Election 2012

Why Santorum Can't Pull Libertarian Voters: Because He Thinks Like a Liberal and Wants to Legislate Morality.

|

Tim Carney has a must-read col up at the Washington Examiner. It's about how Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) just can't hide his desire to control how we all should live our lives.

Snippets:

When asked about contraception [in a GOP debate], which Santorum and the Catholic Church hold to be destructive of marriage and family, Santorum replied, "You know, here's the difference between me and the Left, and they don't get this. Just because I'm talking about it doesn't mean I want a government program to fix it. That's what they do. That's not what we do."

So far, so good, suggests Carney. One of the major points of libertarian political philosophy is to shrink the size of state-sanctioned coercion. Libertarians can get along with anyone pretty much, as long as they're not forcing you to behave a certain way.

Santorum's debate answer hit the conservative sweet spot—the moral law should guide our personal actions, and individual liberty should guide our political decisions. But a few moments later, Santorum showed he didn't really believe it. When Ron Paul pressed Santorum on his votes for federal family planning funding, Santorum explained his response: "I said, well, if you're going to have Title X funding, then we're going to create something called Title XX, which is going to provide funding for abstinence-based programs."

Sure enough, if you drill down on Santorum's record, he frequently thinks that problems of personal morality do merit a federal response. Nowhere in Article I, Section 8 does the Constitution authorize Congress to teach kids to forswear sex before marriage. Nor is Santorum's proposed federal funding of crisis pregnancy centers a legitimate federal function. Sure, the Left hits first in the culture war by imposing their morality, but that doesn't mean the correct response is subsidized conservatism.

For libertarian conservatives such as Carney, this is enough to drive a person mad. And with good reason:

St. Augustine wisely asked "what does it really matter to a man whose days are numbered what government he must obey, so long as he is not compelled to act against God or his conscience?" This ought to be the Right's threshold in the culture wars. More often than not, in the United States these days, it's the secular Left imposing its morality on the religious Right….

An alliance between libertarians and conservatives is natural and right today. But Santorum has not only behaved as if he wants to drive the libertarians away, he has openly stated so—repeatedly….

Increasing the size of government, even in the name of a more moral society, simply gives the Left more weapons to turn on the Right in the culture war—Obamacare is the perfect example.

Whole column here.

I'm less convinced than Carney that Santorum doesn't harbor an interest in squelching the sales of contraceptives. Last fall, long before the current flap, he said that if he was president, he'd jawbone the nation from the bully pulpit about the "dangers of contraception," which is more than a bit discomfiting.

In any case, it is stunning how quickly Republican candidates and proxies such as Rush "I Like to Watch" Limbaugh have managed to FUBAR the first obvious example of how health-care reform is going to invade every nook and cranny of our private lives like a slowly leaking bottle of K-Y Intense spreading over the contents of a handbag.

In a month's time, we've gone from discussing the right of conscience to the cost of law students' contraception bills to what a pathetic jerk Rush Limbaugh and by extension all multiply-married GOP men really are.

As Jacob Sullum has pointed out re: Rubbergate, it just ain't a difficult concept to grasp that reproductive freedom doesn't mean the freedom to charge your lifestyle to somebody else's credit card. That conservative Republicans seem incapable of making and sticking to that basic principle is disturbing for any of us who believe that laws should be designed to facilitate social peace rather than ram one-size-fits-all life choices on all of us.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Holder to Discuss Super-Secret Assassination Program, Romney Tied With Santorum in Ohio, USDA Buys 7 Million Pounds of Ammonia-Infused Meat for School Lunch Program

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. “I said, well, if you’re going to have Title X funding, then we’re going to create something called Title XX, which is going to provide funding for abstinence-based programs.”

    Obviously, Santorum is just talking about maintaining a status quo. For every left darling policy that is enforced and/or funded, he simply wants to counter with one or more of his own. What’s the worse that can happen? An ever-increasing powerful and expensive federal government? Pshaw.

    (And shouldn’t that be called Title XY?)

    1. Everything within the state nothing outside, the state nothing against the state

      Rolls off the tongue better in the original Italian.

    2. Rick Santorum, fiscal conservative.

    3. The left wants more laws to enforce their culture.

      The right wants more laws to enforce their culture.

      The result? More laws and less culture.

    4. Looking to bring more bisexual passion to your life? Welcome to=== Datebi.C/0/M ===, the world’s largest bisexual community for no strings attached encounters. Hundreds of thousands pretty girls and handsome guys eager for hookups, bisexual stands, and discreet affairs are active here. Come in and discover the excitement you deserve! u_u

    5. And shouldn’t that be called Title XKY?

    6. I’m waiting for title XXX that’s when things get crazy

  2. invade every nook and cranny of our private lives like a slowly leaking bottle of K-Y Intense spreading over the contents of a handbag

    Hey Nick, does your handbag man purse match The Jacket?

    1. I got a nice ipad carry case with the reason logo for donating to the reason foundation. I don’t have a tablet computer but it fits my S&W 629 nicely.

      1. Don’t let your K-Y Intense spill on your piece. I don’t think it makes for good gun-lube.

      2. Good to know. If been thinking about picking up a .44 mag. Of course my long firearm want list is more expensive than I can afford.

    2. “rather than ram one-size-fits-all life choices on all of us.”

      Sorry, Nick. Next time I’ll use K-Y Intense.

  3. it just ain’t a difficult concept to grasp that reproductive freedom doesn’t mean the freedom to charge your lifestyle to somebody else’s credit card

    Wasn’t that Limbaugh’s point with respect to the georgetown whiner?

    Did I miss something important?

    1. No, if that was his point he would have called her a “moocher” not a “slut.”

      1. Rush frequently disappoints me and angers me, but in all seriousness, let’s go to the transcript:

        What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We’re not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that’s right. Pimp’s not the right word. Okay, so she’s not a slut. She’s “round heeled.” I take it back.

        1. That seems to indicate that he doesn’t know how the pill works. It costs the same whether you have sex daily, weekly, monthly or annually.

          1. That I agree with. If you go to the transcripts of other shows where he talked about this, it seems really clear that Rush doesn’t know how the pill works, which is the real embarrassment in the story.

            1. Based on this he doesn’t know how logic works either.

              1. I’m sorry, but what’s the illogicality of the statement?

                1. Hey Rev

                  Rush said

                  who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex

                  She didn’t essentially say anything of the sort. It’s illogical and unfair to infer it. And there’s plenty to object to in her testimony without resorting to this sort of intellectual uncleanliness

                  1. Granted, Fluke didn’t say Fluke should get paid to have sex, but she did clearly and unequivocally state that everybody (including her, presumably) is “entitled” to birth control. What would you call that exactly?

                    If you’re nitpicking on the fact that no, Fluke did not ask for goodies just for herself, then yeah, I agree, but that’s so pointless I hope you meant something else.

                    1. She is asking for free shit so she can have sex without getting knocked up. How is that essentially the same as asking to be paid to have sex?

                    2. It’s the subsidization of her choice to have sex in a manner of her own choosing. Last I checked, abstinence was free.

                    3. Hmmm… not convinced. He’s saying she’s a prostitute. That is, she has sex on condition she is paid for it. No money, no sex. Is it fair and correct to infer from her testimony that without subsidised birth control she will not have sex? Or is it a possibility that she’ll have sex anyway? That is, the money is not a sine qua non for her sexual activity, but an aid to making it safer? I think the latter, but happy to be convinced by you otherwise

                      None of us should be paying for it, mind you…

                    4. Limbaugh’s implication was just fucking stupid.

                      If wanting subsidized birth control makes you a prostitute because you “want to get paid to have sex”, then asking your boyfriend to chip in to pay for the pill makes you a prostitute too.

                    5. The stupidity is really just the stigmatization of prostitution and exploitation thereof, and the resulting distraction from the real problem with the mandate.

                      It’s also stupid to expect anything else from media.

          2. There are other forms of contraception than the pill.

            1. In context, there are none you could possibly spend $1,000 a year on, though. It’s clear here that when Fluke and Limbaugh are talking about “contraception”, they mean birth control pills.

              1. Maybe an IUD on the installment plan. Of course, the context of the $3,000 over 3 years was a friend who had ovarian cysts, so no other medication would work.

                1. That is what she was referring to, but generics can be had at 1/10th that price. She was being deliberately dishonest.

                2. An IUD costs like $700 and lasts for several years.

              2. No, she does not and that is the story the media missed

                1. Yes, we missed it. Whoosh! Right over our silly heads. We can’t imagine how that could have happened. We’ll do better next time. You can trust us.

          3. But if it were the pill, there is no way it could cost $1K a year. The only way to spend that much on contraception is to buy lots of condoms.

            1. Sure there is, it depends on the formulation. Bailey linked to the ones that are $20/month, but the ones my wife take (also generic, I believe) are closer to $50 a month. If the person in the anecdote needs a special formulation to control ovarian cysts or her specific biology meant that she couldn’t take generics then it could easily cost $80/month or more.

              1. Not that any of this means that she deserves to get it for free.

              2. But if she is taking hormone pills for some other reason, then it isn’t contraception.

                And all of that is pretending if she were that broke she couldn’t get them for even less at some PP or some clinic.

                1. My wife (back before she was my wife) still had to pay $40/month from PP for them and she was a broke student at the time. I think students are treated differently than welfare recipients.

            2. RoboCain, this is sort of like the fact that it can cost upwards of X$ for Y medical procedure/drugs. Fluke did say “can cost up to $3,000”, not that it does in all cases.

    2. Limbaugh’s point (as it often is) was to be an asshole and piss people off. Which he succeeded at quite well (perhaps too well).

  4. It is stunning how quickly Republican candidates and proxies such as Rush “I Like to Watch” Limbaugh have managed to FUBAR the first obvious example of how health-care reform is going to invade every nook and cranny of our private lives”.

    1. There were a number of stupid mistakes made. Letting the left turn what should have been a first amendment issue into a referendum on Rush’s misogyny is looking at the consequences, but we should closely examine the means to that end, too.

      How could anything good have come from calling a woman a “slut” or from suggesting she’s a prostitute because she wants someone else to pay for her birth control pills?

      Add that to the unnecessary static Ron Paul’s had to fight through because of what was printed in his stupid newsletters all those years ago, and there’s a lesson to learn there for every libertarian: what we say about minorities and women can and will be used against us in the court of public opinion.

      1. Now here comes Ken, by and through Chivalry, white-knighting for women and “minorities” (whatever those are) everywhere.

        1. I don’t think that’s Ken’s point at all. He seems to be exhorting libertarians to speak and behave in a manner that will avoid ad hominem arguments from their statist opponents.

          Unfortunately, it won’t work because ad hominem argument is one of the most persuasive forms of statist rhetoric, maybe even stronger than the palpably false promise.

        2. Now here comes Rev. Blue Moon to white-knight for the stupid shit people say about women and minorities.

          1. Ken, this is just a form of concern-trolling for you. If you really believe that libertarians are derided, mocked, and misrepresented because they don’t act like the Queen at tea time, then you are extraordinarily naive.

            1. This is a form of ad hominem for you. If you really believe that our case against ObamaCare hasn’t been undermined in the court of public opinion by the stupid shit Limbaugh said, then you’re extraordinarily naive.

              1. One person used a riff/rant to highlight a point. The other went before Congress to beg them to force us all to pay for her birth control.

                Yet the former is called a bully and “libertarians” such as yourself white-knight the latter.

                Whatever, Ken – keep on trying to get laid, or whatever you’re up to. I am not talking about this anymore.

                1. IOW, Ken, what people actually mean is what matters. You’re up in arms about what people say, which essentially means you want to pander to people’s base emotions, and is about as counterproductive to libertarian thought as I can conceive.

                  You: “Waah! He said the word ‘slut’!”
                  Me: “Well, wait, what did he mean?”
                  You: “It doesn’t matter! Think of the women and minorities!”

                  1. All that Rush meant to do was to annoy people and get his name in the news.

                  2. Obviously, there’s a perfectly-reasonable explanation as to why one would call a woman a slut. Seriously, libertarians, you can drop the pretence that you aren’t conservatives now.

                  3. You: “Waah! He said the word ‘slut’!”
                    Me: “Well, wait, what did he mean?”

                    Well, what did he mean? Did he mean that she was a moocher and a pathetic person who doesn’t understand what “insurance” is or that she is in fact a voluntary customer of Georgetown, a private entity that should be allowed to make its own rules? (And she can stop paying them for the dubious privilege of subjecting herself to rules she hates?)

                    Or did he mean that a woman who spends $1,000 a year on birth control is a slut?

                    Because he should say what he means. That would help.

                    1. I asked a friend the other night “couldn’t the fact that she thinks fucking is so important that she’s willing to cause herself severe financial hardship mean she’s a slut, or at least kinda slutty? “

                    2. In other words, “women who think sex is important are sluts.”

                      I’m sure you’ll express that view the next time your wife or girlfriend “isn’t in the mood.” Or maybe you’re a non-slut too and don’t think sex is important to relationships.

                    3. “In other words, “women who think sex is important are sluts.””

                      NO IDIOT BITCH, ARE YOU A FUCKING RETARD?

                      WHAT I SAID WAS “WOMEN WHO THINK SEX IS SO IMPORTANT THAT THEY PUT THEMSELVES IN GREAT FINANCIAL HARDSHIP ARE SLUTS” YOU STUPID DISINGENUOUS CUNT.

                      “I’m sure you’ll express that view”

                      NO YOU STUPID FUCKING CUNT I WON’T BECAUSE I NEVER EXPRESSED THAT VIEW IN THE FIRST PLACE.

                      “Or maybe you’re a non-slut too and don’t think sex is important to relationships.”

                      IT’S NOT SO IMPORTANT THAT YOU SHOULD PUT YOURSELF INTO FINANCIAL HARDSHIP FOR IT IDIOT BITCH.

                      Jesus bitch, learn to read.

                    4. Sorry Apatheist, I didn’t mean to touch such a nerve. I still disagree that this would make her slutty, because it could involve severe financial hardship and longterm monogamy, and in those circumstances no, I don’t think it’s slutty.

                      But seriously, I’m sorry.

                    5. I assure you as well that I was not being disingenuous, though perhaps a bit heated.

                    6. There wasn’t anything wrong with anything you said, Nicole.

                      And Apathist’s response is so pathetic, I suspect it’s probably a troll spoofing Apathist’s account just to make him (and us) look bad.

                    7. Well, for reasons I’ll decline to mention here, I hope you’re right about that.

                    8. Rumor around here has it that they may be going to a registration system soon here just to circumvent that spoofing troll. …that’s the rumor anyway; it may just be wishful thinking.

                      Anyway, it’s just one person, who spoofs a lot of people’s accounts around here. Don’t let the trolls get to you. They come with the scenery!

                    9. Indeed, thanks for reminding me! (Seriously 🙂

      2. Rush Limbaugh is a fucking shock jock comedian. Nobody should give a fuck what he calls that bullshit artist from Georgetown.

        The problem is that republicans are too big of pussies to call her on her obvious bullshit.

        $3,000 for contraception – OMG how can anyone afford that – especially someone paying $150,000 for a crappy law degree. Give me a fucking break

        She was “testifying” about the mental state of a friend that had to pay for the pill herself – WTF???

        And my favorite part, Woman don’t get contraception for contraception but because it’s essential to prevent cancer (or something)
        Huh????

        1. And

          The “young” student is actually a 30 year old political activist

          That admits that she went to GT specifically to challenge their contraception policy.

        2. Also, $3000 comes out to about a dozen condoms a day.

          The spirit is willing, but the flesh is spongy and bruised!

          (And yes, I do realize some women use BC to treat other health issues. But most of them only use it to prevent one, specific, health issue.)

        3. Ace from Ace Of Spades HQ took Jake Tapper to task over the issue because he supposedly interviewed her without calling BS or delving a little more, claiming it wasn’t his job.

          Certain classes and beliefs certainly are protected.

          This whole thing is BS, the administration started it with the catholics and now candidatea are being represented as anti-contraception despite the fact that they aren’t and they aren’t the ones ‘running’ on this issue. Its the media who keep bringing it up.

          Its one huge circle jerk that everyone from Right wing radio to Reason and the liberal is perpetuating because thats what Obama wants.

        4. “The problem is that republicans are too big of pussies to call her on her obvious bullshit.”

          ^
          DING DING DING!

      3. How could anything good have come from calling a woman a “slut” or from suggesting she’s a prostitute because she wants someone else to pay for her birth control pills?

        How about because the georgetown whining slut was in fact a servile fascist apologist who doesn’t mind at all that thug-state coercion is used to subsidize her hetero vaginal interests?

        Push back twice as hard.

        1. I just don’t understand why attendance at LP events is 85%+ male when there are such charming folks there….

          1. Are you going to assume that STEM majors are all misogynists too, or is there another explanation? /larrysummers

        2. I’m wondering whether Georgetown can just tell her that she is no longer welcome at their law school, given her apparent intention of using her attendance there to force them to violate their fundamental precepts.

          1. It is a private institution. The problem is that they no doubt have a student handbook. And those are usually read as binding contracts on the school, meaning they can only kick her out for misconduct listed in the handbook. And I doubt this would be it.

            So in answer to your question, sadly no.

      4. Fuck the “court of public opinion”, being a libertarian is fundamentally not about what public opinion is.

        1. Fuck the “court of public opinion”, being a libertarian is fundamentally not about what public opinion is.

          Wrong!

          The purpose of libertarianism is not to seize the levers of power and force libertarianism on everyone else–that’s what being a Republican or Democrat is all about.

          Libertarianism is not about electing some libertarian politician and touting him as the solution to everyone’s problems. In fact, if you wanted a short definition of libertarianism, calling it the idea that people are better than politicians at solving their own problems would be a better short definition than most.

          So what is libertarianism about? Libertarianism is about changing people’s hearts and minds. I think it was Brian Doherty who said that libertarianism has always been about making more libertarians…

          1. Found it!

            How important to the task of intelligently directing libertarian energies are such thoughts? From the beginnings of the self-conscious libertarian movement in the late 1940s, the overriding imperative was educating the public (including, but not limited to, policymakers, politicians, and political activists) in the ideas of libertarianism. It was about making more libertarians.

            Contemplating the direction of policy and opinion in modern America would tell you that such education is still libertarians’ most necessary task.

            —-Brian Doherty

            https://reason.com/archives/201…..s-belong-p

            So, if you’re somebody who just can’t make the libertarian case without saying something stupid about women or minorities?

            Maybe go become a Progressive! Tell people you’re a Baptist or something! …just don’t tell them you’re a libertarian, please?

      5. there’s a lesson to learn there for every libertarian: what we say about minorities and women can and will be used against us in the court of public opinion.

        Keep your simp hand strong, Ken. Keep it strong.

  5. For libertarian conservatives such as Carney…

    “Libertarian conservative” has become an oxymoron.

    1. libertarian conservative = stoned Republican

  6. it just ain’t a difficult concept to grasp that reproductive freedom doesn’t mean the freedom to charge your lifestyle to somebody else’s credit card.

    The evidence is not in your favor.

  7. says that she must be paid to have sex

    Where the fuck does that come from, you jabbering bloated clown?

    1. The fact that she thinks birth control is a “right” you have to pay for? I wouldn’t think a libertarian would have to be led by the nose on this.

    2. He’s only saying what his audience wants to hear. Free market and all that…

      The problem is that the rest of the media should take Rush as seriously as they take Snooki, but they don’t.

      1. the “media” belongs in that same category with snooki..

  8. Nowhere in Article I, Section 8 …

    Commerce Clause, bitches.

  9. And, yes, Limbaugh botched the mwessaging when he went “slut” instead of “moocher”.

    Thanks, Rush, for fucking up one of our better opportunities to kick the Entitlement State in the shins.

    1. Before Limbaugh’s slut comment the issue ws being framed as “Republicans want to ban contraception”. I think he successfully dispelled that.

      Is there any polling data suggesting his comments increased support of Obamacare or the employer-paid “free” contraceptive mandate?

      Amusingly, he lost the sponsorship of mattress companies

      1. “Leave off the last ‘S’ for ‘slut’.”

      2. I think he successfully dispelled that.

        Yeah, he successfully dispelled that. Now that issue is being framed as “Republicans think women who are on birth control are sluts.”

        That’s the reality of what he said. If he had called her a moocher, it would have been an issue of who should pay for or subsidize someone else’s lifestyle choice. But instead he equated the expenses of contraception with being a slut–and while somewhat high, those could be completely normal expenses for non-generic birth control.

        Nothing good comes of this. I’m telling you, it’s like the “n-word.” As far as I’m concerned there are tons of Republicans, some libertarian-leaning, and plenty of libertarians right here on this very board who have now entered the realm of calling very average women sluts. Sorry, but it’s pretty much the nastiest thing you can say in one word.

        1. Except when it’s true, right?

          1. It’s still nasty, obviously, but if it’s true it’s true. If it’s not, it’s just fucked up.

  10. Nowhere in Article I, Section 8 does the Constitution authorize Congress to teach kids to forswear sex before marriage.

    There is not. But that is a problem with there being a department of education in the first place. If there is going to be one, then Santorum can argue for his priorities in it.

    So really Santorum is no worse than anyone else who admits such a department is Constitutional.

    1. They are all slavers. So, “no worse” than a bunch of really evil people.

  11. I listened to Rush live on all of this…”She’s having so much sex, she’s going broke” was F’ing hysterical.

  12. Sandra Fluke isn’t a slut; she’s just bullshitting AKA a lawyering.
    Rush is just being his usual POS self

    1. Rush is just being his usual POS self

      And it’s been pointed out several times, too. Rush is a professional troll that gets pub by pissing off liberals. However, because it’s an election year, this is the only time he gets any sort of media coverage.

  13. Sort of OT, but sort of relevant in terms what the Feds can regulate (even on a state’s behalf), moral rationalization, and jurisdiction:

    http://blog2.easydns.org/2012/…..thorities/
    Foreign gambling site bodog.com operators, who don’t reside in the US and are not citizens, get their domain name (under a non-US registrar) taken down and blocked, and are indicted by the Feds for being “in violation of Maryland law”

    “Sports betting is illegal in Maryland, and federal law prohibits bookmakers from flouting that law simply because they are located outside the country,” Rosenstein said in a statement. “Many of the harms that underlie gambling prohibitions are exacerbated when the enterprises operate over the Internet without regulation.”

  14. NEWS FLASH: Ricky Sans Scrotum is a shit for brains.

    1. Noticed that huh?

      I just saw on FOX an interview yesterday with Santorum who was asked ” Should you be campaigning on contraception in the year 2012?”. He started with some drivel but I didnt hear his whole answer as I got angry and stomped out of the room.

      Here is me answering the question;
      “” I am not campaigning on contraception at all. I am campaigning on freedom of conscience, on the spirit and letter of the Bill of Rights. I am campaigning on what americans believe in; personal liberty. What this administration is doing is unconscienable. What we are seeing here is pure, naked tyranny, that is, forcing people with the threat of imprisonment to act against their conscience. It cannot be tolerated. No american should tolerate this.”

      1. Santorum largely hit those points during the interview, though not quite as stridently as you. The interviewer was befuddled at the idea.

  15. she thinks birth control is a “right” you have to pay for

    Jumping from that to “SHE WANTS TO BE PAID TO HAVE SEX” is moronic.

    Sorry, my nose has no rings in it.

    1. Jumping from that to “SHE WANTS TO BE PAID TO HAVE SEX” is moronic.

      , he said, failing to present an argument as to how or why this is so.

      1. Does this mean Santorum’s desire for increased child tax credits mean that he is encouraging prostitution? He’s paying people to have sex, after all.

        1. And don’t forget the people like Ron Paul who will donate pregnancy and birth related services to people who can’t afford them. Pimps, all of them.

          1. Yes, but “people like Ron Paul” think prostitution should be legal.

        2. BROOD MARES RAPE RACKS BAREFOOT AND PREGNANT WE LIVE IN THE REAL REPUBLIC OF GILEAD

      2. The birth control pill is not equivalent to having sex. One can take the pill and rarely or never have sex. It happens. That is one reason why it is moronic.

        1. if you’re referring to someone taking birth control purely because they fear a virgin conception of some kind, that is indeed pretty moronic.

          On the other hand if you’re referring to some medical condition then you should learn about the alternative treatments that don’t prevent pregnancy, because not everyone with ovarian cysts wants to be sterile while they treat it.

          1. Or you could be referring to someone who takes birth control because it helps with many conditions in addition to acting as a contraceptive which you may desire once a month or a few times a year or whatever. Or you’re in a LDR and only see your partner once in a while, etc etc. There’s just no matchup between how much you take the pill (and how much it costs) and how much sex you have.

    2. So its, “she wants to have sex, and wants you to pay for it”?

      Perhaps “she can’t afford to/won’t have sex unless you pay for it”?

      Getting close to “she wants to be paid ibn order to have sex”, no?

    3. well she wants to get paid for the first $3000 worth, only to cover operating expenses.

      I guess that makes her sort of a non-profit.

  16. This whole kabuki theater bit is a distraction from what is actually going on here. People must obey no matter how serious or trivial the orders coming from on high are.
    Picking a fight with the deeply religious and forcing them to do what they feel is unconscionable is like beating a new mule half to death so that it will forever fear you and do as you command.

    For any of you non-farmers out there, it used to be fairly common for people to beat the stubborness out of a newly aquired mule before they had any chance to rebel.

    1. ^^THIS^^

      There is a reason why all of this culture war nonsense is being trotted out again, and it isn’t because we’re on the verge of women losing their rights, but because the media needs anything it can use to paint not-Obama as a crazy redneck hellbent on destroying what civil rights we have, and take the focus off of the 2 or 3 issues that really matter and where Obama has, by every objective metric, failed fucking miserably.

      Reason: please stop playing in to this game like it fucking matters.

      1. Indeed, I keep wondering if Rush Limbaugh is in the employ of the DNC.

      2. “…take the focus off of the 2 or 3 issues that really matter…”

        How is the administration claiming the authority to dictate the terms of contracts not an issue that really mattters. That’s what this is really about, and yeah, Limbaugh’s comments did much to obscure that truth.

    2. This whole kabuki theater bit is a distraction from what is actually going on here.

      I agree, and it does double duty as a deterrent to anybody who tries to bring the discussion back on subject. “Ah, another misogynist like Rush, eh?”

      1. Yeah. I mean good luck to anyone trying to explain why in fact you think the contraceptive mandate along with the rest of PPACA is awful policy after this. This is just poisonous.

  17. Don’t forget that Santorum is basically a leftwinger when it comes to econ and fiscal policy. He hasn’t met a spending program or subsidy he didn’t like.

    1. He’s a compassionate conservative.

      That makes him a big government liberal who opposes abortion.

  18. Why Santorum Can’t Pull Libertarian Voters: Because He Thinks Like a Liberal and Wants to Legislate Morality HE’S A FUCKING STATIST PUKE, NOT A FUCKING LIBERTARIAN.

    fixed

    1. I believe this is my reason for not supporting him.

      1. You won’t vote for him because you fear his beauty

    2. Pretty much. Not only is he a big spender, a nanny stater, and a war stater, but he goes out of his way to express outright hostility to libertarians.

  19. But Ron Paul, who published mounds of racist, homophobic garbage and thinks there’s war on religion, can pull libertarian votes. Go figure.

    1. Also, Arf! Arf! Arf!

  20. Limbaugh was just trying to get someone to pay attention to him again.

    Supposedly, his ratings have been slipping in the last few years, and I’m guessing his pull among 18-49 demographic is not what it used to be.

    It happens to all long-running programs eventually. Their devoted listener group ages themselves out of the demos that advertisers care about. If his ratings go back up and his listener demographic improves, he’ll undoubtedly he’ll recover advertising losses over this incident.

    On the other hand, does anyone under the age of 60 actually listen to the radio anymore, even in the car?

  21. Sandra Fluke looks like a 40-year younger version of Rush Limbaugh. Seems to be a lot of self-hatred on both sides.

  22. Saturday, Feb. 25, Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch appeared on Melissa Harris- http://www.lunettesporto.com/l…..c-3_6.html Perry’s interesting new MSNBC weekend show for a series of wide-ranging conversations and panel discussions about the intersections of philosophy, policy, and constitutionality. Just under 40 minutes:

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.