Rick Santorum: C’mon, Ted Cruz isn’t a particularly strong social conservative

posted at 2:31 pm on December 29, 2015 by Allahpundit

Via BuzzFeed, here’s Santorum springboarding off of Craig Robinson’s post yesterday dismissing Cruz as a “false prophet of social conservatism.” Apparently you can’t be a truly strong social conservative if you’re a federalist on “values” issues.

“Donald Trump has never been a social conservative up until the last few months, and Ted Cruz takes the position, very much a 10th Amendment, states rights, which is, you know, very much Rand Paul, Ron Paul position,” Santorum said…

“If people want to do drugs in Colorado, it’s fine with him,” said Santorum. “If people want have different kind of marriages, it’s fine with him. He doesn’t agree with it. If you want to have an abortion, it’s fine with him, he doesn’t agree with it, but he’s not gonna fight it. That’s not what people are looking for. They’re looking for someone who has a very clear vision of what’s right and what’s wrong and be able to lay that vision out for the American people.”

I wonder if Santorum’s being deliberately dishonest, staring up at Cruz from one percent in the polls, or if he’s misinformed about Cruz’s position. Unless I missed something, Cruz has never said that abortion should be left to the states. As recently as a month ago, he told an audience that he’d support having Congress use its power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect life in the womb and effectively undo Roe v. Wade. Watch the second clip below for that. Whether a federal court would uphold a congressional statute that purported to do that is an open question — I’d bet heavily against it — but if Cruz’s strategy worked, it would mean constitutional rights for fetuses coast to coast, as a matter of federal law, whether blue states liked it or not. His position on abortion is not federalist. (Ironically, it’d be blue states offering Tenth Amendment arguments to protect abortion rights if Congress and President Cruz enacted a law like the one he describes.)

But abortion is life-and-death. Most other “values” issues are not, and Santorum’s right that Cruz seems willing to defer to the states on many of those, including marijuana laws and gay marriage. To some of us, that’s a feature in Cruz 2016, not a bug. But even if you think it’s a bug, what’s President Santorum going to do for you on gay marriage that President Cruz isn’t? The false choice being offered is between a president who’ll somehow roll back SSM across the country (Santorum) and a president who’ll tolerate its existence in liberal-leaning states (Cruz). But the Senate won’t have anywhere near the two-thirds majority you’d need to pass an amendment overturning gay marriage for many years to come, if ever. So the actual choice you have is between a president who’ll spend a lot of time complaining about that (Santorum) and a president who’ll complain about it somewhat less (Cruz). Supreme Court appointments won’t differ much either. There are plenty of conservative judges who’d vote to undo SCOTUS’s ruling legalizing gay marriage, I assume, but overturning that decision would simply bring you back to the federalist status quo where states are free to govern marriage as they see fit. Is President Santorum going to get Congress to pass a new DOMA law at that point banning SSM in the states? Would that be constitutional on Tenth Amendment grounds? Would there even be 60 votes for a law like that in the Senate given that a majority of Americans support gay marriage? C’mon.

In fact, as a matter of pure strategy, I’d say Cruz’s federalist approach is marginally more likely to reduce the number of gay marriages than Santorum’s absolutist approach is. Liberals will fight their Supreme Court appointments tooth-and-nail either way, but the stakes will be lower if they know SSM will continue in blue states even if a new Republican justice votes to overturn the Obergefell decision. If instead the president is vowing to rid the land of gay unions in one fell swoop — which, again, he has no means of doing — it’ll be armageddon. You’re more likely to gradually turn the tide towards a conservative position, I think, by making the sort of red-blue compromise Cruz has in mind and trying to persuade pro-SSM voters than by starting a cycle where Republican and Democratic presidents try to nuke the previous administration’s marriage laws every four years with new SCOTUS appointments, new federal statutes, etc. By 2020, President Santorum has rolled back gay marriage … only to lose in 2024 to new president Cory Booker, who manages to reinstate the practice. But then President Ben Sasse sweeps to victory in 2028 and vows to roll things back again. And so on, and so forth. If an individual state wants to go through that cycle, that’s on them. Why make the whole country endure it?

How you feel about this depends on how you feel about letting majorities experiment. Santorum would use federal power to cut off a state’s ability to try out things like gay marriage and drug legalization (even though some polls show state and national majorities support liberalization in both cases). Cruz would defer on the assumption that if the experiment doesn’t work out, the state majority will correct itself by passing new laws. If you want your values imposed by legal force coast to coast and don’t particularly care how many other Americans might object to that, you’ve got the Santorum option. If you’re willing to let people see for themselves how unorthodox values play out in practice while urging them to be more traditional, you’ve got Cruz.

Update: Oops, had a typo in the headline. Fixed now.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Yeah and the “fiscal conservatives” in Congress just gave us another 1+ trillion dollar continuing resolution in lieu of a budget. Republicans are the reason so few millenials are Republicans.

NWConservative on December 29, 2015 at 4:29 PM

I don’t think the Republican party has any fiscal conservatives anymore.

I’m with Ace of Spades. I’m done with them all.

Douger on December 29, 2015 at 4:35 PM

The following excerpt comes from powerlineblog’s Steven Hayward. It includes links from other sources.

“Cruz is the most anti-ethanol, anti-renewable fuel, of all the candidates,” the governor, Terry Branstad, told Bloomberg earlier this month. “They’ve got a whole army of people that are working on this … If they are able to stop the Cruz momentum, that will show the real clout of the renewables.”

Calling Cruz “the most anti-ethanol, anti-renewable fuel, of all the candidates” is a terrific endorsement! Pretty sure I know who I’d caucus for if I lived in Iowa right now. Need more reason? Let’s keep going with the Post’s analysis:

Here’s the bottom line: If Cruz wins Iowa, it could become untenable for a Republican to embrace the RFS in 2020 and win over fiscal conservatives. Outside groups – and major donors – will be able to cite Cruz’s victory and refuse to be as forgiving as they have historically of a politician breaking with free-market orthodoxy in the name of political exigency.

