Rick Santorum, food stamps and big-government conservatism

posted at 5:40 pm on February 22, 2012 by Karl

Like other candidates for the GOP presidential nomination, Rick Santorum does not have kind words for food stamps:

Santorum told the group [in Le Mars, IA] he would cut the food stamp program, describing it as one of the fastest growing programs in Washington, D.C.

Forty-eight million people are on food stamps in a country with 300-million people, said Santorum.

“If hunger is a problem in America, then why do we have an obesity problem among the people who we say have a hunger program?” Santorum asked.

Indeed, Santorum has described the food stamp program as part of a culture of dependency not unlike Mussolini’s fascist Italy:

One wants to talk about raising taxes on people who have been successful and redistributing money, increasing dependency in this country, promoting more Medicaid and food stamps and all sorts of social welfare programs and passing Obamacare to provide even more government subsidies. More and more dependency, more and more government — exactly what my grandfather left in 1925.

Yesterday, Santorum suggested an approach to such programs not unlike the welfare reform of the 1990s:

We need to take everything from food stamps to Medicaid to housing programs to education training programs, we need to cut them, cap them, freeze them, send them to the states, saying that there has to be a time limit and a work requirement.

However, Santorum’s record on food stamps does not quite match his rhetoric. At Verum Serum, Morgen details how then-Sen. Santorum blocked a 2005 attempt by the Bush Administration to close a loophole that allowed states to confer automatic eligibility for food stamps by simply handing out an informational pamphlet to potential beneficiaries, bypassing the means testing required under normal program rules. The change would have resulted in a reduction in spending of only three tenths of one percent — but a $574 million reduction over five years would have set an important precedent. Santorum, then a member of the Agricultural Committee, not only helped block this reform, but bragged about it. Apparently, magically making people eligible for food stamps by handing them a pamphlet was much less fascist and did not breed dependency just a few short years ago.

As is so often the case in life, timing is important. Folks like the Weekly Standard’s Jeffrey Anderson have contested the claim made by Mitt Romney (among others) that Santorum was a big-spending, big-government conservative in the Senate. Anderson’s case rests on ratings issued by the National Taxpayers Union (NTU) of Santorum’s two-term tenure in the Senate:

Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators [who served the entire period] got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. *** Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.

Anderson highlights the period of Bush’s first term, ending in 2004-05. However, as the Club For Growth notes in its white paper on Santorum:

An examination of his scores in the NTU rating of Congress shows that Santorum compiled a very strong record on taxes and spending in the first four years of each of his two Senate terms, then a sharp swing to below the Senate Republican average in the Congress before his reelection campaign. In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending, and failed to sponsor or co-sponsor even one spending cut proposal. In his last Congress (2005-2006), he had one of the biggest spending agendas of any Republican — sponsoring more spending increases than Republicans Lisa Murkowski, Lincoln Chafee and Thad Cochran or Democrats Herb Kohl, Evan Bayh and Ron Wyden.

It was during this latter period that Santorum championed creeping food stamp fascism.

Granted, this is not as sexy a story as Santorum’s 2008 claim that America is under attack by Satan. However, Santorum probably really believes that America is under attack by Satan. Would that we could say the same about his food stamp rhetoric.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


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

Does Satan get food stamps?
/

WhatNot on February 22, 2012 at 5:43 PM

lety’s compromise:

let’s make mitt the nominee, and when he defeats obama he can appoint rick ambassador to the vatican.

reliapundit on February 22, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Social justice. It’s only fair.

a capella on February 22, 2012 at 5:44 PM

Do I care about food stamps completely out of control today? YES

Do I really care about the one vote in 2005? Not really.

Tim Zank on February 22, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Ha. Big government phony proves to be big government phony.

We are screwed

BuckNutty on February 22, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Does Satan get food stamps?
/
WhatNot on February 22, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Yes, but Rick stipulated they could only be used to purchase deviled eggs.

whatcat on February 22, 2012 at 5:49 PM

However, Santorum’s record on food stamps does not quite match his rhetoric.

Neither does his pro-life rhetoric (or fiscal conservative rheroric) when he turns around and brags about funding Planned Parenthood.

