The Santorum “big government conservative” debate continues

posted at 11:00 am on January 7, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

I seem to remember a time when “big government” and “conservatism” were pretty much mutually exclusive phrases. But the lines have been blurring on that for a long time now, a point which came to light significantly during the administration of George W. Bush with the expansion of Medicare and NCLB. This distracted and disillusioned many conservatives, along with the accelerated rate of spending. (It was nowhere near the current pace, obviously, but still enough to put many fiscal conservatives off their feed.)

At the Daily Caller, Matt Lewis highlights this debate and how it has swung the spotlight onto Rick Santorum. An unlikely pair of debaters are squaring off on the subject, too. In this case it’s Rush Limbaugh and Erick Erickson. First up… Limbaugh.

Now there’s a mantra — there’s mantra out there — and it’s even now spread to CBS News: “Will Santorum’s big government conservatism resonate?” It’s everywhere, folks. “Santorum’s big government conservatism.” Have you ever heard “big government conservatism” associated with Rick Santorum before today? Have you? Have you?

Lewis responds that yes, in fact, he has heard it before. And it’s not in terms of wanting the government to take a hand in matters such as pro-life issues or immigration. It’s about spending and entitlement programs, as I noted above. The response from Erickson:

I’m rather tired of all the people who don’t like Romney trying to claim Rick Santorum is not a big government conservative, or not a pro-life statist. I would support him before I would support Romney too, but I have no intention of giving up ideological and intellectual consistency in the name of beating Mitt Romney.

Rick Santorum is a pro-life statist. He is. You will have to deal with it. He is a big government conservative. Santorum is right on social issues, but has never let his love of social issues stand in the way of the creeping expansion of the welfare state. In fact, he has been complicit in the expansion of the welfare state.

I think the main point of contention here is precisely how we are to define “big government.” (Which, for some reason, always summons up visions of Bill Clinton giving a speech for me.) We can debate the dollars and cents at the bottom of the column, but that’s a somewhat different argument than asking what the proper role of the federal government is. Immigration and national security are obviously the province of Washington. (Current appearances to the contrary not withstanding.) But the expansion of entitlement programs is going to be a hard sell with conservatives as not being a big government position.

Of course, all of this amounts to the type of sniping and attacks you’d expect to see during the primary season. It’s also not something that’s likely to hurt Santorum much if he manages to win the nomination, as those aren’t positions that are going to scare off moderates and independents.


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 3 4

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM

I’ll agree to a point. Perry needs to be positive tonite. I believe that if he attacks Santorum it will backfire. Make the case of why most qualified. I believe Perry’s resume stands on it’s own, let the SuperPacs and the other candidates go after Santorum, Paul already has.

He walked back on Gardasil, what is so hard to accept about this? He is not a perfect human being, but his record of successes far outweigh his failures and missteps here in Texas. That is just fact, not emotion.

Some folks want to talk about his accent, or his Texan persona. I don’t care where a guy is from if he delivers results, than he is a winner in my book. No doubt Perry has not had a career at debating, and with the American Political Idol audience it has reflected in his polling. Reagan was attacked in his campaign for Presidency too, “confused” “old” “former actor”. I have to admit I didn’t take his candidacy serious either the first time, even though of course I wasn’t old enough to vote then, but I paid attention nevertheless, from the standpoint of what the msm was saying. That was a mistake. I look at the issues at hand, and who has the best record, consistency and proven.

This election is not about Gardasil and instate tuition, it’s about jobs and the economy. Only one candidate has the consistent proven record. Perry’s debate performances have improved since hiring Mari Will. That’s what leadership is about, taking action.

sunshinek67 on January 7, 2012 at 12:51 PM

You Palinistas better get over your butt-hurt and wake up to reality. Is this country worth saving or not? We are not having an American Idol contest for the presidency.

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 12:37 PM

What’s that TheRightMan?

I can’t hear you when your candidate is all the way down there, hovering at the precipice of single digits.

Did you say R P was going to be the nominee?

I don’t think Ron Paul is gonna do it.

Oh, you mean the other RP.

The one that got half of Ron Paul’s votes.

The Rick who got less than half of the other Rick’s votes.

Someone is delusional here, and it isn’t the “Palinistas.” The point of my post was that Erik Erikson is vile, petty little man who has a rapid, delusional hatred that seems to infect all Perry supporters – if your response to my little quip is any indication.

Rick Perry for President – Making America safe for Mexican Nationals you heartless xenophobes!

BKennedy on January 7, 2012 at 12:51 PM

I can’t believe how many people are ignorant of Santorum or willfully ignores that he’s not mainstream. There is a reason that Santorum didn’t get reelected to the U.S. Senate. Read his book “It takes a family”.

Santorum has a problem with women voters. His answer to strengthening the family is for women to return to their subordinate role of the last mid century, and leave the work force in mass. Back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant. This is the year 2012 not the 1950s. Not to mention his bizarre comparison of homosexuality to bestiality. His remarks on birth control. I guess back when just black people were poor? This guy is a walking bill board for male insecurity. He wants to return to a simpler time….well simpler for men anyway when their role was defined as sole bread winner, and women were expected to look to Donna Reed as their role model for good wifely behavior…Father Knows Best? Alan Grayson missed his republican target by this much – Santorum. Guess who is living in the past?

Dr Evil on January 7, 2012 at 12:52 PM

What sucks most about Perry is that the fact that he got in, a 10 year govenor from a big conservative state like Texas, is that some other conservative candidates probably decided at that point he was going to be hard to beat and opted to stay out.

So he basically weakened our field yet we are still supposed to go vote for him.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 12:24 PM

This has to be one of the dumbest statements I’ve seen. How would any candidate know they might “weaken the field” if they run? If they thought their entrance would prevent others, why wouldn’t they enter? Of course they’d have to be clairvoyant. But that SOB Perry somehow KNEW he would prevent better candidates from running if he got in.

cartooner on January 7, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Perry needs to show up at the debates too….he needs to start performing in the debates, that’s part of being a good candidate.

If you can’t make the case for yourself, how can you expect to win?

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Perry has been performing in all but two or three debates that he committed some flubs in.

Those of you that choose to denigrate his debating skills wilfully ignore his good to excellent perfomances in the last three or so debates.

Why should the two held this weekend be any different?

You continue to label every single debate a do-or-die affair for him.

If Perry does well – crickets! Right until the next debate where he has to do well again.

Heaven forbid that he commits any flub in the remaining debates. Then of course the knives will come out and he will be proclaimed toast – again!

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Most of the people who hate Santy are just really pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion.

It’s what it boils down in the end.