“The ethanol mandate represents the kind of Washington insider politics that taxpayers hate,” Club for Growth President David McIntosh told the 202. “The fact that Sen. Cruz is leading in Iowa and has been clear in his opposition to the mandate should put all of the subsidy-hunting lobbyists on notice that their days are numbered.”

A spokeswoman for America’s Renewable Future, Majda Sarki, said there’s still more than a month to defeat Cruz. But she both warned and acknowledged that, if he wins, “It would kill investment in second generation biofuels” by creating “uncertainty” about future levels of government support.

P.S. Guess who’s come out in favor of the ethanol mandate? Three clues: he’s very rich, very loud, and has wacky hair.

Guess who that cronyist is?

onlineanalyst on December 29, 2015 at 4:38 PM

That link doesn’t say what you imply it does. You wrote:

I got no beef against Cruz’s libertarianism.

But I don’t like the positions of “big L” Libertarians that want open borders and unrestricted globalism.

DanMan on December 29, 2015 at 4:08 PM

It’s true that Cruz said Bush should oppose illegal immigration, but Cruz (in 1999) suggests Bush be open to “everything” for the illegals already here, and there is nothing about a wall or anything like that. Instead we get a sense of Cruz’s almost Ryanesque affinity for immigration from all corners of the world, whether it be legal or not.

Right from the start of the article it says:

“This country is a land built by immigrants, and that, as Governor of a border state, I have seen first-hand the richness of the great benefits immigrants have brought America,” Ted Cruz wrote, as a policy aide to George W. Bush’s 2000 White House campaign.

>> Sounds like Cruz was the progenitor of GW’s lax immigration & amnesty plan.

More from the article:

Cruz, a policy aide to Bush’s 2000 White House campaign, suggested in a 1999 memo that his boss, who was then the governor of Texas, “consider all options when trying to resolve our immigration problem and what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants already living here.”

>> “Consider all options” for the illegals. EXCEPT deportation! When Cruz says “consider all options” that means amnesty with citizenship, and that’s exactly what GW Bush later tried to pass through congress.

More still:

The briefing went on to say in all capital letters, “America is stronger with the many immigrants who come here to make a new life and participate in the American dream.”

>> That’s was Cruz’s globalist immigration promoting position then… and now. Don’t take seriously his tough on immigration rhetoric. Cruz has always been in the Latino immigration promoting mold of GW.

anotherJoe on December 29, 2015 at 4:42 PM

All sixteen of Santorums followers cheered wildly as he made his proclamation in his front yard. Unfortunately he had to cancel his planned luncheon with the speech, his budget for subway sandwiches proved incorrect as no one had donated to him in the last few months.

When a fly almost landed on him his followers panicked… it is a sign we are not being harsh enough out there, we must do things for attention they said. The fly was unavailable for comment but most of the television crew that showed up from the local station voted to follow the fly as more interesting than the Santorum speech.

OregonPolitician on December 29, 2015 at 4:44 PM

The problem with the “1%” isn’t that they are successful, it is when they lobby for anti-American policies that might benefit their own financial situation but have a deleterious effect on others.

Redstone on December 29, 2015 at 3:40 PM
Similar to those things that Trump wanted when he donated and lobbied?
Like I said. Hypocrisy is not very becoming of anyone.
Trump might not be owned by big money outsiders, he happens to be one himself, and he has big business which benefits from government actions, and he does not have to buy his own favor, he already has it.

Constitutionalist on December 29, 2015 at 4:46 PM

“Santorum Assails Cruz’ Conservatism”

The dog barks, but the parade moves on.

orangemtl on December 29, 2015 at 4:47 PM

“This country is a land built by immigrants, and that, as Governor of a border state, I have seen first-hand the richness of the great benefits immigrants have brought America,” Ted Cruz wrote, as a policy aide to George W. Bush’s 2000 White House campaign.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/ted-cruz-immigration-memo-216951

Cruz is talking about the illegal Mexican or previously amnestied illegal immigration that has flooded Texas, and turned California into a bi-lingual leftist cesspool. Is this such a “rich benefit?” NO. This is what we are fighting to stop. And reverse. I don’t think Cruz has the desire to stop it let alone reverse it. Only Trump will do that.

anotherJoe on December 29, 2015 at 4:49 PM

The social conservatives are the ENTIRE reason why so few millennials are Republicans.

TBSchemer on December 29, 2015 at 4:19 PM

There’s a name for what you just did right there but it escapes me right now.

Blaming the social conservatives for Millenials not being Republican when the real reason most Millenials aren’t Republicans is that they’re not Conservative.

It’s not the Social Conservatives’ fault that they’ve been dumbed down both intellectually and morally.

Cleombrotus on December 29, 2015 at 4:49 PM

I don’t think the Republican party has any fiscal conservatives anymore.

I’m with Ace of Spades. I’m done with them all.

Douger on December 29, 2015 at 4:35 PM

Every person sold as a fiscal conservative has turned out to be the exact opposite.

It’s not just the social conservatives.

NWConservative on December 29, 2015 at 4:58 PM

The attraction of Sanctorum is that you never, EVAH need worry about him (or anybody like him) actually being elected.

wbcoleman on December 29, 2015 at 5:00 PM

Because Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain and Romney are all SOCONS.

RickB on December 29, 2015 at 4:29 PM

That’s exactly what most non-Republicans think of them. Well, that, and that whole Iraq War thing.

