Rick Santorum is tired of you people wanting the government to leave you alone…
posted at 12:34 pm on January 19, 2012 by MadisonConservative
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.
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 Next »
If he had said “marriage” that would be one thing. But he said “bedroom.” What the hell?
If it’s Santorum, I would really have to consider third party.
rbj on January 19, 2012 at 12:50 PM
Santorum is the epitome of this C.S. Lewis quotation:
Jeddite on January 19, 2012 at 12:52 PM
To clarify somewhat: Santorum is the right-wing epitome of said C.S. Lewis quotation.
Jeddite on January 19, 2012 at 12:54 PM
tired of these exaggerations, fearmongering, and OUTRAGE!!!! over santorum and the fact that gasp, he thinks that the country would improve if people had more moral character.
the sad part is that people care more about the economy than about morality. so money matters more than morals, huh? and people wonder why america has so many problems…
Sachiko on January 19, 2012 at 1:05 PM
That USA Today link IS disturbing.
Good grief. Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.
Laura Curtis on January 19, 2012 at 1:11 PM
Increased morality in society is not achieved through government dictate. Well, unless you’re Iran, I guess.
MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM
Having strong moral character is great. Having the federal government dictate strong moral character is… not so great. That is, assuming one is a person of good moral without the necessity of Big Brother.
It’s almost like people can have differing priorities in life. But your strawman is noted.
Jeddite on January 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM
What is the definition of “Morality”, Libertarians take the correct view that a person should be able to define their own as long as it does not directly harm another person, That means if 2 guys want to get together great, it does not harm me. These Moral Busy Bodies what to Enforce their view of Morality on everyone else. That is not Freedom, that is Tyranny
the_ancient on January 19, 2012 at 1:18 PM
If Santorum wanted to achieve socially conservative goals via moral suasion, I’m fine with that. That’s an entirely Christian thing to do. But if it’s compulsory, it’s not Christianity, nor is it American.
Laura Curtis on January 19, 2012 at 1:19 PM
Look on the bright side: If Obama wins, you won’t be able to afford glue.
Gladtobehere on January 19, 2012 at 1:21 PM
The man does not believe in any right to privacy under our Constitution. I’m sorry, but that should disqualify him as a Republican candidate for President right there. Hell, that should disqualify him from candidate for dog catcher in the most remote Alaskan town, let alone President from any party. How can we expect him to defend a Constitution which he believes does not defend the right of privacy as a pillar of liberty in a free society?
gravityman on January 19, 2012 at 1:22 PM
Conservative.
Libertarian.
Choose ONE.
Mr. Prodigy on January 19, 2012 at 1:36 PM
^To specify:
I go with “conservative,” every time.
Mr. Prodigy on January 19, 2012 at 1:38 PM
Which one promotes limited government?
MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 1:43 PM
And yet abortion was illegal up until not quite 40 years ago. No right to privacy in America until then…
Sodomy was illegal in most states less than 10 years ago. Thomas Jefferson even proposed a law prescribing castration for those engaged in it, as a way to lesson the penalty which was death. We were founded by a bunch of theocrats, just like Santorum, I suppose.
I think the libertines in this country need to do a little history lesson. You may not want any sort of morality imposed on you now, but don’t pretend that it hasn’t been imposed in this country since the founding.
“Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof.” Continental Congress, 1778
And we seemed to be doing a lot better before we tossed all laws on morality out the window. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Romans 1 is unfolding as we type. Amazing that so many are blind to it. Maybe the old joke that masturbation makes you go blind is true.
And no, I don’t want homosexuals dragged out of their homes and castrated, but I don’t want them parading around naked having sex in the streets either, or have my children indoctrinated into believing how great it is. The libertines scream about keeping the government out of their bedrooms, but they don’t want to keep their behavior in their bedrooms.
Ugh…
pannw on January 19, 2012 at 1:44 PM
Ok, I choose Libertarian in this false dichotomy.
Now what?
Jeddite on January 19, 2012 at 1:45 PM
Tyranny
Freedom
Choose ONE
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
the_ancient on January 19, 2012 at 1:46 PM
So in Santorums’ world Christianity is to be enforced and freedom is what’s left over. Good luck with that platform, no wonder he lost the Senate race.
burserker on January 19, 2012 at 1:47 PM
Fine. Do you support such a law?
MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM
Strawman erected (no pun intended) and burnt to the ground. Congratulations.
Because yes, those homosexuals are just running around in the streets naked having sex on every street corner… /rolleyes
gravityman on January 19, 2012 at 1:53 PM
Lots of naked gays carousing in the streets where you live? Really?
You have laws prohibiting public indecency already, I imagine. That should settle it, right?
MC, good to see you writing again. I’ve missed it.
Bee on January 19, 2012 at 1:58 PM
Who navigates? Jack or Jim?
Neo-con Artist on January 19, 2012 at 1:58 PM
er…….what you said.
(Reminds self to refresh page before commenting.)
Bee on January 19, 2012 at 1:59 PM
And what happens when the “morality police” decide that some activity you engage in (doesn’t have to be sexual just any activity), which you find innocuous and of no impact on anyone else, is suddenly “immoral” by someone else’s definition? Will you then be so cavalier about the imposition of someone else’s morality on you by decree of law?
gravityman on January 19, 2012 at 2:00 PM
1. Sodomy does not mean homosexual sex. Sodomy is committed on a regular basis by heterosexuals, when they engage in oral or anal sex. A law that addresses sodomy would apply to them, as well. Amazing how some people are obsessed with sodomy, yet don’t even know what it means.
2. Outside of the well-vilified Folsom Street thing, where are you living that homosexuals are parading around naked and having sex in the streets?
MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 2:02 PM
The right to privacy is an implied freedom based on several amendments, including the 4th, and 5th.
Umm maybe it is you who should study history and not from “Wallbuilders” or other Theocracy organisations, First “Sodomy” at the time was any “non-reproductive” sex act, Homosexuality was not even a concept until the mid to late 1800′s well after Jefferson. And the Act in question while it included Polygamy, and Sodomy was primary directed at RAPE. Jefferson wanted Castrations for Rapist others wanted Death, The bill failed and Death was the punishment.
I dont think I know of any libertarians that say people would be allowed to run around naked or have sex on the street either, I dont want to see most people having sex gay or not…. However people should be able to live their lives as they see fit, even if you view it as “immoral” I find alot things the church does to be “against my morality” but it is not my right to tell you how to live, thus it is also not your right to tell me how to live
the_ancient on January 19, 2012 at 2:02 PM
In spite of SCOTUS, abortion isn’t really about privacy. If abortion is the taking of a human life, then it should never ever be permitted except in the case of the mother’s life being at risk. If it is NOT the taking of a human life, people could have them all day and I would not care; it’s a total non-issue. Science is increasingly establishing that it’s a human life – heartbeat at 17 days, etc. So at that point, the mother’s privacy is trumped by the baby’s right to live. Sooner or later SCOTUS will revisit the issue and states can do what they want.
As for the sodomy question – other people’s sex lives are not my business. Unless – as happens here in New Orleans during Decadence or San Fran during the Folsom St. fest – people are engaging in sodomy in public, I really don’t care what they do. Is sodomy a worse sin than gossip or gluttony or a host of other things Paul wrote about in Romans? No. Is sodomy (and heteros have teh butt secks too, you know) harmful in and of itself to society? No. A case can be made that gay marriage is harmful, though as far as I’m concerned, that ship has sailed, with Ronald Reagan as it’s captain.
And as for Jefferson – well, he was wrong on quite a few issues. Just because he was incredibly right on some things does not make him infallible on all things.
Laura Curtis on January 19, 2012 at 2:02 PM
Jameson.
MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 2:03 PM
Oy….Are you done spraying it (not saying it)? Good. Now, listen up.
In that “endlessly disturbing piece” you have linked — the widely misinterpreted, misquoted, folded, spindled, and mutilated “man on dog” discussion with a USA Today reporter in light of the SCOTUS hearing the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case — nowhere does Santorum say that it is his intent or “agenda” to “enforce” his personal religious beliefs. You made that up, Madison.
The interview ends thusly (italics mine):
[UNNAMED AP REPORTER]: 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.
Is that clear enough for you? If the people want sodomy laws done away with state by state, that’s what they’ll get, without interference from Santorum. In fact, by the time Lawrence was filed, the SCOTUS verdict that established the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws — 1986′s Bowers vs. Hardwick — had already been rendered moot by the Georgia legislature’s repealing of its law!
You’re using the same sort of Cliffs Notes logic common on the left when it comes to Roe v. Wade. They’ve been told for decades that reversing a decision that created law from whole cloth as if the Supreme Court was a superlegislature means that women could be imprisoned or even executed for having abortions. Rational people recognize that argument as a scare tactic, but that doesn’t preclude many of them from using it as a propaganda tool to spread fear of altering the status quo. The same can be said of jibber-jabberers who allege that Santorum wants to outlaw condoms because he is among a significant minority that fundamentally disagrees with the so-called Constitutional “right to privacy,” established in the landmark Griswold vs. Connecticut case.
Of course, Santorum has been pilloried for what others say is his scare tactic, suggesting that once sodomy was recognized as a right, it was only a matter of time before other acts currently legally disallowed and thought of as shameful would be recognized as protected by the Constitution. Is he wrong, or not? I invite you to view this video posted just yesterday on YouTube by a gay activist. Using film and video clips, he takes the viewer from what appears to be a late ’60s/early ’70s CBS News primetime documentary about homosexuality (including how it could be reversed using shock therapy) to the reversal of DADT and Ellen DeGeneres telling gay teenagers they’re just fine. Within five decades, it’s gone from being a disgraceful family secret to being taught as normal behavior to being celebrated as wonderful. That may not be scary to you, but what about polygamy? What about incest? What about bestiality? On what basis can the case be made that modern trends will not bring those enthusiasts into an ever-expanding fold of normalcy? In an America that becomes more and more libertarian as the decades pass and generations become more perpetually accepting of those scorned in their childhood, is there such a concept as “too much freedom”? Can “basic tenets of society and the family” survive in such an atmosphere? And what is filled by the vacuum left by the nuclear family if it disintegrates into irrelevance?
Just about now, many of you are getting all huffy and saying, “How DARE you compare…” I know you’re saying that, because when it comes to addressing these questions, that’s all you got. That is, unless you do what high schoolers and college students at a Santorum campaign appearance in New Hampshire eventually did; admit to him that they didn’t have a problem with polygamy and polyandry.
These are real questions, whether you want to acknowledge them or not, and Santorum is asking them because he believes — as do I — that the framers of the Constitution did not intend the nation to devolve from a republic in which people were free to choose the standards by which they lived with into a place where the concept of common standards of behavior was cast aside by the Federal government. Only Santorum is willing to take the heat on this, and I say, more power to him!
L.N. Smithee on January 19, 2012 at 2:11 PM
No. I will only address your false accusation.
I did nothing to distort what was said in the USA Today piece. I provided it, in its entirety, from the original source. You are attempting to discredit what I linked by lamenting editing that I have not done, a fact of which you are well aware. Your tactic is as dishonest as what you claim to be outraged about.
I also never said that Santorum stated that it was his intent to use the government to force his personal religious agenda on people. I said, myself, that it is his intent to use the government to force his religious beliefs on others. I made that conclusion based on his statements. Again, you misrepresent what I say. You are dishonest, bud.
MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 2:20 PM
Ok, I dont have a problem with it, provided they are all consenting adults making the choice to enter in to that arrangement of their own free will.
Freedom, it is not just for “Christians”
the_ancient on January 19, 2012 at 2:25 PM
Libertarianism is as dangerous to the future of this country as is liberalism. It is conservatism we need, not libertarianism, and Santorum understands that.
Shump on January 19, 2012 at 2:26 PM
And by the way…your website is hideous. An offense to the eye.
MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 2:26 PM
So who died and made Rick Santorum the moral authority?
I’m all for people have morals, especially our politicians and especially morals that don’t change to suit their immediate needs or to pander to whatever crowd they are currently pontificating in front of.
