Drug War

Rick Santorum Does Not Know Drug Offenders Have Families

|

Yesterday in Concord, New Hampshire, a member of Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) asked Rick Santorum, "As a champion of family values and keeping America strong, would you continue to destroy families by sending nonviolent drug offenders to prison?" Santorum's response: "Uh…wow…the federal government doesn't do that." That will come as a surprise to the nearly 100,000 drug offenders in federal prison, who account for almost half of all inmates. (Another 400,000 or so are in state prisons and local jails.) Does Santorum think only violent drug offenders go to federal prison? There is no such requirement. In my October Reason story about President Obama's drug policies, I noted a few examples that fit SSDP's description:

Last year a federal prisoner named Hamedah Hasan, who is seeking clemency with help from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), wrote an open letter to Obama. "I am a mother and grandmother serving my 17th year of a 27-year federal prison sentence for a first time, nonviolent crack cocaine offense," she said. "I never used or sold drugs, but I was convicted under conspiracy laws for participating in a drug organization by running errands and wiring money. Had I been convicted of a powder cocaine offense, I would be home with my three daughters and two grandchildren by now. I have had a lot of time to think about where I went wrong, and I genuinely take full responsibility for my actions. But I hope you will see that over 16 years in prison is enough time for me to pay my debt to society."

Another crack offender, Kenneth Harvey, is serving a life sentence for possession of more than 50 grams with intent to deliver, a crime he committed in his early 20s. Although legally required to send Harvey away for life because of two prior drug convictions (neither of which resulted in prison time), the judge who sentenced him recommended that he be granted clemency after 15 years, and an appeals court agreed. Yet Harvey, now 45, has been in prison for more than two decades….

Clarence Aaron, arrested when he was a student at Southern University in Baton Rouge with no criminal record, is serving three consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole for arranging a meeting between a childhood friend and a cocaine dealer. He has been behind bars since 1993.

Last November, in his first commutation, Obama shortened the sentence of Eugenia Jennings, an Illinois woman who was convicted in 2001 of selling 13.9 grams of crack to a police informant, from 22 years to 10. Families Against Mandatory Minimums and the November Coalition have many more examples.

Santorum, who as a Pennsylvania senator in 1999 voted to increase federal penalties for cocaine and methamphetamine offenses, surely is aware that the laws Congress passes put people behind bars, breaking up their families in the process. Instead of forthrightly defending that result as an acceptable cost of trying to prevent Americans from consuming certain intoxicants, he pretends no real humans are hurt in the service of this never-ending, never-succeeding chemical crusade. Despicable.

For more about nonviolent drug offenders, see my 1999 Reason article about criminologist John DiIulio's evolving views on the subject.

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.

217 responses to “Rick Santorum Does Not Know Drug Offenders Have Families

  1. A stooge, and an idiot. Wonderful.

    How long ’til he flames out?

    1. He’ll wait to flame until after he comes out.

      1. So as opposed to “flaming”, he’ll be “flamed out”?

        I think that’s a new category! Cool!

    2. How long ’til he flames out?
      —————————–
      about the other candidates point out his Senate record for pork-grubbing, supporting the expansion of Fedzilla through things like No Child and the Medicare drug benefit, and his never-ending quest to make sure that no one has sex with anyone but his/her spouse and, even then, only in the missionary position for a predetermined period of a time on a govt-sanctioned day of the week.

      1. Why does Santorum want people to have sex with his wife?

        1. Somebody has to?!?

        2. My friend and I sat directly behind Santorum’s wife at the Orlando CPAC debate. He clearly blew a kiss at us as the debate was starting. We asked her why he would blow a kiss to two guys! She did not have an answer, but she did keep googling Santorum over the course of the debate.

      2. “”supporting the expansion of Fedzilla through things like No Child and the Medicare drug benefit,””

        I’ll take things a Republican President did for $200 Alex.

        The Rs rewarded Bush with a re-election after the fact so they are not as offend about said doings as you might think.

        The fact that Santorum has jumped up in the polls is just more evidence of how team red is not really any better than team blue.

        1. You are correct in that the GOP in 2000-2007 was largely unconcerned with big government so Bush got a free pass(also, being a war-time president didn’t hurt).

          However I think it’s stupid to forget that there is a substantial contingent in the GOP now that does care(for now) about limiting the size and scope of government.

          1. —“However I think it’s stupid to forget that there is a substantial contingent in the GOP now that does care(for now) about limiting the size and scope of government.”—

            And that contingent is the one with the “R” behind its name while the President has a “D” behind his. Just wait until the “R”‘s hold all the power. Business an usual I would suspect.

            1. Well, duh, you’re right – but that wasn’t what we were talking about.

              1. —“However I think it’s stupid to forget that there is a substantial contingent in the GOP now that does care(for now) about limiting the size and scope of government.”—

                So, what were we talking about?