TBSchemer on December 29, 2015 at 5:02 PM

I’d could take Santorum seriously if he hadn’t been a loyal GOP who member who let Arlen Specter walk all over him and then go back to the dems. That Santorum hasn’t repudiated the GOP for that betrayal tells me he’s a loyal GOPe party hack. He literally got cucked by Specter and then lost his seat.

oryguncon on December 29, 2015 at 5:05 PM

Cruz is all in for amnesty. Do not be fooled by his electioneering. If you vote for him thinking he is going to be tough on amnesty, you are are going to be sorely disappointed as you have been with all of the GOPe uniparty hacks. There’s only two you can trust and one is not running for the nomination. His initials are Sen. Jeff Sessions from Alabama.

they lie on December 29, 2015 at 5:12 PM

another ho-hummer of a post

Pragmatic on December 29, 2015 at 5:24 PM

Cruz is all in for amnesty. Do not be fooled by his electioneering. If you vote for him thinking he is going to be tough on amnesty, you are are going to be sorely disappointed as you have been with all of the GOPe uniparty hacks. There’s only two you can trust and one is not running for the nomination. His initials are Sen. Jeff Sessions from Alabama.

they lie on December 29, 2015 at 5:12 PM

Trump says that we need the illegals because they do the jobs Americans will not do. He also bragged about how immigrant workers made his properties more profitable.
So, I think I will stick with Cruz over Trump.

Constitutionalist on December 29, 2015 at 5:24 PM

The social conservatives are the ENTIRE reason why so few millennials are Republicans.

TBSchemer on December 29, 2015 at 4:19 PM

ROFL. Yeah, because emphasizing the development of human character is so haaarrrdddd! Who wants to waste their time striving to develop the strongest character they can possibly can? It’s not like it hurts America, as a nation, for so many members of our society to have weak characters, right? //

To be honest, most millenials I’ve met are sadly ignorant on the subject of human character development. If you try to discuss the subject with them, they think you’re talking about writing a play or a book.

Try it sometime. Ask a millenial to name five character strengths and five character weaknesses.

lineholder on December 29, 2015 at 5:24 PM

His initials are Sen. Jeff Sessions from Alabama.

they lie on December 29, 2015 at 5:12 PM

I could definitely go for that! :-)

lineholder on December 29, 2015 at 5:27 PM

ROFL. Yeah, because emphasizing the development of human character is so haaarrrdddd! Who wants to waste their time striving to develop the strongest character they can possibly can? It’s not like it hurts America, as a nation, for so many members of our society to have weak characters, right? //

To be honest, most millenials I’ve met are sadly ignorant on the subject of human character development. If you try to discuss the subject with them, they think you’re talking about writing a play or a book.

Try it sometime. Ask a millenial to name five character strengths and five character weaknesses.

lineholder on December 29, 2015 at 5:24 PM

I have never noticed any age-based patterns in discussions like this. Some pre-teens have highly developed ideas on the subject.

The bigger problem, I think, is the assumption to social conservative politics imply elevated character development. That’s not true.

wbcoleman on December 29, 2015 at 5:39 PM

Blaming the social conservatives for Millenials not being Republican when the real reason most Millenials aren’t Republicans is that they’re not Conservative.

Cleombrotus on December 29, 2015 at 4:49 PM

By the evidence of Rand Paul’s poll numbers, they aren’t libertarian, either.

Joseph K on December 29, 2015 at 5:44 PM

Cruz is all in for amnesty. Do not be fooled by his electioneering. If you vote for him thinking he is going to be tough on amnesty, you are are going to be sorely disappointed as you have been with all of the GOPe uniparty hacks. There’s only two you can trust and one is not running for the nomination. His initials are Sen. Jeff Sessions from Alabama.

they lie on December 29, 2015 at 5:12 PM

I just don’t get the Trumpettes blind faith that Trump will not give amnesty when he has clearly said he would. There is the rest of the sentence when he says he will build a wall and deport. He always goes on to say that the wall will have a ‘big beautiful door to let the good ones back in legally once they register”.

Sounds like a dressed up version of touch back amnesty to me.

Tater Salad on December 29, 2015 at 5:45 PM

Blaming the social conservatives for Millenials not being Republican when the real reason most Millenials aren’t Republicans is that they’re not Conservative.

Cleombrotus on December 29, 2015 at 4:49 PM

By the evidence of Rand Paul’s poll numbers, they aren’t libertarian, either.

Joseph K on December 29, 2015 at 5:44 PM

Actually they are very conservative/libertarian, just not socially conservative.

Tater Salad on December 29, 2015 at 5:48 PM

I think most conservatives are “10th Amendment” conservatives and don’t really concern ourselves with the behavior of others like Rick Santorum seems obsessed with doing.

joshleguern on December 29, 2015 at 5:48 PM

Has Santorum called for a one-on-one debate with Cruz? That’s what a real leader would do.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 29, 2015 at 5:51 PM

ROFL. Yeah, because emphasizing the development of human character is so haaarrrdddd! Who wants to waste their time striving to develop the strongest character they can possibly can? It’s not like it hurts America, as a nation, for so many members of our society to have weak characters, right? //

To be honest, most millenials I’ve met are sadly ignorant on the subject of human character development. If you try to discuss the subject with them, they think you’re talking about writing a play or a book.

Try it sometime. Ask a millenial to name five character strengths and five character weaknesses.

lineholder on December 29, 2015 at 5:24 PM

Oh it builds character, does it?

The Democrats want a nanny state…the socons want a daddy state. Same stupid, different religion.

TBSchemer on December 29, 2015 at 5:58 PM

The real point is that social issues are a priority for Santorum,they always have.For Cruz,they quite simply are not a priority.something he doesn’t want Iowa evangelicals to know.This plays to the meme that Cruz is the typical “slick” politician who is an insider in outsider clothing.

redware on December 29, 2015 at 6:00 PM

they lie on December 29, 2015 at 5:12 PM

Do you lie? Or, are you just stupid?

Same stupid, different religion.

TBSchemer on December 29, 2015 at 5:58 PM

But your brand of stupid is almost unique.

