Rick Santorum: “We’re not the Libertarian Party, we're the Republican Party"

Gage Skidmore FlickrGage Skidmore FlickrThe great libertarian dream of entering the GOP in a Trojan horse Rand Paul built by hand is over. Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee are on to us and they are putting their gouty feet down. “Look, the Republican Party isn’t going to change,” former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) tells Politico. “If we do change, we’ll be the Whig Party....We’re not the Libertarian Party, we’re the Republican Party.”

Both Santorum and Huckabee (who is far less interesting in Politico's piece, aside from a joke about McCain and Romney failing to "just light ’em up at the National Right to Life Convention") seem to think the real reason the GOP lost two presidential elections in a row is because its candidates did not talk enough about the horrors of abortion and men kissing each other on the mouth. Sayeth Santorum: "If we had candidates in the last two presidential elections who weren’t ashamed of the positions they had on these issues and played offense, instead of listening to the same people who now want to abandon the issues, we would’ve been successful.” 

What Santorum doesn't say, but Politico's other interviewees do, is that social conservatives don't find the small government message very convincing:

“If we gave our voters an accurate portrayal of our ideas, that we want to cut the rate of growth on Social Security, give tax cuts to billionaires and then the values issues, the values issues would be more popular than the economic agenda of the current Republican Party,” said Gary Bauer, citing particularly those Mass-attending Roman Catholics who have fled the Democrats.

Bauer added, “I would caution the donor wing of the Republican Party that is driving a lot of this: If they think social conservatives are the only thing preventing Republicans from winning, they’ll learn that their economic agenda will go down the tubes along with the Republican Party’s prospects.”

Despite evidence that young voters are cool with men saying "I do!" to other men, and then kissing those men long and hard, Santorum is hopeful they will eventually discover the error of their ways. “I think we’ll see the pendulum swing back once young conservatives see the real consequences to the destruction of marriage.” 

On another front in the war over the GOP's soul, podcasting Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol says it doesn't matter what young people think about marriage, or anything else for that matter. From Mediaite

Noting that the Republican “establishment” (not including himself, of course) looks like a herd “running to catch up with the trends” because “some polls show [same-sex marriage] is now 58% popular and five years ago it was only 43% popular” (yes, that’s called an upward trend), Kristol lamented how some of the party’s leaders believe it necessary to take on the “fashionable” position of being okay with gay marriage.

“Not only will those earn the contempt of people who believe in defending traditional marriage,” he said, but they won’t even get credit for hopping onto the bandwagon.

“This kind of pathetic attempt to say, ‘Oh, my God! Young people especially are liberal so let’s just rush to cater to them,’ as if they’re going to respect you if you just embrace the views of some 26-year-old who doesn’t know anything honestly.”

A winning strategy, for sure. 

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.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    I would be happy if every baby in the world was aborted if it meant something interesting could be debated, instead of abortion.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    Yes, but what is your position regarding THE FETUS!? WHAT WILL YOU DO ABOUT FETUSES???? I CAN'T VOTE FOR YOU UNTIL I KNOW WHERE YOU STAND ON THE FETUS!!!!!

  • ||

    I'm not sure how I feel about abortion. On the one hand, it's killing a baby, which is good. On the other hand, it's giving women a choice, which is bad. So I dunno.

  • ||

    Do you even lift, bro?!?

  • ||

  • Smack MacDougal||

    Who is that guy in the pic? It seems as if the guy in the picture has over-developed traps and puny shoulders.

    Can he do even one pull up (not chin up)? If so, how many can he do after an all-out sprint for time in 200 meters?

  • KDN||

    Obvious answer: a panel of men needs to mandate abortions. Preferably high-status men. The top of society, if you will.

  • ||

    so stealing this

  • ||

    I think the fetus should squat more.

  • bmp1701||

    I recommend Romanian Deadlifts.

  • ||

    Blithely promoting accessory exercises as a cure-all. You fucking internet lifting gurus make me sick.

  • squarooticus||

    Romanian deadlifts are the butt blaster equivalent for men. There is no better glute/hamstring workout.

  • ||

    Yes there is. Good mornings, deficit SLDLs, deadlifts done on a 45-degree back extension bench, good mornings done on the 45-degree back extension bench...RDLs are fine, but hardly unique.

