Quotes of the day
posted at 10:40 pm on January 5, 2012 by Allahpundit
“Before answering, Santorum told the audience about a radio interview out of Boston he did earlier today.
“According to Santorum, the interviewer said, ‘We don’t need a Jesus candidate, we need an economic candidate.’
“‘My answer to that,’ Santorum added, ‘was we always need a Jesus candidate.
“‘We need someone who believes in something more than themselves and not just the economy,’ he added. ‘When we say, ‘God bless America,’ do we mean it or do we just say it?’”
“The Iowa caucuses have again produced upheaval. The 2008 contest saw the Huckabee phenomenon and announced the Obama earthquake that toppled the Clinton dynasty. Now the 2012 caucuses have put former Sen. Rick Santorum near the front of the Republican presidential pack and demonstrated that the ‘religious right’—Roman Catholic and evangelical social conservatives—is alive and flourishing in the American body politic…
“Mr. Santorum is the truest of true social conservatives. In the House and then in the Senate, he was always willing to fight the battles closest to social conservatives’ hearts, even when he was virtually alone in doing so. His Iowa showing guarantees that the upcoming primaries will offer a great debate between the Republican establishment on one side and the social conservatives and tea party types on the other.”
“But perhaps the most surprising result of the Iowa caucuses was the return of compassionate conservatism from the margins of the Republican stage to its center. Rick Santorum is not just an outspoken social conservative; he is the Republican candidate who addresses the struggles of blue-collar workers and the need for greater economic mobility. He talks not only of the rights of the individual but also of the health of social institutions, particularly the family. He draws out the public consequences of a belief in human dignity — a pro-life view applied to the unborn and to victims of AIDS in Africa…
“This is not statism; it is called subsidiarity. In this view, needs are best served by institutions closest to individuals. But when those institutions require help or protection, higher-order institutions should intervene. So when state governments imposed Jim Crow laws, the federal government had a duty to overturn them. When a community is caught in endless economic depression and drained of social capital, government should find creative ways to empower individuals and charities — maybe even prison ministries that change lives from the inside out.
“This is not ‘big government’ conservatism. It is a form of limited government less radical and simplistic than the libertarian account. A compassionate-conservative approach to governing would result in a different and smaller federal role — using free-market ideas to strengthen families and communities, rather than constructing centralized bureaucracies. It rejects, however, a utopian belief in unfettered markets that would dramatically increase the sum of suffering.”
“One of Santorum’s strengths is that he understands that a nation isn’t just an agglomeration of individuals; it’s a fabric of social relationships. In his 2005 book, ‘It Takes a Family,’ he had chapters on economic capital as well as social capital, moral capital, cultural capital and intellectual capital. He presents an extended argument against radical individualism. ‘Just as original sin is man’s inclination to try to walk alone without God, individualism is man’s inclination to try to walk alone among his fellows,’ he writes.
“Communities breed character. Santorum argues that government cannot be agnostic about the character of its citizens because the less disciplined the people are, the more government must step in to provide order…
“Santorum understands that we have to fuse economics talk and values talk. But he hasn’t appreciated that the biggest challenge to stable families, healthy communities and the other seedbeds of virtue is not coastal elites. It’s technological change; it’s globalization; it’s personal mobility and expanded opportunity; it’s an information-age economy built on self-transformation and perpetual rebranding instead of fixed inner character. It is the very forces that give us the dynamism and opportunities in the first place.”
Via Greg Hengler.









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: « Previous 1 2 3
Says he’s in his 60s. He fancies himself a comedian. The thing is, I read a comment he wrote earlier today where he was actually rational and made some very good points. I can’t understand why he thinks the lame hokey cornball impressions are better.
Flora Duh on January 6, 2012 at 12:41 AM
Flora Duh on January 6, 2012 at 12:41 AM
Happy hour, maybe?