Man, even before Trump got all the nutballs to hatin’ on him, a whole other group of ignorant nutballs were hatin’ on Cruz

GaltBlvnAtty on December 29, 2015 at 5:51 PM

Has anybody called for one-on-one debates with Cruz?

cozmo on December 29, 2015 at 6:08 PM

Actually they are very conservative/libertarian, just not socially conservative.

Tater Salad on December 29, 2015 at 5:48 PM

I’d be real interested in hearing your definition of “conservative”.

Cleombrotus on December 29, 2015 at 6:10 PM

Wait, I’m confused, who’s the guy with the postal dad?

NWConservative on December 29, 2015 at 4:24 PM

His name is John “karate chop” Kasich. You’ll be hearing a lot about him from here on out, Kasichmania is sweeping the nation as we speak.

Monkeytoe on December 29, 2015 at 3:58 PM

Agreed. Good post as usual.

Redstone on December 29, 2015 at 6:12 PM

Santorum should probably pull out soon. This is not the weak field of 2012. Also, let someone else have a crack at it.

cimbri on December 29, 2015 at 6:14 PM

By the evidence of Rand Paul’s poll numbers, they aren’t libertarian, either.

Joseph K on December 29, 2015 at 5:44 PM

The truth of the matter is simply that they are more products of their culture rather than drivers of it. lineholder is onto something when he addresses their weakness at understanding character issues. For the vast majority of them it simply does not register because our culture no longer values virtue.

Quite simply, they are Liberals but just don’t realize it yet.

Cleombrotus on December 29, 2015 at 6:15 PM

Has anybody called for one-on-one debates with Cruz?
cozmo on December 29, 2015 at 6:08 PM

Hah. I doubt it.

GaltBlvnAtty on December 29, 2015 at 6:20 PM

BuzzFeed, a leftie trash bin, is now featured prominently and repeatedly on HA.

https://www.instagram.com/p/_4w_6xGhfn/

Schadenfreude on December 29, 2015 at 6:24 PM

Actually they are very conservative/libertarian, just not socially conservative.

Tater Salad on December 29, 2015 at 5:48 PM

There is no evidence that supports any assertion that millennials are conservative/libertarian.

nobar on December 29, 2015 at 6:31 PM

nobar on December 29, 2015 at 6:31 PM

I know a bunch who are-including my son.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 29, 2015 at 6:49 PM

I know a bunch who are-including my son.

annoyinglittletwerp on December 29, 2015 at 6:49 PM

And they are minority.

A very minority minority (As I am one, I should know).

nobar on December 29, 2015 at 6:51 PM

Cruz Rejects Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428204/ted-cruz-rejects-donald-trump-muslim-immigration-ban

anotherJoe on December 29, 2015 at 2:42 PM

It’s odd that the content of the article really isn’t consistent with the headline. It talks about three different ways Cruz wants to block Muslim immigration, which are more likely to be constitutional the Trump’s total ban.

talkingpoints on December 29, 2015 at 7:05 PM

Atta’ boy, Rick. If you can’t win burn down the house.

ncjetsfan on December 29, 2015 at 7:20 PM

¡Yeb!’s buying lots of ads on Fox News. Strange, he looks goofy in them. Why put out ads that make you look like a doofus?

Fallon on December 29, 2015 at 7:26 PM

Why can’t Republicans seize the narrative on abortion?

Prior to 1973, there was “choice.” Some states permitted it, some had restrictions, and some banned it.

Then the King Black Robes went buckwild and found some right under some lost penumbra.

This is the real pro-choice argument. Overturn Roe v Wade and let the states decide again.

Brian in Titletown on December 29, 2015 at 7:31 PM

Mr. Santorum, I recall some of your rantings from times past. You went on and on (and on and on) about if we let those evil homos alone it will lead to bestiality and other nasties. It seemed like your entire platform orbited around something called “the homosexual agenda”.

Me thinks the LADDIE doth protest too much, Ricky-dicky.

Go away, Rick. And take Elmer Gantry (Huckabee) with you.

Aizen on December 29, 2015 at 2:34 PM

Exactly. Both of them look like they own white vans and buy candy in bulk.

CelebrateHomogeneity on December 29, 2015 at 7:42 PM

It’s odd that the content of the article really isn’t consistent with the headline. It talks about three different ways Cruz wants to block Muslim immigration, which are more likely to be constitutional the Trump’s total ban. (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428204/ted-cruz-rejects-donald-trump-muslim-immigration-ban)

talkingpoints on December 29, 2015 at 7:05 PM

You’re correct in some sense, and so a better link would be better. The article starts with talk about Cruz & the Syrian refugees, but buried in it you have this:

At the same time, Cruz broke ever-so-gently with rival Donald Trump’s more radical call for a temporary ban on all migration from Muslim countries, saying he disagreed with the idea but refusing to comment on its constitutionality.

I don’t know how it is “an ever so gentle” disagreement when Cruz flatly rejected Trump’s (common sense) proposal for a blanket Muslim immigration ban, preferring instead to pursue limited bans from a few select countries like Syria. The disagreement is clear and sharp. Trump wants a blanket ban, Cruz wants a limited “targeted” ban. But the article does its best to bury that major difference. I prefer Trump’s proposal. By far.

anotherJoe on December 29, 2015 at 7:46 PM

The Democrats want a nanny state…the socons want a daddy state. Same stupid, different religion.

TBSchemer on December 29, 2015 at 5:58 PM

You have a serious mental block when it comes to religion, don’t you?

Too sad. Can’t even have a rational discussion without that becoming a stumbling block for you.

lineholder on December 29, 2015 at 8:03 PM

His name is John “karate chop” Kasich. You’ll be hearing a lot about him from here on out, Kasichmania is sweeping the nation as we speak.

Redstone on December 29, 2015 at 6:12 PM

I’m getting chills.

NWConservative on December 29, 2015 at 8:18 PM

It’s odd that the content of the article really isn’t consistent with the headline. It talks about three different ways Cruz wants to block Muslim immigration, which are more likely to be constitutional the Trump’s total ban.

talkingpoints on December 29, 2015 at 7:05 PM

Congress has absolute authority on immigration. There is no constitutionality question there at all.

