Rick Santorum Is For Freedom, Except When He’s Not

Have you heard the good news? GOP primary contender Rick Santorum, the two term Pennsylvania Senator and former pro-wrestling lobbyist, thinks that this election is all. About. Freedom. That's what he's fighting for. 

After taking second place to Mitt Romney in yesterday’s Iowa caucus by just eight votes, Santorum gave a lengthy, unscripted speech, in which he declared that even in the midst of a miserable economy and threats to both the nation’s culture and safety, his campaign was defined by a single idea: 

"The essential issue in this race is freedom -- whether we will be a country that believes that government can do things for us better than we can do for ourselves, or whether we believe, as our founders did, that rights come to us from God, and when he gave us those rights he gave us the freedom to go out and live those rights out, to build a great and just society, not from the top down, but from the bottom up." [bold added]

Freedom, eh? And the belief that individuals manage their own affairs better than the government? That’s Santorum’s essential issue? If I didn’t know better, I might think this was satire.

Is there any candidate in the GOP race less invested in freedom, and the idea that individuals are better equipped than government to make decisions about their lives, than Rick Santorum? He’s for freedom, except for the freedom of same-sex couples to get married. He’s for freedom, except when state governments want to enforce sweeping bans on types of private sexual activity between consenting adults. He believes that government doesn’t do things better than we do for ourselves, except for “allocating spending” through pork-barrel earmark projects, and funding religious organizations to do social work, and spending hundreds of millions of federal dollars to promote the benefits of the same state-sponsored marriage that he’s worked so hard to deny to gays. He wants to avoid government-driven, top-down policy solutions—except when he votes to pass a brand new prescription drug benefit without paying for it. He's a freedom fighter, sure. By which I mean he seems to spend a lot of time fighting against freedom. 

Read David Harsanyi on Santorum's big-government conservatism. And check out Reason's Santorum candidate profile here

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.

  • ||

    The most important freedom in America right now is the freedom to coerce people to do things and pay for things you want.

  • ||

    God-DAMMIT, Suderman, that was the worst alt-text fail in recorded history. I'm going to let it pass, this time, because you have a hott wife. Next time there will be consequences.

  • Vake||

    Megan McArdle is hot in a nerd-crush kinda way.

  • ||

    I'm going to let it pass, this time, because you have a hott wife.

    What?

    That is the last thing you do for men with hot wives...their lives outside their bedroom should be miserable if only to balance karma.

  • BoscoH||

    Oh freedom (freedom), freedom (freedom), freedom, yeah freedom!

    S-A-N-T-O-R-UM
    A frothy mixture of shit and semen
    S-A-N-T-O-R-UM
    Add some lube and mix on 10.

  • Aretha Franklin||

    Dude, you mixed up two of my songs. I am not Aerosmith.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Santorum gets the silver in Iowa and suddenly out of the blue Reason trains its guns on him. Relax, he will never be president.

  • ||

    No, but he could hurt Paul's chances.

  • ||

    Which is effed up beyond all measure, of course.

  • SIV||

    How? The more the "conservatives" are invested in the idea of "anybody but Romney" the more likely they are to vote for Paul in a 2 man race.

  • ||

    I mean it's screwed up that Paul is losing voters to Santorum.

  • juris imprudent||

    You are mistaken. The mouth-breathers that voted for Santorum were never considering Paul - no matter how much they might agree with his personal character. Paul simply would not pander to their raging hard-ons for controlling other people.

  • wareagle||

    the 'conservatives' are not going to vote for Paul. Have you missed it? He could be ignored while polling in the single digits but not when he reached front-runner status in IA. Voila, 15 year old newsletters become a front-burner issue. The Repub establishment might not support Paul even if Obama were the opponent.

  • Brett L||

    Eh. The Foxnews guys were showing polling graphics that had "true conservative" single issue voters going about 40% for Paul and 20% for Santorum. So there's that.

  • wareagle||

    so the single issue crowd is the route to election? Come on. The Repub-lishment (repub establishment) has painted Paul as the crazy uncle from the start with the intensity of that rising with his poll numbers. He ain't winning; even among folks who buy into 80% of what Paul is selling, the 20% gets so caricatured that he loses them.

  • ||

    You do realize it took you longer to type and us to read: The Repub-lishment (repub establishment) than it would have taken us to read "republican establishment," right?

    I'm just sayin...

  • wareagle||

    I know; got overly impressed with the creation of a new word....

    smacks head against wall....self suspends from posting for 4 minutes.

  • ||

    Goplishment.

  • Amakudari||

    This accurately describes my stepfather. While back for Christmas he remarked that Paul would say something he really liked, then veer off into left field. He was a Huckabee guy last election, so Paul's marginal voter isn't a libertarian ideologue but rather a traditional social/small-biz conservative. Even though I don't get how someone can be torn between Santorum and Paul, that's how it is. But they don't like crazy old uncles, and Paul has that down with his crazy-old-uncle rants (even if libertarians understand how the tangents tie together) and mannerisms.

