Santorum: We’re gonna take it a state at a time

posted at 3:40 pm on January 20, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Rick Santorum’s distinctive debate performance last night surely scored points with conservative voters who’ve craved an attack on Romneycare from anyone on the GOP debate stage, but it might not have come soon enough to significantly alter the results of the South Carolina primary tomorrow.

Fortunately for his fans, Santorum’s performance in the Palmetto State won’t necessarily be determinative for the former Pennsylvania senator. It’s an important stop on the map, but it won’t be the last stop for the candidate who brands himself “steady” and is willing to work however hard to share his conservative message with potential supporters.

In an exclusive interview today for an upcoming feature in Townhall magazine, Santorum told me he plans to take it one state at a time, to continue to build name recognition for himself, to differentiate himself from the other remaining candidates and, ultimately, to win the nomination.

“We’re gonna take it a state at a time and we think we can be competitive — as we have been — in every state,” Santorum said. “We’ve been put in the position now where we can continue to become better-known. We’re still by far the least known of all the candidates. Our opportunity is to differentiate ourselves as we started to do last night, and we’ll see how that process works to put us in a position where we can start to be one-on-one with one other candidate and win this race.”

The Washington Times corroborates what Santorum told me — that, whatever happens tomorrow, Santorum plans to keep on keepin’ on:

Rick Santorum said Friday he will continue his campaign on into Florida regardless of how he does this weekend in South Carolina’s primary, saying the last 24 hours have been so dramatic they could alter the race in fundamental way.

The former Pennsylvania senator, who on Thursday learned he had actually won Iowa’s caucuses over front-runner Mitt Romney, said he also now has the financial resources to continue to campaign in Florida, which holds its primary Jan. 31, and beyond.

And he said he wants to see how Thursday’s other events — Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s withdrawal from the race, and new allegations of marital and temperament problems with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — play out.

“We’re going forward. This race has just transformed itself in the last 24 hours. I’m not too sure whether that will shake out and show by Saturday,” he told C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” program. “We feel very good that we can go down there and be competitive, and frankly beyond that.”

In other words, pundits might spin this as a two-man race between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, but Santorum is far from out of it. As he put it to me, “There’ve been two states and we won one of them.”

As the differentiation begins — he hammered home the point that the GOP will lose the chance to sharply contrast a conservative vision with Obama’s vision if we nominate either candidate who supported an individual health care mandate and the Wall Street bailouts — Santorum’s popularity among conservatives should only grow. One state at a time.

For more from my interview with Santorum, watch today’s edition of The Ed Morrissey Show and be sure to pick up a copy of the March edition of Townhall magazine!


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

When Santorum comes in forth in SC, he needs to step back reappraise, and bow out.

Bmore on January 20, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Santorum is making a case against liberterianism (anything goes, abortion, prostitutitution, drugs, etc), not a case for leftwing big government.

Santorum has been a consistent fiscal conservative on taxes, welfare reform, social security reform, and private sector healthcare solutions to healthcare.

Those who say he’s not a fiscal conservative are generally supporting another candidate like Gingrich/Perry, or they don’t like social conservatives at all.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 4:56 PM

This is another mischaracterization of libertarianism. Libertarianism is not “anything goes”; it is based on the idea that man is responsible for his own life and has the right to make his own decisions as long as his actions do not harm another person, either through force or fraud. For example, if you want to do drugs and put your health and life at risk, go ahead; it isn’t anyone else’s business, least of all government’s. That’s your decision – and it still is even though there are laws against drug possession and drug use. Same thing for prostitution: it is no one’s business, least of all government’s, what two consenting adults choose to do as long as no force or fraud is committed.

Social conservatism is not conservatism; it is big government. It may not be as big government as liberals or progressives desire, but it is big government all the same.

Dante on January 20, 2012 at 5:15 PM

How would the liberterian Ron Paul build a coalition of voters around him to take on Obama? He’s as interested in campaigning against the GOP as he is the Democratic party, and that would be fine for somebody in talk radio or television punditry but it’s a loser in electoral politics. He has zero appeal to most likely Republican voters, his foreign policy alone is more leftwing than Obama’s.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:15 PM

For example, if you want to do drugs and put your health and life at risk, go ahead; it isn’t anyone else’s business, least of all government’s. That’s your decision – and it still is even though there are laws against drug possession and drug use. Same thing for prostitution: it is no one’s business, least of all government’s, what two consenting adults choose to do as long as no force or fraud is committed.