We could (and should) block people from immigrating here who have red hair and freckles.

The ginger menace must be stopped. :)

NWConservative on December 29, 2015 at 8:21 PM

I guess this question can be placed here. As conservatives do we just want our side to hold the gun, or do we want our side when they take the gun to drop it from our heads. That is the difference I see between a Rick Santorum, Donald Trump, and Mike Huckabe and Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.

Leopard1996 on December 29, 2015 at 8:27 PM

Damn, my guy Pataki has dropped out….

and I’m feeling Micro aggressed by the Beatles!

What a sucky day!

ToddPA on December 29, 2015 at 8:37 PM

Trump live in Iowa

“Not too many evangelicals come from cuba”

ouch!

its in your court now tattoo boy

renalin on December 29, 2015 at 8:40 PM

Rick Santorum isn’t a conservative, either. Dittos for Huck.

Probably nice, moral men, (granting the benefit of the doubt.) But they are right-wing progressive statists who want to use the power of the State to dictate culture and morality – which isn’t how it works.

If they want a cultural transformation, those things are won in the universities, in the churches, in media and in the everyday, run-of-the-mill conversations people of conscience have as they try to live out their lives. Go and help people win those battles and you’ll affect the kind of lasting moral change you seek. All you will do in your present plan is set the precedent the lefty-progs need to further use the power of the State to enforce their “morality” in a culture that increasingly agrees with them (because they’ve played the better long-game while SoCons have been content to win a few temporary victories at the ballot box).

Just get the State back within the bounds of the Constitution so that it isn’t as much a major player in those things, and get to work in areas that might actually result in cultural transformation. But that work doesn’t quite have the gloss and prestige these two knuckleheads seem hell bent to pursue.

One only need look at Santorum’s past statements to see a man who is annoyed that you might think differently and bothered (personally) by having to do the real work in convincing of his point of view. No thanks.

RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 9:05 PM

The Republican Party has become unhinged in some many ways:

1. Rubio is a RINO
2. Trey Gowdy is a RINO
3. Trump is a conservative
4. Trump is leading in the polls
5. Ted Cruz is not conservative on social issues
6. Trump can win in general election

This kind of garbage not only comes from who knows who in comments, but also leading conservative voices. This is pretty embarrassing.

RonDelDon on December 29, 2015 at 9:05 PM

damn socons

IDontCair on December 29, 2015 at 9:09 PM

Rick Santorum isn’t a conservative, either. Dittos for Huck.

Probably nice, moral men, (granting the benefit of the doubt.) But they are right-wing progressive statists who want to use the power of the State to dictate culture and morality – which isn’t how it works.

If they want a cultural transformation, those things are won in the universities, in the churches, in media and in the everyday, run-of-the-mill conversations people of conscience have as they try to live out their lives. Go and help people win those battles and you’ll affect the kind of lasting moral change you seek. All you will do in your present plan is set the precedent the lefty-progs need to further use the power of the State to enforce their “morality” in a culture that increasingly agrees with them (because they’ve played the better long-game while SoCons have been content to win a few temporary victories at the ballot box).

Just get the State back within the bounds of the Constitution so that it isn’t as much a major player in those things, and get to work in areas that might actually result in cultural transformation. But that work doesn’t quite have the gloss and prestige these two knuckleheads seem hell bent to pursue.

One only need look at Santorum’s past statements to see a man who is annoyed that you might think differently and bothered (personally) by having to do the real work in convincing of his point of view. No thanks.

RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 9:05 PM

Yeah. We don’t need any laws against rape and murder. We just need to change the hearts of men.

IDontCair on December 29, 2015 at 9:12 PM

We could (and should) block people from immigrating here who have red hair and freckles.

The ginger menace must be stopped. :)

NWConservative on December 29, 2015 at 8:21 PM

Nooooo! http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=irish+redhead&qpvt=irish+redhead&qpvt=irish+redhead&FORM=IGRE

IDontCair on December 29, 2015 at 9:15 PM

I guess this question can be placed here. As conservatives do we just want our side to hold the gun, or do we want our side when they take the gun to drop it from our heads. That is the difference I see between a Rick Santorum, Donald Trump, and Mike Huckabe and Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.

Leopard1996 on December 29, 2015 at 8:27 PM

1.) We want to hold the gun, because we want to enact the policies that we think are moral, right, and just. There are issues where we need to pull the trigger

2.) They will never drop the gun from our heads. Never. Thinking that unilateral disarmament and appeasement will lead to some magical truce is foolhardy, and is as suicidal as us dismantling our nuclear arsenal to set an example for the rest of the world

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2015 at 9:15 PM

One only need look at Santorum’s past statements to see a man who is annoyed that you might think differently and bothered (personally) by having to do the real work in convincing of his point of view. No thanks.

RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 9:05 PM

What a stupid comment. If he wasn’t interested in doing real work of convincing people, he wouldn’t be running for office which requires convincing people to vote for you and your policies. DUH!

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2015 at 9:22 PM

Yeah. We don’t need any laws against rape and murder. We just need to change the hearts of men.

So you think passing laws stops people from doing those things? No. You don’t.

But nice category error. We weren’t talking about the purpose of law – which is to restrain evil and/or harm and to promote justice- not to engineer private behavior and belief. That is what progressives believe: that a utopia exists out there and if we just pass enough laws and control people’s behavior more we’ll eventually get to said utopia.

There is no utopia, and you can’t control and dictate your way there. Something right-wing progs don’t understand. The work is much messier. Law has an educative effect, sure, but Santorum’s solution has been tried and tried again while he (and his ilk) keeps losing on issue after issue because their methods are wrong and ineffective.

Given the current cultural landscape, please explain how many real victories the top-down (typical) statist SoCon approach has won us.

RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 9:35 PM

So you think passing laws stops people from doing those things? No. You don’t.

But nice category error. We weren’t talking about the purpose of law – which is to restrain evil and/or harm and to promote justice- not to engineer private behavior and belief. That is what progressives believe: that a utopia exists out there and if we just pass enough laws and control people’s behavior more we’ll eventually get to said utopia.

There is no utopia, and you can’t control and dictate your way there. Something right-wing progs don’t understand. The work is much messier. Law has an educative effect, sure, but Santorum’s solution has been tried and tried again while he (and his ilk) keeps losing on issue after issue because their methods are wrong and ineffective.

Given the current cultural landscape, please explain how many real victories the top-down (typical) statist SoCon approach has won us.

RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 9:35 PM

Kindly tell us how many of those policies the courts have left in place, despite electoral victory after electoral victory, be it for candidates or voter referendums.

It’s easy to call social conservative policies “ineffective” when you can demand that a court tosses every policy out due to liberal insistence.

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2015 at 9:39 PM

Nooooo! http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=irish+redhead&qpvt=irish+redhead&qpvt=irish+redhead&FORM=IGRE

IDontCair on December 29, 2015 at 9:15 PM

We need to stop the red menace.

NWConservative on December 29, 2015 at 9:47 PM

What a stupid comment. If he wasn’t interested in doing real work of convincing people, he wouldn’t be running for office which requires convincing people to vote for you and your policies. DUH!

Santorum’s approach isn’t about convincing. It’s about accumulating the power to compel people. He just wants enough people to sign on to enable him to do that. He wants the CHEAP DATE. The kind of change that is needed requires a paradigm shift and a kind of commitment that your typical 20th century SoCon just can’t get on board with yet.

The left-progressives are kicking your tail up one side and down the other because they’ve done it the right way. The blueprint is already there. Or did you think this all started with the election of one Barak Hussein Obama?

It’s okay. I understand you are frustrated. Futility and loss can really wear you down.

RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 9:47 PM

Rick Santorum isn’t a conservative, either. Dittos for Huck.

Probably nice, moral men, (granting the benefit of the doubt.) But they are right-wing progressive statists who want to use the power of the State to dictate culture and morality – which isn’t how it works.
.
RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 9:05 PM

.
Give me an example (or more than one) of behavior that is not connected, in any way, with morality:____________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________
___________________________________________

.

listens2glenn on December 29, 2015 at 9:53 PM

Santorum’s approach isn’t about convincing. It’s about accumulating the power to compel people. He just wants enough people to sign on to enable him to do that. He wants the CHEAP DATE. The kind of change that is needed requires a paradigm shift and a kind of commitment that your typical 20th century SoCon just can’t get on board with yet.

The left-progressives are kicking your tail up one side and down the other because they’ve done it the right way. The blueprint is already there. Or did you think this all started with the election of one Barak Hussein Obama?

It’s okay. I understand you are frustrated. Futility and loss can really wear you down.

RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 9:47 PM

And how does one accumulate power? Through convincing people and winning a majority. You say he wants “enough people” to enact his policies. Doesn’t every politician? Or is Santorum not good enough in your eyes unless he convinces each and every last dissenter so that policies can be enacted by consensus? Is that a standard you hold every candidate to? Spare me.

As for the left doing things the right way, hardly. They’ve done things largely by way of cheating and intimidation… unless what you’re saying is that that’s the right way. After all, to a Democrat if there’s a rule or law in place, it’s nothing so big that a reinterpretation of the law or outright ignoring of the law can’t hurt. Let’s take a small look at things with a few examples.

Abortion – basically prohibited until the courts found a ‘fundamental right’ to it, despite no mention anywhere of it in the constitution

Gay marriage – didn’t exist until Massachusetts’ supreme court found a magical fundamental right to it… and anyone who wants to uphold the will of the voters is dismissed as either bigoted by the courts (Prop 8), or as not having standing

Drug laws – unilaterally unenforced by a Democrat administration sworn to supposedly uphold all of the laws of the land

Sodomy – was able to be prohibited until SCOTUS ruled in Lawrence v Texas that it was again a magical right

FCC regulations stopping indecency – largely overruled despite airwaves being public

Christian cross grave markers – many removed due to court findings about violating separation of church and state… despite neither “separation” nor “church” nor “state” appearing anywhere in the 1st amendment

Intelligent design – ruled as creationism and a magical violation of the non-existent separation of church and state

School prayer – again thrown out thanks to courts

Immigration enforcement by states – ruled as violating Federal law, even when written to specifically conform to Federal law

So what’s the lesson to be learned from the Democrats’ “right” way of doing things? Cheat.

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2015 at 9:53 PM

Kindly tell us how many of those policies the courts have left in place, despite electoral victory after electoral victory, be it for candidates or voter referendums.

There you go again – focusing on electoral victories. I already told you that they’re temporary because they don’t solve the problem. Courts have been around for a long time.

What you need to ask is, “Why is this happening now? Not 50-60 years ago?”

Then you need to ask, “Why does society-at-large tolerate it?”

And then you need to ask, “Why, despite electoral victories, and the resulting appointment of judges, do we continue to lose ground?”

If you want a moral society, you have to have a people who are moral. That’s such an obvious tautology I struggle to understand how there are people who still think the short-term Statist approach is the way to go.

RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 9:55 PM

Bah, missed the tag.

Kindly tell us how many of those policies the courts have left in place, despite electoral victory after electoral victory, be it for candidates or voter referendums.

There you go again – focusing on electoral victories. I already told you that they’re temporary because they don’t solve the problem. Courts have been around for a long time.

What you need to ask is, “Why is this happening now? Not 50-60 years ago?”

Then you need to ask, “Why does society-at-large tolerate it?”

And then you need to ask, “Why, despite electoral victories, and the resulting appointment of judges, do we continue to lose ground?”