                1. My best guess here, is that jasno is talking, not about the politicians themselves, but rank-and-file people who register Republican. Ie, voters. But just a guess.

                  1. Still, the same things are going to happen. Just like the anti-war Dems & the Civil Liberty Dems don’t seem to have a big problem with Obama.

          2. Being a war time president shouldn’t count if you started the war! (I know it does count, but it shouldn’t…)

            1. 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!1!

              1. It certainly wasn’t an Iraqi job. Wasn’t really an Afghanistani job either.

                1. certainly wasn’t

    3. About a week.

      1. New Hampshire is too soon. It will take more time for the media and the other candidates to pile on the damaging information. He could play well in South Carolina, so Florida would probably be a make-or-break state for Google Santorum. But he might make it all the way to Super Tuesday on March 6th.

    4. Can’t happen fast enough for me. But I have this horrible fear in my gut that he could get the nomination by being the last non-Romney non-Paul standing.

      1. Really? Come on – Romney is going to take the nom once the GOP realizes he’s the best chance at beating Obama. He won’t, and we’ll have 4 more years of Obama, but you’re not going to see a Santorum or Paul nomination.

        I think the GOP is going to have to go down in flames again this election cycle – they still don’t ‘get’ it. Hopefully they’ll take Rand seriously in 2016.

        What probably will happen is that will see the GOP gain in congress, which I think is a better outcome(congress controls spending, and look at the benefits of a GOP congress/Dem president that we got in the 1990’s).

        It really wouldn’t be a bad idea for the GOP to start reducing spending on the presidential election and focus the money on state/federal legislative elections.

        1. A fucking rock could beat Obama, assuming it could qualify. Economy and the general WTF nature of his administration will kill him in the general.

          1. Unfortunately for the Republicans, they’re going to be stuck with Mitt Romney as their candidate, not a rock.

            1. Same thing, though I suspect Mitt loses badly when the southern states (other than SC, which is clinically insane) start to vote.

          2. If the rock was a non-interventionist or was had something written against social secutiry on it, it would lose.

            1. Mitt / The Rock 2012!

              You read it here first, folks.

          3. If the economy picks up at all, which I think it is and will continue to do so gradually, Obama is a shoo-in.

            The big O has pissed off a lot of people, but if the GOP option is either Romney(i.e. white Obama) or Santorum/Gingrich(old school GOP nonsense) then the pissed off folks are either going to stay home or vote for GJ/RP. Obama can use fear(not necessarily facts) of a GOP takeover(SS cuts, warmongering(stop laughing), etc.) to consolidate his base.

            It’s a good election for a third-party candidate, but I think it’s too late in the cycle for someone to step up now. We’re stuck with the folks who are already running(i.e. douchebag/turd sandwich).

          4. The election will be determined by the unemployment rate in the 3rd quarter of 2012.

            1. Heard this morning that if the Dow is up in August and September before an election, the incumbent wins 90% of the time.

              1. Any wonder why Obama has so many cronies on Wall Street?

          5. A fucking rock could beat Obama, assuming it could qualify. Economy and the general WTF nature of his administration will kill him in the general.

            I disagree with this… strongly.

            Obama has absolute rock-solid support from his base, and good support from the rest of the Democratic voters as a whole- hence the super-narrow Democratic primary field. Which consists of…hmmhmmm…carry the one… Obama.

            Romney could swing a few independent undecideds, but [when] Romney gets the nomination, GOP base will stay at home, giving an even larger edge to Obama.

            I believe the Republican party is too fractured to win, and third parties, despite the [re]surganne of so-called independents, are going to play a near statistically insignificant role this election.

            I suspect we won’t see another 17% Ross Perot-style voting pattern for a decade to come.

        2. Romney is going to take the nom once the GOP realizes he’s the best chance at beating Obama.

          How do you figure that? Romney’s just Obama without the tan.

          -jcr

        3. 2016? Look around you… Look at how the TP and OWS have taken to the street in the last couple of years. That is just the beginning. At this rate I don’t think its long before Rome burns.

      2. If I was a superPAC, I would locking up the rights to Ron Reagen asking America if they are better off now or 4 years ago.

        I would run the add incessently through October 2012.

    5. I hope it’s soon. We have another epic thread to get started on.

  2. Even Jesus is looking at this guy and saying “what an asshole”…

    1. Especially Jesus is calling him an asshole. He knows what it’s like to get a punishment not befitting the “crime.”

      1. But didn’t He plead guilty?

        1. Come on. He practically BEGGED to be nailed to that cross.

          1. as a carpenter, he probably supplied the hammer.