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 5:50 PM

I feel a lot better supporting Romney after reading things like this about Santorum. The guy just sucks.

Roymunson on February 22, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Most of us here are college educated types, I guess, some exceptions. We are “educated elites,” but conservative. I’m not 100% sure. Anyway, right in the face of all the craziness surrounding Santorum (as the falsehoods: he thinks the devil is out to get us, wants to ban contraception, thinks O is not Christian but has a phony theology, & whatelsenot), in the latest Rasmussen polls, SANTORUM HAS GAINED vs OBAMA! It is Obama over Romney by 6 (47 – 41), but only by 3 vs Santorum (46 – 43).

Drop everything we’re thinking.

This is our thinking:
“We agree with Santorum more than Mitt, Rick brings a helpful hard attack to O, but his outspoken social conservatism will possibly spell doom.” Not according to these polls, if taken in light of all the “negative” publicity Rick has been getting.

I surmise that there is some unrecognized group that would vote for Obama over Romney, but instead would vote for Santorum over Obama.

anotherJoe on February 22, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Santorum is as liberal as Romney, and actually worse on some counts. But who cares? Outlawing condoms is all the rage these days.

Archivarix on February 22, 2012 at 5:51 PM

He really hates abortion and gay marriage and stuff, so he’s good enough for me.

/about half of HA commenters

Armin Tamzarian on February 22, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Exactly why we should NEVER nominate any senator or member of Congress: they carry the burden of a congressional voting record that is distorted and picked to death.

Nominating Santorum would be a disaster in November. The last GOP candidate who won the presidency from the Senate was Warren Harding in 1920. Every other senator the GOP nominated — Goldwater, Dole, McCain – was a loser in the general.

matthew8787 on February 22, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Yes, but Rick stipulated they could only be used to purchase deviled eggs.

whatcat on February 22, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Zoinks!

ctwelve on February 22, 2012 at 5:51 PM

The best way to get people off of food stamps, out of public housing, and off of welfare is to get them a job…

… And the best way to quickly employ thousands, is to unleash Americans.

Seven Percent Solution on February 22, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Rick Santorum, food stamps and big-government conservatism

That part of the title I highlighted, it’s called an oxymoron.

abobo on February 22, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Do I really care about the one vote in 2005? Not really.
Tim Zank on February 22, 2012 at 5:48 PM

He couldn’t vote much after that – he wasn’t re-elected. However:
“In his last Congress (2005-2006), he had one of the biggest spending agendas of any Republican”.

whatcat on February 22, 2012 at 5:52 PM

I’m confused why everyone cites the NTU…are their ratings on across the board conservative policies? or just taxes? It would be easy for Santorum to vote for lower taxes while voting for Medicare Part D, against welfare reform, increasing the debt limit, etc.

Also, just because he beat 49 senators in one metric doesn’t mean much because it’s all relative. He was one of the more fiscally conservative senators at a time when republicans increased the debt and deficit…kind of like being the tallest short person.

peachaeo on February 22, 2012 at 5:53 PM

But wait! Yesterday Tina said that we shouldn’t look at the time when Santorum was Senator and could actually vote and have an effect on policy. We’ve got to look at what he’s said since getting kicked out of office. Because, people, you know, evolve and stuff.

Mr. Arkadin on February 22, 2012 at 5:53 PM

It’s a good thing we dumped that terrible Rick Perry. He said we were heartless!

Good Solid B-Plus on February 22, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Santorum, despite his reputation as a conservative stalwart, had a keen interest in providing disadvantaged families greater access to affordable housing.

In 2005, when Banking Committee Republicans were trying to tighten the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Santorum pushed to include language in the legislation that would strengthen their affordable-housing goals.

“We’re very concerned about making sure that we do things in working with this legislation to improve the access to affordable housing,” Santorum said during a July 28, 2005 hearing on the Senate bill.

