romney's Faith in America speech that many compared to Kennedy's.
posted by peeedro at 7:23 AM on February 28, 2012
Actually, because the voice-over at the beginning was part of C-SPAN's 2008 election coverage, it might be a reference to Mitt Romney's Faith in America speech that many compared to Kennedy's.
posted by peeedro at 7:23 AM on February 28, 2012
Prediction, the GOP establishment types use this as way of distancing themselves from the crazy fringe they've relied on to win since the 60s, the fringe finally notice they haven't been well served by the GOP and leave forming thier own whatever ( political party or doomsday cult ) and the GOP runs a Return To Decency campaign in '16 with Jeb Bush as the face.
Tired 63-year-old (by 2016) white man who has been at best ambivalent about any presidential campaign and who would be the third Bush in the White House in 27 years manages to vanquish all the forces of hatred and Tea Party fringe-itude unleashed by the election of Obama, the financial crisis, and the demonize-at-all-costs slash-and-burn tactics of his older brother -- and he runs as some 2016 version of Thomas Dewey or Nelson Rockefeller, when even Mitt Romney's sad attempts in 2012 at fencewalking as both a "severely conservative" candidate and a "Massachusetts moderate" technocrat have thus far been an utter failure? That would be even more suicidal than a Santorum/DeMint 2016 candidacy. I like it!
posted by blucevalo at 7:49 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
Tired 63-year-old (by 2016) white man who has been at best ambivalent about any presidential campaign and who would be the third Bush in the White House in 27 years manages to vanquish all the forces of hatred and Tea Party fringe-itude unleashed by the election of Obama, the financial crisis, and the demonize-at-all-costs slash-and-burn tactics of his older brother -- and he runs as some 2016 version of Thomas Dewey or Nelson Rockefeller, when even Mitt Romney's sad attempts in 2012 at fencewalking as both a "severely conservative" candidate and a "Massachusetts moderate" technocrat have thus far been an utter failure? That would be even more suicidal than a Santorum/DeMint 2016 candidacy. I like it!
posted by blucevalo at 7:49 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
The smart thing to do would be to let Obama win by fielding some weaksauce candidate. Then in 2016, after eight years of an Obama presidency, where most of the errors of the Cheney regime are minimized, they can run on a clean slate.
That sounds too much like a sensible plan to me, so I'm discounting it purely on the basis of how crazy the Republicans look at the moment.
There's an alternative theory, which is that we're seeing an almighty to-the-death struggle between the two poles of the Republican party: the traditional moneyed, privileged end represented by Romney; and the batshit insane end represented by not-Romney (currently Santorum). Since neither of these candidates can actually get the whole party behind them, whoever wins the nomination this year will lose against Obama. The winner's half of the Republican party gets completely discredited and mauled by the other half, which then becomes dominant and takes over the party. In short, whoever loses the nomination this year will win it in four years time.
What appeals about this theory is that it's a no-lose situation. Either the tea party is completely discredited and the Republicans go back to being a reasonably sensible party, or else the lunatics completely take over and the Republicans are unelectable for a generation.
posted by daveje at 8:04 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
That sounds too much like a sensible plan to me, so I'm discounting it purely on the basis of how crazy the Republicans look at the moment.
There's an alternative theory, which is that we're seeing an almighty to-the-death struggle between the two poles of the Republican party: the traditional moneyed, privileged end represented by Romney; and the batshit insane end represented by not-Romney (currently Santorum). Since neither of these candidates can actually get the whole party behind them, whoever wins the nomination this year will lose against Obama. The winner's half of the Republican party gets completely discredited and mauled by the other half, which then becomes dominant and takes over the party. In short, whoever loses the nomination this year will win it in four years time.
What appeals about this theory is that it's a no-lose situation. Either the tea party is completely discredited and the Republicans go back to being a reasonably sensible party, or else the lunatics completely take over and the Republicans are unelectable for a generation.
posted by daveje at 8:04 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
Also it seems lost on Cardinal Santorum that most "Christians" would still never vote for a Catholic.
Could we please stop throwing this one around, because it's just not true, and it hasn't been for at least a decade, perhaps two. The Religious Right found a powerful ally in the Catholic Church during the late 80s thanks to their mutual pro-life stances. Since that time, the idea that Catholics are not Christians has steadily moved to the fringe of evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity.
