Daily Archives: March 14, 2012
“There has never been a conviction politician, an insurgent Christian conservative, who has won this many (primaries) since Ronald Reagan in 1976,”
I think this passage of a Washington Post article well gives the idea of what is happening (for those who were too young, in 1976 Ronald Reagan fought an extremely strong campaign, in the end losing against Gerald Ford for a handful of delegates. Gerald Ford was, must be remembered, the President), and it appears to me that Santorum is rapidly gaining not only momentum, but mainstream credibility. As the money keeps flowing – though certainly in small measure compared to the Romney aircraft carrier; apparently Romney has outspent Santorum 10 to 1 up to now and still can’t close the game, this really says it all) and Santorum gains more and more TV time and media attention, he is seen as a real alternative rather than the flag candidate. I must say I am surprised; extremely pleasantly surprised as this always was my favourite candidate, though I thought – with most others, I must say – he would be massacred after the first success in Ohio, which for me was already a miracle and something to thank God for.
We are now – incredibile dictu – at nine victories, and counting. Whilst the largely proportional system puts the concept of “victory” in perspective, I think it is fair to say Santorum is now the number one opponent of Romney, and Gingrich a strong third contender but nothing more than that.
It seems to me Gingrich is unwittingly helping Romney, and his rather stubborn decision to go all the way to Tampa – or so at least does he say now – might, even with the proportional system in place, help Romney to the nomination as a clear “non-Romney” does not emerge or, at least, does not translate in enough delegates to stop him.
What I also find notable is the enthusiasm with which Evangelicals support Santorum. What at the beginning might have looked like a sympathy vote for a nice, outright Christian candidate is now rapidly becoming all-out organisational and financial support. Kudos to them. Let’s hope Santorum will inflame so many of them that the one or other decides to convert…. 😉
I might be wrong (again) but at the moment I’d say the biggest obstacle in front of a non-Romney nomination is Gingrich, who is doing too well to force him to retire his candidature, but at the moment not well enough to compete with Santorum. If he decided to leave, methinks the clear alternative Romney-Santorum would mobilise the party to choose the Republican candidate (pun intended), but if he stays he might drain precious blood from Santorum’s campaign and, in fact, aid the nomination of a man he doesn’t like a bit.
We will see how this pans out. I find Santorum’s ascent exhilarating, and as he has proved me wrong in his ability to attract enough Republican candidates, he could prove me wrong again in his ability to attract the vote of mainstream America; at least considering that mainstream America would still confronted with the thought that the alternative to Santorum would be another four years of Obama.
Reblog of the day
After reading this CNS story titled “interfaith leaders denounce anti-islamic actions, call for cooperation” (with the explicit reference to the questionable, but absolutely non-violent Koran-burning exercise planned by a small ecclesial community in Florida) I can’t avoid noticing the double standard.
When Muslim violence (I mean here people being killed, not American flags burned) simultaneously erupts in several parts of the (Muslim) world, the accent of the Western press is generally on the offence created to Muslims, but I can’t recall any massive call to Muslim countries to stop becoming violent every time there’s something they don’t like. They basically say “this cartoon creates violence” or “burning Korans create violence”.
Wrong. Violent people create violence. Cartoons may be in bad taste, but they are not violent. The pathetic attempt to construe cartoon-publishing and koran-burning as “violence” (pathetically espoused by a Muslim chap yesterday evening on the…
View original post 281 more words
First the bad news. Besides squandering the money of honest, hard-working, mainly Western taxpayers with its own apparatus, that scrounger monster called “United Nations” also has – apparently – external “human rights organisations” as “consultants”. Some part of me wants to hope these people are not paid or remunerated in any way, but you can judge for yourself how probable this is.
In order – and this is when the fun part begins – to understand how these organisations work, you can read here that one of those “human rights” organisations (name already forgotten; thank God) decided Dante should be removed from school curricula because racist, homophobic and, of course, offensive to Muslims.
The Divina Commedia is a mainstay of the Italian curriculum. In certian types of school (“Liceo Classico”) you’ll have to get through the entire work word for word, and I mean seriously, during a three-year cycle. I did it, and my father before me. We both do not regret a minute of the time.
The more affectionate readers of this little effort will perhaps remember a blog post I wrote some time ago about when Dante met Mohammed. Il Divino Poeta was not really known for mincing his words, and if you click the link you’ll see what he thought of heretics and, in particular, fraudulent and blasphemous child rapists (Yes. I am talking of Mohammed. If you are scandalised, though. You may console yourself clicking here and I hope you’ll enjoy at least the image). On Mohammed and Dante (and Christianity in general) I have written my own considerations in the above mentioned blog post and will therefore not repeat myself here.
What I find notable in the matter is the following:
1) Dante was undoubtedly a devout Christian and proper Catholic. He would be recognised as such in every age. Depressingly, the head of the Italian teachers’ association says Dante must not be judged with the standards of today. Well in a very general sense this is obvious, but what the man misses is that Christian standards do not change and Dante was, without doubt, much fitter in his knowledge of the latter than most inhabitants of the earth today.
2) The already forgotten UN-maintained organisation got a bit of popularity, or at least notoriety. But they squandered it immediately. To complain that Dante defines homosexuality against nature is a masterpiece of stupidity. It is like complaining that one calls the water wet.
Decidedly, thinking is becoming an optional.
3) In an unprecedented show of common sense, even some (name never really read) Italian faggot organisation decided there’s too much political correctness in this. They do it, I suspect, because in Italy Dante is not very far below the Blessed Virgin, and to touch him is like playing with high voltage cables whilst drenched. Still, I feel “good” today (must be the mention of the UN. I always feel so good when I read about their initiatives to improve humanity) and want to attribute this intervention to real common sense rather than to the obvious impossibility of hysterically bitching against Dante in a country like Italy.
So, that was that. I hope this glimpse of PC-madness was instructive. I certainly think it was entertaining.