Or they just want to take him out b/c they think his voters will automaticlaly go to Perry, which I’m not so sure about.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Dr Evil on January 7, 2012 at 12:52 PM

This message paid for by Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

BKennedy on January 7, 2012 at 12:55 PM

The perception of Perry is he’s an idiot.

I don’t see how he overcomes that.

I’m not saying he’s an idiot, but he’s made Bush look like a pretty good debater thus far.

His campaigning, stump speeching aspect has been weak as well.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM

The problem with Ron Paul is doesn’t think government has any role at all.

He’s to the left of Obama on national security and foreign policy. We need a government that takes national security seriously and that’s not Ron Paul’s view.

Ron Paul wants to go soft on crime and drug violatiors, again, he sees that as big government.

He probably sees government making prostitution illegal as big government too.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 12:46 PM

You are twisting the facts Mr. Tesla. Ron Paul is for “limited” government. Regarding foreign policy neither the left or the right (of late) has followed the Constitution in “declaring” wars via Congress. This is all he wants. Declare it. Win it. And get it over with. Korea, Vietnam (Left wars), Iraq (Neoconservative arm of the Republican Party); none of them declared per Article 1 Sec. 8. You either do what you are sworn to do (uphold the Constitution) or drift towards fascism. Which would you prefer?

He doesn’t want to go soft on “crime” but allow for the individual to do what they want within their own private property. We don’t need a nanny Federal Government peeking inside our homes. Besides, the drug war, according to anyone who understands it, is a complete failure. There is actually less crime and less murders in Amsterdam than the U.S. with their stance on the legalization of drugs (unless you listen to Bill O’Reilly of course): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8bc_ZyORbM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Fblog%2Flewrw%2Farchives%2F103178.html&feature=player_embedded

Happy to discuss Paul’s stance on the issues versus your candidate if you care to debate.

Fed Up on January 7, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Dude, I’m not reading that guy’s stuff. I’ve looked over Santorum’s voting record and it’s not statist. It’s stupid to say that, and it’s obvious that Erickson is in the tank for Perry. He thinks if he sabotoges Santy than Perry may have a shot.

The reality is Erickson said on CNN that he and most Republicans were fine with Romney being the nominee. I’ve never see him call Romney a statist. Yet Santorum is? There’s no logical consistency in that. He’s a hack. He’s the Jennifer Rubin version of a Perry’s superfan.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 12:51 PM

If you refuse to read Erickson’s stuff, then on what premise do you dare to criticize him?

You behave like the typical ‘bitter Palinista’ indeed. And do note – ‘bitter Palinistas’ are a subset of Palin supporters. There are others that are more rational and evaluate candidates independently and not based on some perceived slight to their goddess.

Erickson, both on RedState and on CNN, has been one of the harshest critics of Perry. He tore into him after his poor debate performance – recall Romney used a clip in an ad – later pulled – against Perry? He continues to criticize him for other things as well and you would know if you actually read his pieces.

Why will Erickson pick Romney before Santorum? Same reason many – even Perry supporters on this forum – will.

Senators/Reps generally make bad Presidents. Governors generally make good Presidents.

Erickson has crossed off all but the Govs/ex-Govs from his preferred list. That leaves Perry, Huntsman, and Romney.

Santorum is also every bit a big Govt. conservative/statist as Romney is. Romney is every bit a social conservative as Santorum is – except on abortion, probably.

So why Santorum? Especially when he lacks management experience. And that is why Santorum will lose in even a two-way matchup with Romney.

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 1:03 PM

The problem with Ron Paul is doesn’t think government has any role at all.

looking objectively, i do think he is too extremely libertarian. but, i dont mind. he would never implement half of what he proposes to cut. if he wont, the result would be a goverment reduction that i would be very confortable with.

He’s to the left of Obama on national security and foreign policy. We need a government that takes national security seriously and that’s not Ron Paul’s view.

i was a hawk too, but actually i think a more isolationist aproach will give us better results.

Ron Paul wants to go soft on crime and drug violatiors, again, he sees that as big government.

that is for states, not federeal goverment. that is his message.

He probably sees government making prostitution illegal as big government too.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 12:46 PM

no

nathor on January 7, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Darvin Dowdy on January 7, 2012 at 12:48 PM

What specifically is so dismal about his record?

KickandSwimMom on January 7, 2012 at 1:05 PM

People who criticize Bush for adding prescription drugs to Medicare don’t understand that it is often cheaper to treat someone with drugs then to have an expensive surgery. The way Bush financed this program, premium support, is now the template used by Paul Ryan to reform the entire Medicare program. He was dealing with a Democrat congress so Bush couldn’t do all of Medicare. The Republican who defeats Obama will have to reform the rest of Medicare.

philrat on January 7, 2012 at 1:05 PM

just a correction of my above post:
looking objectively, i do think he is too extremely libertarian. but, i dont mind. he would never implement half of what he proposes to cut. if he won, the result would be a goverment reduction that i would be very confortable with.

nathor on January 7, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 12:54 PM

I think there is a lot of that in regards to objecting to Santorum.

I must say, you are really geared up for battle today taking on the Paul and Perry folks!

KickandSwimMom on January 7, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Does saying Palinista over and over score you points with Allahpundit or something? Come up with your own material.

I think it’s foolish to eliminate candidates who have not been governors. What if Romney was the only governor in the field? Does that mean we have to vote for him?

Santorum has 12 years as Senator, which deals with national level issues and foreign policy, which in my mind, is more applicable to being president than the local stuff in Mass. Romney was a 1 term governor who only did it to get it on his resume b/c he knows Republicans like to vote for govenors.

Santorum’s record on taxes and healthcare policy is much better than Romney’s. It’s not even ballpark close.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Most of the people who hate Santy are just really pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion.

It’s what it boils down in the end.

Or they just want to take him out b/c they think his voters will automaticlaly go to Perry, which I’m not so sure about.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 12:54 PM

I don’t like Santorum because of his record. And I am a Bible-believing Christian, who is anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion.

As for his voters going to Perry, we welcome them but every man rises and falls based on their own records. Perry is the only candidate that didn’t fall based on his record but based on superficialities like debate flubs.

And no, we don’t want to take out Santorum. He is taking out himself by a careful assessment of his record which couldn’t be done before Iowa.

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 1:09 PM

I don’t think Perry or Romney did much of note as govenors. They have no serious conservative accomplishments.

Perry can talk about Texas jobs, but does anybody really believe he made that happen? Texas has 4 huge metro areas, Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio…the jobs are always goign to be there. Most of the oil-related work is in Texas and nearby states. Of course they have a lot of jobs there compared to smaller states.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Dr Evil on January 7, 2012 at 12:52 PM

This message paid for by Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

BKennedy on January 7, 2012 at 12:55 PM

You must be new here. I am one of the most pro life commenters on this blog.

Rick Santorum is a chauvinist, among his many other flaws. There is a reason he lost his last election by 20 points. He’s a throw back to another era, that’s come and gone -thank goodness. I would vote for Mitt Romney before I would vote for Rick Santorum. And I am no Mitt Romney fan.

Rick Santorum can’t get the women’s vote, and nobody is going to get elected in this country without it. Sorry Rick, women have the constitutional right to vote now, it came after black people were given the right to vote.

Dr Evil on January 7, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 12:54 PM

if your just going to accept the media’s narrative of the candidates you might as well just vote for obama. he’s going to be the only one they will say is good enough to run the country.

chasdal on January 7, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 12:54 PM

I think there is a lot of that in regards to objecting to Santorum.

I must say, you are really geared up for battle today taking on the Paul and Perry folks!

KickandSwimMom on January 7, 2012 at 1:07 PM

He’s geared up all right but, in my opinion, doing poorly. You want to pitch in and help him defend the indefensible Santorum, who is falling faster than a meteorite?

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 1:13 PM

To every Sarah Palin supporter do not support Rick Santorum! Please read this. The guy is a two-faced piece of garbage.

http://gop12.thehill.com/2009/08/santorum-on-palins-resignation-not-good.html

CoolChange80 on January 7, 2012 at 1:13 PM

And no, we don’t want to take out Santorum. He is taking out himself by a careful assessment of his record which couldn’t be done before Iowa.

I predict both Santorum and Gingrich beat Perry in SC. Probably Romney too. Maybe even Ron Paul.

So vet away.

I’m not anti-Perry but he’s run a far worst campaign than Fred Thompson did and we saw how that turned out.

I have some problems with Santy on free trade and right to work, so it’s not like I’m in the tank for him.

I just think calling him a statist is hack stuff, but Red State has always been the amatuer hour of conservative punditry.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Most of the people who hate Santy are just really pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion.

It’s what it boils down in the end.

Or they just want to take him out b/c they think his voters will automaticlaly go to Perry, which I’m not so sure about.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 12:54 PM

no, i do dislike social cons, but in the end they have been losing their precious cultural wars for decades now no matter how many moral majorities they win. i dislike santorum because he IS a statist, and might i add, a crony statist.
however guys like this, waver their prolife flag and suddenly they have the social cons all falling in line and giving him votes even to the expense of the ideology that just a few weeks ago, they claimed to defend.

nathor on January 7, 2012 at 1:14 PM

I haven’t seen any polls showing Santy falling.

That’s wishful thinking by the Perry SuperFans.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Santorum is a statist because he’s a problem for Perry.

Or you are obssessed with gay marriage and abortion rights.

It is that simple.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:11 PM

how many urban areas does mass. have and what kinda job growth was there when romney ran it? and waht about calif? lots of big urban areas there and the job situation sucks there. the fact is that perry did plenty, things like medical tort reform for one that encourages people to move to the state. and even just staying out of the way of the people and economy is an accomplishment. it amazes me when supposed conservatives ding perry because he didnt interfere more in people’s lives. as conservatives we should applaud a politician who doesnt have a 60 page plan to run our lives.

chasdal on January 7, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Kermit on January 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Rationalize Santorum’s apostasies because it was PA coal country.

Rationalize Perry’s apostasies because it was hispanic former Democratic stronhold Texas.

But Romney should have run as a Tea Party social conservative in Massachusetts in the 1990s. No excuses.

swamp_yankee on January 7, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Oh oh!
Much as I don’t like that…good point…but that goes on here with each candidate.

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:14 PM

actually fred ran a great campaign, if you looked at his schedule he was out campaigning as much as anyone else. but you keep listening to what the media writes and you believe. you prolly think he was riding around a fair in iowa wearing gucci loafers since the media said that. you talk a good game but you are consistenly misinformed,

chasdal on January 7, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Romney lost to the ultra left wing Ted Kennedy by 16 points or so in 1994, which was a good year for Republicans.

Romney fans don’t like to talk about that one though.

Romney’s only won 1 eleection in his life.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:19 PM

actually fred ran a great campaign, if you looked at his schedule he was out campaigning as much as anyone else. but you keep listening to what the media writes and you believe. you prolly think he was riding around a fair in iowa wearing gucci loafers since the media said that. you talk a good game but you are consistenly misinformed,

chasdal on January 7, 2012 at 1:18 PM

I supported Fred Thompson in 2008. But by Red State and pro-Perry logic, you can only support ex govenors for president so that rules out guys like Fred Thompson who are more conservative.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Santorum is a statist because he’s a problem for Perry.

Or you are obssessed with gay marriage and abortion rights.

It is that simple.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:16 PM

It’s only that simple if you are an old white male sexist.

Dr Evil on January 7, 2012 at 1:21 PM

The perception of Perry is he’s an idiot.

I don’t see how he overcomes that.

I’m not saying he’s an idiot, but he’s made Bush look like a pretty good debater thus far.

His campaigning, stump speeching aspect has been weak as well.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Just like the perception of Reagan – or any other electable conservative – was that he was an ‘idiot’.

Dems have only two attack lines against Republicans. You are either dumb (idiot) or evil.

Thanks to a poster at RedState – can’t recall who it was – but he had this nice summary:

Reagan/Bush I – Reagan was dumb, Bush I was evil.

Bush I/Quayle – Bush I was evil, Quayle was dumb.

Bush II/Cheney – Bush II was dumb, Cheney was evil.

Palin? – Dumb

Perry? – Dumb

Romney? – Evil

So choose your poison pill – dumb or evil? Whoever we nominate will have one of those tags and they won’t attack any nominee less for it.

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 1:21 PM

It’s only that simple if you are an old white male sexist.

Dr Evil on January 7, 2012 at 1:21 PM

I don’t care what you think brother. If you support Romney over Santorum, you aren’t a conservative. If being 34 is old, so be it.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:23 PM

So choose your poison pill – dumb or evil? Whoever we nominate will have one of those tags and they won’t attack any nominee less for it.

