Rick Santorum Is a Conservative Technocrat

If you favor an intrusive Republican government, he's unquestionably your candidate.

Rick Santorum, like most Republican candidates, fashions himself the one true conservative running in 2012. If the thought of big, intrusive liberal government offends you, he might just be your man. And if you favor a big, intrusive Republican government, he's unquestionably your candidate.

People are taking a look at Santorum. Important people. People in Iowa. Even New York Times columnist David Brooks recently celebrated his working-class appeal, newfound viability, and economic populism, noting that the former Pennsylvania senator's book It Takes a Family was a "broadside against Barry Goldwater-style conservatism"—or, in other words, a rejection of that Neanderthal fealty for liberty and free markets that has yet to be put down. Santorum's book is crammed with an array of ideas for technocratic meddling; even the author acknowledges that some people "will reject" what he has to say "as a kind of 'Big Government' conservatism."

Santorum did once grumble about too many conservatives believing in unbridled "personal autonomy" and subscribing to the "idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do...that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom (and) we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues."

Perhaps Santorum confuses libertinism with libertarianism, but for him "cultural issues" go way beyond defending the life of the unborn or opposing gay marriage. Santorum believes that conservatives should recognize "that individuals can't go it alone," which sounds a lot like the straw-man justification for nearly every state expansion in memory. Why does Santorum, a conservative, believe that getting government out of our lives means a person must "go it alone," anyway? Maybe it means that person can go to his local church or his family or his community or his local bar to seek help—or maybe he can figure things out himself.

Opposing Barack Obama's presidency and lamenting Washington's lurch left are not great acts of bravery. When it mattered, Santorum was nearly always there for the establishment -- most (in)famously backing professional opportunist Arlen Specter over conservative favorite Pat Toomey in the 2004 Republican Pennsylvania primaries when an endorsement may have had some consequences.

Santorum also claims that "budgets began to explode" after he left Washington. I suppose that's all relative. As Club for Growth pointed out, Santorum could be a fiscal conservative with the election far off, but "there is a troubling part of Santorum's record on spending, which is found in the years sandwiched between these periods of fiscal restraint."

Today, Santorum tells voters that Medicare is "crushing" the "entire health care system." In 2003, Santorum voted for the Medicare drug entitlement that costs taxpayers more than $60 billion a year and almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Santorum voted for the 2005 "bridge to nowhere" bill and was an earmark enthusiast his entire career.

These days, Santorum regularly joins a chorus of voices claiming that he would greatly reduce the role of federal government in local education. When he had a say, he supported No Child Left Behind and expanded the federal control of school systems. In his book, in fact, Santorum advocates dictating a certain curriculum to all schools. The right kind. It's not the authority of government that irks him, but rather the content of the material Washington is peddling today.

This week, tea party favorite Sen. Rand Paul called Santorum a "warmongering moderate." The opposite of Rand's father, Ron Paul, Santorum makes an unequivocal case for putting Americans in the middle of military confrontations across the world—and putting us there forever. Why not export American social engineering? After all, Santorum seems to think it works so well at home.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    :(

  • Tim||

    Hear that? It's the sound of a thousand cannon muzzles swinging from Gingrich to Santorum.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    It couldn't happen to a nicer guy than Rick "Kick Me in the Nuts" Santorum. Although I'm counting on him to provide the comedy relief this election.

  • Gojira||

    The fact that I agree with you whole-heartedly on this makes me question my premises.

  • ||

    Santorum wants to outlaw the abortions of Black babies as well as White ones. This is position that Slappy cannot abide.

  • Gojira||

    Ah, it makes perfect sense now, thank you for clarifying SF.

    Strange bedfellows and all that.

  • Sudden||

    Fun fact, slappy is actually the author of the infamous newsletters... and he thought he was putting these delicately and in PC format.

  • Gambilorium nonsanitorium||

  • Realist||

    "It couldn't happen to a nicer guy than Rick "Kick Me in the Nuts" Santorum."
    Shouldn't read Rick "Kick Me in the Nuts" Scrotorum?

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    I'll raise you Rick "Kick Me in the Nuts" Sphinctorium.

  • Realist||

    Very good.

  • RoboCain||

    I still think Fission Tits has his crosshairs on Romney.

  • QuietDesperation||

    Cripes, I was away too long and have lost track of the local lexicon.

    WhoTF is Fission Tits?

  • Loki||

    "Fission Tits" = "Newcular Titties" = Newt Gingrich, I think.

  • Zeb||

    Obviously.

  • QuietDesperation||

    Not really. :-\

  • ||

    I can't believe it took 5 years for the Salty Ham Tears thread to become embarrassing enough to kill. Here's to its longevity.

  • Bingo||

    I'm a little concerned about VikingMoose now

  • ||

    He's fucking homeless now, that's what. Unbelievable injustice.

  • ||

    He lives on in our hearts.

  • ||

    I intend to buy 100 Mexican whooping llamas and sacrifice them to the Nordic gods in his honor.

  • guy in the back row||

    Is this true? That's too bad, he was a good egg on HitnRun.

  • ||

    No, he's fine. I'm just making a joke, because he was still commenting there as late as yesterday.

  • ||

    The only thing keeping me from a homicidal rage over this atrocity is watching Youtube clips of The Most Interesting Man in the World's TV show. Stay thirsty, my friends.

  • ||

    Why can't American TV be like that?

  • ||

    I don't surround myself with Argentine babes, but when I do, I prefer it be on TV.

  • ||

    Don't *always*

  • Kaon Kristen ||

    I wish I were "in entertainment" so I had time to work out 4 hours a day. While I have a decent caboose, the one on that chick is outrageously good.

