Santorum Talks Contraception and Obamacare at CPAC

Washington, D.C. - After being introduced by SuperPAC benefactor Foster Friess, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum took the podium here surrounded by his family and delievered a speech that went after both his nearest rival for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney, and President Obama. Santorum, coming off three major-but-delegate-free victories in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri, talked briefly about fiscal matters, but eventually returned to his bread and butter: social issues. He really drove things home with his red meat comments about Obamacare. 

"We've seen the president of the United States tell what insurance coverage you should have, how much you are going to pay, how much you will be fined if you don't. He's now telling the Catholic Church that they are forced to pay for things that are against their basic tennants and teachings," Santorum said after comparing Obamacare to the National Health Service of Great Britian. 

Santorum excited the crowd but it was not at the rock star level you would expect from somebody with so much momentum at his back. His only standing ovation during the entire speech came when he talked about social issues, in particular the Obama administration's moves on contraception

"Ladies and gentleman, this is the type of coercion we can expect. It's not about contraception. It's about economic liberty, it's about freedom of speech, it's about freedom of religion, it's about government control of your lives and it's got to stop," he said, bringing the crowd to its feet. 

Last night Public Policy Polling tweeted that they have a new poll in the field and it shows Rick Santorum is, again, the front-runner nationally for the Republican nomination. 

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.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Imagine if Ricky gets the nomination. It will be like the Challenger liftoff.

  • o3||

    moar like the challenger return

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    You mean Columbia, STS-107?

  • Skip||

    At least Santorum lives up to his social con platitudes. Gingrich would be like the President in Escape from LA.

  • kate||

    looking for the bilover?===Datebi*cO'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.
    "

  • Fluffy||

    Tenets

  • mr simple||

    What the hell is a tennant, anyway? I wonder if that was from a campaign provided written version of his speech or bad transcription.

  • ||

    Thank you.

  • o3||

    something else "it aint about" is santorium winning the nomination.

  • Tim||

    "Can't touch Mitt"

    Que MC Hammer breakdancing

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I bet there are a number of contributors in the supply chain of the circulation of that photograph whose lives were put in great danger due to one man's clumsiness. If only I could have that kind of power.

  • .||

    It's cue, Tim, not que. A que is a waiting line - or a Chinese pigtail. Geez.

  • ||

    Actually, a queue is a waiting line. I would think a period that corrects the grammar of others wouldn't make such a mistake...

  • Tim||

    Me not smartful. Loose much face.

  • ||

    It's "lose," morans! Get a brian!

  • ChrisO||

    Que?

  • Joe M||

    Consuela!

  • ||

    Tim, here's your response:

    You: There's also kyou.
    Antagonist: Kyou?
    You: Fuckyou.
  • Joe M||

    Are you a true Ron Paul supporter? This is a hilarious quiz. I literally laughed out loud a few times, especially at questions 3 and 14.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I agree, hilarious. They didn't even scramble the questions based on ideology.

    I got anarcho-capitalist, and that I'd like to live on an independent island. Surprisingly accurate assessment.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I got thr same results. good stuff

  • tarran||

    11 is pretty good too.

  • kinnath||

    Top hat, monocle, and cane for the win!

  • johnl||

    That was fun. The wedding question was great.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    There appears to be "monocle" answers and minarchist answers. I wonder how it will score me.

  • Trespassers W||

    ALL of these questions are hilarious. Who on earth wrote this?

  • Joe M||

    I believe it was this fellow.

  • Killazontherun||

    Deciding Human Action or Illuminati trilogy was tough. Chose the entertaining one, though. Except for Rules of Engagement, I hate documentaries. Plus, I know how the trilogy ends, I haven't gotten all the way through to the end of Human Action. It might have a dud ending of which I'm unaware.

  • Killazontherun||

    The United States during the post-World War II economic boom, which was brought about by strong unions, high marginal taxes, and a well-educated work force financed by the GI bill.

    Good Lord, that is even more wrong and propagandist than the answer for Sweden. There are times the hard left is less disgusting than the left of center and that is almost every day of the week they aren't shoving people into camps.

  • Killazontherun||

    Your results
    You are an anarcho-capitalist.

    You have sailed right past Paul's hard-nosed libertarianism and off into the uncharted waters of right-wing anarchism. You would be most happy living on a private island that you have declared a sovereign state, which, needless to say, won't be seeking to join the UN anytime soon..

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    It sounds almost reasonable. Now, only if he didn't want to force Catholicism on everyone else...then he might be worth listening to. As if that would happen.

  • thirtyandseven||

    thing is, his opposition to some of this stuff is strictly a byproduct of a disagreement over who the winners and losers should be as selected by the wise and supreme leader of the US, rather than whether government should be doing it in the first place. What you're seeing is a mafia turf battle, the War of Competing Moralities over which ought to be enforced by the state. It doesn't ever occur to any of these clowns that the state does not actually need to be enforcing morality in the first place.

  • ||

    ^^^This, and how.^^^

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Everybody click the Santorum for President ad on Reason one time.

    Make sure you delete your cookies when your browsing session is over.

    I can't donate money right now but directing advertising money is a fine way to help out web sites you get for free. Sometimes I actually am interested in the advertiser, other times it feels extra good to take money from organizations I don't care for and forward it to support, let's say, Webster's free online dictionary. That's why I click on pot office ads when I see them, too.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    post office.

    Some keyboards don't have great feedback.

  • ||

    What's an internet ad?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Something that you may block out with Firefox if you wish, or use to help you pay for your web site. For me, they're just part of the internet. They help me get free information.

  • ||

    Yeah, but as MiNGe told us this morning, advertising influences causes behavior, so all political donors should be outed. Are you willing to take that chance?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I missed that. I'll read all about it later.

    I I click on a candidate's ad with the intention of removing money from that candidate and no intention of supporting them whatsoever, does that make me a kind of political donor?

    No matter, no one should have to disclose shit. But if something about me is disclosed, and someone wants to confront me about it my personal choices, I'll be prepared.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Funny advert for me with this article: deals on baby products and maternity clothes.

  • sarcasmic||

    Imagine if people were given their employers contribution to their health insurance as part of their total compensation and then were allowed to choose the plan that best suited their individual needs.

    Golly garsh darn it!

  • shrike||

    How is Santorum different than the Huckster? Other than about 140 lbs I can't tell the difference.

  • ||

    Dude, one is Catholic, one is Baptist.

    So Santorum would probably, e.g., be okay with drinking and playing bingo.

  • thirtyandseven||

    Frothy is intrepid and stupid, Huck is just stupid.

  • Hugh Akston||

    *sigh* We're never gonna get a new Salty Ham Tears thread.

  • ||

    I think they should revive for the few days that Santorum is taken seriously as a candidate.

  • Gojira||

    At this point, if he wasn't a soulless robot, I would almost feel bad for Mittens.

    I mean, what's it got to be like, knowing that nobody likes you to the point that they'll latch onto any loon who comes by just to keep from having to support you.

  • ||

    Well, almost any loon.

  • AlmightyJB||

    ba doom boom

  • Doctor Whom||

    [I]t's about government control of your lives and it's got to stop.

    Why, yes, Mr. Ice-Cream Fellator, it is about government control of our lives, and it has got to stop.

  • Sam B||

    Irony's my fav

  • JEP||

    Better alt-text:

    "Santorum uses condoms for fisting!"

  • ||

    Another alt-text: "Try to spot the asshole in this picture. Hint: he's wearing boxing gloves."

  • ChrisO||

    "Hey big boy, wanna do some boxing?"

  • o3||

    do you like gladiator movies chrissy?

  • ||

    I cannot believe Assgrease is gonna be the one to get traction from this thing. As if this guy gives a flying fuck about individual liberty. He wants to restrict entire groups of people from participating in the military (teh gays), in marriage (teh gays again) and doing what they want in the privacy of their own homes (pot smokers). Yet he's gonna get a standing-o at CPAC because he bashes Obama.

    Fuck the Republican Party faithful. Those peckerheads are bound and determined to push us closer to a fascist hellhole, be it through ensuring a 2nd term for Obama or by getting their own fascist asshole elected.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Where you said (pot smokers) you could have also said (teh gays).

  • Gojira||

    I've long wondered why people who profess to be disgusted by homosexuality are so fascinated by it that they'll talk about it incessantly. And they have to be thinking about it a lot in their spare time, to formulate these positions.

  • ||

    There are a lot of closet homos in the gay-bashing community. I guess teh Jooz don't have the market for self-loathing cornered after all.

  • ||

    It's about economic liberty, it's about freedom of speech, it's about freedom of religion, it's about government control of your lives and it's got to stop,

    Sez the guy who never missed a chance to vote for Big Government when he was in office.

  • Sam Grove||

    IF the GOP puts Santorum on the ballot, we can watch the presidency slip from their grasp.

  • Joe M||

    Seriously. Social conservatism trumps economic conservatism by a mile for many idiots. Also, he wants to make teh WARZ, a big plus for those same idiots.

  • Tony||

    A friend of mine ran across Santorum's campaign bus while he was visiting my state yesterday. Said his brood dressed like Pentecostals and Santorum barked orders like a dictator.

    Anyway, if you can't tell the difference between his brand of ridiculous backward patriarchal theocracy and, say, technocratic rulemaking with goals such as expanding access to healthcare, then you're too dumb to live. If you're so dogmatic that nothing but a total libertarian society will work, and everything else is equally fascist, then the only thing you're accomplishing is helping the actual fascists get power.

  • ChrisO||

    The rationale for the theft is less important than the fact of the theft itself.

  • Tony||

    Good, so you're prepared to give up your police protection, contract enforcement, and national defense?