The Religious Right has voted for Catholics at every level. It says something that the two candidates most courting the Religious Right (Gingrich and Santorum) are Catholics -- and there's been zero handwringing or "they're not Christians" talk from that end of the world. The "Are Mormons Christian?" question is getting far more play, anyway, but even if Santorum was the one sitting on millions in campaign cash, I doubt there'd be many who'd be pointing out that Catholics aren't, according to the strict sense of things that certain Protestants hold to, Christians.
If Santorum does get the nomination, he'll get plenty of "Christian" votes. More, in fact, than Romney will.
posted by dw at 8:17 AM on February 28, 2012 [4 favorites]
Could we please stop throwing this one around, because it's just not true, and it hasn't been for at least a decade, perhaps two. The Religious Right found a powerful ally in the Catholic Church during the late 80s thanks to their mutual pro-life stances. Since that time, the idea that Catholics are not Christians has steadily moved to the fringe of evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity.
The Religious Right has voted for Catholics at every level. It says something that the two candidates most courting the Religious Right (Gingrich and Santorum) are Catholics -- and there's been zero handwringing or "they're not Christians" talk from that end of the world. The "Are Mormons Christian?" question is getting far more play, anyway, but even if Santorum was the one sitting on millions in campaign cash, I doubt there'd be many who'd be pointing out that Catholics aren't, according to the strict sense of things that certain Protestants hold to, Christians.
If Santorum does get the nomination, he'll get plenty of "Christian" votes. More, in fact, than Romney will.
posted by dw at 8:17 AM on February 28, 2012 [4 favorites]
What appeals about this theory is that it's a no-lose situation. Either the tea party is completely discredited and the Republicans go back to being a reasonably sensible party, or else the lunatics completely take over and the Republicans are unelectable for a generation.
At the Presidential level, perhaps. But do not forget the trickle-down effect; tea party bomb throwers have a much easier time getting into Congress and state and local offices, particularly in areas where the Democrats are either Blue Dog DINOS at best or are political Don Quixotes tilting at overwhelming-Republican-base windmills.
The ding-dongs will always be out there howling for liberal blood. Circumstances that let more of them win Republican nominations -- which in many cases essentially ARE the elections -- aren't good circumstances.
posted by delfin at 8:19 AM on February 28, 2012
At the Presidential level, perhaps. But do not forget the trickle-down effect; tea party bomb throwers have a much easier time getting into Congress and state and local offices, particularly in areas where the Democrats are either Blue Dog DINOS at best or are political Don Quixotes tilting at overwhelming-Republican-base windmills.
The ding-dongs will always be out there howling for liberal blood. Circumstances that let more of them win Republican nominations -- which in many cases essentially ARE the elections -- aren't good circumstances.
posted by delfin at 8:19 AM on February 28, 2012
Only Santorum could view separation of church and state as a bad thing.
I'm sorry but this is a remarkably naive statement. Only 67% of US citizens believe the constitution mandates separation (per americans united for sep of church and state). I'm not saying that the remaining 32-33% of us think the separation is bad, but I am saying that it is ridiculous to assume that Santorum is alone by any stretch.
posted by Fuka at 8:19 AM on February 28, 2012
I'm sorry but this is a remarkably naive statement. Only 67% of US citizens believe the constitution mandates separation (per americans united for sep of church and state). I'm not saying that the remaining 32-33% of us think the separation is bad, but I am saying that it is ridiculous to assume that Santorum is alone by any stretch.
posted by Fuka at 8:19 AM on February 28, 2012
By us, i do not mean to imply that i am part of the 32-33%, just referring to 'us US citizens.' My english are many poor.
posted by Fuka at 8:22 AM on February 28, 2012
posted by Fuka at 8:22 AM on February 28, 2012
As I recall it, JFK was making a plea that his Catholic background would not be a factor in his making decisions for the nation. Now Rickets is saying, If I am president my Catholic background will enable me to bring The Church into my decisions...that is, the Vatican. Fair enough. then why become president and eat up all that money ...simply ask the Vatican what should be done in any decision and then we can have a faith-based nation at long last.
posted by Postroad at 8:46 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Postroad at 8:46 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
If the Republican Party wants to commit mass suicide, which it increasingly looks like it does, yes, Santorum will be the nominee, either in 2012 or 2016. So "worrisome"? Not at all. A cause for festivity.
Festivity if you trust the American public. I do not.
