Gingrich is worse, if only for the damage he could do. Santorum would try to do a lot of evil things, but he wouldn’t be able to get them done. Newt, I think, could pull some of it off
Santorum is very much in the mold of the christian reconstructionist/dominionist movement which I personally consider the most evil perversion of faith and the most serious threat to democracy that presently exists. Any connection with that faction renders a candidate absolutely unsuitable for office.
Gingrich is a slimey ethically-challenged egomaniacal buffoon, but he is also an experienced and canny political player and a pragmatist. I would very much not like to see a Gingrich presidency, don’t think it’s likely to happen, but if it did it would probably not be a complete disaster. The country has, after all, survived Franklin Pierce, Chester Arthur and Warren Harding. And other character-challenged politicians (e.g. Nixon, Clinton, even Richard J. Daley) have been fairly effective leaders.
I’d prefer a canny crook over a right-wing zealot any day.
SS
Well, we differ. I prefer a helpless zealot who, in the end, can’t get any of his agenda through Congress. Newt has a chance of getting stuff through and causing who knows how much destruction.
This is a fair point, and I think it comes down to this for me: you get a politician’s potential harm by multiplying their malice by their efficacy. Newt definitely wins on the efficacy front, but Santorum is far more malicious.
I think Santorum could screw over the country a lot worse than Gingrich could. Considering both his previous political experience and the knowledge he’s exhibited on subjects ranging from immigration to international policy to job creation and the economy, I think Gingrich is much better equipped to avert potential disasters than Santorum would be. Gingrich seems to be more sensible.
I can’t stand politicians who let religion guide their political ideologies. I don’t know much about Santorum other than that I’ve heard he’s a religious nut. However, he seemed to be the sanest person on the stage at the Florida debate that I watched. Newt is a politician’s politician, talking out of both sides of his mouth. Santorum at least gives it to you straight. Strictly between those two, I’d vote for Santorum.
I’m not sure he is. Thing about Newt is, he’s a megalomaniac. He would burn this world down to spite any single person who gave him the side eye.
Also, Newt genuinely has an agenda on financial policies, one that he could actually achieve with a Republican congress. Santorum can’t get a Christian America agenda passed. I know those people are scary, but they really are a minority, and civil rights issues are the ones that people get het up about remember when it’s time to vote. Very few politicians *really *wants to change the status quo on that stuff, they know how likely it is to bite them in the ass.
Agree! Santorum does not believe anyone should be allowed to have contraceptives. Not even married couples. You gotta wonder what kind of like minded nutters he would appoint to important positions.
In regards to the moon base, remember that Bush pushed for that, too. I suspect that Gingrich’s reason for it is the same as Bush’s (or at least, as Bush’s handlers): It keeps NASA from doing any climatology.
Santorum is the greater danger. The executive can do an amazing amount of damage if the folks that hold to the doctrine of Christian Reconstructionism. This guy BELIEVES in that doctrine.
He thinks that the Bible can be used as a moral and ethical guide for governance. That, my fellow board participants, is just crazy. I bet you all that he really wants “Jesus to come back in my lifetime.” When the big red button is available and your dreams tell you to do it, well then maybe it would be a good idea. Especially if those nuclear tipped missiles are heading to some heathen country.
So maybe not Santorum.
Gingrich, on the other hand, is your usual genius-level monomaniacal narcissistical power politician whose is venal enough to not want to wage war just to summon his chosen deity. As far as we can tell if he did so then he would merely create an exact image of himself. (That would, incidentally, make for a classic 1990 sitcom concept.) The result of this would difficult to determine. Perhaps they could decide to divide up the fundraising efforts or grassroots support. It might be difficult if he showed up in Missouri and Virginia at the same time. But… does anybody really care? At this point, a candidate could start wearing fluorescent green ties (regardless of other attire) and completely obscure the fact that he called for the jailing of all people whose names rhyme with ‘yo mama’ and for all unwed mothers to be placed into creches until their children were born. At that point, Fox news might comment something like ‘Oh, that scamp’ and chuckle.
Interesting times.
Gingrich might wage war if he can figure out a way to make money on the deal. And there are lots of people who make money on war, so it wouldn’t be a great intellectual leap for him to figure it out.
Eh? I thought he was Catholic. Which Reconstructionism most emphatically ain’t.
I’m not sure which would be worse. All I know is they wouldn’t be nearly as harmful as Paul. (For how long, that is, since Paul seems like the type of person who would try crazy executive orders that could possibly result in his being kicked out by Congress [I say possibly not because the current GOP would go along with his quashing of the legislative prerogative, but because if he should happen to make it to President it would only be on a wave of pro-Paul feeling in the USA.])
If I had to choose, I’d choose Santorum as the more dangerous, because Gingrich is more money-focused than social-conservatism-focused, and also has less of the “screw it, I’ll just do whatever I want unless someone stops me” attitude than Santorum might have if he gets a whiff of the powers of the President. Newt has been close enough to power that he’d have a sense of the practical more IMO.
Gingrich would go through his first term wanting to get reelected, so he would be bad, but at least in the neighborhood of sanity. He’s petulant and would be dangerous with weapons or sharp objects, but he’s also looking out for himself. I think, at the end of the day, he wants to be loved and respected, but would that take him toward Kim Jong Il or Santa Claus?
Santorum could talk himself into pretty much any Dominionist fantasy he could think of. He’s not a smart person but he’s dogged and an ideologue.
Newt Gingrich thinks about starting a cult, gets two followers, decides it’s too much work, blames Obama for making it so difficult, then shags the followers.
Rick Santorum thinks about starting a cult, gets fifty followers, then they all drink poison.
Hmm. What to choose, what to choose.
Santorum has more dangerous views (and I say this as a Catholic) but he’d be impotent at implementing them. Gingrich will be able to push a few things through but I don’t think they’d be quite the level of crazy we need to be terrified about.
The real issue I see is that the next president will get to shape the SCOTUS fairly significantly. I would not worry too much about this if I wasn’t afraid that the Dems would eventually roll over on the nominations and let a few nut-jobs onto the court. So the question would be do you more fear the way Gingrich or Santorum will alter the SCOTUS? I don’t have an answer.
And it already has a Catholic majority.
You’re technically correct. Reconstructionism is an uber-strict variant of Calvinism and has generally had some anti-catholic bias. Reconstructionism is kind of a sub-set of Dominion theology however, which has a much broader appeal.
From Bruce Barron’s Heaven on earth?: the social & political agendas of dominion theology:
So I suppose it could be argued, whether Santorum is a Reconstructionist or merely a Dominionist. Either way I think sensible people would agree that the prospect of a Santorum presidency is…distressing.
SS
Historians would record Dan Savage’s little joke as “the least embarrassing thing about” the Santorum Administration.
I don’t know the answer. But I think I know the question.
But Gingrich has received $10 million in Super-Pac money from a rabidly pro-Israel/anti-Iran donor.
Military experts agree with regards to Iran: we have to make the diplomatic process work. If we bomb Iran that will only unify the country and practically guarantee development of a nuke. Cite1: Very long but good: Will Iran Be Next? - The Atlantic
Cite2: Am I being too rational? The prospect of war on Iran - The Atlantic
Now Romney, though he is a foreign policy lightweight respects expert opinion and knows how to ask questions. Santorum seems to be a fanatic while Newt is a demagogic egomaniac. Since we can’t trust Newt’s words, that means we can de-weight his hawkish remarks on Iran: there’s always an elevated chance that he doesn’t mean what he says. So Santorum therefore seems worse, in that he is more likely to embroil us in an expensive, pointless and national security weakening war.
On domestic policy, all three candidates will sign whatever the Republican congressional loons send up. So in terms of high deficit spending, medicare phase-out and special tax breaks for the 1%, they are pretty similar.
Santorum. That man scares the crap out of me. (Pun not intended). He’s a spiteful, hateful bastard, and if he were elected president, I’d be over the Canadian border before you could say “We Stand On Guard For Thee”.
Even most Catholics think he’s wacko.