  • ||

    Squat. Heavy.

  • ||

    Do you also make a "boing-boing-boing" noise when you walk? Because that might be fun for a while, but eventually it would get very, very old.

  • ||

    "Boing-boing-boing" noises are too leftwing. "Bouncy bouncy" is more libertarian. VM would say so if he hadn't been forcibly evicted from the only home he knows.

  • .||

  • Mainer||

    Kristen makes another reference to her bottom......

  • ||

    She is callipygian, after all.

  • Kaon Kristen ||

    That's kallipygian - sheesh!

    Analagous to krab. (I said analagous. Heh heh.)

  • ||

    Gous, HA! wait, no...

  • smz||

    as my toddler would say: BOINGGGG!

  • Lord Humungus||

    so there is a heaven on earth.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Mein Gott!

  • Bingo||

    Clearly this is a case of eminent domain abuse. The editors at reason have unjustly seized VikingMoose's home and kicked him out.

    Bring back the Salty Ham Tears thread!

  • RoboCain||

    This :(

  • Confused||

    VikingMoose

    Is this an inside joke? Explain.

  • ||

    When a Techno Viking and a Moose love each other very much, they share a special kind of blow-up doll.

    Obviously nobody gave you Le grand tour de la maison de larmes salées au jambon.

    Or, as VM might say: Den store rundvisning i huset af salte skinke tårer.

    So: It is explained.

  • ||

    Is Viking Moose related to Reinmoose?

  • ||

    Viking Moose is a poster who has been to long absent.

    Had a serious liver or kidney ailment a while back that nearly killed him, but is OK now.

  • ||

    The point is that the Moose wasn't absent. He was focused on one thread, that's all.

    And yes, as noted above, there is a direct correlation between the Techno Viking and the Moose.

  • ||

    Well, it had to get up to 2000 comments. That's the kill point.

  • ||

    I demand a recount. Some of those comments weren't funny.

  • ||

    Just the Canadian ones.

  • ||

    Say what you will about Canadians, on that thread...er, just say what you will about Canadians.

  • ||

    Very, um, northern. And American. With cold and Frenchified people.

  • ||

  • ||

    Take off, hoser.

  • ||

    We should offer up the highnumber posts as a sacrifice to bring back the rest. He doesn't have the right to be that thread's Virgil if he's just going to abandon us in the middle ring of the Seventh Circle.

  • ||

    Wait, what?!

  • ||

    Yes, what highnumber was doing was groundbreaking. And now lost to posterity.

  • ||

    We're not sacrificing ME, are we?

  • ||

    I don't know. A motion is on the floor. I'm in opposition, but without VM to support you, I don't know what might happen.

  • ||

    You never got us to the 9th Circle like you promised us. What a crappy tour guide. Sorry, if it brings back the thread, you're expendable.

  • ||

    Don't you get it? This photo indicates the new SHT thread.

  • ||

    Thousands of posts lost, a valued, old friend kicked out of his home, and a little history down the same hole as Aristotle's published works. No new thread can justify all of that.

  •  ||

    Get over it.

  • ||

    We can rebuild!

  • ||

    Agreed with ProGLib. We cannot replace it.

    We do have this:
    http://web.archive.org/web/201.....tcontainer

  • ||

    The last capture was last summer.

  • ||

    That only goes through October of 2010! Doesn't even make the five year anniversary.

  • ||

    It's like I've been balefired from H&R entirely. Way to poke us in the eye while trolls still shit all over the living room.

  • ||

    No blink tags, trolls everywhere, and now this.

  • ||

    And on the same day I found out George Takei will be on Celebrity Apprentice 5, no less! Can I not have one day of joy? When is it my time, o lord?

  • ||

    If only Takei were available to lead this great nation.

  • CalebT||

    I dare the Republicans to nominate a Romney-Santorum ticket...Go ahead, I dare yah.

  • ||

    WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE FABRIC OF SPACETIME?!?!?!11oneoneone

  • CalebT||

    Fuck, is there anything more depressing than the thought of a series of Romney-Obama, Santorum-Biden debates?

    Could this be the event that allows the apes to conquer the planet?

    "They finally did it...Goddamn you...GOD. DAMN. YOU. ALL. TO. HELL!" - George Taylor

  • Sudden||

    Word on the street is that Biden and Hillary are switching roles. At least Biden would bring some LULZ to a debate. Hillary makes the VP debate even more loathsome.

  • db||

    Word on the street is that Biden and Hillary are switching roles.

    Does this mean Joe's butthole will finally get some rest?

  • ||

    Fuck, is there anything more depressing than the thought of a series of Romney-Obama, Santorum-Biden debates?

    Yes. Biden v. Santorum in 2016.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Economic populism - It figures that David Brooks would tout that as a plus

  • What is wrong with you||

    Using the a picture of a distraught girl to score cheap points. You should be ashamed.

  • welcome to libertarianism||

    They don't care how many children are brutalized as long as they get their rocks off.

  • CalebT||

    That picture was taken 5 years ago. She's got to be of legal age by now.

    I'd fuck her.

  • ||

    She's at most 12 or 13 at this point.

  • CalebT||

    13, I could pull off, but not 12.

  • tarran||

  •  ||

    Libertarianism means never having to ask, "Um, how old are you, really?"

  • ||

    I agree. Standing next to Santorum would bring me to tears too.

  • daveInAustin||

    Am I really gullible or is that a real picture?

  • ||

    Very real. Google "Sarah Santorum" There are shots from multiple angles. All his kids are creepy.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    The boy in that photo looks like Kevin (Elijah Wood) from the movie Sin City.

