Fourth Columnist: Romney Santorum, Quid Est Homo, Quia Magnificus Cum?

This Blog-post header sort of trips off the the tongue, like some Roman Catholic mantra, doesn't it? As well, it has the option to pronounce the Latin in such a way as to take the piss out of both of these idiotic Republicans' stances on homosexual relationships (as well as everything else they might wish to stand upon)? But why, as the phrase suggests, should the Republicans "make magnificent" these two nutters, now that the other saps have come nowhere on "Super Tuesday"?

The World Awaits....

As we have come to discover the world over these days, only those with access either to their own or someone else's mega-fortune can run for high office. Even Obama only got to the White House on the back of a multi-million chest to fund his campaign. And if it isn't money, then its vote-rigging (see Putin, allegedly), or oppression (Assad, Mugabe, Gadaffi, etc.). Democracies are rarely what they profess to be. Even in the UK, where the multi-millions, rigged ballots or oppressive tactics are generally absent, the democratic process relies on those who can be arsed to vote...usually around half of the electorate...which means that parties and politicians often come to power with a mandate offered by fewer than a quarter of the people that were eligible to cast their ballot.

Anyway, back to the Republicans...

Santorum and Romney appeal to registered Republican voters. And this is the key. It really doesn't matter what happens in these "Primary" ballots. There are a few hundred thousand American citizens that have "registered" to vote in the Primaries. These are people who are probably genuinely interested in who gets the ticket but, by default, are also those that have an axe to grind and, thankfully, are a tiny minority of the US populus that will eventually, come November, go to the Presidantial polls.

"Guess who told me to run?
No, really, I mean it.
He did, honestly!"

After the Republicans have settled upon which of the two Far-Right Neo-Cons will carry their torch, then either Romney of Santorum will have to spend the next few months convincing America that they actually do like Gays, Blacks, Atheists, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, fornicators, lefties, liberals and everyone else that they have marginalised in their campaigns to win the Republican nomination. And that will, hopefully, be their downfall. They will also have the option (and one that they will gleefully grasp) of rubbishing Obama and the Democrats. That, regrettably, might be their ace in the hole, as it will be the thrust of their campaign given that it will be very difficult for either Santorum or Romney to woo the mainstream through policy. But electorates are notoriously fickle.

I've despaired over many decades of the propensity of candidates for the top jobs in western democracies to declare their belief in some god or other. Take the UK as a prime example. Ours a constitution where the Head of State is an unelected, hereditary monarch who, as well as having this titular and constitutional role, is also the head of the Church of England and "Defender of the Faith". Successive Prime Ministers have had, more or less, no option but to toe that non-secular line in order to get the job despite governing a country where the majority of citizens can't be bothered with any organised religion of the gods on offer. The UK is also a country where the recognised state religion has less than two per cent active, regular adherents among the electorate. Sure, the ten-yearly census will throw up statistics showing an affiliation of twenty times that largely because people completing the census tend to go down the default route (or have a misguided laugh by pretending to be a Jedi). In reality, the Church of England can barely scrape a million worshippers each Sunday. Our Deputy Prime Minister is an admitted atheist but, like his position and his politics, that doens't really matter.

"What is it, Sergeant?"
"Aaargh! Romneys Sir! Thousand of 'em"

In the US, where there is no 'accredited' national religion, as such, candidates for the presidency almost exclusively declare that they are christians. With Romney, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon), his belief borders on the evangelical. Santorum is Roman Catholic whose dedication to his faith is fanatical and fundamentalist, using biblical dogma to underpin his opposition to everything that isn't RC, like any fanatical muslim that treats the Koran as a literal guide to how things should be. It's a toss-up as to which one is the more dangerous. Obama was brought up in a home where both the bible and the Koran were on the bookshelves. He is a borderline agnostic and during the 2008 campaign he managed to fend off the Republican Party's claims that he was a muslim and, therefore, a towel-headed terrorist bent on jihad. Worse still, according to his apponents, it was claimed that he wasn't born in the United States, this being a constitutional requirement of anyone seeking the PoTUS position, otherwise Armold Schwarzenegger would have been in the White House years ago.

Over the next few months, regardless of whether it's Santorum or Romney, the "Clusterfuck to the White House" (as Jon Stewart famously dubbed the '08 election) will be a campaign of negatives.

OMG!

For the Republicans' Campaign, some or all of the following will be included:

1) Barack HUSSEIN Obama is (probably) a muslim and was (probably) born in Africa and even if turns out he was born in Hawaii then...and let's be clear about this...those Pacific islands aren't really American, are they? They're just a military bridgehead in case the nips kick off again or if Kim Jong Un gets all uppity.

2) Obama has totally fucked the economy!!

3) Healthcare reform means that POOR PEOPLE might be able to use American hospitals instead of dying in the gutter where they belong.

4) Obama has ALLOWED our enemies to exist and some of them even have nuclear weapons. Why hasn't he invaded everywhere? COWARD!

5) Obama is just a little bit black now, isn't he? And so's his wife and family. And his dog (which is a PORTUGUESE Water Dog, not an AMERICAN Water Dog). And the dog's name is 'Bo', which sounds FOREIGN!

6) Obama's Secretary of State is a GIRL! Not only is she not in the kitchen making apple pies but she is married to a liberal, leftie fornicator, who thinks that War is Bad!

7) Obama smokes! OMG! He's killing our children by example.

8) By the way, have we mentioned that HUSSEIN Obama is probably a muslim? Actually, do you think he might look a bit Mexican? And does he believe in Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour? Probably not. SINNER!

For the Democrats - should the party machine decide to fight dirty - there are plenty of open goals if either candidate gets the nomination, but let's assume it's Romney:

1) Mitt Romney is very, very rich and parks most of his money offshore, allegedly

2) Mitt Romney shoots things with guns, although he would have you believe that they're mostly "small varmints" and probably not very many atheists, mexicans, blacks etc.

3) Mitt Romney was eligible for the draft in '67 and, guess what? Like all recent Replublican presidents, he dodged it (probably)! Who's the coward now, huh?

4) There's bound to be some wierd, sexual deviancy in the background or some two-bit hooker from years ago prepared to spill the beans. We'll keep digging but, in the mean time, we'll just make some suggestions of lack of moral compass...or something

5) Mitt Romney might just be a little bit thick. He proposed legislation that suicide bombers would not be given Miranda rights. Duh! And once said, "...America is not better off than it was 1.8 trillion dollars ago

6) Mitt Romney's wife (Ann) has lost all touch with reality. On being asked what it meant to have a family wealth of c. $250 million she replied that she "...didn't feel wealthy..."

7) Romney is cruel to animals and not just the "small varmints" he executes. In 1983, he tied his Irish Setter (Seamus) to the roof of his car and drove for twelve hours to Canada...(which is abroad)

8) Oh, and by the way, his name really is "Mitt". It's not short for anything...it's actually Mitt. Willard Mitt Romney. And you thought "Barack" was odd?

On the other hand, it's entirely possible that the 2012 US Presidential Election will be fought fairly and upon policies so that the American people can decide on whether to have a fanatically religious, pro-life, gay-bating, varmint-slaughtering, possibly polygamy-favouring, draft-dodging, filthy-rich Neo-Con or a thoroughly pleasant african-american who speaks in very short sentences.

Four more years! Four more years! Four more...etc. etc.

Could be worse...these are two of the ones that got away...