He added that he wanted to orient Fannie and Freddie “toward taking a more active role in creating housing opportunities for low and moderate income families.”

http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/177_6/Rick-Santorum-Fannie-Mae-Freddie-Mac-1045542-1.html

Yet Santorum is being portrayed as a true full spectrum conservative because he is anti establishment even though he stayed in dc and became a lobbyist.

ryandan on February 22, 2012 at 5:54 PM

I surmise that there is some unrecognized group that would vote for Obama over Romney, but instead would vote for Santorum over Obama.

anotherJoe on February 22, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Some liberal Catholics might actually choose Frothy over Obama but won’t vote for a Mormon. Never mind the youth and independent vote. Who needs future when delegalization of contraceptives is at stake?

Archivarix on February 22, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Archivarix on February 22, 2012 at 5:51 PM

dude, not condoms, those are for men, so those are ok. we’re focused on women here.

peachaeo on February 22, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Nice try.

Santorum was a pretty good and reasonably conservative Senator.

Enough to get booted from the liberal Pa frogpond.

He was not perfect by any stretch, but compared to Mitt Romney, he is Reaganesque.

Comparing this kind of thing to a blank political persona who lacks any core beliefs whatsoever is comical.

And I concur with Santorum that our country is under attack by Satan, who is doing a fairly nice job based on our current social mores, which have been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator (e.g. prime time filth on tv and the pervasiveness of tatoos).

molonlabe28 on February 22, 2012 at 5:56 PM

I prefer straw man arguments.

Armin Tamzarian on February 22, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Gee, that’s pretty easy.

Axeman on February 22, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Newt: I want to be the Paycheck president, not the food stamp president.
Santorum: I want to be the MISJA president, not the NINJA president!

Massive Income Superior Job – Approved (food stamps)
No Income No Job – Approved (home loan)

astonerii on February 22, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Via Aaron Blake, Michigan Democrats sent out an email urging supporters to go out and vote next Tuesday … in Michigan’s Republican primary.

The Michigan primary is open, meaning Democrats and independents can vote in it, and many political watchers have assumed the Democratic Party might make such a play in a bid to impact the outcome, and keep the race churning forward.

That’s what happened in the 2000 Republican primary in Michigan, when John McCain won over eventual nominee George W. Bush.

In this case, Democrats — while not saying it explicitly in the email — are hoping for a Rick Santorum win over Mitt Romney, which would deal the native Michigan candidate a serious blow, and keep the fight on.

UPDATE: JMart sends along the video the Michigan Democratic party has sent out.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/02/michigan-dems-make-mischief-in-gop-primary-115235.html

If Santorum wins the nomination this will be the reason why. I am seeing everywhere of dems saying they are voting for santorum in michigan, ohio, georgia, tennessee to hurt romney and help obama.

Here is an example of this which I have seen countless times on detroit free press and dailykos and all over the place.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/michigan-democratic-party-encourages-crossover-voting-in-gop-presidential-primary/2012/02/22/gIQA1qjoTR_blog.html

Elephantitus wrote:
2/22/2012 1:19 PM PST
I’m doing jus that in Ohio and voting for “Righteous Rick”.

ryandan on February 22, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Obama’s pac is up with ads in michigan looking to knock romney out.

And Limbaugh is helping himn.

ryandan on February 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM

I’m confused why everyone cites the NTU…are their ratings on across the board conservative policies? or just taxes? It would be easy for Santorum to vote for lower taxes while voting for Medicare Part D, against welfare reform, increasing the debt limit, etc.

This is how Santorum talks out of both sides of his mouth. If you read the Club for Growth White Paper, you’ll see that Santorum’s reputation as a conservative rests mainly on his tax positions (and the social issues). He was somewhat fiscally conservative in his early years, then turned into a champion porker and spender 2001-2006. He cut taxes to appease the conservatives, voted for the big bills to keep various interest groups happy, and brought home the pork for his friends and constituents. It was a scam, and conservatives have fallen for it.

I would rather vote for a guy who at least slowed the growth of government, balanced the budget, and produced a surplus, while raising a few fees, like Romney did in MA, than support a prudish hypocrite who helped put us in hock to half the world, including our enemies in China.

Mr. Arkadin on February 22, 2012 at 5:58 PM

All I can say is, OH OH!

