Quotes of the day

posted at 10:48 pm on February 15, 2012 by Allahpundit

“‘I vote and have supported birth control because it is not the taking of human life. But I’m not a believer in birth control and artificial birth control. I think it goes down the line of being able to do whatever you want to do without having the responsibility that comes with that. I think it breaks that … this is from a personal point of view of, from a governmental point of view I support that Title X,’ he said [in 2006].

“‘I guess it is and have voted for contraception, although I don’t think it works. I think it’s harmful to women. I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated …, particularly among the young and it has I think we’ve seen very, very harmful long-term consequences to the society. Birth control to me enables that and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.’

***

“For starters, does he realize that married women (men too!) use birth control? The impression that Santorum finds the prevalent practice of birth control “harmful to women” is, frankly, mind-numbing. If he meant to focus on teen sexual promiscuity, he surely could have, and thereby might have sounded less out of touch…

“In any event, this sort of thing undermines Santorum’s electability argument. (Current polling match-ups between President Obama and each of the two frontrunners, before the GOP has a nominee and before Santorum’s record is out there, are virtually useless.) This is how, in part, he lost Pennsylvania — by appearing extreme and schoolmarmish, too far to the right of average voters in a purple state. If he is the nominee in 2012, he might get some blue-collar fellows, but what about those women in Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.? And what about more secularized suburban communities? Fuggedaboutit.”

***

“Nobody expects the Republican presidential nominee to be a libertarian purist, but it helps if he or she at least has a libertarian streak. In Rick Santorum’s case, he’s actively hostile toward libertarianism, and that’s an obstacle not only to him winning the nomination, but also to having a chance in a general election against President Obama…

“If Santorum had a modicum of respect for libertarian philosophy, he would have been reluctant to embrace big government Republicanism during the Bush era. Instead, he cast votes that will make it harder for him to consolidate conservative support in the weeks and months ahead as his record undergoes more scrutiny. A libertarian streak would also make him a bit more skeptical about government’s ability to shape a more moral society. And by promising to lecture Americans on sex as a president as the GOP nominee, he’d ensure a Democratic rout in November.”

***

“His position on contraception is, of course, a minority position — even within the conservative movement.

“This doesn’t mean Santorum should have lied or hidden his personal beliefs. If asked, he might have simply said: ‘The use of contraception is inconsistent with my Catholic faith, but many other fine faith traditions disagree, and I respect their position’ — and then moved on.

“But Santorum doesn’t really believe that. He was more interested in winning the argument than winning the election.

“This was not a mistake or a gaffe. Santorum was fully conscious of the dangers of discussing this issue, even noting during the interview that he’s not ‘running for preacher,’ and confessing: ‘I know most Presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things …’

“He was right — people really don’t want their president talking about contraceptives.”

***

“Now, they happen to have an interview that Santorum gave years ago in which he talked about this within the context of states’ rights. He said if the state wants to ban contraception, they should have the right to do that.

“Well, that becomes: Santorum supports banning contraception. So to the people in this country who do nothing but have sex mindlessly day in and day out and to whom birth control is only a means of eliminating consequences, you tell them that the Republican Party wants to take away their means of no consequences, and I don’t care what else is going on in the world, 300 nuclear weapons, tax increases, economy being destroyed, you tell that bunch of mindless, brain-dead twerps that they’re not gonna get their birth control pills, and that’s all that will matter. They’re gonna vote for Obama on that alone, and that’s what they’re counting on. Barack Obama and the Democrat Party are aiming at the lowest common denominator. They have spent decades dumbing down the American people in the education system that they run and that they have run.

“Campaign for the stupid. Get the votes, buy the votes of the stupid. That’s what they’re banking on here.”

***

“By voting for the No Child Left Behind Act, he helped give President Obama the power to micromanage the nation’s schools from Washington; and by supporting a prescription drug entitlement for Medicare, he helped saddle the taxpayers with a $16 trillion unfunded liability.

“Santorum voted for the 2005 ‘bridge to nowhere’ highway bill, has backed an expanded national service program, and his compassionate conservatism has the Bono seal of approval: “On our issues, he has been a defender of the most vulnerable.” Rick Santorum: He’s from the government, and he’s here to help.

“Santorum’s 2012 campaign platform even includes a pledge to ‘re-direct funds within HHS, so it can create public/private partnerships … for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood.’

“If you liked what the feds did to the housing market, wait till you see what they can do for your marriage.”