  • ||

    Didn't he get shellacked the last two times he ran for office? Yeah, shut the fuck up, frothy ass.

  • Almanian!||

    lulz - it's true because it's FUNNY!

  • Stormy Dragon||

    So did Romney, yet he still became the Nominee.

    I still fear Santorum is going to be the 2016 nominee, out of a combination of "it's his turn", the Republican inclination to vote for the guy who pisses off the most liberals regardless of whether he's a good candidate for the position, and a reactionary desire to go down with the ship on gay marriage, immigration, etc. just to prove that they'll never agree those young whippersnappers were right about anything.

  • SugarFree||

    If Hilary does run, that same calculus works far more in Palin's favor. The GOP thinks they have neutralized The War on Women aspect, and we get to watch an exciting exchange of Politics of Mass Stupidity that results in some horrible person in charge of the country.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Politics of Mass Stupidity that results in some horrible person in charge of the country.

    Which is different to what we have now how?

  • SugarFree||

    Menopause jokes. Lame, repetitive menopause jokes.

  • ||

    OW! My period!

  • ||

    Come on, Kristen, that was neither lame nor repetitive. Can't you try harder?

  • ||

    Ow! Her period!

  • ||

    OW: my period?!

  • Counterfly||

    An interrobang is not going to save you now. Even if it had wings.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Those were both exclamation marks, actually.

  • SugarFree||

    I Can't Believe It's Not My Period, the most realistic period substitute on the market today, or your money back.

  • ||

    Worst. invention. EVAR.

    I pray for the sweet, sweet release of menopause for at least 3 days a month...

  • SugarFree||

    Worst. invention. EVAR.

    Considering it's just a bag of chunky chicken blood with a slow leak, you are entirely correct.

    Stack your BCP, girl. Free yourself now, have the hot flashes later.

  • ||

    Sug is wise. I always forget there are still people who let horrible body chemistry ruin like 25% of their lives. It doesn't have to be that way!

  • ||

    Over 35 + occassional (ex-full-time) smoker = no BCP. I said I wanted the release of menopause, not death!

  • ||

    Yeah, I thought that might be the problem. When my doctor said, "Well once you hit 30, no more smoking AT ALL!" I was like right, I'll remember for sure not to tell you about it AT ALL.

  • SugarFree||

    How do you know you don't like blood clots if you haven't ever tried them? Geez, be a little open-minded for once.

  • T||

    I'll not be open-minded with you around. You're just looking for an opportunity to creep in and molest my unsuspecting thoughts.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    I pray for the sweet, sweet release of menopause for at least 3 days a month...

    Ah, the innocence of the premenopausal woman.

  • Free Society||

    Hot flashes are burning holes in my panties.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The War on Women aspect, and we get to watch an exciting exchange of Politics of Mass Stupidity that results in some horrible person in charge of the country.

    Palin would be a great president.

  • SugarFree||

    HAHAHAHAHA!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Why do you laugh.

    Because the important people mock her?

  • SugarFree||

    Well, I am pretty important...

  • Stormy Dragon||

    As I said earlier: "the Republican inclination to vote for the guy who pisses off the most liberals regardless of whether he's a good candidate for the position"

  • Killazontherun||

    They manufactured a War On Women by offering free birth control, what do they do for an encore?

  • Randian||

    I still fear Santorum is going to be the 2016 nominee

    We know. It's like your own weird and unwarranted phobia.

  • Hugh Akston||

    How many election cycles is it going to take for us to tire of the tableau of Senator Cumfart making noise, gaining just enough support to become a media sideshow, and then drenching the stage and podium in the salty ham tears of his doughy, weird-looking kids?

  • Almanian!||

    Don't forget "high-foreheaded" when discussing the kids. "High-foreheaded" is the key.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Seriously, what's up with that? Is his wife Talosian or something?

  • CE||

    I think they got it from the father's side.

  • Loki||

    "That kid's got a forehead you could show movies on..."

  • Counterfly||

    That's no forehead, that's a fivehead.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    The synonyms of the word santorum that people can come up with will never get old. That's his image for life. His descendents will abstain from procreation (maybe even have abortions!) in order to eliminate the santorum blood line.

  • CE||

    Either that or it's a juvenile joke people will find tiresome, much like they find the candidate.