KOOLAID2 on February 22, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Karl,
You seem to be burying the lead. The big story, it seems to me, is that Santorum had a relatively strong voting record on fiscal matters (per NTU and Club for Growth).

A single agriculture committed vote for a food stamp loophole seems like “small potatotes.” (get the pun?) Go after him for “Medicare Part D” or “No Child Ever Educated” if you want to question his financial bona-fides!

Deafdog on February 22, 2012 at 6:00 PM

How many of you people know that if you get a physician to fill a prescription for a psychotropic drug to a child under the age of 18, qualifies them for a lifetime drug supply and guarantees them to be declared mentally disabled?

/My welfare suckerfish sister in law did it to my neices and nephews. Even though they are not mentally disabled. She’s got some great connections through DFS.

Key West Reader on February 22, 2012 at 6:00 PM

lety’s compromise:

let’s make mitt the nominee, and when he defeats obama [??] he can appoint rick ambassador to the vatican.

reliapundit on February 22, 2012 at 5:43 PM

That’s assuming a lot.

Hey, let’s buy a pig in a poke and have bacon enough for everyone!

tom on February 22, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Sanctorum thinks condoms can be purchased with food stamps.

csdeven on February 22, 2012 at 6:02 PM

And, by declaring all of her 6 children Mentally Disabled, she’s guaranteed $1000 per month, per child ($6000) plus section 8, plus food stamps, plus to AFDC, plus WIC…

And they are multiplying. The more they birth the more they make.

And this is from a :::::::shudder::::::::: former family member.

Key West Reader on February 22, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Santorum doesn’t inspire prosperity , or the great American dream, sorry but there is something wrong with his message that I cannot figure out .I have nothing against his social con. values.

evergreenland on February 22, 2012 at 6:03 PM

“If they want to dig up old speeches press releases of me talking to religious groups constituents, they can go ahead and do so, but I’m going to stay on message and I’m going to talk about things that Americans want to talk about which is creating jobs handing out food stamps, making our country more secure women in combat, and yeah, taking on the forces around this world Satan who want to do harm to America, and you bet I will take them on.”

ChrisL on February 22, 2012 at 6:04 PM

The major increase in the food stamp program occurred when Nancy Pelosi took control of the House AFTER the 2006 election.

Santorum was not in the Senate during that period.

ONLY someone, like Karl, could IGNORE REALITY and pretend someone that had no vote, voted in any way for that expansion.

Karl has selectively edited out the inconvenient truth to push a lie.

Freddy on February 22, 2012 at 6:04 PM

See, this is actually a good criticism of Santorum.

It’s a flaw.

And Romney supporters still can’t use this without bringing religion into it and using sexual slurs. Keeping it classy as always.

BakerAllie on February 22, 2012 at 6:05 PM

And, by declaring all of her 6 children Mentally Disabled, she’s guaranteed $1000 per month, per child ($6000) plus section 8, plus food stamps, plus to AFDC, plus WIC…
Key West Reader on February 22, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Quite a haul – which state is that?

whatcat on February 22, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Don’t question Sanctimonious’ conservatism, you Satan!!

galtani on February 22, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Romney supporters still can’t use this without bringing religion into it
BakerAllie on February 22, 2012 at 6:05 PM

It’s terrible about how they forced Santorum to give speeches about Satan and all. Really a horrible thing to do to him.

whatcat on February 22, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Key West Reader on February 22, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Thanksgiving with her must be an unforgettable experience.

csdeven on February 22, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Do I care about food stamps completely out of control today? YES‘

Do I really care about the one vote in 2005? Not really.

Tim Zank on February 22, 2012 at 5:48 PM

2005 led to 2012 (and, in particular 2008). Rick Santorum’s record did contribute to the situation we’re in now – and he certainly wasn’t trying to seriously reign in the entitlement mentality.

Wouldn’t it be nice to support someone that had either fought against the government expansion or at the very least, not have been involved?

MeatHeadinCA on February 22, 2012 at 6:09 PM

That part of the title I highlighted, it’s called an oxymoron.

abobo on February 22, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Not at all. “Big-government libertarianism” would be an oxymoron, but fortunately, conservatism is not libertarianism.

