Politics

Rick Santorum: The 10th Amendment Does Not Mean What It Says

|

Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has called himself a "very strong supporter" of the 10th Amendment while simultaneously asserting that "the idea that the only things that the states are prevented from doing are only things specifically established in the Constitution is wrong." If elected president, Santorum also says he would put a stop to any state trying to legalize gay marriage:

I will get involved in that because the states, as a president I will get involved because the states don't have a right to undermine the basic fundamental values that hold this country together. America is an ideal. It's not just a constitution, it is an ideal. It's a set of morals and principles that were established in that declaration, and states don't have the right, just like they didn't have the right to do slavery.

Writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, Case Western Reserve law professor Jonathan Adler suggests that Santorum "might want to read" the 10th Amendment instead of just pretending to know what it says:

The Constitution only prohibits states from doing those things the Constitution prohibits, and the federal government may only constrain state autonomy pursuant to those powers delegated to the federal government.  Santorum may think same-sex marriage is wrong, but nothing in the Constitution prevents states from recognizing same-sex marriage nor does anything in the Constitution authorize the federal government to stop states from doing so.

For more on Santorum's long crusade against limited constitutional government, read Jonathan Rauch on Santorum's "frothy mixture of collectivism and conservatism," and then check out Reason.tv's report from the Iowa caucus: "Rick Santorum on the Freedom to Impose Your Values."

NEXT: Kathleen Sebelius Would Like You to Believe That ObamaCare Is Responsible For Health Care Cost Savings

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.

  1. compassionate conservative = big government liberal that opposes abortion and gay marriage

    1. Good definition

    2. nope since “teh lub-rahls” understand the establishment clause.

      1. Not really, they enjoy pushing their atheist religion on the rest of us.

        1. Nothing funny than a religious person using religion as an insult.

    3. You forgot war. You can’t be a compassionate conservative if you’re not big on war.

  2. Don’t you know the 14th amendment repealed the 10th?

    1. Actually, to the extent that the 10th allowed the states to permit slavery, it was the 13th amendment, and the 14th, that prevents it now. Which is why Santorum is an idiot. the Civil War was not fought to prevent slavery, it was fought to prevent secession. The fact that slavery was a key element of the reason for secessionists cannot be denied. But the reason states can’t impose slavery is because of the 13th amendment. Not because of a “set of morals and principles that were established in [the] declaration”.

  3. Dick Poop Smegma.

      1. If elected, I will censor filth such as Wikipedia.

    1. ew

      /teenager

  4. Santorum may think same-sex marriage is wrong, but nothing in the Constitution prevents states from recognizing same-sex marriage nor does anything in the Constitution authorize the federal government to stop states from doing so.

    Why do people insist on taking away the amoral windmills Santorum needs to tilt at in order to win the hearts of his voting bloc?

    Drug users and gays are pulling at the delicate threads of our marriages, our families, our very society. The Constitution wouldn’t willingly let that happen, no matter what it says.

    1. IT’S NOT A SUICIDE PACT!!!!11!!!!!ONE!

      1. Christ, if I hear that one more time, I’m gonna scream. I got that constantly when I tried to talk to survivalists and Tea Party folks at the gun shows my local LP sets up a booth at.

        They literally believe that if we have to let go of the constitution for a few years, then that’s jut the price that we must pay to defeat Islam in the world at large. And then once there are no more muslims, we’ll hope right back on that freedom train like nothing ever happened.

        This is what people actually believe.

        1. “This is what people actually believe” – yep

          Nothin’ scary about that, eh? Fuck…

        2. My answer has been for years, ‘no, it’s a marriage, and you are a faithless whore.’

          1. Good band name, but not as good as FNM.

  5. With all his talks of “America is an ideal” and his determination to defend that, this guy sounds dangerouly like a bad dude to have as president.

    Oh, and do your “ideals” include renaming an abortion a medically induced miscarriage” to try and avoid being named “Biggest Hypocrite of the Year”?

    Fucking asshole.

      1. Sorry, here it is.

        http://www.examiner.com/progre…..n-abortion

    1. Wow.

      I knew he was full of shit on spending, but this is bad. Reminds me of gambler Bill Bennett and drug user Rush Limbaugh.

    2. Santorum is an asshole, but I’m not sure this incident actually reveals much in the way of hypocracy:

      An abortion under the circumstances described in this case would not have been a partial-birth abortion – known to physicians as “intact dilation and extraction” – nor would it have conflicted with the senator’s position.

      Santorum opposes abortion “except in the cases of rape, incest or [to save] the life of the mother.” He believes Roe v. Wade should be reversed so that states could regulate and restrict abortion, and opposes public funding of abortion.

      So since this would have been to save the life of the mother, it seems consistent with his stated position according to the Philadelphia Inquirer article.

      1. From that same Examiner piece:

        Recently when asked about exceptions for rape and incest Santorum said that any exception to a prohibition on abortion “would be taking a life – and I would advocate that any doctor who performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so.”

      2. Not according to his own words.

        When I was leading the charge on partial birth abortion, several members came forward and said, “Why don’t we just ban all abortions?” Tom Daschle was one of them, if you remember. And Susan Collins, and others. They wanted a health exception, which of course is a phony exception which would make the ban ineffective.

        1. So apparently he is an inconsistent idiot. Fair enough.

          1. As I understand it, loosely defined health exceptions are sometimes used in Europe to circumvent abortion bans. Even a mild cold could be used as a pretext for legal abortion if the doctor says the pregnancy is negatively affecting the health of the mother.

            Most anti-abortion advocates would probably want some kind of “grievous harm or significant risk of death” out for mothers who need an abortion, but general “health of the mother” would be too broad to be useful.

            Sorry to say, I think Santorum is being consistent here. I still have dibs on him when the revolution comes.

      3. The whole “save the life of the mother” thing strikes me as inconsistent with the “every fetus is sacred” thing.

        Isn’t one of those vaunted family values that the parents will sacrifice themselves to save their children?

        And isn’t a “save the life of the mother” abortion, by their terms, killing the baby to save the mother? They would advise, when a parent has to choose between their own life and the life of their child, greasing the little crumbcruncher?

        1. What am I, chopped liver?

          1. You’re the sperm donor.

        2. Good one, RC.

        3. If the mother wants to tell the doctor, “Don’t worry about my life, just save my baby,” I believe she’s entitled to do that. But ethically, why would that be the best choice in every situation?

          It’s the rape and incest exceptions that seem inconsistent to me. I think they already dismissed psychological trauma to the mother as morally insignificant, and a child of rape is still a human, correct? Incest is even more transparent, because most children born of incest are pretty normal, and even if they weren’t, aren’t these guys very vocally opposed to aborting babies because of birth defects?

          1. But ethically, why would that be the best choice in every situation?

            You’ll have to ask the family values folks that one. Be sure to float a few lifeboat scenarios to find out when the parent should (or should not) pitch the little parasite overboard.

            It’s the rape and incest exceptions that seem inconsistent to me.