            1. I always loved that Jim Gaffigan bit about how Jesus was probably a terrible carpenter.

              “Good thing that ‘messiah’ thing worked out, he built a shed for my cousin-what a piece of crap.”

              1. Gaffigan should be forced to do a new stand-up routine every week, and it should be televised, uncensored, on every network channel.

                I’m usually against coercion, but I could support this.

                1. I could support this too. Dude is hilarious.

                2. Diarrhea pocket!!!

              2. Jesus couldn’t make it as a carpenter because he was too honest to pad his bills.

        2. Nope. When asked if he was guilty he stood silent before his accusers.

          1. So, nolo contendere?

          2. If he had nothing to hide, he would have spoken up.

            /LEO

  3. Seriously, New Hampshire! Nobody votes for Ass-juice. Not! One! Vote!

    1. I think Santorum is more concerned about getting South Carolinians to vote for the ass juice.

  4. Frothy One, please do keep talking. Your mouth is working for the other side.

  5. I think Santorum’s logic is, “Uh, wow…the federal government doesn’t do that. The person breaking the law does.

    And by his standards, he would be right.*

    *Of course, his standards are idiotic.

    1. It depends on what “that” is referring to. If it’s sending non-violent drug offenders to prison, well, obviously the government does that. If it’s destroying families, that can be argued.

      1. I’d imagine by “that,” he meant destroying families. The sending of non-violent drug offenders to prison most likely causes him great pride. Shit, I’d be shocked if getting more hardass in the WoD will probably be a signature plank in the GOP platform if he somehow gets the nomination.

        1. I kinda think he was just denying that the federal government puts people in jail though. Otherwise he could’ve said it’s the person’s fault.

  6. Rick Santorum Does Not Know Drug Offenders Have Families

    Maybe they should have trotted their children out as props in court. That might get his attention.

    1. Have them squinch up their face and cry in front of everybody as the sentence was read? Good plan, although it doesn’t generate much sympathy around here.

      1. No, but if it was up to us, they wouldn’t have been in court in the first place.

      2. tr0g that will only work if the child is holding a doll that is wearing a matching dress, even though said child is obviously too old for that.

    2. Maybe they should have trotted their children out as props in court. That might get his attention.

      He’s never seen that many black people together in his entire life.

      1. He’s originnaly fom Penn Hills, PA. He has seem PLENTY of black people.

        1. Oops. Originally. Hard to believe my hand is faster than my brain. (Slow hand, not fast brain.)

    3. Rick Santorum Does Not Know Drug Offenders Have Families

      Maybe they should have trotted their children out as props in court.

      Nice.

  7. “Uh…wow…the federal government doesn’t do that.”

    Anon bot for President!

    1. Wow, I never th0t about it that way, lol

    2. Dude, makes a lot of sense. When U think about it.

    3. LOL!

    4. Makes sense when you think about it.

    5. Wait – are you saying Santorum is Juanita? That could explain why she’s been so quiet since the election season began…

  8. Federal prisoners get free healthcare. How ’bout that?

  9. Unfortunately, this probably only stops liberals who care about the drug war, liberals who pretend to care about the drug war, and libertarian-minded people from voting for Santorum. In other words, the same people who had never planned on voting for Santorum anyway.

    1. Well, I would hope that a chunk of people who never question this have just never really thought about it, and stuff like this might raise awareness a tiny bit, such that people go, hm, maybe this isn’t such a great idea after all.

      Plus, he just blatantly lied.

      1. Right, so the followup question should have been: “If I can prove you are lying, will you drop out of the race for the nomination?” I once saw a congressional incumbent walk back his remarks (re salary increase vote) when he was so challenged.

      2. Plus, he just blatantly lied.

        The optimistic side of me hopes this is what makes this a newsworthy item. And perhaps at that point the people you mention that just never really thought about it much start hearing about it.

    2. Bingo, Bee Tagger.

  10. Clarence Aaron, arrested when he was a student at Southern University in Baton Rouge with no criminal record, is serving three consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole for arranging a meeting between a childhood friend and a cocaine dealer.

    Did Mr. Aaron have a lawyer? I had a friend who went to LSU during that time period, and we engaged in some pharmaceutical trading. Baton Rouge is a great place a party, but not a great place to get busted. Fuck. The ACLU has got to get this guy out of prison.

  11. So he’s either stupid, or dishonest.

    Or… [cue ominous music] both!

  12. I love how this jackass says “wow” whenever he’s asked anything other than a fawning softball. Yes, Frothy-Mixture Jackass, the voters are going to ask you direct and sometimes unpleasant questions about broken systems in our country. If that’s a problem for you, perhaps you should not be running for President.

  13. A couple of months ago I watched the mother of three kids get sentenced to 4 years in federal prison, then her husband and father of the children get five years thirty minutes later. These master criminals sold meth for gas money.

