Green Room

Rick Santorum is tired of you people wanting the government to leave you alone…

posted at 12:34 pm on January 19, 2012 by

I mean, really. How dare you peasants tell the government what to do? How dare you tell them to stay out of your lives? Santorum 2012!

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right.

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

That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

- Rick Santorum

First off, the phrase “radical individualism” is something I expect to hear from a Saudi imam. Hell, I wouldn’t be too surprised to hear it from leftists in this country. When I hear it from a Republican candidate for president, I sit blinking for a couple of minutes and then curl up in a ball under my desk, crying softly.

Secondly, I have to wonder: is Santorum insane, or even more out of touch with his base than any of the other candidates? This guy has the balls to whine about people wanting the government to leave them alone? Um, Ricky, I’m pretty sure the top issue for most conservatives is government overreach. There’s this thing called ObamaCare. Heard of it?

However, the true Emmy award winner of this piece is when he disputes the notion that “government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low”. You’re absolutely right, bud. I hope you get up on a podium tonight and deliver, in that notoriously whiny timbre of yours, admonishment to all those non-traditional conservatives who won’t shut up about lower taxes and less regulation. See how that flies in South Carolina.

Rick Santorum is a statist theocrat. I’ve said it before, and been challenged on it. I consider this quote to be a follow up to this endlessly disturbing piece from nine years ago. Rick Santorum’s agenda involves using government power to enforce his morality on the American people, based not on political or constitutional ideals, but on his religious views. He is as far removed from the Tea Party, and the concept of small-government conservatism, as Barack Obama.

But lucky us! We can also choose from a socialist who provided the blueprint for ObamaCare, a serial cheater and liar with an ego the size of Neptune, or an isolationist crank who wouldn’t have stopped the Holocaust if it were occurring in present day.

Johnnie Walker is my co-pilot.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

God gave man salvation and the devil said “That’s fantastic. Let me organize it for you.”

Kaffa on January 19, 2012 at 3:24 PM

So you’re saying the Devil is a community organizer? :-P

cmsciulli on January 19, 2012 at 3:28 PM

You seem to feel morality has a major negative connotation.
cmsciulli on January 19, 2012 at 3:27 PM

“Morality” is a subjective term, Science and Logic are not.

the_ancient on January 19, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Madison … let me just say, great post. Actually let me say it again — Great, great post. That clip is just too important to let slide.

Finally, as advice to fellow social conservatives and all the Santorum fanboys and fangirls — one key point to keep in mind.

Cultural battles cannot and largely should not be won by legislation alone. Those are fleeting victories. Legislation follows some level of cultural opinion to begin with.

The cultural battles are fought on TV, in the books, in the movies, in society first. If you lose that, its like volunteering to start every drive at the 1-yard line in football. You can still win, but its darn hard.

If you aren’t succeeding in the news business, in making great movies with a conservative tone, in writing popular conservative books — or in a myriad of other ways of shifting the culture … then you aren’t helping. Politics follows culture, not the other way around.

There are exceptions, I think Roe v. Wade may have been ahead of the cultural view a bit, but that wasn’t a law either, that was judicial activism. No elections on the Supreme Court. But I agree with the need to appoint conservative judges — Thomas is awesome.

One thing Gingrich has right is that you need to win the argument (most of the time) before you pass the law if the law is going to stick around. Granted, the Democrats trumped us on that one with Obamacare.

There are many laws and defense of rights that need to be done or defended at a national level, from protecting the right of care givers not to participate in abortion, not funding planned parenthood, etc. But even there, in the pro-life movement where I am willing to go to the mat, where I think a lot can be done …

… look at how effective a Lila Rose is at helping that debate and how much easier it is. How much easier is it for Congressman to get up and defund with those videos to help the national debate?

An ordinary citizen providing the videos, the cultural forums, for changing the debate. A lesson in how we can change the debate, we can all be the cultural authors of change.

Without simply demanding that our will be done, as the conservative statist prefers.

Again, MadisonConservative, great post.

PrincetonAl on January 19, 2012 at 3:42 PM

PrincetonAl on January 19, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Good post also, PrincetonAl.

