How am I supposed to take this guy seriously?

I’m trying to be more open-minded about the idea of Rick Santorum as possible GOP nominee, but the fellow doesn’t make it easy:

With that trademark sleeveless sweater of his, not to mention his unimpressive face and whiney demeanor, he looks like an eighth grader, though I must say that many of my eighth grade classmates, at Kawameeh Junior High School in Union, New Jersey, had more gravitas.

- end of initial entry -

Daniel S. writes:

Is he running for president or trying to sell mobile phones?

LA writes:

I see that my junior high school is now Kawameeh Middle School. But it’s remarkable that it has kept the American Indian name Kawameeh over all these decades. I thought all such names had been excised, as a supposed insult to American Indians.

Mark Jaws writes:

I am totally with you on this one, Don Lorenzo. This … this … mediocrity stands no chance in November, unless Obama implodes. He has absolutely no personal appeal. None. Zilch. He reminds me of the cardboard conservative Army officers I served with in the 1980s who simply mouthed the Reaganesque mantra, but could not defend their views when they came under attack by the occasional liberal within our ranks. Then I had to do the dirty work and take on the liberal, usually alone.

And speaking of Reagan, we all loved him for his ability to express principled conservatism in a congenial, practical way. That is what I also like about Marco Rubio, but to a lesser extent. Santorum on the other hand is a politically inept moron (how did he ever get elected to the US Senate?), who will blunder onto every minefield carefully laid by the liberal media. I hope Romney can somehow get his mojo together and take out this buffoon. If it were not for my conservative community organizing skills and desire and drive to implement them, I would be one sad hombre right now.

Dale F. writes:

If you haven’t seen this article, “Why Did Santorum Lose in 2006?”, I think you’ll find it interesting.

LA replies:

It’s the madness of a primary system in which all the candidates simply choose themselves. Did a man who lost his last election by 18 points have any business running for president? Of course not. And in no previous era of U.S. history would such a man have run. But now every candidate chooses himself, and we end up with the ignorant buffoon Cain, the inarticulate, unprepared Perry, the thrice-married four-year-old-always-looking-for-a-cookie Gingrich, the hostile-to-the-Republican-Party Huntsman, and the mediocre self-righteous loser Santorum. The only solution is to junk the primary system and return to a process in which professional politicians screen the candidates. But in our democracy-soaked age, that will never happen.

Deborah C. writes:

Have any of you seen the video of Santorum’s speech from the town-hall event in Idaho last night where this photo was taken? You can find it in two parts over at therightscoop.com. If you watch it, you’ll either be confirmed in your low opinion of him as a candidate or stirred to take a closer look.

And much as I’m too often guilty of using shorthand terms, like idiot, to describe people whom I disfavor (like Democratic voters), I have been thinking over these past several months that I should try to be more like Mr. Auster and his erudite readers who rarely employ such language but who actually take the time to articulate moronic-ness or buffoonery in describing such persons. So I was a bit surprised to see these terms tossed about in regard to Santorum.

I’m also quite curious as to how Romney could be of help to us in repealing Obamacare, arguably the most important task of our next president, when he himself ushered in its precursor in MA. Any thoughts?

Dean Ericson writes:

Come come. That’s what one must do to get elected in our idiotically equalist society; condescend to presenting yourself as one of the people. Dress the way they dress, talk the way they talk, eat what they eat. Don’t be surprised to see Obama campaigning in Harlem with his pants falling off.

Ron K. writes:

Can any politician named “Rick” be taken seriously?

It’s the eternal teenage name. To those of us born in the Ike years, “Dick” will always be the adult, and “Rick” the kid.

Shrewsbury writes:

Mr. Auster wrote:

“The only solution is to junk the primary system and return to a process in which professional politicians screen the candidates. But in our democracy-soaked age, that will never happen.”

But then for 2012 we would have been presented with Jeb Bush, because that’s the guy all the insiders really want. Not a week goes by without some wistful article: it’s not too late for Jeb to throw his hat in … maybe a brokered convention would give us Jeb … ¡Viva la Reconquista!

The one thing that could really save us would be to restrict the franchise. For instance, if you don’t pay taxes—and I would include the grievous and burdensome payroll taxes, which all the Hannity conservatives ignore when they bray about half the country not paying income taxes—if you don” pay taxes, I say, you don’t vote. But, as you say, that will never happen.

On the other hand, a tax strike by white people, if they could only snap out of their trance, could work almost any wonder. One hears all this grumbling about revolution and civil war, but the only revolution we need is for white people to stop doing what they’re doing. Who pays for Leviathan? Who can stop paying for it whenever they feel like it?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 15, 2012 10:32 PM | Send