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 1:21 PM

loved that.

nathor on January 7, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM

i can’t believe we agree on something

gerrym51 on January 7, 2012 at 1:23 PM

The bottom line is this; Little Ricky believes in the power of the state over the power of the individual. He believes that government can be a good agent of change. In short, he is a statist. If you vote for him, I’m not interested in hearing about the growth of government spending from you, because you have no clue what the word “restraint” means. I’m not interested in hearing about constitutionally limited government from you either, because you don’t know what the term means if you’ll vote for Little Ricky. He is the consummate big government politician, who well use the power of government to impose his version of “smaller government”.

libertarianlunatic on January 7, 2012 at 1:24 PM

RightMan,

Did you notice Perry bombed in Iowa?

He’s not showing up in the polls in SC?

At some point you probably are going to have to accept he’s not going win the nomionation. It is the reality.

I’m not against Perry winning it, but I’m not going to live in a fantasy world with you on it.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I haven’t seen any polls showing Santy falling.

That’s wishful thinking by the Perry SuperFans.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:15 PM

*Sigh*

Just like we predicted the fall of Cain and Gingrich before it happened.

Is water wet? Does a piece of rock fall when thrown from a height? If the answers to these are ‘Yes’, then you can surely bet Santorum will fall.

It’s not a matter of ‘If’, it’s a matter of ‘When’.

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 1:25 PM

I don’t see how it helps build a bridge b/t current Santy supporters to come on over to Perry when you inaccurately call him a statist, especially when Erickson never uses that term on Romney or anybody else as far as I know. I doubt he’s even called Obama a statist.

He’s bomb throwing for his preferred candidate Perry . I think most people understand that.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:27 PM

RightMan,

Did you notice Perry bombed in Iowa?

He’s not showing up in the polls in SC?

At some point you probably are going to have to accept he’s not going win the nomionation. It is the reality.

I’m not against Perry winning it, but I’m not going to live in a fantasy world with you on it.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Yes, Perry was 5th in Iowa. Romney was praying he would get out. Thankfully he stayed to fight on.

Perry has about as good a chance as any other in SC. The polls change. Do you know Rasmussen had Santorum at 6% two weeks before the Iowa caucuses? Should he have dropped out then?

With the attacks on Santorum ramping up, I actually expect Iowa to be his highest point. He is going to keep trending down because, with the exception of his ardent supporters, no one – not even Santorum himself – believe he will be the nominee.

I bet he just wants his own TV show or lobbying gig.

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Well Gingrich is still polling ahead of Perry in SC and NH. He beat Perry in Iowa!!!!!!

This guy should be the frontrunner b/c he’s more conservative than Romney and he has 10 years of that awesome governor experience. But he comes in 5th in Iowa after spending tons of cash there? He’s not showing up in SC polls?

Cain would have beat him in Iowa too if he had stayed in the race.

I wouldn’t assume that just b/c Cain and Bachman imploded/faded and Gingrich as well, that Santorum automatically does. Perry’s considered the first anti-Romney to implode. By your own logic, he’s toast.

At this point, I don’t see anybody but Romney getting the nomination. The Perry supporters more likekly to support Romney than Santorum. They like governors, doesn’t matter what the hell they do, if anything, as long as that’s on the resume, it’s gold.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:30 PM

I bet he just wants his own TV show or lobbying gig.

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Can’t you say that about any candidate? I could argue that Perry is shooting to be Romney’s VP selection. I think that has more merit at this point. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Of course, all of this amounts to the type of sniping and attacks you’d expect to see during the primary season. It’s also not something that’s likely to hurt Santorum much if he manages to win the nomination, as those aren’t positions that are going to scare off moderates and independents.

This is the single worst example of political analysis I have yet to see this primary season.

The proper size and role of the Federal government is the central, defining issue of the 2012 campaign. It explains the Paul phenomenon, explains the rise of the Tea Party as a mighty political force, and explains why none of the traditional “base” candidates, including Santorum, can get any traction in the primary. And yes, I know, Romney is no small government guy either; but his record of fiscal and organizational competence, of pulling failing enterprises back from the brink, is enough to vault him to the head of the line of a group of candidates who fail even at that level. Combine Romney’s technocratic skill, Ron Pauls fiscal views, and a muscular foreign policy that jettison’s nation building and humanitarian “meddling”, and you have the ideal candidate of the future.

In 2000 and 2004, America elected the “pro-life statist” (Bush). In 2008, the “pro-life statist” (Huckabee) scored a number of impressive primary wins but failed to make the cut. In 2012, the latest incarnation (Santorum) will probably lose South Carolina, and return to nonentity status very quickly. Meanwhile, the libertarian with a problematic past and a reputation as a crank will likely have a speaking role at the convention. Santorum is not the future of Republican politics, as some ass recently wrote, he’s the last gasp of a failed model. Time to accept it, people, and figure out how to remain relevant in a very uncertain future.

Mr. Arkadin on January 7, 2012 at 1:32 PM

I hate to tell you this, RightMan, but nobody is ascared of Perry. He’s been found out for what he is; an empty suit.

libertarianlunatic on January 7, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Mr. Arkadin on January 7, 2012 at 1:32 PM

i dont think romney is as nice as you paint him. i will vote for ron until he folds and vote for romney in the general.

nathor on January 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM

I don’t see how it helps build a bridge b/t current Santy supporters to come on over to Perry when you inaccurately call him a statist, especially when Erickson never uses that term on Romney or anybody else as far as I know. I doubt he’s even called Obama a statist.

He’s bomb throwing for his preferred candidate Perry . I think most people understand that.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:27 PM

So we should lie about Santorum’s record.

Santorum is a pro-life statist – ala Huckabee – whichever way you permute it. Iowa loves their pro-life statists provided they tick the right boxes on Jesus and ethanol.

Did you hear of the ethanol lobbyists sending out flyers to support Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney just prior to the Iowa caucuses?

You think SC and the other states also love their pro-life statists?

Well… we shall see.

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 1:38 PM

It’s Romney versus Paul. They have the most money and the best organizations. Perry is the only one with an outside shot of competing in more than 4o states.

ModerateMan on January 7, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Most of the people who hate Santy are just really pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion.

It’s what it boils down in the end.

Or they just want to take him out b/c they think his voters will automaticlaly go to Perry, which I’m not so sure about.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Consider trying to focus on your own opinions, rather than telling all of us what “most of the people” are actually thinking. You have very little idea what animates the average Romney or Paul supporter, unless they have told you, so pontificating about what “most of the people who ‘hate’ [Santorum]” actually believe is a little outside of your skill set.

This week (and it seems to change weekly, depending on the stupidity of the candidates) I am supporting Romney, and very much not supporting Santorum. As I have said on other threads, I find Santorum to be no more qualified to be President than Palin, and not nearly as smart or likable.

He is not even in Romney’s league in terms of qualifications or achievements, and this is not a debatable point, but a simple fact of resume: career staff lawyer, 2 terms in House, 2 terms in Senate; zero executive experience; zero leadership; zero economic knowledge or experience; zero management.