The way to change society is through the influence of action and example… to win the argument, as you say… not to dictate morality through force of law.

gravityman on January 19, 2012 at 3:49 PM

There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”

There was one and it was phenomenally successful. It existed from 1788 until about 1860. It was called the United States of America.

single stack on January 19, 2012 at 4:08 PM

There was one and it was phenomenally successful. It existed from 1788 until about 1860. It was called the United States of America.

single stack on January 19, 2012 at 4:08 PM

+1

burserker on January 19, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Pretty much confirms what I’ve suspected all along about Santorum. Thanks for posting this.

kg598301 on January 19, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Looks like I really got to Madison, huh? Why else would he have gone all Huffington Post on me and flushed my last two comments, which were neither profane, obscene, or abusive?

I thought Hot Air had higher standards than HuffPo. But I guess that’s why they call this the “Green Room” — the writers here aren’t ready for prime time. I’ve chopped onions with thicker skin than yours, pal.

L.N. Smithee on January 19, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Wait, who’s Rick Santorum?

jephthah on January 19, 2012 at 5:12 PM

L.N. Smithee on January 19, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Speaking of not ready for prime time, shouldn’t you be redesigning your website right now? Good Lord. My eyes!!

Laura Curtis on January 19, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Also, MadCon doesn’t need me to defend him, but he is one of the best writers at Hot Air. If you don’t like the content here, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

Laura Curtis on January 19, 2012 at 5:17 PM

L.N. Smithee on January 19, 2012 at 5:07 PM

I’m going to leave that post up, so that we can see the irony of you claiming your posts aren’t abusive, while you follow it up with insults and degrading remarks.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Also, MadCon doesn’t need me to defend him, but he is one of the best writers at Hot Air. If you don’t like the content here, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

Laura Curtis on January 19, 2012 at 5:17 PM

I highly disagree with the first statement, but entirely agree with the second.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Great post! MadCon is a big reason why I keep reading HA!

ellifint on January 19, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Speaking of not ready for prime time, shouldn’t you be redesigning your website right now? Good Lord. My eyes!!

Laura Curtis on January 19, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Thanks for the hits!

Also, MadCon doesn’t need me to defend him,

Not when he can just kill critical comments, he doesn’t!

but he is one of the best writers at Hot Air. If you don’t like the content here, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

Laura Curtis on January 19, 2012 at 5:17 PM

I’ve been registered on Hot Air for at least four years, and not going anywhere unless I’m kicked out, which is what Madison did to my last couple of comments. Why? Apparently because he can’t stand to admit that his statement “Santorum’s agenda involves using government power to enforce his morality on the American people, based not on political or constitutional ideals, but on his religious views” was contradicted by his link to USA Today, in which Santorum says the opposite.

Regardless of the quality of his writing, he’s the first one to delete any of my comments. I expect that treatment on leftist sites, not here.

L.N. Smithee on January 19, 2012 at 5:35 PM

I am glad I saw this video! Santorum is saying he wants the government to regulate people’s sex lives unlike what his supporters claims he wants to do.

thuja on January 19, 2012 at 5:45 PM

L.N. Smithee on January 19, 2012 at 5:35 PM

You have an opinion that the USA Today piece doesn’t support my opinion about Santorum’s goals. That’s fine, but your opinion is wrong.

Additionally, I didn’t delete any of your comments. I unapproved them. They’re still there, and if someone deems them worthwhile, they can be re-approved.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 5:53 PM

I am glad I saw this video! Santorum is saying he wants the government to regulate people’s sex lives unlike what his supporters claims he wants to do.

thuja on January 19, 2012 at 5:45 PM

What Santorum is saying — and has said for years — is that he doesn’t believe that “the bedroom” should be free from all regulation. It is his belief that the Constitution does not guarantee certain rights, but that states can individually decide to grant their own.

Currently, there are regulations. Some think there should be none at all, but lack Santorum’s honesty in addressing the subject.

L.N. Smithee on January 19, 2012 at 6:04 PM

What Santorum is saying — and has said for years — is that he doesn’t believe that “the bedroom” should be free from all regulation. It is his belief that the Constitution does not guarantee certain rights, but that states can individually decide to grant their own.

Currently, there are regulations. Some think there should be none at all, but lack Santorum’s honesty in addressing the subject.

L.N. Smithee on January 19, 2012 at 6:04 PM

How about you be a little more honest? From the USA Today piece above:

Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Adultery and sodomy, while they may be repugnant to you or I, are not activities that should be the business of any legislator. Santorum is lamenting them because, given the power, he would restore archaic laws punishing those who engage in them. As I said, he is a statist theocrat. Anyone who demonstrates an interest in outlawing things like affairs and oral sex deserves those labels.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 6:10 PM

What Santorum is saying — and has said for years — is that he doesn’t believe that “the bedroom” should be free from all regulation

Again, I ask… What is your response when someone down the road decides that some activity you engage in which you believe to be innocuous is suddenly deemed to be hazardous by someone else’s standard of morality? Will you still argue that they should be able to enact a law banning that activity or are you only agreeing because you personally agree with Santorum’s rules of morality?