    But hey, my expectations for Paul, even with his poll numbers rising, hasn't been the candidacy. Even if winning the Presidency is sexy, the fact is that we're on a path nationally toward much higher taxes, much higher debt and much less personal autonomy. This election won't change that, but libertarianism needs its ideas out there to shape things once people realize exactly how much the current breed of politicians and voters have fucked us over.

  • ||

    At this point, I think they're more likely to do what libertarians are planning to do and stay home rather than vote for Ron Paul. The republican party is broken and hawks on both sides are determined to keep it that way.

  • Jeff||

    What chances?

  • ||

    Whatever.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Whatever any of their chances, can we at least all agree to hold off on the violent rhetoric? I just read on H&R something about Reason training "its guns on" Santorum. That's pretty uncalled for and should be denounced.

  • ||

    No crosshairs were involved, I hope.

  • ||

    See, I took that to mean that Reason was going to flex its massive biceps at Santorum.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Flexing ceps? That's even MORE violent.

  • ||

    Is Welch going to get the Sarah Palin treatment for violent rhetoric?

  • Sparky||

    I'd like a little Sarah Palin treatment if she's putting out.

  • ||

    Not after Glenn Rice tore that shit up. I'd be afraid I wouldn't measure up, if you know what I mean.

    Only STEVE SMITH could confidently go after that.

  • ||

    Steve Smith and Glen Rice were actually teammates for a while even, which is a fantastic coincidence

  • sounds real good||

    I hope you're right because I felt a shiver of fear run up my spine when I heard about this result.

  • Bill||

    There was no reason to say much about him when he was polling at 4%.

    With only a week since he started moving up in the polls, no one had time enough to bring him back down, which I hope happens now.

    But if he does become a the nominee or, god forbid, president, the progressive media has themselves to blame. I guess they would rather have him president than Ron Paul.

  • Support America||

    What does "freedom" have to do with destroying our marriages and our military?

    Besides, this is not the time to be worrying about the poor "oppressed" homosexualists. This is time to stop Barack Hussein Obama, especially with Iran prepping for an attack.

    We turn back Obama and we turn back not just the atheist agenda to eliminate marriage but the socialist and Islamist agendas to destroy this country as well. This is the patriotic choice and Rick Santorum is the most patriotic choice of all.

  • Cytotoxic||

    A+

  • juris imprudent||

    A+? Okay, if your idea of fishing is using 40lb line, a 4oz weight and a treble hook full of nightcrawlers. This was as subtle as a brick through a window. Yes, it might be effective, but it has so little style.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I'm a sucker for overkill.

  • Bill||

    Overkill? I thought you were quoting from one of his speeches.

  • TheExpatriate700||

    @SupportAmerica Homosexuals can't do anything to marriage that heterosexuals have not already done to it.

    Frankly, for all your concern about Iran, your ranting about "homosexualists" and "the atheist agenda" makes it sound like you would fit in better in Iran than America.

  • Untermensch||

    ExPat700, take a breather. This is obviously a piece of performance art by one of our regulars. I just don't know which one it is.

  • ||

    I wish it were me. This is better than Slapdick McGee. But I mailed it in the last couple of days.

  • ||

    We troll our own here.

  • ||

    Slapdick McGee was much more believable.

  • Sudden||

    Ban Kardashian Marriage!!11!1!1!1!!!!! those flippin Armos are ruining Marriage!111!1!1!!1!!!1

  • ||

    New Jersey ruined the institute of marraige long before gays.

  • ||

    What about Superman and GI Joe?

  • Lord Humungus||

    USA! USA! USA!

  • Nephilium||

    Have you met finally? He showed up today, I think the two of you would get along.

  • Tonio||

    homosexualists

    Either brilliant trolling or truly deranged socon blather.

  • ||

    That's not mimicry.

    "Homosexualists" has the ring of authenticity.

  • Loki||

    Santorum, is that you?

  • Tacos mmm...||

    What does "freedom" have to do with destroying our marriages and our military?

    This question would make a lot more sense if it were a gay person asking it of Mr. Santorum.

  • ||

    LOL!! oh wait, you're not joking. You think a system hack slime ball like Santorum is going to save us from the evil Obama....just as dumb as the Obama voters who thought he was going to save us from the evil right wing. Santorum just keeps the ball rolling with a slightly "right" spin to it, same as Obama only spinning a little to the left.

  • ||

    What does "freedom" have to do with destroying our marriages and our military?

    You've got it exactly backwards.

    What does telling people who they can and can't marry have to do with freedom?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Great, I just broke my screen. You can't put him in boxing gloves and have him face the camera with his ultra-punchable mug without consequences Suderman.

  • A Serious Man||

    He probably got beat up a lot in high school.

  • ||

    Then shouldn't he be wearing a police costume?