        4. The whole thing is stupid. If abortion is murder, then the doctor is just a hitman. Anyone who believes that “abortion is murder”, yet doesn’t believe that women who get abortions should face the same punishment as women who hire a hitman to whack their husband, is not being serious.

  6. and states don’t have the right, just like they didn’t have the right to do slavery.

    Because gay marriage is as bad as slavery. I see.

    *looks around for wall to bang head against.*

    1. gay marriage isn’t slavery. ALL marriage is.

      oh, wait, that doesn’t square with his pro-straight-marriage agenda. I thought I was onto something there.

      1. Yeah, but priority 1 is getting rid of gay marriage, and after that, perhaps preserving straight marriage if we can.

        So carry on.

        1. Why would we want to preserve straight marriage? I always thought that making sure gay marriage stayed illegal was “holding the line”.

          Next stop: make straight marriage illegal too.

          1. Look, if that’s what it takes to keep the gays away, that’s just what we’re gonna have to do.

            Because NO MARRIAGE IS BETTER THAN GAY MARRIAGE!!

            Um, wait. I didn’t mean that like it sounds.

          2. Silly Rabbits = everyone knows Gay Marriage is an effort to DESTROY REAL MARRIAGE! For every gay marriage, that’s one less hetero marriage possible, and following this logic, leads directly to the destruction of the human species… which is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT

            SANTORUM2012!!! America is not a constitutional republic! Its AN IDEAL!!

            1. actually, wouldn’t that be two less hetero marriages possible?

              1. actually, wouldn’t that be two less hetero marriages possible

                Now I’m intrigued. Tell me more about this ‘less hetero marriage possible’?

                1. I think they were referring to the idea that there would be 2 less “candidates” for marriage. Given that two guys or girls married each other, those same people are now not candidates for a straight marriage.

              2. DEAR GOD THE GAY CONSPIRACY PRODUCES EXPONENTIAL RESULTS! DEAD MARRIAGES SQUARED!

    2. Santorum also failed to mention that the Constitution originally permitted slavery. What’s all the fuss about this 13th Amendment?

      1. Yeah, and it also said that black people were only 3/5 of a person! And the rich white landowners who wrote it all owned slaves too!

        1. Dead White Men!11!!1

          Damn, there I go getting all 1994 on everyone again.

        2. Please don’t go there. Too many people don’t have functioning sarcasm detectors and will think that’s true.

  7. Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has called himself a “very strong supporter” of the 10th Amendment while simultaneously asserting that “the idea that the only things that the states are prevented from doing are only things specifically established in the Constitution is wrong.”

    Wow, Santorum must have to work hard to reach that level of asshattery.

    My reflex is to say that no one in the GOP race could be worse than Obama, but Santorum is seriously testing that theory.

    1. He’s just a doubleplusgood doublethinker.

      1. ^Excellent

    2. Thankfully he’ll do very poorly with the GOP in high-population areas. So from where I stand, Santorum is riding a very small wave of GOP faithful who live on farms in Iowa.

  8. All these hit pieces on Santorum, it’s like they’re afraid Mitt may not win.

    1. These aren’t hit pieces on Santorum. It’s shining a light on the hypocritical, corrupt, theocratic, abortions-for-me-not-for-thee scumbag.

      You want four more years of Obama’s policies? Then by all means put your right-wing-progressive on the throne.

    2. There can’t be enough hit pieces on Santorum, as far as I’m concerned. The Frothy Mixture is doing way too well in the race for my comfort.

      1. Indeed, the man is apparently kryptonite to liberals and cosmotarians. In absence of any other reasons to like him, that might sufficient to get him elected, right there….

        1. How does he feel about the struggles of the white man to keep his race pure?

          1. This morning Glenn Beck was ejaculating all over Santorum, and demonizing Ron Paul and his supporters. Perhaps his magic underwear was riding up.

            1. What? I thought he sort of liked Paul. What’s up with these people?

              1. All you need to understand about the modern GOP mainstream is that the power to wage indefinite wars is more important than anything else.

              2. Believing that Glenn Beck has any motivations beyond media whoredom was your first mistake.

                1. I accept correction.

            2. This morning Glenn Beck was ejaculating all over Santorum…

              Thanks for the visual.

            3. Meh, he wasn’t really “demonizing” Ron Paul so much. He definitely was expressing his preference for Santorum in no uncertain terms, and ridiculing some of Paul’s statements and position.

              He’s made it clear in the past that he does agree with a lot of the things that Ron Paul says, but where Paul loses him is his more recents statements about Israel and Iran, etc.

              1. Seriously, what is going to happen to us if we just stop caring about the Middle East? Really? It’s insane to think that we’re suddenly threatened by leaving. Others may be, but not us.

                Maybe we should stay involved. Maybe preventing large outbreaks of war is worth our time. But these ideas that we are existentially threatened by throwing up our hands is insanely laughable.

                1. Seriously, what is going to happen to us if we just stop caring about the Middle East?

                  The Middle East will care, very deeply. And if we ever do stop caring about the middle east, it will be a delicious irony.

                  1. Yes, if we take off, the shit will hit the fan there at some point. While that’s not a good thing, I don’t think the problem is getting solved by our intervention.

                    1. While that’s not a good thing, I don’t think the problem is getting solved by our intervention.

                      absolutely not. But it’s going to be very hard for the future president and/or congress in this fantasy scenario to ignore the bloodcurdling cries of the post-Springtime for Arabs dictators for us to come back.

                2. Preventing large outbreaks of war? Shit man, we’ve started the last two biggest ones over there.

                  1. That’s a fair point, but I think we forget how much fun they had there before we started intervening. Again, not an argument for continuing to do so, just an observation of what’s likely to happen.

            4. Concerned Citizen|1.6.12 @ 2:24PM|#

              This morning Glenn Beck was ejaculating all over Santorum, and demonizing Ron Paul and his supporters.

              …and Glen Beck will nevertheless continue to be cited in the media as a “libertarian”-Right-Winger

              The fact anyone is taking santorum seriously is something i sincerely not considered possible. It is disturbing.

              1. Get used to disturbappointment.

                1. Get used to disturbappointment.

                  I’m a graduate with honors from the school of regratappointment.

                  1. ahem *regretappointment*.

                    1. College students often suffer regretaboinkment

                    2. I thought “regretaboinkment” is now considered “rape”.

          2. Slappy jumped on the Santorum bandwagon right after Santorum said, “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better…

    3. How many blog posts about how Romney paved the way for Obamacare have there been?

      Despite the fact that the only factual basis they have for this claim is that they used the same advisors. By that standard, my 2009 students’ final exams paved the way for my 2010 students’ final exams.

      1. So other than the fact that the White House and Congressional Democrats used the same people that Romney did and that ObamaCare shares most of the key elements of RomneyCare, there’s absolutely no evidence that Romney helped to pave the way for ObamaCare. Got it.