The problem with setting a precedent of legislating things like these is that the “other side” (read: morality you disagree with) can then cite your morality by force of law as precedent for their morality by force of law, even if you dont agree with their morality.

gravityman on January 19, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Which one promotes limited government conservative moral values?

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Wrong question to ask. Don’t worry, I fixed it for you.

Mr. Prodigy on January 19, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Santorum’s ego is magnitudes bigger than his brain. My pet iguana has a better chance of being president.

aniptofar on January 19, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Wrong question to ask. Don’t worry, I fixed it for you.

Mr. Prodigy on January 19, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Gee, you’re quite uncomfortable talking about limited government. Wonder why?

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Which one promotes limited government conservative moral values?

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Wrong question to ask. Don’t worry, I fixed it for you.

Mr. Prodigy on January 19, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Where in the United States Constitution is the mandate for federal preservation of your “moral values?” Take your time.

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Adultery and sodomy, while they may be repugnant to you or I, are not activities that should be the business of any legislator. Santorum is lamenting them because, given the power, he would restore archaic laws punishing those who engage in them. As I said, he is a statist theocrat. Anyone who demonstrates an interest in outlawing things like affairs and oral sex deserves those labels.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Congratulations to George Stephanopoulos for getting into your head.

Nobody has demonstrated an interest in outlawing affairs or oral sex, Madison. This is simply a question of whether they are Constitutional rights. If they are not — and people who do not subscribe to the never-stated “right to privacy” believe that is the case — the issue is whether there is a limit to what adult interpersonal relationships ought to be recognized as a right.

And anyway, who or what is it that could give Santorum “the power” to “restore archaic laws”? What has Santorum said to give the impression that he would try to wield such power as President?

You won’t find support in the USA Today piece. As I said before, note how the interview ends, remembering that this is pre-Lawrence 2003, long before he said he would run for the White House (bold mine):

AP: … Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don’t agree with it?

SANTORUM: I’ve been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don’t agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn’t want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right. But I don’t agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

It’s clear that Santorum, in answering the ignorant question by the unnamed AP reporter, is a realist. As much as he would like to foster an American society that re-embraces the traditional family unit, he doesn’t think he can unilaterally re-institute what you call “archaic laws” as President, and is not searching for quasi-Constitutional ways to accomplish it. His clearly-stated belief is that the power lies with the states, and that the Supreme Court does not have the Constitutional right to preclude states from instituting their own statutes.

Santorum’s stance is not “statist,” it is federalist. Big freakin’ diff.

L.N. Smithee on January 19, 2012 at 7:35 PM

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

- Rick Santorum

Tell me again how these are not the words of a statist. I am a federalist, pal. Federalists value state’s rights over centralized power. A man who is promoting the greater power of the state uses the words above. That is a statist.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 8:43 PM

It’s certainly an interesting debate. Thanks for finding this, MadCon.

It’s an interesting study in how completely our expectations of government have changed, to observe that there is no mention of federalism in the comments on these issues. By Santorum’s own view of government, local and state governments can make laws about behavior that it would be inappropriate for the national government to make.

This is how the Founders saw the matter. They would have thought national Prohibition was dangerous overreach, but state laws restricting various things merely a local prerogative — perhaps silly, in some cases. Laws in general were not considered an expression for the ages of national beliefs, as if the whole nation had to pivot from a common center on every disputable issue.

This contract of man and the state met its severest test in the issue of slavery, which was resolved by war rather than a gradual political process. As a moral question, I have to come down on the side of seeing that as right. Some things are too fundamental to admit of serious dispute, or alternative practice.

I’m not convinced that everything is that fundamental, to the extent that the Constitution has to be ignored or made the subject of penumbra fantasies (or war has to be waged) in order to eliminate dispute. It is absurd to suggest that there is any inviolable right to “privacy.” Much of what we call “privacy” fits better into the category of “liberty.” A lot of harmful things are done in private; the question is what we agree they are, and whether government should do anything about them.