  • Brett L||

    What is it about politician's staff that allows these pictures to be taken? Skinny white guy? Don't give him 16oz tourney gloves, find a small training set that doesn't make him look like a pencil neck. FFS.

  • ||

    It's like no one running for president has ever googled "Michael Dukakis" before.

  • Brett L||

    "Our guy will never look like a bobble-head, because we won't let him wear hats!"

    Way to learn the wrong lesson.

  • Raston Bot||

    he reminds me of Blaster from Thunderdome with his inbred childish face. maybe dad DIY'd the kitchen rehab and lil Ricky inhaled too much lead paint dust.

  • TheExpatriate700||

    Being a Pennsylvanian, I have to say that Rick Santorum represents one of the most embarrassing excuses for a politician I have ever witness. His values harken back to the fifteenth century, and his policies are no better.

    If he gets the Republican nomination, it could offer a very interesting opportunity for Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party. If Rep. Paul acquiesced to going on the Libertarian ticket, it could, with luck, result in a shift in the two party system, with Libertarians supplanting Republicans as an opposition party to the Democrats, while the Republican Party becomes a regional third party catering to religious conservatives

  • Stephen||

    Not a chance. Only reason he gets play is because there's an R beside his name. Change that to an L and you may forget about it.

  • ||

    sad but true, the D and the R are an opiate for the masses.

  • ||

    He combines the absolute worst tendencies of the GOP. Nosy moral bossiness, a disregard for all pretense of federalism, and an appetite for unrestrained spending.

    Hope he enjoys his peak, it's back to obscurity in a couple of weeks.

  • Tman||

    Yeah, he really has no positives from a candidate standpoint other than the not-Mitt/not-Obama status. His religious overtones are downright creepy, especially the whole "people shouldn't be allowed to just do whatever they want" nanny-statist BS.

    Sad that he did so well in Iowa.

  • ||

    My thinking, too. Brief spurt of attention, then obscurity. The guy's awful and won;t stand up to any scrutiny.

  • ||

    I'm hoping his descent back into Ho-Humville is aided by a relentless battering of Saturday Night Live skits. With Santorum they practically write themselves.

  • OWS-VPS||

    PRYAMID OF THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM

    Russia 1911:

    cwww.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/01/pyramid-of-capitalist-system

    America 2011:

    http://img252.imageshack.us/im.....midnt1.jpg

  • OWS-VPS||

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Why won't the soldiers let those Asians and Africans watch TV? Is it 'cause they didn't pay their cable bill?

  • OWS-VPS||

    The soldiers are paid by the rich who control the government to steal oil from residents of the Global South through endless wars.

    The people watching TV are the idiot American middle classes, opiated by their addictions to entertainment and the illusion that their votes matter.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    So Comcast isn't anywhere in the picture? 'Cause that just doesn't seem right.

  • ||

    There is nothing wrong with your monitor. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your computer. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to. . .The Comcast Limits.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Win

  • Bob||

    cool story bro!

  • sounds real good||

    What does "VPS" stand for?

  • OWS-VPS||

    VPS means Virtual Public Spaces--blogs, comment threads, youtube videos, etc, this is the another phase of Occupy Wall Street--Occupy Wall Street Virtual Public Spaces.

    Read all about it here and join up!

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....or-OWS-VPS

  • ||

    dailykos.com. What's that? Some site where we can watch the best knockouts from yesterday's action?
    If so, shouldn't that picture be of Newclear Titties on his back after the caucuses?

  • Michael||

    It's amazing how you've even managed to bring the stench with you. Bravo.

  • tarran||

    On the Russian picture, why are the army soldiers threatening the rich?

    Also, I thought the army outnumbered the rich, why are there fewer of them in the poster?

  • OWS-VPS||

    The rich support the army, and the guns are aimed at the proletariat, just like today in the updated picture.

    Except today instead of religion "fooling us", its mindless entertainment like cable TV, sports, and MMORPGs, that keep us numb to the system of class oppression.

  • Sparky||

    You keep saying "us" but I'm certain I'm not part of this "us" you keep saying. If you're going to be a retarded troll, you're supposed to say "you" that way you can get all the moral superiority out of your position as "not one of you". Get it?

  • tarran||

    You mean the rich are being exploited by the army?

  • ||

    I'm disappointed by the lack of monocles. If you are going to include child labor please show some style and include monocles.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    What is VPS? Virtual Private System? Vaginal Panty Stain?

  • OWS-VPS||

    Virtual Public Space.

    The next phase of Occupy Wall Street is to begin occupying Virtual Public Spaces--blogs, comment threads, youtube videos, facebook, etc.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....or-OWS-VPS

    Protesting for the social network era.

  • Retarded Cumdumpster||

    Do you have any good torrent sites? I like free stuff.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Organized trolls!

    I think libertarians should participate in this. We need to get out and annoy the masses!

  • tarran||

    The next phase of Occupy Wall Street is to begin occupying Virtual Public Spaces--blogs, comment threads, youtube videos, facebook, etc.