  • Jordan||

    The media will never tire of him, because they use him to make all Republicans look like fundy lunatics.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Problem is a lot of Republicans ARE fundy lunatics. Santorum didn't come in second in the 2012 primary all by himself.

  • Voros McCracken||

    I thought Newt came in second?

  • Hugh Akston||

    He probably would. Coming in after someone else has already cleared the path sounds like Newt's style. I just don't understand why anyone would want to come in Santorum in the first place.

  • ||

    I now have a vision of Newt as Mao and/or Castro hiding with brigands in the mountains until everyone's decimated each other and then swooping in and claiming victory.

  • Hopfiend||

    second mouse gets the cheese...or something like that.

  • Rasilio||

    Actually he kinda did.

    Every other conceivable option dropped out by the Super Tuesday primaries save for Ron Paul leaving the anyone but Romney voters no one else to vote for.

    Easily half of his votes were votes for "Not Romney" rather than people actually supporting Santorum.

    The hardcore social conservatives do make up a significant power block within the republican party but even there it is not a majority representing maybe 30% of the party with the rest ranging from generally agreeing with the SoCons but not considering those issues to be important to being diametrically opposed

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Well you right. Except that Santorum was winning before Super Tuesday. And that Gingrich was still running until May. And that Santorum quit the campaign before Gingrich did, so that if it was really about being the last not Romney, Gingrich would have come in second.

    So really, other than being factually wrong about pretty much every detail, an excellent point.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The only place Santorum won big outside Super Tuesday was Iowa (i.e., the traditional resting place for doomed social conservative campaigns.)

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The hardcore social conservatives do make up a significant power block within the republican party but even there it is not a majority representing maybe 30%...

    It's not even that large.

    The SoCons control the republican party nonsense should have died when Huckster lost to McCain in South Carolina.

  • robc||

    Paul came in 2nd.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I know Ron Paul supporters like to tell themselves that, but it's not true. Ron Paul came in fourth:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....ries,_2012

  • CE||

    But delegates choose the nominee, as long as the RNC actually seats them.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That link suggests he came in 3rd.

  • robc||

    Can a catholic be a fundamentalist?

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Can a catholic be a fundamentalist?

    Why not.

    http://catholicfundamentalism.com/

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Now fundamentalist Unitarians...

  • ||

    If that's the one true faith, I'll eat my hat.

  • Rasilio||

    If you don't think Unitarians can be Fundies go to any UU church and say something bad about the green movement.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Aren't Catholics the most fundamental (besides Jews)?

  • ||

    Depends on what you mean by fundamentalist. Evangelical protestants would claim they're the most fundamentalist because they adhere most closely to Biblical precepts while Catholics accept Papal authority.

    If you're talking about slavish adherence to orthodoxy then you tend to get a different breakdown and I'd jump wahabbis to the top of the list. Everyone has their cray-cray fundamentalists (by the second definition) though, even the Hindus.

  • pmains||

    Fundamentalism is type of Christianity that owes its origin as a cohesive movement to the book, The Fundamentals. When people talk about Islamic fundamentalists, they just mean Muslims who are extreme.

  • Ted S.||

    We're already tired, but there are people in TEAM RED who actually like him, and people in TEAM BLUE who like putting him forward as evidence of how many people are so horribly intolerant.

    (It's the same reason Fred Phelps & Co. get so much attention.)

  • $park¥||

    I wonder what Santorum thinks of GOProud. I wonder what Kristol thinks of the Young Republicans.

  • Almanian!||

    If I didn't know better, I'd think you knew the answer to those questions and were just being rhetorical...

  • Almanian!||

    Wow - the derp is STRONG in these men. Team Red is DOOOOOOMED, I believe.

    Wait, no - I was forgetting the unending stupidity of American voters. And The Rules™. Team Red are just down for awhile - then it will be Team Blue's turn to be town. Cause that's the way Nature (and Team Red and Team Blue) intended it. That's The Rules.

    Carry on with your Bipolar World. There can be no "third way"!

    /derp

  • $park¥||

    Individuality is dead, get over it.

  • Almanian!||

    I....I LOVE Big Brother...

  • grey||

    I stopped giving money to team red. Money. They need money. They will get the top man position again and the third way of liberty-frst will not see the light of day. My money makes little difference, but those assholes are not getting any more of it. I'm donating to the Libertarian party and libertarian candidates exclusively. A libertarian in red costume like Rand will still get my support, but I'm being very careful from now on.

