Libertarian Explains Why We Need Santorum Now Less Than Ever
Via Instapundit comes this "Open Letter to GOP Primary Voters From a Libertarian," by Nate Nelson of United Liberty, about why former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) just ain't rocking in the free world when it comes to the Free Minds and Free Markets crowd.
Some snippets:
Santorum's record in the U.S. Senate reveals consistent opposition to the principles of limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual liberty. That's why libertarians can't support him now or in the general election and why you shouldn't either….
Rick Santorum was happy to vote in favor of Medicare Part D along with other big government establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate….[r]educing the role of the federal government in American children's education wasn't on Rick Santorum's agenda in the U.S. Senate. Santorum voted for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, described by the Associated Press as "a symbol to many of federal overreach and Congress' inability to fix something that's clearly flawed." Nothing says big government GOP establishment like voting for an expansion of federal education policy backed by Bush and coauthored by the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).
Santorum has also been a consistent opponent of individual liberty….In October 2011, Santorum went on the record about "the dangers of contraception in this country," arguing that birth control is "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be." These far outside the mainstream views may be excusable if they were just his personal opinions, but they're not. Santorum told ABC News' Jake Tapper late last year that he opposed Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that overturned state bans on discussing birth control with and providing it to married couples. President Santorum would favor letting states dictate what legally married heterosexual couples can and can't do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. How's that for big government?…
Santorum has made a litany of proposals that are questionable at best from a constitutionalist point of view. He wants to use taxpayer dollars to support adoptions; "to incentivize the states to promote parental choice and quality educational options"; to create a public-private partnership between the Department of Health and Human Services and private organizations "for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood"; to reinstate "2008-level funding for the Community Based Abstinence Education Program"…
If Rick Santorum was in fact "Tea Party before there was a Tea Party" (as he likes to say), then let this cup pass the country's lips.
Over at the Daily Caller, Cato's John Samples tucks his tongue in his cheek like Santo eating an ice cream and makes the libertarian case for a Santorum nomination. It would, suggests Sample, create such a massive electoral loss that it might "open the door for a different kind of GOP…a party of free markets, moral pluralism, and realism in foreign affairs."
