Flashback: Santorum stands by his record of earmarks

posted at 1:02 pm on January 5, 2012 by Tina Korbe

So it continues, this scrutiny under which Santorum now happily campaigns. (Yes, “happily.” He sounded ecstatic to be able to legitimately target Barack Obama and Mitt Romney as his competition at his first event in New Hampshire yesterday.)

So far, most of the criticisms sound like this: Santorum is of the big government, compassionate breed of conservative — and as much a part of the Republican establishment as Mitt Romney. Santorum’s earmark-laden voting record from his time in the Senate is an easy piece of evidence to prop up this idea.

But, if these excerpts from an appearance at a Press Club luncheon in Harrisburg, Pa., in June of last year are any indication, Santorum is unlikely to be embarrassed by accusations that he once played pork-barrel politics. Instead, he’ll use a line like this: “It’s not earmarks that are the problem; it’s entitlement programs run amok.” He’ll be right.

That doesn’t mean it’ll be savvy of him to stick to that line, though. If he draws it out into a broader and more meaningful discussion of entitlement reform, then it might be a vote-winner. But if he uses it solely to excuse attempts to curry favor with constituents (attempts that, apparently, didn’t even help to ensure his reelection), then it’ll be a poor defense. True, eliminating earmarks alone would never eliminate the debt — but it’s a symbolic gesture that nevertheless does matter.

Still, Santorum says something else in this video that I find thought-provoking and important. He says he has “real concerns” about recent attempts — largely prompted by libertarians and the Tea Party — to completely redefine conservatism in fiscal terms. That redefinition, he suggests, forgets certain societal obligations that are written into us as human beings and that have to be met one way or another. Shades of Catholic thought color Santorum’s speech.

Ann Coulter sees this — and finds it troubling. She writes:

Santorum is not as conservative as his social-issues credentials suggest. He is more of a Catholic than a conservative, which means he’s good on 60 percent of the issues, but bad on others, such as big government social programs. He’d be Ted Kennedy if he didn’t believe in God.

Santorum may not be a big spender as far as professional politicians go, but he is still a professional politician. In 2005, one of his former aides described him as “a Catholic missionary who happens to be in the Senate.”

The Catholic missionary was fantastic on issues like partial-birth abortion, but more like a Catholic bishop in his support for No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug entitlement program (now costing taxpayers more than $60 billion a year), and a highway bill with a Christmas tree of earmarks, including the famous “bridge to nowhere.”

Santorum cites his father’s admonition to put any extra money in the poor box at church to explain his wanting to use the federal government to help the poor.

But what I hear when Santorum speaks about his concerns about the Tea Party and libertarianism is less a total embrace of non-doctrinally-binding Catholic social justice theory than a desire for continuity within the conservative movement and concerns about the strict reactivity of the Tea Party. That, I find legitimate.

The Tea Party, at its heart, was and is reactionary — an instinctive response to the appalling arrogance and dangerous irresponsibility of the passage of Obamacare and other Obama-era policies. Tea Party opposition to out-of-control spending was a reflex to the extremity of the expenses the government was incurring. The Tea Party wanted cuts, but didn’t initially have a systematic program to cut spending. Why? In the end, a budget reflects a people’s priorities. But the Tea Party’s primary priority has been and will be a balanced budget. Unfortunately, “a balanced budget” doesn’t dictate what should be cut and what should be kept.

Santorum — and indeed conservatism — is not reactionary. His political views proceed from a coherent worldview deeply rooted in Catholicism. Conservatism is itself a coherent worldview deeply rooted in certain ideas about unchanging human nature — and one that is fundamentally compatible with Catholicism.

As often as I’m tempted to want politicians to take a strictly negative approach to government (a la Michele Bachmann, fighting as much against bad laws as for good ones, in the style of Calvin Coolidge), I think Santorum is right to take a slightly more “positive” approach. In some ways, after all, reactivity is imprisoning. That’s because, as theologian Luigi Guissani writes, “Reactivity as the criterion for a relationship with reality burns the bridges linking us to the richness of history and tradition, that is to say, it cuts us off from the past. Reactivity signifies the absence of an all-encompassing, recognized, pursued and desired meaning.”

Tea Partiers rightly look to the Founding for political cues and, in that sense, is far less reactionary — and, hence, trapped in the present — than Progressivism. The Founders defined the “all-encompassing, recognized” meaning of America — and Tea Partiers embrace that meaning.  But it’s equally crucial not to ignore all that has happened between the Founding and now — not to ignore all the ways the meaning of America has been “pursued and desired,” sometimes to the detriment of that meaning, sometimes to its advancement.

We need reclamation, not reaction. Santorum might just be the guy to provide that.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

And now it starts!

KOOLAID2 on January 5, 2012 at 1:05 PM

The biggest Hypocrisy on this so far was Ron Paul criticizing Santorum over Pork. Paul, the pork king of COngress who in recent years has loaded up on Pork against orders from the GOP in its Self-imposed ban on pork.

jp on January 5, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Ricko…!

Seven Percent Solution on January 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Ann Coulter is shilling for Romney so I would not cite her piece as a true indication of who Santorum is. Better yet, lets hear him in his own words both in the debates and upcoming campaign stops, tell us who he is and what he believes.

KickandSwimMom on January 5, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Is it really so hard to follow the constitution? And how come every time I ask that question, I get some sort of cock-and-bull answer like, “Well no candidate is perfect?” I don’t want a perfect candidate. I want someone who will follow the constitution. And I don’t trust Rick Santorum to be that man.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:08 PM

I’m still trying to find out who kidnapped Ann Coulter and who is that writing her columns.

Big Orange on January 5, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Ann Coulter is shilling for Romney so I would not cite her piece as a true indication of who Santorum is. Better yet, lets hear him in his own words both in the debates and upcoming campaign stops, tell us who he is and what he believes.