  • free2booze||

    Come on. Her outfit matches her doll.

  • Juice||

    That's what really sends it over the creepy cliff. She looks too old to be carrying the doll around in the first place. She's front and center during daddy's failure speech, she's crying and wringing her hands while squeezing this horror movie doll wearing the same weird Little House on the Prairie dress. Then the son... The whole pic makes his family look like something from a horror movie.

  • ||

    I addressed this in the deleted thread, but I actually felt sorry for the kids (and didn't care much for Santorum using them the way he did and does, as they clearly weren't comfortable in the spotlight). I also wondered why they were so upset. Something's not right there, as Dad was, at the time, taking a very high-paying job at a major law firm (Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, I think).

  • Sudden||

    I believe her tears are actually from the repressed memory of the fetus-cuddle party.

  • Maxxx||

    I also wondered why they were so upset.

    She losing the race meant that daddy would be home more.

  • ||

    Damn! And here I was thinking it was his daughter or something.

  • Tony||

    I predict his rejection of purist antigovernment dogma will have legs. Most people just don't believe that government should be abolished in all possible ways. There's little a normal Republican would do away with in fact--basically just the social services that poor minorities receive.

    It is actually rather baffling that the Republican candidates have been such hardline libertarians. Not quite as much as their unabashed apologetics for the ultrarich. Is there really a significant segment of the population, even of the GOP primary electorate, that thinks protecting all tax cuts for billionaires forever and eliminating Social Security are nonnegotiable good ideas?

    Sure, the party elites want to do away with SS and give the loot to billionaires--but usually they sell it with hollow propaganda about freedom. Or are Republican voters still too stupid to realize what they're talking about when they use the euphemisms "job creator" and "personal responsibility"?

  • Surly Chef||

    Come on, I know you're an idiot, but your trolling is usually at least somewhat coherent.

  • Tony||

    Yeah it was a bit muddled--Santorum did compare safety net programs to Italian fascism. He only differs from the others in that he actually pretends to care about working class people and is willing to make an exception to antigovernment purism for the sake of promoting domestic manufacturing jobs.

    Of course his idea of promoting jobs is still to ensure bigger profits for employers, the same old story about how employment and prosperity are all the products of charity from the rich.

  • J_L_B||

    eliminating Social Security

    A lot of the younger voters believe that this will come about due to economic realities or that only punative taxes on them will save it. Given these considerations, they aren't too interested in its fate.

    the same old story about how employment and prosperity are all the products of charity from the rich

    Doesn't the left believe this as well? Don't they proclaim that we would all starve unless we heavily tax the rich and distribute what we collect to the middle class and poor? The implicit assumption being that our prosperity is a product of charity from the rich.

  • Watoosh||

    That is a fucking great point, I never thought of it this way.

    There is a tendency among economic conservatives to deify rich tycoons, and the narrative seems to be "We must appease the gods, give them lots of tax breaks, subsidies and freedom from competition so that they may reward us!" But the left deifies them as well, only the narrative is "Where's the money? Oh, look, the business gods have it! GIVE IT TO US."

    There are some leftists who understand that economic disparities are due to big business having too much government-granted power, not having lots of money per se. But why bother dealing with difficult problems regarding how the economy is really set up, when we can just take the money right now! See, the rich folks have it. Give some of it to the poor and they aren't poor anymore. Monkey see banana, monkey take banana.

  • Tony||

    Doesn't the left believe this as well? Don't they proclaim that we would all starve unless we heavily tax the rich and distribute what we collect to the middle class and poor?

    No, the left believes in supply and demand. It is only a peculiarity of the American libertarian right to claim that capitalism works by the rich bestowing charity on the rest of us.

  • ynoT||

    Supply and demand. As in I demand that you supply me with whatever amount of your money that I feel I deserve regardless of how hard you worked to get it or whether I've done anything to deserve it. Got it.

  • Loki||

    "He only differs from the others in that he actually pretends to care about working class people..."

    Wait, are you talking about Santorum or Obama?

    FYI the only "hardline libertarians" that were ever in the race were Johnson and Paul. The rest are just varying flavors of big governemnt conservatives.

  • Len||

    Again in lala land........"It is actually rather baffling that the Republican candidates have been such hardline libertarians" Which of them? Libertarianism is based on the NAP, and the only one that espouses this to any degree is Paul. You continue to think that government, which is comprised of men, can somehow overcome the nature of man and be used as a force for good, rather than a force to prevent men from doing harm, such as fraud, theft, what have one.

    Libertarianism takes into account man's nature (though some espouse their own foolish utopian versions of reality)and recognizes that the bigger the state/reach of a government, the more wrongs there will be.

    Your foolish social justice sets arbitrary standards where you become the judges of who deserves what, rather than who has what being based on merit. You then think that some men may appoint themselves to dictate to others how much help to give to people, rather than laboring yourselves to aid them and espouse such aid. As an example; someone can get married and have 5 kids by the time they're 30 and someone else wisely puts marriage off and saves, yet in you world the one who was wise "owes"a debt to the other. You're a ridiculous and rather dangerous fool who refuses to make men accountable for their own bad decisions and fails to recognize a concept such as scarcity.

  • Tony||

    You don't care about merit, you care about giving welfare to rich people because their wealth indicates a moral virtuousness for which you feel they should be rewarded.

    I think a strong social safety net rewards merit far more than your stark darwinian system that overwhelmingly rewards luck instead. It means the children of poor parents aren't condemned to poverty; if they are meritorious they are able to compete in the economy.