      2. We don’t need blogposts. We only need the Obama administration and his boosters to keep repeating how they’re using the “Massachusetts Model”

    4. Ya, at this point if you pointed a gun to my head and made me cast the deciding vote between Obama and Santorum, I’d vote for Obama. I wouldn’t feel great about it, because, you know, I’ve got a gun pointed at me, but the choice itself isn’t really that hard.

      1. Under these circumstances, I’m afraid I would vote for Santorum. I think another four years of The Anointed One would be worse for our country than giving the sanctimonious Santorum a go at it.

        1. About 30 days into the Santorum Presidency you’d be regretting your decision.

          1. About 30 nanoseconds after I pulled the lever for Obama, I would be regretting my decision.

            What would Santorum do within those 30 days that would make me regret it?

            To be clear: I can’t stand the fucking guy and I have zero intent of ever voting for him for anything at all. The hypothetical was gun to the head, Obama and Santorum the only two alternatives. As between Barry O and Rick S., I guess I would have to grit my teeth, hold my nose and accept Rick S.

            1. These discussions are alas misunpossible in our winner-take-all system.

              My honest guess is that Santorum would be just like George W. Bush, but way more socially conservative than Bush was in the minds of liberals.

            2. “What would Santorum do within those 30 days that would make me regret it?”

              Either put gays in death camps or nuke a city.

              1. hmm. which city?

      2. I don’t know. In my case I might have to do Santorum, just because I know he can’t pull off most of the crazy shit he would like to do without Congress. And I don’t think the elephants will take the Senate next time. They certainly won’t be filibuster-proof.

        1. This is pretty much my reasoning.

          Thankfully, I don’t think I will be presented with that awful set of alternatives.

        2. I gueas I was implicitly assuming TeamRed takes back the Senate. That makes it an easy choice. But really even if there is any Probability > 0 of a unified TeamRed govt with Santorum at the steering whell, I’m sticking with my Obama [Sophies] choice. IF TeamBlue keeps the Senate then we get at least quasi-divided govt no matter what.

  9. Must be combat fatigue, but after Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, Santorum’s assholery seems like small potatoes.

    1. Actually, I think Santorum is far more disturbing than Newt. Frothy Mixture actually believes all that shit he says.

      1. I wouldn’t mind Santorum getting the nom if we could be sure he’d lose dramatically and destroy the theocon wing of the GOP. The presidency for the next 4 years is a booby prize, and I’d be happy to get the Dems stuck with it, especially if we have sweet gridlock in Congress.

    2. I dunno – was gonna agree with ChrisO, but I think where I really am is “Santorum’s assholery is right up there with Newcular Titties’, and Cain doesn’t bother me so much cause he’s just an idiot, whereas both Newc and Shitstain are ‘True Believers’, and thus scarier.”

      Fuck all those fucking fuckers anyway, the fucking fucks.

      1. Fuckin’ right!

  10. It’s too bad that a bunch of cameras weren’t following Santorum around while the leadership of the evangelicals in Iowa were contemplating the new theocracy they want to establish.

    1. I turn 50 next summer and I hate to say it, but I’m still let down by my fellow bipeds on a pretty consistent basis. The rise of this fundamentalist fuckwit has left a really bad taste in my mouth.

      1. The Taste of Santorum.

        1. Taste Santorum Asshole = TSA

          OH MY GOD [OBLIGATORY SCARY BRACKET]

    2. playing devil’s advocate for the evangelical right for a min…

      since there are “ahem” checks on presidential power, does any of this matter? Santorum’s theocratic policy is dead on arrival, if he checks out fiscally he’ll be able to be a good prez.

      1. Yes it matters.

        The executive branch can do things like unilaterally prohibit Plan B from being stocked on shelves in the middle of a store.

        The executive branch has tremendous authority fuck with individual liberties and the Bush/Obama imperial presidency makes it so much worse.

        The president cannot overturn Roe v Wade, but no professional republican politician wants to. That would be like taking your driver out of the bag and throwing into the trash.

        1. So the EPA protects every thing’s right to life except ours. Fuck you.

          1. Thanks for the follow up. I had no intention of starting an abortion thread, but I realized after I pushed “submit” that what was going to happen.

            The issue is far to complex to handle in a comment board. But here goes:

            1) I believe that abortion after viabilty is evil. However, I do not want to make it illegal, because I have no interest in throwing women who seek abortions or doctors that perform abortions into jail.

            2) Thirty percent or so of embryos fail to implant and are flushed from the uterus in the woman’s next cycle without her every knowing that conception occured. Plan B prevents implementation when taken properly, but can cause an implanted embryo to abort if taken after implantation. Neither case worries me in the least.

            3) In between zygote and viability, I am confused and uncertain about the moral and ethical ramifications of abortion.

            Feel free to savage my opinions.

            1. No savaging to be done, I’ll leave the violence to others. Maybe you can help me understand why a whale, or eagle, or snail darter, or any ‘endangered’ animal has more of a right to live than I do. It’s 2012 – we know what causes pregnancy and how to prevent that from happening.

              1. Well, I gave a clear, realistic example where the occupant of the oval office has a direct impact on the lives of individual people. Also note that the current “democratic” administration is the one that halted the sale of Plan B “over the counter” and rejected the judgement of health care professionals.

                Why you choose to equate my example with the EPA and laws to protect snail darters is beyond my understanding.

              2. we know what causes pregnancy and how to prevent that from happening.

                Let the rest of us know when the methods used – other than pure, 100% abstinence, which doesn’t work because, after all, we are talking about human beings, who are mammals, for fuck’s sake – are 100% effective all of the time.

                Also, I reject your false dichotomy.

              3. By the way, if you’re pissed about the Endangered Species Act, then direct your anger towards the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service. EPA is not the primary agency for implementing the ESA.

              4. Perhaps if you stopped disingenuously pretending to be a human fetus, people might take you more seriously. Might.

                Srsly, the intellectual dishonesty and histrionics is why you get ignored.

                A REAL human fetus can’t talk. They don’t process language. Srsly.

                1. You guys kill me. Literally.

                  1. Then start decomposing.

                    1. We do, by the thousands, every day. Feel better? When our right to continue living is safe, maybe all of our natural rights will be safe.

                    2. Don’t forget us, you self-centered fetal twats. We die by the millions EVERY HOUR. Treblinka has nothing on Paris Hilton’s mouth.

                    3. “The Sperm|1.6.12 @ 4:00PM|

                      Don’t forget us, you self-centered fetal twats. We die by the millions EVERY HOUR.”

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

                  2. Not yet, but we’d like to. It’s our preferred method for dealing with subpar trolls.

                    1. Guilty conscience? Sleep well tonight. Thousands of us were murdered today. Same as the day before. Etc.

                    2. Absolutely no guilty conscience. I was more angry about losing one of the Dragon Masks in Skyrim.

                  3. Yes. And?

              5. Red herrings aside (seriously, who here mentioned endangered species?), you don’t have a right to live in someone else’s body unless they want you there. And they have the right to revoke their consent at any time–because they own their bodies and you don’t.