I agree with almost all of his known positions, but find him to be completely tone-deaf, politically. In an environment defined by two issues — fiscal and economic competence — Santorum is a one-issue candidate — anti-abortion. He is, as the term of the week has it, a Big Government Social Conservative. He claims that he isn’t pandering to me; well good for him. At least Romney is smart enough to understand that I want one thing and one thing alone — dramatically reduced spending and the resulting lower debt and economic turnaround.

Santorum is the anti-abortion Obama.

Jaibones on January 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM

You must be new here. I am one of the most pro life commenters on this blog.

Rick Santorum is a chauvinist, among his many other flaws. There is a reason he lost his last election by 20 points. He’s a throw back to another era, that’s come and gone -thank goodness. I would vote for Mitt Romney before I would vote for Rick Santorum. And I am no Mitt Romney fan.

Rick Santorum can’t get the women’s vote, and nobody is going to get elected in this country without it. Sorry Rick, women have the constitutional right to vote now, it came after black people were given the right to vote.

Dr Evil on January 7, 2012 at 1:11 PM

I’ve been around basically since Hot Air started, but I haven’t kept tabs on all commenters.

Suffice it to say I have difficulty believing Santorum has a problem with women’s suffrage. If your post didn’t look like something churned out at Emily’s List or Planned Parenthood or The League of Women Voters I wouldn’t have mocked it as such.

BKennedy on January 7, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Your comment is Exhibit A of why we need to scrap the early-state primary system and opt for something else that is more representative.

Let us assume we had started with Texas. You think Santorum will be anything other than an also-ran? What about Utah? Wouldn’t Huntsman now be the frontrunner?

Trying to use the results of one state’s caucuses attended by less than 120,000 people to determine who should press on or staty is as undemocratic as any other.

I would argue that if the resources permit, every candidate stay until all 50 states have voted.

You think at the end of such a process, Santorum will be above Perry? Never mind the fact that he has missed the ballot in more states than Perry has. And has little resources and organization than Perry has.

But of course, all this is lost on ‘true believers’ like yourself. And then if Perry drops out, and Romney declares victory the next day – you lash out at everyone and everything, including Perry, and accuse him of dropping out too soon.

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Most of the people who hate Santy are just really pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion.

It’s what it boils down in the end.

Bullshit, Social Con. But I’ll give you this, bigot. At least you ducked out from behind the anti-romney meme.

Godzilla on January 7, 2012 at 1:56 PM

But of course, all this is lost on ‘true believers’ like yourself. And then if Perry drops out, and Romney declares victory the next day – you lash out at everyone and everything, including Perry, and accuse him of dropping out too soon.

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 1:50 PM

I find it amusing how you assume Perry’s support if he dropped out would go to Romney. I’ll be honest with you, I’ll be fine with Romney if he actually gets knocked around a bit and has to actually beat whoever the not-Romney is by reaching out to the base and gathering enough support to win.

That would remove Romney’s key weakness, the revulsion he inspires in those members of the base who currently refuse to organize and support him.

I like Rick Perry as a candidate. It’s just his supporters I can’t stand for their complete nastiness and total delusion.

BKennedy on January 7, 2012 at 1:57 PM

This won’t go over well in SC…

Rick Santorum: The 10th Amendment Does Not Mean What It Says”
For more on Santorum’s long crusade against limited constitutional government, read Jonathan Rauch on Santorum’s “frothy mixture of collectivism and conservatism,” and then check out Reason.tv’s report from the Iowa caucus: “Rick Santorum on the Freedom to Impose Your Values…”

http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/06/rick-santorum-the-10th-amendment-does-no

workingclass artist on January 7, 2012 at 2:01 PM

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/04/mantra_santorum_is_a_big_government_conservative

Rush Limbaugh (the rest of his quotes about Santorum):

RUSH: Let me give you an example here on this big government garbage. Here is more from the CBS story about Santorum. “Santorum’s voting record shows that he embraced George Bush–style ‘big-government conservatism.’ For example, he supported the Medicare prescription-drug benefit and No Child Left Behind. He never met an earmark that he didn’t like. In fact, it wasn’t just earmarks for his own state that he favored, which might be forgiven as pure electoral pragmatism, but earmarks for everyone, including the notorious ‘Bridge to Nowhere.’ The quintessential Washington insider, he worked closely with Tom DeLay to set up the ‘K Street Project,’ linking lobbyists with the GOP leadership.”

Now, let me tell you something. Let me tell you what all that’s about. The Democrats own all of that. What Rick Santorum and DeLay were trying to do was disempower the Democrats’ bureaucrat lobbying reach into Washington. They were trying to get an equal foothold. It’s the way the game is played. For all of us who are devoted to ideas, God bless us, but it is money that makes that town turn. It’s money that makes that town run. It is money that motivates most people to want to be in that town. It’s money that motivates most people to want to win elective office. It’s being in control of the federal budget that is the great carrot that’s dangling in front of everybody’s eyes because that’s the power.

Now, the Democrats own this.

What Rick Santorum has always been about is disempowering the Democrats. Same thing with Tom DeLay. It is why the Democrats had to take DeLay out. It’s why the Democrats came up with these phony prosecutions of DeLay and did everything they could to get him out of the Republican leadership: Because Tom DeLay was a successful enemy of the Democrats and their entrenched power in that town; and Santorum knows full well the entrenched power in that town and he is devoted to breaking it up, pure and simple. His K Street Project was simply, you know, nothing more than an attempt to lessen the Democrats’ lobbying power.

Everybody talks about “special interests,” and somehow the special interests only end up on the Republican side. All these wealthy fat cats, it’s always Republicans. The Democrats are these famous, clean and pure as the wind-driven snow. They don’t have any big bucks donors. They don’t have any big bucks members. It’s a crock. It’s the exact opposite. The big money is the Democrat Party. Santorum, DeLay, all these others who got in on this were trying to break that up — and so now the long knives are out for Santorum; and I guarantee you: The fact that the media and the Democrats are trying to associate Santorum with “big government” is an indication of something very important.

They know that it can kill a conservative’s chances, and that it resonates. People do not want big government is what this means. It means now that the Democrats today are taking Santorum seriously and some even on our side who are now taking him seriously, think that they can discredit Santorum by attaching him with this big government idea. Because it’s a killer, particularly with the Tea Party and with conservative Republicans. So this is a full-fledged effort here to discredit Santorum with what’s essentially a lie, because there are many different kinds of big government. The irony of the left using the idea of “big government,” a term that they have completely discredited to try to smear a conservative!