Mr. Prodigy on February 22, 2012 at 6:10 PM

It’s terrible about how they forced Santorum to give speeches about Satan and all. Really a horrible thing to do to him.

whatcat on February 22, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Yeah, it’s so weird for someone to talk about Satan during a speech at a church when they were not even campaigning for anything 4 years ago. Romneycare for everyone. Mandates are wonderfull..blah blah blah.

BakerAllie on February 22, 2012 at 6:10 PM

David Axelrod would destroy Santorum in 72 hours, most likely b4 Labor Day.

Small wonder the Dems are encouraging their troops to vote for Santorum in Michigan and elsewhere — they know he’s a loser in the general — we’d be lucky to hold onto the House, as well.

People need to wake up.

matthew8787 on February 22, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Wouldn’t it be nice to support someone that had either fought against the government expansion or at the very least, not have been involved?

MeatHeadinCA on February 22, 2012 at 6:09 PM

It would be. But even the names being talked about for a long shot brokered convention are not very promising right now.

BakerAllie on February 22, 2012 at 6:11 PM

But you will get a tax break if you live the life he thinks you should according to his religion. Isn’t the deficit spending part of what “satan” would be facilitating in this country and isn’t Santorum a part of that problem?

aniptofar on February 22, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Sanctorum thinks condoms can be purchased with food stamps.

csdeven on February 22, 2012 at 6:02 PM

And using the same EBT cards, cheeseburgers, hookers and all sorts of items are now being purchased. Not to mention the “fast cash” option.

This needs to be stopped.

Key West Reader on February 22, 2012 at 6:14 PM

It would be. But even the names being talked about for a long shot brokered convention are not very promising right now.

BakerAllie on February 22, 2012 at 6:11 PM

I could get excited about the very flawed Palin. And, yes, I know her chances would be slim.

MeatHeadinCA on February 22, 2012 at 6:14 PM

It’s terrible about how they forced Santorum to give speeches about Satan and all. Really a horrible thing to do to him.
whatcat on February 22, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Yeah, it’s so weird for someone to talk about Satan during a speech at a church when they were not even campaigning for anything 4 years ago.
BakerAllie on February 22, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Meh, when you go on about Satan waging war on the USA you can’t expect voters to ignore it. All the candidates experience foot-in-mouth disease at one time or another, but it’s not advisable to court it.

whatcat on February 22, 2012 at 6:14 PM

But you will get a tax break if you live the life he thinks you should according to his religion. Isn’t the deficit spending part of what “satan” would be facilitating in this country and isn’t Santorum a part of that problem?

aniptofar on February 22, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Er, that’s the Obama doctrine. Not the Santorum message.

Key West Reader on February 22, 2012 at 6:14 PM

At last night’s WH soiree, Valerie Jarrett (daughter of CPUSA member Vernon Jarrett) claimed that unemployment checks spur the economy. Link at NRO’s “The Corner”

onlineanalyst on February 22, 2012 at 6:15 PM

The major increase in the food stamp program occurred when Nancy Pelosi took control of the House AFTER the 2006 election.

Santorum was not in the Senate during that period.

ONLY someone, like Karl, could IGNORE REALITY and pretend someone that had no vote, voted in any way for that expansion.

Freddy on February 22, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Please. Way to take down that straw man.

He helped enable the explosion that came after he lost by 16 points. He bragged about keeping a loophole open that made it easier to get food stamps. The point is he claims to be this conservative savior compared to the RINO flip-flopper Romney. Here he is being decidedly un-conservative and bragging about it. It goes directly to his credibility and the entire argument for his candidacy.

Is the anti-Romney position now that examining his votes in the Senate is not even fair?

ChrisL on February 22, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Mr. Prodigy on February 22, 2012 at 6:10 PM

You are mistaken my friend. Conservatism does not need, and should not resort to, heavy handedness and high spending to assert it’s values.

abobo on February 22, 2012 at 6:16 PM

It’s a good thing we dumped that terrible Rick Perry. He said we were heartless!

Good Solid B-Plus on February 22, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Buck up, B, The country is now safe from that evil GARDISIL and its master!!!!!

Conservative Independent on February 22, 2012 at 6:17 PM

The Devil made him do it! Satan isn’t busy destroying the Protestant churches, he’s enjoying dinner in Rick Santorum’s frontal lobe.

jan3 on February 22, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Sanctorum thinks condoms can be purchased with food stamps.

csdeven on February 22, 2012 at 6:02 PM

If he had, he would have voted against food stamps.

galtani on February 22, 2012 at 6:20 PM

In fact, the US isn’t special. The whole world is under attack from Satan. There are angels and demons and spiritual warfare. The Bible says so.

So, either you believe or you don’t. Rick believes. So, according to their own mouths, do Baracky, Nancy and Harry.

kirkill on February 22, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Food stamps and any other form of dependency never leads to success.
Dependency removes the desire to succeed. It leads only to a life of dormance. Mediocraty. Stagnation. Dependence. Dispair. Depression. Opression. Silence.

Key West Reader on February 22, 2012 at 6:21 PM

This needs to be stopped.

Key West Reader on February 22, 2012 at 6:14 PM

A relative of mine wanted me to give him cash and he would buy my groceries with his food stamp card. Every system will be cheated by those with no values.

csdeven on February 22, 2012 at 6:23 PM

The safety net has turned into the comfort of a hammock.

Key West Reader on February 22, 2012 at 6:24 PM

A relative of mine wanted me to give him cash and he would buy my groceries with his food stamp card. Every system will be cheated by those with no values.

csdeven on February 22, 2012 at 6:23 PM

You do realize that you’d be duped either way, right? Your tax dollars fund your relative’s food satmp card and he gives you cash so you can buy yourself food, and then you give him cash.

Think, baby… THINK.

Key West Reader on February 22, 2012 at 6:26 PM

csdeven on February 22, 2012 at 6:23 PM

In your next pay stub (if you have one, I assume you do), please look at how much you are paying for your relative to relax in the hammock of statist comfort.

Then, imagine yourself working the daily grind and your cousin (whomever) resting in a hammock without a care in the world. Just swinging back and forth, enjoying their existence while you work your fanny off to pay not just YOUR bills, but THEIR bills.

Imagine.

Key West Reader on February 22, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Well, the more we vet Rick’s Conservative bona fides, the more we discover that he has none.

All that is left is his Social Conservative claptrap.

Of course, I must be careful in opposing anything Santorum says because I do not want to be called an “instrument of Satan!”

Sparky5253 on February 22, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Romney supporters still can’t use this without bringing religion into it. BakerAllie on February 22, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Santorum can go through life angry as hell because he thinks his religion requires that he not have sex for pleasure. As a Catholic I can tell you that Santorum’s religion does not require that he, as a politician, concern himself with what his constituents are doing in their bedrooms.

Santifrothitarium is not being attacked for his religion but for the fanaticism which makes him unelectable.

Basilsbest on February 22, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Some liberal Catholics might actually choose Frothy over Obama but won’t vote for a Mormon. Never mind the youth and independent vote. Who needs future when delegalization of contraceptives is at stake?

Archivarix on February 22, 2012 at 5:55 PM

In case you missed it, Allahpundit asked people to stop using the “frothy” name.

Frankly, I don’t think there was ever a good excuse for using it, whether AP objects to it or not. But he did ask.

tom on February 22, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Think, baby… THINK.

Key West Reader on February 22, 2012 at 6:26 PM

I didn’t process it that way, but you’re right. I just simply am not going to help him cheat the system.

csdeven on February 22, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Sanctorum thinks condoms can be purchased with food stamps.

csdeven on February 22, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Perhaps you could use food stamps to buy a clue.

WhatNot on February 22, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Karl,
You seem to be burying the lead. The big story, it seems to me, is that Santorum had a relatively strong voting record on fiscal matters (per NTU and Club for Growth).

Deafdog on February 22, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Oh, that’s rich. A strong voting record on fiscal matters. Quit trying to polish a turd.

And fwiw, the word is lede.

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 6:57 PM

How many of you people know that if you get a physician to fill a prescription for a psychotropic drug to a child under the age of 18, qualifies them for a lifetime drug supply and guarantees them to be declared mentally disabled?