    Wow! So you are going to make everyone who is online viscerally aware of how retarded you are!

    By all means! Be our guest!

  • ||

    I especially like how you caricature the races of the downtrodden: rice-picker hat for the Asian, Sari for the Indian and traditional Arab dress for the middle-easterner.

    I don't know what the guy to the right is doing. He's got that "Fat Albert's gang" dance going, but he looks like a mulatto at the darkest, and there were no white kids in the junkyard gang. I have no comment on the black guy wearing a tank top or the white ballet dancer on the left.

  • OWS-VPS||

    They are the biggest victims of Global American Capitalism--the residents of the Global South who are subjected to endless wars and invasions so their countries can be raped and pillaged for their resources to support the lifestyles of the rich (and to a lesser extent bribe the middle classes and proletariat of the Global North).

  • ||

    the residents of the Global South

    What, like Aussies and Argentines?

    Here are more accurate depictions:
    The residents of "Global South" Australia

    and "Global South" Argentina.

    Idiot.

  • OWS-VPS||

    Global South is a political, not purely geographic, term.

    Look:

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Mytj.....th_800.jpg

  • ||

    Jesus, you're just randomly selecting places. And by your measure, China and India are "Global South?" They are two of the world's largest economies.

    Oh, and by the way, socialism has been around for quite some time. Explain to me why every socialist country that exists today is still in the "Global South." If your dumbass system worked, wouldn't we be the ones suffering meager existences while those in the workers' paradises live like kings?

  • tarran||

    Wow!

    That looks like a map that Rudyard Kipling would produce of where the civilized white race ruled.

    I didn't realize the OWS folks were into 19th century imperialism and its mythos of the white man's burden.

  • Bill||

    Sounds like some commy bullshit you just made up.

  • A Serious Man||

  • OWS-VPS||

  • ||

    Needs more labels.

  • A Serious Man||

    Actually that looks like a job that any Occutard could do, provided that they clean themselves up a bit.

  • ||

    As long as they get deloused.

  • ||

    Looks like a free-market solution to me. There is no coercion, and the guy giving the blow job expects to get paid when he is done, hence the money bag.

    Upon further review, I have no problem with this.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    s that Santorum? I don't get it.

  • ||

    Why is the guy dropping his empty bag? And why is he blowing the guy? He's unarmed, so I assume this is a consensual act.

    I can guarantee you this: I ain't blowing anybody unless they have a gun to my head.

  • mr simple||

    Why would someone make a bag with $0.00 marked on it? Surely the bag is worth something. Alternatively, why make a container to hold nothing?

  • Abdul||

    Move over, chip bok! We have a new friday funny contributor!

  • Bill||

    That's CNN sucking Santorum's c**k just before the Iowa caucuses.

  • finally||

    Which one has a 99% literacy rate? One of the worlds best infant mortality rates? What about their GINI?

  • A Serious Man||

    You're right, Cuba is a socialist paradise, which is why every year thousands of Cubans risk their lives crossing over to Florida.

  • Sparky||

    Hey, they were just out for a swim. It's not their fault Florida is that close.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

  • ||

    Cuba already had a 90% literacy rate before Castro took over.

    It also had the highest GDP in Latin America. It now has the lowest except for Haiti.

  • Michael||

    Any country that doesn't count babies born prematurely as live births is bound to have an absolutely stellar infant mortality rate. What the fuck is your point?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Cuba and Japan had nearly equal GDP per capita in 1950.

  • A Serious Man||

    Hong Kong and Cuba in 1950 were both island economies with some minor foreign investment. Cuba did 60 years of socialism while Hong Kong did 60 years of virtually laissez-faire capitalism. It's obvious which island people prefer to live on.

  • Brett L||

    See, I was hoping for Swedish Bikini Team brought to you by $CHEAP_BEER vs. E. German "Ladies" Swim Team, brought to you by government medicine.

  • ||

    It's gonna come to this eventually. I may as well get it over with.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    You're being too kind to Mao.

  • OWS-VPS||

    Capitalism has killed far more people than you listed--from the famines in India under the British, to World War I, to the Fascist Death Squads in Latin America, to the Military-Industrial complex of today, the African Slave Trade, the genocide of the Native Americans, and so on.

  • OWS-VPS||

    Critics have argued that capitalist countries could be held responsible for a similar number of deaths. Noam Chomsky, for example, writes that Amartya Sen in the early 1980s estimated the excess of mortality in India over China due to the latter's "relatively equitable distribution of medical resources" at close to 4 million a year. Chomsky therefore argues that, "suppos[ing] we now apply the methodology of the Black Book and its reviewers" to India, "the democratic capitalist 'experiment' has caused more deaths than in the entire history of ... Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, and tens of millions more since, in India alone."

    Chomsky, Noam (2000): Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs, pp. 177-178, Pluto Press, ISBN 978-0745317083.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Chomsky called India capitalist? India of the 80's?