  • ||

    Naw, I think this really is the end for Team Red, barring a catastrophic faux pas by a Dem President. Who is going to go up against Hillary? It doesn't matter, they're going to get beaten up.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Heard the same talk when the GOP controlled everything at the beginning of the millennium. Fact is, it's still either-or in the minds of the electorate, and if they're unhappy about anything, they'll vote the other way. That's how things work.

  • ||

    Rand Paul really might be the only one that can beat her, not because there aren't other candidates better than her but because he would get the libertarians (we know every Republican is a lock) and perhaps a fair portion of anti-war/anti-prohibition lefties. Perhaps.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Jesus, no one named Clinton or Bush, thank you. We have 310 million people--surely one of the hundred million or whatever eligible to run would be better.

  • Raven Nation||

    Or you could end up with something like the FDR era: Dems dominate for 20 years. Team Red gets elected by drawing closer to Team Blue positions but offering a vague alternative during some kind of crisis.

  • grey||

    But the fiscal crises is real. There will be some sort of pretend opposition party to the madness, the policies ,ay be only barely different, but red ea, can pretend to care about the free market.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Naw, I think this really is the end for Team Red, barring a catastrophic faux pas by a Dem President.

    You mean like running around the country pushing gun control that no one outside of his bubble wants?

  • Thomas O.||

    "Who is going to go up against Hillary?"

    I say fight fire with fire. Nikki Haley.

  • ||

    Social conservatives are tedious beyond belief. They're like the gun grabbers; they've utterly, totally lost, but they will. Not. Stop. Trying. No matter how utterly and totally they've lost, they just keep clinging on.

  • $park¥||

    So, they're bitter clingers?

  • SugarFree||

    Felching santorum has been a bitter experience for many.

  • ||

    Out of all of your writings, that mental image has bothered me the most. Thank you SF for starting my week off with light mental anguish.

  • SugarFree||

    I eventually find everyone's point of light mental anguish. It means you are now one of us. Forever.

  • ||

    NutraSweet: the dominatrix of H&R. Now I want everyone to think of him dressed in a leather dominatrix outfit, and reach your point of light mental anguish for the day. jesse, you are exempt as you've already had yours, but you can do it if you want to, you masochist.

  • SugarFree||

    And to think I broke you, dear Epi, with nothing but a little scrotum torture and pictures of Warty's mother getting an artisanal mayo enema.

  • ||

    You can't break that which is already broken.

  • SugarFree||

    I see that The Drowned God has gotten to Episiarch.

  • ||

    Well, I'm totally on TEAM GREYJOY if that's any indication of anything. Fuck those arrogant Starks!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Now you go too far.

  • ||

    Finally!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Figures Episiarch would join the Team that claims raping Greenlanders as a lawful act.

  • SugarFree||

    He shall take you for a salt wife, AnonoCow.

  • ||

    I do not sew!

  • ||

    I know. Your clothes are in tatters, dude.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Sound more like zombies.

  • SugarFree||

    The stubborn dingleberries of politics.

  • ||

    Q: What do socons and the Enterprise have in common?

    A: They both circle Uranus looking for Klingons.

    Thank you, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip NutraSweet.

  • Almanian!||

    The SOCONS are out there! They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are converted!

  • AuH20||

    But all they hear is, "who wants cake?" They all do. They all want cake.

  • Rasilio||

    The sad thing is this is entirely true.

    Their capacity for rationalization and circular logic is unmatched making any argument with them pointless.

  • squarooticus||

    Ever get into an argument with one about how evolution is a "theory" and not a "fact" or "law", and that means it's entirely conjecture? It almost makes me want to pull out a gun and end myself.

  • Rasilio||

    Pretty much every time I talk to my brother sadly.

    And if it is not evolution, it is some other idiotic SoCon nonsense.

  • Gladstone||

    Social conservatives are tedious beyond belief. They're like the gun grabbers; they've utterly, totally lost, but they will. Not. Stop. Trying. No matter how utterly and totally they've lost, they just keep clinging on.

    And the libertarians?

  • John C. Randolph||

    “If we do change, we’ll be the Whig Party.

    That’s a rather startling admission. So, he’s coming right out and saying that the Republicans will become the “screw everybody for Wall Street’s benefit” party?

