Mitt Romney beats Rick Santorum in Michigan, among Catholics?

Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) is a very solid, very orthodox Roman Catholic; former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) is a shhhhh! Mormon. Yet, according to a Fox News exit poll, Mr Romney edged out Mr Santorum amongst Catholic voters in Michigan. Hat tip to Allahpundit.

The two Republican primaries today have both been called for Governor Romney, Arizona by a large margin, and more narrowly in Michigan.

Of the 10% who said that they were “Somewhat liberal,” Mr Santorum had the advantage, 33% to 24%, and with 27% for Ron Paul. And while Senator Santorum carred the 9% of the voters who self-identified as Democrats, 53% to 17% (and 17% for Dr Paul), the independents (31% of the voters) were evenly split, 33% to 33% to 22% for Dr Paul. But among the 60% who self-identified as Republicans, Mr Romney won handily, 47% to 37%. It seems as though the Conventional Wisdom™ might not be all that wise after all.

64 Comments

  1. William Teach says:
    February 29, 2012 at 08:41

    It makes me wonder if Catholics liked Mitt’s discourse on abortifacient mandate better than Santorum’s.”

    Probably not, among those who paid any attention.

    The conservatives among them may have calculated that Santorum has absolutely no real chance in a general election. They may have believed that while anyone is better than Obama, Santorum’s boyishness would not hold up well internationally as compared to Romney. Or they have been persuaded that his 18 percentage point loss of his senatorial incumbency didn’t bode too well for him matching up against Obama, who will garner all of the votes of the left-wing hand-wringing, lesbian liturgist, Jennifer Granholm following, economic-justice swilling, nominally Catholic crowd anyway.

  2. DNW, apparently you are unaware that approximately 98% of all women use contraception, abortifacient or not, so that Santorum’s pontifications did not get very deep. Nor do your insulting characterizations of those who would vote for an Obama second term get very far, because they are little more than babyish drollings, a byproduct of intense frustration and inner disturbances generated by the primary of your party, perpetrated by an odd cast of characters and their freakish behaviors.

  3. Wagonwheel says:
    February 29, 2012 at 11:06

    DNW, apparently you are unaware that approximately 98% of all women use contraception,

    This seems a rather strange assertion, as undoubtedly fewer than 98% of women are sexually active. And of those that are, not all – the lesbic liturgists and church-ladies to whom I referred, for example – would have any need for concern that their physical activities would lead to the unanticipated birth of a baby. (But you have given me a theme for John’s Truth before Dishonor site)

    Some of course, who use a particular contraceptive method may even use it for “medical reasons” having nothing direct to do with the prevention of offspring but rather for the regularizing or optimizing of biological processes. In any event I don’t know how your remark is directly responsive to anything I said, nor why you wished to attack me personally for what I had written regarding Santorum’s slight likelihood of appealing to the class of persons you imagine that you advert to.

    Nor do your insulting characterizations of those who would vote for an Obama second term get very far, because they are little more than babyish drollings, …”

    Babies may drool, but they are seldom particularly droll.

    ” a byproduct of intense frustration and inner disturbances generated by the primary of your party, perpetrated by an odd cast of characters and their freakish behaviors.”

    You sound upset. But then you sound that way much of the time. Perhaps if you lived in a completely termitic environment populated purely by life incompetents needing direction from above, and their would-be managers (like yourself) seated in authority over them, you would be happier. But if you did, I can’t imagine who would generate the material wealth which those life incompetents and their would-be managers would need in order to survive. Something like it was tried in the Soviet Union, and collapsed in part from it’s own weight and inefficiency.

    Maybe if you could drag everyone into the suffocating moral and psychological hell which you envision as paradisaical, and then seal off all means of escape, you could eventually breed a race of beings more content to live by your lights. If, nature didn’t kill it off first.

    Whatever the race would be though, it would not be man.

  4. “DNW, apparently you are unaware that approximately 98% of all women use contraception, (at some time in their lives, including Catholic women), abortifacient or not, so that Santorum’s pontifications did not get very deep. Nor do your insulting characterizations of those who would vote for an Obama second term get very far, because they are little more than babyish drollings droolings, a byproduct of intense frustration and inner disturbances generated by the primary of your party, perpetrated by an odd cast of characters and their freakish behaviors.”

    By your response, it is evident that your imagination and assumptions have taken you into a no mans’ land completely divorced from reality, as you Conservatives are wont to do.

    ” Or they have been persuaded that his [Santorum's] 18 percentage point loss of his senatorial incumbency didn’t bode too well for him matching up against Obama, who will garner all of the votes of the left-wing hand-wringing, lesbian liturgist, Jennifer Granholm following, economic-justice swilling, nominally Catholic crowd anyway.”

    With your rhetoric and assumptions, you have managed to demean the majority of American voters, DNW. But that’s what you are all about, so no surprises here!

  5. DNW wrote:

    Maybe if you could drag everyone into the suffocating moral and psychological hell which you envision as paradisaical, and then seal off all means of escape, you could eventually breed a race of beings more content to live by your lights.

    It has already been tried:

    The Communists quickly realized the truth that our socialist friends cannot face: any system which requires 100% cooperation is doomed to fail, without coercion. It does not matter how wonderful or persuasive or compelling they believe their arguments to be, it only takes one dissident, one person not persuaded, from a system which requires total compliance to destroy that system. Independent thought and free will are concepts which are anathema to the socialist — whether he is willing to face that fact or not — and must, if the socialists ever gain power, be crushed.

  6. Wagonwheel says:

    February 29, 2012 at 14:19

    “DNW, apparently you are unaware that approximately 98% of all women use contraception, (at some time in their lives, including Catholic women), abortifacient or not, so that Santorum’s pontifications did not get very deep. Nor do your insulting characterizations of those who would vote for an Obama second term get very far, because they are little more than babyish drollings droolings, a byproduct of intense frustration and inner disturbances generated by the primary of your party, perpetrated by an odd cast of characters and their freakish behaviors.”

    By your response…”

    That was of course not my response, Perry. That is a repetition of your specious and personally abusive original predicate, to which I had formulated my response.

    My response was in part contained in these lines,

    “This seems a rather strange assertion, as undoubtedly fewer than 98% of women are sexually active. And of those that are, not all – the lesbic liturgists and church-ladies to whom I referred, for example – would have any need for concern that their physical activities would lead to the unanticipated birth of a baby. ” and “In any event I don’t know how your remark is directly responsive to anything I said, nor why you wished to attack me personally for what I had written regarding Santorum’s slight likelihood of appealing to the class of persons you imagine that you advert to.” and “Perhaps if you lived in a completely termitic environment populated purely by life incompetents needing direction from above, and their would-be managers (like yourself) seated in authority over them, you would be happier.”

    Hope this helps.

  7. “Communists quickly realized the truth that our socialist friends cannot face: any system which requires 100% cooperation is doomed to fail, without coercion. It does not matter how wonderful or persuasive or compelling they believe their arguments to be, it only takes one dissident, one person not persuaded, from a system which requires total compliance to destroy that system …”

    As I have remarked before regarding my exchanges with American socialists: when asked why they could not simply set up a little Nirvana of like minded persons, sharing all, spreading risks equally, non-judgmentally picking up the costs incurred by their neighbors who wish to express problematical preferences and life choices, they rejoin … In order to work, socialism is an all society proposition.