Well, my mother’s brother and fiance were killed by a tractor trailer driver who was DUI. They were 21, just went down to the ice cream place and never came back.

Your liberterianism makes this kind of conduct acceptable.

Prostitution is everybody’s business, as it spreads STDs, it dehumanizes women, and it puts women who practice it in great danger of physical and sexual abuse by their “clients” and their “pimps”.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Being against abortion does not make me big government.

GOvernment does have legit roles, and one of them is to protect life.

The gay marriage issue is a minor one, and no conservative wants to prevent gay people from having sex with each other. But as they cannot impregnate each other, it’s illogical to suggest it’s “big government” to think it silly they receive government perks for marriage like heterosexual couples do, as heterosexual couples have an aysymetrical relioinship in which the women that men knock up have babies.

Marriage isn’t a one size fits all legal contract with government.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Yeah if you throw out his leftwing foreing policy.

Ron Paul is a Liberterian. He supports legalization of drugs. I wouldn’t doubt if he supports legalization of prostitution but he’s not going to admit that in a campaign.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:08 PM

No, his foreign policy is not leftwing; it is traditional conservatism. Take a look at the history of conservatism before, oh, 1970.

And Paul does not support the legalization of drugs; he correctly states that drug laws are the purview of the states, not the federal government, and that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to enact drug laws. And he wants to end the drug war, which is nothing but a waste of money.

Dante on January 20, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Newts taxes show:

paid $19,800 in alimony.

What an idiot.

Fleuries on January 20, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Per year? If so, what’s your point? Anyone with his income getting off paying only $19,800.00 in alimony seems like a pretty sharp guy.

CTSherman on January 20, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Maybe this explains why the Ex is so bitter. :-)

Just Sayin on January 20, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Santorum is making a case against liberterianism (anything goes, abortion, prostitutitution, drugs, etc), not a case for leftwing big government.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 4:56 PM

According to Santorum, he’s railing against people who want lower taxes and less government regulation. So try again.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 5:24 PM

No, his foreign policy is not leftwing; it is traditional conservatism. Take a look at the history of conservatism before, oh, 1970.

And Paul does not support the legalization of drugs; he correctly states that drug laws are the purview of the states, not the federal government, and that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to enact drug laws. And he wants to end the drug war, which is nothing but a waste of money.

Dante on January 20, 2012 at 5:22 PM

I can think of a lot of things government wastes money on but the drug war isn’t at the top of the list.

The reality is countries where drug use and abuse is frequent by citizens are countries that are failing, and it just leads to more failed human beings who need big government to take care of them.

One of the biggest anti-success factors in life is drug abuse, yet you claim to be the liberterian, as you encourage people to engage in activities that will lead them to be on welfare in the end.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:26 PM

According to Santorum, he’s railing against people who want lower taxes and less government regulation. So try again.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 5:24 PM

There’s a reason why you’ll never advance out of the Green Room.

Santorum’s voting record is consistently anti-tax hike and pro-tax cut. You can check out Club for Growth for this…it’s not hard.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Well, my mother’s brother and fiance were killed by a tractor trailer driver who was DUI. They were 21, just went down to the ice cream place and never came back.

Ok? What’s your point and what does this have to do with anything?

Your liberterianism makes this kind of conduct acceptable.

No, it doesn’t. There isn’t a single libertarian who believes one has the right to ingest drugs, including alcohol, and then get behind the wheel of a car. You see, there’s that do no harm part that you seem to be ignoring. We believe people have the right to make their own decisions as long as no one else is harmed by their actions. Why you willfully ignore that part is beyond me.

Prostitution is everybody’s business, as it spreads STDs, it dehumanizes women, and it puts women who practice it in great danger of physical and sexual abuse by their “clients” and their “pimps”.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:18 PM

It is no one’s business what two consenting adults do, as long as no force or fraud is being committed. Your “argument” isn’t one at all.

Dante on January 20, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Why didn’t Palin endorse Santorum? He didn’t work for Freddie Mac. He has done nothing that can be put in the category of “Crony Capitalism”. He only has one wife. He isn’t a hypocrite full of pious baloney, who went after Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky while having an affair with a Congressional aide. He wasn’t pushed out of a leadership position because he was impossible to work with. He’s a blue collar guy -something she claims to champion. He doesn’t rely on “massive amounts of cash” from donors. I don’t get it…

Buy Danish on January 20, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Legalizing drugs across the board will lead to more deaths of innocent by-standers.

There is no way around that. Drug abusers don’t even care about the abuse on their own bodies, so it’s hard to believe they are going to use drugs wisely and it’s illogical to think people use drugs without abusing them. The point is to to abuse them.

The abuse leads to poor judgment, which leads them to driving cars and other things, that lead other people dead or seriously injured.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:30 PM

is no one’s business what two consenting adults do, as long as no force or fraud is being committed. Your “argument” isn’t one at all.

Dante on January 20, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Ok, you aren’t going to win over soccer moms with a pro-drug, pro-prostitution agenda. For proof, see Gary Johnson.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:31 PM

So Dr. T, do you propose to reimplement prohibition or to outlaw ice cream or both? Maybe outlaw cars and tractor trailers too while you’re at it.

As for the hookers, they made a choice. So did their pimps and johns. You cannot legislate human behavior.

jb34461 on January 20, 2012 at 5:31 PM

There’s a reason why you’ll never advance out of the Green Room.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:28 PM

I love it when people can’t actually defend their pet candidate, so they attack the critic.

They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.

That is not how traditional conservatives view the world.

Santorum’s words. Defend them.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 5:32 PM

As for the hookers, they made a choice. So did their pimps and johns. You cannot legislate human behavior.

jb34461 on January 20, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Obviously we can…society has a say on whether drug are legal, prostition is legal, or they would be legal.

If you want to say I’m anti-freedom, pro-big government on this, go for it. I’m in the majority.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Legalizing drugs across the board will lead to more deaths of innocent by-standers.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:30 PM

That’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard. Innocent bystanders die because drugs are only available through criminal activity. Legalization would result in a huge net decrease in drug-related criminal activity. How in the hell would that result in more deaths of innocent bystanders?

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 5:34 PM

I can think of a lot of things government wastes money on but the drug war isn’t at the top of the list.

Then you should pay more attention.

One of the biggest anti-success factors in life is drug abuse, yet you claim to be the liberterian, as you encourage people to engage in activities that will lead them to be on welfare in the end.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Why would you think I’m in favor of welfare? People should have the freedom to make their own choices, whether they’re good choices or bad ones.

Dante on January 20, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Santorum’s words. Defend them.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 5:32 PM

I don’t understand what he’s getting at there, as he’s always been the man on taxes. That’s why I like him, plus he’s clean on healthcare.

I vote on records, not words. Words are wind.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:35 PM

If Santorum’s popularity is expected to “grow,” then why is he last in the polls in South Carolina? For the good of the party (and the country), Santorum needs to get out the race immediately and stop splitting the conservative vote. Our main objective for the present is to defeat the timid, milktoast, moderate/liberal Romney.

jfs756 on January 20, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Not saying I support Santorum – I’m still trying to decide between Santorum and Newt, now that Perry’s out – but I’m not sure that I agree with this. Santorum was far behind in the polls in Iowa, until he wasn’t anymore. Gingrich was far behind in the polls in SC, until he wasn’t anymore…There is no reason to think that Santorum won’t do well after FL, depending on how he does there.

Until contests start to be winner-take-all, having two conservatives in the race is not necessarily bad as long as at least one of them polls close to Romney in each race. If the spread is large, as it was in NH, it’s a problem for the ABR movement. But if the races are close, it keeps the process alive, and the longer the race goes before Romney can break out, the less likely it becomes that he will. It also keeps him on the defensive, with attacks coming from two directions instead of only one, and not being able to focus his own attack on only one person.

Just my two cents.

Just Sayin on January 20, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Why would you think I’m in favor of welfare? People should have the freedom to make their own choices, whether they’re good choices or bad ones.