  • Gojira||

    If I'm not taxed for those things then yes, I'd happily give them up and replace them with private services. Your point?

  • ChrisO||

    That's not theft. That's fee for service. I receive something in return. Probably too subtle a distinction for you to understand, though.

  • sarcasmic||

    Here are some Tonyisms:

    Not giving is taking.

    Not taking is giving.

    Government can protect private property while giving some a claim to the private property of others.

    He sees no contradiction in these things.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'd like you to go tell a policeman that there is no difference between government paying him to enforce the law and paying a welfare layabout to smoke pot.

    If I'm lucky he'll beat the shit out of you and charge you with something to highlight the difference.

  • ||

    How can it be theft when you agree to be taxed and also know you will.

    You were born in a nation that has taxes, you were informed you would be taxed if you worked and got paid above the table, and yet when you do get taxed you act like a victim? Retard!

    You are like a woman who sleeps with a fellow with full consent and then screams rape so she doesn't have to feel like a slut.

  • ||

    technocratic rulemaking with goals such as expanding access to healthcare

    I can save all that rulemaking and still expand access to healthcare insurance. All you gotta do is eliminate the federal law that bars companies from selling across state lines. Voila!

    If you want to expand access to healthcare, all you have to do is build larger doors into hospitals and doctors' offices. Because there is no limit on access to healthcare, you stupid fucking bastard.

  • shrike||

    Aetna, Cigna, etc., already sell across state lines since they sell in all 50 states. They tweak the policy a bit but what you suggest won't solve any problems. Neither will tort reform.

    Medicare/caid is the problem.

  • ||

    Um, they cannot sell across state lines. They have to write different policies for each state, meaning their group rates are inflated, their individual plans are all over the place and their compliance departments have to be duplicated.

    And yes, medicare and medicaid are huge problems. They both should be completely abolished.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    "If you're so dogmatic that nothing but a total libertarian society will work, and everything else is equally fascist"

    No, there're communists, socialists, and theocrats, too.

  • 35N4P2BYY||

    "Ladies and gentleman, this is the type of coercion we can expect. It's not about contraception*. It's about economic liberty**, it's about freedom of speech***, it's about freedom of religion****, it's about government control***** of your lives and it's got to stop,"

    * Totally kidding, it is about contraception

    ** and by economic liberty I mean, it is government's job to ensure the correct companies win

    *** as long as your speech is congruent with my ideas and has no filthy language

    **** freedom of religion = your freedom to acknowledge that my god > your god (or lack thereof)

    ***** Control by team BLUE, control by team RED is much more better

  • nicole||

    So for everyone wondering about why Obama was "stupid" enough to do this...are you starting to get it? Santorum is the only one of the GOP candidates actually crazy enough to be against using contraception, for everyone, and mad chill with laws against its use or distribution, even to married heterosexual couples. So announcing this BS now means that:

    SoCons are driven into the arms of the craziest person they could possibly support
    AND
    Everyone who isn't a SoCon—and I don't just mean super-progressives, but all the "normals" who just think birth control is super fucking normal, will think all the SoCons making a big deal out of this are CRAZY MORONS and will go out and make sure they vote against the crazy moronic religious right Republicans.

    I'm not saying it's not a violation of the first amendment, although I do think it's total BS that some belief systems are more special than others because they're called "religions," and what's much more important here is the federal government violating rights to freedom of association and freedom of contract. But since that's not what the people flipping out about this are flipping out about—they're flipping out about the religious part—that's not what people will see.

    And that's why all these polls about how many Catholics use birth control matter. Even if you think the Church shouldn't be forced to do all this business, most people are mad chill with birth control and think those who oppose it are off-kilter. Total genius wedge issue that can only hurt the GOP because it continues to paint them as the party of the religious right.

  • ChrisO||

    Interesting idea, even though I'm not sure the Obama people are actually that clever.

  • shrike||

    They know exactly how to manipulate the electorate. Plouffe is the best I have ever seen.

    Clinton and Reagan had it too.

  • Shorter nichole||

    old men who stare at zygotes are crazy

  • nicole||

    Well, old men who stare at zygotes are probably scientists or doctors or something...but...

    The real shorter nicole is that this is a framing thing and it's getting framed such that most people outside the religious right are going to end up seeing this as a religious right issue.

  • erikjay||

    Is there no editor looking at these bloggers' posts? If you count on "self-editing," that's a mistake even with the best writer/editors, and no professional I know eschews another pair of eyes on the copy. It's getting bad here, to wit:

    "basic tennants and teachings"

    With a single 'n' we could surmise something about renters. If the writer copied the material, "[sic]" is indicated. Thus we are left to conclude the writer didn't know "tenets" and neither did the editor, if there was one.

    I am neither a pedant nor a perfectionist, and I don't comment on EVERY erratum I encounter. But, folks, there's at least one English PhD at REASON and other very gifted scribes, so come on, already.

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