Thursday, February 16, 2012


I don't even know why I'm quoting this, since everyone in America seems to know about it already. But if you missed it, here goes. After the quote, my thoughts.

This whole contraception debate is just so new-fangled, says billionaire investor and mega-funder to the super PAC supporting former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) for President, Foster Friess.

In a simpler time, there were other ways to deal with female sexual desire. "Back in my day, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly," he said Thursday on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports, setting the host back for moment....

We know that the only reason Santorum is still in the race is that Citizens United allowed a candidate to survive on massive outlays by one individual to a super PAC allied with, though technically separate from, the candidate's campaign. Once upon a time, of course, every viable campaign had to have donations from a full roster of rich people. Now one is enough.

That means if you're, say, Santorum or Newt Gingrich, your patron all but gets naming rights to you. (And someday, I'm sure, naming rights will literally be up for grabs, and will be offered to corporations as well; four years and a few Roberts Court rulings from now, I look forward to the Tostitos® Mitch Daniels 2016 Presidential Campaign.)

But what this means right now is that Foster Friess isn't just one of a bunch of rich guys who gave Santorum money -- Friess owns Santorum. That's why this hurts Santorum, at least if he gets to the general election. Pre-Citizens United, you had to be a felon to hurt the candidate you financed this much. Now, if he's your boy, practically anything you do can hurt him.


loretta said...

So, let's just take this absurd policy to its natural conclusion: the "You Ain't Gettin' None" reaction by any self-respecting woman in the country.

As I recall, the reason Prohibition passed by all men was because the women who wanted it pretty much banded together to refuse to put out until their husbands voted to ban likker.

Likewise, women could do the same thing now. All wives, girlfriends, mistresses, interns, workin' girls and such could simply put that little aspirin between their legs until the menfolk come to their senses.

Kevin Hayden said...

In the case of Little Ricky, only Cheez-Whiz™ Santorum 2012 seems apropos.

Cereal said...

It's a good general point, but will it really hurt any of the GOp folks?

I mean, in this particular case, Friess' comment pretty much encapsulates the worldview of anyone stupid, sexist and retrograde enough to vote for Santorum. The only people getting upset are ugly feminists, pantywaist nancyboys who care what women think, and liberals (if any are not already included above).

Also, all the people ready to vote GOP should have no problem with billionaire candidates or with candidates backed by a handful, or even one, billionaire. It's the ultimate in corporatist free-market conservative objectivist wet-dreamism. They already applaud the privatisation of everything - they'd be happy with the Citibank(TM) Mount Rushmore National Monument just like they already are with the Koch Brothers(TM) GOP.

So yeah, I can see if maybe, just maybe, one of these candidate-owning oligarchs is like gay married to George Soros, that might do some damage. but aside from that - heck, rich people are better than us, so their little foibles are forgiven. Especially when they are foibles only a San Francisco Gay Muslim Socialist would object to.

BH said...

I agree with Cereal as to the GOP base or strong GOP leaners; but as to the fabled 'independents', a few sufficiently blatant 'misstatements' by a GOP candidate's obvious owner might well do some damage in the general.