Dante on January 20, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Yes, but how do you eliminate welfare for people who have made bad choices to end up on welfare? That’s the majority if not all of people on welfare. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:36 PM

I don’t understand what he’s getting at there…

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:35 PM

No kiddin’.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 5:36 PM

No kiddin’.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Ok,. so you conclude Santy is going to jack up our taxes despite having a record that indicates he’s agianst tax hikes and for lower taxes, based on some comment in his book that doesn’t appear to elaborate on? I don’t think that’s logical, but hey, to each his own.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:38 PM

It wasn’t a quote from a book. It was him talking on a radio show two weeks ago. Why in the world would he talk negatively about those who want lower taxes and less regulation if he supports both?

It would mean he’s a big-government statist, or something.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Most people who hate Santy hate him because they think he’s out to get gay people.

It’s really not more complicated than that. They want to revise his record on fiscal issues to make out as some kind of leftwinger but it doesn’t hold up…Club for Growth is tough but fair and they say he’s the man on taxes, social security reform, welfare reform. He could have done better on spending but I think that is applicable to all conservatives.

He was wrong on right to work and free trade but I understand the politics of PA and those are losers for anybody who runs up there. I’ll take those heresies over RomneyCare anyday.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:42 PM

It would mean he’s a big-government statist, or something.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Does Erick Erickson think for you? NO wonder you are an underblogger.

He has a voting record. It’s not pro-tax. I would need more context and details to believe he’s suddenly flip flopped on taxes in a campaign for the REpublican nomination as taxes are a big issue for most REpublicans voters.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:44 PM

You claim to be in the majority, just like all big govt so-cons do. And you guys can pass all the laws you want but that does not stop human behavior, whether you approve that behavior or not.

What “he’s getting at there….” is that he disagrees with live and let live.

jb34461 on January 20, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Anybody who wants to contend Santorum is a pro-government statist as compared to Romney or Gingrich is what I call smarmy.

I can live with Gingrich b/c I understand his personality type (talks too much before he thinks) and he didn’t actually implement a RomneyCare system, but if we have a statist on the REpublican side, it’s Romney. I don’t like Romney but I don’t call him a statist. He’ll go along with it if he thinks it’s what people want though.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Trust me on this, as I’m from South Carolina.

If Santorum is now running a pro-tax hike campaign, he just ended his campaign and committed political suicide. People in South Carolina vote on taxes probably more than the abortion/gay marriage/gun rights/immigration social issues.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Most people who hate Santy hate him because they think he’s out to get gay people.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Does Erick Erickson think for you?

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Anybody who wants to contend Santorum is a pro-government statist as compared to Romney or Gingrich is what I call smarmy.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:47 PM

You’re quite the cultist.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 5:50 PM

You’re quite the cultist.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 5:50 PM

What does that mean?

I think you are your typical Madison Wisconsin type, insecure about the gay issues. That’s why you don’t like Santorum.

Just admit it,, you want to be hip. Being hip these days is saying you support gay marriage. I get that. You won’t go to jail for being sincere. People may like you better too.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:52 PM

If Santorum is now running a pro-tax hike campaign, he just ended his campaign and committed political suicide. People in South Carolina vote on taxes probably more than the abortion/gay marriage/gun rights/immigration social issues.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Two weeks ago, Santorum claimed that traditional conservatives are not in favor of lower taxes and less government regulation.

In most polls, Santorum is dead last in South Carolina.

Pure coincidence.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 5:53 PM

It’s hard to say I’m a Santorum cultist, as I have said I’m a not-Romney and I will support whoever I see as the most viable not-Romney, as we only get one vote to take him out.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:54 PM

What does that mean?

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:52 PM

It’s means you’re fanatically attacking anyone who criticizes your pet candidate, like a cult member. Simple enough?

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Two weeks ago, Santorum claimed that traditional conservatives are not in favor of lower taxes and less government regulation.

In most polls, Santorum is dead last in South Carolina.

Pure coincidence.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 5:53 PM

You are the only person that I know of that has brought up this interview in which Santy amazingly comes out in favor of higher taxes. I have a hard time believing he would have done that, based on his consistent voting record. He was Bush’s point man on tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

It’s a 4 man race, really a 3 man race with a liberterian. Coming in “dead last” in SC at this point really means nothing other than Gingrich and Santy split votes. The moderates and ”
electability” cowards are going for Romney, and the non-conservatives are going for Ron Paul.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Two weeks ago, Santorum claimed that traditional conservatives are not in favor of lower taxes and less government regulation.