***

“Among the roughly one-third of senators (18 out of 50) who represented states that — based on this measure — were at least as far to the left as Pennsylvania, Santorum was the most fiscally conservative. Even more telling was the canyon between him and the rest. After Santorum’s overall 3.66 GPA, the runner-up GPA among this group was 2.07, registered by Olympia Snowe (R., Maine). Arlen Specter, Santorum’s fellow Pennsylvania Republican, was next, with a GPA of 1.98. The average GPA among senators who represented states at least as far left as Pennsylvania was 0.52 — or barely a D-.

“But Santorum also crushed the senators in the other states. Those 32 senators, representing states that on average were 16 points to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections, had an average GPA of 2.35 — a C+.

“In fact, considering the state he was representing, one could certainly make the case that Santorum was the most fiscally conservative senator during his tenure. The only four senators whose GPAs beat Santorum’s represented states that were 2 points (Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire), 10 points (Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona), 25 points (Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma), and 36 points (Republican Craig Thomas of Wyoming) to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections. Moreover, of these four, only Kyl (with a GPA of 3.94) beat Santorum by as much as a tenth of a point. It’s an open question whether a 3.94 from Arizona is more impressive than a 3.66 from Pennsylvania.”

***

“Don’t you see how they see you? How they look down their nose at the average Americans? These elite snobs!

***

“Does Rick Santorum like women?”


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 4 5 6

Apparently Palin just said on Eric Bolling’s show on Fox that she’s open to a draft.

I think I just felt a breeze picking up. Right about on time as I’ve been predicting for a while now.

I love it when a plan comes together.

Palin/West the dream team for 2012.

shmendrick on February 16, 2012 at 12:42 AM

No way that Sarah Palin will get selected y a brokered convention. That’s just crazy talk.

That would be like, oh, Rick Santorum becoming the front runner. It could never happen.

Oh, wait……

tom on February 16, 2012 at 8:03 AM

Is it because he speaks the truth and the truth hurts (you) so much?

Pragmatic on February 16, 2012 at 8:02 AM

what’s the truth? that unions are awesome? Earmarks are the bees knees?

DHChron on February 16, 2012 at 8:04 AM

Is it because he speaks the truth and the truth hurts (you) so much?

Pragmatic on February 16, 2012 at 8:02 AM

what’s the truth? that unions are awesome? Earmarks are the bees knees?

DHChron on February 16, 2012 at 8:04 AM

No, I am referring to his conservative ‘family values’ philosophy.

Pragmatic on February 16, 2012 at 8:06 AM

Draft Sarah? . . . NOW I am truly fired up!

Pragmatic on February 16, 2012 at 8:07 AM

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 7:56 AM

I followed you on Twitter yesterday. I’m crushed that you haven’t followed back. ;-)

Click on my username, if you’re inclined to do so.

Flora Duh on February 16, 2012 at 8:08 AM

Pragmatic on February 16, 2012 at 8:01 AM

So he doesn’t want to triple the child tax credit? Are loveless and even abusive marriages so uncommon as to be an “extreme” case?

MJBrutus on February 16, 2012 at 8:08 AM

Apologies if you’ve heard it before. I never had.

Marcus on February 16, 2012 at 7:32 AM

LOL! Simple, but telling.

JonBGood on February 16, 2012 at 8:08 AM

No, I am referring to his conservative ‘family values’ philosophy.

Pragmatic on February 16, 2012 at 8:06 AM

I intend to agree with him there. Santy really hasn’t made that a hallmark of his campaign, but it doesn’t matter. That’s what the lefties talk about – it’s what we talk about, and that’s not gonna win the election.

DHChron on February 16, 2012 at 8:08 AM

Flora Duh on February 16, 2012 at 8:08 AM

Yes, ma’am. I don’t have access to Twitter at work. I’ll do it right now. Check out today’s blog when you get the chance.

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 8:10 AM

I intend to agree with him there.

tend

DHChron on February 16, 2012 at 8:10 AM

That would be like, oh, Rick Santorum becoming the front runner. It could never happen.
Oh, wait……
tom on February 16, 2012 at 8:03 AM

.
Yeaaahhhhhhhh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : )

listens2glenn on February 16, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Pragmatic on February 16, 2012 at 7:53 AM

.
You are jumping ahead of the game here. The RACISM sideshow is the month of March’s media focus distraction. April will be Gay rights month. The racism attack distraction doesn’t start until the ever so important contraception “debate” loses the media spotlight.

FlaMurph on February 16, 2012 at 8:12 AM

oh yeah! I forgot Santy was also a racist

DHChron on February 16, 2012 at 8:16 AM

How about a federal government that is utterly indifferent to the private lives of its citizens, to include the faith we choose to practice, whom we choose to love and marry, the books we read and the films we watch? How about a federal government that leaves us alone, free to make our own choices and determine our own destinies, free to succeed–or to fail, if it comes to that?

