Santorum is a one-stater– he says all of West Bank is Israel

US Politics
on 111 Comments

We posted this video more than a month ago, but it’s worth reposting in light of Rick Santorum’s kinda triumph last night. ThinkProgress’s Eli Clifton, a great reporter, snagged this a while back (and you wonder why Center for American Progress is under attack from the right wing). His transcript of a bristling exchange between a young person and the former Pennsylvania senator, who has obviously studied hasbara:

QUESTIONER: Do you think Israel should dismantle its settlements?

SANTORUM: No. The West Bank, is this part of Israel?

QUESTIONER: [inaudible] According to 48? [inaudible] [...]

SANTORUM: Is Mexico part of the United States?

QUESTIONER: No.

SANTORUM: How did we get New Mexico and Texas?

QUESTIONER: Through war.

SANTORUM: How did they get the West Bank? [inaudible] Through a war. Should we give Texas back to Mexico?

QUESTIONER: Well I don’t think you should recognize recent annexations.

SANTORUM: Oh, so it depends whether it’s recent or not? So we should have given New Mexico and Texas back 150 years go? [...] The bottom line is that that is legitimately Israeli country. And they have a right to do within their country just like we have a right to do within our country. If they want to negotiate with Israelis– and all the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis, they’re not Palestinians. There is no Palestinian, this is Israeli land.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

111 Responses

  1. Kathleen
    January 4, 2012, 8:50 am

    One state, one vote, the Apartheid state of Israel becomes even more apparent as Mearsheimer and others have pointed out

    Problem with Santorum’s comparison is that Texas and New Mexico are not completely surrounded by other countries that know you stole the land and have treated the rightful owners horribly

    These pro fetus fake Christian folks really get under my skin. Not pro life at all not all. Hide behind their damn little crosses while they try to make sure people do not have access to health care etc. When they shout out their fake family values standing behind their alleged religious beliefs they are fair game.

    • seafoid
      January 4, 2012, 9:26 am

      Santorum is the candidate for the so-called “religious” vote bank so of course he’s going to say that Israel owns all the land. Otherwise Jesus can’t land for the Rapture.
      I am with you, Kathleen, on the hypocrisy of these “Christians” who don’t believe in charity and decency and instead peddle fear to their people who wallow in ignorance while the secular rich make out like bandits.

      • Kathleen
        January 4, 2012, 12:39 pm

        I grew up around Catholics and others like this. Hiding behind their alleged religious beliefs. When they start dancing on camera hiding their killer and selfish instincts behind their religions they are fair game

      • dahoit
        January 5, 2012, 12:18 pm

        They aint Christians,but moonie loonies.
        Is the Rev Moon subsidized by Israeli interests?
        Bastardized Christianity gone wacko mainstream.
        Divide and conquer.

    • pineywoodslim
      January 4, 2012, 4:45 pm

      And of course, the US offered immediate US citizenship to the Mexican citizens of New Mexico and the “Texan” citizens of Texas.

      Why give the southwest back to Mexico in any case?

      We stole it from Mexico, who stole it from Spain, who stole it from the native-Americans. If anyone has a claim, they do.

      (not really offering a proposal here, just sayin’)

      • ToivoS
        January 4, 2012, 8:00 pm

        If you examine the migration patterns over the last century, the Mexicans are reoccupying their former homeland. However, they like it is the way it is today and are not interested in seeing it returned to Mexico.

    • shawket
      January 5, 2012, 11:02 am

      The ironic thing about Evangelical Christians that support Israel is that they’re some of the most racist and anti-Semitic people around. They want the Israelis to control all of Historic Palestine so Jesus can come back and kill all the disbelievers, i.e. the Jews. They like Israel, but hate the Jews. They’ve got it backwards.

  2. flyod
    January 4, 2012, 8:54 am

    kinda tragedy, not triumph…this guy is dangerous. ww III guaranteed

  3. Kathleen
    January 4, 2012, 8:55 am

    The questioner bumbled. Completely bumbled. Santorums first question…was the West Bank part of Israel? NO NO NO. Aggressive attack by Jordan and other countries NO NO NO NO. Israel was the aggressor..

    Santorum ran over that guy. Unless his goal was to allow Santorum to roll over him.

    Could have simply asked Santorum “does he value or have any respect for international law and treaties?” “Does he have any respect for the very international body..the UN that created Israel?”

    • irishmoses
      January 4, 2012, 12:38 pm

      “Mr. Santorum, Hitler conquered France, Belgium, Netherlands, and Norway. Are you saying Britain and the US should have minded their own business because ‘might makes right’?”

      Or, “Mr. Santorum, since you apparently are unconcerned about the oppression of Palestinians by the Israelis as that is just an internal matter for Israelis, does that mean German oppression of the Jews, including their near extermination in the holocaust was also just an internal matter for the Germans?” “Mr. Santorum, doesn’t your argument of ‘might makes right’ justify the holocaust?”

      Or, “Mr. Santorum, since you apparently believe Israel has the right to conquer neighboring states, would you extend that right to Russia and China? Should we just stand by if Russian decides to reconquer and reclaim the various countries now independent from the old Soviet Union?”

      Or, “Mr. Santorum, do you believe Muslims, Arabs and Palestinians are somehow inferior and unworthy of states of their own, and therefore can be justifiably conquered by Christian and Jewish countries?”

      Or, “Mr. Santorum, you and many American Jews believe they have a right to take Arab land because of their claim that Israel is the ancient homeland of the Jews. Does that mean you believe that Italian Americans have a right to claim part of Italy as their ancient homeland? What about Irish Americans?”

      Obviously these responses need honing, but hopefully, in the coming debates, moderators and other participants will be prepared to better respond to Mr. Santorum’s simplistic but very effective argument.

      • tokyobk
        January 4, 2012, 8:52 pm

        Those are all fair questions and much better than the stutters of the questioner in this video, but you use the words “Arab land” without irony or scrutiny.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 4, 2012, 9:55 pm

        israel took and continues to take arab land tokyobk. that’s not really in dispute for many of us.