If you want a moral society, you have to have a people who are moral. That’s such an obvious tautology I struggle to understand how there are people who still think the short-term Statist approach is the way to go.

RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 9:56 PM

There you go again – focusing on electoral victories. I already told you that they’re temporary because they don’t solve the problem. Courts have been around for a long time.

What you need to ask is, “Why is this happening now? Not 50-60 years ago?”

Then you need to ask, “Why does society-at-large tolerate it?”

And then you need to ask, “Why, despite electoral victories, and the resulting appointment of judges, do we continue to lose ground?”

If you want a moral society, you have to have a people who are moral. That’s such an obvious tautology I struggle to understand how there are people who still think the short-term Statist approach is the way to go.

RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 9:55 PM

What you fail to grasp is why were men better behaved before? Because a more restrictive, moral culture, supported by more restrictive, moral policies were in place. You say that culture is more important than politics, but politics can be used to change culture.

If we win a slew of electoral victories, and enact accompanying policies, but a court overturns those policies and says that liberals should instead get their way, what happens? The liberal policy goes into effect, and people become conditioned to the new liberal order. So even though you won at the ballot box, the will of the people gets overturned. You can then try again, and again the courts will overturn another victory. The cumulative effect of that is a culture of ingrained defeatism among the more easily dispirited as they see that no matter how many times they may win, the net effect is that they lose.

And let’s also not discount the extent to which liberals are willing to lie or pose as conservatives only to turn on conservatives at the first opportunity. Exhibit A: Justice Souter. Exhibit B: Justice Roberts. Funny how conservatives never seem to lie about being liberals, or that their votes are ever in doubt. It seems to be a one-way street.

Again, how does that happen? Again, the lesson is the same as above when it comes to the Democrats’ “right” way of doing things: cheat.

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2015 at 10:01 PM

Rick Santorum isn’t a conservative, either. Dittos for Huck.

You are not the arbiter or pope of conservatism.

Probably nice, moral men, (granting the benefit of the doubt.) But they are right-wing progressive statists who want to use the power of the State to dictate culture and morality – which isn’t how it works.

That is exactly how it has worked ever since mankind has had government. And it has been par for the course here too, since before the founding of this country.

If they want a cultural transformation, those things are won in the universities, in the churches, in media and in the everyday, run-of-the-mill conversations people of conscience have as they try to live out their lives. Go and help people win those battles and you’ll affect the kind of lasting moral change you seek. All you will do in your present plan is set the precedent the lefty-progs need to further use the power of the State to enforce their “morality” in a culture that increasingly agrees with them (because they’ve played the better long-game while SoCons have been content to win a few temporary victories at the ballot box).

Don’t disagree for most of the point, but every victory the social conservatives achieve at the state level is subject to a leftist leaning FEDERAL judiciary that finds new meanings in the US Constitution to overturn anything leftist psychopaths disagree with. Our federalist system has been under siege from the federal government for a long, long time in order to transform our system into a unitary, centralized state that is separated into 50 districts with limited autonomy.

Social conservatives are a reactionary counter-revolution to the growing power of the unelected center-left/leftist bureaucracy and judiciary.

Just get the State back within the bounds of the Constitution so that it isn’t as much a major player in those things, and get to work in areas that might actually result in cultural transformation. But that work doesn’t quite have the gloss and prestige these two knuckleheads seem hell bent to pursue.

Well until there is a constitutional convention or an article V convention to severely limit the federal government’s authority over the states and their people, you will always have a large constituency of people who are going to be threatened by the federal government and these people will, rightly so, flock to a person who promises to protect their way of life, culture, and beliefs.

One only need look at Santorum’s past statements to see a man who is annoyed that you might think differently and bothered (personally) by having to do the real work in convincing of his point of view. No thanks.

RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 9:05 PM

Well that may be true of Santorum, but he’s at least talking about some of these issues that other high profile people have absolutely ignored for decades.

NWConservative on December 29, 2015 at 10:02 PM

No, the left is “winning” because they’re winning the larger battle amongst the hoi polloi.

The TLDR is, basically:

Stop thinking like a 20th century American Christian and start thinking like a a 1st Century one.

You keep fighting a war on open ground and getting your tail kicked – charging musket-to-musket with the redcoats, winning some ground temporarily but ultimately losing.

Maybe you should stop acting like a culture warrior and start acting like a cultural insurgent. The conflict has moved on to a different phase.

RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 10:05 PM

If you want a moral society, you have to have a people who are moral. That’s such an obvious tautology I struggle to understand how there are people who still think the short-term Statist approach is the way to go.

RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 9:56 PM

You make a good point but tell me, in the absence of a moral society what is the correct way to govern and who is more likely to do that? A moral legislator or an immoral one?

Cleombrotus on December 29, 2015 at 10:06 PM

Maybe you should stop acting like a culture warrior and start acting like a cultural insurgent. The conflict has moved on to a different phase.

RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 10:05 PM

Hmmm, another good point.

Cleombrotus on December 29, 2015 at 10:10 PM

A moral legislator or an immoral amoral one?

Cleombrotus on December 29, 2015 at 10:06 PM

FIFM

Cleombrotus on December 29, 2015 at 10:12 PM

No, the left is “winning” because they’re winning the larger battle amongst the hoi polloi.

The TLDR is, basically:

Stop thinking like a 20th century American Christian and start thinking like a a 1st Century one.

You keep fighting a war on open ground and getting your tail kicked – charging musket-to-musket with the redcoats, winning some ground temporarily but ultimately losing.

Maybe you should stop acting like a culture warrior and start acting like a cultural insurgent. The conflict has moved on to a different phase.

RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 10:05 PM

Oh, I don’t deny that the left has other means of influence at its disposal, but I think you view it too much through the prism of converting one person at a time.