Cleombrotus on January 6, 2012 at 12:45 AM
Several of us HA Floridians were talking about a get together the other day. Broward County was mentioned as a possible destination. If we meet in Broward we’re going to occupy Debbie Downer’s front lawn. You want to lead the “mic checks”?
Flora Duh on January 6, 2012 at 12:46 AM
Okay,I’m out,
GoodNight Everyone———————–:)
P.S.,watch while walking the main deck,you might slip
on brown peanuts,and slip right over the side,haha!!
canopfor on January 6, 2012 at 12:46 AM
Although Romney’s flip-flops make it difficult to predict exactly what kind of President he’d be, not once have I worried that he’d force the views of the LDS Church on the nation. Not all of us against Romney worry about the LDS aspect. Heck, some of us (me included) are supporting the other Mormon.
McDuck on January 6, 2012 at 12:47 AM
Flora Duh on January 6, 2012 at 12:41 AM
Cindy Munford and a few others ripped him a new one after he went all ‘hick’ on a few of us ‘Perry Girls’(Me, GG, and AG) on Tueday night.
Sweet!
annoyinglittletwerp on January 6, 2012 at 12:47 AM
How do you distinguish between a candidate “legislating his faith” and one who allows his faith to inform his politics?
Cleombrotus on January 6, 2012 at 12:47 AM
If so, his happy hour appears to last all day long.
Flora Duh on January 6, 2012 at 12:48 AM
I’ll be there with bells on. Really loud bells.
katy the mean old lady on January 6, 2012 at 12:48 AM
Neither does Mr Hussein
burrata on January 6, 2012 at 12:49 AM
Yups, Which is why every sane person knows that america as we know it is over, Conservatives will have to become the British conservative party, and promise the same stuff as the democrats except that they can “manage” it better,
OrthodoxJew on January 6, 2012 at 12:51 AM
Yes, I saw that. He and I had an, ahem, discussion, shortly after I registered. I ignore him now and he ignores me.
Flora Duh on January 6, 2012 at 12:51 AM
BOOOM!!!!!
Cleombrotus on January 6, 2012 at 12:53 AM
He should keep his day job.
Anyway, there are a number of Floridians on HA. Fortunately, I live on the opposite coast from DWS.
There’s a movement to have her deported from Gator Nation.
SlaveDog on January 6, 2012 at 12:54 AM
I am so sick of this BS. This is the leftist playbook. Cry racist, homophobe (insert moral outrage) to shut up dissent. I am an evanglical voter, but I am also a fiscal conservative. Romney may be a businessman, but he does not have a record of fiscal conservatism in government. Romneycare while raising taxes is the antithesis of small government conservative. There are many reasons why I don’t support Romney, but is Mormonism is not one of them. I think that Romney lives “social conservatism” and that is respectible, but he doesn’t govern as a conservative.
melle1228 on January 6, 2012 at 12:55 AM
OrthodoxJew on January 6, 2012 at 12:51 AM
A fine kettle of fish we’ve gotten ourselves into, isn’t it?
Cleombrotus on January 6, 2012 at 12:56 AM
Are you saying that’s a plus?
Cleombrotus on January 6, 2012 at 12:58 AM
M240H on January 5, 2012 at 11:26 PM
My first choice is Perry…my second choice is Huntsmann.
‘Course I’m sorta-kinda Jewish-so I guess I have no dog in this fight.
annoyinglittletwerp on January 6, 2012 at 1:02 AM
I moved from her dictatorship, I mean district, almost 7 yrs ago, so I don’t really keep up on S.FL political news any longer. Is there really a chance she could be banished from that annals of Broward County politics?
Flora Duh on January 6, 2012 at 1:02 AM
Nope not at all. I think we need a fiscal conservative. We have had extremely liberal leadership and just to undo the damage of the last four years; we need strong, CONSISTENT fiscal conservatism. Romney is not that. Really how can he go after Obama on big government or Obamacare when he, himself supported something similiar?
melle1228 on January 6, 2012 at 1:04 AM
melle1228 on January 6, 2012 at 1:04 AM
Ah, I see. I read your comments too fast.
