Category Archives: Political philosophy

RULES for RADICALS by SAUL ALINSKY – A WORD ABOUT WORDS

Posted on April 16, 2012 | Leave a comment

Continuing with the chapter by chapter series on Rules for Radicals, today we add Comments about the chapter called A word About Words.

Synopsis of the chapter entitled A Word About Words
Power
Words that are soft-sounding and peaceful are soporific and ineffective. Such words are inappropriate for our purposes because “In the politics of life we are concerned with the slaves and the Caesars, not the vestal virgins”. The word “power” is often maligned but fear not to use it. “To know power and not fear it is essential to its constructive use and control. In short, life without power is death; a world without power would be a ghostly wasteland, a dead planet!”.

Self Interest
“The myth of altruism as a motivating factor in our behavior could arrive and survive only in a society bundled in the sterile gauze of New England puritanism and Protestant morality …. It is one of the classic American fairy tales”.

Compromise
“To the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word…. If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, then compromise for 30 percent, you’re 30 percent ahead.”

Ego
Ego is self confidence. The community organizer’s “ego must be so all-pervading that the personality of the organizer is contagious, that it converts the people from despair to defiance, creating a mass ego”.

Conflict
The word “conflict” is much maligned in the media and by Madison Avenue [the advertising industry]. However, “Conflict is the central core of a free and open society”.

Commentary
A Word About Words, the title is intriguing but the content is very disappointing. Judging by the title one would expect to read about some clever and devious ways in which various words could be employed by a community organizer to further the activist’s agenda.  However, the chapter is little more than a revelation of the depth of the sullen author’s cynicism and obsession with power.

Thankfully the chapter is a short one.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Opinion, Political philosophy, Political polemics

Tagged , ,

WE ARE A REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY

Posted on April 14, 2012 | Leave a comment

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%”.  Some credit that line to Thomas Jefferson, others say no.  But he might well have said it because the founding fathers decidedly did not form the country as a Democracy and for very good reason.  We were formed as a Republic.  Ben Franklin warned that we may not be able to hold it, but we have held it for nearly 240 years.  Now it is slipping away.

Our Republic is slipping into the Democracy the founders feared.  Democracy cedes the power to those candidates most capable of charming the people, not to the candidates most able (and honest) to govern.  There is a reason one of our political parties is called Democratic and the other Republican.  It is the same reason that Democrats seek to alter and diminish the Constitution while Republicans seek to conserve it.  The United States Constitution is a republican (small r) instrument.  Its provisions surrender simple majority rule to the wonderful concept of the separation of powers.  It is still government by the people but with added protection for the people from the government they elect.

Think about that as you watch the video.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Opinion, Political philosophy, Videos

Tagged , , , ,

ROUSSEAU, LOCKE AND BURKE

Posted on April 10, 2012 | Leave a comment

GREAT HALL OF THE ESTATES GENERALE, FRANCE

It was in this chamber that a deviation of tradition launched the French Revolution.  The French majority demanded an equal head for head vote in the affairs of government and it was denied.

Locke, Rousseau and Burke were three influential thinkers of that general era when the Western world was in transition from totalitarian rule by monarchs to some other form of government.

John Locke was a British philosopher of the 17th century.  His writings greatly influenced the content of our Declaration of Independence.

Jean Jacques Rousseau was an 18th century philosopher who would fall into Thomas Sowell’s unconstrained vision category.

Edmund Burke was a British statesman and political philosopher of the late 18th century.

That’s who they were; now what did they believe and why does it matter?  I will let Jonah Goldberg answer that.  He writes:

“Readers of this blog, the book or, in particular people who’ve heard me speak about the book at length, know that I think political philosophy, or more accurately, political visions can be boiled down to Locke versus Rousseau. The Lockean vision holds that man is the captain of his soul, that his rights come from God, the individual is sovereign, that the government exists because men of free will cede certain authorities to it in order to best protect  their lives and property.

The Rousseauian vision holds that the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group not from God, that the tribe is the source of all morality, and the general will is the ultimate religious construct and so therefore the needs — and aims — of the group come before those of the individual.

