Rick Santorum: Dumbest Man in the Room

The interesting thing about the Republicans seeking the presidential nomination is that the most crazed among them are doing badly in all the polls. There may be hope for humanity yet.

Among those scraping bottom is Rick Santorum — flaming creationist and all-round anti-science retardate. The last time we wrote about him was Rick Santorum: Proud To Be a Theocrat, and before that Rick Santorum: Full-Blown Creationist. We haven’t written about him lately because he seems no longer worth the bother, but we found something amusing about him the Nashua Telegraph located in Nashua, New Hampshire.

The story is titled Santorum claims conservative mantle. We’ll skip most of it because Santorum is not only stupid and irrelevant, he’s also boring. Our few excerpts will focus on his creationism. Here we go, with bold font added by us:

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is neither the establishment choice or best-financed contender but presents himself as the one with the most consistent record as a fiscal and social conservative.

The social conservatives are the extremely crazy wing of the GOP. Okay, let’s get to the good stuff:

Santorum once led the effort in the Senate to require the teaching in science class of intelligent design that would include examining creationism.

Yes, he was the leader of that madness. He’s proud of it. Let’s read on:

On Monday, Santorum said teachers should be allowed to “teach the controversy” between the theory of evolution and any gaps in the study that would allow for dialogue on a divine beginning.

He’s just as crazy as he always was. Well, at least he’s consistent and straightforward about it, so we know where he stands. The article continues:

What I was advocating was teaching the intellectual debate in a classroom that most children would love to have,” Santorum said. “Where do we come from? How did we get here?”

There’s nothing else in the article that interests us. Santorum has been, still is, and probably always will be an idiot.

Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

13 responses to “Rick Santorum: Dumbest Man in the Room

  1. “Dumbest” is a hard title to earn in this year’s race. I would personally give Bachmann that title.

    Sadly one of the most sane of the candidates (Huntsman) is doing worse in the polls than any of those three. He’s a solid evolution supporter. Probably one of the reasons he’s behind in the polls.

  2. I don’t think Santorum is pandering – he really is a creationist, and devout Catholic, and is expressing what he believes. The only reason he hasn’t enjoyed Bachmann’s or Perry’s popularity with the crazy wing of the party is that he is so boring. But, perhaps he’ll get his day in the sun as the party cycles through all the alternatives to Romney.

  3. From the article: “On Monday, Santorum said teachers should be allowed to ‘teach the controversy’ between the theory of evolution and any gaps in the study that would allow for dialogue on a divine beginning.”

    While Santorum may be as clueless of science as Bachmann or Perry, he seems to have read and understood enough arguments to know that creationism/ID is pseudoscientific bunk that ranges from “fatally wrong, and mutually-contradictory to boot” to “not even wrong” in the case of ID’s big tent scam. And he has hinted that he does know that, but his radical theocratic agenda prevents him from ever admitting that.

    The question that screams to be asked of him, if only to watch how he tries to weasel out of an answer id this: “Since you only advocate teaching the ‘controversy’ between evolution and the so-called ‘gaps’, and not any positive evidence for YEC, OEC and ID, would you agree to students learning it in a non-science class, where the ‘gaps,’ also known as ‘PRATTs’ (points refuted 1000x), are compared not to ‘evidence for evolution’ but to the devastating refutations?”

  4. Ed: “I don’t think Santorum is pandering – he really is a creationist, and devout Catholic, and is expressing what he believes.”

    What part of “creationism” do you think he really believes, and what evidence do you have to support it? I admit that that’s a trick question, because no one can really know what another truly believes without reading minds. Don’t get me wrong. You could be right; he could have created a fantasy reality in his mind where YEC, OEC and “virtual evolution” (a la Behe) are all true at the same time. But no one has any more evidence of that than I have for my contention that he might know that evolution is right, but that the “masses” can’t handle the truth.” Besides, as a good Catholic boy he has surely heard Pope John Paul II’s description of the evidence for evolution as “convergence, neither sought nor provoked.”

  5. Ceteris Paribus

    It may be too soon to tell if Santorum is the dumbest man in the room. As attributed to Mark Twain and others: “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”
    So we need to know more about who else is in that room we haven’t heard from yet.

    There’s a NYT article today by Nate Silvers mentioning the unprecedented eight week gap between the four early Republican primaries, and the Super Tuesday primaries which contain the bulk of the votes. Silvers frames his article as what might happen between the two present front runners, Gingrich and Romney in that long primary time gap.

    But I would suggest that the 8 week gap is also a big empty room that could attract some previously silent potential candidates, especially one that gets the backing of the same theocratic powers that boosted the little known and little vetted Sarah Palin for VP.

    A big empty room makes for a lot of echoes that can convince susceptible people that nonsensical drivel is the voice of [G]od speaking to them.

  6. Frank J, Santorum may not care what the Pope has to say about evolution. While there’s no evidence that he is a member of Opus Dei, he is certainly an admitted admirer of its founder, which makes him leaning toward the loony, rather than the Pope. At any rate, anyone who brings a dead baby home to spend the night with his living children (ages one through six) is, IMO, not to be trusted around living things.

  7. @Ellie:

    He may not care what the Pope had to say about evolution, but I doubt that he thinks that he was wrong. Otherwise he would have, by now, parroted the idiotic nonsense that JPII was “misquoted” or “bullied.” And even the ones looney enough to do the latter know better than to criticze anyone who makes the conflicting accusation. Actually I know of one activist who made both accusations, but from what I can tell he changed his mind rather than trying to have it both (wrong) ways.

    As for Santorum’s baby story, I almost forgot that. As weird as I find it, I know that people grieve in strange ways, especially when they react on emotion as much as he does, so I won’t pass judgment. Besides, being in on the scam is reason enough IMO to make him unqualified for any public office.

  8. “The interesting thing about the Republicans seeking the presidential nomination is that the most crazed among them are doing badly in all the polls. ”

    LOL! As far as I can tell, NONE of the Republican candidates are doing that great in the polls. They’ve been playing musical-frontrunners for months trying to come up with ANYONE who might be a viable, electable candidate and failing. Newt seems to be the current flavor-of-the-month but he barely beats out Romney and by less than statistical error. Even so, less than 1 in 4 are preferring Newt over the others. Frankly, I think ALL the Republican candidates have been pandering too much to the extreme right-wing that they are alienating the majority of moderates that would otherwise vote for a change from Obama.

  9. Eric: ““Dumbest” is a hard title to earn in this year’s race. I would personally give Bachmann that title.”

    Hey – Bachmann may get the nomination and choose Santorum as her running mate. If that indeed comes to pass, I will give serious thought to the Mayan prediction re: 2012.

    Seriously, though, it would appear that Romney will get the nomination, which imo wouldn’t be all bad. Of all potential candidates, he has the most executive experience (or at least, sane executive experience) and is the least ideological. Good combination for a president.

  10. How could you think such a frothy mixture boring? Should I be ashamed at lowering the tone? Perhaps, but I’m not.
    No one could lower the tone when talking about this person. Lube only dilutes his essence.

  11. Santorum is nutty and ignorant about evolution, and he may have some theocratic tendencies. He will never get the GOP nomination. His chances are no better than Kucinich ever had of getting the Dem nomination. If by chance he did he would lose to Obama.

    Even if by some one-in-a-million chance he managed to win the Presidency he would be unable to do much to advance the creationist/theocratic part of his agenda, if he even tried. The courts, bipartisan opposition, and majority public opinion would stop him.

    On the other hand, Santorum has a far better grasp of free market economics and its power to create wealth and economic prosperity, and about how government can wreck an economy, than Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Durban, and Barney Frank combined.

    In fact, the Chinese communists have a better understanding and grasp of free market economics and its power to create wealth and economic prosperity than Obama and most of the Democratic Party leadership.

    The West may be more democratic, but the Chicoms — having learned what unfettered socialism and centralized planning and control of national economies did to the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cuba, and North Korea — have embraced the hands-off minimal government regulation free market economic policies that created the wealthiest nations on the planet.

  12. Seriously, though, it would appear that Romney will get the nomination, which imo wouldn’t be all bad. Of all potential candidates, he has the most executive experience (or at least, sane executive experience) and is the least ideological. Good combination for a president.

    Huntsman for me (which means, I lose). If Romney had a backbone, I’d agree with you. But I fear Romney will pass any (ideological) legislation he thinks will get him reelected. I can easily see Romney promoting pro-creationist laws and policies – regardless of his internal beliefs – if that’s the way the wind blows. I do not see Huntsman doing so. In fact, H. threatened to veto pro-creationist legislation passed by the Utah senate, so they withdrew it. Can you imagine Romney doing such a thing? I can’t.

  13. I agree with you, Eric — I like Huntsman better than Romney also. Realistically, though, the only way he gets the Republican nomination is by being the last man (or woman) standing after the implosion of the rest of the field.

    That’s the problem — getting through the Republican primaries. If Huntsman could get to the general election, he would have a stronger appeal to the independent middle that will probably decide the election than any of the other Republican candidates, with the possible exception of Romney.