Either that or my reading comprehension skills aren’t what I think they are.
Cleombrotus on January 6, 2012 at 1:07 AM
Santorum is certainly no fiscal conservative based on his voting record. He’s a strong social and foreign policy conservative.
He has much to answer for on his record, though, particularly explaining his strong support of union shop laws, refusal to support the repeal of Davis-Bacon which runs up costs on every federal project, etc.
And he needs to explain why he had his kids’ cyber-charter school tuition paid by the taxpayers of his old district in PA when he was claiming residence, and the family lived, in Virginia. Not to mention the details of his last home purchase there, where the purchase price is listed as “$0″ – a pretty good price in any market.
Adjoran on January 6, 2012 at 1:08 AM
Hey it is what it is, no reason to try to deny it,
The failure of Bush, and to a certain degree even Reagan to rein in the government programs has brought us this day,
The funny part is that the next president might actually turn out to be the most conservative after all, Because when Europe collapses any day in the next months/years the day of reckoning will arrive, and the actions will have to be so brutal, we will have to cut programs left and right
OrthodoxJew on January 6, 2012 at 1:09 AM
No problem, it happens :)
melle1228 on January 6, 2012 at 1:09 AM
Whether Senator Santorum ends up being the nominee or not, he is the only one on the campaign trail linking our fiscal crisis to the moral crisis engendered by the Sexual Revolution. Private consensual sexual intimacy results in the unwed birth of 4 out of every 10 American children — the vast majority of whom are of European ancestry — and the vast majority of those children become wards of the state from cradle to grave. We will never be able to put our fiscal house in order without reforming the entitlement system, and such reform cannot be successful without reforming the culture to reduce the amount of dependency. Senator Santorum is the only one making that argument, and it needs to be made.
As a matter of constitutional law, he is on very solid, originalist grounds when he argues that neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights nor the Fourteenth Amendment was intended by those who ratified them to withhold from either the states or the federal government the authority to enact such reforms by regulating private sexual intimacy, including to the point of criminalization. Every state to ratify the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment criminalized private consensual sexual intimacy in the form of prostitution, sodomy, criminal conversation, alienation of affections, the keeping of bawdy houses, incest, etc. Every state to ratify the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment regulated marriage, including limiting it to heterosexual couples. To suggest that the voters who ratified those provisions intended to do away with statutes that had been on the books for decades is Progessive sophistry, thus requiring “emanations and penumbras” to justify the amendment of the Constitution, by deliberate misinterpretation, by at least five Progressive and electorally unaccountable lawyers.
Finally, the fact that Senator Santorum adheres to originalist principles in interpreting the Constitution does not mean that he thinks the Constitution mandates his personal or political policy initiatives. In other words, he may argue forcefully against the imposition of gay marriage by judicial fiat on originalist grounds, and against its adoption by legislative means, but he recognizes that the Constitution leaves to the people the authority to enact the latter through the consent of the governed. By way of contrast, the Progressive Left sees no problem imposing its personal and political policy initiatives through the judiciary or through extra-constitutional means.
Indeed, according to the Progressive worldview, we can never regulate personally or culturally injurious, consensual sexual intimacy because all such intimacy is constitutionally-protected. We can’t even reenact regulatory legislation that was in place when the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment were ratified, even if we were to determine that such legislation would assist in reducing dependency. We’re stuck with an increasingly dysfunctional culture that puts Progressives in the classical Munchhausen by proxy position of encouraging the ill that makes Americans more and more dependent upon the beaurocratic Leviathan only they can control, as long as their subjects, not citizens, continue to vote them into office, all while they block any traditional means of dealing with our problems, both fiscal and cultural. That is what this election is ultimately about, and this argument needs to be made.
Mongo Mere Pawn on January 6, 2012 at 1:09 AM
What?
