Rick Santorum’s Trade School Of Thought

I had planned to blog about all the pretty dresses and hairstyles at the Academy Awards tonight, but first I feel compelled to unload a bit about what I saw on NBC’s Meet The Press this morning:  Rick Santorum, being a fool.

It’s becoming a Sunday morning tradition.  Of all people, shouldn’t he have more respect for the Sabbath?

Santorum actually made his most jaw-dropping statement, which was then discussed on Meet The Press, at a Tea Party rally in Michigan on Saturday.

Apparently, Santorum believes that attending college, and recommending it to others, makes you snob.  Such was his response to President Obama’s recent statement that he would like all American young people to attend a four-year university.

Yes, this is the same Rick Santorum who earned an undergraduate degree from Pennsylvania State University, an M.B.A from the University of Pittsburg, and a law degree from Penn State’s Dickinson School of Law.

I am fairly confident that President Obama was not really suggesting that all American students — regardless of intellect, skill set or interest — be forced to attend a four-year university.   That would make no sense, and would be completely impractical.  Rather, I suspect he would like to see all American students with the desire and aptitude for college have an opportunity to attend a four-year university, regardless of their means.  The nerve!

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are fond of waxing poetic about The American Dream, and predicting that it will slip out of reach if the other side wins the White House.  The American Dream has a few key components, including the promise of a better life for our children.  What parents who want success and prosperity for their child would object to him/her attending a four-year university?   And if a university like Harvard accepted that child, would his/her parents be anything but proud and supportive?

Are we seriously expected to believe that Rick Santorum would not support one of his seven children attending Harvard because he/she might be “taught by some liberal college professor [who tries] to indoctrinate them”?

Just a few weeks ago, Republicans criticized President Obama for highlighting the widening gulf between the haves and have-nots in the U.S., and suggesting that it is wrong for Warren Buffet to pay less in taxes than his secretary.  Mitt Romney complained that this was not appropriate public discourse, because it was akin to inciting class warfare.  Yet it’s OK for Rick Santorum to call the President a snob for supporting a liberal arts education, since “there are good, decent men and women who work hard every day and put their skills to the test”, who never got one?

The facts are in:  Americans with a college education earn more, and are less likely to be unemployed, than Americans without one.  But Rick Santorum reassures us; he’s on the case.  If elected, he’ll resuscitate manufacturing in the United States so that graduates from trade schools have opportunities comparable to those of their liberal-arts counterparts – thus reversing a decades-long shift towards a service economy.

So… if your son or daughter is accepted at Princeton in the spring, and you are fortunate enough to have the means to pay the tuition, what will you do?

Uh huh, that’s what I thought.

Great Balls of Fire!

It’s been a busy week for the Republicans, culminating in tonight’s Arizona debate – another performance that no doubt had President Obama switching over to the Knicks game in time to catch the fourth quarter of Linsanity(!).

The day started with Rick Santorum referencing “what’s on fire down here” at one of his tent-revival-style campaign stops.  The media played it over and over again, but I still don’t know what he meant by “down here”.  He seems pretty fixated on the Prince of Darkness, so maybe he was referring to Hell, where it’s far too hot for comely sweater vests. Otherwise, I just don’t want to think about it…

Not surprisingly, attention in the debate quickly turned to contraception.  References were made to a recent New York Times story about the scourge of unwed motherhood in the United States.  I read that article, and the candidates grossly distorted the facts in it.  To hear them talk, this is a growing problem among poor urban teens – when in fact, the article highlights that the growth in single motherhood is a decidedly middle-class phenomenon.  Teen pregnancies in the U.S. are, in fact, declining.

While it’s true that educated upper-middle-class and upper-class women are not part of the single motherhood trend, the fear mongering claims of abject poverty and abuse in the homes of single mothers was a mischaracterization, intended to create the all-too-familiar sense of danger so critical (it would seem) to convincing Americans to vote for you.

The candidates flailed around for a while, trying to hammer home that even though they are avidly pro life, pro church and anti contraception, they aren’t anti women.   Each argued that he did more than the others to banish the morning-after pill for rape victims.  I think I started to drift off for a moment, then… BOOM.  Ron Paul blinded them all with science.

He explained that it’s all contraception; the active ingredient in birth control pills and the morning-after pill is the same — hormones.   The candidates stared at him blankly, then moved on to a new question.  Behold, the product of a non-scientific, creationist education!  Proceed with caution, America!

Ron Paul, as usual, seemed upbeat and just a tiny bit crazy.  I wouldn’t vote for him in a Presidential election, but you have to hand it to him – he is candid, witty and consistent.  He pointed out that abstinence is not mentioned in the Constitution, so while he is against government involvement in matters of contraception he doesn’t think we should be funding or legislating abstinence education either.  (Cue more blank stares from guys who think we all honestly believe that they are defending the Constitution and religious freedom, rather than evangelicalism.)

Mitt Romney looked nervous.  Rick Santorum emphasized that he’s a team player – a character flaw only in politics – and came across like a policy-wonk insider who rolls his eyes a lot when he’s defensive.

Newt Gingrich stayed out of the scrum, saving most of his criticism for President Obama.  He tried giving the audience a history lesson on the Founding Fathers, claiming they would have had strong views on balanced budgets and unemployment.  I don’t think the colonials suffered many layoffs down at the blacksmith’s shop, but I guess I should defer to the guy who made a fortune as an “historical consultant” to Freddie Mac.

Throughout, the crowd behaved like fans of the WWF — or Senators at the State of the Union Address — loudly cheering for their guy and jeering his opponents.

Late in the debate, the candidates were inanely asked to describe themselves in one word – a question no doubt put forth by a retired college recruiter.  Lucky Ron Paul got to go first, and snagged “consistent”.   Tough break for Romney – I’ll bet he really, really wanted to be consistent!   He went with “Resolute”.  Not terribly convincing but at least his voice didn’t go up at the end, like he was posing a question.  (i.e. resolute???)

In (merciful) conclusion, the candidates were asked to clarify the biggest misconception about them.  Ron Paul answered the question.  Newt meandered a bit, but eventually answered it too.  Then Mitt Romney tried to just go with his talking points, à la Sarah Palin.  When reminded that the question was about a misconception, he curtly replied “You ask the questions you want to, and I’ll answer the questions I want to.”

We all watched the 2008 Vice Presidential debate, so we know what comes next – even if Romney’s debate coach doesn’t.

LIVE FROM NEW YORK, IT’S SATURDAY NIGHT!