KickandSwimMom on January 5, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Careful, Mom. Trusting a politician to tell us what they really believe and what they really will do is 90% of the problem as far as the electorate is concerned.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:09 PM

So far, most of the criticisms sound like this: Santorum is of the big government, compassionate breed of conservative — and as much a part of the Republican establishment as Mitt Romney.

More. Romney didn’t spend 16 years in Washington (and it would be wrapping up on 22 if Santorum had made his way in 2006 – hey, if Romney can be a career politician because he lost in 1994, Santorum can be a 20+ year Washington fixture).

Red Cloud on January 5, 2012 at 1:10 PM

He’d be Ted Kennedy if he didn’t believe in God.

Spot on.

joana on January 5, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Stopping earmarks won’t fix the budget, but it stamps out the political wheeling and dealing to get support for votes (aka corruption).

rubberneck on January 5, 2012 at 1:13 PM

One of the things that should be mentioned are the particular earmarks Santorum has defended. He mentioned one that got a military facility in Pennsylvania that was responsible for helping soldiers through rehab after getting a limb blown off. Santorum isn’t alone in defending earmarks for that matter, either. Ron Paul has vociferously defended earmarks on the grounds that it removes the ability from the executive branch to spend money how they see fit, and went so far as to claim that he wishes he could earmark every single dollar of the Federal budget.

Santorum’s right to focus on entitlements. They represent about half of the Federal budget, with Medicare and Social Security taking the lead. Restructuring those programs is what you need to focus on.

He’s talked about restructuring Medicaid into a block grant program, and endorses the Ryan plan on Medicare. For social security, his website states:

•Reform Social Security and place on a sustainable path by a combination of reforms such as addressing adjusting CPI, dependent benefits and disability income benefits reforms, moving back the retirement age for younger workers, means testing benefits, annual adjustments as needed, and dedicating Social Security payroll taxes to Social Security.

See: http://www.ricksantorum.com/spending-cuts-and-entitlements-reform

Stoic Patriot on January 5, 2012 at 1:13 PM

(He is actually right that earmarks is not the problem when it comes to budgeting,and earmarks is not the one who made us 15 trillion in debt)

However Earmarks is the big problem when it comes to convince good senators to vote for bad laws, it is the reason why obamacare was almost passed before they did it with the nuclear option,

Earmarks is basically free reelection money, And it produces some bad bills that lead to deficit problems,

So yes Santorum, your argument is baloney

OrthodoxJew on January 5, 2012 at 1:14 PM

He’d be Ted Kennedy if he didn’t believe in God.

I live in mass. and this is spot on

gerrym51 on January 5, 2012 at 1:15 PM

He’d be Ted Kennedy if he didn’t believe in God.

Spot on.

joana on January 5, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Except for the drowing a woman bit, supporting abortion, supporting Obamacare, supporting gay marriage, opposing Gitmo, supporting cap & trade, or essentially any other position.

So except for being completely different, sure, he’s exactly the same!

Stoic Patriot on January 5, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Tina Korbe…reading this piece…you are old, beyond your years!

KOOLAID2 on January 5, 2012 at 1:15 PM

May I suggest each of you listen to Rush’s show from yesterday.
He went into great detail to explain exactly what this attack on Rick is all about. It is very enlightening to say the least.

Rick better get ahead of this and educate the people on his policy!

lib-or-tea on January 5, 2012 at 1:16 PM

What Ann thinks is no longer of consequence. She is becoming a nutty caricature of her former self. She used to provide insightful jabs that provoked the left. Now she just shills for her most recent RINO pick. Unfortunately, she also now finds it necessary to tear down conservatives in the process.

ssrrray on January 5, 2012 at 1:17 PM

The biggest Hypocrisy on this so far was Ron Paul criticizing Santorum over Pork. Paul, the pork king of COngress who in recent years has loaded up on Pork against orders from the GOP in its Self-imposed ban on pork.

jp on January 5, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Would you rather Obama spend that money?

Notorious GOP on January 5, 2012 at 1:19 PM

2012 Presidential White Paper #4
Rick Santorum

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=902

Green eyed Lady on January 5, 2012 at 1:19 PM

OrthodoxJew on January 5, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Santorum in fact did vote to limit earmarks because, he told Levin last night, the process of congress appropriating money has been abused and so limits have to be put in place. So basically, he defends earmarks as an appropriate function of congress but admits that the process has been abused.

KickandSwimMom on January 5, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Santorum cites his father’s admonition to put any extra money in the poor box at church to explain his wanting to use the federal government to help the poor.

Which amounts to getting a “blessing” by using state coercion to force people to do God’s will. In reality it is theft, legal, but theft nevertheless.

cartooner on January 5, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Tina Korbe…reading this piece…you are old wise, beyond your years!

KOOLAID2 on January 5, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Probably a better way to put it… ;)

lib-or-tea on January 5, 2012 at 1:21 PM

After voting for Medicare part D now he’s concerned about entitlement spending?

Let’s face it- the reason he did so well in Iowa is because only Iowans know the true cause of our high unemployment, unsustainable debt, massive deficits and runaway government intrusion: legalized sodomy.

Hollowpoint on January 5, 2012 at 1:22 PM

But the Tea Party’s primary priority has been and will be a balanced budget. Unfortunately, “a balanced budget” doesn’t dictate what should be cut and what should be kept.

How about the constitution, Tina? If the constitution authorizes it, fine. If the constitution doesn’t specifically and explicitly authorize it, phase it out. Yeah, I know that means that 95-99% of what government does today would have to be phased out. But would anybody here really feel bad about that? REALLY? We have a guide. But it’s not just a “guide.” It’s the foundation on which our government was supposed to be built, and which we have all but completely abandoned. I hold out little hope that we’ll ever get back on the right track as long as we’re still debating issues like this.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:23 PM

So we’re doing the flashback thing eh?

OK

Flashback December 7, 2005…press release from MA Governor Mitt Rommey

These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment,’ then-Gov. Romney said in a press release touting Massachusetts as ‘the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants.’