Fascism, like Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and all the other collectivist isms are all based on the Rousseauian vision of the group, the tribe, the class taking precedence over the individual.

I’ve also been writing for years that “transnational progressives” are trying to take the Progressive project to the world stage. This was the dream of HG Wells –originator of the phrase Liberal Fascism — who often proclaimed that FDR was the living embodiment of the “world brain.” It’s the aspiration of Hillary Clinton’s It Takes a Village, in which the logic of everything inside the village, nothing outside the village is eventually extended, in Clinton’s telling,  to the global village.

Bill Clinton’s modestly named “Global Clinton Initiative” is sold with the following sentiment from Bill Clinton, which appeared on the GCI’s website for years. “In my life now,” Clinton declares, “I am obsessed with only two things:  I don’t want anybody to die before their time, and I don’t want to see good people spend their energies without making a difference.”  (Historians may add that there was a third obsession — with his wife’s campaign for president).

Forget the gnostic hubris in the idea that Clinton could be part of anything that could determine when the right time to die for each of billions of humans might be, the idea that everyone — and I mean everyone — should be “making a difference” as defined by a handful of global priests is really a stunning, and to my mind frightening, ambition. Leave no child behind has escaped the paddock and is now galloping across the globe.

I bring all of this up because I found a wonderful quote from John Fonte’s essay in the new Claremont Review of Books. Fonte, the author of the phrase “transnational progressives,” reviews books by Strobe Talbott and Marc Plattner. In the Talbott book, it’s recounted how the top brass of the early Clinton administration proposed dealing with the end of the Cold War. Bill was pondering the “direction of history” (in what appears to be a basically Hegelian  way) when Al Gore chimed in. Gore explained:

Rousseau said the body politic is a moral being possessed of a will. He was thinking at the national level. We need to take it to the international one. We need to make the leap from nationhood to a sense of identity that is truly global, but that embodies Rousseau’s point.

Apparently Bill agreed, he just didn’t think he could sell that to the masses. So, in the meantime he was, in Talbott’s words, “careful not to broadcast” these beliefs.”

For a critique of Goldberg’s analysis you may want to read the Cranky Conservative.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Political philosophy

Tagged , , , ,

RULES for RADICALS by SAUL ALINSKY – OF MEANS AND ENDS

Posted on April 9, 2012 | Leave a comment

Continuing with the chapter by chapter series on Rules for Radicals, today we add our Comments about the chapter called Of Means and Ends.

Synopsis of the chapter entitled Of Means and Ends
The author begins a discussion of political action ethics by saying “The practical revolutionary will understand Goethe’s statement that “conscience is the virtue of observers and not agents of action; in action, one does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter”.  Alinsky puts this in his own words as “He who sacrifices the mass good for his own personal conscience… doesn’t care enough for people to be corrupted for them.

The community organizer is given eleven rules for guidance with respect to ethics.

(1) The first rule is “One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with ones personal interest in the issue.”  That is to say, the more you care about the issue the less you should care about the methods you use to fight for it.

(2) “judgment of the ethics of means and ends is dependant on the political position of those making the judgment.”

(3) “in war the end justifies almost any means.”

(4) “judgment must be mad in the context of the times…” “ethical standards must be elastic to stretch in the times.”

(5) “concern with ethics increases with the number of means available…”

(6) “the less important the end…the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluation of means

(7) “success or failure is a mighty determinate of ethics.”

(8) the “morality of means depends on whether the means is being deployed at the time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”

(9) “any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as unethical.”

(10) “do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.”

(11) Whatever your mission “goals must be phrased in terms like Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or Of the Common Welfare or Pursuit of Happiness or Bread and Peace”.

The perennial question of whether ends justify means is a discussion for those who stand on the sides as observers accomplishing nothing themselves.  Ethical considerations should not be allowed to interfere with success.

Commentary
It is glaringly obvious that Saul Alinsky teaches that the ends justify the means.  The theme throughout the chapter is that ethics are an impediment to accomplishment and thereby, in the final sense, not ethical at all.  Implied in this line of reasoning is the notion that achievement of the goal, which for Alinsky is revolution, will be a great benefit to the society and that there is no uncertainty about it.

The professor cites Johann Wolfgang von Goethe to support his rationalization.  Goethe was a highly esteemed German writer, poet and philosopher whose life spanned the 18th and 19th centuries.  A writer, poet and philosopher, his genius was in culture.  Politically Goethe was pragmatic.  He argued against a unified Germany, favoring instead the retention of the existing system of principalitarian dictatorships.  His famous premise that virtue lies in the intended result, not in the method employed to achieve the result is often quoted by radicals to justify their actions.  Howard Zinn, the noted Harvard historian was another proponent of this line of thought.  If lying about the facts of history would lead to a better world than telling the truth, then according to Zinn the historian is honor bound to lie about the facts.  Vice is turned into virtue and virtue into vice.

Alinsky’s 11 rules of ethics can be boiled down to 3 basic tenets.  An organizer’s ethics must be flexible, the more important the goal the less the organizer should be concerned about ethics and third, if a tactic was successful it was ethical.

Dictionary.com defines ethics as “rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.”  It is sad to say that Alinsky’s rules define the Left and much of the Democratic Party as  it is today.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Opinion, Political philosophy

Tagged , , , ,

NBC FAILS TO APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT IT DID

Posted on April 8, 2012 | Leave a comment

Steve Capus,president of NBC News apologized for a mistake.  What mistake?  It would be the height of naivety to believe that such careful altering of the tape was a mistake and not a deliberate act.

A respectable news agency will have zero tolerance for dishonesty of this sort.  Steve Capus is the captain of the ship; he is the one who should go, not just some anonymous producer who got caught exposing the extent of bias that appears to exist throughout the network.  At an upright news outlet a producer would know he was risking his job if he doctored a tape in a way to give an allusion opposite to the truth.

NBC is becoming MSNBC lite.

An aside.  False apologies are common place.  When an apology takes the form “I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings” it is not an apology at all. It’s an expression of regret that the offended person doesn’t agree with the offender.  A: You are an ugly pig.  B: You owe me an apology. A: I apologize because you were offended when I pointed it out.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in News, Political philosophy, Political polemics

Tagged , , , , ,

PLEASANT FLOWS AMID OMINOUS CURRENTS

Posted on April 7, 2012 | Leave a comment

Conservatives complain about the main stream media, and rightly so.  But there is another main stream and it’s a good one.  It’s main stream America.  Stray too far from it and you will find yourself in a vulnerable spot.  The left has strayed too far from it and main stream America is finally taking notice.

A recent survey found 60% of Americans now declare themselves to be conservatives.  That’s a substantial increase from prior estimates.  It would be reasonable to presume that the shift is largely due to the left’s having moved too far from the middle for the comfort of independents.  How many moderates are happy supporters of the Occupy Wall Street campers, for instance?

The 2010 election results, the popularity of libertarian Ron Paul and the even stranger popularity of Donald Trump, momentary though it was, indicate the people have had enough.  They have listened to enough platitudes and compromising language; strong talk is what they want to hear now.

FOX News has more viewers than all the other cable networks combined.  The blogosphere has evolved from a pajama game to become a genuine threat to the New York Times.  And let’s not forget the Tea Party, a true grass roots phenomenon that rose from the right.  The Tea Party is healthy and strong four years after its birth precisely because the Tea Party is main stream America.  The Occupy movement failed badly after only a few months because it is not.  Just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court threw out voting district maps drawn to favor the Democratic Party by a liberal judge.  The decision was unanimous.

The Right is exerting itself in many ways.  Nevertheless, the Left still grows stronger.  Obama announces a cut in the size of the armed forces, military men and women who pledge their allegiance to the Constitution.  And then the President promises to create a domestic police force larger and more powerful than the U.S. Army.  Presumably such a force would be beholden to the President, not to the Constitution.

Recently a Bill was introduced in Congress that would lay the foundation for cybercensorship.  Both sides initially supported it because the advantages were obvious and the disadvantages of no concern as long as you could trust government.  This one really was a step too far.  No one trusts government; no one ever should.  That’s why we have three branches and the separation of powers.  Congress never passed the Bill, but Obama made it law anyhow.