    In other words, although you can live without them, they cannot function as they wish to, without harnessing you. Obamacare is one good example of the underlying thesis. Because anyone is liable (or vulnerable) to catching an airborne virus, so goes the modern liberal’s “logic”, you should be coerced into helping to underwrite the costs of treating the Iowa monkey-boy’s congenital aneurism when his self-abusive behaviors lead to complications.

    Maybe if it were less obnoxious, eh? But then the whole point of the modern liberal thrust is to break down your options of realizing your self-interest in order to that they may realize their own …

  8. DNW, apparently you are unaware that approximately 98% of all women use contraception, (at some time in their lives, including Catholic women), abortifacient or not…

    Of course I am aware that this particular meme has been circulating around Leftist mindsets as they are doing their best to subvert the First Amendment rights of religious-minded people. And of course I am also aware they have never produced any fact-based documentation for their claims. This new “at some time in their lives” gambit purportedly takes care of the rather high percentage of women who no longer have any use for contraception, in an effort to paint a much more mandate-friendly picture. Even so, I expect easily less than 75 percent of women age 18-22 have used contraception. I also expect less than 80 percent of women aged 75 and older have ever used contraception.

    Furthermore, there is little use for contraception among women aged 60 and older, due to biological reasons. So the percentage of women who would have use for contraception is far lower than the spun meme connotes. It’s all socialist politicking, and attacking religious freedoms the US Constitution guarantees. Nothing more, really.

  9. “Of course I am aware that this particular meme has been circulating around Leftist mindsets as they are doing their best to subvert the First Amendment rights of religious-minded people. And of course I am also aware they have never produced any fact-based documentation for their claims. ”

    Mosher WD and Jones J, Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 29.

  10. ““Of course I am aware that this particular meme has been circulating around Leftist mindsets as they are doing their best to subvert the First Amendment rights of religious-minded people. And of course I am also aware they have never produced any fact-based documentation for their claims. ”

    And, in fact, here’s the PDF

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf

    Page 5:
    —-
    Ever-use of Contraception

    Trends in contraceptive use shown in Table 1 are for women 15–44 years of age who had had intercourse at least once (referred to in the text as ‘‘sexually experienced’’). The percentages shown are the proportions of sexually experienced women who reported that they (or their male partners) have ever used each method of contraception at least once, at some time in their lives.

    Note that virtually all sexually experienced women have used some method of contraception: 98% in 1995 and 2002, and 99% in 2006–2008 (Figure 1). In 2006–2008, about 93% had ever had a partner use the male condom; 82% of women had used the oral contraceptive pill; and 59% had had a partner who used withdrawal. About 1 in 5 women had used the 3-month injectable or shot, Depo-Provera™ (22%) (Table 1).
    —–

    That’s from a 2010 CDC report, using data from the National Survey of Family Growth.

    So the CDC says “99% of women who have had sex have used contraception”.

    And John Hitchcock states : “And of course I am also aware they have never produced any fact-based documentation for their claims. “

  11. Perry’s original proposition,

    ” DNW, apparently you are unaware that approximately 98% of all women use contraception, abortifacient or not, so …”

    Perry’s subsequent and deceptive reworking of his proposition as he supposedly re-quotes himself,

    “Wagonwheel says:
    February 29, 2012 at 14:19

    “DNW, apparently you are unaware that approximately 98% of all women use contraception, (at some time in their lives, including Catholic women), abortifacient or not, so that Santorum’s pontifications did not get very deep. Nor do your insulting characterizations of those who would vote for an Obama second term get very far, because they are little more than babyish drollings droolings, a byproduct of intense frustration and inner disturbances generated by the primary of your party, perpetrated by an odd cast of characters and their freakish behaviors.”

    Anna Nova’s remarks are of course, irrelevant to rebutting the unsoundness of the original proposition mooted by Perry, and appear to be placed merely in order to troll John’s comments.

  12. Heavens to Murgatroyd! DNW, you practically laid it out for them chapter and verse, but their ideological blinders wouldn’t let them see beyond the tissue of obviously overreaching double talk and outright nonsense they’ve so uncritically embraced.

    Let the lose their souls, lawn mowers rank higher on the evolutionary scale.

  13. “Perry’s original proposition,

    ” DNW, apparently you are unaware that approximately 98% of all women use contraception, abortifacient or not, so …””

    Wagonwheel obviously meant “have used” rather than “are currently using” as he clarified. To state that you use modern dentistry, a mattress, or a flush toilet does not mean that you are necessarily CURRENTLY in a dentist’s chair, in bed, or perched on a toilet bowl.

    And the CDC confirms his statement.

  14. That’s not a personal attack, Anna Nova. It wouldn’t even be a personal attack if I said you couldn’t tell the difference between shit and shinola. It would however be an inaccurate statement.

    I do believe you’re capable of making such a distinction, but I’m far from convinced you’d actually own up to it if it conflicted with some ignorant leftist claptrap you were attempting to promote.

  15. Ms Anna Nova, you give them facts, but they prefer to make stuff up without documentation, just like their mentors on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Their utter weakness is apparent to everyone but themselves, so they are left with the usual personal attacks.

    And here is the prime example in this thread of made up stuff:

    “The Communists quickly realized the truth that our socialist friends cannot face: any system which requires 100% cooperation is doomed to fail, without coercion. It does not matter how wonderful or persuasive or compelling they believe their arguments to be, it only takes one dissident, one person not persuaded, from a system which requires total compliance to destroy that system. Independent thought and free will are concepts which are anathema to the socialist — whether he is willing to face that fact or not — and must, if the socialists ever gain power, be crushed.

    (Bold is mine).

    More extremist rhetoric, there is none. It is significant that our Editor was actually willing to write this hateful, threatening, and extremist rhetoric, indicating that to him this is not extreme. God help us all!

    This is the mindset of today’s extremist Americans.

  16. More extremist rhetoric, there is none. It is significant that our Editor was actually willing to write this hateful, threatening, and extremist rhetoric, indicating that to him this is not extreme. God help us all!

    This is the mindset of today’s extremist Americans.

    Oh, hogwash! First off, you don’t believe in Providence. Second off, what the Editor wrote was not at all “hateful, threatening,” or “extremist rhetoric.” Third off, you have continuously called Conservatism “extremist” without one iota of evidence of such; in fact, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

    November, 2010 ring a bell? Over 700 seats across the nation switched from Democrat to Republican in one of the greatest wave election years in US history. Two reasons for that massive wave: 1) The Obama-Reid-Pelosi triumvirate, and 2) the TEA Party.

    I have news for you, Wagonwheel, the vast majority of the US is clearly more Conservative than Delaware. Furthermore, the vast majority of Republican grass-roots and a majority of Independents view the Republican leadership to be to the Left of and out of touch with the Republican base; contrary to your own fact-free beliefs.

    Oh, and more news that you won’t like: 54 percent of Wisconsin voters disapprove of the attempt to recall GOVERNOR Scott Walker, and 52 percent of Wisconsin voters at least somewhat approve of GOVERNOR Scott Walker’s job as GOVERNOR, much to the dismay of radical Leftists the nation over.

  17. ropelight says: February 29, 2012 at 16:53

    “Let the lose their souls, lawn mowers rank higher on the evolutionary scale.”

    ropelight says: February 29, 2012 at 17:14

    “That’s not a personal attack, Anna Nova.”

    Mr Editor, please delete ropelight’s comment dated February 29, 2012 at 16:53 as a personal attack.

  18. WW originally wrote:

    DNW, apparently you are unaware that approximately 98% of all women use contraception, abortifacient or not, so that Santorum’s pontifications did not get very deep.