Yikes! He actually said that? He’s running on the wrong ticket. Maybe he can team up with Hillary next go-round.

jb34461 on January 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM

It’s means you’re fanatically attacking anyone who criticizes your pet candidate, like a cult member. Simple enough?

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Who is your candidate?

I think it’s common place to suggest anybody who prefers x candidate over y candidate as a “cultist”.

No, it’s a preference. This is the nature of primaries.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Romney is damaged and Newt will eventually implode. Why not?

rubberneck on January 20, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Yikes! He actually said that? He’s running on the wrong ticket. Maybe he can team up with Hillary next go-round.

jb34461 on January 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM

I think Madison is taking Santorum out of context. I haven’t seen anybody else talk about this.

Madison is real big on the gays. If you real big on the gays, Santy’s not your guy.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I’m an old fashioned kind of guy, I believe the 10 Commandments are pretty good guideposts for living your life. I do not want some nimrod bureaucrat telling me how to live my life. Or telling you either for that matter. And that’s just what Santorum wants to do; tell us how to live our lives. That’s more important to me than any other position he has.

jb34461 on January 20, 2012 at 6:08 PM

What’s Santorum told you to do, as a Senator?

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Both Romney and Gingrich have mandated or supported a mandate that you buy health insurance.

What’s Santorum done in political power that equates to that?

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 6:11 PM

The reality is most people understand Santy is the most conservative of the people left in our field, so they are going to try to paint him as big government or pigeonhole him as a social conservative who hates gay people. This is politics and I think a lot of people are falling for fairly predictable lines of attack on Santy.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 6:12 PM

They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.

That is not how traditional conservatives view the world.

I consider myself a traditional conservative. But according to Santorum I’m a “They” and based on this statement alone I consider him unacceptable as a leader. Of anything.

jb34461 on January 20, 2012 at 6:16 PM

I think Madison is taking Santorum out of context. I haven’t seen anybody else talk about this.

I linked an article with a video from Fox Business reporting on the incident. If you aren’t even bothering to see if what I’m saying is true, yet accusing me of taking him out of context, then you’re both lazy and a liar.

Madison is real big on the gays.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:59 PM

No, I’m not, but then, honesty doesn’t appear to be your thing.

And stop spamming the thread. Got something to say? Put it in one post, not three in a row.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 6:19 PM

No, I’m not, but then, honesty doesn’t appear to be your thing.

And stop spamming the thread. Got something to say? Put it in one post, not three in a row.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Do you run the website, guy? I don’t think so.

It’s not spam to post comments on a comment board that pertain to the topic.

Do you deny that Santy’s votes on taxes as Senator have been rock solid? You are the only person that I’ve seen try to attack Santorum on taxes. I find that interesting, especially since you are likely supporting Romney.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 6:22 PM

You are the only person that I’ve seen try to attack Santorum on taxes.

No, I’m not. I was far from the first to report Santorum’s remarks, which you would know, if you actually read my article.

I find that interesting, especially since you are likely supporting Romney.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 6:22 PM

I have never supported Romney, and I’ve been attacking Romney on this site since 2007. You have no idea who you are talking to, and you don’t give a damn about the truth.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 6:25 PM

He/she is lonely, Madison, and talking to him/herself. I’m outta here.

jb34461 on January 20, 2012 at 6:25 PM

have never supported Romney, and I’ve been attacking Romney on this site since 2007. You have no idea who you are talking to, and you don’t give a damn about the truth.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 6:25 PM

I didn’t realize you were Defender of The Truth, but you do like to put yourself up as that.

Who do you support, so I can call you a cultist for that candidate. And we do a little comparison. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 6:26 PM

So Club for Growth lied, and Santorum is a tax hiker?

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 6:27 PM

He/she is lonely, Madison, and talking to him/herself. I’m outta here.

jb34461 on January 20, 2012 at 6:25 PM

As am I.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 6:28 PM

See,

This Madison guy doesn’t want to debate, he just wants to take one Santorum comment and claim Santy is a big government statist. No need to look at Santorum’s voting record.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Yes, as I read the Santorum quote that MadCon wants to use as proof that Santorum is a “theocrat” or a Stalinist, I see him trying to define what liberterians care about. I don’t think he disagrees with liberterians on taxes and overregulation, he’s saying that there is more to conservatism than that, and the other stuff he provides.

Again, it’s just not believable based on Santy’s voting record, that he’s some pro-tax guy. He’s the man on taxes based on his voting record. You don’t get to throw his voting record under the rug simply because it doesn’t help you make your absurd case is he’s a theocrat who wants to tell you what to do.

Anybody who calls Santy a theocrat is obsessed with gay issues. It’s that simple. Trust me.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Why didn’t Palin endorse Santorum?

Buy Danish on January 20, 2012 at 5:30 PM

I’m assuming you’re talking about Sarah Palin. Todd Palin endorsed Newt. Sarah Palin did not.

Sarah Palin simply said if she could vote in the SC primary, she would vote for Newt. I believe she wants the race for delegates to stay close as the primaries/caucuses continue.

Romney has 15 of the 34 convention delegates pledged so far–less than 50%–and if voters vote for the non-Romneys then he gets fewer delegates pledged to him toward the magic # of 1144 which it will take to win the nomination.

SC is the second primary to be held that awards delegates–that leaves 48 states, DC and a few US territories remaining. All the primaries and caucuses to be held do not determine the nomination but rather how many delegates are pledged to each candidate, to vote for the nomination at the RNC in August.

SC has 25 delegates and their primary is a “Winner-Take-All” by district and statewide. On Saturday, the candidate who wins statewide, gets 11 delegates pledged to him. The other 14 delegates get allocated, 2 each to the winner in each of the state’s 7 Congressional districts. So even if a candidate doesn’t win the primary, he (or she) can still win delegates. Bachmann, Cain, Huntsman and Perry are still on the ballot so people can vote for them and that could affect outcomes, both statewide and in districts.

There are a variety of methods that the remaining 48 states are using in order to select and allocate their convention delegates and that is the real, if underlying, purpose of the primaries/caucuses. For the primary itself: Candidates get bragging rights for winning, it helps with campaign fundraising and the slimestream mediots get to spin and twist the results as they connive and conspire to tell us who they want the Repub candidate to be.

I’m sure I sound like a broken record, but with 5 more months of this to go, I’ll be ranting often about what the process brings. I encourage you to find out how your state’s primary works. Thegreenpapers.com is a good place to start. In my own lovely state of IL, the “Greece of America,” our primary is called a “Loophole” primary–a Delegate Selection and Advisory “beauty contest” presidential preference vote. So in my state, it’s the delegates I vote for that counts. The presidential candidate vote is merely a popularity contest–good for the aforementioned bragging rights and fundraising.

So when Palin says who she would “vote” for or Santorum says he’s taking it one state at a time, this is what they mean and why. As Rush says–keep it in perspective, people.

stukinIL4now on January 20, 2012 at 6:57 PM

What I am wondering is what Social Conservative legislation (besides the partial-birth abortion ban) has Santorum submitted? He says the nation needs to get back to its moral roots, and begin valuing the family again, but he doesn’t speak of legislating anything. I’d just like to have someone as a president that seems like a decent person and is not a moderate. We need a strong, decent person as president. I think Santorum is that. I don’t know why Palin doesn’t support him more.

LL1960 on January 20, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Libertarianism is not “anything goes”; it is based on the idea that man is responsible for his own life and has the right to make his own decisions as long as his actions do not harm another person, either through force or fraud

The problem with that definition of libertarianism is that it ignores the role of government in setting, at a minimum, some level of moral and cultural standards. Certain behavior may not directly harm an individual, “neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg” in Jefferson’s words, but that behavior harms society as a whole by chipping away at the greater public morals. Government has a responsibility to promote the future of the nation by encouraging certain behavior and discouraging other behavior…marriage for example is good for the national culture, as is maintaining some level of replacement birth rates…some have criticized Santorum’s proposal to increase the child tax credit…I suspect many of them are single or married with no intention of having children…that’s their decision but someone has to provide a future generation to pass the nation onto, if for no other reason than to pay for the social security of those who choose to remain childless..

ironmarshal on January 20, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Ok, you aren’t going to win over soccer moms with a pro-drug, pro-prostitution agenda. For proof, see Gary Johnson.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:31 PM

The agenda is neither pro-drug nor pro-prostitution; it’s pro liberty and supporting people being in charge of their own decisions and their own lives.