Not long ago we only had to contend with lunacies like Paul Krugman’s idea that of getting out of debt by accelerate spending.  The Obama administration is much farther from mainstream America than that.  All that Krugman’s ideas would do is send us into bankruptcy and he would wonder why.  Obama would take away our liberty, our way of life and send us into bankruptcy.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Political philosophy, Political polemics

Tagged , , , ,

RULES for RADICALS by SAUL ALINSKY – PURPOSE

Posted on April 2, 2012 | Leave a comment

Continuing with the chapter by chapter series on Rules for Radicals, today we add our Comments about the chapter called Purpose.  It’s the first chapter in the book immediately following the Prologue.

Synopsis of the chapter entitled Purpose
The first chapter is called Purpose.  It carries as a tagline this quote from the bible:

“The life of man upon earth is a warfare… Job 7:1”

There is a good reason to be optimistic although accomplishment of the goal is hopeless. If it’s hopeless, why do it?  It’s like a climber ascending a mountain whose summit is infinity and can never be reached. When asked why strive for the impossible, Mt. Everest climber Mallory said “Because it is there”.

This seems senseless until you read the very last line of the chapter –  “Happiness lies in the pursuit”. Fighting for the Revolution is the only thing that gives purpose to life.

In the second part of Purpose we learn that everyone falls into one of three groups, called the trinity of classes. The classes are defined as 1)the Haves, 2) the Have-Nots, and 3) the Have-Some-Want-Mores. As you might expect by now, all people in all the groups are miserable according to Saul Alinsky

The Haves
The Haves  “suffocate in their surplus” and cannot sleep because they “are living under the nightmare of possible threats to their possessions”.

The Have-Nots
The Have-Nots “are chained together by the common misery of poverty, rotten housing, disease, ignorance, political impotence and despair”.

The Have-Some-Want-Mores
The Have-Some-Want-Mores are psychologically disturbed “torn between [protecting] what they have, yet wanting change to get more”. They are “social and economic schizoids”. This group is Alinsky’s vision of the middle class

Commentary
Out of 15 versions of the Bible only one translates Job7:1 as Alinsky presents it and that is the Douay-Rheims Bible.  The more popular King James Bible translates the same verse as “Is there not an appointed time to man on earth?”  The New Living Version best typifies the other translations with “Is not all human life a struggle?”  In the D-R version from which Professor Alinsky draws his quote the warfare is metaphorical.  The unfortunate plague of sickness and other ill fated turns of events that life has thrust upon Job are expressed as a war of circumstances against the beleaguered man.  The warfare is not a purpose as Alinsky implies, it is an affliction.

The professor revels in the fight.  Like a platoon leader in a mercenary army, Alinsky is there for the fight and cares little for the cause. This is not a new phenomenon for activists of Left.  I recall a ”Free Mumia Jamal” demonstration where a reporter interviewed one of the protesters who had come with a group of students all the way from Berkeley, California to Philadelphia to participate.  The young woman had no idea what Mumia had done or why he was in jail.  She had not come to free Mumia, she had come to demonstrate.

Nor is successful transformation of government a heartfelt goal of the professor.  Success would end the fight and the fight is his purpose.

What is one to think of a man who divides all the world into a trinity of groups and asserts that all members of all three groups are miserable?  No allowance is made for any living person to be content.  Alinsky was a genius, make no mistake about that, but genius is not common sense.  Like a true idiot savant, his genius was very narrow.  It also was aided by a faulty moral compass as we shall see in the next chapter called Of Means and Ends.

The compulsion of the Left to divide people into classes is in evidence here.  Whereas the Right tends to see circumstances of people who are given equal opportunity, largely as a product of themselves, the Left does not believe equal opportunity exists.  No thought is given to the mobility of individuals from one economic class to the next.  The system is the problem and it’s the system that must be changed.  The radical’s solution is to bring up groups perceived as victims by bringing down other groups perceived to be oppressors.