    WW then quotes himself:

    DNW, apparently you are unaware that approximately 98% of all women use contraception, (at some time in their lives, including Catholic women), abortifacient or not, so that Santorum’s pontifications did not get very deep.

    And Miss Nova noted that:

    Page 5:
    —-
    Ever-use of Contraception

    Trends in contraceptive use shown in Table 1 are for women 15–44 years of age who had had intercourse at least once (referred to in the text as ‘‘sexually experienced’’). The percentages shown are the proportions of sexually experienced women who reported that they (or their male partners) have ever used each method of contraception at least once, at some time in their lives.

    Note that virtually all sexually experienced women have used some method of contraception: 98% in 1995 and 2002, and 99% in 2006–2008 (Figure 1). In 2006–2008, about 93% had ever had a partner use the male condom; 82% of women had used the oral contraceptive pill; and 59% had had a partner who used withdrawal. About 1 in 5 women had used the 3-month injectable or shot, Depo-Provera™ (22%) (Table 1).

    I do not think it unreasonable to claim that 98% of women who have had voluntary sexual intercourse (and it should be noted that while the percentage of women who have had voluntary sexual intercourse at least once in their lives is very high, it is not 100%), have done so with artificial contraception being used at least once, which is the exact premise of the study Miss Nova cited. The notion that 98% use it currently is ridiculous, for reasons others have given.

    But one has to wonder: what has this to do with the thread at hand? According to the exit polls, which were linked in the original article, Mr Santorum drew his strength (38%) equally from male and female voters. The biggest difference in voting by sex was that men who voted for someone other than Mr Santorum gave a larger portion of their votes to Ron Paul (14%) than did women (9%), which resulted in Mr Romney doing better among women than men (43% to 39%).

    On George Washington’s birthday, Wagonwheel asserted:

    It could well be that we have hit upon an example that distinguishes Conservatives from Liberals. Rick Santorum is an excellent example of an absolutist currently in the public eye. For example, being a devout Roman Catholic, he several days ago called for the states to make contraception illegal, can you imagine that?

    He did no such thing, of course, which the editor pointed out to Wagonwheel:

    He did? Would you be kind enough to give us the exact quote, with a source citation, from Mr Santorum in which he called upon the states to make contraception illegal?

    This brings to mind another characteristic of absolutists/Conservatives, which is they tend to be dictatorial/doctrinal, thinking that we all must accept their absolutes. This then reveals itself by their desire for government to translate their absolutes into law, yes, these so-called advocates of small government, except for when they need big government to act upon their absolutes.

    This paragraph seems to be prefaced on the previous one, in which you claimed that former Senator Santorum “called for the states to make contraception illegal.” So, if it turns out that Mr Santorum made no such statement, then your subsequent paragraph would be wrong as well, right?

    Now, he has said that Griswold v Connecticut was wrongly decided, and that the states — note: the states, not the federal government, and he’s not running for a state office — should have the legal authority to ban artificial contraception. But saying that a state should have that legal authority is not the same thing as “called for the states to make contraception illegal.”

    Mr Wheel made no further attempts in that thread on the subject, so the editor assumes he realized his original statement was disproved.

    Former Senator Santorum did make a huge error with his “made me want to throw up” comment concerning President Kennedy’s speech in which he said that, as President, he wouldn’t be taking orders from the Pope. Mr Santorum, if you read the thing all the way through, was making the very valid point that religion and government cannot be completely separated: our culture is inextricably intertwined with Christianity, and the elected officials who take our governing decisions cannot simply excise the religious portions of their beings, but take their decisions based on the totality of their education, culture and experience, and that normally includes religion. Unfortunately, all that most people read and heard was the “made me want to throw up” blurb, which Democrats and other weaker minded individuals might see as Mr Santorum saying he would take his orders from the Pope. That, of course, is certainly how the Democrats will spin it.

  19. “I do not think it unreasonable to claim that 98% of women who have had voluntary sexual intercourse (and it should be noted that while the percentage of women who have had voluntary sexual intercourse at least once in their lives is very high, it is not 100%), have done so with artificial contraception being used at least once, which is the exact premise of the study Miss Nova cited. The notion that 98% use it currently is ridiculous, for reasons others have given.”

    Except, of course, that this ridiculous notion arises from DMW, not Wagonwheel. Wagonwheel himself states something along the lines of “98% of women use contraception” which may be interpreted as “have used” as easily as “are currently using” contraception. Cf my examples – you would have no problem claiming you use modern dentistry, even when you’re not in the dentists chair right at this moment.

    Assuming the 2006-2008 figures still hold (as is reasonable), 62% of sexually experienced (i.e. non-virgin) women between 15-44 (i.e. in danger of getting pregnant) are currently using contraception (i.e. have used one or more methods within the last month).

    But here’s the relevant bit – the Republican Party has, up to now, been the anti-abortion party. With the clown show of current candidates competing against each other to appeal to the extreme right, they are now the anti-contraception party – meaning the anti-sex party. They cannot claim to be concerned with “unborn babies”; the feminists who claimed they were against all unsanctioned sexual activity have been proved right.

    Not only do they look increasingly ridiculous, sex is also pretty popular. Running around screaming that any woman having sex is a slut who deserves to get pregnant is unlikely to help them at the general election, despite it appealing to the right-wing Republican base necessary to be nominated.

    And, by the way, Mr Editor, please delete ropelight’s comment dated February 29, 2012 at 16:53 as a personal attack.

  20. With the clown show of current candidates competing against each other to appeal to the extreme right, they are now the anti-contraception party – meaning the anti-sex party. They cannot claim to be concerned with “unborn babies”; the feminists who claimed they were against all unsanctioned sexual activity have been proved right.

    This is nonsense, of course. First, the main GOP candidate “concerned” with contraception is Santorum. But he is only personally opposed to contraception … he would not ban it if elected (not that he’d have that power anyway):

    “I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions.’’

    The former Pennsylvania senator recently told ABC’s Jake Tapper that, yes, he disagrees with Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision that struck down a ban on contraception.

    He said Friday evening that it’s the idea that states don’t have a right to pass such a law that he opposes, because he does not see the right to privacy as a constitutional right envisioned by its signers. This is hardly a new argument.

    “It could have been a law against buying shoestrings; that it was contraception has nothing to do with it. States have the right to pass even dumb laws.”

    To be clear, he does think that laws banning birth control would be dumb “for a number of reasons. Birth control should be legal in the United States. The states should not ban it, and I would oppose any effort to ban it.’’

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/02/16/chris-matthews-falsely-claims-santorum-said-hed-be-fine-states-outlaw

    It’s been — surprise! — the media that has zeroed in on this nonsense, not the candidates. Wonder why George Stephanopoulis asked so many questions about contraception prior to Obama’s announcement regarding the no exemption for religious employers? Right — it ain’t that hard to figure out.

  21. “This is nonsense, of course.”

    http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-gops-problem-with-sex-could-cost-them-in-november/?singlepage=true

    —-
    The social conservatives in the Republican Party have a problem with sex and it is going to cost the party dearly in November.

    I don’t mean they have a problem with contraception, although many do (conservative men, anyway). Nor am I saying that opposition to pornography is politically problematic, or the criticism of using sex in marketing will lose them votes, or denouncing the prevalence of sex and sexual imagery in music, TV, film, and art is necessarily wrong.

