The Pragmatist in Politics

 http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Rachel-Maddow-and-Romney-via-MSNBC-screenshot.jpg

Mitt Romney lies a lot as a presidential candidate and he seems to be entirely okay in doing so.  The really scary part is the fact that few are rebutting his blatant misnomers.  I have to wonder, as he becomes the Republican Party’s national leader by default, is his ethical standard on lying going to set the standard?  

While watching a political commentator on television last night, I witnessed one more slip up by the governor that had me wondering how American voters can honestly get behind this man. 

Romney’s past position on energy issues as a governor has sharply contrasted with those he’s now taking as a presidential candidate.  For example, as governor, Mitt Romney rejected a proposal that Massachusetts get rid of or suspend the state gas tax as a way of bringing gas prices down, because it was “a bad idea to encourage people to us less gasoline.” 

Instead, he raised gas taxes initially as part of the fund to clean up underground gas tanks at gas stations (though he eventually got rid of the fund and just applied it to the general coffers).

All of that stuff is totally contrary, totally opposite of what he is attacking President Obama for on gas prices.   

“Is that a case of selective amnesia?” asked Rachel Maddow on her show on March 22^nd.  It’s true—does Mitt Romney not remember what he has done, or is he simply hoping to God that people won’t bring up his past views?

Above being a politician, Mitt Romney is a pragmatist.  He looks at his campaigns and figures out what he has to do to succeed in that environment.  To him, it doesn’t matter if he needs to lie or flip-flop on his views and policies—he’s going to do whatever it takes to win the election. 

In terms of rhetoric, this makes him a very weak competitor.  His ethos is not strong because he never grounds his arguments and beliefs in logos or pathos.  He chooses to move around evasively on the current issues, and lie to the pubic outright even if he gets caught. 

Seeing as Romney refuses to acknowledge his lies, saying “look, you know, I wrote this book “No Apology,” all my views are in there,” I can’t imagine that we will hear any of the ‘real Romney’ any time soon.  I just hope that his method of winning does not, in fact, become the standard.

X-Rated Rick

http://static.fjcdn.com/large/pictures/8c/2d/8c2d15_3462735.jpg

Oh Republican Party—you sure do give a girl a good laugh!  Rick Santorum recently reported that if elected, he intends to “go after pornography.”

Excuse me?  What does that mean?

Well, in the eyes of the senator, America is “suffering from a pandemic of harm from pornography,” and his administration would target porn distribution online, on cable, and in hotel rooms.  

Many people have been raising eyebrows at the issue that Santorum is perpetuating entirely by himself.  He isn’t just referring to obscenity laws or illegal material involving children, but he claimed outright that his purpose for cracking down on pornography is due to his personal belief that it is “damaging.”

It seems to me like Rick Santorum wants to abuse the powers of the executive branch to limit access to porn just because he thinks it’s bad for you (like contraception).  That right there is censorship.  He wants to eliminate the freedom of choice, and that is positively shocking and ungrounded.  The adult film industry is an industry like any other, and a legal adult should have the choice to decide what content they deem suitable for viewing.   

On a larger scale, the republican wants to ban abortion, contraception, non-reproductive, premarital and non-marital sex, and now dirty movies.  I think my favorite political commentator, Rachel Maddow, puts it best: “ . . . since Americans clearly have no appetite for adult content online or on television, this will no doubt help deliver millions of votes to the Santorum campaign.”

Certainly, throughout the campaign, his ethos is becoming weaker and weaker.  Rhetorically, Rick Santorum has not appealed to the American people through any reasonable (logos) means.  Instead, his publically known character (ethos) has almost become a point of ridicule in conversation.  We’re all talking about how absurd his desire to effectively confiscate the world’s supply of porn is! 

To reiterate last week’s point, how does Santorum intend to be taken seriously when his biggest concerns are so frivolous?  For that matter, he doesn’t appear to be a strong rhetorician or candidate in the political race, and these points of contention are not aiding him in the campaign trail. 

Feeling Ill, Rick? Do Explain.

I solemnly swear that this blog post will not be about Mitt Romney.  Though, I fully intend to devote this piece of writing exclusively to condoning one Mr. Rick Santorum.  I hope you’re excited to find out about what nauseates this presidential-hopeful!

To start from the beginning, you have to be aware of a speech that John F. Kennedy gave in 1960.  That year, Kennedy was running for office in hopes of becoming the nation’s first Roman Catholic president.  While it may seem inconsequential today, there were many fears at the time that JFK would be undermine his personal religious beliefs in his political work, should he win the election.

So during aforementioned speech, he proclaimed, "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."

The speech gained a lot of support from the public, and ultimately set a standard for religion, government, and politics from both political parties.  (What a rhetorician that JFK was! That’s some powerful stuff!)

But on February 27^th, 2012, Rick Santorum said during an interview that Kennedy’s 1960 speech made him want to “throw up.”

Before I go on any further, may I take a moment remark upon how utterly stupid a comment that was?  Santorum did not come off as a well-spoken, informed, or even intelligent politician (or man, for that matter).  His rhetoric was weak.

Santorum then went on the say that “ . . . people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?"

The man even called the speech an “absolutist doctrine.”

As I watched the interview proceed, I began to wonder if he really knew what he was talking about.  He urged viewers to read the speech—so I did.  I realized that Santorum’s argument was not only completely ridiculous, but he did not understand JFK’s words in the least.  Kennedy never said that religious people should not serve the public; rather, he restated the government’s neutrality concerning matters of faith.  (Smart political move.)

I mean, if Kennedy claimed that religious people should have no role in the public square, just how did he win the election two months later? 

It doesn’t take a lot to see that Santorum is an embarrassment to himself.  He should apologize for his ignorance and lack of propriety.  He can’t expect rhetoric like “throw up” to compete against others during the upcoming electoral season, can he?