A large percentage of Americans do not vote at all. Another sizable chunk of the potential electorate would vote for a shit-encrusted hobo pederast if he was white and had the (R) next to his name on the ballot, just to keep the Democrat from getting in. (There is some debate as to whether this has actually happened in many places.) Another chunk sways with the prevailing wind and can be influenced strongly by the media's coverage of the candidates.
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
All it takes is a scandal or two of the wrong type at the wrong time and the American public can turn on a dime, which is why I laugh at people who assume this year's election is in the bag for Obama already. A lot can happen between now and November. A lot more can happen between now and November 2016, and there isn't exactly an heir apparent in the wings who'd be a sure thing by then. While it would take a very rank smell coming from the Democratic nominee to make a Santorum or Santorum-ish candidate viable... do not assume that that can't happen here.
Never stop fighting.
posted by delfin at 8:49 AM on February 28, 2012 [10 favorites]
Festivity if you trust the American public. I do not.
A large percentage of Americans do not vote at all. Another sizable chunk of the potential electorate would vote for a shit-encrusted hobo pederast if he was white and had the (R) next to his name on the ballot, just to keep the Democrat from getting in. (There is some debate as to whether this has actually happened in many places.) Another chunk sways with the prevailing wind and can be influenced strongly by the media's coverage of the candidates.
All it takes is a scandal or two of the wrong type at the wrong time and the American public can turn on a dime, which is why I laugh at people who assume this year's election is in the bag for Obama already. A lot can happen between now and November. A lot more can happen between now and November 2016, and there isn't exactly an heir apparent in the wings who'd be a sure thing by then. While it would take a very rank smell coming from the Democratic nominee to make a Santorum or Santorum-ish candidate viable... do not assume that that can't happen here.
Never stop fighting.
posted by delfin at 8:49 AM on February 28, 2012 [10 favorites]
Festivity if you trust the American public. I do not.
No shit.
Everyone seems to be discounting the possibility of Santorum beating Obama in a general election. Yeah, that seems pretty unlikely now.
But what if Greece does implode? Or what if we wind up in a shooting war with Iran? All those things, and more, could contribute to new economic shocks, which play right into the hands of the GOP challenger, whomever he is.
Were we stupid enough to take a swing at Iran (and fer chrissakes, just the rhetoric is driving prices now) and the cost of gas were to surge to $5/gallon by summer, lots of folks will take a fresh look at Santorum, if he's the nominee. Well, they'll think, he doesn't really mean it. But he does.
I see these efforts over at Kos, driving Democrats to vote for Santorum and prolong the primaries, and I think - be very, very careful what you wish for
posted by kgasmart at 9:10 AM on February 28, 2012 [6 favorites]
No shit.
Everyone seems to be discounting the possibility of Santorum beating Obama in a general election. Yeah, that seems pretty unlikely now.
But what if Greece does implode? Or what if we wind up in a shooting war with Iran? All those things, and more, could contribute to new economic shocks, which play right into the hands of the GOP challenger, whomever he is.
Were we stupid enough to take a swing at Iran (and fer chrissakes, just the rhetoric is driving prices now) and the cost of gas were to surge to $5/gallon by summer, lots of folks will take a fresh look at Santorum, if he's the nominee. Well, they'll think, he doesn't really mean it. But he does.
I see these efforts over at Kos, driving Democrats to vote for Santorum and prolong the primaries, and I think - be very, very careful what you wish for
posted by kgasmart at 9:10 AM on February 28, 2012 [6 favorites]
Returning to the humiliation point, this was scant months after the U-2 incident and the subsequent snubbing of Ike by Khrushchev (who demanded an apology) at the Paris Summit. When JFK made this speech, the August conviction of US pilot Gary Powers on espionage charges was still fresh (he wouldn't be freed for two more years). Finally, at this very moment in September, the Congo crisis was at a fever pitch, with the USSR rejecting Eisenhower's demands to pull support for Patrice Lumumba; two days after the speech, a US-backed coup would overthrow him.
posted by dhartung at 9:17 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by dhartung at 9:17 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
No party is going to intentionally pass up a chance to regain the White House. You're giving them way too much credit if you think the GOP as a whole is willing to take a pass on the Presidency.