    All of the above are used by social conservatives to mask the real problem: their outdated, even primitive, critique of human sexuality that denies both the science and the cultural importance of sex and the sex act. Their main target appears to be women, and women’s sex lives, although the act of love itself is also to be placed in a strait jacket. No doubt the right will argue that their criticisms are only meant to help women, and nurture “healthy” attitudes toward sex. Nonsense. First of all, women don’t need that kind of help. They are capable of making their own choices without a bunch of ignorant busybodies telling them how to govern the most intimate and personal aspects of their lives.
    —-
    That’s an awful lot of voters to offend by hinting, as Rick Santorum did, that states should have the right to ban contraceptives. Or that oral contraceptives are more dangerous or harmful than most other drugs on the market. Trying to attach a stigmata to women who use birth control pills — implying that being sexually active is the same as acting licentiously — may fulfill some atavistic desire to apply an outdated code of conduct to women, but it is hardly good politics.

    This is not a safety issue, or even a women’s health issue. The issue is sex and the evolving cultural mandate that women should be able to enjoy the sex act as much as men without the fear of pregnancy. This is the real beef that the social conservatives have with the pill. It has revolutionized bedrooms in the U.S., while setting off a a massive change in the mores and morals of men and women.
    —-

    The author, btw, is a right-wing columnist.

  22. The lovely Miss Nova wrote:

    “I do not think it unreasonable to claim that 98% of women who have had voluntary sexual intercourse (and it should be noted that while the percentage of women who have had voluntary sexual intercourse at least once in their lives is very high, it is not 100%), have done so with artificial contraception being used at least once, which is the exact premise of the study Miss Nova cited. The notion that 98% use it currently is ridiculous, for reasons others have given.”

    Except, of course, that this ridiculous notion arises from DMW, not Wagonwheel. Wagonwheel himself states something along the lines of “98% of women use contraception” which may be interpreted as “have used” as easily as “are currently using” contraception. Cf my examples – you would have no problem claiming you use modern dentistry, even when you’re not in the dentists chair right at this moment.

    No, the ridiculous notion arises from Wagonwheel having stated, directly, “DNW, apparently you are unaware that approximately 98% of all women use contraception,” a declarative sentence in the present tense. For someone who hews so closely to the dictionary definitions of words — and here I refer back to your slamming of Mr Hitchcock for the use of the term “hyper-inflation” — it seems somewhat unusual that you would take a sentence, clearly written in the present tense, and tell us that it also includes the past tense, including cases in which past usage has not extended into the present tense.

    A woman who is using (present tense) oral contraceptives has also used it in the past, given that it is a medication which performs a continuing function. However, a woman who has used oral contraceptives in the past, and has ceased taking them (meaning: beyond the seven-day cycle in which either pills are not used at all, or only placebos are used from the package, to maintain the daily regimen)), and who has started with no other form of contraceptive, has used contraceptives, past tense, but is not using, present tense, contraceptives.

    So, which shall it be? Are your arguments going to be based upon precision in language, as they have been so often in the past, or are they going to be expansive and forgiving of imprecision, as was most recently the case?

    But here’s the relevant bit – the Republican Party has, up to now, been the anti-abortion party. With the clown show of current candidates competing against each other to appeal to the extreme right, they are now the anti-contraception party – meaning the anti-sex party. They cannot claim to be concerned with “unborn babies”; the feminists who claimed they were against all unsanctioned sexual activity have been proved right.

    For the accusations that the candidates now make up “the anti-contraception party” one would have to demonstrate for us, with appropriate references, where the candidates, any of the candidates, have said, “I believe that contraception should be illegal, and if I become President, I will push to have contraceptives banned,” or something to that effect. Former Governor Romney hasn’t said that, former Representative Gingrich hasn’t said that, and even former Senator Santorum, who publicly stated that he does not believe artificial contraception is moral, noting that he is Catholic, but also stated, as referenced in Koolo’s comment above, that while he did not believe Griswold v Connecticut was properly decided, he “would oppose any effort to ban it.”

    Further, I will point out here that Mr Santorum’s statement was that Griswold was wrongly decided included a statement that he believes the states have the authority to ban artificial contraception, he is not running for a state office, but a federal one.

    The Democrats are pushing the idiotic meme, as you have just helped them to do, though we suspect you aren’t an American Democrat, but possibly a foreigner from somewhere in the general area of the South Pacific, is that the Republicans somehow oppose sex. Given that so many of them have been caught in sex scandals — former Representative Gingrich would be a good example — it would hardly seem that conservatives are opposed to sex. Nor would it be reasonable to think that they would want their extracurricular inamoratae to be getting pregnant all the time; we leave that to Democrats like former Senator John Edwards. Perhaps you have been reading too many of the propagandistic writings of Amanda Marcotte? As for Senator Santorum himself, he may be opposed to the use of artificial contraception, as he has said, but it hardly seems as though he would be opposed to sex: his wife and he have had eight children. His wife is now 51 or 52 years old, so further children for the Santorums are improbable, even if they still copulate like bunnies.

  23. Both Drudge and FOX NEWS are reporting that Andrew Breitbart died of natural causes at age 43. He leaves a wife and 4 young children. RIP.

  24. Just reported on FOX NEWS: Breitbart was taking a walk around midnight last night and collapsed. He had a history of heart problems.

  25. Editor says:
    February 29, 2012 at 20:21

    W

    W originally wrote:

    DNW, apparently you are unaware that approximately 98% of all women use contraception, abortifacient or not, so that Santorum’s pontifications did not get very deep.

    WW then quotes himself:

    DNW, apparently you are unaware that approximately 98% of all women use contraception, (at some time in their lives, including Catholic women), abortifacient or not, so that Santorum’s pontifications did not get very deep.

    And Miss Nova noted that: …”

    I read through the Rick Moran piece that Miss Nova linked to. Rick Moran is, Miss Nova informs us, a “right-wing” columnist; for whatever worth or value we are supposed to assign to either Miss Nova’s or for that matter, Rick Moran’s own description.

    Now, I won’t immediately say what I thought of the quality of Rick Moran’s “reasoning”.

    But I did think that another sample of his work might be in order so as to judge from a broader perspective the out-put of this “right-wing” columnist.

    So, I glanced at another of his articles, “The Death of Pragmatism”, and still somewhat mystified, looked at some comments.

    A sampling of them follows in near series:

    “Rick directly and in a very big way contradicts himself … This piece is a heartfelt and passionate plea … It is also a mindless logical fallacy.”

    another observed,

    “The author is so anxious to be “fair” that he misses the point; the left, liberals is his term though mine is progressives, have little or no use for a free citizenry preferring instead a ruling elite and a dependent lower class both supported by the labors of an obeisant middle class.”

    yet another commented regarding Rick’s default assumption,

    “Bingo! pragmatism is code word for accepting every Left-wing program an bureaucracy and regulation ever enacted into law and any figure such enactments.”

    and another evaluated Rick’s philosophy of politics and his values as expressed in the piece, in this manner

    “Rick would have made a great “practical” European politician. In Greece.”

    Re, Rick Moran and his credentials:

    “About Me”

    RIGHTWING NUTHOUSE is administered by Rick Moran, a 52 year old libertine from Algonquin, IL. …

    A freelance writer with more than 15 years experience in grass roots political action, Moran has worked for a number of business trade associations running programs that teach local businessmen how to become active in the political process. …

    Moran grew up in Mount Prospect, IL and attended Drake University where he graduated in 1976 with a Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree. He has 9 brothers and sisters, all of whom are much more liberal than he is …

    Moran lives with the love of his life Zsu Zsu as well as three cats, …”

  26. So, which shall it be? Are your arguments going to be based upon precision in language, as they have been so often in the past, or are they going to be expansive and forgiving of imprecision, as was most recently the case?