    1. To be fair, they were endangering their children. Did they have the meth heads come to their house? Did they store the meth at home, where the kids could theoretically find it? Meth users are often deranged, and those who sell meth are willfully putting themselves in contact with such people. To subject children to this kind of danger is a crime.

      1. Do any of those activities but the children in more danger than state foster care? Probably not.

        1. That would be an interesting comparison. Couldn’t do it due to lack of decent data comparing “Druggy Parents vs. State Foster Care: Who Fucks Up Kids More?”

          Even as a anecdote comparison from the news and just using dead kids it seems they are pretty equal. For each of the “Druggy Parents Kill Kid” story we have an equal number of “State Foster System Kills Kid” story.

      2. James, do you have kids? Do you have a gun or better yet any household cleaning products that are poisonous if ingested? Yes? Sorry, we will have to take your kids away. They could find theoretically find those things, and to subject your children to that kind of danger is a crime. Have a nice day.

          1. and Bingo was his name-o

      3. To be fair, they were endangering their own children. Not your problem. Not my problem. Not governments’ problem.

        So, 4-5 year sentences for both parents, eh? Not probation?

        What’s your sentencing guidelines for those who only endanger their children by being drunks and having other drunks around?

        1. 10 years mandatory bowling and NASCAR?

    2. Yep. Those kids are going to have a great life.

    3. Worst injustice I saw along these lines was a couple who were sentenced to two years for medicare fraud. Doesn’t sound bad at first, but they committed this fraud in part by giving animal feed to retarded adults living at their facility and billing medicare 5 times as much for people food.

      Anyway, the facility was also a farm, and the couple was allowed to serve their sentences in alternating six month streteches so that they could take care of their livestock. That really galled me because I’ve seen a lot of dumbass drug addicts’ kids go to foster care when the parents pull a five or ten year mandatory.

      It’s so unfair to let some douche out every six months to feed his goats and sheep, but keep a parent away from their kids for five years.

      1. That is absolutely horrible.

  14. PSA: No matter how well-trained you are:
    1. Alcohol and firearms do not mix
    2. CLEAR THE FUCKING CHAMBER WHEN YOU PICK UP A GUN

    “SAN DIEGO (AP) ? San Diego police say a Navy SEAL is on life support after accidentally shooting himself in the head.

    Cali says the man was showing guns to a woman he’d met earlier at a bar and put a pistol he believed was unloaded to his head. Cali says he then pulled the trigger.”

    1. He’d been drinking.

      NTTAWWT

    2. Or how about just: Don’t point a gun at your head. Ever. And if you really have to, don’t pull the goddamn trigger. I’m pretty sure I could remember that, even if I were drunk (not that I would start playing with guns when I was drunk).

      1. This. Once when I was in college I was indulging in some recreational drug use with a friend. At some point, he picked up a handgun and starting messing around with it. I said, “Uh, hey, is that loaded?” My friend pointed it at his head and pulled the trigger six times:clickclickclickclickclickclick. Said “Nope” and put it back down.

        That’s probably the closest I’ve ever come as an adult to actually shitting myself.

    3. Shit. Aren’t Navy SEALS supposed to be the best and brightest in the military (along with all the other special forces)? Makes you wonder what kind of idiots are in the regular armed forces.

      1. It also puts the the U.S. military’s inability to “win” wars since WWII in a whole new perspective.

        1. I have to disagree. We haven’t been “winning” wars because the definition of winning has changed. It used to be the war was won when the other country’s army was defeated.

          We still do that, pretty handily. However, we either don’t press home the war and get rid of the opposing government via unconditional surrender (Vietnam, Iraq I), or we stick around to go some extra innings policing the joint and trying to turn it into Belgium-on-the-Euphrates (Iraq II).

      2. Maybe he confused his head for a Canadian or British head?

    4. He violated about every gun safety rule there is. Amazing what the prospect of maybe getting some pussy will do to a man’s IQ. I wonder how impressed she was with his gun.

      I don’t often carry concealed, but once a few years ago, I somehow got into a discussion with someone about it – don’t really remember all the details now – but I do recall that when I mentioned I had a CHP, the person asked “what? you mean you carry a gun?” I said “yes, sometimes.” They asked, “are you carrying one now?” My response: “the point of concealed carry is that it’s CONCEALED, right? So if I were carrying, how would you know?”

      They kept asking until I finally said, yes, I was in fact carrying a gun. I knew what was coming next: “Really? What kind of gun is it? Can I see it?”

      My answer: “It’s a Para Ordnance .45 ACP 1911 and no fucking way.”

      I saw no need to “impress” this person by pulling out a loaded gun for no reason and handing it back and forth.