OrthodoxJew on January 6, 2012 at 1:14 AM
Santorum is a true conservative, like Reagan’s 3 legged stool example. Fiscal, foreign policy and social issues.
He had a long tenure in Washington with an excellent record to prove it. Nit pick a vote here or there all you want. He got results and was always a reliable conservative vote.
He didn’t win Iowa simply on social issues. He was speaking for the blue collar worker in a terrible economy and it hit home.
He has the issues on his side to win this thing in the general. Independents in the general will vote pocketbook over social issues.
He doesn’t have the charisma that Cain or Perry have, but he isn’t boring like Romney and he has an earnest sincerity and likability. I think he can pull this off.
He is very well spoken and knows all the issues. He will surprise many.
Elisa on January 6, 2012 at 1:15 AM
What?
OrthodoxJew on January 6, 2012 at 1:14 AM
I know. Kind of snuck up on me too. LoL
First choice is still Perry.
annoyinglittletwerp on January 6, 2012 at 1:16 AM
One final note, the last time Republicans made the link between fiscal and cultural crises, Senator Santorum was instrumental in making that argument successfully in getting welfare reform enacted, which was very successful from both a cultural and a fiscal basis. The current administration is dismantling that reform and back to encouraging dependency and, therefore, exacerbating both the cultural and the fiscal crises.
Mongo Mere Pawn on January 6, 2012 at 1:16 AM
Ya kind of left out some other interested parties, haven’t you?
Cleombrotus on January 6, 2012 at 1:19 AM
We don’t need a Conservative President that leaves the Democrat corruption machine intact.
Speakup on January 6, 2012 at 1:19 AM
Legitimate criticisms, no doubt.
Too bad the media didn’t focus on similar legitimate questions concerning Obama the way I’m sure they’ll have no problem focusing on Santorum’s.
Cleombrotus on January 6, 2012 at 1:22 AM
I never could quite understand those who advocate ignoring the social issues in favor of exclusively focusing on fiscal issues, particularly for fear of alienating prospective voters.
Cleombrotus on January 6, 2012 at 1:24 AM
LOL, I thought that from them we never expected to see anything done, because they kinda want us to become like Europe
But our guys we thought they will maybe maybe do something, and they failed us
That’s the positive in supporting Romney, your second choice can still be Perry, (i really can’t stand Huntsman)
OrthodoxJew on January 6, 2012 at 1:25 AM
That’s gonna take more than a mere President to overturn.
Try civil war, and even then there’s no guarantee.
National repentance, but that ain’t happening either.
Cleombrotus on January 6, 2012 at 1:26 AM
Like I said to Speakup, the problems larger than the mere Presidency.
Cleombrotus on January 6, 2012 at 1:29 AM
OrthodoxJew on January 6, 2012 at 1:25 AM
Mitt was the author of Masscare and comes across as a handsome used car salesman.I’ll vote for him ONLY if he’s the nominee.
annoyinglittletwerp on January 6, 2012 at 1:33 AM
Cleombrotus on January 6, 2012 at 1:34 AM
I see Horace is going through to ruffle some of the feathers of the old hens. Hehe
aryeung on January 6, 2012 at 1:42 AM
And I will pass on compassionate conservatism II.
aryeung on January 6, 2012 at 1:43 AM
Well, I’d best get some sleep before I get too depressing.
Night, all.
Cleombrotus on January 6, 2012 at 1:46 AM
So, lets all give up.
Speakup on January 6, 2012 at 1:46 AM
You can’t tell the difference? I want Santorum as VP on the Romney ticket. It is issues like this where I think he is weakest ironically due to his resolve.
Capitalist Hog on January 6, 2012 at 2:18 AM
Not defending Santorum here, but in PA you can have any amount you want put on the deed. People do it a lot because all real estate transfers are printed in the paper, and a lot of people don’t want everyone knowing their business.