    That depends on whether he’s attacking Conservatives, as has been so often the case in the past, or if he’s defending a fellow Socialist, as was most recently the case.

    Remember what Eric Blair (the college professor, PhD) so aptly said so many times at Patterico’s Pontifications:

    That’s different.

  27. So, is Anna Nova an impostor? Is the handle just a mask for a particular slimy turd that was already flushed, or is she a legitimate commenter?

    I’m asking because I don’t know for sure, although I can read between the lines, and I do remember indirect hints and insinuations from various past threads.

    It seems that individuals here who are in a much better place than me have their suspicions, suspicions which are increasingly finding voice. Perhaps it’s time to bring the issue out in the open. It’s the adult thing to do.

    If Nova’s legit, it deserves to be out from under a cloud. If not, it should be unmasked and exposed for what it is. Perhaps someone who comments here regularly knows the truth but hasn’t yet been willing to reveal it.

  28. To the Editor,

    Despite the logical incoherence of Rick Moran’s argument, and despite his implicit acceptance of one of the prime premises of modern liberalism, i.e., the rejection of the notion of moral hazard through the imposition of a regime of collective responsibility, enforced affirmation, and politically imposed cost shifting, he does outline a significant area of contention.

    Moran, arguing within his assumed context of established cost shifting, collective identity, distributed responsibility, and an evolutionarily (via technology) redefined anthropology and human identity, thinks he is making a reasonable point.

    Because, insofar as we are all assumed or mandated to be committed to unconditionally sharing one another’s temporal fate; insofar as the definition of our humanity is to be assumed as constantly changing under the impact of technology; insofar as increasing the pleasure of some [who cannot per the progressives' stipulations be marginalized, ignored, or their costs rejected or distanced] is assumed to increase overall social satisfactions in a utilitarian managerial regime sense; then, it all resolves down to a matter of socially enforcing an individual’s mandatory validation of other’s experiences of sex and pleasure; and not to a mere matter of contracepting, or of any traditional notions of control over women.

    Not only is nay-saying disallowed, but so are declined invitations to underwrite.

    Under the redefinition of responsibility, it is not really about the question of “punishing sluts” with pregnancy. It can’t be, since per our assumed collective responsibility concept, exposing someone to the negative economic consequences of their own actions is disallowed. But rather it becomes a matter of decreeing that all must also be psychologically accepting of the economic costs derived from socially validating others’ sexual behaviors as part of a program of human solidarity.

    How dare, for instance, you try and accrue an economic advantage for, or additional comfort for, yourself, or an advantage for your own offspring, by means of a puritanical shrugging at the joys of others, and distancing yourself from their incurred costs.

    Moran well illustrates that for the progressive, sexual values and activity have a highly developed ideological status as a cultural and social practice which shapes the nature of economic relations between between individuals, redefines norms of interpersonal obligation and boundaries, and establishes the “pleasurable”, and ultimately, probably, the ecstatic-of-the-crowd, as the definition of the “good”.

    Remember: This is an all society proposition …

  29. So, is Anna Nova an impostor? Is the handle just a mask for a particular slimy turd that was already flushed, or is she a legitimate commenter?

    Please stipulate that when you say a particular someone is a “slimy turd”, that its not meant to be a direct insult of commenter Miss Anna Nova; but is merely your description of the morals of some third party who is not at present known to be visiting this site.

    That said, I will take a “guess” which, if it provokes an admission, might place you in unknowing violation of the Editor’s commentary policy.

    Thus :

    1. Anna Nova, is Phoenician-in-a-time-of-Romans, the overweight cat fancying New Zealand librarian who had all those physical problems with his decaying posterior. He’s back now posing as a female, since the Editor banned him from this site under his old identity; despite Perry’s repeated complaints.

    We pretend not to know who he is, so as not to embarrass him with evidence of his emotional neediness and moral depravity.

    2. The alternative is that there is somewhere in the world a psychologically near-identical commenter to Phoenician, but of the female sex. One which uses the same Googling technique in order to try to annoy through contradiction, and who has by mere chance, somehow fastened upon this site for her activities. No insult intended.

    Yeah, that’s possible …

  30. “So, is Anna Nova an impostor? Is the handle just a mask for a particular slimy turd that was already flushed, or is she a legitimate commenter?”

    It is amazing to me that most Conservatives on this blog are more interested in making personal attacks on those with whom they disagree, rather than debating the issues of the day. The aforementioned, by both ropelight and DNW, constitute a clear example of this inherent nastiness, which is a demonstration of their weakness. Of course she is a legitimate commenter, and a civil one as well.

  31. ropelight asked:

    If Nova’s legit, it deserves to be out from under a cloud. If not, it should be unmasked and exposed for what it is. Perhaps someone who comments here regularly knows the truth but hasn’t yet been willing to reveal it.

    The e-mail and IP addresses used by Miss Nova do not match those of a certain librarian from New Zealand. That said, the origin of Miss Nova’s comments is clearly from overseas. Miss Nova’s argument form seems rather similar to that of the Phoenician, but whether she is or is not an alter-ego of the Phoenician is not known with certainty, and she has, though with a certainly acidic tongue, stayed within the boundaries of the Comment and Conduct Policy.

  32. I’ve figured Anna Nova as Pho for some time. She uses the same trolling ploys as Pho and writes like Pho. For example, she notates (i), (ii), (iii), just like Pho. Has the tendency to ask an opponents post “be deleted” by the Editor. And has a need to disparage the United States where she can. All Pho-like tendencies.

    Now a while back the Editor stated he had no reason to believe Nova was the Kiwi. IOW, the Kiwi came in under the radar, lied and defrauded the Editor, used another IP address to gain access and troll the new blog. Insidious? Yes. Clever? Yes too.

    But if it talks like a Kiwi, and walks like a Kiwi…….

  33. DNW wrote:

    Anna Nova, is Phoenician-in-a-time-of-Romans, the overweight cat fancying New Zealand librarian who had all those physical problems with his decaying posterior. He’s back now posing as a female, since the Editor banned him from this site under his old identity; despite Perry’s repeated complaints.

    The Editor has not banned the Phoenician. His IP addresses are not in the automatic spam queue, nor is his screen name, nor is his email address.

  34. Editor says:

    March 1, 2012 at 15:51

    DNW wrote:

    Anna Nova, is Phoenician-in-a-time-of-Romans, the overweight cat fancying New Zealand librarian who had all those physical problems with his decaying posterior. He’s back now posing as a female, since the Editor banned him from this site under his old identity; despite Perry’s repeated complaints.

    The Editor has not banned the Phoenician. His IP addresses are not in the automatic spam queue, nor is his screen name, nor is his email address.”

    Thank you for the correction. After reading Perry’s many comments on the matter, I began to speak as if you had.

    It now occurs to me that you have made this point before.

  35. DNW, my comment, the one in question, begins as an effort to distinguish between slimy turds posing as legitimate commenters and actual legitimate commenters who may suffer unjustly from unwarranted assumptions, hints, and indications misidentifying them as the particular slimy turd in question.

    Now, you may say that I attempt a distinction which fails to admit a difference. And, I may say that I’m not fully in disagreement. So, therefore, without trying to put too fine a point on that underlying, interesting, but tangential, issue, I’ll thank you for your informative thoughts and move now to address Perry’s contradictory assertion.

    Perry, you say that Anna Nova is a legitimate commenter. Do you know that for a fact: that Anna Nova isn’t another handle for the Phoenician? Or are you being less than forthright?

