Hi. I vote Democrat pretty much all the time, but I don’t want their campaign literature, and I’m too disgusted with them 50% of the time to consider myself a member of the party, so I’m registered as an Independent. That Said! If you are an Independent, Massachusetts has an open primary, and you can go to your polling place this morning and switch your party affiliation to Republican and Fuck. With. The. Democratic. Process. So do it! I’m voting for Rick Santorum, baby, because the longer this shit show drags on, the more money Mitt Romney has to spend sealing his otherwise inevitable nomination.
Exercise your right to be a rabblerouser. Vote Santorum. For the children.
And this is why the only place a black-and-white view of the world makes sense is in the land of retro Oscar darlings:
(Extra-long excerpt because…well, it’s merited.):
Rick Santorum, Meet My Son
This week my son turned blue, and for 30 terrifying seconds, stopped breathing. Called an “apnea seizure,” this is one stage in the progression of Tay-Sachs, the genetic disease Ronan was born with and will die of, but not before he suffers from these and other kinds of seizures and is finally plunged into a completely vegetative state. Nearly two years old, he is already blind, paralyzed, and increasingly nonresponsive. I expect his death to happen this year, and this week’s seizure only highlighted the fact that it could happen at any moment—while I’m at work, at the hair salon, at the grocery store. I love my son more than any person in the world and his life is of utmost value to me. I don’t regret a single minute of this parenting journey, even though I wake up every morning with my heart breaking, feeling the impending dread of his imminent death. This is one set of absolute truths.
Here’s another: If I had known Ronan had Tay-Sachs (I met with two genetic counselors and had every standard prenatal test available to me, including the one for Tay-Sachs, which did not detect my rare mutation, and therefore I waived the test at my CVS procedure), I would have found out what the disease meant for my then unborn child; I would have talked to parents who are raising (and burying) children with this disease, and then I would have had an abortion. Without question and without regret, although this would have been a different kind of loss to mourn and would by no means have been a cavalier or uncomplicated, heartless decision. I’m so grateful that Ronan is my child. I also wish he’d never been born; no person should suffer in this way—daily seizures, blindness, lack of movement, inability to swallow, a devastated brain—with no hope for a cure. Both of these statements are categorically true; neither one is mutually exclusive.
That it is possible to hold this paradox as part of my daily reality points to the reductive and narrow-minded nature of Rick Santorum’s assertions that prenatal testing increases the number of abortions (a this equals that equation), and for this reason, the moral viability or inherent value of these tests should be questioned. Prenatal testing provides information, a value-less act. I maintain that it is a woman’s right to choose what to do with the information that attaches value and meaning, and that this choice is—and must be—directly related to that individual’s experiences. What’s at stake here is not the issue of testing, but the issue of choice. I love Ronan, and I believe it would have been an act of love to abort him, knowing that his life would be primarily one of intense suffering, knowing that his neurologically devastated brain made true quality of life—relationships, thoughts, pleasant physical experiences—impossible.
[...]
The tenor of the current debate frightens me, as it heralds a return to another age when women were not the trustees of decisions made about their own bodies. What I hope for other women is that they have the power to make their own decisions with as much information as it is possible to have, with respect to the specificity and complexity of their own circumstances, according to their own minds and hearts and not the dictates of another person’s worldview. Santorum believes that all life is inherently valuable, no matter how compromised or of what limited quality; that is one view. I believe that we need a more nuanced discussion about what quality of life is, and that it should be a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy when the path of her child’s life is as compromised—and as terrible—as my son’s.
Doesn’t fucking matter. Romney’s still gonna be the nominee.
Update by Trevor: For me, the most hilarious part of this whole kerfluffle can be seen in the last paragraph of this article in The Guardian today:
Following last night’s contests, Romney has only 107 delegates, well short of the 1,144 he needs to win the nomination. Santorum has 45 delegates, Gingrich 32 and Paul nine.
You know what else leaves Romney well short of the 1,144 delegates he needs to win the nomination? Winning every single fucking caucus and primary held until this point. Jesus Christ (sorry Rick): why don’t we have a single Super Tuesday with every state voting on the same goddamn day and get this shit over with? To quote myself from a few months ago (because I’m lazy like that):
‘member a couple years ago how we voted for the next president of the United States on the same day and then actually found out the results that night? ’member how satisfying and conclusive that result was? There’s a reason it’s not spread over weeks and weeks, and that reason is what I like to call the doctrine of equal information.