    You are the ones who defend 0% taxes on inheritance, then lecture me about merit.

    A social safety net is not about who deserves what at all, except at a very basic level: you deserve the basic necessities of life because you are a human being. I don't see why law-abiding people with bad luck deserve less access to basic needs than imprisoned felons.

    But perhaps men should be more accountable for their own bad decisions. Should their children be accountable for them too?

  • KP||

    "A social safety net is not about who deserves what at all, except..."

    ... who deserves what.

  • Joe R.||

    1) Letting people keep their own money is not welfare.

    2) A child may or may not have a weak claim on his parents' estate, but your claim on it is certainly weaker.

    3) You still conflate the terms government and charity. I would have thought Bastiat drove a spike through that 150 years ago, but I guess not. Since I don't want government to get involved, I obviously don't want it done at all. Do you really think I believe that?

  • Blacksmithing||

    1) Wrong. Not taking is the same as giving. When a thief breaks into my house and doesn't steal my television, he's GIVEN me a television set. Isn't he nice?

  • Tony||

    This whole business about "their own money" is begging the question and it too often passes for meaningful in these parts. "Their" money is whatever is left over after taxes. The rest belongs to the people. Taxation isn't theft. It's the means by which the apparatus that allows you to have any wealth at all is paid for.

  • yonT||

    And left is right and up is down. Ah, the Tony perspective, "It can't be that I'm standing on my head so the only reasonable explanation is that the world is upside down." Got it.

  • Len||

    Right, got that..you mean extortion. Still don't understand consensual interaction after all this time. The apparatus is called commerce, wherein people exchange that which they have produced with others.

    You are one confused idiot.

  • KP||

    "This whole business about "their own money" is begging the question and it too often passes for meaningful in these parts. "Their" money is whatever is left over after taxes. The rest belongs to the people."

    Wait? In response of question-begging you begged the question?

    There was never a joint-resolution saying that money is communal.

    "Taxation isn't theft. It's the means by which the apparatus that allows you to have any wealth at all is paid for."

    Even if that is true, that taxation is necessary, that still doesn't mean that taxation isn't theft.

  • lurker||

    Tony|1.4.12 @ 3:16PM|#

    This whole business about "their own money" is begging the question and it too often passes for meaningful in these parts. "Their" money is whatever is left over after taxes. The rest belongs to the people. Taxation isn't theft. It's the means by which the apparatus that allows you to have any wealth at all is paid for.

    You might as well argue that the whole business about "their own bodies" is begging the question. "Their" bodies are whatever the government permits them to have. It can force people to eat and exercise in certain ways so that they'll produce more labor to pay for the government apparatus that allowed them to live at all. It can even ban abortions so there will be more children whose future labor will pay in too.

  • PETA Enthusiast||

    "I think a strong social safety net rewards merit far more than your stark darwinian system that overwhelmingly rewards luck instead."

    "... you deserve the basic necessities of life because you are a human being."

    Being born human is nothing but luck. Just jump onto the Social Darwinist camp already. Your blatant hypocrisy makes us who are *actually compassionate* look stupid.

  • Len||

    You don't care about merit, you care about giving welfare to rich people because their wealth indicates a moral virtuousness for which you feel they should be rewarded.

    How idiotic. Never stated such a thing, nor does libertarianism state such a thing, and in fact advocates against it. You seem to be unable to cope with the fact that some people through entrepreneurship, frugality, greater effort, intelligence etc., manage to produce more fruits of their labor than others and that this may accumulate over time leading to a wealth disparity. Not that there aren't those who through government have been granted privileges or laws to favor them, but even without such corruption there will be gaps. Some people just have greater drive and others are just dumbarses.

    How am I then accountable for the dumbarses? So now I have to give more of my labor for someone else?

    Again as for the safety net, WTF? Ever heard of charity? Once you pervert justice and say someone is deserving of something merely because they exist, then you're imposing a totally arbitrary and subjective system.

    0% inheritance. Damn skippy, what I choose to do with my wealth is no one else's business. Rather than giving it away now, I choose to prepare in advance the means of transfer to avoid confusion. Why would I labor beyond providing for my own means if people we're just allowed to claim anything beyond your arbitrary and subjective definition of too much? In fact your whole idiot approach to economics ignores the fact that if no one were allowed to accumulate beyond their own living in the now, then we would all be unprepared for shortages or disasters. The accumulation of wealth/capital allows us to build for the future and it is the individual that alone knows what that future is that he wants. This is called self-determination, but you hate that because you can't deal with the reality of an imperfect world and refuse to acknowledge that men do wrong, unless those men happen to be wealthy.

  • Tony||

    Every principle you just espoused is perfectly practicable in my system, just with the added benefit of nobody in society existing in 3rd world conditions--which you cannot deny can negatively affect you. Or are streets filled with disease and squalor OK with you, just so long as nobody is taxed to do something about it?

    Charity clearly wouldn't guarantee that society would be free of people falling into dire poverty, and removing a government safety net simply means private charities, like churches, would be stretched to the limit. Charity is great, but I'm not talking about charity, I'm talking about social insurance.

    You're fixated on the problem of people getting something they don't deserve. But you're not fixated on the wealthy who do, and in any political system the wealthy will be more privileged by government.

    Everything you believe is informed by a moral disgust mechanism that treats poor people as dirty and rich people as clean, whether you realize it or not. Of course in principle you're against bailouts and favors for the rich. You're just not willing to support any possible way to rectify them.

    People in this country, even the very wealthy, have prospered greatly under robust safety nets. I argue that they only contribute to prosperity. If you want to go it alone then stop using my roads and police. Or are those handouts OK because you use them?