Night Owl on January 6, 2012 at 4:00 AM
Cindy Munford and a few others ripped him a new one after he went all ‘hick’ on a few of us ‘Perry Girls’(Me, GG, and AG) on Tueday night.
Sweet!
annoyinglittletwerp on January 6, 2012 at 12:47 AM
This post directed by you to Flora Duh is an outright fabrication and a completely dishonest statement. You did no such thing.
Gopher Girl did nothing. Aslan’s Girl, after prompting from me, admitted she had falsely stated what I had posted on that thread and apologized to me. You said absolutely nothing to me.
Provide a link or a copy/past to provide evidence to support what you said at 12:47 p.m. on January 6, 2012. If you can’t, and you can’t, then what you said was, in fact, a complete falsehood.
I’ll wait.
Horace on January 6, 2012 at 4:24 AM
Jesus, where did all these Santorum shills come from?
You know what, I liked it better when Cain was leading, at least he provided some much needed entertainment. Can we have him back?
gyrmnix on January 6, 2012 at 4:30 AM
Horace on January 6, 2012 at 4:24 AM
I never apologized to you for anything. That was gophergirl the other day. I am shocked that someone of your intelligence, your high IQ, your brilliance could confuse Perry Girls with each other. Maybe you are just as dumb as that hick, Perry. He couldn’t remember the third agency he wanted to cut and you can’t remember who apologized to you. You must be from Texas and wear boots labeled “R” and “L”.
-Aslan’s Girl
Aslans Girl on January 6, 2012 at 5:00 AM
I’m a big Romney supporter, but I don’t have any bad feelings about Santorum. I think Santorum is a very bright, capable man who would likely be a good president. Santorum is also a very good campaigner. One thing that worries me is that, if Santorum were to become our nominee, so much would be made of Santorum’s positions on social issues. Rather than have all the focus on the economy and Obama’s record (which is what we’d want), we would hear nonstop about Santorum’s supposed “anti-gay” views and how Santorum wants to police people’s bedrooms, etc. (Remember, he apparently believes that sodomy should be illegal.) That could be a big problem in a general election. I think Romney is plenty conservative, but at least he doesn’t present these same problems… AND Romney is a successful business man.
As for the others…
Perry is a TOTAL joke and needs to go. The man appears to be a junior high school dropout. If only Jindal had run instead of Perry, maybe Romney would have had another serious opponent.
Gingrich is a loose cannon with all kinds of history that would be dragged out in a general election campaign. Nominating Newt would be a huge mistake.
Huntsman might be able to win the general election, but I don’t trust him… and he seems to love his distinction as the liberals’ favorite Republican too much.
Out of everyone running, Romney would be our strongest candidate. He will appoint conservative Supreme Court Justices, hopefully be in a position to repeal Obamacare (after we win Senate majority), give us a sane energy policy, cut taxes, get tougher with China, etc.
I just contributed to Romney… and I look forward to him beating Obama!
bluegill on January 6, 2012 at 5:00 AM
My choice for QOTD, even if it was posted as late as 10pm, was the diary that Rick Perry posted at Red State:
http://www.redstate.com/governorperry/2012/01/05/stop-insider-trading-dead-in-its-tracks/
I also appreciated the link he tweeted today:
http://www.mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
Aslans Girl on January 6, 2012 at 5:02 AM
In 2012 retire Herr Obama, not the Constitution
RasThavas on January 6, 2012 at 5:04 AM
So we have a candidate who has a conscience, and it’s a threat to you “conservatives.” Too hot to handle in these free and easy times you say… he’ll turn off the young and the agnostic. To me, that’s what proves someone’s value and consistency, when they are willing to lose a contest if being true means losing to a liar.