          2. Just since you want to be an asshole, it isn’t the EPA that protects endangered species.

            For lulz look up the conflict between salmon and seals on the Columbia River – each has their own cheering section of people that you probably want to punch in the face.

        2. but no professional republican politician wants to.

          Which isnt Ron Paul?

          A. Professional
          B. Republican
          C. Politician

          He is all 3 as far as I can tell.

          1. There is an exception to every rule; and an exception to every exception; and so on.

            I registered republican in 2008 and held on to that registration until 2012 because I think Ron actually means what he says everytime he says something.

          2. Besides, you don’t have to squint hard to say that Paul isn’t really a professional politician. He’s a throw-back to the concept of citizen-legislator.

            1. He’s a throw-back to the concept of citizen-legislator.

              Which is why he’ll never get our vote. If you didn’t gratudate from the Kennedy School of Government, you’re not fit to legislate.

              1. I only vote for Throw-Back Pepsi; Throw-Back Mountain Dew; and Throw-Back Citizen-Legislators.

      2. since there are “ahem” checks on presidential power, does any of this matter? Santorum’s theocratic policy is dead on arrival, if he checks out fiscally he’ll be able to be a good prez.

        If it matters what Obama thinks about stuff, then yes, it matters with highly polished brass knobs on.

        Especially since “ahem” checks on presidential power are practically non-existent in our post-constitutional world.

    3. Evangelicals letting a heathen papist establish a theocracy? I’m not saying they aren’t that stupid, but I think they would be as disappointed about the result as anyone.

  11. While I’m not a big fan of the idea, Federal Government has long gotten around the 10th amendment by attaching strings to federal grants.

    How many states would give up gay marriage if all they’re federal funding grants were tied to it? I’m betting all of them.

    1. While I’m not a big fan of the idea, Federal Government has long gotten around the 10th amendment by attaching strings to federal grants.

      And the commerce clause. Oh, wait, that’s how they get around the entire fucking constitution. Never mind.

      1. WHAT ABOUT ME!!!

  12. I desparately want to see a new anti-Santorum ad from Ron Paul’s guru. Ricky needs the same medicine that Newcular Titties got.

    1. I think Ron Paul needs to focus on Romney, unless the polls in New Hampshire show a big surge for Santorum. Last I saw Santorum was getting creamed in NH.

      One state at a time …

      1. I didn’t say that it was good politics for Ron Paul. I just want to see what Ron’s guy can do with Google Santorum.

        1. Isn’t that a bit… lowbrow? I expect better from the good doctor.

          1. I decided that I will not type little Ricky’s last name into a message board without appending Google to the front.

            It wasn’t until I hit submit that I recognized exactly what I typed 😉

      2. Santorum was getting creamed in NH.

        Is this imagery really necessary?? Thanks a lot, for that…

    2. Perhaps RP is doing the smart thing by letting his opponents destroy each other while they ignore him as “unelectable.”

      Let Mittens and the ABR crowd duke it out while RB keeps up the momentum and gets libertarian talking points out there.

      1. Uh, RP.

        Sorry, people. Off day for me.

  13. If Santorum was a military commander, I think it could be said that he was fighting the last war. This gay marriage thing is dead and buried, at least among the people I know. How many votes does he think he can get from this? He’s a culturally tone deaf moron.

    1. This gay marriage thing is dead and buried, at least among the people I know

      “How could Bush have gotten re-elected? I don’t know ANYBODY who voted for Bush.”

      Santorum might not be pursuing a winning strategy here, especially not for a general election, but there are lots of Republican primary voters who are single issue over wanting to prohibit gay marriage.

      1. And, as Iowa showed, an R can win a state by appealing to only 1/4 of only Republicans, and then only to those who show up at the polls. So, a tiny slice of the populace in a state can result in a win, despite pissing off the remaining 90% to 95% of the populace.

        1. And I have posted at length, none of it matters. The system is rigged to ensure that whoever has locked up the nomination by June will get all of Iowa’s delegates.

      2. What kind of low-life asshole does one have to be to be a sing issue voter wanting to prohibit gay marriage? With all the shit going on in the world, some people are seriously most concerned over two dudes getting married. Pathetic.

        1. The evangelicals in Iowa succeeded in removing three of the seven supreme court justices that voted to overturn Iowa’s DOMA law as violating the Iowa constitution’s Equal Protection guarentees. So yes, it continues to be a major topic, especially in the rural western counties. I blame Nebraska and South Dakota.

        2. What kind of low-life asshole does one have to be to be a sing issue voter wanting to prohibit gay marriage?

          Probably a latent homosexual who’s working subconsciously to stamp out the gayness in himself as much as he’s working to stamp it out in society as a whole. That’d be my guess.

        3. “With all the shit going on in the world, some people are seriously most concerned over two dudes getting married. Pathetic.”

          That works both ways. How many people around here say they will not vote for a Republican because they are single issue for homosexual marriage?

  14. Santorum’s holds his religious fundamentalism antecedently over his political duty.

    He’s not tenable

    1. Fuck off you liberalterian!

      1. 🙂
        It’s a female thing

  15. The GOP threw a lot of money behind Santorum just so people could get the idea that they could be supporting someone so much worse than Romney.

  16. Santorum booed off stage.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ldren.html

    1. He says in that article that marriages that produce children should be privledged. I wonder what he thinkgs of my wife and I, who choose not to have children? Are we no better than a bunch of stinkin’ queers?

      1. Worse, because they have no choice about makin babies.

      2. I dunno. I can’t speak for a religious nutter.

        1. It’s not a religious matter. He’s just being a douche.

      3. Are we no better than a bunch of stinkin’ queers?

        Yes, you deserve nothing but opprobrium for choosing to deny the world another generation of potentially hot Eurasians.

        1. ^^I accept this admonishment.

      4. Are we no better than a bunch of stinkin’ queers?

        You have not followed God’s command to be fruitful and multiply, so, yes.

        Dont worry, when Santorum is elected he will ensure your wife is artifically inseminated by a real Christian.

  17. I will get involved in that because the states, as a president I will get involved because the states don’t have a right to undermine the basic fundamental values that hold this country together. America is an ideal. It’s not just a constitution, it is an ideal. It’s a set of morals and principles that were established in that declaration, and states don’t have the right, just like they didn’t have the right to do slavery.

    Seriously, equating ghey marriage with slavery? Fuck that guy.

    1. Yep, he’s proven himself to be the worst candidate in the three days the spotlight’s been on him.

    2. Seriously, equating ghey marriage with slavery? Fuck that guy.

      With just a little modification, it starts to veer head-on into apt.

  18. Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum has called himself a “very strong supporter” of the 10th Amendment while simultaneously asserting that “the idea that the only things that the states are prevented from doing are only things specifically established in the Constitution is wrong.”