What a conservative !!

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 1:24 PM

So he doesn’t like the tea party and was criticizing Reagan yesterday. A brilliant political strategist. Nobody is claiming that ending earmarks would balance the budget, he is doing an Obama straw man argument there. Earmarks are a corrupting influence and should be drastically reduced.

echosyst on January 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM

After voting for Medicare part D now he’s concerned about entitlement spending?

Hollowpoint on January 5, 2012 at 1:22 PM

That’s what I thought, Hollow. We don’t have a candidate who has a leg to stand on in criticizing entitlement spending — PERIOD.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM

2012 Presidential White Paper #4
Rick Santorum
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=902

Green eyed Lady on January 5, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Thanks for that link. That was very informative.

KickandSwimMom on January 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Except for the drowing a woman bit, supporting abortion, supporting Obamacare, supporting gay marriage, opposing Gitmo, supporting cap & trade, or essentially any other position.

So except for being completely different, sure, he’s exactly the same!

Stoic Patriot on January 5, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Santorum believes in God, that’s the point. Like Kennedy, he likes unions, protectionism, regulations, government spending and nanny-statism.

joana on January 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM

So the fundamental question here appears to be is the fact that former budget hawk Santorum followed the rest of the Republican party down the Bush 43 compassionate conservative path in the 00s a disqualification?

I want to see him talk more about his economic policy plans to get clarification, but it seems rather weak tea to me – especially in regards to the other choices, the author of Obromneycare and LAUP NOR…

18-1 on January 5, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Ann Coulter is shilling for Romney so I would not cite her piece as a true indication of who Santorum is. Better yet, lets hear him in his own words both in the debates and upcoming campaign stops, tell us who he is and what he believes.

KickandSwimMom on January 5, 2012 at 1:07 PM

..I know where you are coming from but, with the greatest of respect, couldn’t a pundit’s advocacy of a candidate be just that: advocacy? I mean, she probably genuinely prefers Romney as the nominee.

How is that different than your writing on your blog that you think Santorum (or..?) will make a better nominee/president.

Not to pick on you; just to make the point.

The War Planner on January 5, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Voting for No Child Left Behind has to be a high water mark in his Senate record, and emphasizes his commitment to nonintrusive federal government.

a capella on January 5, 2012 at 1:29 PM

So the fundamental question here appears to be is the fact that former budget hawk Santorum followed the rest of the Republican party down the Bush 43 compassionate conservative path in the 00s a disqualification?

I want to see him talk more about his economic policy plans to get clarification, but it seems rather weak tea to me – especially in regards to the other choices, the author of Obromneycare and LAUP NOR…

18-1 on January 5, 2012 at 1:28 PM

So you’re just going to trust his words. You’re just going to believe his stump speeches on the campaign trail and hope like all hell that anything important actually changes. GREAT.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:29 PM

2012 Presidential White Paper #4
Rick Santorum
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=902

Green eyed Lady on January 5, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Interesting read. Thanks – and puts him about where I thought.

18-1 on January 5, 2012 at 1:30 PM

..I know where you are coming from but, with the greatest of respect, couldn’t a pundit’s advocacy of a candidate be just that: advocacy? I mean, she probably genuinely prefers Romney as the nominee.

How is that different than your writing on your blog that you think Santorum (or..?) will make a better nominee/president.

Not to pick on you; just to make the point.

The War Planner on January 5, 2012 at 1:29 PM

No probably about it. Ann Coulter is a Romney shill, and she’s not shy about saying so. What bugs me about that is, I can’t figure for the life of me why.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:30 PM

I don’t care if it’s Santorum or Obama – I don’t want the government taking my money to help welfare causes! Holy cow Tina! How on earth can you be ok with this? Rick Sanotrum hearkens back to the progressive priests who led the Progressive movements of the late 19th century… while there may have been need for some of the changes they helped bring about (end to child labor) there is no need for it now.

Plus you have missed the boat on the Tea Party! We formed in reaction to government spending… all government spending! And it wasn’t just Obama! TARP was the first major attack that the Tea Party cried out against… and that came under President Bush.

This post really saddens me. Conservatism is about personal responsibility and the rights of the individual. Thats why we get all nostalgiac for the days when we rolled west into the fronteir and the governments role in our lives was so limited.

I really hope you rethink what you have written here…

therambler on January 5, 2012 at 1:33 PM

So you’re just going to trust his words. You’re just going to believe his stump speeches on the campaign trail and hope like all hell that anything important actually changes. GREAT.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Actually, quite the opposite. As pointed out, he’s been both a strong budget hawk and a go along with the party type. So he’s shown he can do what we need him to do on the economic front. Now is exactly the time to hear how he plans on governing as the president when he’s setting the agenda.

Its interesting that on economic policy, Santorum’s path has been similar to Newt, only better. Whereas Newt eventually went from full on budget hawk to full on liberal with an embrace of the basics of Obromneycare and Cap n’ Tax, Santorum merely went along with the Bush 43 agenda.

18-1 on January 5, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Actually, quite the opposite. As pointed out, he’s been both a strong budget hawk and a go along with the party type. So he’s shown he can do what we need him to do on the economic front. Now is exactly the time to hear how he plans on governing as the president when he’s setting the agenda.

Its interesting that on economic policy, Santorum’s path has been similar to Newt, only better. Whereas Newt eventually went from full on budget hawk to full on liberal with an embrace of the basics of Obromneycare and Cap n’ Tax, Santorum merely went along with the Bush 43 agenda.

18-1 on January 5, 2012 at 1:34 PM

That doesn’t make me feel any better, as it doesn’t address the question of whether Santorum would follow the constitution. And I’m not sure any of our candidates would.

/Eeyore

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:35 PM

No probably about it. Ann Coulter is a Romney shill, and she’s not shy about saying so. What bugs me about that is, I can’t figure for the life of me why.