Yes, but how do you eliminate welfare for people who have made bad choices to end up on welfare? That’s the majority if not all of people on welfare. :)

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:36 PM

How do you eliminate it? With the stroke of a pen. Do you think a libertarian would be in favor of welfare???

Most people who hate Santy hate him because they think he’s out to get gay people.

It’s really not more complicated than that.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 5:42 PM

There you go again. Neither Madison nor I, nor anyone else that I’ve seen in this thread, ever mentioned the word “gay”. You are being willfully ignorant and deliberately dishonest. Anything to avoid the real discussion.

If the prohibition on heroin were repealed, would you start using heroin tomorrow?

Dante on January 20, 2012 at 8:21 PM

The problem with that definition of libertarianism is that it ignores the role of government in setting, at a minimum, some level of moral and cultural standards.

ironmarshal on January 20, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Government doesn’t set moral or cultural standards, nor would that be a role of government.

Dante on January 20, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Government sets moral and cultural standards all the time.

That’s why we have laws against rape, sexual harrassment, theft, prostitution, drug use, etc. It’s not big government if majority of Americans are ok with these laws, it’s represenative government.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:34 PM

WHAT

A

DORK.

stenwin77 on January 20, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Government sets moral and cultural standards all the time.

That’s why we have laws against rape, sexual harrassment, theft, prostitution, drug use, etc. It’s not big government if majority of Americans are ok with these laws, it’s represenative government.

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Ok so if 51% of the population said we expand the TSA to cover Random Check points with naked scanners on ever corner that would not be “big government” because the “majority” supported it

That is the most irrational argument I have heard yet, this is NOT a democracy. The United States is a REPUBLIC, where INDIVIDUAL rights are more important than the collectives will.

the_ancient on January 21, 2012 at 6:21 AM

So Club for Growth lied, and Santorum is a tax hiker?

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Lets see what Club for Growth Really says

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

On spending, Santorum has a mixed record and showed clear signs of varying his votes based on the election calendar.

So he is a political shill, voting what ever way he thinks will get him the most votes, how principled…

His record is plagued by the big-spending habits that Republicans adopted during the Bush years of 2001-2006. Some of those high profile votes include his support for No Child Left Behind in 2001, which greatly expanded the federal government’s role in education. He supported the massive new Medicare drug entitlement in 2003 that now costs taxpayers over $60 billion a year and has almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities. He voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere. In fact, in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Indeed, Santorum was a prolific supporter of earmarks, having requested billions of dollars for pork projects in Pennsylvania while he was in Congress. Perhaps recognizing the sign of the times, Santorum finally reversed his position in 2010, saying that he was opposed to them , but one must remain skeptical about his sincerity. As recently as 2009, he said, “I’m not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.”

And while Santorum voted against the Farm Bill in 2002, he sponsored a bill to extend milk subsidies in 2005, which he claimed he did to “save countless Pennsylvania dairy farmers.”

Yep alot of Small Government, and no spending in there are all…..

he wanted “national standards” from the federal government and he didn’t support eliminating the Department of Education. This bears itself out in his record. As mentioned, Santorum supported No Child Left Behind in 2001, which greatly expanded Washington’s control over education.

Wow, Wants to continue Top Down Education, with limited or no local input, That is not “Big Government” either, no no no

So yes, Club For Growth gave him a overall favourable rating, but that does not change the fact that he is still a big government “force my morals on everyone” guy.

the_ancient on January 21, 2012 at 6:29 AM

Government sets moral and cultural standards all the time.

That’s why we have laws against rape, sexual harrassment, theft, prostitution, …

Dr. Tesla on January 20, 2012 at 8:34 PM

No, those morals already existed before the laws outlawing them were passed.

Morality exists independent of government.

Dante on January 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Comment pages: 1 2