    Actually, I agree with Santorum in theory … the Ninth Amendment lays out general, not specific, rights retained by the people that the states can not infringe upon:

    “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    The problem, of course, is that Santorum is confusing state powers under the Tenth with individual rights under the Ninth — individuals arguably have the right to marry whoever they damn well please, regardless of gender, based on the Ninth, and a state asserting that it can take away that right under the powers granted it by the Tenth Amendment is ignoring the fact that the Ninth Amendment trumps the Tenth.

    So, if any one were interested in actually following the constitution:

    The feds are strictly limited to clearly articulated enumerated powers.

    Individuals have broad rights under the Ninth (and First Through Eighth) that neither the feds nor the states can infringe upon

    The states have powers the feds do not, if they do not infringe upon the rights of individuals.

    1. States Rights are interesting because a lot of States have a number of laws that run counter to Natural Rights.

      However, that is State problem not a Federal one. LOL

      1. My response above at 3:02 was to this. Fuckin squirrels.

  19. Oh, and ahem. You may address me as Nostradamus.

    Tulpa|10.24.11 @ 3:00PM|#

    Call me crazy, but I can see Santorum becoming a force in the coming months.

    At this point in 2007 no one thought Huckabee had a chance.

    robc|10.24.11 @ 3:03PM|#

    Crazy!

    Brother Mullet|10.24.11 @ 3:05PM|#

    If Santorum wins the nomination, I am building a compound.

    Lost_in_translation|10.24.11 @ 3:06PM|#

    You’re crazy. So is bible study leader santorum

    kinnath|10.24.11 @ 3:08PM|#

    Santorum is trying and failing to be the next Huckabee.

    Romney could win Iowa, but only because there is no one playing the role of Huckabee this year. So the SoCons could split over several candidates (Bachman, Santorum, Perry, and Cain are all chasing the same voters).

    robc|10.24.11 @ 3:10PM|#

    Didnt some big SoCon convention just endorse Paul?

    kinnath|10.24.11 @ 3:15PM|#

    I’m not aware, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Ron may speak to individual freedom (getting the government out of private life), but he clearly lives a SoCon life. I think this actually makes for a powerful story when a boring old fuddy duddy baby doctor says that government shouldn’t care if someone smokes dope.

    Tulpa|10.24.11 @ 3:32PM|#

    That was a straw poll thingy which the RP groupies always tend to dominate.

    kinnath|10.24.11 @ 3:43PM|#

    Right, now I remember. Still, he dominated a poll targeted at SoCons. So far, his crazy libertarian beliefs aren’t hurting him with the SoCons.

    In Iowa, he will pull a huge portion of the shrink-the-government (aka Tea Party) voters and a solid share of the SoCons.

    Romney will get most of the crony-capitalist, big-money Republican voters (who are dwarfed by the SoCons who are very active in the caucuses).

    Cain is a real wild card. He thrilled a summer fund raiser I attended last summer. He seems to appeal well across the spectrum in the party activists.

    Perry and Bachmann appear to be dying as we creep towards the caucuses. Santorum will get a chunk of the SoCons, and nothing more.

    I actually expect Paul or Cain to win before I would Romney to carry the caucuses.

    Pro Libertate|10.24.11 @ 3:10PM|#

    You’re crazy. Santorum is a non-entity on the national scale. Besides, he has the Yummy Tears Thread, which will kill him when it goes public.

    1. To be fair to, um, me, I can’t be held responsible when Hit & Run yanks down the comments from the yummy tears thread. Thanks to that, he did well in Iowa.

      Still say that Santorum will totally collapse in the very near future. Flavor of the week is as good as it gets for him.

      1. Dude, Reason is so in the tank for Santorum. All these negative posts lately are cover for nuking the SHT thread.

        1. Naturally. Paleocosmostatistlibertarianism runs rampant here.

          1. Plecostumus-wha?

            1. Supercosmostatilisticpaleoidocious!
              Even though the sound of it
              Is something quite atrocious.
              If you say it loud enough,
              You’ll always sound precocious.
              Supercosmostatilisticpaleoidocious!

              Um diddle diddle diddle, um diddle ay!
              Um diddle diddle diddle, um diddle ay!
              Um diddle diddle diddle, um diddle ay!
              Um diddle diddle diddle, um diddle ay!

              1. You spent eight minutes counting syllables, didn’t you….

                1. No, I’m pretty quick with these things. It’s a useless talent.

      2. [Santorum is] Flavor of the week

        Eewww!!

    2. Tulpa, please.

      Coming in second in the Iowa caucus is like coming in first at the Special Olympics.

    3. Thanks for the reminder. But I did post at length on Wednesday about how the evangelical vote settled on Santorum in the final week with local politicians and religious leaders going so far at to ask Perry and Bachmann to drop out to avoid splitting the SoCon vote.

      Santorum went “all in” on Iowa and it paid off. Congrats to him. He still won’t be the nominee.

  20. I get email:

    From: Rick Santorum info@libertywatch.com

    To [redacted]

    Subj: Rick Santorum can’t win.

    Dear Patriot:

    “Rick Santorum cannot win. Mitt Romney can’t lose.”

    That’s what the moderate GOP Establishment wants you to think anyway. I’m here to tell them something different. Will you join me and send a message today?

    The media elites and the Establishment said we couldn’t succeed in Iowa ? right up until we did. Now that Iowa is over, they’re quick to explain why winning in Iowa doesn’t matter. They want you to think Mitt Romney cannot possibly be defeated.

    Well, guess what? The GOP establishment does not get to decide who our nominee is. The liberal media does not get to decide who our nominee is. YOU DO.

    Barack Obama is more vulnerable than any President since Jimmy Carter. The only way Republicans lose is if we screw this up and nominate another moderate who has taken multiple positions on every major issue of our time. I firmly believe we are going to elect a Republican President in 2012. So let’s elect a CONSERVATIVE Republican, shall we?

    Make no mistake, I can win this primary, and then take the fight to Barack Obama. But I cannot do it without you. New Hampshire’s primary is in 6 days. A week after that is South Carolina. I have to raise $2 million in the next 4 days to be competitive.

    Will you help me do it? This is your chance to send a message to the moderate Establishment and the liberal media elites and the DC consultants that this is our Party, and we will nominate a conservative who shares our values.

    Do you want to elect the most conservative President since Ronald Reagan? Then you have got to fight back today. Not tomorrow, not next week. We’ve got to do it TODAY.

    Just do it; click this link, and take your country back. It can be done, but we’ve got to start right now.

    Sincerely,

    Rick Santorum

    The website appears to be operated by Mustardseed Media. Basically it’s a bunch of theocrats trying to trick people into believing they give a shit about freedom.

    1. If I simply had to pick between Gingrich and Santorum–and I don’t and won’t–it’s definitely Newcular Titties. At least he once said something against big nanny-state government. He didn’t mean it, but Santorum is just horrific. Besides, he’ll launch all the nukes to ensure the Apocalypse comes.

    2. BTW, I firmly believe that if the Republicans nominate Santorum, he will garner about as many electoral votes as Mondale did when he ran against Reagan.