Yeah, a Romney nod guarantees Obronmneycare survives and we need to wait until 2020 to actually change course.

I see *no* upside to that.

18-1 on January 5, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Santorum believes in God, that’s the point. Like Kennedy, he likes unions, protectionism, regulations, government spending and nanny-statism.

joana on January 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM

So because Rick Santorum believes in fair trade and a living wage, that makes him, aside from a belief in God, identical to Ted Kennedy, even though one can fill a tome with how they differ.

It’s amazing how many implications one can draw from only a couple of usually lesser-emphasized political positions!

Stoic Patriot on January 5, 2012 at 1:36 PM

The War Planner on January 5, 2012 at 1:29 PM

My point is that I want to hear Santorum himself talk about who he is and what he believes. I don’t need an advocate for an opposing candidate to tell me who he is. I just don’t believe that Santorum is somehow worse than any of the other candidates like many on this forum claim. So, I’m going to give him a fair hearing. There is no point in throwing all his past votes, statements, etc. out to me since ALL of these candidates have done a lot of. . . ahem . . . changes of position over the years. So they are all plain ‘ol politicians to me!

KickandSwimMom on January 5, 2012 at 1:36 PM

All you need to know about Rick Santorum’s alleged fiscal conservatism can be found right in the Ethanol Industry’s 2012 Voter Guide.

Combine his abysmal congressional record on earmarks, spending, steel tariffs (ant other forms of protectionism), etc. with his current manufacturing tax proposal and ethanol love make one thing undeniably clear:

The guy doesn’t believe in the free market; he believes in picking winners and losers, and the winners just so happen to be his cronies.

Kinda like POTUS, eh?

Kim_Jong_Illin on January 5, 2012 at 1:36 PM

18-1 on January 5, 2012 at 1:34 PM

New Santorum campaign slogan:

Vote Santorum ’12, cause he’s a party man!

/VOMIT

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:36 PM

No probably about it. Ann Coulter is a Romney shill, and she’s not shy about saying so. What bugs me about that is, I can’t figure for the life of me why.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:30 PM

..again, respectfully, what’s the difference between advocacy or expressing an opinion? No partial credit given; be sure to show your work.

The War Planner on January 5, 2012 at 1:36 PM

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If Republicans could refrain from bringing religion into everything and feeling they have to court the evangelical vote then they would win every election. Live right, by example, and the rest will follow…

yubley on January 5, 2012 at 1:37 PM

That doesn’t make me feel any better, as it doesn’t address the question of whether Santorum would follow the constitution. And I’m not sure any of our candidates would.

/Eeyore

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Clearly none of them will aim to return us to Constitutional government. Including LAUP NOR.

But if you want any hope of getting closer to Constitutional government, your choices are Perry or Santorum, and Perry’s on the verge of flaming out.

18-1 on January 5, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Tina, your trying to prop yet another flash in the pan.

Santorum and his bogus equivications will be gone in a month.

NickDeringer on January 5, 2012 at 1:39 PM

What the heck is going on????

So no one is better than Romney??? Why doesn’t Ann attack Romney!?!?!

Listen, just read my id name, you’ll know that I’m not a tea partier and I’m definitely NOT a progressive (yuk!) — but for the love of God….Isn’t it clear that the GOP punditary is taking down every single non-romney candidate that rises?? Why?? This is not coming from the left but from Rick’s own party!!!

WHY IS THE TEA PARTY AND/OR THE BASE AS A WHOLE ALLOWING CONSERVATIVE PUNDITS TO TAKE DOWN EVERY ONE WHO OPPOSES ROMNEY???

This is a matter of principle and I’m calling it out! I’m on the outside looking in…I don’t follow Ann, Rush and NRO as much as some of you do and I don’t watch TV except for the debates, so I think I can be a bit more objective here. You guys are getting played big HUGE TIME!

This is your last one standing for crying out loud!

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on January 5, 2012 at 1:39 PM

But if you want any hope of getting closer to Constitutional government, your choices are Perry or Santorum, and Perry’s on the verge of flaming out.

18-1 on January 5, 2012 at 1:38 PM

I fear you may be right. And if the best we can hope for is to get nominally closer to constitutional government, RIP America. We hardly knew ye.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:39 PM

the base needs to grow some balls.

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on January 5, 2012 at 1:40 PM

I can’t figure for the life of me why.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Because Chris Christie refused to run.

Rebar on January 5, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Because Chris Christie refused to run.

Rebar on January 5, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Then I can’t figure out why she swooned over Christie either.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:42 PM

So this guy is the new right conservative hope? Ugh.

Earmark Rick and the Traveling Band. Coming to South Carolina!

DanStark on January 5, 2012 at 1:42 PM

So, I’m going to give him a fair hearing. There is no point in throwing all his past votes, statements, etc. out to me since ALL of these candidates have done a lot of. . . ahem . . . changes of position over the years. So they are all plain ‘ol politicians to me!

KickandSwimMom on January 5, 2012 at 1:36 PM

I understand that and that is reasonable. But I asked why is a person being a shill if he or she writes a column or does an interview or otherwise expresses a personal preference for — and recommends or otherwise endorses — a candidate they prefer?

from Wikipedia (not necessarily an authoritative source; emphasis added):

“A shill, plant or stooge is a person who helps a person or organization without disclosing that he or she has a close relationship with that person or organization. Shill typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that he or she is an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) that he or she is secretly working for. The person or group that hires the shill is using crowd psychology, to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by confidence artists. Plant and stooge more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he or she is planted in, such as a magician’s audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization (see double agent).”

Is Coulter paid by Romney, working secretly for him, etc.?

Don’t consider my words strident. I just wish to clarify the meaning if shill in this context. (And, yes, I recognize that the reference above contains a ton of straight lines.)

;-)

The War Planner on January 5, 2012 at 1:43 PM

This is your last one standing for crying out loud!

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on January 5, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Exactly.

Baring an amazing come back from Perry its now Romney or Santorum.

