I believe it was Gouvenor Morris who reminded that man, possessed of an immortal soul, can thus be punished in the hereafter for his deeds; nations by contrast do not exist eternally, and thus judgement upon them must be rendered in this world.

Americans used to understand that present within their bombing campaigns against Japan and Germany there existed, side by side, the judgement of the Almighty. And a dreadful judgement it was!

Santorum has two options:

1} Ignore queries upon the matter, and move the discussion to rising gasoline prices, the economy and the want of well-paying jobs; or

2} Double down, raise the stakes, immerse himself more fully in the Christianity of this country, present at its founding, widespread throughout her rise to greatness and influence, and use that Christianity, still present in the souls of her citizens, to sharply contrast himself with the dubious creeds of sitting President.

If I were him, I'd go the latter route.

But then again, he hasn't the ability to pull it off anyway.

Recalls to mind the eve of the battle of Gaugamela, {300 something B.C.}. If you recall, that battle was Alexander's third, final and greatest battle with a far larger Persian empire. Parmenio, his senior general, advised his accepting a late truce offer so as to avoid battle on such fearful odds: "I would accept it if were you." Which caused Alexander to observe: "And I would too, ----------------- if I were Parmenio......"

Such a proposed gambit is lost on so pedestrian a politician. It wouldn't be lost on Gingrich though, that's for sure.

Very simply - Santorum is hated for speaking the truth. If he was lying, then everyone would treat him like the Main Stream Media treats Obama when he lies, which is pretty much all the time.

It doesn't matter now, not after his lackluster performance last night.

Of course, without Parmenio and his infantry holding the line in the face of over-whelming odds, Alexander's gambit to drive his elite cavalry through the break a gap in the Persian lines towards Darius would have failed.

I don't hate Santorum, I hate Dan and Cowgirl. Santorum is just paying the price for it.

I don't actually hate Dan or Cowgirl, but I think the media makes you pay for your rhetorical, negotiating style. And by "you", I mean Santorum, which is not actually "you".

Confusing I know, but consider Krugman on Santorum:

"For example, last year Mr. Santorum made a point of defending the medieval Crusades against the “American left who hates Christendom.” Historical issues aside (hey, what are a few massacres of infidels and Jews among friends?), what was this doing in a 21st-century campaign?"

One answer is that Santorum in an effort to run a campaign with less money and less media, decided to reach out to micro-trend elements of the base who are amateur historians. Some genuis caught on to the fact that these guys comment a lot. Let's harness that!

Why is Santorum making these gaffes? They are not actually gaffes, since in theory they are supposed to follow the logic/criticism of the welfare state. That is they are supposed to be comments that energize some folks, without actually working any meaningful or tangible harm upon the majority. Similar to the defense of earmarks, some folks really like them or want them, and no one else will really notice or care.

The key distinction between this and actual redistribution of wealth is that you are just re-distributing words. It is a tax on the sensible, for the purpose of letting a rogue historian of the crusades sell a few more books! Support for Newt is always a tax on the sensible...but notice that Newt caught on to a new negotiating/rhetorical posture/style. Very Sharp! So he certainly won the debate, which means Romney wins.

WTF Romney wins?

Actually it is a short drive from the "liberal mainstream media" to the Copyright Industrial Complex. But belief in the Copyright Industrial Complex has the added bennefit of encompassing and explaining all elements of the economy that involve the fixation of a modicum of orginality in a tangible medium of expression.

And then if you like History... you could dig up the Corpse of John C. Calhoun. (certainly even more ammo for Krugman, and many others on the right.) But in digging up Calhoun you are simply going to point to his original argument against Tarrifs in the South Carolina Exposition and protest(1828). But you, which probably means me, are going to argue that Michigan (and Ohio) are now in the position of South Carolina and that California and New York are the prime beneficiaries of the copyright industrial complex.

The political debates being nothing more than manifestations and permutations of the Copyright Industrial Complex, we resolve to punish Mitt Romney for buying television ads instead of cars. We don't see how Mitt Romney can persue an agenda of "productivity'at Bain Capital that shuts down manufacturing capacity and ships it to China, just so he can turn around and spend this big money in the copyright industrial complex persuading us that he is conservative, and the only one who understands productivity, when it turns out that what he is actually producing is not a tangible good, but rather a calibrated and "sensible' rhetoric.

Essentially we are learning that Big Money can produce a more nuanced image. But I at least never doubted that the professionals working for Romney could obliterate the rest of the field, what I do doubt is that persuasion is productivity.

So the entire string of debates, all the ads, and all the people engaged "productively" in spinning them, give a big picture feel that reinforces Santorum's notion that actual manufacturing is important.

I am more convinced than ever that Romney is "best" product/image, and that Santorum should be punished for not spending adequate amounts of money in the copyright industrial complex, but I don't see how that is productive, and when I see how it is productive, the status quo gears of the US economy stare me in the face.

It isn't that Romney isn't more "productive" than Santorum in the debates, it is the character of considering such productivity productive.

That's a fact.

John Lewis:

I am glad you hate me. If you liked me then I know I would have the mental illness called liberalism.

Thanks for reminding me that I am sane.

Love you.
Cowgirl.