      1. He’s the one guy who could lose to Obama. Even Gingrich is less polluted.

        1. A Republican can’t win by pissing off the libertarian-leaning faction of the party, since they actually have someplace else to go to if there fucking isn’t a Lesser of Two Evils to choose from, but instead two Equal Evils But of Different Flavors.

      2. I doubt that Fox News can get Santorum the GOP nomination. They started their Santorum hype interestingly enough after the last GOP debate. It was enough to put him over the top in Iowa where probably every state resident has at least one Hannity photo in their home. LOL

        Fox will continue to try and hype him but Santorum will self-destruct for many reasons.

        He isn’t a serious candidate

        1. No, and I stick to my initial opinion that he’s an absolute bust at the national level.

          The fact that the conservative media are latching on shows just how fucked up the GOP is right now. Almost as fucked up as the Democrats, who should never be allowed in power again.

          I say we go to a new false dichotomy–the Republicans vs. the Libertarians.

          1. My initial thought was that matchup would be excellent. You know, we could argue over shit like gay marriage and the drug war while we’d agree on low taxes and massive cuts to government. But then I remembered that Republican assholes are just as bad as Democratic assholes when it comes to big government. It’s still a nice thought though.

    3. What’s new about that? When have you ever heard of a political movement that didn’t claim it was promoting freedom? Being an abstract concept, rather than a concrete artifact, you can never prove them wrong, all you can do is bitterly complain they haven’t lived up to *your* conception of it.

      Ask the libertarians – they’ve been running that scam for years….

      1. Are you seriously suggesting that the libertarian party is promoting the antithesis of freedom? That they’re running a scam to secretly foist authoritarianism upon us?

        Just because some people make false claims doesn’t mean that everyone else is a liar, too.

        1. Slappy’s problem is that the libertarian version of freedom includes freedom for non-white people too. Best to just ignore him.

          1. Cosmotarian!

            Which is the lamest insult ever. And the most inaccurate. If Reason was really courting the hipster crowd they would makes sure that Hit’n’Run worked on an iPad.

            1. Hipsters haven’t moved on to android devices yet?

            2. I know right? You’d think the one function they would add is the ability to comment on your iPhone when you’re at an Animal Collective show or an #OWS protest.

        2. Yes, that’s loony. If anything, the libertarian commitment to the principle of limited government and individual rights is what hurts them in the political arena. If they were like the Democrats or Republicans, they might actually win.

          1. A philosophy of not using force except as a reaction to the initiation of force does not appeal to those who like to initiate force.

            1. This election, more than any before, makes me think our path to empire is inevitable. Chunks of the rest of the world are going to beg us to take over, and we’re going accept. With lots of consequences, I fear.

              1. Dude, that’s been going on since WWII and we’re facing the consequences right now.

                1. I think we’re still firmly in the proto-empire stages. We’re “trusted” to act as world cop, but we’re not actually operating any territories outside of the U.S. Even our occupations (where we exert political control) remain temporary.

                  But that’s likely to change.

        3. From their long history of incompetence and Bolshevistic purity tests, it sure does seem like many in control of the LP don’t really care about stopping the tide of statism by reaching out to moderates, incrementalists and pragmatists. They just care about being “right” and more libertarian than thou.

          Thanks, Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and ilk.

          1. In any compromise with evil it is only evil that profits.
            -paraphrased Ayn Rand quote

            1. Yes, we should continue to not compromise and let the statists run the gamut, because that has been such a successful strategy so far.

              Note I’m not talking about abandoning libertarianism, just about advocating a limited, achievable and incrementalist policy scope that moves people gradually towards liberty instead of away from it. The Socialist Party of the 1930s has essentially all of their core platform planks except universal healthcare implemented into policy thanks to willingness to compromise their scope with the Democratic Keynesians.

              1. Note I’m not talking about abandoning libertarianism, just about advocating a limited, achievable and incrementalist policy scope that moves people gradually towards liberty instead of away from it.

                How do you do this exactly?
                Moving towards liberty means repealing laws and regulations. Those with whom you want to compromise see more legislation and regulation as the solution to all of our problems.
                At best a compromise with them would be less legislation and regulation, because whole scale repeal is simply not an option with them.
                More is the only potential compromise, and more means moving away from liberty not towards it.

                Thus evil profits.

                1. less *new* legislation and regulation

                2. Have a consistent libertarian platform that recognizes political realities (like that we can’t eliminate Social Security overnight and ever expect to get more than 5% of the vote) and highlights specific positions where we agree with the majority (or a plurality). Sure, it’s not incredibly libertarian to keep Social Security operating in a Libertarian administration, but a gradual transition towards a superior, privatized model is possible. Basically, if we admit we can’t successfully wean people off of 250 years of statism overnight, we should stop advocating doing just that.

                  1. we should stop advocating doing just that

                    I don’t know who is advocating that. Is that the Libertarian Party platform? I haven’t checked nor do I have any desire to. They’re a bunch of stoned anarchists and do not represent me.

                    I absolutely agree with you, except the straw man part.

                    1. No, the platform has greatly improved over past models (less specific and extreme, more incrementalist). The anarchocapitalists in the party cried bloody murder when the language was changed. In 1984, the party called for the elimination of all taxes – which is what caused the more pragmatist Cato wing to leave the Party.

                      I’m frankly not sold that the LP is even worth salvaging. I just think us libertarians have an appealing and potentially very popular message, but the marketing and perfectionism of that message has for too long been unmoored from political reality or spoken by highly flawed representatives.

          2. Have to agree with sarcasmic on this, even though he’s a gay crypto-muslim socialist who hates me for my freedom.

            “Compromise” is what has turned both major parties into one big indistinguishable pile of shit. You literally cannot stop the black rot from spreading once you give it a foothold.

            1. Yes, but there was an opportunity to work within the system to repair some of the damage. A collapse will not result in people turning to the libertarians for help.

              1. Yes, but there was an opportunity to work within the system to repair some of the damage.

                I’m not sold on this. I feel like we keep getting the Tina Turner treatment from the GOP.

                1. Well, even through the LP, something other than “Tsk, tsk” might be possible.

              2. The damage is caused by shitty legislation and regulation.
                The only option within the current system is new shitty legislation and regulation.
                Repeal is not an option.
                Each new page in the Federal Registrar represents a step away from liberty.

            2. I’m saying advocate a realistic platform calling for, say, a 10-20% actual cut to government and spending, legalization of marijuana, a balanced budget amendment, avoiding war through increased free trade and diplomacy, comprehensive immigration reform, recognizing gay marriages at the federal level and a shift to a simpler and more efficient tax code. (And being consistently against stupid and invasive legislation.) These are all perfectly feasible, popular policies that get us started down the right path.

              Or we can ask for the moon, demanding legal heroin, private nuclear arms ownership, immediately ending Social Security and Medicare, and selling off all the state’s schools and national parks. We’ll be “right”, and we’ll continue to get nowhere. Even Paul has compromised on Social Security, for instance, and advocates federalism, not pure libertarianism.