    -jcr

  • fish_remote||

    .....will become the “screw everybody for Wall Street’s benefit” party?

    Tense? Present....future??

    Hey...you...... Neidermeyer..... you already are the Whig party.

  • Drake||

    Leave it to the very dumbest guy in the GOP to utter such a ass-backwards statement.

    They are already the Whig Party.

  • ||

    “If we do change, we’ll be the Whig Party....We’re not the Libertarian Party, we’re the Republican Party.”

    Not for long...BITCH!

    The multi-generational Paul campaign to free the Republican party of idiots is slowly working. AND fuckers like Frothy are scaaaaaared.

  • Brett L||

    Guys, guys. Its Politico, which might as well be edited by the DNC. This is all just "let's you and him fight" stuff. Nobody in the Republican party gives a shit about what two washed up losers like Santorum and Huckabee say. For God's sakes, these are people who got beaten like kids mouthing off to cops by McCain and Romney.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Noting that the Republican “establishment” (not including himself, of course) looks like a herd “running to catch up with the trends” because “some polls show [same-sex marriage] is now 58% popular and five years ago it was only 43% popular” (yes, that’s called an upward trend), Kristol lamented how some of the party’s leaders believe it necessary to take on the “fashionable” position of being okay with gay marriage.

    COSMOTARIUNZZZZZZZZ!!!!!ONE!!1!!

    Did I do that right?

  • SugarFree||

    Needs moar food truck.

  • Loki||

    And COCKTAIL PARTIEZ!!!11!!!!1!!

  • Don Mynack||

    Santorum and Huckabee were terrible candidates who didn't even really challenge weak Repub nominees in McCain and Romney. Why should the party listen to them?

  • Tim||

    Reminds me of this (work safe) video

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

  • sarcasmic||

    Didn't Dave Mustaine endorse Santorum?

  • ||

    Look, I love Dave's music, but I wouldn't eat at a burger joint he recommended let alone take two seconds to consider whoever he recommended voting for. Dave's sort of an asshole.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Dave's not here, man.

  • ||

    Dave sells, but who's buying?

  • Loki||

    Dave's not here man.

  • tarran||

    In his defense, I believe he was bombed out of his gourd at the time.

  • sarcasmic||

    Really? I thought it was the opposite, and that he found religion as part of a twelve step program.

  • Zeb||

    I think that's true. He just says shit because that's who he is.

  • ||

    Two sides of the same coin.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    One benefit of seeing Romney win the GOP primary was seeing these ass-hats lose. That's about the only one though.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    If the GOP was actually the party of limited government and fiscal responsibility, they would probably get my vote. I honestly don't get agitated about abortion or gay marriage and am willing to compromise with GOP establishment. But seeing as Team Red is is the "get your hands off my Social Security" party, I'll pretty much be voting L for the foreseeable future. They screwed the pooch.

  • Virginian||

    Exactly. I'd trade 40% cuts in government for stupid socon laws. They'll just be ignored by any big city.

    But that's not the deal. The shit sandwich is "We're going to grow the government at an (allegedly) slightly lower rate, and nose around in people's personal lives!"

  • KPres||

    Why? It's not their fault. Social Security polls incredibly well. This is a political party, they're in the business of winning.

    I swear I'll never understand the whole "vote your conscience" thing. Life is trade-offs. Like it or not, either a Rep or Dem is going to win, so I say talk your conscience and vote your strategy.

    That being said, leaving your vote out there to be had has some strategic justification, but not if it's because of Social Security. As long as the program's as popular as it is, no politician is going to oppose it just to get a few libertarian votes.

    The irony of this is that you're not really different than Santorum et al when you take that stance. Hanging your vote on an issue you can't win.

  • $park¥||

    Like it or not, either a Rep or Dem is going to win, so I say talk your conscience and vote your strategy.

    One of them is going to win anyway so you might as well just pick one? How about if one of them is going to win anyway then they do it without my support or acceptance?

  • KPres||

    That implies that it doesn't matter which one wins. I didn't say that. One is always preferable to the other, even if that changes based on the situation.

  • Calidissident||

    Considering an individual vote isn't going to change who wins, that doesn't really matter

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    That being said, leaving your vote out there to be had has some strategic justification, but not if it's because of Social Security.