Me, I believe in liberty, freedom bound by rule of law and respect for the privacy and property of others. I don’t want or need a federal government dictating every aspect of my life, however noble or fine its intentions. In my view, Santorum is the opposite side of the Obama coin. It’s still the same coin.

troyriser_gopftw on February 15, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Congrats troyriser. Of exactly 11 occurrences of “free” on six pages of comments so far, you have 3 of them, making you my #1 choice for GOP nominee.

If one of these candidates doesn’t start using the word “Liberty” in a big hurry – and in a good way – we’re going to lose this thing.

SomeCallMeJohn on February 16, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Pragmatic on February 16, 2012 at 8:01 AM

So he doesn’t want to triple the child tax credit? Are loveless and even abusive marriages so uncommon as to be an “extreme” case?

MJBrutus on February 16, 2012 at 8:08 AM

Santorum isn’t really going to do much, because a President doesn’t have that power in our system of government.

Divorce exists for such extreme cases of marriage problems as abusive or philandering spouses, but gets way overused as an escape valve for people who don’t want to try.

The hard truth is that many of the things liberals are the most committed to are actually destructive of society. Among these are no-fault divorce, premarital sex, and illegitimate birth.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a Democrat, and very much a liberal, but he realized the destructive nature of the high illegitimacy rate. You should look him up sometime.

The sexual revolution left us with more broken homes, more children without fathers, more poverty, fewer happy marriages, more disease, and more human wreckage than probably any single event of the last couple of generations.

I think it’s just as important to recognize this problem as it is to remember that the government can’t fix it.

But the government could get out of the way.

Ironically, one of the biggest things that actually can be done by the government, because it is the government’s role, is welfare reform. When men can walk away from the children they produce and just let the government take care of them, they never have to grow up and take responsibility.

tom on February 16, 2012 at 8:24 AM

One thing is freedom, a totally different ball game is licentiousness.

ProudPalinFan on February 16, 2012 at 8:25 AM

Santy has a big problem with liberty. He wouldn’t agree with Reagan who believed libertarians and conservatives follow the same path.

DHChron on February 16, 2012 at 8:26 AM

troyriser_gopftw on February 15, 2012 at 11:28 PM

Well said and a point I’ve been making often as well. SweaterVest’s imposition of his religion is no better than Obama’s imposition of his. This nation was founded on the idea that governments are created to secure the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for their citizens. Some pretty smart guys, those founders of ours.

MJBrutus on February 16, 2012 at 8:26 AM

One thing is freedom, a totally different ball game is licentiousness.

ProudPalinFan on February 16, 2012 at 8:25 AM

who decides what’s licentious? I’ll do that for myself thank you much – I don’t need Santy babysitting me.

DHChron on February 16, 2012 at 8:28 AM

tom on February 16, 2012 at 8:24 AM

Where he crosses the bright, red line with me is when he declares (and means it) that contraception, sexual conduct among consenting adults, &c is a “public issue.” That is a door that we must never let our government open if we value our liberty.

MJBrutus on February 16, 2012 at 8:29 AM

Where he crosses the bright, red line with me is when he declares (and means it) that contraception, sexual conduct among consenting adults, &c is a “public issue.” That is a door that we must never let our government open if we value our liberty.

MJBrutus on February 16, 2012 at 8:29 AM

You sound so genuine and concerned!

/

tom daschle concerned on February 16, 2012 at 8:32 AM

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 8:10 AM

I did. I saw your tweet. :-)

I had heard about the Hillsborough County issue on the local news.

Flora Duh on February 16, 2012 at 8:42 AM

Draft Sarah? . . . NOW I am truly fired up!

Pragmatic on February 16, 2012 at 8:07 AM

Yeah, me too!

tinkerthinker on February 16, 2012 at 8:49 AM

who decides what’s licentious? I’ll do that for myself thank you much – I don’t need Santy babysitting me.

DHChron on February 16, 2012 at 8:28 AM

The babysitter is in the White House right now–>the one who wants chicks to run around, chasing after guys and get all sorts of STD’s. Those of us who are responsible or level-headed (I assume you are) do not have a problem whatsoever to what he says; if your intent is to exclusively take it out of context or worse-take it personally I see where this is going.

I had lots of fun when that dad fired a whole round to his daughter’s laptop. Even the cops that visited his house commended him. In a couple of hours thousands wanted to be his friends on FB; I couldn’t because he had too many invites.