None of this means I think we need to bring state sodomy laws back, or hang onto them if legislative majorities want to repeal them. The view of government as limited, constitutional, and federal isn’t even about making everything under the sun the subject of law. Where I differ with Santorum is not over what state and local governments have the authority to do, in a federal system, but over what good it does to do it.

I don’t disagree that there is a certain amount of statism in Santorum’s stance. It’s local-government statism, which is not the same thing as national-government statism. National-government statism is ALWAYS a method of proclaiming indisputable beliefs that are integral to national identity.

Local-government statism is a pragmatic tool, not generally meant to make a statement about man’s eternal condition or an idea of perfect justice, but to preserve a good environment for families and businesses.

The main way I would differ with Santorum is on what the focus of a political effort should be. I don’t see any value in government at any level making laws against sodomy. But I do believe that teaching children about sexual practices (of any kind) in the public schools is inappropriate and a usurpation of parental authority.

Likewise, I don’t see value in governments making laws against fornication or adultery. But I will vote whenever I get the chance to stop subsidizing irresponsible lifestyles. I will be happy to see hallucinogenic drugs legalized, just as soon as there are no longer any federal or state welfare programs, and any consequences of drug use are borne by the individual and/or his family. The taxpayers should not be on the hook to fund things they believe — invariably on excellent common-sense evidence — are harmful and wrong, both to individuals and society.

I want to stop the radical social activism funded by governments. I don’t want to impose new laws against various social or personal behaviors. Santorum’s big error in this interview, I think, is that he doesn’t distinguish between making laws, having the authority to make them, and the reasons why they would be made. Sadly, Americans know very little about the original philosophy behind their own government; we have become largely unable to discuss things like this calmly, without assuming that anyone who sees a role for social-behavior laws — a kind of law which has existed throughout recorded human history — is the Josef Stalin of Biblical virtue.

J.E. Dyer on January 19, 2012 at 8:55 PM

I want to stop the radical social activism funded by governments. I don’t want to impose new laws against various social or personal behaviors. Santorum’s big error in this interview, I think, is that he doesn’t distinguish between making laws, having the authority to make them, and the reasons why they would be made. Sadly, Americans know very little about the original philosophy behind their own government; we have become largely unable to discuss things like this calmly, without assuming that anyone who sees a role for social-behavior laws — a kind of law which has existed throughout recorded human history — is the Josef Stalin of Biblical virtue.

J.E. Dyer on January 19, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Excellent point. I think the key is that as we’ve loosened laws on certain kinds of behavior, other types of social engineering have flown in to replace them. Be it Biblical in nature, or be it guilt, laws have been passed(with many more potential laws the wet dreams of nanny state legislators) that restrict the lifestyles of ordinary citizens, on everything from environmentalism to race relations to travel to weapon ownership. I think the majority of people who react particularly negatively to words like those of Santorum are people who have come to fear social engineering as a whole, regardless of the reason for the concern. Coupled with a government that is growing in both size and power at a rate never before in our nation’s history, I think it should be only natural that some would reflexively resist even sober discussion of further restrictions on the lifestyles of the American people.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Excellent point. I think the key is that as we’ve loosened laws on certain kinds of behavior, other types of social engineering have flown in to replace them. Be it Biblical in nature, or be it guilt, laws have been passed(with many more potential laws the wet dreams of nanny state legislators) that restrict the lifestyles of ordinary citizens, on everything from environmentalism to race relations to travel to weapon ownership. I think the majority of people who react particularly negatively to words like those of Santorum are people who have come to fear social engineering as a whole, regardless of the reason for the concern. Coupled with a government that is growing in both size and power at a rate never before in our nation’s history, I think it should be only natural that some would reflexively resist even sober discussion of further restrictions on the lifestyles of the American people.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 9:08 PM

How about this, Maddy?

If the constitution allows it, it can be done. If the constitution doesn’t specifically and expressly allow it, pass an amendment so that it does. Simple enough, neh?

gryphon202 on January 19, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Be it Biblical in nature, or be it guilt, laws have been passed(with many more potential laws the wet dreams of nanny state legislators) that restrict the lifestyles of ordinary citizens, on everything from environmentalism to race relations to travel to weapon ownership. I think the majority of people who react particularly negatively to words like those of Santorum are people who have come to fear social engineering as a whole, regardless of the reason for the concern.