    I guess I wasn't clear. It's not just SS. It's foreign aid, endless war, medicare, medicare part d, and every other program that Team Red decries, yet never really gets around to cutting. No, they decry these programs, and then increase them yearly, while adding new ones. They are no different than the Democrat party.

  • KPres||

    Of course they're different. There's never seen a Democrat budget proposal that was smaller than it's Republican counter-proposal. Literally never.

  • Bradley Strider||

    Bill Kristol is fucktrash.

  • AlmightyJB||

    *barf*

  • Loki||

    Does anyone actually give a shit about what Dicky Cum-farts or Mike Fuck-a-bee has to say about anything? Seriously, in what universe are these douche-nozzles even relevant? Oh wait, Politico, that's what universe. I forget sometimes that Politico actually inhabits a parallel universe where all Republicans are Cum-farts/ Fuck-a-bee style walking stereotypes, and Prog-tard policies actually succeed due to the magical power of good intentions.

  • sarcasmic||

    Well, duh! Take the most outrageous and outlandish things that a fringe candidate can spout, and everyone who doesn't agree with you agrees with them!

    No exceptions!

  • Doctor Whom||

    And yet the left whines about nutpicking.

  • crazyfingers||

  • Matrix||

    So I see they are going with Einstein's theory of insanity--doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

    "If we keep pushing that conservatard crap, we'll eventually win!"

  • B.P.||

    Didn't Huckabee threaten the other day that the SoCons are going to walk if the GOP changes its tune on gay marriage? Who they're going to join with I don't know. This could get fun.

    Oh, and gout hurts.

  • sarcasmic||

    For years there has been talk of the GOP splitting into a Libertarian party and a Conservative party.

    Democrats of course are salivating at the prospect, because it means that with this government's "winner take all" system, with the opposition split in two they'll win almost every election.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    But what if the Democrats split into a Principled Progressive party and a Droning-and-Police State party?

    That would split the leftist vote!

    Ha ha, just kidding, there's no real difference between these factions.

  • Virginian||

    There's a huge difference. See, Democrats are good and Republicans are evil. So the same action is good or evil depending on who performs it.

    You need to shed your false consciousness. All will be clear once you do.

  • JWatts||

    So the same action is good or evil depending on who performs it.

    You forgot the Mandatory Liberal talking point phrase "false dichotomy", which, in my experience, is used as an automatic mindless rebuttal, whenever that situation is pointed out.

  • JWatts||

    And of course that's not what false dichotomy actually means, but that apparently doesn't matter either.

  • Rasilio||

    This presumes that large factions of the current Democrat collective would not calve off and join one of the other two.

    I could easily see the "conservative" party being very attractive to rural blue collar union workers as well as anti abortion catholics, and the libertarian party would play very well among college students and immigrants.

    The current Democrat coalition is much stronger than the current Republican one, however if the Republicans actually did split that would not prevent portions of it from jumping ship to the new factions.

    If the Republicans really did split I could easily see it coming down to a 30(Democrat), 25(Conservative), 25(libertarianish). 20(undecided/other) split and staying that way for a couple of decades until the conservatives simply die out.

  • Jake Badlands||

    College students and immigrants love statist Democrats. What on earth makes you think they'll flock to some sort of Paulian Libertarianism?

    Some jackass college kid who wants to, like, make the world a better place is not going to vote for anything approaching laissez faire. Lowering people's taxes doesn't give you the same moral frisson as "investing in education" does.

  • CE||

    Huckabee will walk if the GOP changes it's tune? How soon can they change their tune?

  • ||

    Feature!

  • OldMexican||

    both seem to think the real reason the GOP lost two presidential elections in a row is because its candidates did not talk enough about the horrors of abortion and men kissing each other on the mouth.


    Well, he may be right in at least one way: The candidates the GOP decided to anoint did not show very much conviction on anything meaningful for anyone, which is why fewer conservatives came to the ballot box last time around.

  • Raven Nation||

    "did not show very much conviction on anything meaningful for anyone"

    Exactly. I'm still not sure what Romney's position on anything was other than vague, "less taxes, smaller government" assurances.

  • cavalier973||

    Romney was anti-free trade even in 2008, which is was a deal-killer for me.