I have not supported Santorum at ALL in this race, but now I’m thinking about it. If he’s got a spine and willing to use it, I’ll back him. Who wants another 4 years of Bonher-type whimps in DC?
leftnomore on January 6, 2012 at 5:08 AM
WSJ’s Kim Strassel has a good piece on how both Santorum and Romney are playing the Dems’ class warfare card and why they are wrong to do so.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203471004577143121197738672.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond
onlineanalyst on January 6, 2012 at 5:10 AM
–and another thing. Hugh Hewitt has had a frisbee-sized wet spot for Romney for years. Could he be swayed to back his Catholic brother, Rick?
leftnomore on January 6, 2012 at 5:10 AM
Romney comes across as dignified and formal. These are good things. I don’t want a “good ol’ boy” back-slapping clown as a president or someone who shoots his mouth off all the time like some bozo.
In 2008 I went to several Romney events, and had the opportunity to see him do lengthy question and answer sessions. All politics aside, it was clear that he is a very impressive, serious person. He never needed any notes, and he spoke and answered unfiltered questions for over an hour. He had an amazing recall ability… and maintained this calm, reassuring demeanor throughout. Trust me when I tell you guys that he comes across much better in person. There is also a warmth about him that you can feel and see when he is listening to questioners and answering questions… it comes off much better in person. He is not a screamer or an excessive emoter, but seems like someone who takes his role VERY seriously. Little bit of trivia: many people at the events commented on his extremely perfect posture. He stook the whole time and never slouched or seemed to get tired or bored, as I’ve seen other candidates do when I’ve gone to their events. And, yes, Romney’s looks ARE striking in person. This probably means nothing to most of you, but thought I’d share anyway, since you all probably only know him from TV and YouTube.
bluegill on January 6, 2012 at 5:22 AM
Try this Q&A townhall to see how effective and prepared Gingrich is:
http://www.c-span.org/Campaign2012/Newt-Gingrich-Takes-Questions-From-NH-Tea-Party-Voters/10737426863-1/
onlineanalyst on January 6, 2012 at 5:46 AM
Good Morning HA!
TGIF :)
i can hear the spinning right now on the jobs numbers this am….can’t you?
cmsinaz on January 6, 2012 at 6:00 AM
Aslan’s Girl
You’re right and I was wrong.
I do apologize.
Horace on January 6, 2012 at 6:09 AM
OT: mark halperin raining on morning joe’s parade for bernard huntsman…
heh
cmsinaz on January 6, 2012 at 6:11 AM
Aslan’s Girl
Oh, and I never have even once on this site claimed intelligence or a high IQ nor have I ever even once called Rick Perry a “dumb hick.”
You and Twerp do alot of libeling, but you should take the time to get your facts straight when you do so.
If you have even one post by me that disputes what I said, please do post it and prove me wrong.
Horace on January 6, 2012 at 6:12 AM
LOL… nice shot.
This calls for my trademarked:
Tee hee hee™
TheRightMan on January 6, 2012 at 6:16 AM
Good morning, fellow Hot Airers.
It’s another fine morning and TheRightMan is donning his battle gear ready to fight the good fight.
There is only one small Govt. conservative left in the race. His record trumps the others. He’s been written off but SC might just hold the key to his revival.
Fellow conservatives, I present Gov. Rick Perry.
Please vote for him.
:)
TheRightMan on January 6, 2012 at 6:20 AM
apparently they’ve started the spin on MJ
cmsinaz on January 6, 2012 at 6:24 AM
our primary is not til the end of Feb, i hope he’s still on the ballot
cmsinaz on January 6, 2012 at 6:25 AM
If Santorum gets the nomination prepare to hear this played out every minute of every day in the media.
Roymunson on January 6, 2012 at 6:30 AM
sorry “Compassionate Conservatism” is just political code for bigger frigging government.
NOT INTERESTED in more federal “help”.
PappyD61 on January 6, 2012 at 7:11 AM
I look to discern if there is a national or state interest that is separable from religious considerations. When I hear Santorum, his logic is almost always contrived and strained. He tries to cloak his religious policy in the most tenuous of connections providing tissue thin fig leaves of cover.
MJBrutus on January 6, 2012 at 7:12 AM
Please vote for the whoever the GOP nominates, instead of PBHO.