But “big government” to the left means income redistribution, universal health care, union government workers, cradle-to-grave socialism. Those are things that Santorum vehemently opposes! Santorum by no means supports big government in that regard. The big government Santorum supports is a government that protects people by enforcing the law — be it the right to life, be it the border and immigration or anything else. There are certain constitutional responsibilities that government has that they have abrogated. Be very careful, folks, not to fall for this big government stuff, because Rick Santorum… There is not a Republican out there that is “big government” in the sense that the left is “big government.”

Well, wait. I may have to make a modification in that. I’m not gonna mention any name right now. Don’t want to go there. But when it comes to Santorum, this whole notion — I can’t say this forcefully enough and right now I can’t say it enough, period. I noticed this this morning, this mantra: “Santorum’s big government conservatism, big government conservative, disaster in the White House. Santorum big government.” No, no, no, no, no, no, no — and I remember telling all of you when I started this program late eighties, early nineties, that we conservatives like big government in a lot of ways. We want it enforcing the border and the law. We want it defending and upholding the Constitution.

We don’t believe in no government. We never have believed in no government! There has been an attempt for decades to equate conservatism with no government. That’s Ron Paul. That’s the Libertarians. We’re fully aware as conservatives government has a role. It has a central role in many things: Enforcing the law, defending freedom, defending and protecting the Constitution, freedom and liberty; life, liberty, purest of happiness. If government doesn’t do it, who will? But that is not to say — and that certainly is not the case for Santorum to say — that big government, that we believe in redistribution, high taxes, creating dependence, higher welfare, higher unemployment.

That’s not what Santorum believes. Do not fall for this notion that he does — and again the very idea that they think, they hope they can tar Santorum with this big government business means what? It means that even the proponents of big government know it’s a killer; that the majority of people in this country don’t want big government, otherwise they wouldn’t dare could you see Santorum of being a big government guy. If being a big government guy was a winner, they wouldn’t associate it with him. Big government is a loser. That’s why they’re trying to tie Santorum to it, which ultimately is good for us in the sense that we have not lost the country. We have not lost the people.

If big government anything was a winner, then they’d be running around calling Obama a big government guy, not Santorum. What’s Obama doing? Obama’s trying to make himself out to be not a big government guy! Democrats can’t win being who they are. We’ve said this over and over again. They cannot win being honest. We conservatives, and this is true of Santorum, believe in a strong government, strong military, strong and just courts, strong law and order. But we don’t believe it has to be “big.” It does not have to be a leviathan. Where’s the CBS News attack on Obama for being a big government guy? Where is it? It’s not there — and the reason is it’s a killer, and that’s why they’re trying to tie it to Santorum. . . . . . .

Elisa on January 7, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Let me repeat this because it’s true.

There are two groups who hate Santorum.

One group consists of the diehard Perry supporters like Erickson and Redstaters. They’ll say anything about Santorum if they think it helps Perry but they won’t ever look at Perry’s record in Texas objectively. They spin for Perry’s flaws while calling Sany a statist, and they won’t even call Romney a statist.

The other group are the moderates, liberals on social issues. “Gay rights” and “abortion rights” is what they care most about when voting for a candiddate.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:04 PM

You must be new here. I am one of the most pro life commenters on this blog.

Dr Evil on January 7, 2012 at 1:11 PM

It’s enlightening when you read someone’s comment telling you who you are, isn’t it? “Blah, blah, blah…everyone who isn’t supporting Santorum is pro-abortion-gay-marriage!”

Yeah, right.

How did that one-issue thing work out for you in 2006, Sport? “…the worst defeat by an incumbent Senator, ever…” 17.4% to a Democrat who simply declared himself pro-life and negated Santorum’s one issue. Of course, Casey has since voted for every pro-abortion position which comes before a Senator, highlighting the point that a Senator doesn’t have much to do with abortion in the first place.

Casey did vote to confirm both of O’Bozo’s hilariously incompetent pro-abortion, leftist-skank SCOTUS frauds, but that whole “pro-life” thing is just crap anyway, right Bob?

Jaibones on January 7, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Rush is right on that distinction.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Isn’t Reason a Ron Paul-liberterian kind of publication?

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Elisa on January 7, 2012 at 2:01 PM

I beg you conservatives to stand together and defend EVERY conservative, including Santorum.

Don’t fall for the establishment and liberal meme about Santorum. That he is too extreme or that he is “big government.”

It is lie they want you to believe because they want to pick our candidate for us, as they always do.

Remember McCain? Remember Dole? Ford? Bush number one won because of Reagan’s popularity. The other “electable” moderates lost. W. came off as more conservative than his father and in some ways he was. He won, but in close elections.

Who won in landslides? Reagan. Today they would paint Reagan as too extreme (as they tried to back then) and they would paint him as not conservative enough.

Elisa on January 7, 2012 at 2:07 PM

I think the main point of contention here is precisely how we are to define “big government.”

Much like Mr Potter Stewart, I may not be able to define “big government”, but I know it when I see it.

NCLB = Big government.

Medicare D = Big Government.

Case closed.

JohnGalt23 on January 7, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Let me repeat this because it’s true.

There are two groups who hate Santorum.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:04 PM

I don’t blame you for not reading or responding to my comment. Big deal. But by repeating your stupid comment and declaring that “it’s true” without improvement, you have declared yourself to be an idiot.

Jaibones on January 7, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Sorry, astonerii, Gingrich is every bit the big Govt. conservative that Santorum is.

They all believe in Govt. as the solution and not the problem.

Perry is the only small Govt. conservative left in the race. He has ALWAYS understood the proper role of the federal Govt. vs state Govts.

Vote Perry 2012 and make America great again.

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Gingrich has already proven he will deliver smaller government. Perry has done no such thing.

astonerii on January 7, 2012 at 2:11 PM

But of course, all this is lost on ‘true believers’ like yourself. And then if Perry drops out, and Romney declares victory the next day – you lash out at everyone and everything, including Perry, and accuse him of dropping out too soon.

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 1:50 PM

What amuses me about you is you are a Perry SuperFan, but you are hellbent on making everybody else as some kind of SuperFan for their preferred candidate. You even brought up Palin again and lashed out her fans even though she’s not in the mix.

I’ve said consistently that I will support whoever the most viable Not Romney is. Right now, it isn’t Perry, simply because few Republicans are voting for him.