      1. He was just interested in seeing the fabled beast of liberal lore. I mean, you know how dangerous those things are when left up to their own devices. He had to see the beast for himself.

      2. It’s a Para Ordnance .45 ACP 1911

        Jeebus, that’s your carry gun? I’ve got one of those. Wonderful gun, but a little . . . zaftig . . . for carry, IMO.

        1. I carry a Para P12.45. It’s pretty light. It can reasonably be referred to as a 1911.

    5. A decade ago, I learned that one the hard way (I too was showing off my snazzy new handgun to a curious lady). Fortunately, nothing but a washing machine and the wall in my garage were harmed. I have the lid with the hole in it hanging up in my office as a reminder. Not that I could forget.

      1. Handle, that’s not important. What’s important is if you got laid? Well did you? Did the carpet match the drapes?

      2. Negligent discharge? Eeeeeww!

  15. Too bad the kid didn’t get a follow-up:

    “What are you, stupid? Of course the federal government sends non-violent drug offenders to prison. How does sending these people to prison and destroying their families square with your [“]pro-family[“]* rhetoric?”

    *[“] = insultingly exaggerated air-quotes.

    1. “We had to destroy the family to save it.

      Next question?!”

    2. Sounds like he was following up when the video cut off, even though Santorum was running away.

    3. [“] = insultingly exaggerated air-quotes

      Still no sarcasm tag though.

  16. Who would have thunk that Santorum would be so full of santorum?

    1. Me. I thought that.

  17. Shitty McDickcheese.

    1. ew

      /teenager

  18. Ugh. Team Red. Ugh. Team Blue. Ugh.

    I’m voting for myself for President this year. Fuck the Teams.

    I welcome any support – except money. I’m running a Zero Dollars campaign. Vote for me if you’re up for it (Platform In Total: “Fuck off, Slaver! Free Minds and Free Markets, bitches. Leave me alone and I’ll do the same to you, OK? Now let’s huff some weed and drink some moonshine to celebrate.”)

    So don’t send money – just vote for ole Almanian as the write in candidate for 2012. “Almanian – Write In, Right On, Right Now!”

    I am Almanian, and I approve this message.

    1. Sign me up! Where can I send a contribution?

      1. I would never, ever waste my vote on a Michigomer.

        So please move one state south so we can talk about me becoming your CA campaign chief, though.

        1. I’m in Cleveland as we speak…write. I’ll be here all week….

          try the chicken fingers!

          *rimshjot*

          But – seriously folks!

    2. I’ll vote for the LP candidate first, then pay the poll worker to vote for you my second time.

      That’s how we roll in Texas.

        1. Pikers

  19. I’d like to see a cage match between Santorum and Will Wilkinson. And then shoot the survivor.

    1. Can we chuck rocks at ’em instead?! That’s so much more….involving and personal.

    2. Aren’t they the wrong color to be in cages though Slappy?

      Then again, I guess the problem with putting darkies in cages is that they aren’t picking crops or swinging from trees huh?

    3. Which reminds me, anybody see Wilkinson’s latest frothy discharge on that Bleeding Heart Libertarian site?

      I can only surmise that WW has developed a brain tumor the size of a tangelo.

  20. Has Ron Paul ever stated that he would commute all sentences resulting from non violent drug convictions?

    1. I believe I heard him say that. But I believe it would only be for federal prisoners. Can’t interfere with state’s rights, and all…

    2. Harry Browne did in 2000- the economics got be to half tent and that statement got me to full.

  21. On this subject, some Australians estimate that 200 million people use drugs annually, not counting ecstasy, hallucinogenic drugs, inhalants, benzodiazepines or anabolic steroids, but that only 39 million or so are “problem users”.

    1. That seems awfully low.

    2. Horribly low. There’s probably nearly that many in the US alone. If you count alcohol. Which you should.

    3. There are approximately twenty-three million problem drug users in Australia. All of them alcoholics.

      1. Oddly enough there are only several Dozen drug users in Canada. They’re called the Maple Leafs.

      2. Is that the population of Australia? I bet that’s the population of Australia…

  22. Santorum trolled by Free Staters in Keene:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2glKJXkMBOA

  23. Reason needs to stop with Santorum stories. Every time i see his picture I black out and throw stuff at my monitor. This is causing a disturbance at work.

    1. Don’t read Gerson’s column in yesterday’s Post.

    2. You should take solice in the fact that matter how fucked up your life becomes you’ll never be Rick Santorum.

  24. Let’s say that by some freak of un-nature, Santorum gets the GOP nod. Then comes the general election.

    Better to have the social conservative who has some loathsome cultural views, but almost certainly will lack the power to enforce them? Or another four years of the meglomanical race-baiting class war-mongering leftist junk scholar whose primary goal seems to be turning the once greatest nation on earth into a third-rate banana republic?