Our parents and grandparents worked very hard to be successful, or achievers. The same with our parents. We are working hard at it. Unfortunately there’s some parents that are too lenient with their kids and give them all sorts of material stuff they don’t appreciate nor take good care of. Rick’s message resonates in a positive way to RETURN to those values that some families have lost; get that freedom from big government-if we get another Obama term, we will lose more of those freedoms, REGARDLESS OF WHO THE CANDIDATE IS.

My son and I saw a Tracfone TV ad where they make it kewl for the kid to have a cell, call and text-you can imagine; he asked for it as if it was a present from Santa. I said “hell no, you’re not gonna get a cell phone; who you’re gonna call?” He grabs our cell phones to watch YouTube videos, sometimes texts with one or two cousins and that’s it.

If, like Mr. PPF says, he was involved in way more school activities and schedule got a bit more hectic then he wouldn’t have a problem. I scoffed at the idea-but he’s the one that would pay for it. If Kid 1 has a cell phone, Kid 2 demands equal treatment. Nah-ah. I still say no; I got my cell phone when I got my job and I paid for it, same when I had a pager.

Personal responsibility also means that as sick as I am I make sure that two of the several doctors I have are on the same page when it comes to the drugs they prescribe me-if the other doctor gives his blessing and they’re communicating it’s fine with me. After all, I am the one that will get all the side effects.

Think about our younger generation and the teenagers. I know you will just shrug and send me to hell or something because of “Santo” or “Mittens” or “crazy Uncle Paul” or “angry Newt,” whatever; each candidate brings home a serious point that needs fixin’ and a good chunk of it is our society.

ProudPalinFan on February 16, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Yes, ma’am. I don’t have access to Twitter at work. I’ll do it right now. Check out today’s blog when you get the chance.

kingsjester on February 16, 2012 at 8:10 AM

I am so embarrassed, I thought I was following your blog!!! *smacks forehead* dunno if you’re following me. If not please do ;)

ProudPalinFan on February 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

ProudPalinFan on February 16, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Our society ain’t getting fixed if our economy goes to hell. That’s what will happen if we make this a social issues election and re-elect Obama.

DHChron on February 16, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Since this is QOTD you have to listen to this. I have tears running down my face from laughing so hard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN8YQVM1GQI&feature=player_embedded

gophergirl on February 15, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Thanks gg, I needed that this morning. LOL

Flora Duh on February 16, 2012 at 7:08 AM

Sounded, well, kinda like Jailbait.

Bmore on February 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM

That is a door that we must never let our government open if we value our liberty.

MJBrutus on February 16, 2012 at 8:29 AM

For heaven’s sake, you sound as though this country came into being less than 15 years ago. Look up the history of your country’s laws. I suppose the Founding Fathers didn’t value their liberty.

pannw on February 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM

There are minor errors in messaging, but there’s nothing wrong with a person stating that the unrestricted use of birth control is counterproductive to society. The real question would then be who is the proper authority to impose such restrictions. The only valid answer is the individual. The government doesn’t have a place to say that you can or cannot use contraception. Neither do they have a place to say that I must pay for yours, or you for mine. This is how the Conservatives must frame the argument.

The socialists are dead set on government mandating no consequences for those who vote for them, and then mandating that taxpayers foot the bill for paying to erase said consequences. Since most of the folks that vote for them don’t pay taxes, it’s a perfect set up in their favor. Only when the loyal opposition party begins to take a real stand on government intrusion into social issues will a barrier to that setup gain a foundation.

As I heard on the radio this morning, the liberal argument that they only wish to guarantee unlimited free access to birth control should be fought by saying that the lack of free condom machines in every room of every government building constitutes a failure to provide free access. So where should the line be drawn? The proper answer is wherever the individual and their employers agree to have it drawn. Women who work for organizations that declare a conscience opposition to paying for contraception should accept that this is a piece of life they will have to pay for themselves, if they really want it.

Freelancer on February 16, 2012 at 5:43 PM

who decides what’s licentious? I’ll do that for myself thank you much – I don’t need Santy babysitting me.

DHChron on February 16, 2012 at 8:28 AM

Licentious simply refers to sexual behavior unchecked by any moral boundaries. That’s a pretty simply thing upon which to set a universal description.

And once again, the point here isn’t that Santorum would ever attempt to force behavior from the Oval Office. The President does not have that authority, even if the current Resident believes he does. So your outrage over something a candidate could never possibly bring to action is made of straw. He was stating his personal position relative to an issue where the current Democrat administration actual IS forcing its way, in opposition to conscience, upon employers.

Lastly, pretty much every time I’ve heard someone proclaim that they don’t need someone babysitting them, it turns out they have someone babysitting them, and like it.

Freelancer on February 16, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6