The left also controls other levers of authority amongst the hoi polloi. Every time you have a diversity officer at a corporation, that is a liberal indoctrination officer. Teachers from grade school, to high school, to college have a nearly universal liberal-bent, and college serves as a way of isolating students from the general population for 4 years of liberal indoctrination. Control over the judiciary gives them control over social policy, and control over the media allows them to control the flow of information.

Some limited progress has been made on the media front (although there is still no major nightly network news broadcast that’s conservative). Control over the judiciary has proven elusive, as conservatives should have had control over it for decades, but have been stabbed in the back repeatedly. The big one that’s difficult to overcome are the schools, since the teachers’ colleges have an ideologically liberal monopoly, and no amount of PTA engagement is going to change that unless conservatives start going into teaching occupations.

Stoic Patriot on December 29, 2015 at 10:13 PM

Don’t disagree for most of the point, but every victory the social conservatives achieve at the state level is subject to a leftist leaning FEDERAL judiciary that finds new meanings in the US Constitution to overturn anything leftist psychopaths disagree with. Our federalist system has been under siege from the federal government for a long, long time in order to transform our system into a unitary, centralized state that is separated into 50 districts with limited autonomy.

Social conservatives are a reactionary counter-revolution to the growing power of the unelected center-left/leftist bureaucracy and judiciary.

I totally agree that is one of the critical problems. Isn’t that the argument Cruz, Paul, etc. not Santorum, make? Restore the Constitutional limits we’re supposed to have so we take that piece off the board?

As I see it, one wants power to coerce (just in line with their own values this time) while the other doesn’t think anyone should have that power so that the people (and the states) can sort it out as they see fit.

RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 10:13 PM

I totally agree that is one of the critical problems. Isn’t that the argument Cruz, Paul, etc. not Santorum, make? Restore the Constitutional limits we’re supposed to have so we take that piece off the board?

How do you limit an organism that exists purely to coerce and concentrate power?

As I see it, one wants power to coerce (just in line with their own values this time) while the other doesn’t think anyone should have that power so that the people (and the states) can sort it out as they see fit.

RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 10:13 PM

That is the problem with government. You give them the power to coerce, they will use it.

However, I would rather have a social conservative with a pro family agenda running the show than a leftist promoting the government as the parent. Which leads to a more self sustaining and healthy country? A self sufficient Christian family who is involved with their community or a single parent on welfare using the community as the second parent?

NWConservative on December 29, 2015 at 10:27 PM

I totally agree that is one of the critical problems. Isn’t that the argument Cruz, Paul, etc. not Santorum, make? Restore the Constitutional limits we’re supposed to have so we take that piece off the board?
.
RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 10:13 PM

.
You’re gonna have to show me how Rick Santorum is not emphasizing the restoration of Constitutional limits.

I believe he is.
.

As I see it, one wants power to coerce (just in line with their own values this time) while the other doesn’t think anyone should have that power so that the people (and the states) can sort it out as they see fit.
.
RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 10:13 PM

.
Again, you’re gonna have to show me how Rick Santorum is in opposition to the states and the people sorting it out.

Once again, I believe he is for it.

listens2glenn on December 29, 2015 at 10:29 PM

Oh, I don’t deny that the left has other means of influence at its disposal, but I think you view it too much through the prism of converting one person at a time.

Depends on what you mean. If you mean that I think that people of influence are useless, then no. I don’t mean that. But take a close look at the cut of Santorum’s jib and tell me if you really think he just wants to convince and influence. To my ears/eyes, he seems to preach to the converted rather than doing any work at conversion. And to the others he has a tendency to ruin his chances with his hearers because he’s confused his calling. That’s why he polls in the low single digits and in a half-competent field has no chance. I wish he would take a hint from fellow Catholic Tolkien about the nature of absolute power. Santorum is more Boromir and less Gandalf (or Aragorn).

As for the nature of conversion (be it worldview, political ideology, or religious), there is no other meaningful kind than one person at a time. It’s the only kind that lasts and becomes self-replicating. The West’s “cultural Christianity” is in shambles and tatters because we once thought otherwise.

RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 10:29 PM

I’m getting a little short on time tonight but upthread there was a post with several examples. I apologize for not being able to be exhaustive – but I was acquainted with someone in a small church who served as part of his senatorial staff. I got an ear full of Santorum’s thinking on these matter on a weekly basis.

Again, you’re gonna have to show me how Rick Santorum is in opposition to the states and the people sorting it out.

Once again, I believe he is for it.

Here are some examples that makes me believe otherwise:
From 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=47&v=1Gwwmm-cQxU

http://www.redstate.com/diary/Erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/

From 2008

“This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. 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. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.”

From 2003 (A troubling sentiment pervades this one)
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm

RSNTR on December 29, 2015 at 10:48 PM

¡Yeb!’s buying lots of ads on Fox News. Strange, he looks goofy in them. Why put out ads that make you look like a doofus?
Fallon on December 29, 2015 at 7:26 PM

Shows how out of touch he is.

I thought they were parodies at first.

Sherman1864 on December 30, 2015 at 3:44 AM

Rick, go home.

cheeflo on December 30, 2015 at 10:51 AM

Santorum should worry about his own self and go find a job or something. What does this loser do for a living?

Buttercup on December 30, 2015 at 4:26 PM

The only two people involved in the race who have consistently pushed for smaller government are Cruz and Fiorina. Trump has some good talking points, but most of the time his “solution” for a problem is more government involvement, just like the libs.

Santorum’s form of statism would agree with my worldview, if it weren’t for the statism part. Using government to force the shape of culture is unconstitutional, even if I agree with the shape you are aiming at. Abortion is wrong, period. Crafting a legal protection for it out of a SCOTUS case was always wrong. Using the same method to make it illegal might be morally correct, but constitutionally abhorrent. The several states should make the choice which suits their individual constituents. If this approach were taken to all issues on a 10th Amendment basis, blue states would shrivel and die, red states would thrive.

Freelancer on January 4, 2016 at 12:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2