The Audacity of a Dope

Rick Santorum, seemingly miffed at all the favorable attention his concession speech received, has reverted to his familiar "arrogant schmuck" stance.

A New York Times column by David Brooks spurred his latest bout of self-reflection. It hailed Santorum's work on poverty, and one line in particular struck him: "If Mr. Santorum were pro-choice, he'd be a media star and a campus hero."

"I would be Barack Obama," Santorum said. "Instead, I am part of the haters club."

Santorum doesn't seem to remember when the backlash against him began. Hint: It wasn't about abortion.

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.

  • ||

    If you were Barack Obama, Senator, you would't single out demographic groups different from your own and condemn them as child abusers, bestialists, and murderers.

  • Timothy||

    He'd also be likable.

  • ||

    "I couldn't walk away knowing I had an opportunity to have a Churchillian moment."

    Thats gold.

  • ||

    He also wouldn't hate the pursuit of happiness.

    He also wouldn't look like an explorer of the further regions of experience.

  • ||

    So when did Reason become Air America?

  • ||

    man on dog! man on dog!

  • ||

    Bill, when the discussion turned to people who want to take away our civil liberties because they know what's good for us. You might want to check the post on video game violence from earlier today.

  • ||

    "AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out."

    And let's not forget the frothy mix.

  • ||

    What is this garbage of "I don't have a problem with homosexuals, but only with acts of homosexuality"? He obviously does have a problem with homosexuals--he doesn't think they should be able to be what they are. You can't send "homosexual acts" to prison--you send people to prison. And he wants to.

    And I am racking my brains to come up with a major, influential culture in history that accepted (even glorified) homosexual relationships. What could it be? Hmmm... The Soviets? Nope. The Native Americans? Probably not. Ottoman Empire? Nah. Northern Europe. I guess not. Africa? No. Australian Aborigines? No. Well, I've looked everywhere except the Mediterranean area. There's probably none there either. Oh well, I give up.

  • ||

    So when did Reason become Air America?

    Well, there is a strong overlap, philosophically, between libertarians and left-liberals on social issues. This is news to you??

  • ||

    "Well, there is a strong overlap, philosophically, between libertarians and left-liberals on social issues. This is news to you??"

    I was addressing the generally adolescent tone of the posters (not just on this Santorum thread).

  • ||

    "I would be Barack Obama,". No he wouldn't. Obama's last name isn't synonymous with "The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."

  • Colin||

    Santorum's a maroon. I'm glad come January he'll be gone.

    His argument against the right to privacy reminds me of why people originally didn't want an enumerated list of rights for the American people: that it would leave governments in the future with the idea that they were the ONLY rights the people had.

    Sometimes I feel like the only person left who has read the constitution and found it to be a short list of what government can do and not a list of what it can't.

  • ||

    Ethan,

    Maybe Santorum is okay with the classical view on homosexual relationships, where they were kosher between old guys and young guys, but were not acceptable between peers or as an alternative to heterosexual marriage.

    I overgeneralize about the classical example, of course, and I was kidding about Santorum being okay with it, anyway. I'm sure he isn't.

    Reason does seem a little more left-leaning in recent times, but I think that's a reaction to unfettered GOP rule more than any huge shift to the left. And, as Ethan noted, we do walk with the left on some cultural issues. The only writer here that seems particularly left-leaning at all is David Weigel, though I'm sure it's for the reasons above--the magazine is hardly going to dump its libertarian credentials by hiring true leftists. And a "leaning" isn't that big of a deal. Many of us here might be accurately described as right-leaning, even though we'd also repudiate most GOP policies and actions.

  • ||

    Bill, Santorum is a walking microcosm of everything that's wrong with the GOP.

    He deserves every bit of scorn he's received, and then some.

  • Thomas Paine\'s Goiter||

    Well, there is a strong overlap, philosophically, between libertarians and left-liberals on social issues. This is news to you?

    But a weak union on solutions to those issues.

  • Mike Laursen||

    What is this garbage of "I don't have a problem with homosexuals, but only with acts of homosexuality"?

    It's a fairly common Christian fundamentalist idea: "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

  • ||

    "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

    My brother, a recovering born-again, credits the smug holier-than-thou look on the faces of his fellow christians when they said this as being one of the main reasons why he eventually fell out.

  • ||

    So when did Reason become Air America?

    pppppptt. Right.

    If you really want to find out how "liberal" we are here, why not ask about people's positions on taxes, gun ownership, property rights, affirmative action, the disingenuous use of the commerce clause to increase federal oversight of just about anything, etc.....

