People keep asking me why Santorum would drop out before Pennsylvania. Answer is: he wants state-wide office there again some day. Can’t risk another 16-point cleaning of his clock. PA will never put up with his psycho-talk, tho, so when he does come back after his inevitable stint at Fox (he’s actually quite good as a substitute so far), we’ll get a much milder Rick. Down the road. Down the road.

We’re in a gaffe zone. In between major primaries, the only election news we get is…gaffes. Feats of technology like taping a whispering president from 75 feet and six Secret Service guys away; suggestions from the desperate opposition that we all return to the duck and cover era, etc. Delegate-wise, since Mitt will hit 50% tomorrow in Wisconsin, nothing’s happening for the Republicans between then and April 24, when New York and Pennsylvania go at it. Santorum will stick it out to have his fight in PA — I advise no one to bet on that race. But it won’t be over by then. No, not then [insert stifled yawn here]. The killer states, for Reds anyway, are Texas and California, May 29 and June 5, respectively. Big dangling fruit so big they all but make the tree fall over. (For pure humorous effect, note that the last state to vote is Utah, June 26. Too funny. 40 delegates for….hmmm. Can’t imagine.)

In between, we will have actual, real news — is this peace process in Syria a joke, at what level of enrichment are the Iranians, and will Israel bomb them before or after the US presidential election — and will South Korea start shooting off missiles too, and will US soldiers (Support Our Troops) commit any more atrocities that probably could have been predicted by their immediate superiors (we could support our troops by sending them home when they have PTSD) —etc. We will have horrible domestic atrocities such as the Zimmerman and Martin case, a situation far too complicated for anyone to have an opinion on yet (sorry, folks — the jury’s nowhere near in on this one, except to say that it’s horrible for both sides/for all of us, and to ask why Zimmerman was immediately declared “white” by the media); and this latest university shooting. Health care reform is now in the hands of Justice Kennedy, and we will, all summer, Occupy. In designated Protest Areas, if Rahm has his way.

Meanwhile, the gaffe zones. What could be spaces of time used to clarify platforms and “messages” is often used instead for spurious responses to whatever, that day, fell off message. 1. Obama’s making secret deals with Putin. 2. Romney thinks Russia is our primary geopolitical enemy. 3. Obama literally laughs, winks at Medvedev, at the next photo op. 4. Leftist pundits pile on: Romney is a moron — when really, the guy has a point. Russia and China have systematically blocked the UN from any efforts to corral Iran, North Korea, etc. Of course we need them as allies — it’s all just rather frenemy-like for the moment. We and the media will chew over this until the next gaffe is made — Santorum is a likely candidate, although Newt’s always reliable in this regard, and is perhaps now a third more reliable, having laid off a third of his staff.

What I didn’t foresee in this election is the bizarre role that religion would begin to take in the forming and reforming of the Republican ideology. I knew Romney’s membership, and leadership, in the Church of Latter Day Saints would become an issue, especially with Baptists and nondenominational evangelicals. I did not know that Santorum would show up on the scene barking some bizarre, choked version of Catholicism that I can’t say I knew existed. I’m tempted to say, as a Pennsylvanian, Only in Pennsylvania…. As many have pointed out, he’s miles from the mainstream of American Catholicism (98% of Catholic women having used some form of birth control at some point); but his perspective puts him beyond the galaxy of the American conference of Bishops, as well. In fact, he may well be beyond the Pope, who has on many occasions agreed that there must be separation between his many Catholic nations and his church. (His gig in Cuba was a little difficult to grasp, since Cubano catholicism, as with much of Latin America, is a pidgin worship utilizing Incan and Aztec saints (Guadalupe, etc.) but what the hell. Go bless Raul, who is trying to open the place up a little. And unbless Guantanamo for me, if you would.)

Santorum’s evangelical catholicism is playing well in the south, where he’s splitting states with Gingrich. Romney will never play well in the south. As it happens, I know more about LDS history and ritual than most people want to (and than the church would want me to), and it’s hard for me, for instance, to see Romney with his jacket off and not think Are you wearing your temple garments? This makes me an asshole. In the south, however, this kind of question will give rise to that ultimate slur:

CULT.

And they won’t stop to pinch themselves about being assholes.

And maybe not just the south. But Gingrich is our poster child here. Born non-practicing Lutheran, as an adult he attended Baptist services probably for careerist reasons, and in the last 10 years (perhaps after he lost his ethics appeal?), Gingrich says, he has come to believe in “the centrality of the Eucharist.” Whether he has completely converted to Catholicism (yet another brand, likely) is unclear, but my heavens. New joke: A Lutheran, a Baptist, and a Catholic walk into a bar. Bartender says, “Hi, Newt!”

He’s on record as saying he thinks the “debates” surrounding Santorum and Romney’s religions are silly — he fired his aide who called LDS a “cult” — but even John McCain sees that Gingrich, when he does win, is profiting from anti-Mormonism as well as anti-Crazy-Catholicism. So Newt will stay chill, but in the gaffe zones that await us, religion is going to come up repeatedly. It will be huge in Texas and will have an impact on Pennsylvania (my crazy cousins…) and on some of the smaller states yet to vote.

Romney will need Texas, which will be interesting, but assuming that goes his way (just endorsed by 41; 43 will stay silent until it’s a done deal), he will win the nomination, despite our distractions with cults and contraception. With all the gaffe zones that loom, though, it’s clear it won’t be pretty.

Looks like Romney beat Paul in Maine after all, despite polls favoring the latter. Santorum significantly behind, SIGNIFICANTLY, but more significant to this process, I think, is this: 6% for Newt. WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE TO GET RID OF THIS GUY? Crazy Mainers aside, this is a reassuring event for Romney. From here we go to Michigan, and he needs the mojo. Not sure it’s enough to win it for him, but a drop of momentum never hurts. With Santorum launching a serious assault on women, Michigan might prefer their former native son.

So, this is a local story, but it’s not. It goes on everywhere, all the time. It’s happened in your town in the past year.

So I’m driving home from work on a Thursday and hear on a local radio station, which runs a brief newscast, that an unknown intruder stabbed a woman on the X00 block of Street Y.

My ears prick up.

Why do my ears prick up?

Think.

Who the fuck breaks into a total stranger’s house to stab someone? Sure, it happens, but only remotely occasionally, at least in a small city (as in, barely a city at all).

Next day (Friday) the local newspaper has a small entry about a woman being assaulted on the X000 block of Street Y on Monday.

So we know what’s going on here. Right?

Because we’re listening to what we’re not hearing.

Three days AFTER the (sexual) assault, the radio station gets the block wrong (X00, not X000), so maybe they’re wrong altogether, but one just can’t help but ask: Is it possible they said “stab” because they didn’t want to say “rape”? Because, in actuality, a stabbing had no part in this incident. Not literally, anyway (hard not to think about the literary history, back to Shakespeare and beyond, of using stabbing as a euphemism for rape—think rapier, for instance, a stabbing implement).

Further, the newspaper, FOUR days after the rape, by CORRECTLY noting her address, essentially OUTS her. We know her neighbors will be able to put two and two together. So, perhaps there is a minor argument to be made that the neighbors need to know that a rapist is on the loose. To take appropriate safety measures. But this was stranger-danger. Statistically very unusual. He’s not likely to return to that block. It took the neighbors four days to get the information anyway. Do we really need, in this more unusual circumstance, to provide enough information for the victim’s immediate community to know what happened to her?

The woman who was murdered on MY block was murdered by her HUSBAND. Now, THAT—that is very common. That’s no threat to the rest of us. I’m quite certain that someone on my block has been raped by an acquaintance—but I don’t need to know that (for my own safety). To hear or not to hear—but to listen.