And whatever the risks Santorum brings to the table, they are nothing compared to Romney.

So do you want Obromneycare? Oppose Santorum. Do you want “moderate” judges to give you more Kelo decisions? Oppose Santorum. DO you want Obama, but with an R next to his name? Oppose Santorum.

18-1 on January 5, 2012 at 1:44 PM

KickandSwimMom on January 5, 2012 at 1:07 PM

..I know where you are coming from but, with the greatest of respect, couldn’t a pundit’s advocacy of a candidate be just that: advocacy? I mean, she probably genuinely prefers Romney as the nominee.

How is that different than your writing on your blog that you think Santorum (or..?) will make a better nominee/president.

Not to pick on you; just to make the point.

The War Planner on January 5, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Ann Coulter knows where her bread is buttered. Be a good Romney girl and you get invited on FNC, CNN, lectures on the RINO circuit. Go against Mittens and her livelihood suffers.

Not applicable to Joe Shmoe blogger.

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 1:44 PM

May I suggest each of you listen to Rush’s show from yesterday.
He went into great detail to explain exactly what this attack on Rick is all about. It is very enlightening to say the least.
Rick better get ahead of this and educate the people on his policy!
lib-or-tea on January 5, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Rush tried to brush off healthy vetting (from the right) as left wing MSM smears. I believe he’s just trying to weaken Romney.

aryeung on January 5, 2012 at 1:44 PM

So do you want Obromneycare? Oppose Santorum. Do you want “moderate” judges to give you more Kelo decisions? Oppose Santorum. DO you want Obama, but with an R next to his name? Oppose Santorum.

18-1 on January 5, 2012 at 1:44 PM

On the other hand, do you want to be unsure about Obromneycare? Vote for Santorum. Do you want to hope he will appoint more conservative judges who may or may not jump on the Kelo bandwagon? Vote for Santorum. Do you want someone who is nominally better than Obama but may or may not actually follow the goddam constitution? Vote Santorum.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Rush tried to brush off healthy vetting (from the right) as left wing MSM smears. I believe he’s just trying to weaken Romney.

aryeung on January 5, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Good. If we choose Romney as our standard bearer we’ve thrown away everything we’ve worked for since 2008. All to make sure the President implementing Obromneycare has an R next to his name.

18-1 on January 5, 2012 at 1:46 PM

I will take earmarks any day -very Romneycare.

When did earmarks become a purity test?So he is not qualified?

Just Gimme a break.

I like Anne Coulter – but not just this cycle. She seems to suppor Romney more than Romney supports himself, seems like..

vpaddy123 on January 5, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Good. If we choose Romney as our standard bearer we’ve thrown away everything we’ve worked for since 2008. All to make sure the President implementing Obromneycare has an R next to his name.

I’m fine with a weaker Romney, but I don’t think it’s honest to lash out at the left for unjustly attacking Santorum.

aryeung on January 5, 2012 at 1:48 PM

It’s entitlement programs, black people!

FIFY

The Rogue Tomato on January 5, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Yuck! And I thought Perry was bad enough. What septic tank does the GOP fish its candidates out of?

Archivarix on January 5, 2012 at 1:49 PM

On the other hand, do you want to be unsure about Obromneycare? Vote for Santorum. Do you want to hope he will appoint more conservative judges who may or may not jump on the Kelo bandwagon? Vote for Santorum. Do you want someone who is nominally better than Obama but may or may not actually follow the goddam constitution? Vote Santorum.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:46 PM

As I’ve said, on the last point, Santorum is merely a last best hope in 2012, but the other two, well, you are wrong. Unlike Romney, Santorum has a pretty strong position opposing Obromneycare and leftwing judges. Here, for example, is his statement on Obromneycare;

http://politicalnews.me/?id=10448

Priority number 1 = repeal ObamaCare

18-1 on January 5, 2012 at 1:50 PM

bgibbs1000 on January 5, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I am not as automatically opposed to earmarks as it seems conservatives are expected to be.

My solution to earmarks is simple: Stop appropriating the money in the first place. The budget of the government needs to be cut drastically.

However, if the money is going to be spent, then our Constitution puts spending it in the hands of the Congress, not the executive and certainly not unelected bureaucrats in various agencies from the EPA to the Department of Education. And so I would vastly prefer that Congress, even in the form of earmarks, direct the spending of the money than trusting the bureaucrats of any administration, Republican or Democrat, to be doling out the money.

Shump on January 5, 2012 at 1:54 PM

That’s what I thought, Hollow. We don’t have a candidate who has a leg to stand on in criticizing entitlement spending — PERIOD.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Unfortunately, we also don’t have an electorate who wants to hear about the inevitable.

Perry and Ryan addressed entitlement spending and got savaged for it. I’m not sure we’ll find the political will to fix it until we’re in Greece’s shoes.

Hollowpoint on January 5, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Unlike Romney, Santorum has a pretty strong position opposing Obromneycare and leftwing judges. Here, for example, is his statement on Obromneycare;

http://politicalnews.me/?id=10448

Priority number 1 = repeal ObamaCare

18-1 on January 5, 2012 at 1:50 PM

I hope I am wrong. But I don’t trust Rick Santorum. I don’t trust Mitty Romney. I don’t trust Newt Gingrich. They want something from me. And all the good intentions in the world aren’t going to change that fact.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Here you go

Santorum’s rise

bgibbs1000 on January 5, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Perry and Ryan addressed entitlement spending and got savaged for it. I’m not sure we’ll find the political will to fix it until we’re in Greece’s shoes.

Hollowpoint on January 5, 2012 at 1:55 PM

And by then it will be too late.

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Meh. Nice guy, but he’s Huckabee 2.0 in that he’s a big government compassionate conservative. Ethanol supporter, thinks cancer vaccine turns little girls into whores, etc.

juliesa on January 5, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Saying that the Tea Party is reactionary as an attempt to say it doesn’t have principles is absolutely incorrect and misrepresentation of the Tea Party.