  • Len||

    Your roads or police? Let's just accept the legitimacy of the government doing roads and police, this is what my taxes are for dumbass, so I have already paid for them to benefit from them, same as if I go into a restaurant and pay to eat there. It's a service that is rendered in exchange for payment, no one is giving it away you freaking moron.

  • Len||

    As for children being accountable, it is one of those unfortunate realities that any guy can stick his little tool in a woman and get her pregnant and that child has no choice of their parents. As I said, you choose to ignore the imperfections and unpleasantness of reality, and so attempt to use force to change that reality.

    BTW, asshole just how much of your time and effort do you give for the benefit of others? This is the thing that gets me, so many of your progressive ilk rather than laboring more and starting charities spend all their time railing at others in the comfort of their home.

  • KP||

    A good question to ask is whether childern of other nations are are also deserving of our safety net.

    Birth place is entirely due to luck yet they are still, completely innocent children after.

    The logical progressive would have to agree. On the notion of luck not being valid, those children deserve social security as much as those within the border.

    Paradoxically such a massive wealth transfer would leave everyone poor.

    (Luckily there aren't that many logical progressives.)

  • Tony||

    Life isn't fair, therefore we should have policies that maximize unfairness. I've heard it.

  • KP||

    I'm having trouble seeing the relevance of your comment as I didn't propose any policy. (And libertarians, in general, are opposed to policies all together)

    Are you for helping the unlucky or not?

  • Tony||

    Every aspect of civilization is an attempt to correct for the unpleasantness of living in nature. That includes all the government services you use and think you're entitled to.

    What is alien to democratic civilization is the notion that the wealthy deserve not only the privilege that comes with wealth itself, but they owe nothing to the society that allows them to become and stay wealthy. You guys universally support welfare for the rich, you just don't call it that.

  • ||

    Remember folks, "welfare for the rich" means stealing only 35% of their last dollar earned instead of 94% like Tony's 1944 utopia...

  • KP||

    "Every aspect of civilization is an attempt to correct for the unpleasantness of living in nature. That includes all the government services you use and think you're entitled to."

    If I think I'm entitled to your kidney as I'm very unpleasant without one.

    "What is alien to democratic civilization is the notion that the wealthy deserve not only the privilege that comes with wealth itself, but they owe nothing to the society that allows them to become and stay wealthy."

    Then count me out of democratic society. As only in a society of thieves could such a view be substantiated. You are "allowed" to keep your wealth just like you are "allowed" to keep your life and limbs.

    Many, many people need kidneys, and many privelged, kidney-rich, people have more than they need the democratic society must think it alien that they try and keep them.

    "You guys universally support welfare for the rich, you just don't call it that."

    Of course we don't call it that, as it completely defies the definition.

  • wareagle||

    Most people just don't believe that government should be abolished in all possible ways.
    --------------------
    "most people" includes virtually ALL people here. The calendar has changed; the ridiculous lefty talking points live on.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Thanks for reminding us that *only* poor minorities receive welfare.

    Wonder why all those poor white people haven't rioted yet?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Salty Ham Tears FTW!
    (That original post is the #1 result when Googling "Salty Ham Tears."

  • ||

    You should be ashamed.

    Unlike politicians such as Santorum, who will shamelessly trample ten million corpses on the way to the throne.

    Piss off, whiner.

  • What is wrong with you||

    Oh, so because her dad is a monster it's OK to make fun of her. I'm sure everyone in your family is squeaky clean.

  • Gojira||

    Oh, so because her dad is a monster it's OK to make fun of her.

    Um pretty much, yeah, that's how it works. He needs to fully understand all the consequences of his continued monstrosity, including subjecting his family to ridicule and possible rapemurder.

  • Kaon Kristen ||

    He's the one who put his own daughter on display, asshole.

  • ||

    see dog shit, step in it and then complain about who put it there?

  • ||

    I'll map out this analogy.

    Dog poop = Salty ham tears
    Dog = Li'l Santorum girl
    Dog Owner = Candidate Santorum
    Person stepping in dog poop = people laughing at salty ham tears
    Leash = the GOP
    Collar = The Trilateral Commission
    New white shoes stained with dog poop = the electorate
    Newspaper taken from my porch to scrape poop off shoe = Tax dollars
    Sun in sky = Nietzsche's dead god
    Tree that the Li'l Santorum girl is now peeing on = Ron Paul

    You just called that poor defenseless girl a dog! You are a monster!

  • Brett L||

    Concern troll clutches pearls.

  •  ||

    Of course it's OK! Kids are the easiest targets and can't fight back!

  • ||

    Old people are even better targets since if they haven't checked out the Internet by now they may never see it.

  • ||

    certainly not at the rate their brand new NetZero dialup account brings it to them.

  • Zeb||

    Every politician who uses their kids as props in public is completely responsible for any and all public ridicule that their kids receive. Don't wan't your family to be fair game for all the assholes on the internet? Don't go into politics.

  • Oh Brooksie!||

    P Brooks: awful narcissistic overposting anarchist tough-guy commentator or awfullest narcissistic overposting anarchist tough-guy commentator?

  • Bingo||

    Piss off rather

  • ||

    There's little a normal Republican would do away with in fact

    Hence the slavish devotion to the Republican Party in these here parts.

  • Tony||

    The Republicans are as libertarian sounding as they've ever been, if not more. I'm just not sure it's as popular as they think it is. Opposition to Obamacare has less to do with concerns about government than the fact that Obama did it and he's the devil. Survey after survey of Republicans and tea partiers demonstrates that they aren't opposed to safety net programs--they're just opposed to black people and latinos getting a share.