              1. Or we can ask for the moon, demanding legal heroin, private nuclear arms ownership, immediately ending Social Security and Medicare, and selling off all the state’s schools and national parks.

                The only time I see that argument is when someone who hates libertarians sets up a straw man.

                1. Sorry, that’s what the LP platform advocates (or was advocating prior to the Libertarian Reform Caucus efforts to change it towards incrementalism.)

                  I don’t see how it’s a straw man when I have met many, many purists who reject “compromise” and argue for nothing short of anarchocapitalism.

                  1. Well those people are fools then.

                  2. The other times I see those arguments are from idiots who say “Well you’re not a real libertarian because you don’t want to immediately end all social programs! Nya, nya, nya!”

                    1. The extremist Rothbard wing of the LP essentially pushed the moderate Cato Institute wing out of the leadership and out of the LP in the mid-1980s. Since then, we’ve never matched the 1980 election results that had been growing prior to that “purge”. The “no-compromise” approach has been devastating to the actual progress of the libertarian movement.

                    2. Do not confuse the libertarian movement with the Libertarian Party.

                      You’re heading into Real Scotsman territory.

                    3. Huh? I started this thread specifically talking about the LP and it’s counterproductivity for the political progress of libertarian policies due to lack of compromise and tact. I think I’m firmly in anti-Real Scotsman territory, being a squishy moderate-left libertarian criticizing the purists and extremists.

                  3. Not all deontological libertarians are ancaps.

                2. Or we can ask for the moon, demanding legal heroin, private nuclear arms ownership, immediately ending Social Security and Medicare, and selling off all the state’s schools and national parks.

                  The only time I see that argument is when someone who hates libertarians sets up a straw man.

                  I disagree. There have been discussions right here on H&R that when you, for example, suggest a reform of drug prohibion and regulatory policy which recognizes that some limitations in your ability to get narcotics, you’re a traitor to liberty by not advocating heroin be sold over the counter at the Disneyland store.

                  1. Should have read:

                    […]which recognizes that some limitations in your ability to get narcotics will probably always be present,

          3. All us Libertarians need to just get along, work together, and focus on our common ground or we’ll never accomplish anything.

            Except those Yokeltarians, those guys are just assholes.

            1. The Libertarian Party should be a big tent party. Having unabashed racists/homophobes as spokespeople/figureheads harms the party’s political appeal to audiences that have numerous compelling reasons to be opposed to abusive government policies. It’s counterproductive.

              1. Perhaps a smarter tact might be to infiltrate the Republican party and steer debate towards the subject of liberty… Omigosh omigosh omigosh I think someone came up with that idea already!

                1. I’m on a listserv for the RLC. There’s some nasty infighting there, even though they did manage to endorse Ron Paul, finally.

                  1. They had a hard time endorsing Paul? Good grief. Counter-infiltration, huh. I’ve given them some money in the past. Glad they haven’t been

                    1. completely neutered.

                    2. Pro Libertate|1.6.12 @ 3:47PM|#

                      I’m on a listserv for the RLC. There’s some nasty infighting there, even though they did manage to endorse Ron Paul, finally.

                      reply to this
                      CrackertyAssCracker|1.6.12 @ 3:53PM|#
                      They had a hard time endorsing Paul? Good grief. Counter-infiltration, huh. I’ve given them some money in the past. Glad they haven’t been

                      Exactly the point.

                2. No, I want either a new third party or a completely remodeled LP. As the latter is not likely barring a great overall strategy by the Johnson camp, I’d go with the former.

              2. So Rockwell and Rothbard are unabashed racists now? I thought the problem is that they were too purgey.

                1. While my antipathy towards Rockwell and Rothbard’s politically self-destructive tactics knows no bounds, I wasn’t specifically referring to them as unabashed racists. Their tactic was to grow the Southern/”yokeltarian” contingent of the part, which I have no problem with until they start divisively attacking (for no clear reason) other groups we should be appealing to.

                  First they were purgey purist anarchocapitalists (in the 1980s LP), then they still abandoned the LP after making it a hollow shell of what it could have been to try out awful and counterproductive ideas at growing the libertarian contingent in the 1990s GOP and likely harmed any chance of a Paul presidency (which at the time they probably doubted as a real possibility).

                  1. alright. fair enough. I think I mostly agree. Peace be with you.

        4. Are you seriously suggesting that the libertarian party is promoting the antithesis of freedom?

          We’re just diabolical that way. Didn’t the monocles tip you off?

      2. Freedom is not necessarily only an abstract concept. You can and people have quantified it by coming up with lists of certain items that relate to freedom, scoring how countries rate on these items and then quantifying the results.

        Are the results precise? No However, they do lend a certain concreteness to where only abstraction had previously existed.

      3. Freedom and liberty are not the same thing.

        Conservatives think freedom means being free to impose religious values through legislation.

        Liberals think freedom means being free from responsibility because government does everything for you.

        Liberty is neither of those things.

        1. The freedom to do as you’re told.

          1. Exactly. As long as you do what you are told then someone else is responsible for you. Stepping out of line shows that you cannot be trusted to do what you are told, so you must be removed from society and locked in a cage.

            Obey and everything will be just fine.

          2. He actually basically said that. He recently defined freedom as the freedom to perform your duties to God, family, and state.

            This differs significantly from my definition of freedom.

    4. I like how he says, “Just do it!”

      And why did you redact your email address? Why are you into SECRECY?! What do you have to hide?!

  21. Santorum’s social views are warped by his Catholic Church views.

    He would be very dangerous as POTUS. I think worse than Obama if that is possible. Santorum is just bad news.

  22. Santorum may be the biggest sack of shit pol I’ve ever seen or heard. Not only is he an arrogant statist Hyper-Christer prick, but he’s a liar to boot. Have any of you seen his contortions over his use of the word “black”, i.e., the reference to black people the other day? He actually went on O’Reilly (may he spontaneously combust) and said what he actually said was “blah people”. Jesus double-penetration-juice-on-a-pancake, what a loathsome little creature he is!

    1. I saw that and am still aghast yet amused he actually tried to make that “clarification.”

      1. Frankly, I don’t know how anyone could think he said black people. Is that even a thing people say? Black people? I’ve never heard it.

        1. He said “Brak people.” He didn’t liked Space Ghost Coast to Coast.

          1. Too bad that that’s another voting segment that wasn’t picking him anyway.

            1. I think that’s how Obama got elected–people thought it was Brak Obama.

  23. Hey look, I found a picture of Tulpa.

    1. Here’s hoping Mittens ties him to the roof and takes a cross country road trip.

  24. Wow, the Santorum has been Piling high at Reason lately. He certainly deserves every rotten word written about him but sometimes it feels like making fun of him is as easy as making fun of a retarded donkey.