      • tokyobk
        January 5, 2012, 10:20 am

        Yes, I realize the fact that for you and most people here that land conquered at one point by Arabs becomes for all eternity Arab land whereas land conquered by other groups is always in dispute.

        Israel is not Jewish land and its not Arab land either, its human land as is the rest of the planet.

      • Taxi
        January 5, 2012, 10:46 am

        I guess you’ve never heard of the Geneva Convention, tokyobk – the content and the REASON for contracting it to the civilized world.

        I guess you didn’t mind Hitler’s European Tour neither – Germany shoulda kept all illegally occupied countries according to your lofty ideals eh.

        “… Israel is not Jewish land and its not Arab land either, it’s human land as is the rest of the planet”
        You think making sweeping ‘universalist’ statements like the above makes you an even-headed ‘realist’?

        Ethnic cleansing is a non-issue for you?

        The human feeling of ‘belonging’ an absurd myth to you?

        Man you’re confusing hoogleyboogley denialism with enlightenment.

      • dahoit
        January 5, 2012, 12:28 pm

        This guy Santorum is just the latest stalking horse for Dr.Paul by the MSM.
        And the best thing about him is that he is totally opposite the MSM on every domestic social issue,and any support(like todays NYTs hagiography)just exposes their hypocrisy,as it’s obvious their treatment of him by boosting him,should let the American people know it’s the Israel thing that inspires such treatment,and not his stand on social issues.
        The latest Cain,Perry ,Bachmann etc.idiot for Israel.

  4. Annie Robbins
    January 4, 2012, 8:58 am

    romney won by 8 votes

    link to foxnews.com

    imho, this means the gop in iowa called the shots. who knows.

    • seafoid
      January 4, 2012, 10:04 am

      Interestingly Bachman said in Iowa that America had been made possible by God . That’s obviously one for her fruitcake base most of whom believe the Zionists have carte blanche to persecute the Palestinians because God wills it.

    • iamuglow
      January 4, 2012, 10:58 am

      “this means the gop in iowa called the shots”

      I thought the same thing. SANTORUM comes from out of nowhere in the last 2 weeks …Paul was leading most of the Polls yet comes in am ignoble 3rd.

      And the press is still ignoring his existence. Here is an article from AP running on Yahoo…it mentions all the candidates except for Paul.

      link to news.yahoo.com

    • Kathleen
      January 4, 2012, 12:41 pm

      Hey Romney won by more than Bush did in Florida…he did not win. Unless losing means winning to the US supreme court which it did

    • MRW
      January 4, 2012, 9:24 pm

      romney won by 8 votes.

      Yeah, annie, but those votes were only 5.4% of the Iowa voters. There is still a long way to go. I’m willing to bet Newt Gingrich is going to make a huge comeback, possibly be the nominee, then there is going to be a write-in campaign for Ron Paul.

      There are a lot of people in this country who are center-of-the-road Republican and who don’t like religious candidates. People like Santorum scare them. As a conservative PA radio host said this AM, Santorum lost 17 points in his own state (for senator) in 2006, “And if he can’t take his own state, what’s the chance of taking the country.”

      If the Israel-Firsters start a war with Iran between now and 11/12, which means that Obama will have gone along with it, the write-in campaign for Ron Paul–he doesn’t have to start a third party–will start in earnest.

      Another thing to watch is what Panetta is doing to the Pentagon budget and the new policy rules about engaging in war coming out tomorrow. The policy before was we could be in two wars, not three. I think they are changing that–at least, that’s what I thought I heard on TV. If so, it looks as if they are going to use policy changes to put a break on the Bomb Iran crowd. Israel and Israel-Firsters are using the US as its private piggy-bank. Panetta knows this and told them so on Dec. 2. He had to back down. Now, I think, he is going to use policy.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 4, 2012, 10:02 pm

        mrw, to be honest..when i wrote that there were only a few comments on the new thread. i saw the headline, had just woken up (it was 6 am here), and i thought phil was still under the impression santorum had won. when i went to bed last night they announced a santorum win with 99% of the votes in (i think). after i wrote the comment i shot phil off an email..romney won not santorum!

        that was really the only thing i was saying in the comment..and then my impression of how it happened. i know the race is early but i don’t think gingrich will get the nomination.

      • MRW
        January 4, 2012, 11:58 pm

        Well, darlin’, that’s what they said about McCain. ;-) We’ll see. I’m rooting for mayhem, BTW.

  5. pabelmont
    January 4, 2012, 9:08 am

    A conservative is a person who wishes to conserve something. In USA politics, it is usually his own power and prerogative and preeminence and privilege that he wishes to conserve. (A conservationist wants to preserve nature without destruction by people and their doings. That is another sort of conservatism altogether, running sharply against the first type of conservatism.)

    The “right” that comes from the barrel of guns is highly prized by those who have guns. Santorum likes the idea that Israel won it and gets to keep it. “International law, take a hike,” he seems to say though maybe he doesn’t know anything about it, or about the UN Charter and UNSC 242.

    An interesting question no-one ever seems to ask people like Santorum, is whether the Palestinians should be allowed to keep all of Palestine in the (unlikely) event that they can capture it back from Israel.

    Another interesting question is why the USA should use its thumb-on-the-scale to help Israel win its wars instead of allowing it to fight things out with its neighbors on a fairer basis. Where’s the interest of the average American in using our money, our army, our UNSC veto, etc., to constantly bail Israel out? If it is such an obviously failed state constantly on the “dole” (like all those notional welfare mothers the Republicans keep talking about), why should the USA keep dishing money out to it?

    • dahoit
      January 5, 2012, 12:32 pm

      Liberals want freedom for only what they approve of,and conservatives want law and order for everyone but themselves.
      Both expressions of hypocrisy,but hey,aint that our modern currency?

  6. lobewyper
    January 4, 2012, 9:27 am

    Has Santorum ever heard of UN Resolution 242? Does Santorum eschew international law? Sounds like it…

  7. Annie Robbins
    January 4, 2012, 9:30 am

    from his wiki page

    Santorum shifted his campaign theme to the threat of radical Islam and Islamic terrorism in the United States. He gave a speech invoking British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, referring to multiple forces trying to undermine the U.S. in a “gathering storm” (the term Churchill used to describe the causes of World War II).[33] He pointed to the historical date of a Muslim siege in Europe, Sept. 11, 1683, as evidence that radical Islamists were waging a more than 300-year old crusade with the intent to restore Shia clerics to power in the Western world.[34] Casey told the press that Santorum’s claims were outrageous, saying, “No one believes terrorists are going to be more likely to attack us, because I defeat Rick Santorum. Does even he believe that?” A heated debate between the candidates occurred on October 11, 2006.[35] The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described both candidates’ performances during the debate as “unstatesmanlike”.[35]

    In the November election, Santorum lost, with 41% of the vote to Casey’s 59%,[36][37] the largest margin of defeat ever for an incumbent Republican Senator in Pennsylvania.[38]

    • Kathleen
      January 4, 2012, 12:44 pm

      Which neocons are on his campaign team? Feith was with Perry…wonder if he has gotten a job with Santorum. Where is Wolfowitz. I am re reading counterterroism expert Richard Clarke’s book ” Against all Enemies” He sure lays a lot of the go get Iraq blame at Wolfowitz’s feet. Great book

  8. Dan Crowther
    January 4, 2012, 9:32 am

    If the Israeli’s give back the West Bank, what’s next, man on dog love? Oh. wait, wrong audience

    • Annie Robbins
      January 4, 2012, 9:41 am

      lol, thanks for brightening my day

      • seafoid
        January 4, 2012, 10:52 am

        link to guardian.co.uk

        During the Iowa campaign Santorum explained that not only would he support a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, but he would also be in favour of annulling all currently legal same-sex unions. Not that this should come as much of a surprise: in 2003 the devout Catholic provoked outrage by appearing to compare homosexuality with paedophilia and bestiality. “Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman,” he said. “In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality.” He later insisted that the remark was not homophobic and that he had been speaking from a legal point of view, but the damage had been done. Sex advice columnist Dan Savage launched a readers’ competition to find a new definition for “santorum” – and the winner was “the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex”. Even now, the definition is among the first results for “Santorum” yielded on internet search engines.

    • CloakAndDagger
      January 4, 2012, 1:28 pm

      From the counterpoint article:

      “Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality

      At this point, even the unnerved reporter tried to rein in Santorum. “I’m sorry,” Jordan interjected. “I didn’t think I was going to talk about ‘man on dog’ with a United States senator, it’s sort of freaking
      me out.”

      link to counterpunch.org

      • Dan Crowther
        January 4, 2012, 3:22 pm

        “Santorum, thats Latin for Asshole”

        hahaha. the only other time i laughed at something bob kerrey said was when Dubya and the Zio-cons were beating him up on his anti-iraq war stance and he came back at Bush hard, saying ” I was in Vietnam in combat, while the president was defending Texas from Oklahoma in the Air Natl guard”

      • dahoit
        January 5, 2012, 12:48 pm

        I thought the head of the new school was fully on board with Iraq.Am I mistaken?

      • Dan Crowther
        January 5, 2012, 1:06 pm

        your right dahoit – what kerrey was criticzing was the “your Un-American” if you dissent part of the pre-war program. He indeed was for the war…..Cheers, my misake

  9. frankier
    January 4, 2012, 9:42 am

    Santorum is basically advocating that the US government endorses a violation of a tenet of modern international law, that is no territorial expansion through wars. AIPAC’s money (i.e., US taxpayers money) at work at its best…

  10. libra
    January 4, 2012, 10:02 am

    Even worse, he doesn’t believe in global warming.

  11. CloakAndDagger
    January 4, 2012, 10:21 am

    And here lies the choice before us. We can marginalize Ron Paul today and we will be left with Santorum and Obama as our only choices. You can vote Justice party, or Green party, or whatever you wish – none of them will get a platform for debate and very few Americans will ever hear about the truth of our imperialism and the Israel lobby.

    We can all sit around, being smug in our ideological purity, with not a lot to show for it. If being progressive means not making any progress because we are so much holier-than-thou, then it is hardly a movement worth getting behind. If we are not even willing to do what it takes to have Ron Paul’s anti-war voice be heard on the national airwaves, then his voice will be silenced in the weeks ahead, and this little glimmer of hope before us will vanish – perhaps forever.

    And we can all pat ourselves on the back for our ideological purity while people all around the world die under Santorum or Obama – but at least we didn’t compromise our purity. And we can hope that Jesus Christ descends on us and runs for president.

    • seafoid
      January 4, 2012, 11:28 am

      Santorum doesn’t have the money to go much further.

      • CloakAndDagger
        January 4, 2012, 1:24 pm

        He may not go further, but his baton will get picked up by Romney now that Santorum has shown a following.

        And if its not Romney, then it is Obama.

      • seafoid
        January 9, 2012, 3:26 pm

        Santorum is unelectable. If romney takes on any of his ideas seriously he won’t get the voters in the middle.

      • dahoit
        January 5, 2012, 12:51 pm

        Not yet,but I hear the AIPAC printing machines humming.
        The purity thing is correct.

    • Kathleen
      January 4, 2012, 12:47 pm

      They ignored Rep Pauls distinct difference on foreign policy on the Diane Rehm show today. The hour was on the Iowa caucus results. Chris Cilizza said “there are no sharp distinctions between the Republican candidates” Total bull—-. Diane and the rest of the guest did not argue with that completely false comment

  12. Kathleen
    January 4, 2012, 10:25 am

    Over at Diane Rehm they are discussing the Iowa caucus results. She has David “axis of evil” Frum, Mara Liasson and Frank Luntz on analyzing the results.

    My statement on Facebook and comment section at the Rehm show. When will the MSM stop promoting the Iraq war mongers who have also been promoting war with Iran based on more unsubstantiated claims

    Oh my Diane has David “axis of evil” Frum on as a guest discussing the Iowa caucus. Frum pushed the false intelligence selling the Iraq war to the American public. He is complicit in Iraqi war crimes. What is it with recycling these warmongers? Is the Rehm team really incapable of finding such deeply involved Iraq warmongers on as guest to discuss these issues.

    David “axis of evil” Frum also supports unnecessary sanctions and war against Iran. Enough of this promoting warmongers views. They have done enough serious damage.

    Diane are you really incapable of finding some new guest

    • Abierno
      January 4, 2012, 11:29 am

      I am surprised that non of the back channel comment regarding the votes
      being tallied in an undisclosed location (other than the usual GOP headquarters) were
      discussed as well as questions being raised as to whether Elron Voxeo were counting these votes in Iowa as they have done in the 2004 election. Answers to these concerns which address issues of transparency and bias would be important?

    • Walid
      January 4, 2012, 12:21 pm

      “David “axis of evil” Frum also supports unnecessary sanctions and war against Iran. ”

      Kathleen, it’s a shame David Frum didn’t become anything like his mother Barbara, a most prestigious journalist that died of leukemia in 1992. She was my favourite and I hardly missed any of her nightly TV programs that followed the national news. Here’s a small video of the great lady a month before she died;

  13. Kathleen
    January 4, 2012, 10:26 am

    I think (not absolutely sure) but think Liason went along with the false WMD claims about Iraq and have heard her promote a war with Iran on Fox news (yes I listen to this program sometimes)

  14. seafoid
    January 4, 2012, 10:30 am

    I think it’s fine that it is all Israel. And given that Israel is a democracy everyone will have a vote.

  15. Kathleen
    January 4, 2012, 10:43 am

    Amazing they have not talked about the “sharp” distinction between Rep Paul and every other Republican candidate as well as “sharp” distinction between him and President Obama. Sharp sharp contrast. Think it was Cilazza who said there are no “sharp” differences between the Republican candidates.

    Anyone want to try to get through with that point…the “sharp” distinction between the Republican candidates

  16. CloakAndDagger
    January 4, 2012, 10:45 am

    Interesting article about last night over at link to infowars.com


    A lot of the negative attention that was aimed at Paul will now be focused on Santorum. The media may give Arlen Specter’s most important political ally a break, for now, but his opponents won’t. To the media, Santorum is a perfect GOP candidate – one they can easily trash when the time comes.

    And later, he says:


    There isn’t much the GOP establishment can do to derail Paul going forward. Ballot registration deadlines are passing, and the look of a real race means the appearance of a new entry (from a bench that is shallow and all-establishment) is less likely. The GOP has shown an interest in gaming the convention, but they have already deeply alienated many of Paul’s supporters, who will easily constitute the difference in the next election, whether Paul is on the ballot or not. The more the GOP does that seems designed to deny him a fair chance at the nomination, the more people they will alienate. The damage may already be done; it’s hard to find any Paul supporters who show any enthusiasm for any other candidates. They know that this actually isn’t just like every other election, a choice between two evils. Our country is in the grip of something awful which transcends Obama, and we’re approaching the event horizon. For millions there is one way out and one captain, everything else is a distraction from reality.

  17. CloakAndDagger
    January 4, 2012, 11:04 am

    On the topic of Foreign Policy, The MSM on Fox gave him a gotcha question this morning:
    Is there any Foreign Policy expert who agrees with you?

    His response:

    Most of the American people, and the US military

    I wish he had added Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, and the legion of ex-CIA professionals who echo his position, but this is exactly the issue that should be voiced every day on our airwaves.

    • Kathleen
      January 4, 2012, 12:50 pm

      Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett, Colonel Wilkerson, bet Colin Powell, Bryzinski

  18. Richard Witty
    January 4, 2012, 11:05 am

    A dangerous man in a field of dangerous men.

    But, he also has no chance of winning the Republican nominiation, nor the presidency.

    Its Romney’s. This is the first time in a very long time that the winner of the Iowa caususes will be the nominee.

    The only shift from that will be if Governor Christie of New Jersey enters the race, or some other actually credible candidate. He’ll have to before the primaries end, as the delegate count will not be split evenly in the slightest.

    • CloakAndDagger
      January 4, 2012, 11:33 am

      For once, I agree with you.

    • iamuglow
      January 4, 2012, 11:34 am

      “he also has no chance of winning the Republican nominiation, nor the presidency.
      Its Romney’s”

      and yet still the plebs insist on wasting all this money and time on elections.

      • libra
        January 4, 2012, 12:05 pm

        RW: “A dangerous man in a field of dangerous men.”

        With Romney perhaps the most dangerous of the lot. I’ve just looked at his foreign policy document, with forward written by Eliot Cohen, and it’s back to the American Century with a cast list of all the old enemies. Even Cuba.

    • irena
      January 4, 2012, 12:35 pm

      A sane man in the field of insane ones.

      He isn’t going to win but like a previous entry here said, his candidacy should the catalyst to the explosion of debate on blind allegiance to a state founded on the ethnic cleansing of an indigenous population and our imperialistic foreign policy which is increasingly becoming counter-productive and lethal

    • Kathleen
      January 4, 2012, 12:53 pm

      With you Witty. Always going to be Romney. If they want any chance of winning. Not sure how Christie and Romney will try to wrap up the union folks in Ohio who were fooled into voting for Kasich. They are going to have to do some serious ass kissing to get this vote…they are going to “remember in November”

      Have been spending a great deal of time with this cast of union characters. They are royally pissed with Republicans. I think Obama has it wrapped up in Ohio. I really do

    • MRW
      January 4, 2012, 9:39 pm

      You absolutely dead wrong, Witty.

      This is the first time in a very long time that the winner of the Iowa caususes will be the nominee.

      Obama won Iowa, became the nominee, and the Prez. What are you smoking?

    • dahoit
      January 5, 2012, 12:56 pm

      The world shifts wherever Christie walks.
      More banal BS from a banal BSer.

