Santorum in '08, Please!

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the darling of the religious right got the GOP nomination in 2008?

Consider the lovely quotes he's already accumulated;

From 2002, regarding the pedophilia scandal in the RCC;

...Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

Tuesday, when given the opportunity to soothe the Bostonians' outrage, he digs the hole a little deeper;

"The basic liberal attitude in that area . . . has an impact on people's behavior," Santorum said in an interview yesterday at the Capitol.

"If you have a world view that I'm describing [about Boston] . . . that affirms alternative views of sexuality, that can lead to a lot of people taking it the wrong way," Santorum said.

Does the junior senator from Pennsylvania care to say more about these "alternative views of sexuality"? In fact, he does, as seen in this 2003 interview;

I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual...if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does...whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family...in every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality....

Ok,so he's lost the Massachusetts and the gay vote. He could still get the nomination, couldn't he? I think it'll be an uphill battle, especially with his new book coming out this month, which includes pithy little statements like this;

The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas ... move up the economic ladder is just wrong.

Well, there goes the women's vote. If we also consider his identifying the demise of the nation to be yoked to the time when "universities began to champion the importance of 'diversity' as a central education value," it's probably safe to say he's lost the ethnic minority vote as well.

And then there's that little comment he made on the floor of the Senate a couple of months ago regarding the Democrat filibuster;

..the audacity of some members to stand up and say, how dare you break this rule. It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942; "I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine."

So, the Democrats are Nazis? There goes the crossover vote.

How many straight white male Republicans are there in this country? You think there's enough to get him nominated? One can only hope.

But first, he has to beat Bob Casey in the '06 senatorial race, which doesn't look too promising at the moment. What's Casey's strategy? Keep your mouth shut, and let Rick dig his own grave. It seems to working quite well, according to the polls.

Even Ted Kennedy, who in my opinion is one of the worst choices to champion "moral values," could beat this guy in the general election. Heck, my little pup Barkley could probably beat him. Not that I'm suggesting we should pit "dog on man" or whatever the case may be. That's not to pick on Republicans. It is one thing...

I think I'll now take a page from Casey's play book, and shut up.

J.