    1. It’s all fun and games until he becomes our new overlord.

      1. …it’s all fun and games until you get Santorum on your good shoes

    2. We do not make fun of retarded donkeys. Santorum could only wish he was a retarded donkey.

      1. Yeah, the problem is that he isn’t retarded. He’s smart, but he’s just a reprehensible cretin.

    3. If Iowa had gone on one week longer, that retarded donkey would be #1.

      1. If Iowa had gone on 3 weeks later, the “thing that is less than a retarded donkey” would have flamed back to nothingess.

      2. or he could have dropped to #5. With the swings in this race i don’t know how much longer he’ll last.

    4. A retarded donkey can’t help that’s he’s retarded. If Ricky Cumfart could just shut up and crawl back into his egg-sac, we’d stop picking on him.

      1. Up next:
        Tim Cavanaugh and Retarded Donkey Talk Iowa and New Hampshire with Reason TV?

      2. There’s a surprising amount of porn with the string “cum fart” in the title. It seems to always be in the two-word form, oddly.

        1. Vaginal? Anal? Both?

          1. Vaginal is called a creampie, you unlettered heathen.

            1. Unlettered, perhaps. Discerning, definitley.

          2. Wouldn’t vaginal be considered a cum queef?

    5. I think we’re beyond that point now. Try to enjoy your next cappuccino.

  25. Is it too much ask that people don’t use “Santorum” and “frothy mixture” in the same sentence?

    1. I think we’re beyond that point now. Try to enjoy your next cappuccino.

    2. “He gently slathered the frothy mixture on his santorum, smoothing away his anxiety and reluctance at the same time.

      He awoke later, the room covered in vomit and dookie….his santourm throbbed.”

  26. You know who else made fun of retarded donkeys…

    1. Your mom?

  27. Seriously, if Santorum is the nominee, Paul has to run third party. When Santorum makes even Obama look bearable, I frankly couldn’t care less about collateral damage to Rand, the GOP-libertarian future, etc.

    I’d take an Obama reelection over a Santorum election any day of the week – think of it this way: Obama at least promises not to abuse the powers authorized in the NDAA (although we know he will). I can’t honestly see Santorum exercising any modicum of restraint.

    1. Santorum can’t win a general election. Relax.

      1. Yeah, but Obama could. That’s what keeps me up at night.

        Well that and visions of Sofia Vergara.

      2. I doubt it, but I don’t want even a 10% chance.

      3. Santorum can’t win a general election. Relax.

        Santorum won’t even win the nomination. He’s the new Huckabee.

        1. My worry is that you are underestimating the dedication of neo/SoCons and overestimating the fairly hard ceiling on Paul and Romney’s candidacies at about 25-30%. What if Perry and Gingrich drop out and endorse Santorum? I could easily see him winning a plurality in the primaries despite being the worst contender against Obama.

          1. What if Perry and Gingrich drop out and endorse Santorum?

            Perry, yes, Gingrich? Not so sure. I also think that endorsements are overrated. People vote the way they want to vote. I’m guessing more of Gingrich would go to Romney. Just a guess, though.

  28. States dont have rights. They have powers.

    And then, yes, to everything else you said. Including it being a state problem.

  29. I want Dan Savage to launch a Ron Paul get out the vote effort. Gays and gay-friendlies everywhere unified against Santorum would be sweet.

    1. Keep dreaming. Savage is pretty liberal.

      1. …who just recently praised Ron Paul’s stances and hates Santorum more than just about any person in US politics.

        1. …who just recently praised Ron Paul’s stances and hates Santorum more than just about any person in US politics.

          It’s because Santorum is the Ellen Craswell of DC.

      2. He occasionally swerves into liberal-libertarian territory, much to the chagrin of some of his fans.

      3. Is there anyone more appealing to liberals in the primary? Huntsman?

  30. If this fucking ass-clown gets the nomination I WILL be voting for Obama.

    If Team Red is stupid enough to support this Nazi, they truly deserve another four years of hell.

    1. Mitt appreciates your support.

      1. I’d take Mitt eight days a week before Santorum. At least his bellicose and social conservative stances aren’t very believable.

  31. This is what happens when you apply a leftist approach to the Constitution to conservative issues. I can’t wait for liberals to get upset about this so I can explain to them that they did it to themselves.

    1. Yeah, the guy who writes Bleeding Heart Libertarianism tried that recently with “Dear Left: Corporatism is Your Fault”. The left is still in denial about their role in this.

      1. It was also Clinton who signed DOMA.

  32. Santorum wants to impose his bizarre sex-focused religious morals on everyone, and will interpret the constitution however he needs to in order to do so.

    Not that the states don’t occasionally need to be imposed upon. They can’t violate a person’s constitutional rights (like enslaving them). One day that may mean they can’t forbid gays from marrying.

  33. Rick Santorum is a sleazy dirtbag of the highest degree, certainly, but am I way off-base in saying that I find Dan Savage’s treatment of his surname to be completely despicable? The man certainly deserves all of the even most vile, guttural derision anyone can muster, but I’m sure there are members of his family (or even completely unrelated individuals with the misfortune of sharing the same last name) that don’t deserve to be made collateral damage in a war between ideologues.

    1. I’m not gonna be president ever either.

    2. Deserve? No. But sometimes someone with the same name as you does something really bad or dumb and you suffer because of that.

      Life is often unfair.

      1. “But sometimes someone with the same name as you does something really bad or dumb and you suffer because of that.”

        Poor Michael Bolton on Office Space…

      2. Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it!

    3. Maybe. Ask John how he feels about King Richard permanently associating his first name with toilets just because some ancient king was an asshole.

  34. There was actually some hope on this thread that the regular Reason.com doltership was actually getting it.

    You know, IT! “It” as in actually moving the country toward in a more libertarian direction.

    But politics is hard!

    Let’s just call Santorum a Nazi instead. But then again, we’re all Austrians now, eh, Herr Doktor Paul?

    I mean, I’d like to see a breakdown of bills sponsored by Santorum and Ron Paul and how they voted, too, on various bills. But again, that sounds a bit too much like work. And the results of course may not be expected.

    1. Well, get cracking on that, then. Post your results here. Yes, you will be relentlessly fact-checked.

  35. … but nothing in the Constitution prevents states from recognizing same-sex marriage nor does anything in the Constitution authorize the federal government to stop states from doing so.

    Commerce clause. A wedding ceremony could result in the economic activity of buying flowers or a ring, or taking a honeymoon, or whatever, therefore…

    1. Meant to write, “Commerce clause, biatches.”

  36. Actually Mr. Santorum, the states did have the right to have slavery. That’s why it took a Constitutional Amendment to say they don’t. I’ve seen trailer trash from Balch Springs show better knowledge of this country’s Constitutional history than you Mr. Santorum. Go read a damn book!

    1. Actually, no they didn’t.

      Slavery enforcement = bill of attainder

  37. For relaxing times, make it Santorum Time.

  38. Straight guys don’t spend much time thinking about gay sex.
    Rick Santorum can’t seem to stop.
    I’m just saying.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.