  • ||

    Just say "block grants for states" - same thing.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    No it isn't, shrike.

  • wareagle||

    tony,
    thanks for bringing the stupid once again with the usual nostrums of "Repubs and TPers are racists". What bullshit. No one opposes a safety net for those truly in need; many of us oppose a perpetual safety net for the terminally sorry, otherwise known as Dem voters.

    Obamacare has everything to do with govt since health care costs were never an issue prior to govt's involvement in the health care delivery system.

  • Mainer||

  • Joe R.||

    Libertarian my ass. If that were true, I'd be a lot more excited about the upcoming election. I'm not. I don't know what dog whistle you're hearing, but it isn't the libertarian one.

  • Blacksmithing||

    Which surveys are those, Tony? What questions on those surveys led you to your beliee that the TP is just a collection of racists?

    And is it possible that someone can take the correct stance on an issue for the wrong reason? Let's say all of the TP are flaming racists. Is their call for less government spending, regulation, and taxes wrong somehow, then?

  • Tony||

    I don't know if it's wrong, but it's completely incoherent.

    Dig into the specifics of "spending, regulation, and taxes" a centimeter and tea partiers start getting confused. They don't want to cut a dime from Social Security, Medicare, or Defense. And once all those are off the table, you can't really do anything about deficits without raising taxes. And once you start listing regulations specifically, those become popular as well.

    Tea partiers think in slogans. It's why they were so easily manipulated by the GOP.

  • ||

    the Tea Party is being manipulated by the GOP?
    the minorities are being manipulated the Dems.
    fify

  • ||

    He's fucking homeless now, that's what. Unbelievable injustice.

    And it's all your fault, you heartless bastard. You put him on that high wire, and then pulled the net right out from under him! Gaze upon his crushed, lifeless husk, and weep.

    WEEP

  • ||

    Actually, I think this is my fault. I mentioned that thread in a thread yesterday. It can't be a coincidence.

    The Moose deserved better from Reason.

  • ||

    Can't you put him up on a post on URKOBOLD? It's too cold out for a Moose to be wandering the streets of the Intertubes.

  • ||

    He'll always be welcome at Urkobold.

  • West Texas||

    God, I hate this motherfucker. He embodies everything that is wrong with the two party "conservative" GOP today.

    A plague on all of their houses and fuck you bible belt Iowa for doing this to us.

  • Len||

    That's the thing that irks me, is that so many who identify themselves as Christians fail to actually apply what the scriptures say concerning government, such as justice, covenant faithfulness (not violating the US constitution), peacemaking, the inability of man to do good apart from God (so certainly not the province of government to do good). Some also attempt to take the model of Israel and apply it to every nation, when Israel was unique, so they twist and distort scriptures.

    There is also a lot of bad teaching concerning Israel and milleniasm, which leads to many seeking to achieve these things through government, when the Messiah gave only the preaching of the gospel and prayer as the tools for these things.

  • Len||

    I should add, an honest survey of the scriptures would show that a libertarian approach politically/governmentally is pretty much what a "believer" should espouse.

  • .||

    Not to mention that any notion of salvation by means of faith presupposes the absolute existence of free will, and the necessity of protecting its free exercise. Anything else entirely negates the baseline premise, and indeed obliterates the only rational basis for existence itself, i.e. that creation serves to please the creator. If God is to be considered omnipotent, his creation of a race of pre-programmed beings could hardly be characterized as an interesting pursuit, from his point of view, and from a view which includes the concept of space/time, could hardly be considered as something which happened at all (i.e. its result would be void, and therefore indistinguishable from a scenario in which the experiment had never been enacted at all). People must therefore have been created with the freedom to choose, one way or the other, for their existence to conceivably have held a meaning of any kind.

  • Maxxx||

    Not to mention that any notion of salvation by means of faith presupposes the absolute existence of free will, and the necessity of protecting its free exercise. Anything else entirely negates the baseline premise, and indeed obliterates the only rational basis for existence itself, i.e. that creation serves to please the creator.

    Indeed and from a Christian theological pov using government to force people into righteousness is a form of rebellion against god's will and a sin.

  • ||

    I dunno. God told David to do some pretty brutal and unlibertarian things, like slaughtering cities of women and children for not believing in him. That said, Jesus never seemed to advocate for authoritarian governance and would be ashamed at what people are doing in his name.

  • .||

    And was it not the case, in the time of David, that the Israelites were called God's Chosen People? The dynamics of that situation are entirely different, if you take the meaning of that relationship at face value, and so the apparent contradiction to which you refer does not actually exist. God may as well have been instructing David to go out and cut the grass, the point having been whether or not, of his own free will, he would do so.

  • Mr. Chartreuse ||

    Well apparently God, via Samuel, didn't like kings that much:

    Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”
  • Jumbie||

    So we're stuck with King Obama is what you're saying?

  • ||

    Read Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Judges closely?

    The willingness to kill just about anyone not approved of by Yahweh is not really very libertarian at all.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, I don't see how you can get much libertarianism out of the Old Testament. Pretty much if Yahweh is telling you what to do, you had damn well better do it or else. So either the Israelites were helpless servants of an evil god, or they were just genocidal fuckheads on their own. Or it's all just made up stories, which seems most likely.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    That's Judaism. Jesus is the hippy version.

  • Cytotoxic||

    What is it about his face that makes it so punchable?

  • ||

    False piety.

  • ||

    Constipation.

  • ||

    He's Ned Flanders with megalomania.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You are a genius.