  • OldMexican||

    What Santorum doesn't say, but Politico's other interviewees do, is that social conservatives don't find the small government message very convincing:
    "If we gave our voters an accurate portrayal of our ideas, that we want to cut the rate of growth on Social Security, give tax cuts to billionaires and then the values issues, the values issues would be more popular than the economic agenda of the current Republican Party," said Gary Bauer, citing particularly those Mass-attending Roman Catholics who have fled the Democrats.


    That only confirms what I've known for years and that Hans Hermann Hoppe had argued in his book "A Theory on Socialism and Capitalism": That so-called SoCons are nothing more than Progressives in "conservative" drag, just as keen on using the brunt instrument that is government, to get their favorite things imposed on all, like their brethren on the left of the political spectrum. They're all fascists to the core.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    If Dubya didn't convince everyone of that, then nothing will.

  • tarran||

    This shouldn't be surprising; I think it was Rothbard who traced the intellectual threads of Progressivism back to its roots in a movement of protestant Yankees who wished to create a kingdom of heaven on earth.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    That so-called SoCons are nothing more than Progressives in "conservative" drag, just as keen on using the brunt instrument that is government, to get their favorite things imposed on all, like their brethren on the left of the political spectrum.

    Yep.

    It'd be nice if the political deck reshuffled with a freedom party and a statist party. There's no doubt that the SoCons would be a faction of the statist party.

  • Schultz||

    Nobody denies reality like Santorum. I wonder if he considers a plane that's falling into a decline after losing its wings still flying.

  • AlmightyJB||

    One can only hope he'll learn the answer to that first hand.

  • RightNut||

    “Not only will those earn the contempt of people who believe in defending traditional marriage,” he said, but they won’t even get credit for hopping onto the bandwagon.

    He is right though, even though Obama only started supporting gay marriage last year, the Democrats will be given credit by the media for supporting gay marriage. For example, see civil rights and how most African Americans vote.

  • Nite2332||

    Of course this is coming from two unelected republicans. Let's see what the majority of newly elected repubs say.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'm really wondering which institution people like Santorum and Huckabee will destroy first. The GOP or Christianity? If I cared about either (which I don't) I would be fighting these guys tooth and nail.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Of the two, Christianity has shown enough resiliency that it will survive a couple of dumbasses.

    The GOP? I dunno.

  • CE||

    To paraphrase John Adams in 1776, "It's a revolution, dang it, we're going to have to offend someone."

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Look, the Republican Party isn’t going to change,

    Says an ex-Senator that was blown out of office in a landslide and too big of a pussy to face Romney in a primary in 'his' state.

    Fuck Santorum.

  • lap83||

    Santorum is just an attention-starved politician. Most socons don't give a rat's ass about him. It's mainly the people who hate social conservatives that give him the attention he craves.

  • cavalier973||

    What Iap83 said.

    Huckabee is probably more strongly positioned to lead the SoCon wing, since he has a TV show and everything, and is a little more circumspect in dealing with people (although he may have changed over the years; I haven't listened to him in a while).

    Huckabee is the guy who changed my thinking on Iran. Four years ago, I was a frothing-at-the-mouth "Bomb-bomb-bomb; bomb-bomb Iran! HA! That's clever!" type person. Then I listened to his much-reviled speech where he called Bush "arrogant". In part of that speech, he said something along the lines of "When the Palestinians were cheering in the streets, the people of Iran held candlelight vigils in commiseration with the USA." For some reason, that struck home with me, and because I liked him, I was willing to listen to what he had to say.

  • GILMORE||

    “Look, the Republican Party isn’t going to change,” former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) tells Politico.

    ...

    he should have told them that! maybe they would have made him their presidential candidate instead of a freaking Mormon from Massachusetts

    Maybe he's right, though. Which is just one more reason to take it out back and shoot it in the back of the head

  • Kurbster||

    Santorum should get into the electronics warranty business...because every time I see his statist puke of a face on my screen, I want to put my fist through it

  • Marc St. Stephen||

    There's a reason that Huckabee's Fox News Show is broadcast circa 8PM on weekends - that's when people with a life are NOT watching TV.

  • SumpTump||

    This sounds like a pretty solid plan.

    www.GimmeAnon.tk

  • Lincoln||

    Please. You're not even the Republican Party, you are the Christian Party. . .

  • Elfstone||

    There is hope.