    Great set of choices, innit?

    1. I don’t really care much whether the jackboot in on the right foot, or the left.

    2. I will not pull the lever for Santorum or Gingrich. There’s not enough soap to wash that off.

      1. Or Perry, or Romney, or…

    3. As a lot of people have pointed out, there are two considerations at play.

      1) If Team Red captures both the House and Senate, they said loathesome president may have quite a bit more power than you’re bargaining on.

      2) Ricky’s ain’t exactly a small-gov’t, free market guy. But he has an R after his name. So as things inevitably continue to get worse, those “free-market and deregulation radicals” will be blamed for the mess. I’d rather have the finger pointed correctly: at big-gov’t big-spending stooges, which is a meme easier pinned on Team Blue.

      1. Johnson. The potential to finally crack the theocon grip on the GOP is worth four more years of Obama. Besides, Obama needs to be to handed the bag of shit that will be the next four years. (Although I don’t believe that strongly enough to vote for him.)

        1. The socons will go back to the Dems.

        2. Pretty much exactly how I feel about it. Paul getting the nomination is the only way I’d vote for Team Red.

          1. ^THIS^

            It’s either Paul for Team RED, or Johnson if Paul isn’t Red’s nominee.

        3. Problem is, though… if the R dominated Congress and the D President work to turn things around and make things a little better than they were pre-2008, then Obummer will be hailed as one of the greatest presidents of all time. Do you REALLY want that?

          1. Unlikely to happen. What makes you think they will work together any better after the election than they did before it? I think we are locked into the current rhetorical battle until we get a new president.

          2. Unlikely to happen. What makes you think they will work together any better after the election than they did before it? I think we are locked into the current rhetorical battle until we get a new president.

          3. No, but I’ve lived my entire life with people thinking FDR was a great president that got us out of the depression. I doubt my blood pressure will climb too much when the same people think that about Obama. People are going to be dumb anyway.

    4. Santorum is the lone candidate who strikes me as having the potential to be vastly worse than Obama.

      Now, if he wins my wife will probably demand we flee the country. And I might agree at that point, though I’ll have to resist so that she compromises and lets me pick NZ for our new home.

  25. Race is over if this CNN/Time poll is true —

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2…..topsc3.pdf

    (Romney 37% in South Carolina)

    1. Not according to Rasmussen.

      http://hotair.com/archives/201…..ntorum-24/

  26. Hey guys! HuffPo is selling a new e-book called OCCUPY: Why It Started. Who’s Behind It. What’s Next. (please try and contain your laughter). Because people are interested in paying to find out what these stinktards are about.

    I’ll put the over/under at 75 copies.

    1. OCCUPY: Why It Started.

      AdBusters, a Soros-funded group, thought it up.

      Who’s Behind It.

      See above.

      What’s Next.

      Nothing.

      1. What’s Next.

        Spring is next, when a young man’s fancy turns to shitting on stoops and getting away with rape.

        1. SPRING IS NEXT, WHEN A YOUNG MAN’S FANCY TURNS TO SHITTING ON STOOPS AND GETTING AWAY WITH RAPE!

          1. SPRING IS NEXT, WHEN A YOUNG SASQUATCH FANCY TURNS TO SHITTING IN WOODS AND GETTING AWAY WITH RAPE!

          2. *jazz hands!*

  27. http://dailycaller.com/2012/01…..s-a-phase/

    Later, when discussing the 10th Amendment with another questioner, Santorum stated unequivocally that he is “not a libertarian.”

    “I’m a conservative,” he said. “I am a Reagan conservative. I am not a libertarian. And the people who are calling me a big government guy are libertarians.”

    .
    http://dailycaller.com/2012/01…..y-service/

    Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum compared his service in government to serving in the military during a town hall meeting on Thursday.

    “I grew up around veterans, I grew up around, you know, folks who loved their country and served their country,” he said, answering a question about what propelled him into government service.

    “I didn’t see working in government service and being in politics as anything but serving your country, and doing in some ways ? in a civilian sense ? what a lot of folks did in a military sense. And I saw it as something that is honorable and good to do.”

    “The rest of the country doesn’t function unless the government keeps us free,” he added, “and we need people in politics just like we need people in uniform to do that.”

    1. “I didn’t see working in government service and being in politics as anything but serving your country…And I saw it as something that is honorable and good to do.”

      “The rest of the country doesn’t function unless the government keeps us free,” he added…

      What an utterly disgusting piece of human garbage.