I have a problem with people trying to pain Santorum as a statist especially when most of that crowd is going to vote for Romney if Perry isn’t the guy. Trust me on this.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Are you serious? Lower taxes and less regulation, tort reform….pro business, pro job environment. Governor Romney on the other hand kept taxes low, from what I understand, and raised or incorporated fees instead. I have also heard where his Romneycare is a jobs killer and has drained the Massachusetts treasury. Is this true?

sunshinek67 on January 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Gingrich has already proven he will deliver smaller government. Perry has done no such thing.

astonerii on January 7, 2012 at 2:11 PM

*Sigh*

Now in your twisted alternate reality universe, Gingrich is a small Govt. conservative and Perry is not?

Next you’ll be telling me Romney is the second coming of Reagan.

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Romney is by far the Big Government Republican on the ballot this year.

Don’t criticize Santorum if you don’t have a problem with the RomneyCare, mandate, ban on semi-automitic firearms, tax and fee raiser, appointing liberal judges over qualified REpublican ones, man in Romney.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Romney did not vocally support the Bush tax cuts. He increased taxes and fees, not exactly fiscal conservativism.

And there’s nothing fiscal conservativism about RomneyCare. I guaraentee you that Mass is running deficits now because of RomneyCare, without looking I know it’s true, and this is despite their high taxes. Anybody that says Romney kept taxes low in Mass has never lived in Mass. He didn’t cut taxes in Mass. Never even tried.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:18 PM

I have a problem with people trying to pain Santorum as a statist especially when most of that crowd is going to vote for Romney if Perry isn’t the guy. Trust me on this.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM

I won’t be surprised especially if that crowd is composed of ‘bitter Palinistas’ like yourself. :)

But that is the choice Perry supporters like myself want them to make.

Romney vs. Perry – a big Govt. liberal RINO vs. a small Govt. conservative – who will they choose?

We don’t want them to hide behind lesser candidates like Bachmann, Cain, or Santorum who, face it, have about as much a chance at the nomination as I do.

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Jazz:

I enjoy your posts. Your writing is thoughtful and engaging. But (respectfully), please brush up on the difference between “that” and “which.” See, e.g.,

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/that-vs-which/
http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaThat_Versus_Which.htm
http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoVwhVt.asp

Just about every one of your columns uses “which” incorrectly.

Ford on January 7, 2012 at 2:19 PM

The Romney shills just assume that ROmney was pro-business as govenor because he worked for Bain Capital.

It’s just not the case. RomneyCare wasn’t pro-business.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:20 PM

, the drug war, according to anyone who understands it, is a complete failure.
Fed Up on January 7, 2012 at 1:03 PM

every conservative should be appalled by the so called ”drug war.”

Supreme Court Justice Clarence ( Ginsburg ) thomas.
dissenting opinion:
certaintly no evidencce from the founding suggest ” commerce ” included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for valvue.in the early days of the republic,it would have been UNTHINKABLE that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation,possession and consumption of marijuana.

svs22422 on January 7, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Perfect moment

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2012 at 2:22 PM

won’t be surprised especially if that crowd is composed of ‘bitter Palinistas’ like yourself. :)

But that is the choice Perry supporters like myself want them to make.

Romney vs. Perry – a big Govt. liberal RINO vs. a small Govt. conservative – who will they choose?

We don’t want them to hide behind lesser candidates like Bachmann, Cain, or Santorum who, face it, have about as much a chance at the nomination as I do.

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 2:19 PM

You are the one that seems bitter. I’m not talking Palin, you are. I think that’s kind of weird as she’s not in the mix. I’m a rational person so I don’t campaign against people who are not running, or campaign for people who are not running.

Again, you are a Perrynistsa. You are a Perry brown noser but the man has sucked in the debates and campaigning in general. You keep saying only he or Romney cna beat Obama, but he sucks at campaigning and debates. If he’s the man, he should be able to compete in Iowa, NH, SC, FL, etc, and right now he isn’t.

For all your hate of Palin, she would smoke Perry. A little conservative kid could do better than Prery has so far.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:24 PM

I will vote for Santorum as the nominee.

But I also don’t think it’s a stretch that he will be preaching to us about something from the oval office

gerrym51 on January 7, 2012 at 2:25 PM

KickandSwimMom on January 7, 2012 at 12:16 PM

I am too and when someone says that they know all about the border because they had some junket to El Paso, means they don’t know squat.

But hey, those who have taken Tardisil, like Bachmann, Ed and Allah sure believe them.

Jazz is decent, but he does miss some key facts on many things. Most, if not all, pundits do.

Now the recently delivered gunboats with fully automatic (military squad level) weapons TEXAS has deployed with UBER speed, that is how you secure a RIVER border.

Kermit on January 7, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM

I wish sometimes that my analysis was not spot on. Unfortunately (or fortunately), it is.

I coined the term ‘bitter Palinistas’ after engaging in running battles with some of them on this same forum after Perry’s entry into the race and Palin’s refusal to run.

These ones did not beleieve me when I told them that Palin would NOT run until the day she confirmed it.

Since then, as they went through the five statges of grief, Perry has borne the brunt of their attacks. They defended Cain’s philandering and brain-emptiness (Libya), Gingrich’s many foibles, and now Santorum’s big Govt. record.

But continue to hold Perry to task for his ‘heartless’ comment, which he apologized for. Gingrich’s ‘inhumane’ comment? Nah! Not important.

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 2:26 PM

I can’t believe these people who try to make Romney out as a conservative, especially a fiscal conservative.

His record in Mass is similar to Mike Castle.

If you going to promote him, just tout him as a moderate who can work with both sides. There’s nothing there to support the claim he’s a conservative.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:26 PM

I will vote for Santorum as the nominee.

But I also don’t think it’s a stretch that he will be preaching to us about something from the oval office

gerrym51 on January 7, 2012 at 2:25 PM

I could not vote for Santorum under any circumstances; I think he may actually be more dangerous than Obama.

CatoRenasci on January 7, 2012 at 2:26 PM

But you see Ed is partial to Catholics. Hey,I’ve been one for 57 years, but when voting it is about issues, not religion, race or gender.

Kermit on January 7, 2012 at 2:27 PM

This is frustrating. I have tried to post a comment relating Santorum’s authoritarianism and hostility to liberterian/classical liberal ideas to his particular religious views in historical context, as well as his own statements to the National Catholic Reporter opposing the JFK position promising separation of church and state. My comment has not been posted. I’ve been a member here for years and have never abused the rules.