Exactly. I don’t agree with Santorum on the need for particular laws, but he is arguing from a classical, pre-collectivist Western perspective on government. The ears of modern Americans are attuned, for the most part, to the collectivist zeitgeist: the one that says, Whatever it is, we need to modify, centralize, and control it with laws.

Santorum is not an articulate philosopher, and doesn’t make the distinctions he needs to for an audience that has been conditioned not to understand or recognize his premises about government. The philosophical underpnnings of eschatological, transformative collectivism have effectively taken over the argument about man and the state. We no longer have a citizenry that reflexively sees government in the limited, utilitarian light favored by our Founders.

J.E. Dyer on January 19, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Santorum is a statist theocrat…We can also choose from a socialist who provided the blueprint for ObamaCare, a serial cheater and liar with an ego the size of Neptune, or an isolationist crank who wouldn’t have stopped the Holocaust if it were occurring in present day.

Statist theocrat = do not want. RS is too exclusionary. I believe in the first amendment that states “Government shall make no laws…”

Socialist that provided = do not want. MR is just as bad as the what we already have in office now. How can I believe anything he says when he has been all over the issues?

Serial cheater and liar = bedroom stuff and really none of my business. Shall I use the statist theocrat’s views to discredit this man? I do not think so. Several of our greatest presidents were cheaters and liars. NG was in office when the budget was balanced and welfare was reformed, during a period when democrats were in the majority. Ego? Gotta have an ego to aspire to the greatest office of the free world.

Isolationist crank = We did not enter that war until Pearl Harbor was bombed. The Holocaust really had nothing to do with the decision to enter the war. I really do believe that RP would enter a war on the same conditions.

annexwcp on January 19, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Serial cheater and liar = bedroom stuff and really none of my business. Shall I use the statist theocrat’s views to discredit this man? I do not think so. Several of our greatest presidents were cheaters and liars. NG was in office when the budget was balanced and welfare was reformed, during a period when democrats were in the majority. Ego? Gotta have an ego to aspire to the greatest office of the free world.

I’m not saying Gingrich should be branded a criminal for his behavior. I’m saying his betrayal of his wives should give us pause about trusting him.

Isolationist crank = We did not enter that war until Pearl Harbor was bombed. The Holocaust really had nothing to do with the decision to enter the war. I really do believe that RP would enter a war on the same conditions.

annexwcp on January 19, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Um…he said he wouldn’t.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Um…he said he wouldn’t.

MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 11:16 PM

Actually he has said he would persecute any war where congress has declared a war as required by the US Constitution, So once Congress Declared war in WW2, we would have fought it, before a Declaration of War, no military action.

We would not Risk AMERICAN to defend ANOTHER nation, which was the premise of the question:

And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews?

Which I agree with.. It is up to the OTHER nation to DEFEND THEMSELVES, until Pearl Harbour we had ZERO reason to enter the war, after Pear Harbour, War was officially declared as constitutionally required, and we sent the enemy packing as we should have.

the_ancient on January 20, 2012 at 12:44 AM

I’m not saying Gingrich should be branded a criminal for his behavior. I’m saying his betrayal of his wives should give us pause about trusting him.

My ex cheated on me and we are divorced. I could say some really nasty things about him also. Thing is, everyone else could trust the man explicitly, just not me. Interpersonal relationships really do not tell anything about how people conduct their general lives. Is this the case with Gingrich? I do not know, but I would rather take the chance with him as president than have Santorum or Romney with their big government ideas.

I have heard Paul state that he would go to war “after Congress declared” it, which is the constitutionally correct path. Bush rushed us into wars without this declaration. Now, there is no-one who remembers that they also said that Saddam had to go. Seems like a good idea to get that declaration.

Disclaimer: I may be of the few, but I liked the Bush years. I did not like some of his policies, but I liked the low unemployment rate and (relatively) low debt before the 2006 election. Too bad one with his stature is not running this cycle.

annexwcp on January 20, 2012 at 5:52 AM

Sorry about above post. I did not tell it to bold. Don’t know how that happened.

annexwcp on January 20, 2012 at 5:54 AM

Nobody has demonstrated an interest in outlawing affairs or oral sex, Madison. This is simply a question of whether they are Constitutional rights.

Well, except the states out there that had to nullify their sodomy laws when they Supreme Court said they were unconstitutional. But your authority is probably greater than the Supreme Court’s on constitutional issues, right?

If they are not — and people who do not subscribe to the never-stated “right to privacy” believe that is the case — the issue is whether there is a limit to what adult interpersonal relationships ought to be recognized as a right.

Wait, what? In what universe does Gov’t get to decide which adult interpersonal relationships are “right” or not?

The whole thing about free assembly no longer important?

It’s clear that Santorum, in answering the ignorant question by the unnamed AP reporter, is a realist. As much as he would like to foster an American society that re-embraces the traditional family unit, he doesn’t think he can unilaterally re-institute what you call “archaic laws” as President, and is not searching for quasi-Constitutional ways to accomplish it. His clearly-stated belief is that the power lies with the states, and that the Supreme Court does not have the Constitutional right to preclude states from instituting their own statutes.

Santorum’s stance is not “statist,” it is federalist. Big freakin’ diff.

L.N. Smithee on January 19, 2012 at 7:35 PM

That ship sailed a long time ago when the Bill of Rights got put on the states and Communists started running the Democrat Party.

And by “realist” you must mean “tyrannical nanny statist.”

Spliff Menendez on January 20, 2012 at 7:38 AM

Nobody has demonstrated an interest in outlawing affairs or oral sex, Madison.

L.N. Smithee on January 19, 2012 at 7:35 PM

I missed that you actually said this. Laws have been established(and, thankfully, for the most part abolished) outlawing adultery(affairs) and sodomy(oral and anal sex). Santorum says that the legality of adultery and sodomy are detrimental to the country, and that traditional conservatives are no more in favor of them then they are in favor of lower taxes and less regulation. The math isn’t hard.

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2012 at 9:36 AM

But lucky us! We can also choose from a socialist who provided the blueprint for ObamaCare, a serial cheater and liar with an ego the size of Neptune, or an isolationist crank who wouldn’t have stopped the Holocaust if it were occurring in present day.

Johnnie Walker is my co-pilot.

Whether, in principle, it is or it is not legitimate for government to “legislate morality” is debatable. In practice, it’s a horrible idea, as it’s been demonstrated in appalling, lurid, gut-wrenching detail that elected officials at almost any level will grossly abuse any “power” they are granted.

If a certain group of people wishes to agree amongst themselves that they will penalize each other for certain behavior, then they should be free to do so. If a certain group of people wants to live in a commune and pay for each others’ health care, then that’s fine too. But individuals should not be forced to participate in either.

That’s the beauty of devolving government to the states, and of the states devolving what they can to local authorities. People are then free to choose for themselves the conditions under which they want to live.

What is not practical in a nation the scope and scale of the United States is one-size-fits-all centralization.

mr.blacksheep on January 20, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Oh, yeah, and Daniels/Walker 2012!!

mr.blacksheep on January 20, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Johnnie Walker is my co-pilot.

MadisonConservative

Oh, yeah, and Daniels/Walker 2012!!

mr.blacksheep on January 20, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Ugh, may I introduce you to Tullamore Dew, Mcallan, and Balvenie? :-P

cmsciulli on January 20, 2012 at 12:47 PM

WOW! I agree MC. For a second I just sat blinking…I mean he couldn’t mean what I think he means, right? The idea of Individual Sovereignty that finally lays trash to Divine Kings, Feudalism, Theocracy, Socialism (Divine Committees), Communism (Divine Party), Fascism (Divine State) and all other manner of rule by the elites is totally dismissed by this guy? And he is a candidate for President by the Party that is supposed to represent Entrepreneurs and Capitalism?

What a fool.

Bulletchaser on January 20, 2012 at 1:26 PM

I’ve been registered on Hot Air for at least four years, and not going anywhere unless I’m kicked out, which is what Madison did to my last couple of comments. Why? Apparently because he can’t stand to admit that his statement “Santorum’s agenda involves using government power to enforce his morality on the American people, based not on political or constitutional ideals, but on his religious views” was contradicted by his link to USA Today, in which Santorum says the opposite.

L.N. Smithee on January 19, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Wow.

Okay. One more time. MC is not arguing that Rick Santorum said/admitted/acknowledged that he wants to enforce his religious beliefs onto Americans. MC is arguing that Rick Santorum’s positions constitute enforcing his religious beliefs onto Americans, whether Santorum says they would or not.

And I’m not even arguing who’s right or who’s wrong, but you keep missing MC’s point and replacing it with one of your own.

bmmg39 on January 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM

So, L.N. Smithee, are you saying Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman? After all, he said so.
Rick Sanctimonium can kiss my lily white waste chute. Legally./

Ham sandwich 2012

S. D. on January 20, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2