    Socialism is enshrined in the Indian constitution. Their problem is that it has morphed like any other socialist/communist institution into crony government.

    You're not even trying. Troll harder.

  • tarran||

    Except for the fact the Chinese government was 'equitably' forcing people to use 'traditional' treatments like acupuncture which don't work.

    Choamsky is such a dumbass

  • ||

    You mean the India that has a rigid caste system that doesn't allow for upward mobility? I'd hardly call that free-market capitalism.

    And China's numbers are skewed. They don't take into account the number of pregnancies the state terminates annually or the number of baby girl that get thrown down wells because the state's one child policy.

    As to WWI, those people were killed in the name of nationalism, not capitalism. The Fascist death squads in Latin America probably belong on your side of the ledger, thank you very much. The military-industrial complex has a body count? I'll attribute those to nationalism again rather than capitalism, seeing as they predominately killed other capitalists. The African slave trade is a fair example. The indian genocide had nothing to do with capitalism, seeing as there was trading going on with the indians the entire time. It was a land grab, but the indians were capitalists as well. They just valued costume jewelry more than the land they lived on, and they paid for it.

  • tarran||

    Sloopy, what hysterically funny is that the Chinese government was actively retarding the medical arts in the name of keeping out counterrevolutionary western ideas. And he thinks that was good.

  • ||

    Yeah, but in his defense, he is retarded.

  • tarran||

    I bet he went to a government school. You know, one of the sort that ensure that democracy works and that the people control the government by having its curriculum shaped by the government's decisions as to what and how kids are taught.

  • ||

    I'm a big tent libertarian. Anybody who wants more freedom should feel free to call themselves libertarian.

    If Santorum has suddenly become a libertarian, that's great news...

    Far be it from me to criticize someone for wanting more freedom, but even though I'm a big tent libertarian? There really are fake libertarians out there.

    If there's anything worse than big state, bring intelligent design into the classroom, bible thumping, neocon foreign policy, statist?

    It's a big state, bring intelligent design into the classroom, bible thumping, neocon foreign policy, statist--cross-dressing as a libertarian.

    Tell me at least he's not a socialist, somebody, please?

  • ||

    If Santorum has suddenly become a libertarian, that's great news

    What if he's lying about becoming a libertarian? Still good news?

  • ||

    If there's anything worse than wolf, it's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

  • ||

    I'm a forgiving guy, but Santorum is an unrepentant asshole.

    He probably becomes hulk raged whenever someone mentions the word libertarian.

  • ||

    I know he's not courting the libertarian vote--really. He's going after the Tea Party vote, which Romney has almost no hope of courting because of RomneyCare, etc.

    The Tea Party people are often conflated with libertarians, but they're not the same thing. Most of the Tea Party people want Social Security and Medicare, and they're mad about TARP for all sorts of reasons that aren't necessarily what libertarians are about.

    So, anyway, I know Santorum isn't really trying to appeal to libertarians, but as he tacks in this direction and starts chatting up the freedom vote, it's a great opportunity to point out to people the differences between Santorum's fake freedom and the kind of freedom libertarians are all about.

    The man really is a poser.

  • ||

    I'm not even sure what the Tea Party is mad at anymore. They had a list, but seem to be more concerned with gay baiting and Iran bombing than getting someone that's determined to meet their list.

    At this point, are they anything but right wing OWS (let's call them Occupy Church Street).

  • ||

    They're still about fiscal conservatism.

    The Tea Party people in Congress are the only ones holding back the Boehner side of the Republican Party from caving to Obama on everything fiscal.

    As Reason always points out, the sort of cuts we've seen aren't anywhere near as big as they've been made out to be in the rest of the media, but what fiscal restraint there is in Washington? It's all coming from the Tea Party people.

    They're a minority within the Republican Party, which controls exactly one half of one of three branches of government, but they're making a difference on fiscal restraint--I'll give them that.

    They're not cutting as much as I'd like, but if they're able to hold the line as much as they have, that's a real accomplishment considering who we have in the White House--and who the Speaker is in the House.

  • ||

    Thank you for this. The media establishment has hyped every Tea Party roadblock to spending as the end of the world. Despite their efforts, we've had some cuts and the "defective" congress has arranged for a spending battle every month or two.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I don't believe him for a second

  • Brett L||

    Statistically, we can't all be big tent libertarians, if you know what I mean.

  • juris imprudent||

    Some of us are bigger tenters than others.

  • Robert||

    Obviously he wouldn't use the word "freedom" unless he meant it and unless his constituents understood what he meant by it. Therefore he and his constituents must have a particular meaning in mind for the word.

    Possibly they're referring to sovereign liberty, i.e. absence of domination by a foreign power. Or maybe they're thinking of freedom from certain things. Or maybe they're focusing on some narrow issue of freedom important to them that Santorum has made a big deal about compared to other politicians.

