Replies

"They want to know, who called the play on Santorum?"

I figure that it was the Kerry campaign, given the identity of the reporter in question.

"They want to know, why doesn't Goldberg report the play on Santorum as a press/advocacy 'gotcha' rather than a Santorum gaffe?"

Because then liberals would immediately attack Goldberg as "homophobic," which is equivalent to de facto heresy among elites these days. The faux attempts by many on the left to make a comparison between Lott and Santorum are quite telling as far as the kind of litmus test that some liberals seek to impose among serving members of the legislature. Heck, Schumer has already essentially stated that no orthodox Catholic can serve as a judge because they might have pro-life rulings. So long as homosexuals have a monopoly on the meaning of tolerance these types of incidents are just going to repeat themselves again and again.

"They want to know, where was the President for his hard-pressed soldier?"

Unlike some on FR, I generally think that Bush did the right thing by not intervening on Santorum's behalf because it would have simply broadened the scandal and played right into the media's hands. The story in question died several weeks after it broke, despite the Democrats' attempts to recreate the Trent Lott scenario. While many social conservatives are mad that Bush didn't make an effort to help Santorum, I think that Bush has correctly recognized that now isn't the correct time to confront the gay lobby because of the current nature of the playing field. In order to break America free of the cultural indoctrination that has been taking place ever since the 1960s, one needs a situation with which to galvanize the masses. I suspect that the judicial activist legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts will be that spark.

More to the point, through voucher programs and various other means, Bush has helped to ensure that the children of the next generation are not going to be hopelessly indoctrinated with liberal propaganda on any number of issues, social issues among them. That helps to pave the way for the eventual defeat of the counter-culture, particularly if the GOP can work to make in-roads among the socially conservative black and Hispanic blocs.

Thank you for your long and considerate post.

I'll just demur as I did before, and say that I rather don't think that President Bush wants to spend capital supporting social conservatives.

If Bush manages to break the power of the NEA over classroom content, fine -- but he had a chance to back attractive social conservatives in Texas and kept them at arm's length instead. Some of them were strong Christians, some were home-schoolers and people fed up with left-wing social agitprop and disciplinary/safety problems. These were attractive people, too, not shriveled old geeks wearing black, and they were making strong, coherent statements about curriculum content and values. But he didn't support them and instead tried to beat one or two of them in the primaries.

Meanwhile the rot progresses in the schools, with the gays getting into the schools now with "toleration" training, ostensibly.

For the children, you see.