However, I don’t believe government exists to dictate morals to me. . . I think it is the other way around. We as a society agree upon our moral standards and government support them via laws.
cmsciulli on January 19, 2012 at 2:33 PM
Yarrrrr, freedom is the greatest threat to freedom since… wait,…
Jeddite on January 19, 2012 at 2:38 PM
umm no,
That would mean if 51% of the population said that you could never get a divorce because that would immoral, or if 51% of the population said that using a condom was against Gods Law, then it would be illegal….
Sorry but Individual Freedom trumps the collective
the_ancient on January 19, 2012 at 2:38 PM
“Social Conservatism” is not about freedom, it is about “the bible”, at least that is how Santorum, Shump and people like them view it
the_ancient on January 19, 2012 at 2:40 PM
OK, so let’s review: You wrote:
I wrote:
Then, you wrote:
So, “people” and “others” are two completely different things, Madison?
Is that the Johnnie Walker talking?
I guess eventually, you will fart in my general direction.
L.N. Smithee on January 19, 2012 at 2:46 PM
I never said that a society sets these moral standards by popular vote on individual issues.
I don’t recall any votes as to whether out society should support pedophilia. However, we have deemed pedophilia to be morally reprehensible, and there are laws to enforce this viewpoint. That was the point I was making.
Individual freedom does not necessarily trump the collective at all times.
cmsciulli on January 19, 2012 at 2:47 PM
That’s very shortsighted of them, because if the bible is politically enforceable, so is the Quran and the Book of Mormon.
Laura Curtis on January 19, 2012 at 2:48 PM
Well aslong as they are “christian” texts then that is fine to them, after all we are a “christian” nation
the_ancient on January 19, 2012 at 2:50 PM
Social conservatives want to base government on the bible. That’s called a theocracy. A theocracy is what they have in Iran. Sharia law. No thanks.
Kaffa on January 19, 2012 at 2:52 PM
I agree 100%, and that’s why there’s no way I’d ever vote for Santorum, even if he were to become the GOP nominee. I’d vote third party, same as I will if Romney gets it.
I don’t like big government, and I don’t care what motivates it. The only difference between a liberal progressive and a sociocon are the ends, not the means. After all, a lot of sociocons were happy voting for Jimmy Carter back in the day because he shared their values.
The libertarian (small L) wing of the party has the only philosophy that can save our country. Saving our souls should be left to the church, synagogue, or what-have-you.
DRayRaven on January 19, 2012 at 2:52 PM
Pedophilia, Real Pedophilia (meaning sex with a PRE-pubescent person) is illegal because a person at that age unable to give informed consent, it has nothing to do with “morality” and everything to do with the ability of a person to give CONSENT to the act, if they are not able to give that consent then it is a violation of THIER rights as a person.
the_ancient on January 19, 2012 at 2:54 PM
And again, nowhere did I claim that Santorum said that it is his intent. I claim, myself, that it is his intent, based on my interpretation of his comments. Either you have problems with reading comprehension, or you’re attempting, continuously, to slander me.
Now, you can either acknowledge your mistake, or move on to your next foaming, rabid defense of your favorite statist theocrat. Further attempts to misrepresent my words will be buried in the same place that I put the bones of the babies I eat.
MadisonConservative on January 19, 2012 at 2:56 PM
Hey, save those bones, they make great soup!
rbj on January 19, 2012 at 3:03 PM
And how did we come to decide that children couldn’t give informed consent? Was that decision based purely on a legal argument of rights?
I don’t agree with you that pedophilia is illegal only because of how laws regarding consent were written. It’s based on our morality as well. Our morality informs our laws, they aren’t created in a vacuum.
cmsciulli on January 19, 2012 at 3:06 PM
It is based on Logic and Science, not some Book written 3,000 years ago.
and yes laws are based on “morality”, normally abusive (like making adultery illegal, or jail time for oral sex) or stupid ones (like not being able to buy beer on sundays)
//and for the record I am not a atheist, I just Despise All Organised Religion.
the_ancient on January 19, 2012 at 3:12 PM
I just Despise All Organised Religion.
the_ancient on January 19, 2012 at 3:12 PM
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
I don’t believe Logic, Science, Morality, and Law are mutually exclusive.
You seem to feel morality has a major negative connotation.
And for the record, I’m not an atheist either, nor am I a Christian.
cmsciulli on January 19, 2012 at 3:27 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »