Religious Values And The Presidency By What Standard?

Remember back when JFK was running for President?  One of the biggest fears was that he was a Catholic.  A rather moderate one at that.  He certainly didn't adhere to all it's dictates especially when it came to fidelity.  That's another story.

Now we have another Catholic running for President.  More than one actually, but one is young, personable and extreme in his beliefs.  Yet according to the polls people are flocking toward Rick Santorum.

I'm not one to tell a person what he should or should not believe. In this blog, what I say is strictly opinion.  I don't disparage anyone who doesn't understand or doesn't agree with my point of view.  I certainly don't claim to know what's right over and above all others.  Mr. Santorum does when it comes to his religious beliefs.  It makes me wonder how much of that would carry over to his presidency should he be elected.

In this country we not only have freedom of religion, but freedom from religion should we so choose.  When a candidate is talking more about constitutional amendments to change what he and his followers believe to be true I view it as an intrusion into my right to disagree - especially when it comes to religious beliefs.

Just like the contraception issue.  I don't agree that a religion running a business that hires those of other faiths should be exempt from providing what private sector businesses are required to provide.  What I do question is whether contraceptive devices should be covered at all.  It's not a health issue to my way of thinking; it's a choice therefore not subject to insurance.  But then I must admit the definition on 'insurance' has changed a great deal over the years.

Many are afraid of Mitt Romney, not because he doesn't seem to articulate a vision nor how to attain it, but because he's Mormon.  I have one reader who has pointed out why she fears his religion but would he adhere to that particular issue any more than Kennedy let this Catholicism interfere with his governance?  My guess is he would not.

But Mr. Santorum worries me.  He gets so exercised when he talks of these issues I cannot help but feel they weigh disproportionately on his mind as a candidate.  He has a lot to defend as we will begin to see more and more now that he is the flavor.  He'd be better off leaving his religious, conservative beliefs out of the mix.  The fact that they are already out there may make it too late anyway.

One thing about having the heavily conservative states lead off the primary season tends to skew actual public opinion at the outset but by sheer force of early results people are swayed by wins rather than what the candidates really are.

Or maybe the country as a whole is suddenly getting tub thumping religion on a grand scale.
Time will tell.  I just don't think my religious beliefs should have any bearing on who I support for president.  It should depend on how he stands on the issues that are important to the country as a whole.  My bedroom is off limits.

There is No Free Lunch - Nor Insurance Benefit

Finally, we have a prime example of what happens when government oversteps and what we need to know before we let any more all encompassing government programs become law.  Especially when no one reads the bill and the "Secretary shall" is the most often used term.

Fortunately the Catholic church is a large enough organization to have some clout.  Whether you agree with their premise or not, it is an intrusion by government into not only a relgious organization holding specific beliefs but also into private sector business.

I am of course talking about the contraception flap.  What many of us may not realize is that anyone who has health insurance has been paying for benefits they neither want nor need for years.  Many of those so called benefits have nothing to do with health care at all but rather are lifestyle enhancements.

It started with state insurance commissioners demanding certain benefits be included in all policies.  I first became aware of it when we were mandated to have maternity benefits.  I was in my 50s at the time.  I neither wanted nor needed them yet was forced to pay for those who did.

Things went from bad to worse.  Some states require that hair transplants be covered as well as viagra.  Neither have squat to do with a persons well being.  If you claim it's an esteem issue than there would be no stopping it.  That's what government mandates can and will do.

Keep the government out of health care.  If their is sufficient a demand for a benefit, insurance companies will come up with packages to cover it.

In the same vein we need to keep government out of investing in 'green' companies like Solyndra.  They obviously won't keep politics out of it or they'd have never invested, as they like to call it, in a company already failing and about which they had been forewarned in the first place.

Re-electing Obama will only bring about more of the same, not less.  When it comes to companies being able to plan for the future, government mandates are a huge problem.  If Madam or Mister Secretary shall mandate the payment of contraception in this administration, there is nothing to say that in a following administration under a different party or even the same party but different leadership it has to remain.  How can you plan insurance coverage around that without it getting prohibitively expensive?

Maybe the Catholics will win this one.  They seem to be digging deeply enough to find even more flaws than those already exposed.  Obama, I suspect, will dig his heels in as he likes to do and pronounce it will be his way or the highway.

Actually, the highway(s) need more help than insurance companies anyway.  Maybe he should start putting his money where his mouth once said he would - into infrastructure.  At least we'd then be able to drive to a hospital!

Calm Before The Next Storm

Ah, CPAC.  The two one time leading candidates are struggling mightily to reinvent themselves.  Another isn't even there and the last is now the first.

It will be fun to watch next week to see how it all shakes out.  I feel more calm than usual today because I read where Jeb Bush's name is already being bandied about in case of a brokered convention.

He too, however, has baggage. I won't list it all because the press will when and if.  The worst is obvious.  He's a Bush.  Are we ready to accept that he's not his brother? On the other hand it might be poetic justice of a sort.  Obama and his administration keep telling us all our problems are because of brother George's administration.  Who better to fix them than another Bush?  I'm not holding my breath.

Rick Santorum continues to look good to the devout conservative.  One thing about the man whether or not you agree with him, like Paul, he really believes in the positions he's taken.  Maybe we shouldn't be too quick to write them off.

Now is the time to look at other aspects of the elections.  All the promises are for naught if the Congress isn't squarely behind the President no matter who he is.  Obama is finding that to be true.

Whether or not the dynamic of the House and Senate changes sits squarely upon our shoulders and all the speech making and blogging in the world won't change that. Each state and district within will elect those of their own personal choice.  Each has control whether or not they will be ideologues, obstructionists, liberal or conservative.  Hopefully there will be some moderates in the mix so the field is more level than it has been.  It's definitely buyer beware.