Yes, it was an awakening, and a reaction, to the circumstances before us — but so what? Just because we were busy doing the commerce that has been yoked to feed the out-of-control state spending doesn’t mean we don’t have principles. The politicians we trusted to execute them – including Rick “fake fiscal conservative” Santorum didn’t follow through while in office.

They start with Constitutional principles.

Tina has put forth exactly our concern with “Big Government” conservatives …

(1) Unconstitutional government spending and laws are okay, so long as it is on our stuff or according to our principles vs. someone else’s

No it isn’t, so stop it. Its big statism. Read how Santorum says “states don’t have a right to be wrong”. Read the 10th amendment. There is a conflict with constitutional principles and Rick’s views on government.

(2) Tea Party is not just for a “balanced budget” …

… it has to be balanced and restrained within a set of principles – properly laid out in the Constitution … and preferably be restrained (in actuality whether or not in a binding manner by the constitution) to a small percentage of GNP. (and yes, I used GNP not GDP).

My problem is that Santorum sees government spending and policy to drive certain social programs in a different direction, but he is more than happy to have them. He has no real framework for the way he views them

Where was Rick on balanced budget, 18% of GDP and all that stuff while he was in office representing us?

(3) The fact that the Tea Party program wasn’t initially “systemic” — whatever that means — is a straw-man too. Some of us woke-up — but we went to work, studied Hayek, developed an understanding of the principles of what works and doesn’t. Santorum hasn’t

Santorum has no plan for dealing with it systemically. He has bunch of bullet points pulled from the Tea Party. What is his plan for reining in entitlements exactly? Ryan’s. Which takes 50 years too. Does he support Right-to-Work? No. Does he support reining in the budget of the NLRB? Yes. What principle is at work there? None …. let’s rein in union power by budgetary reduction vs. real reform. And yet you make fun of Tea Party’s lack of priorities and principles? We *CAN* articulate exactly how and why government interventionism fails, why the free market principles which we no longer operate in create problems, what the empirical roots of these issues are, the morality of freedom – the freedom to succeed, the freedom to fail, the freedom to lead a moral life, the freedom to choose to give on Sunday and be judged before God on the basis of action, the restraints necessary in society for all these to happen.

(4) The fact that the Tea Party – representing millions of Americans – doesn’t speak with a single voice whereas Santorum – one person – does is also a “straw man” argument.

Aarrgghhh … there are so many things wrong here that I wonder what it is that Tina has against limited Federal government and the Tea Party and what the reaction is to Rick other than some not fully thought out emotional reaction (does that make Tina reactionary?) Catholic loving going on. Now, that’s not an argument, I know it … but man this article is off for me. And yeah, I went to a Jesuit school, I grew up in Pennsylvania, I’m a fiscal conservative, pro-Life, states rights, Hot Air reading registered Republican — but I do not support Santorum for President unless its him vs. Obama.

PrincetonAl on January 5, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Ann Coulture has always annoyed me. She’s so smug and she is always swinging her hair around like Cher. And doesn’t it seem like only yesterday she was saying if Romney got the nomination Obama would win and the only person who could save us was Chris Christy?

Ann’s article even suggested if it had turned out any other way we were all a bunch of “birthers.” Yikes. Is the right wing media taking a page out of the liberal lamestream media play book? What’s next? Will she call us a bunch of ignorant tea baggin’ racists?

Something to consider is that if Romney gets the nomination and then chooses Christy for his VP it might be the first time in history both parties nominated democrats to their presidential tickets. *wink*

magicbeans on January 5, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Santorum believes in God, that’s the point. Like Kennedy, he likes unions, protectionism, regulations, government spending and nanny-statism.

Not sure where to start with this craziness…”likes Unions”, show me where…”protectionism” just because he thinks its not in the national interest to gut our industrial base so you can buy more cheap junk from China at Walmart…”government spending” its as much about what we spend on rather than whether we spend…”nanny-statism”…most of conservatives define that as entitlements and welfare spending, which Santorum has been very clear is at the heart of our budget crisis but I suspect joana defines that as government telling her she can’t walk down the street naked…

ironmarshal on January 5, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Gah, c’mon Tina! What do you call Medicare Part D? That’s an EXTREMELY costly expansion of…an entitlement program. That’s no earmark. No Child Left Behind was also not an insignificant earmark.

Face it: Santorum is no Tea Party, fiscal responsibility type. He’s Dubya redux.

This will be my stock response for the next few weeks (or months, depending on how long this stooge remains significant): If you liked Dubya’s compassionate conservatism, you’ll love Rick Santorum!

Publius 2.0 on January 5, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Ann Coulter is shilling for Romney so I would not cite her piece as a true indication of who Santorum is. Better yet, lets hear him in his own words both in the debates and upcoming campaign stops, tell us who he is and what he believes.

KickandSwimMom on January 5, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Laura Ingraham is doing the same (shilling for Romney)

KBird on January 5, 2012 at 2:06 PM

He’d be Ted Kennedy if he didn’t believe in God.

Spot on.

joana on January 5, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Except for the drowing a woman bit, supporting abortion, supporting Obamacare, supporting gay marriage, opposing Gitmo, supporting cap & trade, or essentially any other position.

So except for being completely different, sure, he’s exactly the same!

Stoic Patriot on January 5, 2012 at 1:15 PM

LOL!

Sterling Holobyte on January 5, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Nice of Ann to compare Santorum to a liberal Catholic Bishop, but not mention Romney’s actual past position in the LDS.

I thought we were not supposed to bring up religion Ann.
I guess that it is ok if you only bring it up in an analogy?

Do you wonder why Ann is putting emphasis on Santorum’s Catholic roots with the South Carolina primary coming up?

IMHO Perry / West 2012

tonotisto on January 5, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Which amounts to getting a “blessing” by using state coercion to force people to do God’s will. In reality it is theft, legal, but theft nevertheless.

cartooner on January 5, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Personally, I would rather know some of my money was being “wasted” on that, than forcing people to do the devil’s will and help out Planned Parenthood murder babies.

Sterling Holobyte on January 5, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Did Rick Santorum say something mean about Chris Christie(Coulter’s god) at one point, or something? I am just trying to figure out her animosity toward him.

Sterling Holobyte on January 5, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Ann Coulter knows where her bread is buttered. Be a good Romney girl and you get invited on FNC, CNN, lectures on the RINO circuit. Go against Mittens and her livelihood suffers.

Not applicable to Joe Shmoe blogger.

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 1:44 PM

..I disagree, Ed. Any pundit at her “level” (i.e., the national stage) has the same right to express an opinion as the Joe Schmoe blogger. Ann Coulter especially is noted for her annoying, grating — often contrarian — opinions yet she still shows up on shows.

A shill is a person who hucksters a product (see my previous comment and the strict definition of the term) for the sake of duping or suckering people. If she hasn’t duped anyone here on HG, is she a shill?

Maybe I am slicing the baloney too thin. I’ll move on.

The War Planner on January 5, 2012 at 2:15 PM

If the constitution doesn’t specifically and explicitly authorize it, phase it out. Yeah, I know that means that 95-99% of what government does today would have to be phased out.
gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 1:23 PM

THIS.
I really had to read Tina’s post more carefully & it looks to me as if Tina is one of those compassionate conservatives who believe in most of the Constitution, but not really all of it.
Bcs we have to help the chilllldren.
You know.
Like support intrusive laws that mirror the ones we see regarding family law where a parent can be accused of something, yet there is no evidence or a trial being waged against them, and yet their children can be ripped from their home & given to complete strangers while they are ‘investigated’ from someone’s tattling on them.
To hell with the Const & the Bill of Rights.
I don’t want no government.
Like gryphon, I just want the people voted into office who actually take an oath to uphold to, you know, actually UPHOLD it!

Voting for No Child Left Behind has to be a high water mark in his Senate record, and emphasizes his commitment to nonintrusive federal government.
a capella on January 5, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Did I miss your sarc tag?
I hope so.
Bcs NCLB is extremely intrusive upon locally controlled education.
It’s bad enough the feds have been allowed to tell a local school what they can & cannot do.
NCLB just further erodes local control.
And NCLB does not really make anyone accountable for anything.

Badger40 on January 5, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If Republicans could refrain from bringing religion into everything and feeling they have to court the evangelical vote then they would win every election. Live right, by example, and the rest will follow…

yubley on January 5, 2012 at 1:37 PM

But, but, but, we must have purity of doctrine in our candidates, or they can’t be trusted.

Gunlock Bill on January 5, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Santorum — and indeed conservatism — is not reactionary. His political views proceed from a coherent worldview deeply rooted in Catholicism.

Santorum is a social conservative, the worst type of politician. That scumbag wants to go into peoples’ homes (metaphorically) and tell them how they should live. That bastard wants to go into the schools and dictate parts of the curriculum. To hell with him. I can simply blow off the types who tell me how I should feel (the LEFT), but pontificating how I should live is even more oppressively intrusive. Throw this skunk back under whatever Pennsylvanian rock he crawled out from.

Godzilla on January 5, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Laura Ingraham is doing the same (shilling for Romney)

KBird on January 5, 2012 at 2:06 PM

..and are all of the people here telling us that The RWD (Santorum) is the second coming of Reagan shilling for him? Again, no partial credit issued. Show your work.

The War Planner on January 5, 2012 at 2:18 PM

If you liked Dubya’s compassionate conservatism, you’ll love Rick Santorum!

Publius 2.0 on January 5, 2012 at 2:05 PM

This really says it all.
And no. I did NOT like it.
Compassionate conservatives are not really conservative, in the sense of upholding the Const. anyway, at ALL.
They want to control us, just like liberals do.
Just another face to the same old $hit.

Badger40 on January 5, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Again, no partial credit issued. Show your work.

The War Planner on January 5, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Be careful there.
Without partial credit, most everyone in the world will fail everything.
Stupid people often need partial credit to pass.

Badger40 on January 5, 2012 at 2:22 PM

I like Anne Coulter – but not just this cycle. She seems to suppor Romney more than Romney supports himself, seems like..

vpaddy123 on January 5, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Kinda like his Jock….HOT….PROBABLY A BIT SMELLY…BUT HAS GOOD SUPPORT…..

Booyah!!

coach1228 on January 5, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Yuck! And I thought Perry was bad enough. What septic tank does the GOP fish its candidates out of?

Archivarix on January 5, 2012 at 1:49 PM

From a tank that is much cleaner than Obumbo is wallowing on right now…

vpaddy123 on January 5, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Both Santorum and Romney suck if you want the truth of the matter, so does Gingrich. Rick Perry once supported Algore, nuff said right there. There’s not a single conservative in the bunch right now. And don’t start with the crap about how Reagan wasn’t ideological pure either. Reagan earned his conservative credentials and no one doubted his love of country and belief in the constitution. We don’t have a Reagan now. The ones who are closest to what Reagan was ideologically are not running or have been forced out.

IMHO the country is screwed and has been for several years. The 2010 election changed nothing, it’s still business as usual, slowly moving down the road to full marxism. The political establishment has decided to force marxism on us whether we like it or not. So don’t expect to see a GOP president change anything, the establishment has seen to that already.

bgibbs1000 on January 5, 2012 at 2:24 PM

So because Rick Santorum believes in fair trade and a living wage, that makes him, aside from a belief in God, identical to Ted Kennedy, even though one can fill a tome with how they differ.

It’s amazing how many implications one can draw from only a couple of usually lesser-emphasized political positions!

Stoic Patriot on January 5, 2012 at 1:36 PM

The mask slips! As I suspect with most Santoriums, you are not a fiscal conservative. “Fair trade” and “living wage” make you sound like any random lefty.