CatoRenasci on January 7, 2012 at 2:30 PM

I have a problem with people trying to pain Santorum as a statist.
Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:12 PM

he’s not? just because rush say’s he isnt,doesnt mean he’s not. back off the Golden EIB man,he thinks ” LIBERTY ” is just monentary and not personal.

john lock – life,liberty and property = rush

thomas jefferson – life,liberty and the persuit of happiness = me

svs22422 on January 7, 2012 at 2:31 PM

But continue to hold Perry to task for his ‘heartless’ comment, which he apologized for. Gingrich’s ‘inhumane’ comment? Nah! Not important.

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Again, you don’t read what I write…this will my last response to you.

I’m not anti-Perry. I’m saying it doesn’t look he’s a player at this point. You can live in Erick Erickson’s fantasy world if you want but that’s not on my agenda.

Immigration isn’t my big issue, but Perry’s entrance into the race has made it a big issue, and Romney has used it effectively to get the attention off RomneyCare and healthcare policy, which obviouslyh does not benefit him.

I don’t think Perry is automaticaly more qualified to be president than Santorum. I think Santorum is more of a thinker than Perry, and he clearly knows more about national level issues and foreign policy stuff because he worked in government at the national level.

Govenors deal with a lot of small fry local issues, like trying to descrease the wait times at the DMV to get your license renewed. I don’t quite understand what makes them automaticlalyh more qualified to be president over a Senator, especially when Obama was a Senator for 3 years, most campaigning for president and he wiped out McCain.

I think Santorum has more experience and knowledge than Obama, and if it’s a choice b/t those two with this economy, Santorum would win.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:31 PM

For all your hate of Palin, she would smoke Perry. A little conservative kid could do better than Prery has so far.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Testing…

Who has the better governing record? Perry or Palin? And why?

Who has the best record among the candidates now in the field? And why?

It is not Perry’s fault if we have an abundance of naive conservative voters that believe rhetoric will beat Obama – and not records.

It is not Perry’s fault if those same voters prefer celebrities like Cain and Santorum, even when the facts indicate they will be no match for Romney – much less Obama.

The ‘realists’ among us will continue to educate those voters. But should Perry fail and Santorum/Gingrich fail to stop Romney, they should please spare us the incessant “Perry had it on a silver platter but he blew it.”

They will be responsible for Obama’s second term and it will be needed to cure them.

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 2:33 PM

thomas jefferson – life,liberty and the persuit of happiness = me

svs22422 on January 7, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Santorum doesn’t own slaves or support slavery.

Jefferson did. It’s amazing how somebody who argues for freedom, somebody who calls Santorum a statist, wants to use Jefferson as the weapon to do that. Good luck with that. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Santorum is a celebrity candidate now?

Heh.

I hate Perry suppporters, they seem to confirm the perception that Perry is an idiot. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Again, you don’t read what I write…this will my last response to you.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:31 PM

No need to puff off in anger.

It’s actually been fun for me to debate and ‘school’ you.

I have to take a break for some few hours myself. Have some rounds to make.

Hope we can pick up again on this and other topics. See you in the debate thread tonight, I presume?

:)

TheRightMan on January 7, 2012 at 2:36 PM

I’m not campaign for Palin…she’s not on the ballot.

Perry is, and he’s failin’, big time.

I accept it, you don’t. That’s cool, but you are not the realist you claim to be.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:36 PM

It’s also not something that’s likely to hurt Santorum much if he manages to win the nomination, as those aren’t positions that are going to scare off moderates and independents.

I doubt the existence of moderates and independents who won’t scared off by Santorum’s other stances–once they get better known. So, it is certainly true that his stance on welfare isn’t going to scare off any of them.

thuja on January 7, 2012 at 2:38 PM

My understanding of moderates is that they care more about the plight of the gays and Santorums comments on homosexuality than the economy, healthcare policy, taxes, national security, and other issues.

So they will run vote for Obama again, even though nothing has changed for gays under Obama. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:40 PM

This is frustrating. I have tried to post a comment relating Santorum’s authoritarianism and hostility to liberterian/classical liberal ideas to his particular religious views in historical context, as well as his own statements to the National Catholic Reporter opposing the JFK position promising separation of church and state. My comment has not been posted. I’ve been a member here for years and have never abused the rules.

CatoRenasci on January 7, 2012 at 2:30 PM

It’s probably your web browser. Try using Firefox or Opera.

thuja on January 7, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Dr. Tesla, are you Walter Mitty? My how your posts have changed.

jazzuscounty on January 7, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Dr. Tesla, are you Walter Mitty? My how your posts have changed.

jazzuscounty on January 7, 2012 at 2:44 PM

What is your point…be more clear and specific.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Rick Santorum is a great guy. BUT he wants to cure social ills with federal government policies. First Social ills can not be cured by the government. That is the job of the church. Second the best and most important thing that the government can do to support the family is provide them with JOBS! Not targeted tax breaks and special status but JOBS!

45% of all the jobs created in the entire US in the last 2 years have been created in Texas under Governor Perry’s policies of low taxes, low regulation, and tort reform.

Texas has gained 4 congressional districts under Perry’s tenure because businesses and jobs are flocking to Texas.

Governor Perry is as socially conservative as Santorum but Governor Perry is the only Tea Party candidate left in this race. He is not of Washington or Wall Street. He wants to make Washington DC as inconsequential in our daily lives as possible.

If Governor Perry is given the opportunity to accomplish for our country what he has accomplished in Texas, there may be hope that we step back from the brink of European socialism.

Rio2010 on January 7, 2012 at 2:47 PM

I would have been opposed to people like Jefferson owning slaves?

Does that make me a statist, because government would have to enforce my desire to ban slavery. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:47 PM

My understanding of moderates is that they care more about the plight of the gays and Santorums comments on homosexuality than the economy, healthcare policy, taxes, national security, and other issues.

So they will run vote for Obama again, even though nothing has changed for gays under Obama. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:40 PM

I get that you are being sarcastic. You really should go talk to some college undergraduates and see how they prioritize issues. I agree with you that we need fix the economy, stop the flood of illegals, and have a strong defense before we have gay marriage. They don’t agree.

thuja on January 7, 2012 at 2:48 PM

I think we are kind of screwed if the only person who can stop Obama is Rick Perry.

He strikes me as more of a pro-business southern Democrat than a Reagan conservative.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:49 PM

I get that you are being sarcastic. You really should go talk to some college undergraduates and see how they prioritize issues. I agree with you that we need fix the economy, stop the flood of illegals, and have a strong defense before we have gay marriage. They don’t agree.

thuja on January 7, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Younger voters are the least reliable voters, and I suspect if they aren’t getting jobs out college or looks like it will be difficult to get jobs, they are going to vote for anybody but Obama in 2012.

I don’t think every college undergrad is a robot who supports gay marriage and abortion on demand.

Dr. Tesla on January 7, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4