    Santorum on the other hand, is someone people of any political persuasion can hate on with gusto. This is because he is a scumbag. One who wraps his juicy scumbag-ness in God, the flag, dead babies, etc.

    His last minute "gathering storm" campaign was embarrassing. He was basically saying, "Vote for me or YOU WILL ALL DIE".

    If I'd lived in PA, that sort of fear-mongering is the kind of thing that would get me out to vote the dumb bastard out of office.

    His "storm" that everyone was "sleepwalking" through wasnt even just Osama & the terrrissts. It was the queers. The brown menace of Mexico. It was the boogeyman.

    Many reasonable people can agree that the world is much better off with Rick Santorum working (hopefully) in the private sector.

    [Well, there is a strong overlap, philosophically, between libertarians and left-liberals on social issues. This is news to you?

    TOMS GOITER = But a weak union on solutions to those issues.]

    Er?

    Tommy boy, the "solution" these people can sometimes overlap on is NO SOLUTION AT ALL.

    i.e. reasonable people can agree that a) Janet Jackson's tits, b) grand theft auto XIX c) two age-of-consent people of the same gender bumping uglies are not "problems" requiring Government "solutions". Unlike ol' Rick's worries that 'homosexual acts' were undermining the fabric of "our culture"/

    Liberals do want to legislate hate crimes, spend all sorts of money on 'celebrating diversity' BS, many other idiocies, and there of course we part ways.

    But as far as "social issues" go in general (which is kinda a little too vague anyway), libertoids and libs might both at least fail to see the urgent need to have the government come in and legislate our morals back to what they should be (e.g. "to that good ol' 1950's America, when men were men, women were women, gays were repressed, you could hose down sassy blacks, and pinkos could be crucified in public")

    JG

  • ||

    I don't believe that it is possible to respond to Santorum with more than "he's a dumbass." Anything more is a waste of brain cells.

  • greg mills||

    Here's Santorum saying the Pursuit of Happiness "harms America". Wait for the very end.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03zFTTqHScI

  • ||

    I feel like such a schmuck for respecting his concession speech and feeling bad for his dolly-clutching daughter now. Can we see that photo again, please?

  • ||

    ME: What is this garbage of "I don't have a problem with homosexuals, but only with acts of homosexuality"?

    MIKE: It's a fairly common Christian fundamentalist idea: "Love the sinner, hate the sin."


    The distinction works better when it is kept in the generalized form. When applied to a particular situation (like homosexuality), the distinction seems to break down. Perplexed gay guy: "So let me get this straight, you have no problem with me, but you have a problem with me being me? Forgive me if I don't see the difference."

  • Thomas Paine\'s Goiter||

    Tommy boy, the "solution" these people can sometimes overlap on is NO SOLUTION AT ALL.

    Read for content. That's what I said.

  • Thomas Paine\'s Goiter||

    This is because he is a scumbag. One who wraps his juicy scumbag-ness in God, the flag, dead babies, his crying daughter

    FYP

  • ||

    I don't know which is funnier: the mental midgets claiming that Al Queida is "celebrating" the Democratic win, or this...

  • ||

    I implore the editors and other employees of Reason.com to never, ever, ever bring up this moron again without a good, NO great, NO stupendous reason again.

    I humbly thank you in advance.

  • ||

    The distinction works better when it is kept in the generalized form. When applied to a particular situation (like homosexuality), the distinction seems to break down. Perplexed gay guy: "So let me get this straight, you have no problem with me, but you have a problem with me being me? Forgive me if I don't see the difference."

    The point at which that happens is exactly the point at which the sinner is the sin -- or is a sinner because the sin is inescapably a property of that person. This is why many Christian fundamentalists are keen to prove that sexual orientation is a choice, not a personal characteristic. It would not be possible to "love the sinner" if sin and sinner could not be disentangled.

  • ||

    [Tommy boy, the "solution" these people can sometimes overlap on is NO SOLUTION AT ALL.

    Read for content. That's what I said.]


    if you say so. when you said 'solutions' to these 'issues', it suggested to me you thought there was something to be done that they (libs/dems) were weak on following up on. I'm perfectly happy with non-solution solutions to social problems - as in, let them be worked out socially rather than by politicians.

    jg

  • Phil-Z||

    "The Love that Dare Not Bark its Name"
    I always loved that line.
    As for Santorum, calling him a fundie is just wrong, his stance of hating the sin is about as mainstream catholic as it gets. And, the catholic church in america was rated the 3rd most liberal sect, behind Unitarians and the UCC.

  • Nike Dunk Low||

    thanks

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