      1. He sure is…Hes a complete idiot

      2. Gojira…I’m not even sure he’s human.

      3. Yup, even until this point I still considred Gingrich more loathsome. That quote has pushed Santorum past the post.

        1. Gingrich and Santorum are goosestepping over each other to see who can alienate libertarian conservatives more.

      4. Who is that, Santorum or Obama?

    2. The rest of the country doesn’t function unless the government keeps us free

      This right here is why Team Red and Team Blue combine for >90% of the vote every election. Most people actually believe this shit. “Oh noes! We can’t cut the government down to a fraction of what it is now! The whole country would turn into a bunch of monstrous cannibals!”

    3. “I’m a conservative,” he said. “I am a Reagan conservative. I am not a libertarian. And the people who are calling me a big government guy are libertarians.”

      It’s OUR fault that he voted for virtually every huge spending bill put before him!

      1. Of course. It can’t be because he’s a statist asshole.

  28. Three reasons to vote against Santorum:

    1) He’s a lawyer
    2) He’s a lawyer
    3) He’s a lawyer

    We need a doctor, not a lawyer.

    1. Correct! Because a doctor is more qualified at administering an enema.

      1. Enema? How’s about multiple amputations?

    2. You just need to get everyone on earth to think “Doctor” all at once. The telepathic satellites will handle the rest. Trust me on this.

  29. I’m late to the party today, but this belongs somewhere. And of course, the murderous cop is still on the job and faced no charges.

    1. “I am not aware of a single police officer that has the desire to take the life of a human being, nor do I believe that Sgt. Palomino had the desire to take the life of Mr. Vargas,” he said.

      *snort*

  30. Santorum would probably say drug use is violence against one’s soul or the community or whatever. He’s already redefined “freedom”, why not redefine “violence” as well?

    Semantic games: not just for the Left anymore.

    1. This reminds me, I’ve been re-reading George Smith’s “Atheism, Ayn Rand and other Heresies”. There’s a long chapter on the history of religious toleration.

      And when I finished it, I had kind of an “oh duh” moment: all the long-dead, vicious, stupid arguments for religious persecution have been reincarnated to support the WOD. It’s the same damn thing. Spinoza, Milton, Locke, they all would have understood — in fact, some of these guys almost exactly anticipated this happening.

    2. If you aren’t walking the narrow path, you are in “bondage” to the pleasures of this earth, so says the Bible. I’ve seen socons use this as a reason to support the WOD, they are trying to keep people out of bondage.

      Of course, forcing people down the narrower path sort of defeats the purpose of the narrower path in the first place. The narrower path is only meaningful if freely chosen, however that doesn’t seem to stop the Santorums of the world when it comes to their moral crusades.

  31. This guy is a fucking idiot. How can someone who is always preaching about god, be such a hate monger? this guy wants to bomb everyone and kill everyone. Very christian of you Santorum. People need to wake the hell up. STOP VOTING FOR PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY LEAD BASED ON FAITH…THAT NEVER WORKS…ELECT SOMEONE WHO HAS COMMON DECENCY TO PEOPLE. AND HAS GOOD MORALS…Not because someone leads an entire COUNTRY based on some book. The founding fathers of the USA didnt do that…So why are we now?

    1. Because we’re a bunch of comfortable idiots that don’t realize we’re not guaranteed the relatively easy lives we now live.

  32. Keep in mind this is the same dickhead that wants to ban all forms of birthcontrol and contraceptives…..Nice job Rick CrazySantorum…This guy deserves a shot to the face

  33. Putting nonviolent drug users and the use of mandatory sentencing feeds private prison corporations

    Politicians have found a politically acceptable cash cow

    1. Um, don’t forget me.

  34. Yeah I’m rich and live in all white neighborhood like all of you guys. I wish the government would legalize all drugs. It would drive these non-violent angels out of business. Then instead of making lots of fast and easy money selling poison to people they could get real jobs like Wal-Mart greeter or knitting sweaters for homeless veterans. Some people think if we let these animals out of prison they will just find other ways to make illegal and fast money but they’re probably just racist.

    Also, I agree, Santorum’s refusal to answer a blatantly loaded question shows that is a complete idiot. Its like this example I just made up:

    Immature Libertarian: Hey Rick why do you hate brown people so much that you refuse to let them into the country?

    Rick: I don’t hate brown people

    See that!!!! Hardy har har. Rick doesn’t even know that most illegal immigrants in this country are of Hispanic origin! What an idiot!! I’m so much smarter than everyone because I profess a completely impractical political philosophy that only works in the reality that I’ve imagined in my head. Yay libertarians!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Obvious troll is obvious.

      P.S. Fuck off, slaver.

    2. Strawman troll, can I set you on fire?

    3. Hey Rick why do you hate brown people so much that you refuse to let them into the country?

      That’s a fair question, actually.

    4. I profess a completely impractical political philosophy that only works in the reality that I’ve imagined in my head.

      Ironysterical. Socons are some of the least self-aware people ever conceived.

  35. Sure, Santorum was able to dodge the question this time. Failure to engage the question is more objectionable than a bad answer. I hope SSDP and FAMM dog his cardigan-wearing ass and continue to ask him about this issue, next time framing the question with the stats such as those Sullum includes. Not so hard to dodge, then.

  36. Whipple: http://img202.imageshack.us/im…..ordiei.jpg

    Not only did he get trolled by the questioner, he got trolled by a secessionist. Double mother-fucking ace.

  37. “As a champion of family values and keeping America strong, would you continue to destroy families by sending nonviolent drug offenders to prison?”

    To be fair to Mr. Santorum (and he really doesn’t deserve much fairness), but isn’t this question a little like what libertarians get: Would you continue to kill poor people by reducing the size and scope of government?

    1. Well, some, maybe.

      But not exactly because Mr. Santorum was being asked about the unarguable, direct effects of a concrete, existing policy and the question you offer is about the assumed secondary effects of a assumed policy.

    2. Well, except that destroying families is a direct and observable effect of sending non-violent offenders to prison, in sharp contrast to the, at best, unsettled issue of whether cutting back the government kills poor people.

      1. Escaped and RC:

        Yeah, but Santorum is a “true believer”. Which means that he believes that putting the non-violent offender in prison was probably the best thing for the family. So asking him that question is going to net an obvious, “Uhh, no”.

        at best, unsettled issue of whether cutting back the government kills poor people.

        Oh, and I can probably find a dozen OWS types in very short order who would disagree with this.

        Here’s the bottom line. I think a more salient question for Santorum would have been,

        “Mr. Santorum, what is the benefit to the families of non-violent offenders by sending them to prison”?

        This would have accomplished two things:

        1. It phrases the question in a less “when did you stop beating your wife” fashion.
        2. It would have forced Mr. Santorum to [attempt to] verbalize his logic behind such a policy into a coherent answer.

        That’s the kind of thing that can sway people onto your side. I would have much more enjoyed observing that instead of just getting a brief confirmation of what people in my camp already know.

        1. Unfortunately, it was a student (presumably, since SSDP is a student org) and they just aren’t as sophisticated as many of the folks here. Hopefully, they (the anti-WoD) folks will learn…

    3. True, I would have asked it like this. “Mr. Santorum, would you agree that a two parent household is stronger for raising a child than a one parent household?” Once he answers in the affirmative, the gotcha is “Then how do you justify sending so many non-violent drug offenders to prison in the current war on drugs?”

      1. This also would have been a better way to put it.

      2. He would probably would have thought you were setting him up for a gay marriage question and dodged that, too.

        1. Yeah, but what a setup!

        2. So say “a man and a woman”, then ask about impact of male imprisonment on single motherhood.

    4. Fail.

      Sending people to prison is taking action.

      Cutting off unearned benefits is simply ceasing to perform an action. This doesn’t directly kill anyone; not saying it won’t have a negative impact. You’re also presenting the false choice between continuing to give them money extracted from others and their starving. You’re ignoring the possibility of private charity, aid from friends and family, etc.

      See the difference?

      1. Of course I see the difference and I think you missed the point entirely.

      2. Oops, yes, I did. Sorry.

  38. Rick Santorum (Republican – Pennsylvania)

    should read:

    Rick Santorum (Pharisee – Pennsylvania)

    1. That was profoundly funny.

  39. Wow. I didn’t think I could have a lower opinion of Rick Santorum, but low and behold he pulled it off.

  40. Rick Santorum Does Not Know…

    The English language really needs a word for “to know nor even give the slightest shit about knowing”. Then you could accurately express Santorum’s state of mind.

  41. The only thing he does connect with is that prisons are owned by his cronies and are lucrative operations – thus the justification in his and their eyes for putting non-violent offenders behind bars.

  42. Just goes to illustrate that Santorum is definitely one of the worst of the worst ‘Dirt-bag’ politicians to crawl out of the sewer pipes since the days of Bush and his band of criminals. We obviously don’t want to vote for him! It would be nice to see someone elected to President that is at the very least a warm blooded species of creature.

  43. Santorum is necessary because without him the Britts wouldn’t have a picture for their dictionary definition of – twit

  44. Amazing how skewed peoples’ perceptions are. I am not a Santorum supporter but I do understand his answer to the question. He meant that the Federal government does not destroy families by sending people to prison. People who are stupid and break the law destroy their own families by choosing to commit crimes. The law says if you do such and such, you go to prison. Drug offenders do those things, then go to prison. They make bad choices and destroy their own families. You can’t blame that on government or politicians.

  45. He is correct: The federal government doesn’t destroy the families of non violent drug offenders. The offenders do when they choose to commit the crimes for which they are sent to prison.

  46. Man, santorum is a real idiot.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.