    As more and more of us Christians see what big government really does, less and less of us will listen to big government voices like Santorum and Bauer, Pat Robertson, Richard Land, Dr. James Dobson and others for that matter:

    They want a big government to push a theocratic social agenda, and Christians are waking up to that fact. More are saying no thanks to the monkey's paw - no deal.

    Theocracy is not what we are here for, for as long as Jesus is not yet here to rule the theocracy. Without Jesus, it is up to men to do it in place of God, which makes the theocracy arguably the worst, most vile form of tyranny.

    (Check out Islamic Shariah Law for a good sampling of what Christless, godless theocracy can be. However pronounced in God's name, theocracy without God is just another way for men to enslave other men.)

  • jburkiewicz||

    I can hear the people leaving the republican party everytime Santorum, Huckabee, or Kristol open their mouth. It's like a huge sucking sound. Please for god's sakes, go away and SHUT THE HELL UP!!!

  • Lloyd Clucas||

    It seems the Republican Party needs an exorcism -- think The Exorcist. Complete with the so-appropriate spinning head(s)... and the puke.

    Just understand that the Red states will turn Bluer during the necessary healing and recovery process. The noose has been too tight around the neck for too long. It is the process of overcoming any disease.

    Ronald Reagan put them on "hold". George W Bush got in bed with them. That must have been as stimulating as holding a Saudi's hand in public. He was the man that let all see what liberty we have lost. From fusion centers, to national security letters, to the TSA's continuing insults to the American people.

    Most of us hold little hope for the Republicans ("the opposition") and even less for the electoral chances of our own party. We have to just chip away at the fascistic edges of the empire -- whether it is R or D. Today it is D. Tomorrow...?

    In my 70s, I will pass away long before the good guys can win this one. But no one should stop trying -- to their last breath! The principles of human freedom on which this country was so awkwardly founded must not be abandoned. To do otherwise is to get washed up on the shores of the Mediterranean,where you will be shucked and served -- in a fine cream sauce.

    If that is what anyone wants, please expatriate -- now. They are more welcoming in Europe than we are to the very foreigners we so need, should want, and welcome with open arms.

  • philmon||

    I think most social conservatives I know would be content to live and let live. They'd just like to be allowed to believe that something they think is morally wrong is morally wrong and act accordingly. The resistance is not so much about making something legal (and frankly, just what *isn't* legal about two people of the same sex saying "I do" or kissing on the mouth? Nothing, as far as I can see) but rather the legal redefinition of a culturally significant word that means one thing to some people and rather more to others.

    When the word has been legally re-defined, it will be ... mark my words, used as a bludgeon against those who disagree, and say, might not want to bake a cake or rent out their bed and breakfast to a same-sex couple. Most social conservatives I know are far more tolerant than they are made out to be. There is, however, a difference between tolerance and acceptance and approval.

    I liked Rand Paul's suggestion. Strip Marriage out of the laws. Government has no place defining it in the first place. DOMA was an understandable but misguided attempt to keep those who are trying to force their definition on the entire culture from using the coercive power of government to do so.

    Republicans are simply making the wrong arguments.

  • bassasaurusrex||

    Yes, because listening to two guys who were ROUNDLY rejected by the GOP should be helping set policy for their party.
    Santorum is a fool. Gay marriage is a runaway train. Most Americans support it or don't give a damn about fighting it. It's such a dead issue.
    Abortion is an un-winable position by either side honestly. One the one hand you are supporting personal choice on the other side you are ending what is or will soon be a human life. It doesn't make sense to argue it on your platform.
    If the GOP was smart they would focus on small gov but they won't. They are no better than the DNC. The GOP would be lucky to be totally subsumed by the 'Rand Paul' wing of the party. They might start making some sense.

  • Todd Gilbert||

    When will people learn, the republican party is not the party of smaller government. They want to inter seed their moral agenda on everyone. They want big government meddling in everyone's life, so they can force their religious beliefs on everyone. When they have been in the white house or congress they have always been big spenders. They are having a fit about the sequester and that only cuts 2.5% of future spending and they act like the shy is falling. What do they want to cut. Not military,SS,medicare, medicare,drug benefits, dept.of ed. Cutting some welfare benefits is not going to balance the budget. I love all the people in flooded N.J. who say they want less government then have their hand out for fed. relief funds. Most citizens that call themselves republicans don't really want to cut anything either. Start going down a list and they say no to every cut.

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