Yeah, I don't know about this. What do you mean by "the GOP as a whole"? I have a (slightly conspiracy-leaning) feeling those very few, very rich and very powerful at the very top can take their sweet time on a long term strategy. What they'll probably like least is losing a justice on the Supreme Court, but even that probably doesn't really effect them much. Because of like, all their money and power. Stupid, stupid amounts of it. Scary, enormously depressing, don't-like-to-think-about-it amounts of it. (I'd love to be convinced otherwise.)
posted by Glinn at 10:41 AM on February 28, 2012
Yeah, I don't know about this. What do you mean by "the GOP as a whole"? I have a (slightly conspiracy-leaning) feeling those very few, very rich and very powerful at the very top can take their sweet time on a long term strategy. What they'll probably like least is losing a justice on the Supreme Court, but even that probably doesn't really effect them much. Because of like, all their money and power. Stupid, stupid amounts of it. Scary, enormously depressing, don't-like-to-think-about-it amounts of it. (I'd love to be convinced otherwise.)
posted by Glinn at 10:41 AM on February 28, 2012
Now Rickets is saying, If I am president my Catholic background will enable me to bring The Church into my decisions...that is, the Vatican. Fair enough. then why become president and eat up all that money ...simply ask the Vatican what should be done in any decision and then we can have a faith-based nation at long last.
Someone ought to ask Santorum directly whether he would take orders from the Pope if he were elected President. If he's going to be made sick by JFK saying that he wouldn't, he should at least be clear on what JFK was saying. Hell, maybe he'd say yes. It wouldn't be the weirdest thing to come out of the mouth of a Republican candidate this year.
posted by Copronymus at 11:04 AM on February 28, 2012
Someone ought to ask Santorum directly whether he would take orders from the Pope if he were elected President. If he's going to be made sick by JFK saying that he wouldn't, he should at least be clear on what JFK was saying. Hell, maybe he'd say yes. It wouldn't be the weirdest thing to come out of the mouth of a Republican candidate this year.
posted by Copronymus at 11:04 AM on February 28, 2012
My gut feeling is that Santorum will handily win the primary and will narrowly win or lose the general election. To win the presidency a candidate really only needs to win a small percentage of voters in a few key states. Another economic downturn in late summer / early fall could easily sway independent voters there a point or two against the current administration. Santorum can say whatever crazy statements he likes, but ultimately the election will be a vote for or against Obama.
posted by sharkitect at 11:09 AM on February 28, 2012
posted by sharkitect at 11:09 AM on February 28, 2012
Santorum is unprincipled scum. Having said that, I can't forget that the escalation that changed Viet Nam from a backwater military assistance adventure to a major war was commited by JFK. This was done after Cardinal Spellman personally ushered the Diems around DC powers including JFK. That in this escalation we supported the carpet bagger Catholic & Francophile ruling class against the south's Buddhist and secular majority as well as the North.
posted by shnarg at 11:14 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by shnarg at 11:14 AM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
What happened to the good old days when catholic leaders had to worry about the leaders of empires imposing on them. Really, when the last time we had a good anti-pope?
Kennedy clearly missed a golden opportunity to install a Harvard boy as bishop of Rome.
posted by Winnemac at 11:14 AM on February 28, 2012 [2 favorites]
Kennedy clearly missed a golden opportunity to install a Harvard boy as bishop of Rome.
posted by Winnemac at 11:14 AM on February 28, 2012 [2 favorites]
OBAMA AGAIN!
Not just because he is the most capable (and experienced) among Mitt, Rick and Newt.
Nope. I just want to revel in my wingnut neighbors having to endure four more years of a brown skinned man at the helm.
posted by notreally at 11:17 AM on February 28, 2012
Not just because he is the most capable (and experienced) among Mitt, Rick and Newt.
Nope. I just want to revel in my wingnut neighbors having to endure four more years of a brown skinned man at the helm.
posted by notreally at 11:17 AM on February 28, 2012
If only Catholic priests were allowed to marry, Santorum could have had an entirely different career path.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:34 AM on February 28, 2012
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:34 AM on February 28, 2012
Wasn't Kennedy really trying to seem non Catholic due to the whole Pope-as-president worries? Very easy to forget that these speeches happened in a context.
posted by smackfu at 4:16 PM on February 28, 2012
posted by smackfu at 4:16 PM on February 28, 2012
Context doesn't matter when you're a revisionist.
posted by crunchland at 6:12 PM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by crunchland at 6:12 PM on February 28, 2012 [1 favorite]
« Older Not money, but it could be. | Don't cook Sudafed in yo baby momma's house Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by twoleftfeet at 3:19 AM on February 28, 2012 [16 favorites]