  • wareagle||

    so under Santorum logic: our rights come from god, he claims to wear the mantle of the Founders (who explicitly wrote in some document that god was not the state's business, and talks small govt while using the hammer of govt to push the type of personal behavior he approves of. Sure...how could anyone oppose that.

  • Spoonman.||

    There isn't any chance of Santorum winning the Pennsylvania primary, is there? As I recall, even though the PA primary didn't matter in 2008 40% of people who bothered to vote did so for Ron Paul. Not that I think RP could double that, but it seems a promising state for him.

  • ||

    That's Iowa Santorum.

    New Hampshire Santorum is about "Live Free or Die". That'll play better with the Tea Party types in Pennsylvania and elsewhere--where Romney's weak.

    When the real Santorum please stands up after the election, he'll look a lot like Alabama Santorum, no doubt.

  • ||

    So, does Iowa Santorum have corn in it?

  • ||

    I don't know about corn, but Iowa Santorum is definitely full of shit.

  • Gojira||

    *golf clap*

  • juris imprudent||

    have corn in it?

    and pork fat instead of lube.

  • Tonio||

    Local candidates, aka favorite sons, always do better in their home state primaries than they otherwise would.

  • Bod||

    Oh, Like Michelle Bachmann?

    Oh - wait ...

  • Al Gore||

    :-(

  • Devil Inchoate||

    Pennsylvania was Paul's best state in terms of total votes, 129,000. It wasn't 40% though, it was only 15% of the total. His best state on a % basis was Montana (24%) then Idaho (23%).

  • Bee Tagger||

    He’s for freedom, except for the freedom of same-sex couples to get married.

    Well, I guess I'll be the person to buzzkill on this one.

    It doesn't appear that Santorum wants to make it illegal for 2 guys to say they're married to each other, nor for another person/company to recognize that their relationship as a marriage. He seems to not want government to hand more out more benefits based on this criteria. Shouldn't the libertarian position be that Santorum is halfway there? He should be supporting a federal ban on recognizing all marriages.

    Yes, his reasoning for his position is very predictive of his positions on other, more freedomy issues and predictive of the way he'd govern, but I think it does your Santorum-hates-freedom list a disservice to include this one first.

  • Tonio||

    Ha, ha. Nice try but utterly unconvincing. Santorum's shrill moralism also scares off straight people. Something about making contraception illegal, criminal penalties for adultery, etc.

  • Pierce Nichols||

    Advocating banning something that nearly the entire sexually active population has used to improve their lives is a *GREAT* way to get elected.

  • Pierce Nichols||

    This requires a very narrow view of Santorum's history. He has condemned the SCotUS's decision in Lawrence v Texas (striking down all laws against consensual sodomy) and in Griswold v Connecticut (striking down laws against birth control). He thinks the right of states to restrict the sexual activity of consenting adults overrides those adults right to be let alone.

  • Robert||

    Then maybe the freedom he refers to is the freedom of the people to legislate.

  • tarran||

    Since Santorum wants the government to hand out ever more bennies for people who are "married", and even to create a new class of marriage called a "covenant marriage", he's not halfway there. Under Santorum the government involvement in marriage will grow, not shrink.

  • wareagle||

    He should be supporting a federal ban on recognizing all marriages.
    -----------------------------------
    but he isn't and he won't. Santorum very much believes in the power of govt as moral arbiter. He's another statist, one just as interested in controlling adult decisions as the most fervent liberal nannyist.

  • ||

    He’s for freedom, except for the freedom of same-sex couples to get married.

    It probably isn't fair to say that about him.

    He's actually against all sorts of other freedoms too!

    He's against the freedom of people to send their kids to public schools and not be indoctrinated with with intelligent design.

    He smoked out himself in college, but he's against the freedom of slackers everywhere to smoke out in their own damn pads.

    Believe in his freedom? Absolutely.

    Freedom for people who disagree with him?

    Hell no!

  • Bee Tagger||

    Just a quick word... Santorum is pretty much awful on every issue. My complaint was with the make government bigger and embed it even deeper in the marriage business libertarianism.

    On the marriage issue, my problem with Santorum isn't that he wants the government to only recognize man-woman marriage, it's that he wants to government to recognize marriage at all.

  • sarcasmic||

    Ned Flanders 2012!

  • ola||

  • Pierce Nichols||

    Santorum's support for the right of the states to criminalize sodomy and ban birth control places the corporate rights of the states above the rights of their citizens. This, sadly, is of a piece with the majority of states' rights rhetoric in the US.

    It is fundamentally incompatible with any substantive notion of individual liberty, because it empowers more localized government to interfere in people's lives in ways that are currently forbidden by the federal government. And more localized governments are more dangerous in this regard -- after all the drug war, including most of its excesses, is largely carried out by state and local governments, not the federal government.

  • Sparky||

    En ingles por favor?

  • Pierce Nichols||

    What part of that was unclear, Sparky?