I am inclined to say envy is in evidence also, but I am not so sure.  Certainly envy is a major factor with the professor’s followers but Alinsky himself seems content in his role.  If his acolytes won their kingdom, he would feel out of place in it.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Opinion, Political philosophy

Tagged , , ,

RULES for RADICALS by SAUL ALINSKY, FIRST IN A SERIES

Posted on March 26, 2012 | 1 Comment

This Post begins a series on the book Rules for Radicals by Professor Saul Alinsky.  During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama proudly proclaimed his experience as a community organizer.  The professor is known as the Godfather of community organizing.  Hillary Clinton wrote her Wellesley College thesis on the life and work of Saul Alinsky.  Chris Matthews stated on his MSNBC Hardball program that Saul Alinsky is one of his heroes.  Who is this man Alinsky and what did he teach?  Let’s go to the book and find out.

Prologue
At the front of the book, even before the Prologue, Alinsky writes a brief tribute to Lucifer the devil.  Alinsky admires the devil, holding him in high regard because he succeeded in winning a kingdom for himself.

The author’s prologue is a litany of misery. In his view, the world is a thoroughly miserable place. The prologue is replete with phrases like these — “the outcome of hopelessness and despair is morbidity” and “there is a feeling of death overhanging the nation”.

Alinsky correctly cites Leftist radicals as completely rejecting the common “goals of a well paid job, suburban home, automobile … and everything else that means success” to others.

Young radicals are unhappy because they see only the faults in the world, and no purpose in life. They are in a constant search for themselves. The middle class and affluent are mired in the likes of divorce and disillusionment. The whole world is such a discouraging place that anyone who is happy in it must be blind.

Alinsky seldom speaks about changing America. He talks mostly about changing the World.  His vision of ubiquitous despondency transcends domestic locus.

Revolution with some violence is likely to be required in order to wrest the power of government from those now in control. But revolution must come at the end of the process, not at the beginning. A successful transition of government must be directed like a three act play -  first set the stage, then develop the plot, and finally conclude with the main event. The function and duty of a community organizer is to direct this process.

Act I is join the crowd, gain respect, acceptance and legitimacy.
Act II development, spread discontent, build support for Act III
Act III is the revolution itself, which of necessity will be violent.

Alinsky encourages radicals to fight but discourages those who are impatient and want to go directly to Act III.  Starting at the conclusion is ineffective and it will never bring success.

Commentary on the Prologue
There can be no doubt about the fact that we are dealing with a very morose individual.  Midway through the Prologue it would seem to be a great waste of time to read any further.  Just then he puts forth the analogy of the Three Act Play and suddenly begins to make sense.

Act I.  Join the crowd, gain respect, acceptance and legitimacy.  Of course!  We live in a democracy with a prosperous and sizable middle class.  Such a large segment of people are not going to surrender the fruits of their labor voluntarily.  The goal of complete transformation with redistribution of wealth must begin with stealth.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”  A statement generally accredited to Norman Thomas, six time candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket.

Obama completed Act I with his election.

Act II is development, spread discontent, build support for Act III.  Contented people do not cry for change.  Therefore discontent must be sown and spread across as wide a spectrum of the population as possible.  We see this today in class warfare by which Obama pits American against American.  The rich, the banks, the oil companies are all made out to be enemies of the people, every one, without exception.  Even riling up the Catholic Church has its advantages providing it does not cost Obama the election.  To solve that, the whole contraception issue is laid on the opposition.

Act II is where we are now.  Understanding what Act II is all about answers a lot of questions.  For one, harmony is not an objective, quite the opposite.  Later in the book, Alinsky tells the community organizer that the establishment will label him an agitator and they will be correct.  That is the job of a community organizer.  Act II is about fomenting unrest and building passion for change.  It is not possible to completely transform a democratic government when most of the people are content and united.

Act III is the revolution itself and Alinksy says violence is inevitable because both power and possessions will need to be wrested from those who have them and they will fight violently to keep it.  There is now general agreement among Socialist leaders today on Acts I and II but they are split on Act III.  Francis Scott Piven argues for the violent revolution option and the sooner the better.  The other school argues that attempts to overthrow the standing government by militant violence are destined to fail.  But with stealth and patience working within the democratic process America can be led to succumb into a socialist state at the ballot box.

Alinsky is basically in the non-militant camp but with the caveat that some violence will be unavoidable at the very end to complete the transformation.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Opinion, Political philosophy

Tagged , , , , , ,

YOU CAN BE ACQUITTED OF RAPE IF YOU FORCE THE VICTIM TO MARRY YOU

Posted on March 15, 2012 | Leave a comment

Not in America of course, in Morocco and it only applies if you rape a minor.  Otherwise the rapist may be subject to punishment.  Amina Filali was raped when she was 15 years old.

Article 475 of the Moroccan penal code allows for the “kidnapper” of a minor to marry his victim to escape prosecution, and it has been used to justify a traditional practice of making a rapist marry his victim to preserve the honor of the woman’s family.

“Amina, 16, was triply violated, by her rapist, by tradition and by Article 475 of the Moroccan law,” tweeted activist Abadila Maaelaynine

Amina is dead.  She committed suicide by taking rat poison.  Considering the circumstances it is understandable.  As a female and a minor she had no more rights under Moroccan law than a spider on a wall.  As a rape victim she was the equivalent of a criminal and an utter disgrace to her family.

Westerners who argue that diversity is a virtue in its own right need to be more discerning.  Some cultures are better than others and anyone who denies that does so at their peril.  Just ask the citizens of Malmo, Sweden.  Diversity is not a virtue, it’s just a difference.

Diversity has added a beautiful dimension to the American culture.  From Cellist Yo Yo Ma on the cello to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on the court we have benefitted from the melding of races and colors into our culture.  And let’s not forget, America’s favorite food is pizza.  But to blindly seek diversity for diversity’s sake as our institutions of higher learning and elites of the land do is simply stupid, stupid.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Human Interest, News, Political philosophy

Tagged , , , ,

ROMNEY 48% – OBAMA 43%

Posted on March 13, 2012 | Leave a comment

Chris and Ed, those friendly chaps over at MSNBC were a bit less vitriolic this week.  It’s because they have turned giddy, giddy with delight over the sense that the Republicans no longer have a ghost of a chance in November.

The Republican candidates have destroyed each other.  Romney will be the nominee and the Tea Party folks will never vote for him because they think he is a Liberal.  There are serious issues that need attention, the nation is deep in debt, people are out of work and need help but all the Republicans want to talk about is how to stop people from having sex.  Rush Limbaugh, the primary spokesman for the Republican Party, delivered the decisive blow with his disgusting remarks about a female college student.  No self respecting woman, regardless of Party will ever vote Republican after that.

Well now, Chris and Ed, you still don’t get it, it seems.  Still living in that bubble I guess.  I would love to burst your bubble but I can’t.  I tried.  It’s too thick.  Funny thing about that bubble, those of us on the outside can see in, those of us who take the trouble to do so at least. We see what you stand for and we don’t like it.  But you never seem to understand what just what it is we stand for and then you object to it anyhow.  I think you need to get your bubble fixed.

The Tea Party didn’t rise up to promote conservatism.  Its members were too busy enjoying life and family (including sex) to spend time doing that.  The Tea Party rose up to save the country from a complete transformation to the Left.  The Tea Party is what happens when a trend goes too far for too long and needs to be stopped.  The vote will not be for a candidate, though one may wish it could be.  Whoever the nominee may be will not change that.  The vote isn’t even against Barack Obama, though I’m sure you won’t understand that.  The vote will be against the arrival of a collective state and a soft tyranny.  And it’s a vote against bankruptcy as well.  Obama is less a culprit than a culmination.

Rush Limbaugh is Rush Limbaugh; he is unique; he is solitary.  He is not a spokesman for the Republican Party.  Republicans are no more likely to vote Democratic because of some disgusting remark Limbaugh makes and apologizes for than are Democrats likely to vote Republican because of some even more disgusting remarks that Bill Maher makes and refuses to apologize for.

Bye the way, Romney is leading Obama 48 to 43 according to a current Rasmussen poll.  Santorum is not doing so well but he is ahead of Obama.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in News, Political philosophy, Political polemics

Tagged , , , , , ,