There will be no budget, again, from the Senate.  Harry Reid has already said so.  The deficit is to go up another trillion or so.  The President has already said so. That should be an indicator that compromise is unlikely.

Will the tea party types mellow?  Probably not.  Things have gotten so bad in Washington that Democrats and Republicans won't even patronize the same restaurants for fear of running into one another.  How much more sophomoric and petulant can you get?

And so it goes.  I'm beginning to worry about myself.  I find myself laughing at so many of the headlines yet they are far from funny.  It really is more than just jobs and the economy you see.  People in Syria are being slaughtered daily by the dozens and Ahmajinedad is getting ready to dog and pony show Iran's nuclear accomplishments to date.  Israel will be watching, if not acting.  It is imperative that we pay attention.

Meanwhile we worry about the finger flashed at the Super Bowl and whether or not Gisele is detrimental to Tom's performance on the field.  And the President is busy shooting marshmallows across his office.

Why not?  A bit of levity may be all that's keeping us sane.

Now What?

I'm beginning to think the Republicans should change their iconic elephant to a question mark.  Or a tear drop.  Whichever you prefer.

We are witnessing an electorate thoroughly unimpressed with it's choices.  Do I think Santorum can gain the traction he needs to win the nomination?  No.  I checked out his campaign web site today to see if he actually has anything to say.  Not particularly and what is there is predominantly the social issues revolving around abortion and gay marriage.

I touched on this yesterday.  I don't believe either should be the pervue of the federal government.  Both are personal and religious issues, value judgements having nothing to do with governance.  Besides Roe versus Wade is the law of the land and to get a constitutional amendment to over turn it would be a lengthy and difficult task.  As I also said, we have far more pressing things on the national agenda like the possibility of war with Iran and the results that are bound to surface from our failed experiment in bringing democracy to the middle east.  Oh, yes, many of the countries now have it but it bears no resemblance to what we wanted or expected.

There are several issues the candidates seem not to have a handle on.  The first and most important in order to rally the country behind them would be a vision.  What the other guy is doing wrong is not a vision.  I've yet to hear one articulated.  The Democrats last go 'round had 'hope and change' which we took to mean whatever we wanted it to, but it was a slogan that resonated. "I'm not him," doesn't any more than "I was a CEO," or "Ronald Reagan and I...".

I'm totally uninspired.  I would guess even conservatives aren't flocking to Santorum because they've suddenly been enlightened, but because they've no one left.  He is not without flaws when his policies are examined, such as he too, not unlike Obama, sees government picking and choosing who should get tax breaks.  Wrong.

I wonder if the Republican hierarchy isn't working feverishly to find someone to draft if they can swing a brokered convention.  At this point it seems the most appealing option but the question is who?  If someone out there who has been wooed previously might succumb to the siren song, why not now instead of later?  The future of the nation is at stake.  Do they just not care?  And if not, why not?

If we have become a nation of sheep then he who would lead this nation might do well to remember this from his childhood, especially the last two lines.

Mary had a little lamb its fleece was white as snow; And everywhere that Mary went, the lamb was sure to go. It followed her to school one day, which was against the rule; It made the children laugh and play, to see a lamb at school. And so the teacher turned it out, but still it lingered near, And waited patiently about till Mary did appear. "Why does the lamb love Mary so?" the eager children cry; "Why, Mary loves the lamb, you know" the teacher did reply.

That will take some doing on his part.

Is There More To Mitt Than Meets The Eye...Or Less?

I've found little on which I can agree with Newt.  However,  I must agree that the candidates do have ways to sway their super pacs no matter what the rules say.  Hasn't Newt shown that by his own new found, ahem, negativity?

With that as my premise, it's time for Mitt to tone his down.  I don't care how it's done but it's about to become a bigger liability to him than Romneycare.

I hadn't thought much about it, politics being what it is, until Rick Santorum started making headway in the Minnesota polls.  What does Romney do?  Turns his attacks on Santorum.  It leads me to wonder if that is the only egg in his basket other than the 'I know how to create jobs' mantra.

It's getting old on all sides.  It's one of the problems with these year long primaries. The negativity is pointing to things long past.  Yes, Santorum took earmarks while a Senator.  It was and is common practice and he explained it by saying as long as it was allowed it was his duty to see his constituency got their fair share.  That is defensible only if the earmarks were for something worthwhile, but defensible never-the-less.  But it's past.  Just like Romney claims he's changed his past stance on abortion.  He credits becoming more educated, but at the time he was pro choice.  Period.  Frankly, on the legitimacy scale I'm with Santorum on this one. I fear Romney's 'education' might better be described as 'expedience', but that's only my eerie opinion.

When Santorum takes Romneycare apart he does it with the precision of a surgeon when comparing it to Obamacare.  I'd like to see Romney take Santorum to task, Gingrich and Paul too, on the substance of his policy versus theirs in the same way.  What exactly is his other than 57 pages of something on his web site no one is going to read except the most serious of wonks? And why is his superior to the others?

Santorum may be on the verge of getting the latex glove treatment; he's the only one left and we'll know more after tonight's caucuses.   I do not agree with his positions on any of the social and religious issues.  I don't think they should be part of a presidential campaign, especially those that already have regulating law in place.  I cannot support Santorum because of it, I find it too much in the forefront of his thinking when far more serious issues are facing the nation.

That being said, he is probably the candidate most prepared to defend his policies against the others.  Whether he can gain the traction and the money needed to wage battle at this point remains to be seen.  What he has done is bring to the fore the weakness of the other campaigns.

If Romney is anything more than a former CEO now is the time to spell it out.  If he can do no better than to continue the negativity my thinking will follow suit ~ where Romney is concerned, it will go negative.