  • Sparky||

    The part that starts at "Santorum's" and ends at "government".

  • Pierce Nichols||

    I charge for remedial reading classes.

  • Sparky||

    Too highbrow for my tastes I guess. Most regulars around here talk like normal folks not people with something to prove.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Shorter Pierce: States don't have rights, individuals do.

  • Pierce Nichols||

    I'm going to assume, for the sake of argument, that you live in a first world country.

    That means you live in a country whose wealth and success is largely built on intellectual achievement... while you espouse anti-intellectualism. You're adorable.

  • tarran||

    Nope... The U.S. has been pretty anti-intellectual for most of its history, including during the period it went from third-wold backwater to being a dominant world power.

    Intellectualism is like dancing or music making. It's fun, occasionally produces nice things, but is kind of irrelevant towards prosperity and comfort.

  • BakedPenguin||

    If you want to be considered intellectual, advance novel arguments. If you're merely restating already well known ideas, it's merely a pretentious use of florid, if not prolix, language.

  • Sparky||

    You're adorable.

    How cute, did you do the smarty-pants dance when you came up with that? Looks like tarran and BP get the point at least.

  • Brett L||

    States' Rights is racist, yo

  • Pierce Nichols||

    My examples related to sexual activity and drugs... why did you feel the need to bring race into the discussion?

  • Brett L||

    Welcome to H&R. Please acquaint yourself with the regular tropes before taking anything seriously.

  • Sparky||

    Such lowbrow humor is for the incapable of upward mobility proles.

  • ||

    'Roid Rage lobbyist Santorum's career suggests he could turn into a crypto libertarian id paid enough :

    the Wiki informs us thus : " In one case he represented the World Wrestling Federation, arguing that professional wrestling should be exempt from federal anabolic steroid regulations because it was not a sport.[16] "

    Think what a case he could make for deregulating plutonium !

  • wareagle||

    actually, there is certain schizophrenia in Ricky's logic here: he believes that adult wrestlers should have the right to ingest potentially harmful substances because they're not really athletes. Couldn't that logic be similarly applied to a random person wanting to smoke a joint since that person was not seeking to gain competitive advantage in a sport?

  • Robert||

    I'm sure he was referring to federal statutes that were passed specifically having to do with "doping" in sports, not laws regarding drug possession or use in general.

  • ALL POWER TO THE PONYTERIAT! ||

    What about the system of class oppression that is known as "My Little Pony"?? Huh? HUH??

    http://img.ponibooru.org/_imag.....a56/100179 - hearth's_warming_eve hearths_warming_eve pyramid pyramid_of_the_capitalist_system rainbow_dash rarity.png

    WAKE UP AMERICA!

  • ||

    Come on Paul, control the children

    It was stupid and childish and his excuse plays to the newsletters. He is certainly not keeping his people in line.

  • A Serious Man||

    That tweet was pretty funny though.

  • ||

    granted, but that's for the commentariat to do. If Paul's not tweeting his own, he best be on top of the tweets, otherwise it feeds the discussion that he can't manage/control shit.

  • ||

    "Paul on Wednesday confirmed that he does not write all his own tweets but apparently stood behind the sentiment expressed by the tweet in question."

    ;) it never ends with this guy, does it?

  • Brett L||

    He's about 1000x more loyal than any other politician. Most would have served up some intern to appease the public.

  • BakedPenguin||

    It's friggin' Huntsman. Will he even be in NH? And will anyone notice if he is?

  • juris imprudent||

    It's a shame that Huntsman doesn't figure to go farther, because Darrell Hammond's career would have no bounds.

  • ||

    The real issue here is whether or not Santorum will start a new war. Is he willing to stand up for freedom, or is he another Ron Paul who Wants The Terrorists To Win?

  • ||

    From the sounds of the debates Santorum wouldn't waste any time in bombing Iran. Can't wait to pay for that war. Lemme guess. His VP would be trump?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    They'd put a neocon in there with him. Every monkey needs an organ player to keep him in check and productive.

  • Pierce Nichols||

    Thank you for that lovely mental image.

  • ||

    He's got my vote, then. Fuel the bombers. What shall we call this one? Freedom Mission Part Four? Operation Tyranny Freedom?

  • ||

    To the naysayers: when you are taking flak, what does that mean? It means you are right over the target.

    Ron Paul becomes more popular the more the MSM train their guns at him.

    The common reaction is "Was that the biggest arrow in your quiver? Really?" followed by a google search and a new Ron Paul supporter.

  • Sparky||

    I used to be a Ron Paul supporter, but then I took an arrow to the knee...

  • ||

    I'd come and help you, but as a principled non-interventionist, here's a bandaid. Now where's my cookie?

  • Ska||

    Sweetroll, man. When someone makes a Skyrim reference you ask about sweetrolls.

    Or long taffy treats if you must.

  • ||

    FUS ROH DAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH, MOTHER-FUCKER!