  • Gojira||

    the former Pennsylvania senator's book It Takes a Family...

    The socon version of "it takes a village".

  • ||

    Survey after survey of Republicans and tea partiers demonstrates that they aren't opposed to safety net programs--they're just opposed to black people and latinos getting a share.

    So- your ass has its own telephone number?

  • ||

    That's such laughable nonsense. I know most of those kinds of comments made here come from sockpuppets, but there are plenty of people who believe such utter crap.

  • Tony||

    I challenge you to find a poll where a majority of Republicans or tea partiers support reducing a cent on Social Security or Medicare to address the budget deficit.

    They're only against social programs when they're framed as welfare for 'lazy' people.

  • ||

    Dave Weigel quoted a poll that said 70% of Tea Party types favor keeping SS/Medi unchanged.

  • l0b0t||

    What exactly is a "Tea Party type" and how does one identify them for the purposes of statistical sampling?

  • Dave Weigel||

    What exactly is a "Tea Party type"

    A ratfucker.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Anything other than Team Blue".

  • Mike M.||

    And yet guys like you go on and on about a phony "austerity" that doesn't remotely exist, except in your demented little head.

  • Blacksmithing||

    Well, didn't those Tea Partiers pay into SS and Medicare? Those programs are a little different than straight-up wealth redistribution programs.

    If Big Gov told you that they'd take care of you when you retire in return for 14% of your income for twenty years, wouldn't you be upset if Big Gov tried to change the rules twenty years later, once you had already PLANNED for that money to be there? Meaning you bought Big Gov's bullshit?

  • 0x90||

    You are being simplistic. Remember that people believe they have paid into those programs, and that they are owed something back out of them, which is a factor not in play in the case of safety-net type welfare programs.

    Putting this into consideration might compromise your bigoted, broad-brush narrative, though.

  • Tony||

    Then they don't care about addressing the deficit.

    Nobody will ever consciously vote for less money in their own pockets. That's why the Republicans have to do all their looting for the rich via code words and propaganda.

  • ||

    "....idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do...that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom....."

    So, he is for getting involved in the bedroom - well, if he's pro-orgy, he's my man....uh, er, in a platonic policy way of course....not that there's anything wrong with gay orgies....its just that i am into the one guy (ME! ME! Me!) at the multiple bi-sexual women of various races orgy. But I am glad us orgy supporters finally have a candidate who believes in gettomg more people involved in the bedroom.....
    BEDROOM DIVERSITY
    Affirmative rubbing action. Dont bend it, squeeze it....

  • romulus augustus||

    Rush was positively ecstatic when we went on the air today with the prospect of Gingrich pissed off and moving ahead to destroy Romney. Because all RP supporters are "tin foil hat wearers" the destruction of Romeny will lead to Santorum as the eventual nominee. Fatso even took a swipe at Sarah Palin for suggesting RP be treated courteously.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Limbaugh is a real shitbag. He's a disgrace to opiate addicts everywhere.

  • ||

    Oh this is great.

    I enjoy this site so much more now.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I reserve the right to use that line. +1

  • Blacksmithing||

    I find Rush to be harmless and irrelevant for the most part. Why don't you reserve your hate for people who actually have power over you?

  • Zeb||

    Oh, there's plenty of hate to go around.

  • ||

    I just found some reserve hate for Blacksmithing!

  • ||

    you would be surprised the number of mongoloids Rush has influence over.

  • ||

    Santorum's book is crammed with an array of ideas for technocratic meddling; even the author acknowledges that some people "will reject" what he has to say "as a kind of 'Big Government' conservatism."

    Gingrich / Santorum it is, then.

    Excuse me, I'm going to go jump off a bridge.

  • KP||

    More Republican propaganda!
    Come one Reason! Tell the full story of our Leader and his historic accomplishments over the last 3 years.

  • Yet Another Dave||

    It's such a good thing that my state doesn't vote until Super Tuesday, because I still haven't figured out which candidate I like best. I tried some of those websites that you answer a few questions, they tell you which candidate to vote for - and I keep getting Romney and Santorum at the top of my list. Well, Romney feels too much like a GOP Clinton - just a little too polished - and of course there's things like RomneyCare (I don't care how much he denounces it, he still did it), and then I read things like this about Santorum and I'm left without a candidate.

    None of these candidates have excited me one bit. I want to take bits and pieces from several of them and Frankenstein them into a single, dream candidate.

    This election might be a return for me writing in Bill the Cat.

  • wareagle||

    Well, Romney feels too much like a GOP Clinton
    --------------------------------
    which, given the alternative of Obama, begins to sound like a return to the good old days when presidents had policies with which you disagreed, but not policies you saw as purposely destructive.

  • Yet Another Dave||

    True that. Granted, Slick Willy may have engaged in a number of practices that were not exactly presidential, but as you note, I don't recall him doing anything that was "purposely destructive." And as far as the other stuff, at least my experience with Mormons is that for the most part, they tend to be of pretty decent moral fiber, so maybe Romney is the lesser of all the evils. Fingers crossed.

  • ||

    you care about giving welfare to rich people because their wealth indicates a moral virtuousness for which you feel they should be rewarded.

    The voices in your head are like a "people's microphone" aren't they?

  • Depto||

    They're all Republican Trenchcoats!

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    No wonder people think libertarians are heartless assholes. I mean, there are so many reasons, but making fun of a little girl for crying about her daddy losing? That's pretty base.

    Hey, I think Santorum is creepy as hell and I hope he gets his homophobic, bible-thumping, neo-con right-wing ass kicked to the curb pronto so I can stop seeing him on the internet and hearing his voice and his name on the radio. But I can't get on board with ragging on the poor kid. She's just a kid who's sad for her daddy. She probably was overtired at this point had gotten all excited about the whole thing and then had a big emotional let-down. Heck, I've seen candidates themselves shed tears at moments like that - even ones who weren't John Boehner. I say leave the kid alone.

    I can't stand Obama either, but I won't say anything about his kids. It's just not "on."

    Disagree with the guy and criticize him all you want, but leave the kids out of it. Yeah, daddy brought her up on the stage with him, but that's not her fault. I feel bad for her - not only because she's so upset, but also because Rick Scrotorum is her father.

  • ||

    That picture is real? I assumed it was photo shopped.

    I don't take my kids to work so there are no pictures of my kids with me after I got chewed out or fired.

  • wareagle||

    tell you what - when candidates stop foisting their kids on us, we leave them out of the discussion.

  • ||

    What BSR said.

  • Yet Another Dave||

    I third that emotion. Don't punish the kids for crimes their parents commit, including dragging them into the spotlight. The kids of a politician have enough therapy in their future without us piling on.

  • ||

    I 8 that emotion.

  • ||

    No wonder people think libertarians are heartless assholes. I mean, there are so many reasons, but making fun of a little girl for crying about her daddy losing? That's pretty base.

    Oh boy, here we go again...

  • ||

    Just go read the archive of the original thread and see that everything you're going to say has already been said. Fifty times.

  • Zeb||

    But it's just so damn funny.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'll say something about Obama's kids:

    Thanks to their selfish-assed parents, those girls will never have normal lives.

    Does that count?

  • first||

    There is something other-worldly about Ryonen. It’s got a lot to do with her flawless milk-white complexion.

    Mostly it is her eyes that captivate us. They are like pools hinting at mysterious depths. Let’s not forget the rest of her though. This petite 21 year old girl is rich in sensuous curves and perfectly formed in every way. Swimming and yoga keep her gorgeous body in peak condition.

    Ryonen’s talents have many facets. She is a student at university in her home town of Portland, Oregon. She is devoted to fashion and all aspects of art nouveau, as well as off-beat photography. Her interest art is wide ranging and original. “I love strange and interesting poses” she tells us “and I love to create images of beauty and terror, joy and sadness.” Studies of the nude form have always fascinated her.

    Now it’s time for the practical.

    http://www.hegre-art.com/models#action=show&id=222

  • I||

    I am frustrated because nobody takes us seriously and I can't figure out why.
    Also, that kid's anguish is delightful!
    Not that her dad shouldn't die in a fire.
    I'm serious, dammit!

  • ||

    Ah, finally, the photo America demanded! (And by America, I mean me.)

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I am a Christian (of sorts), an (occasionally) respected pillar of my community and the parent of four delightful children including adorable six-year-old twins.
    And I must say -- I absolutely love that picture and those salty ham tears, so yummy and sweet! Love it, love it, love it!
    Bwahahahahahah! (True story.)

  • ||

    When Santorum's candidacy finally evaporates (sometime around March), I demand a new photo with her holding her newborn illegitimate Down Syndrome child.

    The kid behind will still have the thousand-mile stare, though (with added pimples.)

  • ||

    March? If he makes it to February as a legitimate candidate I will be shocked.

  • Realist||

    Ricky has a great chance to be nominated. He is a worthless warmonger/fundie. That is just who the dumb fuck Republicans like.

  • ||

    Could it be that the little girl was crying because her daddy won ? Now she has to go to a bunch more press conferences.

  • Zeb||

    No. The picture is from when he lost the senate race.

  • FreeLibertine||

    "Perhaps Santorum confuses libertinism with libertarianism"

    There's nothing wrong with libertines, now Santorum on the other hand is a douchey mcdouchebag control freak.

  • دردشة العراق||

    Thank you

  • دردشة العراق||

    Thank you

  • Ron||

    If there was anything better for libertarianism than Ron Paul's success, it's the rise of Rick Santorum. Exposing his views will get more people to understand that they are libertarians than ever before.

  • Eric||

    Maybe. Or for some, it could be the exact opposite. Santorum's success could further remind voters of how the GOP is embracing its full-on-retard. They then do the math: IF GOP == Santorum, THEN Santorum == Paul. Those who aren't familiar with Paul yet won't even bother to give him a chance.
    It's the price Libertarians must pay for riding the GOP's coattails.

  • ||

    Beautiful blue sky today. Not a cloud to be seen.

  • Ted||

    How can Paul be a libertarian, when, by his own admission, he supports states rights over individual rights?

  • ||

    Hope you enjoy your new proctologist. Hey, at least he is not leaving you alone like Ron Paul would. How horrible that would be.

  • DEAN BERRY MINISTRIES||

    THIS BLOG OWNER CAN PROVE HE'S A REAL CONSERVATIVE BY LEAVING THIS POST INTACT: Patriots, how much more proof do you need that Israel was behind 9/11? The evidence in this article effectively convicts the “jews” of the worst act of war ever perpetrated against America. And they know we’re onto them, that’s why they just had their buttboys in Congress and the Whitehouse ram through the Detainee Security Act – so they can start silencing people like us who are spreading the truth. Stop fooling yourselves, if “jews” are ruthless enough to blow up the WTC to get us to go to war for them, they’ll be ruthless enough to start making their critics disappear. They did all this when they controlled The Soviet Union. DO YOU THINK COMMUNISM HAS CHANGED ITS MIND ABOUT RULING THE WORLD? http://tinyurl.com/JewsAmericasWorstEnemies

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement