Santorum Is Severely Wrong

The former senator from Pennsylvania is libertarianism's sweater-vested arch-nemesis.

"I am severely conservative," Mitt Romney told the crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference Saturday. Way to sell it, governor!

Clearly the Romney-2012 Presidential Unit still has a few bugs in its pandering software. The former Massachusetts governor's robotic awkwardness helped propel Rick Santorum to a string of victories in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado last week, and a new Pew Research Center poll has him with a slight lead on Romney among Republican voters nationally.

To borrow from Mitt's rhetorical stylings, I'm not severely conservative, but I do have a case of Stage IV libertarianism. And anyone who shares that condition will find Santorum's rise particularly vexing. The former senator from Pennsylvania is libertarianism's sweater-vested arch-nemesis.

In a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon in Harrisburg last summer, Santorum declared, "I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement."

In that regard, Santorum has a pretty impressive record. By voting for the No Child Left Behind Act, he helped give President Obama the power to micromanage the nation's schools from Washington; and by supporting a prescription drug entitlement for Medicare, he helped saddle the taxpayers with a $16 trillion unfunded liability.

Santorum voted for the 2005 "bridge to nowhere" highway bill, has backed an expanded national service program, and his compassionate conservatism has the Bono seal of approval: "On our issues, he has been a defender of the most vulnerable." Rick Santorum: He's from the government, and he's here to help.

Santorum's 2012 campaign platform even includes a pledge to "re-direct funds within HHS, so it can create public/private partnerships ... for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood."

If you liked what the feds did to the housing market, wait till you see what they can do for your marriage.

The Tea Party movement was supposed to represent an end to this sort of moralistic Big Government conservatism. Animated by "fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets," as the Tea Party Patriots' credo put it, the movement had supposedly put social issues on the back burner to focus on the crisis of government growth.

At one time, Santorum seemed to share this view of the Tea Party -- and it troubled him. In that same talk in Harrisburg, he said, "I've got some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it."

Santorum needn't have worried: In this year's contests, he's regularly drawn more support from Tea Party voters than Ron Paul, who has been described as the "intellectual godfather of the Tea Party movement."

Exit polls show Santorum beating Paul among self-described Tea Party supporters in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida, trailing him only in independent-heavy New Hampshire and Nevada.

A recent Time magazine symposium asked leading thinkers on the Right, "What Is Conservatism?" Anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist offered this answer: "Conservatives ask only one thing of the government. They wish to be left alone."

Tell that to Santorum, whose agenda rests on meddling with other people, sometimes with laws, sometimes with aircraft carrier groups.

"This idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do," Santorum complained to NPR in 2006, "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."

That version of conservatism has a new standard bearer, and he's rising in the polls.

Examiner Columnist Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of "The Cult of the Presidency."

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.

  • ||

    I never thought I'd find a reason to like Romney, until Rick Santorum started rising in the polls.

    Where did My favorite candidate go, anyway?

  • ||

    No kidding! I don't like Romney, but Santorum sucks worse than any Republican candidate I've seen.

    In the Senate, like baseball, you are your record. Here is Rick's:

    http://libertycounselaction.or.....ing_record

  • BelowTheRim||

    I read a little bit of Santorum's voting record and I just can't stay on that page very long.

    Santorum makes me sick. $25 million in aid to N Korea, endowment for the arts...it never ends.

  • Amakudari||

    I particularly like his votes for exempting IRS union reps from criminal ethics laws, unionizing FedEx, subsidizing Amtrak through gas taxes, etc.

    He's wrong on something like 90% of those votes. It's like the worst aspects of Republicans and Democrats combined.

  • Maxxx||

    Thanx for helping bury Newt, Reason.

    Now we're going to get a bona fide fascist instead.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Srsly? Newcular Titties wants to murder anyone with an ounce of weed. I don't see Ricky Bloodycumfart as any worse than him.

  • teen gurlz||

    eeeuuuuwwwwwwwwwww
    barf

  • Barfman||

    Step aside Miss, that's MY job!

    BAAAAARRRRRRFFFFFFF

  • Teenage Girls||

    [Swooning.] Oh, you saved us, Barfman! You're our hero!

  • ||

    Newt buried himself in moondust and Santorum. He is not getting up this time. Even Calista can't help.

  • Dale||

    Thanx for helping bury Newt, Reason

    Like Reason is anything but impotent in influencing the campaign results.

  • jj||

    Yes, thank you reason for helping destroy Newt. (No sarcasm intended. Just sincere gratitude here.)

  • Godfrey||

    What a ridiculous statement.

  • cci||

    happy Valentine's day! Do you wanna look for some bilover to hook up tonight?===Datebi*c/O'm=== is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

  • ||

    Wrong? He's a wolf in conservative sheep clothing...with a sweater vest...with a lubed up stick up his ass.

  • Santorum||

    That's bullshit! It's not lubed!

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Does this mean we know the real reason he doesn't like the meaning applied to his name?

    Do his conservative value make him object to lube?

  • o3||

    santorium is the perfect example that goldwater was correct about evangelicals...who are NOT authentic conservatives...like libertarians actually are.

  • ||

    If, by some accident, Santorum becomes POTUS, Canada may have to put a quota on immigration from our Southern neighbour.

    Or build a fence.

    Or both.

  • ||

    I live by a Great Lake. I'll just boat over. No, fence is going to stop me.

  • ||

    "Release the genetically modified maneating asian carp!"

  • ||

    *Load up boat with grenades and guns* Yeah, I got grenades.

  • ||

    Oh, yeah, my hockey stick and hockey tape.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Make sure you get a toque, or they'll spot you as an American right off.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Take back bacon with you. You may have to bribe some locals if you are caught landing on shore.

  • ||

    We need to quickly invade and annex Canada. Then GOP can nominate Stephen Harper as its presidential candidate.

  • o3||

    not ALL of canada. just the resource parts

  • ||

    What about Quebec?

  • Reactionary||

    The French practically have socialism in their blood. It would be bad for business.

  • ||

    You are unfortunately very true about this. I love Montreal, it is my hometown but the socialism over there pollutes the air and keeps it from benefitting from the boom in the economy experienced in the rest of Canada.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    He wouldn't be a natural-born citizen in that situation - just a johnny-come-lately citizen like all other new citizens of canadian origin.

  • ||

    Santorum declared, "I am not a libertarian

    No shit. But thanks for saying outright what's been obvious for the longest time: TEAM RED has no more "affinity" for libertarians than TEAM BLUE, no matter how much the resident HitAndRunpublicans try and convince people so.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Then why are the few Libertarians in power all in the GOP?

  • sarcasmic||

    The GOP at least gives lip service to economic liberty, while the left is actively hostile towards the idea.

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • ||

    OTOH, the GOP is pretty well hostile to personal liberty. And their version of economic liberty boils down to what Haliburton and Jack Valenti want.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Team Blue - Openly against personal and economic freedom

    Team Red - Privately against personal and economic freedom

  • sarcasmic||

    That's about it.

  • k2000k||

    Pretty much. At least with team red in power I can count on being able to shoot my guns in peace...for the time being. I mean if I am going to be stuck with with a shitty big brother watchingme at least I can have some/i> pleasure in my life.

  • ||

    This

  • ||

    Last I looked Valenti owned both parties. It is not like the Dems won't kick in your door to make sure Hollywood earns and extra buck.

  • o3||

    but not ur bedroom door...no matter how loudly ur sheep bays-out john

  • ||

    Nope. Still not English.

  • ||

    And their version of economic liberty boils down to what Haliburton and Jack Valenti want.

    I think Valenti only wants a nicer casket. On the taxpayer dime, natch.

  • T||

    Zombie Jack still runs the MPAA. It's why their PR lately has sucked. He's eaten the brains of all the smart people at the MPAA.

  • ||

    He must be starving.

  • ||

    +1

  • ||

    The GOP at least gives lip service to economic liberty, while the left is actively hostile towards the idea.

    Still another way to look at it is that at least the left is honest about their hatred for economic liberty.

  • ||

    They lie about their support of personal liberty.

  • ||

    No, they like their "personal" liberty. They just don't care for yours.

  • ||

    No, they like their "personal" liberty. They just don't care for yours.

    Yep. Freedom, to them, pertains only to abortions, drugs, and sexual orientation. Every other facet of your life needs to be controlled, preferrably from Washington.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Yep. Freedom, to them, pertains only to abortions, drugs, and sexual orientation. Every other facet of your life needs to be controlled, preferrably from Washington.

    FIFY

  • capt. steve||

    disagree, they lie about their support for drugs and sexual orientation

    but abortion . . .yeah they like abortion

  • Robert||

    No, usually not even drugs -- at least, not most of them. And preferably it's not from Wash., but from the Hague or Geneva or someplace.

  • ||

    From an undisclosed location.

  • k2000k||

    Not even drugs. Democrats have been just as zealous as prosecuting the drug war as Republicans. I think the Dems just tolerate the drug legalization talk because so many individuals in their camp who are for legalization are also big enviroemntalists and leftists.

  • ||

    Yeah, I was quite disappointed to see how they believed the Drug War helps keep evil addicts at bay

  • Reactionary||

    Not really. In their views, heterosexuals are less moral than gays, Whites less moral than Blacks.

  • Gojira||

    ^^ Bingo. I hate hypocrites and liars more than I do honest villains.

    Also, fried chicken.

  • ||

    Wait, you hate fried chicken?

  • Gojira||

    Wait, you hate fried chicken?

    Sorry no, I love it. That line is just a new meme Wylie and I started in the sugar thread earlier today.

  • ||

    "Hey, there's a broad--there's a broad right there--hey! Yeah you, dingbat! I want a pitcher of beer, fried jalapenos, the nachos grande, and, uh, let's start with 50 wings extra hot and keep the ranch comin'. You hear what I ordered? I'm gonna be fartin' blood over here."

  • Gojira||

    "Your hair...is good, to eat!"

  • BakedPenguin||

    "The answer is - Backstreet Boys."

  • goober1223||

    The question is: what sound does the arctic tern make?

  • robc||

    I dont understand this at all. I think I have a very high tolerance for hypocracy or something, because it doesnt bother me at all.

    If you do the right thing while saying the wrong thing, I support your actions.

  • Gojira||

    I think the idea is, if you're doing it for the wrong reason, then you can suddenly change and start doing the wrong thing at any time, since you never had a foundational basis in doing the right thing to begin with.

    But that's all beside the point, because in this case, it's them saying the right thing while doing the wrong, which you surely are as opposed to as I am.

  • robc||

    Yes, but Im not more opposed becuase of the hypocracy.

    I guess I just expect hypocracy as the default from people. So that part doesnt bother me much.

  • Pike||

    I have a headache ;-)

  • MWG||

    You mean all two of them? Hardly definitive... statistically speaking.

  • Brandon||

    Because the GOP values the electoral votes of Texas and Kentucky?

  • JEP||

    The Robert Taft wing of the GOP used to be very inclined towards libertarianism. Then it was co-opted by the religious right and the neocons.

  • ||

    Santorum != Team Red

  • ||

    He is far far worse than any other typical right wing or left wing candidate because he is a frothy mixture of the worse elements of both types.

    Absolute devotion to government power over every individual in all spheres of economics and lifestyle.

    He is a goddamned nightmare for anyone that values liberty in the slightest.

  • ||

    He is basically a wool-vested version of William Jennings Bryan.

  • Maxxx||

    A happy faced Mussolini.

  • thirtyandseven||

    Just so long as you don't bring up [TEH GAEZ].

  • MJ||

    Well, we have dour Mussolini in office right now.

  • ||

    He is a goddamned nightmare for anyone that values liberty in the slightest.

    He says he wants to stamp out homosexuality in society, when in reality he's subconsciously trying to stamp it out in himself. You don't need to have made it past Psych 101 to realize this. He's just trying to make his lambs stop screaming, or whatever. That he seeks the most powerful office in the world to accomplish this is some seriously scary shit.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    You don't need to have made it past Psych 101 to realize this.

    And in fact it helps if you haven't made it past Psych 101, or you'd know that this is nonsense.

  • ||

    And in fact it helps if you haven't made it past Psych 101, or you'd know that this is nonsense.

    Sorry, but you cannot be this obsessed with other people's sexual choices unless you're wrestling with some serious demons.

  • o3||

    no kidding

  • sarcasmic||

    I've known a few religious zealots who were obsessed with gays and had no discernible "gayness" of their own.

  • k2000k||

    Whats worse is that if Sanatorum is selected then Obama wins for sure in the general. Not that Romney would be any better, but I'm tired of looking at Obamas face.

  • Matt||

    Agreed, while it can be a sign that you're in the closet, it can just as easily be political opportunism or a host of other things.

  • ||

    He's just another Larry Craig who hasn't been caught yet.

  • ||

    Billy James Hargis
    John Paulk
    Paul Crouch
    Ted Haggard
    Paul Barnes
    Lonnie Latham
    George Alan Rekers
    Eddie L. Long
    Larry Craig

    All vocal opponents of homosexuality that were caught engaging in homosexual relationships. But, hey, what's a bunch of anecdotes have to do with anything, right?

  • ||

    All vocal opponents of homosexuality that were caught engaging in homosexual relationships.

    Thanks for posting that. I knew there were a bunch, but I could only think of Craig and Haggard.

  • ||

    And that's just the ones I could find with a fast and dirty google.

  • ||

    I don't want to know how dirty your google was.

    WAY tmi.

  • ||

    I typed it in with my very own

  • ||

    [I'm gonna regret this . . . ]

    With your very own what, Suge?

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    But, hey, what's a bunch of anecdotes have to do with anything, right?

    I actually agree with you on that. I don't have the link with me right now since I'm at work, but I was referring in particular to one study (i.e. experimental psychology) that measured brain-activity in response to various images, and compared it between groups with various attitudes about homosexuality. And, surprise, the "homophobes" did not show significant difference in arousal.

    I think it's just a nice fantasy that these people must be self-hating. It's entirely possible for people to hate the "other" without seeing it in themselves.

  • ||

    Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal?

    Adams HE, Wright LW Jr, Lohr BA.
    Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-3013, USA.

    Abstract
    The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
  • .||

    Define phobia.

  • Scott555||

    Ooh...what a fun list! Thanks for that.

  • Sudden||

    Akin to Hitler's desire to stomp out his own jewishness?

    Yeah, I godwon that shit.

  • Ice Nine||

    He says he wants to stamp out homosexuality in society, when in reality he's subconsciously trying to stamp it out in himself. You don't need to have made it past Psych 101 to realize this. He's just trying to make his lambs stop screaming,

    Wait, he's a homo and a pedophilic sheep fucker?

  • ||

    Wait, he's a homo and a pedophilic sheep fucker?

    As long as the sheep's a male, why not?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    This is all attributable to the power of James Dobson and his cronies among the religious right. They consider Paul's lack of support for the drug war, the war on terror, and the war on sodomy to be deal-killers. While Santorum appeases their every desire to be omnipresent in our moral lives.

    To which, I say, fuck you Jimmy.

  • Laben||

    I still cannot beleive one of my basketball heroes, Pistol Pete, had the terrible fortune to die in Dobson's arms. Unless it was some kind of basketball trick he created.

  • ||

    Frothy seems to forget that the Constitution should only allow the govt to enact laws that protect our rights and property, not to influence our behavior patterns to some centrally planned or "morally superior" ideology.

  • romulus augustus||

    Rick got trounced in his first tv debate in 1994 by the Libertarian candidate and hasn't recovered yet. If Santorum wins, the GOP will have shown itself moribund and calcified and all "classical liberals" should repair to the Libertarian Party forthwith.

  • Brad||

    I really don't see Santorum winning in a general election against Obama, ever. The guy focuses so much on social issues that he's going to look like a complete joke in a general election where voters expect you to talk about the economy. Apparently, Santorum's main issues are bombing Iran and banning gay marriage.

    This entire Republican race (minus Paul), is a giant clusterfuck. Even Perry and Bachmann would have been preferable to the statist clowns in the race now.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    He has his economic message down, actually. He plans to use a bunch of tariffs and the threat of war with China to bring our manufacturing jerbs back. All da jerbs.

    You could make the case that voters will see through this strategy, but who was it that said "No one ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of Americans?"

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    H.L. Mencken, the *bestselling* author.

  • GILMORE||

    overestimating the stupidity of Americans?"

    Technically, I think he said, "...underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

    Same difference.

  • ballz||

    Perry was a clusterfuck all by himself

  • blueman||

    He was a strange mix of Dubya and Towlie.

  • ||

    Any day now, I expect to see a billboard with a picture of Palin an the caption "Miss me yet?".

  • o3||

    better be upskirt or still a no-go

  • rather||

  • rather||

  • GILMORE||

    The fact that Santorum is even still being discussed as a presidential candidate at all serves only to further undermine my estimation of the moral and intellectual character of the average American citizen.

    What the fuck. Can we really not do any better than this? Wasnt' there once a time when we weren't all a bunch of moronic shitheads? When did we all go off the stupid-cliff?

  • ||

    Around the time we failed to draw and quarter Woodrow Wilson for his crimes. We demonstrated that we didn't give a fuck.

  • ||

    ^^ This.

  • Gojira||

    If you really want to get your Wilson hate on, I just finished this book. It's a treasure-trove of why Wilson is in the running for Worst President Ever™.

  • McChimpy bushpig||

    yeaaaaa!

  • Brett L||

    I hope your kids report you for being a dirty Kraut loving Kaiserist.

  • Gojira||

    My dedication to restoring the Hohenzollern line of Kings to rule Central Europe is my one fringe issue.

  • ||

    Speak for yourself.

  • ||

    "Wasnt' there once a time when we weren't all a bunch of moronic shitheads?"

    Technically, no. In the Great Galactic Register of Inhabited Planets, this one is known as "The Planet of Insane Morons."

  • Thomas O.||

    And don't forget "Mostly Harmless".

  • Sudden||

    Shrike's fabled christfag emerges to lead the GOP into defeat.

  • ||

    And you people wonder why I defended Palin. I knew what the alternatives looked like.

  • Gojira||

    The lesser of two evils is still evil. Though to be fair I have no idea whether or not Palin is evil, and decline to speculate on someone I know virtually nothing about (I'm excluding campaign commercials from '08).

    Also, fried chicken.

  • ||

    Plain was never a culture warrior in the way Santorum or Obama are. They just thought she was one because she had the nerve not to kill her handicapped kid and went to church.

    And I wouldn't write off Santorum's chances in November. I don't like the guy. And I don't want to see him as President. But Obama gets weirder and more incompetent by the day. Santorum wouldn't be the first guy to win an election by default.

    And I wish Riggs would have made a better case here and used less snark. Santorum's idea about using HHS to partner with faith based groups to promote marriage is a bad idea for a number of reasons. But I don't see how it is worse than what Obama is doing. And I for the life of me can't see what the hell it has to do with the housing bubble. Does Riggs think Santorum is going to create a marriage bubble?

    There is one other thing to consider, what of any of this shit could Santorum actually get enacted? Not much that I can see.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Heh. "Plain".

    Anything but, John. Anything but.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The only faith-based group that would promote marriage successfully is the , the one true religion.

  • ||

    Tell us people again why you defend(ed) her.
    This could be fun.

  • ||

    Because I am not an idiot and thus didn't need to attack Palin to feel smart as stupid people do.

  • Quetzalcoatl||

    Soooo... Whiteknightism?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Give the guy a break. He has consistently confused Palin with Lisa Ann from the very beginning.

  • ||

    You defend Palin because you are not an idiot, and not attacking her means that you are smarter then idiots. Gotcha.

  • ||

    (Also "than" idiots. But that goes without saying.)

  • ||

    I defended Palin because she is a perfectly acceptable politician with reasonably good views on a lot of things and none of the things her critics said she was. And whatever her flaws, she is a lot better than what we have.

    I would sure as hell take her over Santorum or Gingrich.

  • ||

    Gotta back John up on this. Palin brought ot the absolute worst in a lot of people.

    Pointing out just how dishonest and bizarre much of the opposition to her was is legit, regardless of whether she gives you a chubby.

  • GILMORE||

    John|2.14.12 @ 2:28PM|#

    I would sure as hell take her over Santorum or Gingrich

    Also, I'd so much prefer swimming in flaming pig-shit than being eaten alive by pirhana, or slowly crushed to death by industrial machinery while being laughed at by a gang of old women.

    flaming pig shit = often an improvement over the alternatives.

  • robc||

    Paul? Johnson?

    Even Mitch Daniels looks damn good in comparison to the Santorum/Romney/Gingrich crew.

  • ||

    Daniels never ran. Paul broke the deal when he got up and said the US got what was coming to it on 9-11. And Johnson was cockblocked by Paul. I think Johnson probably would have had a chance had Paul not run. But his being pro abortion would have made it hard.

    And defending Palin doesn't mean she is the best choice. But that she was better than the vast majority of them.

  • robc||

    Paul broke the deal when he got up and said the US got what was coming to it on 9-11.

    Bullshit. Stop lying about that. Blowback != "got what was coming" and you are smart enough to know the difference.

    Or maybe you arent?

  • ||

    You may not think it means that. But a lot of other people do. And perception is reality in politics. Paul fucked himself because he couldn't shut up about issues that didn't matter.

  • robc||

    We arent talking about what a lot of people misapprehend. We are talking about what he said.

    You didnt say, "some people misinterpreted Paul", you said "he got up and said the US got what was coming to it on 9-11".

    Now you are trying to weasel out of it.

  • ||

    I think blowback is saying "got what was coming to you". If you cause something to happen to you, how are you not getting what was coming to you?

  • robc||

    Because I understand the concepts of "expectations" vs "deserve".

    If I stupidly go into a dangerous neighborhood at night while flashing around rolls of money, I can expect to be mugged. Doesnt mean I deserve it.

    I didnt get what was coming to me. But it isnt an unsurprising result of my actions.

  • Lord Ballsac||

    Blowback = "Our government fucked up, big time, for a long time and instead of admitting that it is a giant waste and is full of some of the most despicable shits on the fucking planet, it will demonize anyone who questions its omnipotence. America didn't have anything coming to it...But the US Government did. It's too bad terrorists are indiscriminate morons and planes are hard to aim."

  • ##||

    So you think it doesn't matter why they attacked us??? No wonder our foreign policy is so screwed up.

  • ||

    I think it matters. I think Paul is fucked in the head in his assessment of why. He is a typical American who thinks the whole world revolves around us and our actions are at least in directly responsible for everything that happens. It never occurs to him that people hate us an attack us for reasons that have nothing to do with us or the things we do or don't do.

  • BakedPenguin||

    So decades of support for Israel and having an army occupy 2 Islamic nations has nothing to do with how the US is perceived in the Middle East?

  • ||

    BP,

    The Europeans hate the Israelis. And the middle east radicals hate them just as much as they hate us.

  • robc||

    It never occurs to him that people hate us an attack us for reasons that have nothing to do with us or the things we do or don't do.

    For things like the barbary coast pirates, you are right. But something like 9/11 is based on deeper considerations. They (Al Qaeda) didnt "hate us for our freedoms". It was for things like using Saudi Arabia to attack Kuwait (defend Kuwait- whatever) and for mucking about in Somalia and whatever. Its kind of insane (duh), but it is what it is.

    Switzerland doesnt have to deal with these kinds of things.

  • Maxxx||

    They (Al Qaeda) didnt "hate us for our freedoms". It was for things like using Saudi Arabia to attack Kuwait (defend Kuwait- whatever) and for mucking about in Somalia and whatever.

    Or maybe they attacked us for some other, unrelated reason. The evidence that you are correct comes from the mouths of psychopathic killers.

    I really don't know why so many libertarians are willing to trust the word of mass murderers. Do you guys think that Charlie Manson never lies too? Cause guess what, he was responsible for less deaths by orders of magnitude than OBL and crew are.

  • Maxxx||

    Switzerland doesnt have to deal with these kinds of things.

    Who did Spain attack that led to the Madrid bombings? Or Indonesia that led to the massacre in Java? What about Jordan or India?

  • ||

    The Dutch and Danish have had to deal with this kind of stuff on a smaller scale, thanks to things as innocuous as NGOs and cartoons. Right now crazy is waxing in the ME, and the larger the signature on crazy's radar, the more likely crazy's gonna lock on.

  • ||

    They (Al Qaeda) didnt "hate us for our freedoms".
    But, it may very well be the case that they view our freedoms as their greatest threat and that's why they hate us.
    By the way, you can write off the difference between intervening at the express invitation of their government and invading with a "whatever", but that doesn't make the argument any less fatuous.

  • ##||

    "It never occurs to him that people hate us an attack us for reasons that have nothing to do with us or the things we do or don't do."

    Let's see, when Bin Laden was asked why they did it, his answer was, "Because you attacked us and continue to attack us." So it had nothing to do with us or the things we do, eh?

  • Maxxx||

    Let's see, when Bin Laden was asked why they did it, his answer was, "Because you attacked us and continue to attack us." So it had nothing to do with us or the things we do, eh?

    And psychotic mass murderers never lie.

  • ##||

    "And psychotic mass murderers never lie."

    Why is it so hard to believe that our brazen, self rightous interference with other countries could lead to violent resentment? If the situation were reversed, would you just sit back and say, "Oh well, I'm sure they know what's best for us"? Bin Laden would have had little love for us no matter what but in this case I have little reason to disbelieve him.

  • k2000k||

    Ron could word his stance on defense better. I don't want to say nuanced, as it implies that he is changing his message to appease the crowd, but if he talked more about defense, i.e less foreign involvement opening up funds for research and procurement, its a surprisingly small part of the military budget, and allowing the US to reposition itself for future threats (i.e another way to say bringing them home), then he would be doing a lot better. Once the isolationist tag hit him it puta giant hole in his balloon.

  • ||

    What K200k said. All Paul had to do was say "ruble doesn't make trouble" and he would have been fine. Indeed, he gets military support because a lot of military people think that is what he believes.

  • Matrix||

    Yeah, I'm sure our foreign policy doesn't matter. Not only does our interfering with everyone else piss them off and our interventionism is extremely expensive, but we have to waste a lot more lives and resources when other people get fed up with our interventionism.

  • ||

    Matrix, if we just go home, they will love us and leave us alone. I doubt anyone would ever take that as a sign of weakness and the green light to fuck with us more.

  • ||

    Try this, John.

    We bring everybody home.

    The first group to actually engage in a campaign of violence against actual Americans after that gets completely and utterly destroyed from the air, with little regard for civilian casualties or "international opinion" (because this will be a no-fooling war, and we need to remind everyone what that looks like).

    The last sortie will be to drop tons of rock salt over their former location, Scipio-style.

    Cheaper, and more effective, IMO.

  • ||

    It would never happen that way RC. And I wouldn't want it to. I don't think killing millions of civilians from the air is a good alternative.

    And lastly, we are dealing with terrorist. It is doubtful carpet bombing would kill many of them. it would just kill a bunch of innocent people.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You're not carpet bombing enough then.

  • ||

    After we got done levelling a bunch of villages and maybe a city or two (and salting the rubble!), I doubt that anyone else would be giving them much in the way of aid and comfort.

    Good enough for Alexander and Scipio, good enough for me. Couldn't be much less effective than what we're doing now, in any event, and it would be cheaper.

  • James J.B.||

    Amen to that. I believe that if we fight - it is a lights out, never return type war. Like if a burglar comes into my home - I dont shoot for the leg, then pay for his rehab and send his family some cash. No shoot to kill - to destroy -

  • Maxxx||

    Paul fucked himself because he couldn't shut up about issues that didn't matter.

    Yep, he needed to know when to STFU, even if he was right.

    Hopefully, the next libertarian candidate will learn from his example.

  • robc||

    Daniels never ran.

    Duh. But you didnt know in 2008 that he wasnt going to run in 2012. He was a possible alternative.

  • Dale||

    Lesser of the evils, then. That's a brave choice, John.

    BTW, does she have any virtues that you can think of? Besides the MILF aspects.

  • ||

    You take the choices in front of you. Maybe I will wait for the 12 Libertarian unicorn to arrive from the sky and save us all. In the mean time, you take what choices are available. And Palin is a lot better than Obama, Gingrich, Romney, or Sanrorum. That is faint praise sure. But it is still true.

  • Dale||

    But Palin isn't running. Does that mean that you will not vote?

  • robc||

    Johnson will be on his ballot, but I bet he ignores the choices in front of him.

  • ||

    I don't like Johnson because he is pro abortion. That is a conscience thing. Maybe I will vote Green so they can stay on the ballot and cause mischief for Democrats in future elections.

  • robc||

    I don't like Johnson because he is pro abortion.

    So is Romney (unless you think he lied in the Mass election) and Obama and Barr (is she gonna be the Green Party candidate?).

  • ||

    No Rob. It is no one. Why do you have to support anyone?

  • robc||

    Why do you have to support anyone?

    You dont have to, you can stay home. I dont criticize that choice.

    Im going to vote though, so I have to choose.

  • ||

    Seriously, what difference does that make? Abortion is legal and will stay that way. No president is going to change that, and whatever Johnson's views, he's not likely to have a litmus test based principally on abortion. That ship has sailed.

    I'm not exactly comfortable with abortion and think the debate is really just a line-drawing pissing contest, but I don't vote based on that issue. At all.

  • robc||

    whatever Johnson's views, he's not likely to have a litmus test based principally on abortion.

    Not only that but:

    1. He opposes Roe v Wade and would appoint judges to overturn it.

    2. As governor of NM, he did more to limit abortion than most pro-life governors ever do. He signed multiple bills that limited abortion.

    For a "pro-choice" guy, he was a good friend to the pro-life movement.

  • ||

    The only pro-abortion people are eugenicists. That's fundamentally different from people who think abortion should be legal and safe, if it has to be done.

    Stop lying, John.

  • ||

    At this point, probably not. I live in a blue state anyway. I either won't vote or I will vote third party. I would never under any circumstances vote for Obama.

  • shrike||

    Like all aborto-freaks, that issue drives your thinking, re: Palin.

  • ||

    It is called having personal integrity shrike. If you think something amounts to infanticide, you can't vote for someone who supports it no matter how nice they are.

    Imagine if you actually meant any of the things you said about the war. No never mind that is probably too much for your feeble mind to grasp.

  • Gojira||

    I think the question then becomes, how much are you willing to support more wars (both domestic and foreign) in the name of combating infanticide?

    Not to get all lifeboat ethics here, but if there was a viable peace and drug legalization candidate, is it worth voting for a Rick Santorum over that person strictly because of abortion? Do the other lives lost prematurely not mean anything?

  • ||

    First, there is no such thing as a "peace" candidate. We get peace when our enemies give it to us. And I don't believe for a minute Paul or Johnson would do anything but be driven by events to do things that would disappoint their supporters. You can think they are peace candidates if you want. I think you are pissing in the wind. So for me, that is a non issue. And it is why I would vote for Paul regardless of what he says. I don't think he would actually do any of the things he says once in office.

    As far as the drug war. The drug war is horrible. But I think abortion is worse. Now if I thought Johnson could end the drug war as President, I would have to vote for him since abortion will continue no matter who is President. But Johnson can't end the drug war without Congress and that is not going to happen.

    Both issues are a wash really. And it is a symbolic vote anyway. Maybe you do vote for Johnson. I don't know.

  • Gojira||

    Fair enough.

    Also, fried chicken.

  • robc||

    A president can stop prosecuting the WoD and can use his pardon power. Requires no acts of congress.

    I think you are right that Paul would be more active militarily than some think, but we wouldnt be in Libya or Bosnia or Syria or whatever. Those kind of actions would stop. Overseas bases would close. All of them? No, not in one term, but they would shrink in numbers. I think we would have a stronger national DEFENSE under a Paul presidency. You are right about him not being a "peace" president though.

  • ||

    His hands would be tied by our legal treaty obligations, most of which were properly ratified by the Senate. There's also the political impossibility of just picking up and leaving. I think the fears of a Paul presidency in that regard are entirely unfounded.

  • ||

    And the problem for getting funding for picking up and leaving. Most Paul supporters have no idea how government actually works.

  • ||

    I dunno. The president has a shitload of discretionary money at his disposal and, of course, has a lot of power as commander-in-chief.

    What might be interesting in an activist Paul administration are the steps Congress might take to reassert its powers over the executive. Which, of course, would be a win for Paul, too.

  • Sudden||

    Mitch Daniels would get slaughtered in the GOP primary. The fact that his wife disappeared for a decade to bang other dudes and he took her back when she came back would be perceived as cuckold level weakness.

  • ||

    I think that is why he didn't run. That whole story is just odd. It is not odd that his wife left him. It is very odd that she left him and didn't even try to take the kids.

    I don't think the cuckold thing would have hurt him as much as the weird fixation we have on first ladies. Would the country want a first lady who once abandoned her husband and kids?

  • robc||

    You could be right. I guess that is somehow worse than Gingrich. Weird.

    Sanford should have run.

  • ||

    It sucks. People will excuse a crap weasel like Gingrich and will hold it against Daniels for taking his wife back for the sake of his kids? WTF?

  • Bingo||

    You are forgetting the whole "Appalachian Trail" incident...

  • ||

    Who hasn't run off to Argentina to hang out with their girlfriend for a few days alone?

  • Bingo||

    He probably could have still run for president if he had handled the PR better. Whoever was advising him on that one should be run out of the industry and blacklisted forever.

  • ||

    If it hadn't been naked hiking weekend on the trail, he might have gotten away with it.

  • Real Appalachian Hikers||

    I won't vote for him - he made our healthy-living activities into a punch-line!

  • ||

    He'd have had a great chance of getting the nomination. Hope the girl was worth it.

  • ||

    Did you see the pictures? It is very doubtful she was worth it.

  • robc||

    No, I meant he should have run after the incident. Like with Gingrich, cheating on your wife GAINS you votes.

  • ||

    I thought that's what you meant--I was just referring to his not running because of the scandal.

  • shrike||

    Sanford borders on insane. His entire King David speech is as creepy as Santorum is. And his weepy apology when confronted at the airport.

    He is Palin with a penis.

  • Andrew Sullivan||

    So is Palin. I have proof!

  • ||

    Paul Ryan was the best hope to beat Obama. Running on nothing but the budget. Hopefully he emerges out of the brokered convention.

  • ||

    Another possibility. He could do what Paul should've done--focus entirely on domestic issues. Paul could've shrugged off foreign policy questions pretty easily with the usual bullshit remarks about not doing anything to jeopardize U.S. security, living up to our treaty commitments, etc.

  • ||

    Why didn't Bobby Jindal run? He seemed set up perfectly. A minority, a successful fiscal conservative executive. What was he waiting for?

    He would be the easy "not Romney" at this point.

  • ||

    Jindal blew his chances with his Mr. Rogers response to the SOTU. Plus better he stay here lest we replace him with an old timey Louisiana Governor.

  • Mike M.||

    Go to hell, Santorum.

  • ||

    Go to hell, Santorum.

    He's already there, tortured nightly with dreams of naked Senate page boys prancing merrily about his bedroom. He's taken to sleeping with clothespins on his scrote to stop the erections.

  • Skip||

    He must be a pretty bad homosexual if he keeps making the missus have kids.

  • Sticky Icky Ricky Santorum||

    Nope, too many fags there.

  • T||

    IF we have to have a nemesis, could we at least have one who dresses better?

  • ||

    Or is a bit less of a dork. This is like the creepy kid from The Incredibles.

  • BakedPenguin||

    20% Ned Flanders + 70% Mussolini + 10% Jeffrey Dahmer = Santorum

  • ||

    Close, but I think your math is alittle off. I ran the numbers and came up with:

    40% Mussolini + 40% Larry Craig + 20% Fred Phelps = Santorum

  • kinnath||

    Santorum wants to bring forth a modern Holy Roman Empire starting here in North America.

  • ||

    Santorum is a Protestant I think. So I would imagine he would object to the "Roman" part.

  • Tonio||

    Uh, no, John, he's Catholic. Like you. Makes a big point of that. Thanks for the lulz, though.

  • ||

    That is good to know. Where the fuck did you get the idea I am a Catholic? I am classic Protestant. Just because I am not a bigot doesn't mean I am a Catholic.

  • kinnath||

    Ricky's Catholicism is one of the many interesting parts of his win in the Iowa caucuses where he drew deep support from evangelical protestants.

  • ||

    That is why I figured he was an evangelical. He got all those votes in Iowa.

  • Cabeza de Vaca||

    Only in a year when a Mormon was leading in the polls. Would a Roman Catholic get the evangelical vote in Iowa.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It's gone beyond the old confessional divides. Now it's religious traditionalists versus people who do the NYT crosswords on Sunday morning.

  • k2000k||

    Don't remind me that he's Catholic I don't liek thinking how I have some association with that guy....first Kerry now this fuck. You'd think a religion with a billion fucking people could spit out one good libertarian candidate. I mean for fucks sake I'd take a Herbert Walker Bush or a Ford Catholic candidate at this point.

  • Tonio||

    You'd think a religion with a billion fucking people could spit out one good libertarian candidate.

    LOL.

  • ||

    Tonio,

    Last I looked Paul was a pretty big Christian.

  • k2000k||

    I wouldn't bother I think Tonio is one of those kneejerk anti-religion guys.

  • Joe M||

    And when the only protestant was Ron Paul.

  • Tonio||

    Sorry, John, I assumed that from your extended discussion with Madbiker several weeks back over which latin-language version of the catholic mass was "better."

    But my point still stands about your cluelessness.

  • ||

    Tonio, I don't spend a lot of time listening to political speeches or paying attention to Santorum. If you do, you have my sympathies.

    And I said that I thought the Catholics knew how to run a proper church service. That does not mean I am Catholic, only that I can stand their services. There is a difference.

  • ||

    Life-long Catholic.

  • kinnath||

    Absolutely Catholic, deeply ingrained Catholic.

  • ||

    How long before BO rolls out the "he takes orders from the Vatican" card?

  • kinnath||

    A catholic, a mormon, and a hawaiian walk into a bar.......

  • ||

    and a fat cracker

  • ||

    I doubt even he would be that tone-deaf. Although the attacks on Santorum as a "evangelical fundamentalist Christian" from the left-media will make for some epic lulz.

  • JFK||

    What?

  • ||

    Santorum is a Roman Catholic.

  • robc||

    But Paul is a religous traditionalist too, as far as I can tell.

    I would still think that a baptist traditionalist > catholic traditionalist to evangelicals.

  • robc||

    This was my first attempt to reply to Eduard down below.

    Come on squirrels, get your act together, this is happening way too often.

  • Menthols Washington||

    But big government authoratarian > babtist traditionalist to the evangelicals.

    Progressives and evangelicals bash each other over the head with certain hot button issues, but at the end of the day they come together to squash your rights. That makes them both hard. When they get hard, we get some Santorum.

  • k2000k||

    But by that logic Catholics would have voted overwhemingly for John Kerry back in '04. But the majority went to Bush. Ultimately I think one's religious association doesn't matter all that much in America today, as long as you are a part of acceptable Judeo-Christian faiths, it's the other stuff. Sanatorum may be Catholic, but even amongst my conservative Catholic relatives he isn't viewed very highly.

  • robc||

    WTF? Did you not see my posts about SC?

    The debate was like a joke, A mormon, 2 catholics and a baptist walk into a debate...

    I still dont know how a baptist doesnt win SC in a landslide.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    See above - times have changed.

  • robc||

    I will still think a baptist traditionalist would be greater than a catholic traditionalist to evangelicals.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Your point seems familiar.

    Sadly, if a Baptist is seen as soft on drugs and Iran, then they seem to prefer some other religion.

    There was a time when being Catholic could be a deal-breaker for many voters, especially protestant fundamentalists. Now, however, it's not so much Papist vs. Heretic as it is Religious Traditionalist and Traditional Values Supporter versus Guy Whose Speechwriter Has to Remind Him to Say Something About God Because the Rubes Like It.

    Paul is a traditionalist in the constitutional sense, that's just not how many people see it.

    He's among the first to expose voters to a certain political worldview. His message will start to take eventually, but only after the messenger has been defeated.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    To clarify, Paul doesn't need to be reminded to mention God; I was thinking of people like Kerry or Romney.

    Not so much Obama, who spent years in a black church where God was frequently mentioned (often without the word "D___" afterwards).

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'm pretty sure I don't need to be convinced to not vote for him.

  • ||

    I blame the taking down of the Yummy Tears thread. If that were still up, Santorum would be back where he belongs.

    Seriously, Santorum is too off the reservation to get nominated. This is just another brief, anti-Romney surge.

  • Bingo||

    Off the reservation compared to the general populace? Definitely. Off the reservation compared to the GOP base? Ehhh... not so sure given the demographics of the primaries voters.

  • ||

    To be fair, the choices for them suck. They should be voting for Paul, but the general indoctrination for interventionism runs quite deep, which makes Paul a difficult vote for most. Incidentally, it really runs across party lines--anti-war for the left is like Creationism for the right, both fringe issues.

  • ||

    Anti-war for the left is OK when Team Red is in power.

    When the wind shifts, they hoist the Jolly Roger.

  • ||

    Accountability. Integrity. Truth.

    Dead, deader, deadest.

  • ||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYtlpG0hb38

    This is more than two decades old.

  • ||

    I hope so, then Rick have an Achille's Heel somewhere. I spotted this opinion letter from *cough cough* the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02.....l?_r=2&hp;
    Maybe his book might be his downfall.

  • ||

    Obama did him one hell of a favor by declaring jihad on the Catholic Church.

  • Bingo||

    I honestly think this is where most of his support is coming from. Goddamnit, Obama even manages to make the Republican primaries worse. He is like King Midas turning everything he touches into shit.

  • ||

    And he might get Santorum elected. The mask really came off over this. Nicholas Kristoff said in the times

    The basic principle of American life is that we try to respect religious beliefs, and accommodate them where we can.

    That says it all doesn't it? Obama just told religious people to go fuck themselves he will accommodate them when he feels like it. The media thinks every religious person is some kind of far out right wing evangelical. That is not true. A lot of independents and no few liberals are religious in this country.

  • Gojira||

    The mandate to treat anyone who comes into an emergency room violates my Cthullu religion which mandates that I treat all people as evilly as possible.

  • ||

    It would seem opening a hospital in the first place would violate your religion.

  • robc||

    Depends what kind of hospital it is.

  • Gojira||

    Nah, because you could way overcharge people in exchange for crappy service, leaving surgical tools in when you sew them back up, etc.

    And have fake insurance so there's no money to pay anyone when they sue you.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Real libertarians worship Yog Sothoth, anyway! F'tagn you, Jim!

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Splitters! Real libertarians support Nyarlathotep.

  • ||

    Nah, because you could way overcharge people in exchange for crappy service, leaving surgical tools in when you sew them back up, etc.

    So you would be like every other hospital.

  • ||

    Obama did him one hell of a favor by declaring jihad on the Catholic Church.

    Rush was yammering on today about how the Dems have decided that contraception is going to be one of their wedge issues, replacing abortion.

    The theory is that Stephanopolous brought it up at the debate last month to surface the issue and maybe catch Mitt in a bad soundbite.

    Then, Obama rolls out his free contraception plan. And, they surface the Santorum quotes about how states absolutely can ban it, and he thinks it just a bad, bad thing anyway.

    The narrative is now underway:

    Obama: defender of contraception against Republican neanderthals.

    Republicans: want to take your contraception away.

    The media, naturally, flogs the narrative.

    Personally, I think this gaves way too much credit to the Obama apparatchiks, but its playing out that way.

  • ||

    I don't think it is playing out that way at all. I think it is playing out quite the opposite as Obama versus religious freedom.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    John, even if the Republicans "win" on an issue, focusing the election on social issues (as opposed to foreign policy and the economy) is a win for the President.

  • k2000k||

    Agreed. Social issues is the only thing Obama has left that makes him look good to progressives and some independents. If the election focuses on his economics and foreign policy, specifically how ineffectual he appears and his alienation of certain allies, he is toast.

  • Tonio||

    Absolute devotion to government power over every individual in all spheres of economics and lifestyle.

  • Tonio||

    Absolute devotion to government power over every individual in all spheres of economics and lifestyle.

    Crap, I was going to reply to Califronian @ 1:54 and had that phrase in my paste buffer.

  • ||

    I saw this on Punk Rock Libertarians FB Page...

    "Libertarians: Keeping Republicans out of your bedroom and Democrats out of your wallet."

  • Father Jack||

    Feck Sanitarium. Twice. Up his arse. Drink! Girls!

  • Gojira||

    Um, yeah...those poor innocent (and apparently functionally retarded, if they fell for it) TP people were driven into supporting Santorum against their will and better judgement because the left waged culture war on them.

    Sorry, but your partisanship is showing.

  • Gojira||

    ^^ This was a reply to John below.

  • ||

    Culture matters. The contraception mandate did Santorum one hell of a favor. If Libertarians would spend less time calling people retarded and more time explaining how having a small government means ending the culture wars, they might get somewhere.

  • ||

    Sorry, John, but "ending the culture wars" is anathema to too many voters.

    They lurv them some culture wars. Lurv, lurv, lurv.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Believe it or not, the non-politicians get into the culture wars because they deem themselves attacked, and would be happy to defeat the perceived attacks and get on to other issues.

    Maybe there are some whose lives wouldn't have meaning without a culture-war struggle, but plenty of others just want the perceived aggression to go away.

    Do you think, for example, that Catholic Charities enjoys fighting about whether it should be forced to pay for insurance which covers contraception for their employees? They would prefer to focus on, you know, charity.

    In this instance, at least, it's obvious who the aggressor is - and it's not the victims who should be blamed for keeping the issue alive.

  • ||

    The culture wars have gone on too long. Everyone involved is an aggrieved victim of aggression who won't rest until they get their retribution.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm sorry, but moral equivalence doesn't fit in with the hhs mandate, or with many other battles.

    To apply moral equivalence to the hhs dispute, it would be necessary to assume that religious institutions conspired to have their consciences violated - all so that they could win votes!

    For another example, the Komen Foundation didn't even want to get involved in the culture wars - that's precisely why Planned Parenthood and its allies (including most U.S. Senators) attacked it. Was Komen conspiring to provoke Planned Parenthood into boycotting it?

  • Gojira||

    In this year's contests, he's regularly drawn more support from Tea Party voters than Ron Paul, who has been described as the "intellectual godfather of the Tea Party movement."

    And that tells you all you need to know about the Tea Party circa 2012. You had a good run there for a couple of years before completely, utterly selling out. R.I.P.

  • A Serious Man||

    Either they hate Obama more than love small government, or they never ever loved or favored small government. Probably both.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Or, there is no tea party candidate.

  • ||

    They favored small government. They are just caught up in the culture war. They consider the culture war more important.

    You have to love it if you are a leftist. You start a good culture war. That drives the other side to demagogues like Santorum who love big government as much as you do. You can't lose.

  • Gojira||

    Um, yeah...those poor innocent (and apparently functionally retarded, if they fell for it) TP people were driven into supporting Santorum against their will and better judgement because the left waged culture war on them.

    Sorry, but your partisanship is showing.

  • ||

    Culture matters. The contraception mandate did Santorum one hell of a favor. If Libertarians would spend less time calling people retarded and more time explaining how having a small government means ending the culture wars, they might get somewhere.

  • Gojira||

    I didn't say culture didn't matter, I'm combating your assertion that the righteous and good TP was not, in fact, full of closet statists who finally just came out whenever it came time to put their money where their collective mouth is (supporting Paul), but was instead wholly corrupted from the outside by the efforts of the left.

  • A Serious Man||

    As this article explains, these morons don't want to end the culture wars because to them their values and way of life is always under constant threat from undesirables like gays, immigrants, and recreational drug users.

    They're no different than left-wingers, they don't want to destroy Sauron's ring, they want to give it to the "right people".

  • Bingo||

    I think John has the right idea, you just have to go by the Tea Party's definition of small gov't (which means cutting welfare and a few nebulous gov't agencies but NEVER defense or medicare or SS) and that they put it at a low priority compared to culture war bullshit.

  • ||

    People would agree to cut medicare and social security. But you guys don't understand what is happening.

    First, the govenrment has never had a comprehensive program to cut government. So no one believes the government when it says it is going to contract. Instead, people rightfully think that cut means taking money from me and wasting it somewhere else. Given that assumption, it is no wonder people won't consider cuts to SS and Medicare. Why should they? The money saved isn't going to go to get us out of debt.

    Second, it is not just the old who are against it. It is the middle aged who are as well. They are terrified of the expense of having to take care of their parents.

    Given these two facts, what exactly are the libertarians offering people other that "fuck you you lazy tit sucker we are cutting you off"? Nothing. You can't just cut these programs in isolation. And you have to do it in a way that people feel like they are getting something in return, like a smaller government, a better future for their kids, more freedom and so forth.

    I don't buy the "what is the matter with these retards" argument when it comes from the left. And I don't buy it any more when it comes from the right. The sad fact is conservatives and libertarians both have done a horrible job selling small government and explaining it to people.

  • MNG||

    John, when do you take a break to work? I mean, you were posting a lt this morning when I got to work, then now I come back during my late lunch and your still posting a lot still. Do you break for work or what?

    "Given these two facts, what exactly are the libertarians offering people other that "fuck you you lazy tit sucker we are cutting you off"?"

    Liberty?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    So the problem is the Tea Party doesn't want to "jump" first? I thought that was their raison d'etre.

  • MNG||

    I've long defended the Tea Party here and I'll do so again. They're not perfect from any view, sure, but I think they at least play down some of the inconsistencies you see among most conservative groups. They make some effort to put national security and socon goofiness behind fiscal matters.

  • ||

    MNG,

    And you can't blame people for not wanting to give up their social security if there is no guarantee the money won't be wasted elsewhere and are offered nothing in return.

  • MNG||

    Well, I think libertarians are not pitching to the tit suckers but to those who are having their tit sucked...And that is most voters.

    What they could offer tit suckers is what Matt Welch once eloquently said here: to be treated like a free, responsible adult.

  • ||

    I would hardly call someone who paid effectively 15% of the their income into social security and another how ever % into medicare their entire working lives and are required by law to be in medicare once they are 65 a tit sucker. To do so is frankly disgusting and insulting and goes a long ways to explaining why Libertarians are lucky to get 4% of the vote.

  • MNG||

    OK, my bad, I misunderstood. I wouldn't call the SS guy a tit sucker either. I was thinking of other recipients of government assistance.

  • ||

    I wouldn't call the SS guy a tit sucker either

    Well, they are. Every nickel they get this year is a nickel taxed from a worker this year. I know they "feel" differently, but guess what? Math doesn't care about their feelings.

    And, yes, the fact that we have converted a majority of the population to tit suckers means that libertarianism has no chance until the fiscal crash happens, and those checks dry up, never to return.

  • k2000k||

    I should tell my very progressive cousin something like this next time she starts using the words 'feelings' in conjunction with talkinga about spending.

    "Ok so you feel its right to take money from Americans to spend on programs that are bankrupting America? Well try this. Take your next calculus test and just write whatever the fuck you *feel* like writting in the answer, tell your professor that the number you wrote just *felt* right and tell me how many fucks he gives?"

  • .||

    Well, they are. Every nickel they get this year is a nickel taxed from a worker this year. I know they "feel" differently, but guess what? Math doesn't care about their feelings.

    Do you happen to own any government securities? Where do you think the money comes from to pay those off, Mr. Tit Sucker?

  • ||

    That Nit Wit is just scary!!!
    Kill a 16yr old American citizen, this is what he said!"I Think It's A Wonderful Thing"
    God help this fool and his followers!

  • tanuru||

    Romney's "severely conservative" gaffe has spawned a new ad by Democratic SuperPac AmericanLP airing in Michigan this week.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M6J_pvxxtY

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Unpossible! Democrats don't believe in SuperPacs.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Or, there is no tea party candidate.

  • tanuru||

    Romney's "severely conservative" gaffe has spawned a new ad by Democratic SuperPac AmericanLP airing in Michigan this week.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M6J_pvxxtY

  • kinnath||

    A mormon, a catholic, a WASP married to a catholic, and a baptist walk into a debate...

  • A Serious Man||

    And the crowd boos the Baptist who suggests we follow the teachings of Christ?

  • o3||

    a converted WASP

  • ||

    That Nit Wit is just scary!!!
    Kill a 16yr old American citizen, this is what he said!"I Think It's A Wonderful Thing"
    God help this fool and his followers!

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Wait, are we talking about Obama here?

  • ||

    Santorum is the only candidate who would cause me to vote Obama. Outside of him, it's ABO.

    Anyone else feel the same way?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I don't think I could vote for Gingrich, either.

  • MNG||

    I would vote for Santorum before Romney. Romney is for me the most loathesome pol on the national scene. I detest everything he says, sure, but much more than that, I've never seen a pol flip flop on such basic positions like he does to suit him. And I've never seen it work to a pols advantage the way it has for him. It's disgusting. If Romney wins even the nomination that sends a message to future pols that you don't have to have even an inkling between what you do and say one election cycle and another.

  • ||

    I've never seen a pol flip flop on such basic positions like he does to suit him. And I've never seen it work to a pols advantage the way it has for him.

    I dunno, I think Obama gives him a real run for his money there.

  • ||

    Reminds me of Clinton.

  • MNG||

    I've heard this before, and I can see part of it given I'm a liberal who has been plenty disapointed in Obama.

    But I don't think he's in Mitt's class. Obama has plenty of half measures and hedges. Romney has amazing 180's on some pretty big issues.

    Nobody went into 2008 under the impression Obama was pro-life or pro-gun rights or such and then woke up this morning to find the opposite. Romney has done actual flips on those kinds of issues. Everyone knew Obama was left of center at the time, and they still find him to be so now. Mitt has gone from running to the left of Ted Kennedy to someone who is "severely conservative."

    And it has helped him, that's what is amazing. In Florida even though he is actually worse than Newt on immigration issues in his rhetoric Hispanics liked him better because they simply thought his rhetoric was full of shit. That's wowser there.

  • ||

    Look up Santorum's Senate record (I linked at top) before saying he isn't worse than Romney. He's worse than most of the Blue Dog Democrats.

  • MNG||

    Santorum has not flip flopped on critical moral issues to the degree Romney has, sorry.

    We're talking going from pro to anti immigration, pro-choice to pro-life, pro-gun control to pro-gun rights, pro-gay rights to anti-gay rights. It's incredible.

    The equivalent of Romney would be if Obama ran as Chuck Shumer but turned into Zell Miller.

  • ||

    Look up Santorum's record.

  • ||

    That was an interesting link, Ol' Soldier -- thanks.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    No. Nothing short of someone cutting off my finger and using it on the touch screen could cause me to vote for Obama.

    Santorum would be bad, but another four years of Obama, particularly in a lame duck session where he won't care about political blow back and will be striving to establish his "legacy", would be disastrous for the country.

    I think Obama could do more damage to the country in his second term than Santorum could do in his first.

    I keep thinking that the nightmare will gradually end and the people will start to regain their sanity, but after reading some comments on a couple different forums this morning, I have concluded that we are totally fucked. It really is frightening how many people completely and utterly lack any ability whatsoever to think critically and analytically and instead adhere unyielding to a hard party line, evidently based on sound bites they heard from the MSM.

  • MNG||

    I've said it before and I will say it again: Obama has given libertarians absolutely no reason to vote for him. None.

    There's things that he could have done that would have, things that his liberal base would agree with, like repeal the stupid gambling laws the GOP congress did. But he didn't. At best all he has to offer is a few areas where he is "less bad" than the GOP (starting costly wars, WOD, military spending). No sharp differences in his favor there.

  • MNG||

    Here's a better way to put it: on most issues that I as a liberal care about where Obama is better than the GOP (sans folks like Paul), Gary Johnson is much better.

  • Maxxx||

    I keep thinking that the nightmare will gradually end and the people will start to regain their sanity, but after reading some comments on a couple different forums this morning, I have concluded that we are totally fucked. It really is frightening how many people completely and utterly lack any ability whatsoever to think critically and analytically

    Yep.

    Obama is the Mule from the foundation trilogy.

  • ||

    If Santorum is the nominee, I change my registration from Republican to Libertarian and vote for Gary Johnson.

  • libertarian viking||

    ditto

  • k2000k||

    I'll keep my registration as republican and vote as Johnson, as the republican party isn't really republican anymore.

  • Thomas O.||

    Me three.

  • MNG||

    "John|2.14.12 @ 2:30PM|#
    I don't like Johnson because he is pro abortion."

    John is pro-life?

  • ||

    Sure. He's a Catholic, isn't he?

  • ||

    No RC I am not a Catholic.

  • ||

    I know, I read the thread above. Just yankin' ya.

  • Tonio||

    Blast you, RC.

  • ||

    I was hoping for spittle-flecked rant. Maybe next time.

  • Tonio||

    See, John, it's not just me...

  • MNG||

    No snark there, I just did not know. I thought he always started his conversations about pro-lifers with "I don't agree with them, but..."

  • ||

    I am. I have never been pro abortion. I have always thought things like partial birth abortion were wrong. I am not an absolutist. I don't think that the question of is a fertilized egg a human being is an answerable question. But once you get to about two or three months, it is just impossible for me to say it is not.

  • MNG||

    Hmm, I just did not know.

    I will say this: if you are not an absolutist then give don't reject Gary Johnson over that one issue, give him a re-look. He's not either, and he's probably in agreement with you on most small government things. He wants a 43% cut in the federal government across the board, for example.

  • ||

    Santorum is not the one that would pass laws. He is too much centralized government, but he does not believe in legislating morality, except in the case of abortion. That he thinks is homicide. He is better than Newt, and much better than Romney. Ron Paul would be best if he had any chance at all of winning.

  • np||

    Sorry, but I think you're blind in Santorum's assessment.

    He is too much centralized government, but he does not believe in legislating morality, except in the case of abortion.

    That big government mentality of his is precisely driven by his beliefs. After all, he had mentioned in response to all of Ron Paul's criticisms that he's "a cause guy". So by his own track record and his statements of what he wants to do (which among many other things include obscenity laws and sodomy laws) he is most definitely not better than Newt or Romney.

    I can't believe I'm saying this, but our only fucking hope might just be Romney.. gawd. I guess Ron Paul must've seen it coming with the pals-behind-the-scene thing (to be fair I guess, they and their families have been friends from about 5 years ago)

  • @AgoristDon||

    The Santorum Theocracy - Obama is not the worst we can do
    http://tirelessagorist.blogspo.....cracy.html

  • ||

    The Tea Party has become diluted by too much Santorum. They are quickly becoming as relevant as the Occupy movement.

  • Ant||

    Interesting take on conservatism.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt1fYSAChxs

  • GILMORE||

    Whoot! That was awesome.

    I spotted Milton Friedman in the crowd!

  • GILMORE||

    p.s. At least now I can date the "when did we get so stupid?" to sometime after this speech....

  • GILMORE||

    Whoo - great reagan line = "the problem with liberals is not ignorance; its that that they 'know' so much that isn't so"

  • RC||

    It's because the Tea Party only very briefly had anything to do with Libertarianism at all. All of the religious nutjobs for whom the Republican party was not devout enough followed the merry band of the pious into the Tea Party. That's why its popularity has sunk so badly.

  • ||

    The former senator from Illinois is libertarianism's mom-jeans wearing arch-nemesis.

  • ||

    My quick reading of the article finds nothing wrong with it. But it reminds me of my exasperation with folks who equate libertarianism with conservatism.

    Conservatism doesn't embrace individualism as a core value. Grover Norquist was pandering to a sentiment. Classic conservatism is about opposition to change, is it not? Standing athwart history and yelling stop, etc.

  • ||

    That's one meaning, but the political labels got frozen in 1932, with conservatives being the political heirs to FDR's opponents and liberals vice versa. The original meanings of the words "conservative" and even more so, "liberal" have little to do with the positions of people so labeled.

    On many issues -- gun rights and entitlements chief among them -- it's "liberals" standing athwart history yelling stop. "Liberals", not "conservatives", were decrying the Supreme Court supposedly overturning "a century of law" on campaign finance reform last year.

  • David||

    I only have one word to describe "Tea Partiers" who vote for Santorum.

    Imbecilic.

  • ||

    You're naive if you believe there ever was any difference between the Tea Party and the Christian right/conservative movement. Social issues just took a backseat to fiscal issues for a few months, just as Mitch Daniels proposed his "truce" and was savaged by the Tea Party right for it. They are one and the same. They always have been.

  • the bilover||

    I heard Rick Santorum was looking for me.

  • ||

    "The Tea Party movement was supposed to represent an end to this sort of moralistic Big Government conservatism."

    No, it wasn't, that was just its deceptive PR strategy, which I guess you swallowed. Not all of us were as myopic.

  • ||

    You are only puzzled because you allowed yourself to think the TEA Party movement was coherent in the first place. I, on the other hand, knew they were bunch noisy frauds only organizing opposition because a black man is President.

  • jacob||

    I always took them to be a bunch of Republicans who thought changing their name would garner more votes.

  • ||

    It is not coherent, in fact it has wide differences in everything but the debt problems, taxes, and wanting a more strict reading of the constitution.

  • Oodoodanoo||

    A two-way race between Romney and Santorum is like vomiting and diarrhea at the same time.

  • ||

    Rick Santorum is the poster child for everything that is wrong with the Republican Party. He is no friend of liberty and neither is the Republican Party. His rise in the polls shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The only thing positive I can say about Rick Santorum is that at least he is honest about being opposed to liberty. But in a presidential contest between him and Barack Obama, he is hardly the lesser of two evils.

  • gphil||

    I agree with Santorum that true Conservatism is about using the government as a tool to regulate the affairs of individuals. At least he's honest enough to admit it. This is the reason I left the Republican party.

  • ||

    A rather CATO-ish article:

    1) "If you liked what the feds did to the housing market, wait till you see what they can do for your marriage."

    Bullsh*t.

    2) No mention of his desire to have the government in your body.

  • ||

    You mention No Child Left Behind, which is Bush Era, but seem to attribute it to Obama. (As is the Medicare prescription program, mentioned in the same paragraph) You might want to clarify that in the historical context.

  • ||

    What's the difference? Bush/Obama,Obama/Bush? They both serve the same masters.

  • ||

    I do not like Santorum, but he has never voted for forcing someone to buy something like insurance. As bad as Santorum is, Romney is worse. He does not even understand how the mandate violates a person's liberty.

  • ||

    I do not like Santorum, but he has never voted for forcing someone to buy something like insurance. As bad as Santorum is, Romney is worse. He does not even understand how the mandate violates a person's liberty.

  • ||

    He's just as bad honestly..pick your poison.

  • ||

    Ricky definately wants to micromanage every part of people's lives. And INTIMATELY CONTROL what goes on in your bedroom!! And he is just itchin' to get ahold of that nuclear "FOOTBALL"! I've never seen someone so strongly,overtly, want to be involved in as many military egagements as possible! Like the bedroom...he wants to micromanage every sovereign countries daily life. But, ESPECIALLY!!! Don't give that so called conservative that FOOTBALL with codes!!!!! PLEASE!!!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement