I wasn’t going to blog about the Republican primary season, mostly because I won’t be participating since I’m not a member of that party (or any other party—I know, you’re shocked, right?).  But, as usual, the media circus and sheer absurdity of it all has forced my hand.

(As I’m pretty hopped up after watching more corporate greed in the movie Gasland and listening to the coverage of the Arizona and Michigan primaries on the way home, you’ll have to forgive my unusual lack of decorum).

I’d like to address the most fallacious talking points that have been swarming around lately, and have all the “pundits” or “wonks” abuzz.

We drive a couple of caddies with our NASCAR team owner friends!

 1.  Mitt Romney can’t relate to the common man because he’s rich. 

Yeah, no shit; show me a presidential (or congressional) candidate that isn’t rich, and I’ll muster some shock for ya.  In our political system, money is power and it has been proven time and time again—this race is no different (in fact, it’ll be worse given Citizens v. United).

We don’t want a “common man” for president—that’s why you or your neighbor ain’t running for the office.  The common man is generally unaware, unsophisticated, and ignorant about politics, world events, and other issues important to, you know, governing the United States of America.  I say this without rancor or prejudice (well, mostly), and I’m well aware that I am included in the “great unwashed masses” that I just described.

He needs to stop pretending otherwise if he wants to actually seem sincere, because his constant faux pas are embarrassing and insipid.

2.  If Mitt Romney didn’t win Michigan (his “home state”), then that’s would have been a near insurmountable embarrassment and the Republican Party will have to scramble and figure out what to do next.

Why is it his “home state?” Because he happened to be born there?  Sure he went to elementary school and high school there—his first 18 years of life.  But after that, he was off to BYU and then the east coast for grad school  and the private world in Massachusetts, ran for the Senate, and then became governor…of MASSACHUSETTS!  So for the last 47 years of his life, he has not associated with my home state; none of his 3 homes are even in MI (New Hampshire, California, and Massachusetts).

So why the hell does anyone consider Michigan Romney’s home state?  Now his dad (who turned American Motors around as its CEO and actually became governor of MI), HIS home state could be the Wolverine State, but Romney?  Not unless being a member of the pep squad at Cranbrook school earns one a permanent place on the Michigan-as-a-home-state honor roll.

3. Santorum’s fallacious backpedaling on JFK’s speech and the former’s desire to invert his diaphragm (i.e. “throw up”) in response to the late president’s remarks. 

Let’s follow the chain of events:

a) In 1960, JFK gives a speech about his views on the role of religion in government.  (Background: Kennedy, soon to be the first Catholic president, was allaying fears that the Pope would have some sort of Jedi mind-control powers over him because both were Catholic.  JFK mentions that he believes the “separation of church and state is absolute,” contextually talking about no public (or private) individual should feel coerced by religion regarding his political views, and vice versa).

b) February 26, 2012: Rick Santorum states that JFK’s speech made him want to “throw up.” (Background: here the senator is criticizing the trailblazing Catholic president whose efforts allow Santorum to run in the Republican primaries as a Catholic with no real baggage—unless he opens his mouth to create some.)

c) It’s generally agreed that Santorum mischaracterizes/misreads JFK’s remarks about religion in said speech.

d) Two days later (Feb 28), Santorum begins backpedaling and “wishes he could take his comment back,” but still insists that other parts of JFK’s speech indicate a “privatization of faith” and that he (Santorum) does not believe in an “absolute separation of church and state” as JFK defined it.

e) February 29, 2012: This author links to the transcript of JFK’s speech to let readers decide for themselves if anything in that speech can be read in support of Santorum’s argument.

f) Later that same day: This author smugly rests-assured in the knowledge that no such support shall be found.

In the end, I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir (again) here, but I would hope that in an entrenched 2-party system, either side could come up with some better options and more substantive reasons why they should (or should not) be the next POTUS.