MJBrutus on January 6, 2012 at 7:24 AM
Horace on January 6, 2012 at 6:12 AM
I never said you ever mentioned your intelligence. I was merely using your own snark that you used against me on Tuesday. Don’t you recognize your own snark? Tsk, tsk. I obviously have to spell this out for you: when I mis-spelled “court-martial”, you said to me that you were surprised that someone of my intelligence could make such a mistake. Duh!
Aslans Girl on January 6, 2012 at 7:34 AM
Thank you, TRM! :)
Aslans Girl on January 6, 2012 at 7:34 AM
http://chestnuthill.patch.com/articles/santorum-iowa
The above article raises a lot of questions (more than just residency issues) about Santorum, can any readers from PA confirm if the article is correct?
beacon on January 6, 2012 at 7:47 AM
He didn’t say you couldn’t be queer, moron. He merely stated you don’t have a constitutional right to marriage.
LizardLips on January 6, 2012 at 8:06 AM
beacon on January 6, 2012 at 7:47 AM
Very interesting. The comment section reminded me of something I’d forgotten about him: he supported the “Pet Animal Welfare Statute of 2005″, a leftist animal rights bill.
Here’s a link:
http://teapartyorg.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-truth-about-rick-santorum-will-so-called-conservatives-ever?xg_source=activity
As a huge animal lover, I know that not only is PETA radically leftist, but that they actually don’t want people owning pets or breeding them (not even purebreds). And Santorum supported this legislation!
BIG-GOVERNMENT.
Aslans Girl on January 6, 2012 at 8:12 AM
I know the link I provided is possbily hyperbolic, but it points out how PETA and the rest of the “animal rights” orgs are against pet ownership and breeding.
And Santorum’s a hypocrite because he hunts. Sheesh.
Aslans Girl on January 6, 2012 at 8:17 AM
What he did not say is that the Federal government has no authority to decide for the states whether such unions are permissible.
Instead he raises the specter of bigamy, etc, attempting to scare people away from what they overwhelmingly approve of in many states by talking about what they would not. I wonder what the senator’s views are regarding the marriage of a politician to a red herring.
BTW, I find it amusing the way the cries for a candidate who is not a Washington DC insider have become so sparse lately.
MJBrutus on January 6, 2012 at 8:19 AM
Is that the only alternative? Giving up?
Stretch a little, Speakup.
Cleombrotus on January 6, 2012 at 8:39 AM
Here’s a vid of the new “not-Romney” defending ear-marks… Tea Partiers: WAKE UP!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vLQnoVpkyqc
Aslans Girl on January 6, 2012 at 8:40 AM
Apparently, some people don’t understand how Constitutional amendments work. They get passed through the Congress, and then they go out to states to be ratified by the people.
Now some of you want to knock Santorum for having different ideas on what he might like to see in the Constitution if a majority of three-fourths of the states agree with him!! The tyranny of the electorate!!
We all know that if Obama had taken the amendment route for Obamacare, we wouldn’t be worrying about repealing it today. We also couldn’t say anything like “It’s unconstitutional!” because it would have been by the time it had been ratified.
I very likely would have voted against Santorum’s amendments, but I don’t see Santorum following a process to submit ideas to the referendum of the people as evidence that he’s just going to start unilaterally banning stuff when he gets into office.
I regularly use condoms and agree with Santorum’s position on Griswold v. Connecticut and the manufacture of a “right to privacy” in the Cons. It’s not a fer or agin’ thing. It’s probably one of the myriad things you’re having trouble with if you think proposing Constitutional amendments is someway indicative of imposing your opinion on everybody.
This is again the “lib” part of libertarianism raising it’s ugly head.
Axeman on January 6, 2012 at 8:50 AM
Perhaps I should have boldened YOU in my question. The poster made an offhand comment concerning Santorum’s bringing up issues of his faith in discussions and the poster seizes on that to declare that he wants to “legislate his faith”.