  • ||

    I gotta wash my hands. There's Santorum all over the place.

  • Sparky||

    Holy election year Batman! Look at the crazy trolls pouring out of the woodwork.

  • WherYou'reWrong||

    If Iowa mattered Huckabee would have been their nominee last time. Still, if any party can screw up a slam dunk election by nominating the wrong guy, it's the party of McCain and Dole.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    The party of Mondale and Dukakis begs to differ

  • BakedPenguin||

    Everyone forgets Al Gore.

    As they should.

  • Pierce Nichols||

    I cheerfully use the phrase 'mauled like Mondale' to describe the likely general election chances of most of the Republican field. And that really speaks to their weakness, since unseating a sitting president in a down economy is, historically, the easiest trick to pull off in US politics.

  • ||

    Reason: Conservative views... Except when they're Liberal???

  • ||

    what is this i don't even

  • ||

    There's no way in hell that I'm voting for Santorum. Ever. Fuck him all the way to Satan's porch. He's a proto-theocratic, markedly authoritarian shitstain that literally makes George W. Bush look like a considerate, in-moderation centrist.

  • ChrisO||

    I'm looking forward to finding out about the inevitable skeletons hiding in Santorum's closet. I have no doubt they'll be very entertaining.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    There's the upside to all of this. I've been looking for the positive spin and you just gave it to me.

    Visions of crying Ted Haggard in my head. Sweet!

  • Pierce Nichols||

    Santorum spends more time thinking and talking about the mechanics of gay sex than any straight man I've ever met. He spends more time on it than most of the gay men I've met, too.

  • ChrisO||

    We have a winner!

    You have to know that Romney's PIs are scouring Pennsylvania for clues as we speak.

  • ||

    He looks like a wimp to me...

  • juris imprudent||

    Which explains all his tough talk - about bombing Iran, and lecturing John McCain that McCain doesn't understand torture. Wimp? The guy is a total pussy.

  • ||

    I think we all need to give a round of applause for OWS-VPS. Not only is it one hell of an accomplishment for him to do all of this cut-n-pasting, but just the simple fact that a functionally retarded Asspie can keep focused long enough to troll us for multiple threads should be noted.

    If he can keep it up through the Afternoon Links, I'll go over to Kos and regale them with a few of my more enlightened ideas. I may even post a film review of a Miley Cyrus movie I watched yesterday.*

    *That will serve as a warning that I will be posting a review of a Miley Cyrus film on the Afternoon Links.

  • ||

    It didn't take Santorum's comment in this article to know that he is one of the biggest FOS politicians around. Of all the candidates including the Pizza Man Santorum is the worst most two faced BS artist among the group.

    My gut reaction whenever I see him in a debate is to puke my lunch, dinner and dessert all over the TV.

  • .||

    I am so tired of this stupid Santorum meme. But it is pervasive at this point, to the point that I can't read anything about him without seeing it in that context. So anyway, I happened to stop over at freerepublic to see what in[s]anity was going on there, and here was what I found.. Just a few select quotes:

    Well done, Rick Santorum!! A great come from behind surge and photo finish!! Had it in the bag until the last minute recount...


    The conservative base and the tea party do not want the unreliable flip-flopping Romney and we are not going to allow him to be shoved down our throats!!


    And finally, no double entendre, but even funnier, considering they are referring to Santorum:

    Rebellion is brewing!!


    I, as they say, lol-ed.

  • ||

    January: "....we are not going to allow him to be shoved down our throats!!"

    November: "Romney is our man!"

    I feel sorry for them. They couldn't be principled if they tried.

  • Mel||

    You forgot to mention that he doesn't believe women and doctors are better equipped than the government to make decisions over their own reproduction.

  • ||

    Rick Santorum is a textbook example of a gay-bashing, in-the-closet self-loather. No straight male over 13 or under 70 voluntarily wears sweater vests.

  • juris imprudent||

    I am disappoint. I thought the OWS-VPS troll had promise, but alas, not an ounce of stamina.

  • juris imprudent||

    Dammit, I missed sloopy's 5:06.

  • ||

    I suppose he's against Habeas Corpus like Presidents Obama and Bush, too? For freedom except for the most American of all American values? Down with indefinite detention of citizens.

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    Who cares about Santorum? What I want to know is where the hell did the "Your Tears Are So Yummy and Sweet" thread?

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    So what is the over-under on the number of times I'm a Reagan Republican" or alternatively "I'm the only True Conservative® in this race." is uttered during the NH debates?

    God knows these phrases were spoken with mind numbing frequency in all of the candidates, were-down-but-not-out speeches.

  • ||

    Ya know, the first reason that we had "States" and "States Rights" was so everybody and their Individual Whacky Beliefs had some place to live with like minded folks, Utah and the Mormons, Maryland and the Catholics, California and the Atheists, that is America, and fortunately Rule of Law and the U.S. Constitution supersedes God's Laws.
    .

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