  36. And now, of course, Hoagie joins the chorus:

    “IOW, the Kiwi came in under the radar, lied and defrauded the Editor, used another IP address to gain access and troll the new blog. Insidious? Yes. Clever? Yes too.”

    I think our Editor has taken a more mature position:

    “…, but whether she is or is not an alter-ego of the Phoenician is not known with certainty, and she has, though with a certainly acidic tongue, stayed within the boundaries of the Comment and Conduct Policy.”

    That’s one hell of a lot better than the rest of us regulars on this blog!

    I guess anyone of us who disagrees with a Conservative on here earns the characterization of having an “acidic tongue”!

  37. Perry, you say that Anna Nova is a legitimate commenter. Do you know that for a fact: that Anna Nova isn’t another handle for the Phoenician? Or are you being less than forthright?”

    I have no idea, ropelight! Whoever this person is, I welcome having some help in combating some of the outrageous comments which come out of some of you Conservatives. And I will note, Ms Anna Nova focuses on facts, and avoids the personal attacks, which is exemplary. You folks ought to use her approach as a model for good debate practices.

  38. I have no way of demonstrating with apodictic certitude that Phoenician in a Time of Romans, the New Zealand librarian and cat fancier, is masquerading as one Miss Nova.

    And if Miss Nova wishes to clarify the matter, then we may conclude that we have an answer as to the obvious similarities of style and coincidences of appearance, if not the answer.

    One may recall however, and with some amusement, that during his time on CSPT, Phoenician in a Time of Romans rather enjoyed being taken for a female, as Perry for a very long while insisted he was.

  39. Perry, it’s time to man-up. You vouched for Anna Nova in your comment at 15:48. These are your words:

    Of course she is a legitimate commenter, and a civil one as well.

    Now, when asked directly, suddenly you aren’t so sure anymore. Again, here are your own words at 16:08:

    I have no idea, ropelight!

    Perry, you can do better than that, try again. Assume you’re under oath and you’re required to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

    Now, let’s have it, the straight unvarnished truth.

  40. Wagonwheel says:
    March 1, 2012 at 16:03

    And now, of course, Hoagie joins the chorus:

    “IOW, the Kiwi came in under the radar, lied and defrauded the Editor, used another IP address to gain access and troll the new blog. Insidious? Yes. Clever? Yes too.”

    I think our Editor has taken a more mature position:

    “…, but whether she is or is not an alter-ego of the Phoenician is not known with certainty, and she has, though with a certainly acidic tongue, stayed within the boundaries of the Comment and Conduct Policy.”

    That’s one hell of a lot better than the rest of us regulars on this blog!

    I guess anyone of us who disagrees with a Conservative on here earns the characterization of having an “acidic tongue”!”

    On the contrary Perry. If asked, I would describe you as base, rather than acid; and your tongue as alkaline

  41. “A woman who is using (present tense) oral contraceptives has also used it in the past, given that it is a medication which performs a continuing function. However, a woman who has used oral contraceptives in the past, and has ceased taking them (meaning: beyond the seven-day cycle in which either pills are not used at all, or only placebos are used from the package, to maintain the daily regimen)), and who has started with no other form of contraceptive, has used contraceptives, past tense, but is not using, present tense, contraceptives. ”

    You better go back and read Wagonwheel’s comment again. He did not say “women have used”, but he equally did not say “women are using”. The word “using” was bought up by you.

    I feel “98% of women use contraceptives” is ambiguous enough to cover “98% of women have used contraceptives”. Either way, we seem to have established three facts:

    1), On the order of 98 or 99% of (sexually experienced) women have used contraceptives.

    2), On the order of 62% of (sexually experienced, aged 15-44) women are using contraceptives.

    3), When John Hitchcock stated “they have never produced any fact-based documentation for their claims”, he was making a false statement. The evidence was easily available, a study from an authoritative scientific source based on a robust survey.

    “For the accusations that the candidates now make up “the anti-contraception party” one would have to demonstrate for us, with appropriate references, where the candidates, any of the candidates, have said, “I believe that contraception should be illegal, and if I become President, I will push to have contraceptives banned,” or something to that effect. ”

    Really? Most Republicans are happy to be called “anti-abortion”, and yet few go on record saying “when elected I will make abortion illegal”. The fact is that this debacle is making the Republicans the “anti-contraception” and “anti-sex” party in people’s views, which makes them look ridiculous.

    But if you want to go around during the primary season and correct everybody who calls Republicans “anti-contraception” by stating “No, they don’t want to make contraception actually illegal, they just want to make it harder to get for women in general and unaffordable to get for poorer women”, you go right ahead. I’m sure that will work out well for you.

    “The Democrats are pushing the idiotic meme, as you have just helped them to do, ”

    Rick Moran isn’t a Democrat. The Democrats may be enjoying pointing out the smell of the smoke, but that doesn’t mean there is no fire.

  42. “And now, of course, Hoagie joins the chorus:”

    What’s that supposed to mean? I only pointed out the obvious. And I gave the reasons with my observations. If you fail to connect the dots, perhaps that’s more of a reflection of your inability to connect life’s dots as a liberal. If you think it’s okay for someone to troll under the radar and use false alias’, so be it. But he’s only fooling you, not me. Course, so’d Obama!

  43. Mr Editor, your Comments Policy reads

    —-
    While I always support the free expression of ideas, constant name-calling, personal attacks or attempts to expose individuals who prefer to post or comment anonymously will receive the same treatment they’d get were someone to submit such as a Letter to the Editor in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL or The New York Times. Repeat violators will simply have all of their comments deleted.
    —-

    Do you intend to actually systematically enforce this or do you intend to just add more evidence to the criticism by progressives that right-wingers tend to be hypocrites?

  44. Anna Nova, please read the comments beginning at 13:56 today and running to 16:30. We have been attempting to determine if you are the individual previously know as the Phoenician, or various forms of that indicator.

    Would you clarify that issue?

  45. Miss Nova wrote:

    “A woman who is using (present tense) oral contraceptives has also used it in the past, given that it is a medication which performs a continuing function. However, a woman who has used oral contraceptives in the past, and has ceased taking them (meaning: beyond the seven-day cycle in which either pills are not used at all, or only placebos are used from the package, to maintain the daily regimen)), and who has started with no other form of contraceptive, has used contraceptives, past tense, but is not using, present tense, contraceptives. ”

    You better go back and read Wagonwheel’s comment again. He did not say “women have used”, but he equally did not say “women are using”. The word “using” was bought up by you.

    I feel “98% of women use contraceptives” is ambiguous enough to cover “98% of women have used contraceptives”.

    The statement, “98% of women use contraceptives,” is hardly ambiguous. It is a statement, in the present tense, that 98% of women use contraceptives. It makes no exceptions for women who are not sexually active, it makes no exceptions for women who are incapable of becoming pregnant due to age or various medical conditions, and it makes no exceptions for women who are sexually active, but only with other women. Nor would you normally be as charitable toward anyone else who made a statement which, properly examined, was inaccurate.

    Now, we certainly do know what Wagonwheel meant to say, that 98% of American women have used artificial contraception at some point, but what he meant to say wasn’t what he said. Or is precision in language something on which you hold conservatives and liberals to different standards?

    “For the accusations that the candidates now make up “the anti-contraception party” one would have to demonstrate for us, with appropriate references, where the candidates, any of the candidates, have said, “I believe that contraception should be illegal, and if I become President, I will push to have contraceptives banned,” or something to that effect. ”

    Really? Most Republicans are happy to be called “anti-abortion”, and yet few go on record saying “when elected I will make abortion illegal”. The fact is that this debacle is making the Republicans the “anti-contraception” and “anti-sex” party in people’s views, which makes them look ridiculous.

    Ahhh, now you get to the point, which I have boldfaced: the Democrats and others of our friends on the left recognize that the Republicans are not somehow the “anti-contraception” and “anti-sex” party, but you (plural) are perfectly willing to push the notion that they are to cost the Republicans votes. More specifically, you have admitted that the liberals are willing to push something that they know to be a lie, in order to win votes. Conservatives knew this all along, of course, but it was nice to see you admit it.

    But if you want to go around during the primary season and correct everybody who calls Republicans “anti-contraception” by stating “No, they don’t want to make contraception actually illegal, they just want to make it harder to get for women in general and unaffordable to get for poorer women”, you go right ahead. I’m sure that will work out well for you.

    How, one wonders, does stating that organizations which have a moral objection to contraception and should not be required to violate their consciences translate into making contraception harder to get? Planned Parenthood provides most forms of contraception at greatly reduced costs, and county health departments normally do the same. Contraceptives are widely available, and there are no plans or programs or proposals to change that.

    Indeed, the logic being employed by you here is that if someone else doesn’t pay for something for people, that someone else has made it harder to obtain in general and unaffordable for the poor. If we apply that logic to, say, food, if we say that no, we don’t think that employers should have to buy food for their employees, then, by your definitions, we are advocating making food harder to get, and unobtainable by the poor. Perhaps next you will claim that if an employer does not provide you with clothing, he must favor you walking around naked?

    What employers actually do, and what they are required by law to do, is to pay their employees with money, with legal tender — though they are allowed to pay in the form of a check or direct deposit to bank accounts; I don’t wish to be so imprecise that you believe I have stated that people must be paid in cash — with which the employees may purchase any legal goods or services they wish, absent interference by the employer, as long as they have sufficient funds to purchase a given product. A Catholic Church must pay its employees, and has no right after the employee has been paid to prohibit the employee from buying contraceptives. Those are private decisions taken by the employee, and nobody else’s business.

  46. Miss Nova wrote:

    Mr Editor, your Comments Policy reads

    —-
    While I always support the free expression of ideas, constant name-calling, personal attacks or attempts to expose individuals who prefer to post or comment anonymously will receive the same treatment they’d get were someone to submit such as a Letter to the Editor in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL or The New York Times. Repeat violators will simply have all of their comments deleted.
    —-

    Do you intend to actually systematically enforce this or do you intend to just add more evidence to the criticism by progressives that right-wingers tend to be hypocrites?

    The point, “attempts to expose individuals who prefer to post or comment anonymously,” was written specifically in regard to attempts by some commenters to identify publicly other commenters by their real names. “Phoenician in a time of Romans” is very obviously a pseudonym, an anonymous handle itself; I fail to see how asking one commenter using a pseudonym if he previously used another pseudonym constitutes “expos(ing) individuals who prefer to post or comment anonymously.”

    That said, it does strike me as somewhat silly for people to wonder if you are the commenter formerly styling himself as the Phoenician.

  47. “That said, it does strike me as somewhat silly for people to wonder if you are the commenter formerly styling himself as the Phoenician.”

    Any sillier than his hiding it?

    Or did you mean that to even wonder if there is any doubt, is somewhat silly? LOL

  48. “Ahhh, now you get to the point, which I have boldfaced: the Democrats and others of our friends on the left recognize that the Republicans are not somehow the “anti-contraception” and “anti-sex” party, ”

    I’m sorry, but this is a false statement. We can see that the Republicans are the “anti-contraception” and “anti-sex” party – and you quibbling that they aren’t pushing to make contraception or sex illegal yet doesn’t alter that realisation.

    “How, one wonders, does stating that organizations which have a moral objection to contraception and should not be required to violate their consciences translate into making contraception harder to get? ”

    Strangely enough, various states have had similar laws for a decade or more, and no-one has registered “religious objections” to them yet. That seems to make your claim that this is all about moral conscience difficult to swallow – as do various voices on the right talking about co-eds being “sluts” and “paying for their sex”.

    “Indeed, the logic being employed by you here is that if someone else doesn’t pay for something for people, that someone else has made it harder to obtain in general and unaffordable for the poor. If we apply that logic to, say, food, if we say that no, we don’t think that employers should have to buy food for their employees, then, by your definitions, we are advocating making food harder to get, and unobtainable by the poor.”

    Access to a health insurance pool is part of employee compensation. If we apply your logic to food, we’d have employers trying to forbid people being sold bacon by supermarkets with their paychecks.

    Employers don’t “subsidize” employee health care. Employees work and are compensated by their employers with salary and participation in a health insurance pool. Employers have no more right to object to the provision of services from that pool than they do to object to employees spending their own money on contraception. The notion that employers have a “religious conscience” basis to refuse to compensate employees in a certain way is nonsense.

  49. DNW, when I initially asked the question (at 13:56) it was a forthright inquiry. True, I had my suspicions, but I hadn’t reached a conclusion.

    However, over the course of this afternoon and early evening those suspicions have reached critical mass. The unwillingness of both Perry and Anna Nova to come clean speak for themselves.

    As it stands now, I have little reason to doubt that Anna Nova is the [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor] previously responsible for polluting CSPT. The clincher was his viciously inhumane post on Andrew Breitbart’s untimely death. It revealed Phoney’s perverted nature and corrupted mentality. The stench was unmistakable.

    Additionally, I suspect Perry is fully aware of the facts behind the commenter known as Anna Nova and is pretending ignorance and avoiding direct inquiry in order to [Characterization deleted; please refer to Comments & Conduct Policy. -- Editor].

  50. Mr Editor, please remove ropelight’s post dated March 1, 2012 at 20:05 as a personal attack.

    I believe you suspended Wagonwheel for 2 weeks for repeated personal attacks. Do you intend to apply this policy even-handedly, or does this blog operate on different sets of rules depending on the political bias of the offender?

  51. Miss Nova wrote:

    “Ahhh, now you get to the point, which I have boldfaced: the Democrats and others of our friends on the left recognize that the Republicans are not somehow the “anti-contraception” and “anti-sex” party, ”

    I’m sorry, but this is a false statement. We can see that the Republicans are the “anti-contraception” and “anti-sex” party – and you quibbling that they aren’t pushing to make contraception or sex illegal yet doesn’t alter that realisation.

    Well, it certainly doesn’t seem to prevent you from assigning to them motives they have not stated or policies they have not pursued. Normally that would be called “putting words in other people’s mouths,” and is not considered a form of proof.

    One wonders how you managed to conclude that someone like Rick Santorum, who with his wife has had eight children, somehow wants to make sex illegal.

    “How, one wonders, does stating that organizations which have a moral objection to contraception and should not be required to violate their consciences translate into making contraception harder to get? ”

    Strangely enough, various states have had similar laws for a decade or more, and no-one has registered “religious objections” to them yet. That seems to make your claim that this is all about moral conscience difficult to swallow – as do various voices on the right talking about co-eds being “sluts” and “paying for their sex”.

    It was President Obama and the federal government, writing a regulation which would have compelled Catholic organizations to pay for contraception, which started it. I didn’t write that regulation; the President’s minions did.

    “Indeed, the logic being employed by you here is that if someone else doesn’t pay for something for people, that someone else has made it harder to obtain in general and unaffordable for the poor. If we apply that logic to, say, food, if we say that no, we don’t think that employers should have to buy food for their employees, then, by your definitions, we are advocating making food harder to get, and unobtainable by the poor.”

    Access to a health insurance pool is part of employee compensation. If we apply your logic to food, we’d have employers trying to forbid people being sold bacon by supermarkets with their paychecks.

    It seems that your logic is deficient. If we apply my logic to food, we couldn’t force a Jewish synagogue to provide pork chops, and the synagogue couldn’t stop its employees from buying bacon at the local supermarket. We also could not force a supermarket which didn’t have a kosher section to put one in, just because someone wanted it.

    It should be noted that in all cases my position supports freedom of choice, and liberty: the individual, and the organization, are free to do as they choose, and are not compelled by the force of law to behave contrary to their beliefs.

    Employers don’t “subsidize” employee health care. Employees work and are compensated by their employers with salary and participation in a health insurance pool. Employers have no more right to object to the provision of services from that pool than they do to object to employees spending their own money on contraception. The notion that employers have a “religious conscience” basis to refuse to compensate employees in a certain way is nonsense.

    Actually, yes, they certainly do have that right. We call it freedom of religion in this country, and it is protected by our Constitution. The state cannot establish a church, or set religious guidelines, or prohibit the free exercise of one’s faith. Employers certainly do have a right to choose an insurer who will provide a certain set of benefits, and not provide others, and that right is freely exercised all across this country, as different companies buy their health insurance plans from different providers, with different sets of benefits. Perhaps you don’t think that they should have that right, but they do.

  52. “It seems that your logic is deficient. If we apply my logic to food, we couldn’t force a Jewish synagogue to provide pork chops, and the synagogue couldn’t stop its employees from buying bacon at the local supermarket.”

    However, in this case, employers wish to have the right to stop their employees from getting birth control from a health insurer which is already part of their health insurance package. The problem with your analogy is that no-one is trying to force employers to provide birth control.

    “Actually, yes, they certainly do have that right.”

    No, they don’t.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/us/politics/senate-kills-gop-bill-opposing-contraception-policy.html

  53. But you see, Miss Nova, the employer gets to pick the insurance he will offer, and the employees do not, unless they negotiate it through a union contract, have the right to say to the employer, “No, I want you to offer a different plan, not the one you have offered.” If an employee is so dissatisfied with the plan the employer offers, he has the right to seek employment elsewhere.

    The Senate did kill that amendment, but it won’t matter: ObamaCare will be shot down in the Supreme Court, and whatever parts of it survive repealed by the next Congress. If, by some odd happenstance, all of what the President wants survives that, the contraception mandate will wind up in the Supreme Court as well, where it will be declared unconstitutional.

    Finally, if everything survives, there’s always this. From Ed Morrissey:


    What if Catholic bishops aren’t bluffing?

    Earlier this week, Francis Cardinal George of the archdiocese of Chicago sent a message to parishioners in Barack Obama’s home town that imposition of the HHS mandate to fund and facilitate contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization would force the Catholic Church to close its hospitals, clinics, schools, and all other organizations that would otherwise have to comply. “Two Lents from now,” Cardinal George warned, “unless something changes, the page [listing Catholic organizations] will be blank.” At the time, some commenters wrote that this has been Obama’s plan all along — to force religious charities out of business to make people more dependent on government. Others, including myself, figure that Obama just thinks the bishops are bluffing, and wants to engage in a high-stakes bout of brinksmanship to force them to kneel to secular authority over doctrine.

    But how high are those stakes? In my column for The Fiscal Times today, I did a little research just on Catholic hospitals and their significance in American health care. As it turns out, this bet involved nearly $100 billion in annual costs and about one-seventh of all hospital beds in the US — and that’s not all:

    The Catholic Church has perhaps the most extensive private health-care delivery system in the nation. It operates 12.6 percent of hospitals in the U.S., according to the Catholic Health Association of the U.S., accounting for 15.6 percent of all admissions and 14.5 percent of all hospital expenses, a total for Catholic hospitals in 2010 of $98.6 billion. Whom do these hospitals serve? Catholic hospitals handle more than their share of Medicare (16.6 percent) and Medicaid (13.65) discharges, meaning that more than one in six seniors and disabled patients get attention from these hospitals, and more than one in every eight low-income patients as well. Almost a third (32 percent) of these hospitals are located in rural areas, where patients usually have few other options for care.

    Compared to their competition, Catholic hospitals take a leading role in providing less-profitable services to patients. They lead the sector in breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, geriatric services, and social work. In most of these areas, other non-profits come close, but hospitals run by state and local governments fall significantly off the pace. Where patients have trouble paying for care, Catholic hospitals cover more of the costs. For instance, Catholic Health Services in Florida provides free care to families below 200 percent of federal poverty line, accepting Medicaid reimbursements as payment in full, and caps costs at 20 percent of household income for families that fall between 200 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line.

    Imagine the impact if these hospitals shut down, discounting the other 400-plus health centers and 1,500 specialized homes that the Catholic Church operates as part of its mission that would also disappear. Thanks to the economic models of these hospitals, no one will rush to buy them. One in six patients in the current system would have to vie for service in the remaining system, which would have to absorb almost $100 billion in costs each year to treat them. Over 120,000 beds would disappear from an already-stressed system.

    The poor and working class families that get assistance from Catholic benefactors would end up having to pay more for their care than they do under the current system. Rural patients would have to travel farther for medical care, and services like social work and breast-cancer screenings would fall to the less-efficient government-run institutions. That would not only impact the poor and working class patients, but would create much longer wait times for everyone else in the system. Finally, over a half-million people employed by Catholic hospitals now would lose their jobs almost overnight, which would have a big impact on the economy as well as on health care.

    Of course, it’s not just hospitals. The Catholic Church runs over 7500 primary and secondary education schools in the US (where over a third of students are non-Catholics), educating more than 2.5 million students. Thanks to a near-blanket moratorium on vouchers, taxpayer money doesn’t get used in teaching these students in a system that has a 99% graduation rate and a 97% success rate at placing students in college. Based on an average student cost of $8000 in public schools, Catholic schools save taxpayers about $20 billion dollars a year.

  54. Editor, I’ve reviewed the Comments and Conduct Policy and will henceforth endeavour to remain within the published constraints.

  55. “I believe you suspended Wagonwheel for 2 weeks for repeated personal attacks.”

    Just so you know Pho, Wagonwheel did not repeat personal attacts. He accused me of criminal acts. Now on CSPT you called me: a drunk, a coward, an idiot, a moron, a fwick a fool and several other things. You were not suspended. Personal attacks gets one RedLined. Accusing one of breaking the law is something else all together.

  56. Of course, it’s not just hospitals. The Catholic Church runs over 7500 primary and secondary education schools in the US (where over a third of students are non-Catholics), educating more than 2.5 million students. Thanks to a near-blanket moratorium on vouchers, taxpayer money doesn’t get used in teaching these students in a system that has a 99% graduation rate and a 97% success rate at placing students in college. Based on an average student cost of $8000 in public schools, Catholic schools save taxpayers about $20 billion dollars a year.”

    Perhaps if the Catholic institutional hierarchy concentrated its efforts on the well being of its flock, instead of providing a a comfortable rookery for enemies of their own spiritual dogmas in the name of a progressive’s version of “charity” and social enlightenment, then they might not have found themselves in the position of being either co-opted or forced to shut down.

Comments are closed.