Look Polish on January 5, 2012 at 2:31 PM

The mask slips! As I suspect with most Santoriums, you are not a fiscal conservative. “Fair trade” and “living wage” make you sound like any random lefty.

Look Polish on January 5, 2012 at 2:31 PM

I wasn’t aware I was wearing any mask. For the totality of my time on HotAir, as well as on Townhall, I’ve openly advertised that I’m a Social Conservative first, a Neoconservative second, and that while I agree with the aims of balancing the budget, I think the GOP is seriously screwed up on its economics otherwise.

Saying you’re not going to demand reciprocal terms in trade agreements is like being asked to be punched in the face. Likewise, yes, people in the private sector do need a living wage to sustain them. We’ve done a great job at killing off that ability by ensuring that we import low-skilled, illegal labor, and by signing trade agreements that allow for outsourcing by putting American workers in direct competition with those operating out of sweat shops.

Consequently, we’ve killed both jobs and salaries. The idea that these are worthy goals is moronic.

Stoic Patriot on January 5, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Tina, no offense, but I do not understand this post. You basically just said it is ok that Santorum is mainly a social con with no desire to cut government spending?!? I mean I just do not understand. I am literally sitting here trying to figure out what point you were trying to make. Maybe I am just biased and think Santorum would be the second coming of Bush. Compassionate conservatism is not going to create jobs, I wish people would quit acting like Santorum is a viable option.

ArkyDore on January 5, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Folks, there is something much more evil about Santorum than his fiscal policy. Read this, understand this:

The Santorum controversy arose over Republican former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum’s statements about homosexuality and the right to privacy. In an interview with the Associated Press (AP) taped on April 7, 2003,[1] and published April 20, 2003, Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states’ ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual.

This scumbag is comparing consensual sex acts between adults to incest, sodomy, and bestiality, for Christ’s sake. This guy wants to dictate how you should live. This is the quintesential evil.

Godzilla on January 5, 2012 at 2:39 PM

In my previous comment, click on the blue text after the quote to get to the source of the quote.

Godzilla on January 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM

I guess in the end we’ll be voting for a turd.
It’s really hard to force a person to uphold an oath anymore.
Why swear to uphold the Constitution when that is not what’s going to happen?
ALL of these candidates pretty much SUCK.

Badger40 on January 5, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Santorum is a social conservative, the worst type of politician. That scumbag wants to go into peoples’ homes (metaphorically) and tell them how they should live. That bastard wants to go into the schools and dictate parts of the curriculum. To hell with him. I can simply blow off the types who tell me how I should feel (the LEFT), but pontificating how I should live is even more oppressively intrusive. Throw this skunk back under whatever Pennsylvanian rock he crawled out from.

Godzilla on January 5, 2012 at 2:17 PM

What planet have you been living on??!

In your post you have described exactly what the liberal/progressive activists have been doing in our schools AND our homes.
Have you been in a public school lately, and seen the leftist propaganda masquerading as “tolerance” and “diversity” instruction, and seen students mocked or disciplined because they put a Christian cross on a piece of artwork and didn’t take it off when the “teacher” told them to? I have!
Have you heard about the school in Illinois where students were told to sign a form stating they would NOT to tell their parents that the school was having a “pro-homosexual” instruction assembly? I have!
Have you seen “teachers” pull kids from school so they could go with them to protest a conservative Republican politician? As well as another school who took elementary school students down to city hall so they could witness a homosexual “marriage”? I have seen one and read and heard about the other.
Did you know that Arnold Schwartzenegger(the Gov. who used to be a man) signed into law in California that school textbooks MUST provide favorable views of all the “great things” that homosexuals have done in history(I think they’ll leave out the AIDS part). And since California is where a lot of the textbooks for the country are written – soon to be coming to a public school near you.
And all of this intrudes on a family’s home life(metaphorically).

You obviously have no idea what a Christian conservative is all about, and have been fed too many lies by the liberal schools and media. What Rick Santorum wants to do is take back the public schools from the “liberal/progressive” activists who have infiltrated them, and give more power back to the parents’ as to what their children will be exposed to. And you find something wrong with that? After all the left-wing, “tolerant” liberals have done to intrude into our daily lives and into the lives and minds of our children(I won’t even go into the constant infestation via the television)?!

Sterling Holobyte on January 5, 2012 at 2:53 PM

I wasn’t aware I was wearing any mask. For the totality of my time on HotAir, as well as on Townhall, I’ve openly advertised that I’m a Social Conservative first, a Neoconservative second, and that while I agree with the aims of balancing the budget, I think the GOP is seriously screwed up on its economics otherwise.

Saying you’re not going to demand reciprocal terms in trade agreements is like being asked to be punched in the face. Likewise, yes, people in the private sector do need a living wage to sustain them. We’ve done a great job at killing off that ability by ensuring that we import low-skilled, illegal labor, and by signing trade agreements that allow for outsourcing by putting American workers in direct competition with those operating out of sweat shops.

Consequently, we’ve killed both jobs and salaries. The idea that these are worthy goals is moronic.

Stoic Patriot on January 5, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Fine. Thank you for being honest. No wonder you support Santorum. You’re just as much of a statist as he is.

Look Polish on January 5, 2012 at 2:55 PM

We talk about “social conservatives” and “fiscal conservatives” without discussing what they actually want to “conserve.” Is the “constitutional conservative” an extinct breed?

gryphon202 on January 5, 2012 at 2:56 PM

This scumbag is comparing consensual sex acts between adults to incest, sodomy, and bestiality, for Christ’s sake. This guy wants to dictate how you should live. This is the quintesential evil.

Godzilla on January 5, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Never mind my question on my other post. I just discovered you get your facts from Wikipedia, of all places. Enough said.

Btw, strange what you will describe as “evil”.

Woe to you who call good, evil, and evil, good.

Sterling Holobyte on January 5, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2