/My welfare suckerfish sister in law did it to my neices and nephews. Even though they are not mentally disabled. She’s got some great connections through DFS.

Key West Reader on February 22, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Why don’t you report her to children’s services for fraud and child abuse…every month…until they do something?

Rational Thought on February 22, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Perhaps you could use food stamps to buy a clue.

WhatNot on February 22, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Shut up troll.

csdeven on February 22, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Neither does his pro-life rhetoric (or fiscal conservative rheroric) when he turns around and brags about funding Planned Parenthood.

Dante on February 22, 2012 at 5:50 PM

We’ve addressed this already, Dante, you hack. It’s incredibly dishonest to characterize that comment you bigots quote as “bragging” about anything, let alone support for Planned Parenthood.

CanofSand on February 22, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Does Satan get food stamps?

only if he promises not to have gay sex with Saddam Hussein

burserker on February 22, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Can you buy general contraceptives with food stamps?

Or just flavored condoms?

profitsbeard on February 22, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Santifrothitarium is not being attacked for his religion but for the fanaticism which makes him unelectable.

Basilsbest on February 22, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Great. It doesn’t make the constant use of the Dan Savage sexual slur any funnier or less disgusting.

BakerAllie on February 22, 2012 at 7:21 PM

It’s terrible about how they forced Santorum to give speeches about Satan and all. Really a horrible thing to do to him.

whatcat on February 22, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Speeches from 2008. To a religious group. That the smear-happy mainstream media dug up. Yet it’s cited as evidence that SANTORUM doesn’t focus on the “real” campaign issues.

And what’s the speech about, exactly? Why, rather mainstream Christian views about Satan and what he wants to do — yet it’s cited as evidence that Santorum is a craaaazy zealot by the divorced-from-reality anti-religion types.

But hey, when it turns out those beliefs are mainstream so your argument doesn’t gain traction, just join Allahpundit and say that it’s not his beliefs, per se, but his “PASSION” for them that’s so scary! I mean believing mainstream Christian opinion is one thing, but REALLY believing it and *gasp* TALKING about it? In a SPEECH? I dunno! Spooooky! Smells like “theocracy”! /sarc

If ever there was a sign that the Progressives are winning the culture war, it’s people like you claiming to be conservatives. Fortunately, we’ll NEVER concede defeat.

CanofSand on February 22, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Why don’t you report her to children’s services for fraud and child abuse…every month…until they do something?

Rational Thought on February 22, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Probably because they are a parent and once the DFS has you in their sights, they will either make you a dependent or destroy your family.

I was friends with someone who likely plays these same games, someone in her apartment complex reported that they thought she was gaming the system, and they lost their kids for a few months as thanks.

astonerii on February 22, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Karl doesn’t have a problem with Romney’s big healthcare fascism.

Do these Green Room guys have their own opinions on anything? Seems it’s about parroting Allahpundit at times.

Dr. Tesla on February 22, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Big-government libertarianism” would be an oxymoron redundant.

fixed

cableguy615 on February 22, 2012 at 8:22 PM

What we have in the GOP midgets running is well described by a term that has been used by Smitty over at the Other McCain when describing other things – “maximum suckitude.” I doubt any of the midgets running can beat the empty suit Obummer. When the only real choice you have is between Santorum and Mittens, you have a serious problem.

Quartermaster on February 22, 2012 at 8:50 PM

When the only real choice you have is between Santorum and Mittens, you have a serious problem.

Quartermaster on February 22, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Okay. So who’s to blame?

gryphon202 on February 22, 2012 at 11:29 PM

We’ve addressed this already, Dante, you hack. It’s incredibly dishonest to characterize that comment you bigots quote as “bragging” about anything, let alone support for Planned Parenthood.

CanofSand on February 22, 2012 at 7:10 PM

The man was bragging. Watch the video.

Santorum funds Planned Parenthood

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 7:59 AM

As a conservitive I have never understood the inability of folks like me to express themselves clearly. There is nothing wrong with idea of food stamps. The problem is why people need them. Can anyone tell me why the use of this program is growing. Stop and think. Newt etal need to explain that food stamp usage is a syptom of the economy. The fact that more people have availed themselves of this program is not a reflection on the receipents but a failure of this current administration.