[...]
If we were to hold general elections over a span of multiple days, it would mean that voters would have access to disparate information when making their ultimate decision. After all, every extra day a candidate is given to campaign is an extra day for him to put his foot in his mouth and/or save a kitten from an oak tree. If Iowa votes for a president based on one finite set of factors, and those factors are undermined the very next day by new information coming to light that affects how the voters of New Hampshire cast their ballots without offering any redress for perturbed Iowans, it would result in each state essentially voting for two different candidates (candidates being nothing more than a representative amalgam of what we think they believe and how we feel about that) in the form of a single person. Talk about unrepresentative democracy. (Seriously, talk about it. I’ll wait.) Yet that’s exactly what happens at the primary level during each and every presidential election cycle.
The whole thing makes me mad enough to blog redundantly about it!
No, not like that. Yikes, get your minds out of the butt-butter gutter, would you? I’m talking about Ricky-boy’s fifth place finish in New Hampshire yesterday — just behind Newt Gingrich. (And believe me: nobody wants to be just behind Newt Gingrich, least of all Rick Santorum.)
It’s a tough, uhh, pill to swallow after a virtual first place tie in Iowa last week, and even tougher when you factor in how Romney, a Mormon, also earned 45 percent of the Catholic vote, while Santorum, a Catholic, earned a mere eight percent.
So there’s that.
There’s also this: a video of Santorum getting booed during a Q&A session in New Hampshire last week after a convoluted tête-à-tête about marriage rights:
His personal beliefs aside, I actually think Santorum conducts himself rather well during the affair, remaining reasonable and open to discussion despite the pointed nature of the questions. On top of which, his interrogator — who had already been munching on word salad up until that point — totally pussies out when Rick responds with the “totally wacky” counterexample of, (basically), “Hey, if two men should be allowed to marry, then why not three men, if being happy and not hurting anyone are the main criteria for marriage?” (Totally wacky, right??) Anyway, the reason I mention the video is not because, against all odds, Santorum isn’t wearing a sweater vest in it, but because it’s basically yet another long-winded example of his (and many other people’s) easily encapsulated view that marriage is an inviolable biblical construct between a man and a woman, end of story.
Or, to put it another, catchier way:
There are two major problems with this vaguely clever bon mot, however:
1) Most inviolable biblical constructs were violated long ago. Behold, a fantastic infographic from r/atheism Redditor and brilliant pseudonym selector, jesusonadinosaur:
Why don’t you ever hear anyone defending these thousand-year-old traditions! Rapists deserve a new toaster too, don’t they?
2) While I guarantee that I’m not the first person to bother pointing this out, it’s worth reiterating that, even if you only tote such rhyming signage as an approximate illustration (rather than a literal indication) of your interpretation of Genesis, by explicitly advertising such views vis-a-vis the first man and woman on earth, you are simultaneously implicitly supporting incest. Don’t look at me like that: it’s a simple fact that, if Adam and Eve really were the first and only people around at the time, then their children would have had to have a ton of hot brother-on-sister sex in order to populate the planet. But hey, I’m not here to judge. If you want to embrace incest over homosexuality, go right ahead. Hell, you’d certainly be in good company, since God himself obviously subscribes to the adage that, “If you can’t keep it in the pants, keep it in the family.” He could have avoided the whole debacle if he’d just kept breathing life into clay after creating Adam, but I guess he thought it was more important to take a day off instead. Remind you of any other powerful bodies…Congress???
I assume that you know what happens when you Google “Santorum” (though maybe your Google results are different from mine?) I further assume that you know who Rick Santorum is. You are savvy web 2.0 youths, after all, and you have fancy liberal arts degrees, and you are POLITICALLY ENGAGED, and on and on and on.
So I assume that you will appreciate the background image Rachel Maddow selected last night when she was discussing some more standard-issue Santorum idiocy. Because you are children at heart, the lot of you, and poop jokes never get old (especially when they are about Teh Ghey Sechs).