That’s simply too easy of a strawman that I see too many jumping on just to avoid having to deal with the issues rather than dealing with them honestly.
Cleombrotus on January 6, 2012 at 8:50 AM
So can I put you down as one who agrees that there are times when it is legitimate to bring up issues of religious faith in political discussions?
Or not?
Cleombrotus on January 6, 2012 at 8:52 AM
He pretty much did–because he has wanted to amend the constitution because of it. In which case, the federal government would. Yes, and libertarians would be out of a job if we amended the constitution to say things that the liberal courts haven’t already interpreted to meaninglessness. They need to have that liberal activist theory in order to thwart the review and referendum of the people, to whom they feel superior in intellect and morality.
Axeman on January 6, 2012 at 8:55 AM
Santorum needs to put his religion in the closet and leave it there. If he keeps it up, he’ll lose both my votes.
Norky on January 6, 2012 at 8:57 AM
SantorumThe homosexuals need(s) to puthis religiontheir sexual proclivities in the closet and leave them there. If they keep it up, they’ll lose both my votes.Norky on January 6, 2012 at 8:57 AM
See how that works?
Cleombrotus on January 6, 2012 at 9:09 AM
Which gives you the right to make up irrational, presumptive arguments against him?
“Cloak”? What are you using the the liberal straw man mechanism of “code words”? Are you operating in the mode of The Psychic Liberal cliche?
Although there are plenty of conservative dolts and ma and pas, liberals tout their sophistication at the same time as avoiding sound argument for “reading” “code words” and “motivations”.
When I center on what Santorum says and what he emphasizes, I don’t find such problems with his logic. I might have a different conclusion or a different preference, but the Cons was made to accept different inputs and not to output an ideology.
Axeman on January 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM
Rick Santorum QOTD? Homophobe Says What?
Dr Evil on January 6, 2012 at 9:24 AM
Your logic is breathtaking, Dr.
Cleombrotus on January 6, 2012 at 9:33 AM
Sometimes I don’t know how we’re going to beat the media: The media wields power to shape opinions and just like the coward or me-too Repubs, we just want as big a piece of things as the media will allow.
An interviewer says “We don’t need a ‘Jesus candidate’”. Santorum uses those words in context, and then widens them to their most generic form “someone who believes in something more than themselves and not just the economy” and the people run for the hills because he said “Jesus”, afraid how that will play into the liberal/media forged image of a theocrat.
I’m a little dismayed by the quality of conservative argument. I don’t see how that’s going to beat the press, either.
Axeman on January 6, 2012 at 9:39 AM
I know the feeling, Axeman. I know the feeling.
Cleombrotus on January 6, 2012 at 9:40 AM
Santorum lost his last election because of he’s a relic from another era. This is the 21st century.
Dr Evil on January 6, 2012 at 10:25 AM
Adhere to biblical teaching, or risk losing both Norky’s votes – that is a tough spot for the Senator to find himself in.
Flora Duh on January 6, 2012 at 10:27 AM
I love Rick on social issues. I was raised catholic but am a born again Christian. I also understand that I live in a nation of laws…so I find myself completely in line from a religious aspect (the most important aspect for me) with him, however, not everyone let their religion trump their ironically “God given rights” (haha) under the constitution….so here we are choosing between our faith and our constitution.
And that bleeds in every other subject. I advise people strongly against abortion, but do I think the government can play God and administer judgement on earth to those who do them?….com’on! God is the ultimate judge, not another sinner!!
Can.I.be.in.the.middle on January 6, 2012 at 11:18 AM
I think you didn’t understand my post. What you said makes no sense at all in relation to what I said.
Norky on January 6, 2012 at 11:58 AM
Santorum is not a fiscal conservative and yesterday he was caught on tape trashing the Tea Party
http://joemiller.us/2012/01/video-santorum-has-real-problems-with-the-tea-party/#comment-3058
Rapunzel on January 6, 2012 at 2:22 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3