TomLawler on February 23, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Speeches from 2008. To a religious group. That the smear-happy mainstream media dug up. Yet it’s cited as evidence that SANTORUM doesn’t focus on the “real” campaign issues.

CanofSand on February 22, 2012 at 7:23 PM

“If they want to dig up old speeches press releases of me talking to religious groups constituents, they can go ahead and do so, but I’m going to stay on message and I’m going to talk about things that Americans want to talk about which is creating jobs handing out food stamps, making our country more secure women in combat, and yeah, taking on the forces around this world Satan who want to do harm to America, and you bet I will take them on.”

ChrisL on February 23, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Wouldn’t it be nice to support someone that had either fought against the government expansion or at the very least, not have been involved?

MeatHeadinCA on February 22, 2012 at 6:09 PM

All of those potentials were pre-Borked by the Romneybots.

Freelancer on February 23, 2012 at 12:09 PM

I am not in favor of any welfare except food programs. The food stamp problem is the fraud, and that it has not been fixed means to me that no one has tried. If you want an EBT card, you need your social security number, and you need to be taxed as income on the value that you use. If people are taxed on it as income, they won’t be selling their card to someone else for cash, or playing games with it…uh…lottery tickets here in MA.

I am not in favor of Section 8 or public housing, people should move with their feet to a location they can afford. If you cannot afford NYC, NEITHER can I, how about living somewhere you can afford to live?

I am not in favor of the Earned income credit, no one should be paid more for working than the other people they work with, regardless of whether they have children. But I would give that mom or dad an EBT card if they were taxed on the value. And let the parent use it to buy the children lunch. No more government boondoggle/union trap school lunch program.

And don’t use your EBT to buy anything that is not basic food, you can use it for milk, produce and fish,meat and poultry. I bet I would be worse than Michelle Obama ruling THAT world.

Santorums complicity /the republicans complicity is that they have been sucked in to the arguments for paying for everything for the poor from the federal level, and the Bush administration was the height of it. I think it happened because the Clinton administration had set so much precedent in housing, “fairness,” education, gender issues…etc…the 90′s were a mad scene (With Gingrich on the purse strings, but not successfully fighting the encroachment!) They did a welfare reform, but with these people if you are not constantly vigilant they pick pick pick until they get things back. A lesson for the future.

Fleuries on February 23, 2012 at 12:14 PM

The man was bragging. Watch the video.

Santorum funds Planned Parenthood

Dante on February 23, 2012 at 7:59 AM

You call that “bragging”? I have to assume you know what “bragging” actually means. Therefore, I have to conclude that you are intellectually dishonest.

CanofSand on February 23, 2012 at 6:49 PM

ChrisL on February 23, 2012 at 9:21 AM

What point, exactly, do you think you’re making? Nothing you said there counters my point, remotely. If you want to concede my point and then say “but what about this other thing”, fine, but the fact remains that Santorum is being attacked here BECAUSE OF HIS RELIGION. They call him a “zealot” for espousing quite MAINSTREAM Christian views. THAT IS BIGOTRY, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Now, people try to cover their butts on that by saying, “well sure, he can do that if he wants, but he’s focusing too much on religion and morality for someone that’s running for President.” THAT SPEECH WAS TWO YEARS AGO. IT WAS A SPEECH TO A RELIGIOUS GROUP. Either of those facts *alone* utterly annihilates your little tap-dancing number.

Face it: People who are disgusting that he passionately talked about rather mainstream Christian things are using a religious test – in this case, a bigoted, anti-Christian one, one that very many past Presidents and Founders would fail – to determine who it’s “okay” to have as President. I could understand – disagree with, but understand – if you were just being pragmatic and saying that this makes him harder to elect because of the scumbag media and the brainwashed voter block, but the people shrieking about zealotry and theocrats (far too many of them being people who claim to be conservatives!) prove it goes far beyond that!

CanofSand on February 23, 2012 at 7:07 PM