  19. American
    January 4, 2012, 11:16 am

    How did Santorum even surface again? This guy is really the bottom of the barrel.
    I remember when he was all over tort reform and criticizing John Edwards getting rich off medical mal lawsuits……and then it was revealed that Santorum and his wife had sued her chiropractor for $350,000,….LOL
    Freaks, that’s all we’ve got, just freaks.

    • CloakAndDagger
      January 4, 2012, 1:10 pm

      Don’t forget that Iowa has a big fundie population and Santorum knows how to appeal to them.

      On a related note, check out this article:

      Did Ron Paul win Iowa?

      link to campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com


      Technically, tonight’s vote was a straw poll, determining no delegates, but setting the tone. The only actions that actually could make a difference in electing delegates to the National Convention heavily favored Paul. Nobody will be watching in June, unless this election gets much more exciting, but Ron Paul might send more Iowa delegates to Tampa than any other candidate.

      Could we make elections more complicated in this country?

      • Shingo
        January 5, 2012, 2:54 am

        Interesting stuff C&D.

        The Republicans were already stating that Paul would not be allowed to win before the caucuss, whatever that means.

    • MRW
      January 4, 2012, 9:41 pm

      How did Santorum even surface again?

      Organization. He learned from Obama. He blanketed the state for months.

  20. eee
    January 4, 2012, 11:35 am

    Santorum and Paul have proved in Iowa that your excuses on why you don’ t have a candidate are BS. Santorum had little money and by hard work gained support. Paul also has gained support for his views through persistence and hard work. When will you admit that very few Americans support your views?

    • Taxi
      January 4, 2012, 12:20 pm

      After you tell us eee, I mean ADMIT to us that most of humanity abhor your crimes of Apartheid.

      Oh for sure ‘America’ is not in-love with the Palestinians – but face it, more and more Americans are now tepid about your despicably criminal colonization of Palestine.

      You’d better learn to respect and make nice with Americans buster – you’ll probably end up living with us at the end of the day: you know, getting a (real) job, paying the IRS for a change, saluting the flag – all your favorite activities eh.

      I say start weeping into your israeli flag already – if the republicans win they will start the middle east war that will end the Apartheid zionist state.

      It’s all good in the neighborhood boooyeah!

      • eee
        January 4, 2012, 1:04 pm

        Taxi,

        Israel is doing very well while Syria is on the verge of civil war and Iran’s economy is crumbling as we speak. The Islamists are the clear majority in Egypt and unfortunately they will lead that country to oblivion. It is clear that strategically Israel is becoming even stronger as the countries around it are growing much weaker because of economic hardships and internal strife.
        So just start the war you are mongering and let’s see who is left standing after it.

      • irena
        January 4, 2012, 2:40 pm

        Growing stronger? eee check out your beloved oppressor state’s GDP in 2011. Or the recent conflict between seculars and religious fundamentalist. Or the Tel Aviv protests in the summer. Unless you mean getting militarily stronger by US aid. And Egypt? US is scrambling to make sure the Egypt-Israel peace treaty sticks. They are in a transitional phase which is being suppressed by the US-backed military.
        Who is trying to sabotage Iran? Israel and US

      • eee
        January 4, 2012, 4:21 pm

        Yes, getting stronger. GDP is growing nicely. The conflict between secular and religious Jews has always been an issue. The protests this summer where a great example of Israeli democracy at work. Was anybody injured or killed? No one. Was there police brutality? No. As for the peace treaty with Egypt, it is really more important for Egypt at this stage than for Israel.

      • Taxi
        January 4, 2012, 9:51 pm

        eee

        Do they teach you how to spin your denialism at mosad school? Cuz I just love how you hide in your zionist bubble. About the only thing that you legitimately own is your bubble.

      • eee
        January 5, 2012, 11:53 am

        Taxi,

        The hard facts are quite simple:
        link to google.com

        For 60 years you and your ilk have been preaching the end of Israel. But lo and behold, Israel just keeps getting stronger relative to its neighbors. So who exactly is in denial?

      • Taxi
        January 5, 2012, 8:55 pm

        eee,

        You honestly think I would open links recommended by a mosad minion? Lol!

        YOUR ILK have thought for sixty years that Palestinians would just give up and go away and they haven’t and they ain’t never will despite the torture, murder and infanticide you’ve committed and CONTINUE to commit against them.

        All you have attached to your Apartheid name for sixty years is the long-long-long-long list of all the innocent civilians you’ve out and out fiendishly killed.

        For sure your achievements will be analyzed in the Hague and buried in the cemetery of history.

        It’s hilarious you think you’re so ooolala more ‘sophisticated’ than the natives.

        You’re not even any good at warfare deary: The Fatima Gate, The Battle of Bint Jbail etc.

        Okay here’s what wiki says about Bint Jbail:
        Bint Jbeil was a major center for the Lebanese resistance during the 18 years of Israeli occupation. After the liberation in 2000 it became an important base for Hezbollah. Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah held his famous victory speech in Bint Jbeil, after the Israeli withdrawal in 2000, where he belittled Israeli power:
        “My dear brothers, I say this to you: with all its atomic weapons, Israel is weaker than cobwebs”.
        According to Israeli journalist Amir Rapaport this speech infuriated the IDF Command which over time developed a “cobwebs complex”. The 2006 Lebanon war finally presented an opportunity to get even. Senior IDF officers, such as Chief of Staff Dan Halutz and Chief of Operations Gadi Eisenkot claimed that Bint Jbeil was an important “symbol”. They hoped to capture the town and bring an Israeli leader to hold a victory speech at the same place where Nasrallah held his speech in 2000. Instead Bint Jbeil would once again become a symbol of an Israeli failure.”

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        LOL the ‘Cobwebs Complex’!

        Remain in delusion I beg of you eee!

    • irena
      January 4, 2012, 12:43 pm

      Santorum gained support because he is GOP’s religious vote basket and like the video above proves, utter lack of knowledge of the I/P conflict and naked support for Israel (the two go very well together). Didn’t you listen to his comparisons of homosexuality to child molestation and beastiality? No hard work there, just words by a nutjob which please many Americans.

    • Donald
      January 4, 2012, 12:50 pm

      It’d be more accurate to say that most Americans know very little about the I/P conflict and of those who think they know something, often they get what they think they know from someone like John Hagee.

      In my real life people almost never mention Israel. There are much more important issues to them that directly effect their lives in obvious ways. The conservatives who do vote on that have Israel tied in with a lot of other hot button emotional issues–thinking that Israel must be defended until the Rapture occurs is just part of what they think they are supposed to believe.

    • Kathleen
      January 4, 2012, 1:12 pm

      If Americans were actually given accurate information about the I/P conflict and Iran the majority would completely support our views. But the pendulum is shifting and that is what has you worried eee that the truth is getting out. Well not so much on CNN and Dana Bash, Blizter and friends

      • patm
        January 5, 2012, 9:42 am

        Take any measure of human development you want to compare Israel to its neighbors,… Try this article on for size, 3e….again….. I’m still waiting for a reply.

        Israel’s bizarre decision to give up on education – and its future

        As Israelis, Palestinians and the rest of the world deal with the crimes of the occupation and the possibilities of one state or two – Israel’s choices in education show it has already decided to give up on the state that already exists. December 5 2011, Ami Kaufman

        link to 972mag.com

      • eee
        January 5, 2012, 10:15 am

        Patm,

        A reply to what? Did you notice that what the article does is compare the 16 richest countries in the world? How is that indication of anything? It is a sensationalist article that shows nothing. And these tests are like any other, countries that teach to the test do better. Israel does not put emphasis on these tests. Sure, the education system in Israel has room for improvement, but its results are spectacular.

        What gives you real sense of where Israel is are statistics like the following:
        link to scimagojr.com

        Or in the world where Israel is ranked 15:
        link to scimagojr.com

        And remember that Turkey has 10 times the population of Israel. The table is in absolute terms and not per capita even.

      • eee
        January 5, 2012, 10:46 am

        Patm,

        And I am waiting for a reply from you: Which measure of human development is Israel lagging its neighbors? Can you point to one?
        Thought not.

      • Annie Robbins
        January 5, 2012, 11:36 am

        Which measure of human development is Israel lagging its neighbors?

        israel is an apartheid state eee, neighborhood or no neighborhood one does not get to have human development bragging rights while running an apartheid state. israel has whole communities that go unrecognized with no services like electricity based purely on the ethnicity of the citizens in many villages and communities. please spare us your excuses.

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 5, 2012, 11:49 am

        ” Which measure of human development is Israel lagging its neighbors?”

        The one that measures whether a state keeps half the population under its control as disenfranchised victims, based on ethnicity.

      • patm
        January 5, 2012, 11:51 am

        You are a laugh, lobbyist 3e. Do a search for OECD under “eee” and you come up with 12 items. You sure do like OECD statistics when they suit you!

        Face it, that OECD report card on Israeli Education at all levels is BAD news.

        And it says volumes about the dim future of Apartheid Israel. The ultra-religious fanatics will rule the Knesset. Theocracy, eee, I warned you.

      • eee
        January 5, 2012, 11:59 am

        Annie,

        Now who is coming up with excuses? What is the problem, why can’t you come up with ONE human development measure in which Israel lags its neighbors? In every country there are communities that are behind, so what? Only in your distorted world does this make Israel an apartheid country.

        Since African Americans are so over represented in American jails, does this make the US an apartheid country? African Americans get 100 points less on average on the SATs than whites in the US, does this make the US an apartheid country? Blacks in the US are much more likely to be unemployed than whites in the US, does this make the US an apartheid country? Yes or no?

      • eee
        January 5, 2012, 12:03 pm

        patm,

        You really should face up to the truth which is simple. The Israeli education system has room to improve but it is very good relative to most countries in the world. You only want to focus on statistics that “prove” your distorted point of view and completely ignore all other statistics that I provide.

        About our “dim” future, we have been hearing that for years but EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE happens. So when will you learn to stop making fools of yourselves?
        link to google.com

      • eee
        January 5, 2012, 12:24 pm

        “The ultra-religious fanatics will rule the Knesset.”

        The Haredim have never had more than 6 members out of 120 in the Israeli Knesset. What are you talking about? Secular parties have a commanding majority.

      • dahoit
        January 5, 2012, 1:06 pm

        Empathy.

      • patm
        January 5, 2012, 1:14 pm

        Can you spell the words ‘Cabinet’ ‘posts’, 3e? Don’t try to divert.

        You have the spitting, flithy-diaper-throwing Black Hats in their urban ghettos and the murderous land-and-water-thieving settlers on the hill-tops. These are your high-birth areas. Check those OECD statistics on the state of education in Israel again, 3e. And be very afraid. Theocracy, 3e. I did warn you.

        And hey, what are you personally doing to improve education in Israel. Do you belong to a parent-teacher group? Do you volunteer? What are your children’s schools like?

      • eee
        January 5, 2012, 2:07 pm

        Patm,

        Having a discussion with someone who won’t acknowledge basic facts is impossible. Most Haredim are perfectly nice people just like most settlers. Just like in every group there are extremists. You seem to focus on them and generalize which of course leads you to very wrong conclusions. I gave you ample statistics showing that 1) Israel’s scientific output is growing and it is ranked 1 in the middle east and 15 in the world in this regard 2) Israel’s gdp per capita is by far larger than any of its neighbors and the gap is growing. You have chosen to completely ignore those facts.

        Would you like more statistics? How about patents per country:
        link to en.wikipedia.org

        Again, this is not per capita. Per capita Israel is number 2 in the world right after the Swiss.

      • eee
        January 5, 2012, 2:11 pm

        “Can you spell the words ‘Cabinet’ ‘posts’, 3e? ”

        What are you talking about? The Haredim do not have cabinet posts.
        Here is the makeup of the Israeli government:
        link to pmo.gov.il

      • patm
        January 5, 2012, 3:41 pm

        For pete’s sake, 3e, you guys write Israel’s wiki entries. Try quoting a reliable source.

      • eee
        January 5, 2012, 4:41 pm

        “you guys write Israel’s wiki entries”

        You are scraping the bottom of the barrel. What Israeli wiki entry did I link to?

        In short, you have lost this discussion badly. Thanks for playing.

      • libra
        January 5, 2012, 7:02 pm

        eee: “What is the problem, why can’t you come up with ONE human development measure in which Israel lags its neighbors?”

        For goodness sake eee, this is pitiful stuff even by your low standards. Everyone else, and I mean EVERYONE else, knows where their borders are. That’s just basic if you want to be treated as a serious country.

      • eee
        January 6, 2012, 12:39 am

        “For goodness sake eee, this is pitiful stuff even by your low standards. Everyone else, and I mean EVERYONE else, knows where their borders are.”

        You would pull out any lie out of the hat just to say something, wouldn’t you?
        There are many border disputes in the world:
        link to en.wikipedia.org

        Even the US and Canada have several territorial disputes.

        And again you have failed miserably to come up with ONE human development measure that Israel lags its neighbors. Why is that so difficult for you?

      • libra
        January 6, 2012, 7:54 pm

        Thanks for the link eee. It seems you can’t be a self-respecting country without a border dispute these days. Why, even the Pope’s got in the act with the Holy See disputing Italy over a 3m-by-60m strip along the Passetto di Borgo in the vicinity of the Vatican City.

        Nevertheless His Holiness does know where he thinks his border is. He’s not saying “I’ve no idea where the Vatican City ends, I’m waiting for the Italians to come to the negotiating table with an offer”. He’s not in the meantime sending out hordes of rabid Jesuits to set up armed settlements throughout Tuscany, uprooting the locals’ olive trees and pumping sewage all over their land.

        So come on eee, tell us where your claimed border with the Palestinians is. Because otherwise you would seem to be very badly lagging the Egyptians next door who mastered the art of accurate surveying thousands of year ago.

  21. CloakAndDagger
    January 4, 2012, 11:49 am

    WTF???

    link to dailypaul.com

    We now need to outsource counting???

    • Abierno
      January 4, 2012, 1:00 pm

      Given the issues in the 2000 election, the numerous concerns raised in 2004
      regarding manipulation at the level of vote tallying, this issue of Elron Voxeo needs to move to the mainstream or at least have an investigative review since it possibly
      foreshadows behavior that can become even more troubling as this country
      moves through the election cycle. Also, since Netanyahu has made Israel’s interests
      a major wedge issue in this election, the issue of votes being tallied by a company owned by a foreign national with a major stake in the outcome is worrisome. Particularly, since tracking monies from foreign nation states to Super Pacs is now impossible with the Citizens United ruling.

  22. justicewillprevail
    January 4, 2012, 12:37 pm

    If Santorum is saying what all of the Israeli establishment and military believe, and act on, then they are openly admitting that Israel is the apartheid state it has been for some time now.

  23. Kathleen
    January 4, 2012, 12:57 pm

    So who are Santorums foreign policy advisers?
    link to foreignpolicy.com

    Who knows about this Roger fellow? Has Feith jumped Perry’s sinking ship? Where is Wolfowitz,?

  24. upsidedownism
    January 4, 2012, 1:03 pm

    How worried should would be about the people of Texas and Mexico and the rest of the United States? If Santorum gets elected, Santorum might introduce an Israeli-like system of citizenship. The USA will have different levels of citizenship, depending on ethnicity and religion. If you are born in Texas or New Mexico and perhaps anywhere else in the USA, and trace your family history in your locale back forever, you could still be denied citizenship. Russians like the Lieberman and the Miliukowskys (sorry, Netanyahus) with a philosophy like Zionism could come to America and claim they have a divine right to your house and neighborhood.

    Should Americans being checking out refugee camps in Canada or Mexico to go to after Inauguration day, 2013?

  25. David Samel
    January 4, 2012, 1:08 pm

    For an amusing 2003 assessment of Santorum, see today’s counterpunch.org
    link to counterpunch.org

  26. Kathleen
    January 4, 2012, 1:09 pm

    Cannot get the link up of what “The Hill” has up about Ron Paul saying that his third place demonstrates what many people are feeling about unnecessary wars and US aggressive policies towards Iran

  27. Ramzi Jaber
    January 4, 2012, 2:10 pm

    Great for Palestine if he wins. Unfortunately, he will not win…

  28. kalithea
    January 4, 2012, 4:11 pm

    I wanna thank Lizzy Ratner and the legions of Obama-conflicted Progressives who came out in a feeding-frenzy railing against Ron Paul’s issues and who I BELIEVE manged to scare some Iowans and put a chink in Ron Paul’s momentum in IOWA allowing this nutcase Santorum to gallop ahead of Ron Paul. CONGRATULATIONS, I hope you’re pleased with yourselves.

    I really believe that the past week’s 24/7 viral attack against Ron Paul coming from the Progressive side on many blogs, where they took up this common banner with the Romney/Santorum side for the purpose of sinking Ron Paul’s message, had an effect.

    If in fact, Ron Paul had even squeaked by in Iowa, today the media would be forced to focus on Ron Paul and his foreign policy platform that would have delivered that victory, instead of OBSESSING OVER RICK SANTORUM’s amazing last minute surge. But alas, Democrats/Progressives can always be counted on to do the Neocons’ dirty work and scare everyone shitless of the “bogeyman” Ron Paul! Dingbats!

    So now we’ll hear very little about Ron Paul again leading up to the NH primary (yet another wasted opportunity) and all about Romney and Santorum’s great plans to bomb the shit out of Iran and the disgusting garbage splattered on this video!

    I’m so enraged by what Progressives have done to Ron Paul in the past week, I wanna spit!

    It’s all Romney/Santorum/Santorum/Romney on the mainstream and zeeeero about Ron Paul. I’m sick of this lunatic Santorum’s face plastered all over the mainstream today!

    Happy now, Lizzy???

    You know, I really don’t think Progressives care anymore whether Iran is bombed, Syria is bombed, Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan and Somalia are bombed and Obama’s hands are dripping with blood, and hundreds of thousands of people are slaughtered and Palestinians are forced to live out their lives as obscure but always maligned prisoners of an Apartheid state forever because the narrative just keeps evolving more and more in Israel’s favor in the mainstream THANKS TO the sins of omission AND ENABLING on the Progressive side.

    Progressives are so concerned with purity and attention to their social issues, me, me, me. And some here who pretend to care but participated in the bashing of Ron Paul completely forgot why they are here and set it aside to join in the lynching marathon against Ron Paul. What a bunch of arrogant, selfish, self-righteous morons!

    I wish that people who care about the issues discussed here daily would have done MORE to support and highlight the positive aspects of Ron Paul during the Iowa primaries. There should have been much more discussion on Ron Paul here as he represents an opportunity that may never return again.

    It’s all well and good to keep up the good fight against the consequences of Zionism and to rail against war but this is NOT the mainstream. The progress here against the power cabal is made in millimeters or less and so far the effect of activism out of the mainstream in support of the people being harmed by U.S. foreign policy and Zionism is NIL, NIL, NIL. Ron Paul represents an opportunity to make STRIDES in the mainstream on these issues and the positive buzz surrounding Ron Paul should be pushed in ascending crescendo, until there is little else being talked about. It’s that urgent.

    But alas, today the mainstream is shoving Santorum, the radical lunatic, in our face instead of being forced to focus on Ron Paul and his liberating platform.

    NICE JOB EVERYONE! Just pat yourselves on the back while people suffer and die, shake your first in frustration and talk about how sad it is. That’ll accomplish a whole lot.

    Forgive me, I’m very sad. Everywhere I turn, I see Santorum’s face, EVEN HERE. Maybe I’ll have a cry or something over WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN.

    • libra
      January 4, 2012, 4:46 pm

      Kalithea: “Progressives are so concerned with purity and attention to their social issues, me, me, me.”

      Kalithea – you’ve got these people completely nailed. And ironically their mindset is just like that of Zionists but with different issues. Except at least some Zionists are honest enough to admit they are only concerned with themselves and, by extension, their “tribe”.

      Anyway, thanks for all your comments these last few days. At least you and a few others here can see the big picture and get their priorities straight. And the fights not over yet.

      • Shingo
        January 5, 2012, 5:27 am

        I second Libra’s comments.

        Lizzy and Obama-conflicted “Progressives” expressed great alarm at the possibility of an anti war candidate who they believed to be racist and opposed to welfare and immigration.

        Not ironically, they found themselves on the same page as the Republican establishement and the necons.

        AS it turns out, the top two candidates are both pro war, undeniably racist. opposed to welfare and immigration, as well as completely 2 faced, corrupt and in the pocket of the lobby and the Obama-conflicted “Progressives” (as well as the Republican establishement and the necons) are suddenly brething a sigh of relief.

        That tells us all we need to know about the so called “Progressives”.

  29. kalithea
    January 4, 2012, 4:27 pm

    One more thing: Welcome to a Ron Paul free world:

    link to richardsilverstein.com

    Reality bites, but not in the delusional world of anti-Ron Paul Progressives. They’re waiting for the first shot to be fired and the orgy of death to begin.

    • dumvitaestspesest
      January 4, 2012, 5:02 pm

      Kalithea
      I understand your disappointment . People do not want to be saved .
      They prefer to be lied to, manipulated, deceived. As long as it is done in a nice, polite , convincing , sometimes obstructed , sometimes not,way.
      Populistic statements always find willing ears to listen to and hands to clap.

      In the meantime.
      “The situation could only go from bad to worse. By systematically ACCOMMODATING undesirable trends RATHER THAN REVERSING them,
      a chain reaction was set in motion which could only END in total COLLAPSE.”

      ACCOMODATING a drug addict means giving him a constant supply of drugs, free syringes, and a peace to do what he wants to do. Eventually ,he will die from either overdose or overall, quick destruction of mind and body.
      Trying to REVERSE his deadly habit means applying methods that he is not going to like, that are strict, unpleasant ,tough, but at the end, they might save him.

      Given a choice, many drug additcts would prefer the first one.

  30. Scott
    January 4, 2012, 4:44 pm

    Kalithea, I think it’s not as bad as you think. Ron Paul and his ideas will be around for the next few months, and I’m guessing they will get as much exposure over that period as if he’d won in Iowa. Winning Iowa wouldn’t have been as “good” as you think; being on the stage, with some resources, with Romney and Santorum through the spring, won’t be as meaningless as you fear. If Kirchik and Jen Rubin had driven him down to fifth place, (with an assist from politically correct progressives!) that would be another matter. But it’s a long semester, and the first week pop quiz won’t bear that much on the final grade.

    • dahoit
      January 5, 2012, 1:22 pm

      Agreed.This is just starting,and lets see the MSMs attitude to the most social conservative running.
      And McCain endorsing Romney might have good blowback,as McCain just coauthored(with ZioLevin) the traitorous act Obomba signed.

  31. ToivoS
    January 4, 2012, 11:54 pm

    In response to earlier posts where some were ragging on Phil for saying he will still vote for Obama, I guess I fall in the middle. If Santorum is the the nominee I will vote for Obama. If Romney is the chosen one, I will go third party.

    One has to make choices, sometimes not so easy.

  32. CloakAndDagger
    January 5, 2012, 6:34 pm

    This says it all:

    • Shingo
      January 5, 2012, 9:08 pm

      Yes, I suspect he’ll get a wholeheated endorsement from STOPAIPAC and Lizzy.

  33. Memphis
    January 5, 2012, 11:12 pm

    There are a lot of replies here, and I don’t know if someone has posted this

    but google santorum and see what the first definitions is.

    LMFAO

Leave a Reply