February 17, 2012

Jim Geraghty: Santorum Uses Same Arguments as “Nanny-State Liberals”

As more becomes known about Rick Santorum, more people are realizing that the 2012 primary race has found its version of Mike Huckabee to play the foil – a strongly conservative on social issues, fiscally moderate to liberal, nanny-stater.

In today’s Morning Jolt newsletter from National Review Online, Jim Geraghty highlights Rick Santorum’s recent interview where he discusses his opposition to legalized gambling (as well as Allahpundit’s response to the interview) — and comes away less than impressed:

Santorum: “It’s one thing to come to Las Vegas and do gaming and participate in the shows and that kind of thing as entertainment, it’s another thing to sit in your home and have access to that it. I think it would be dangerous to our country to have that type of access to gaming on the Internet.

Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations. You might want to say the same thing about a whole variety of other things that are on the Internet — “let everybody have it, let everybody do it.” No. There are certain things that actually do cost people a lot of money, cost them their lives, cost them their fortunes that we shouldn’t have and make available, to make it that easy to do.”

Allahpundit: You could swap in “drinking” for “gambling” there and have a rough argument for banning alcohol consumption in homes. (If you’re free to indulge in private, who’ll stop you from going overboard?) If you nominate Santorum, you’re getting a guy who’s more willing to try to save people from themselves than the average “personal responsibility” conservative, which means you’d better prepare for occasional moral tutelage from the presidential podium and maybe some new morals regulations if he can cobble together a congressional majority for it.

Geraghty: The problem is [Santorum] seems to think the primary problem is that because of gambling, people “lose a lot and end up in not so great economic straits.” But the same thing happens with credit cards, the stock market, shopping sprees, and so on. If you think the role of the government is to save us from making bad decisions, well, that’s pretty much the precise way all of the nanny-state liberals justify their preferred policies.

Having a prominent conservative blogger compare you to “nanny-state liberals” isn’t really a great boost for your campaign, but the comparison is certainly apt. And as we’ve seen before, this sort of stuff isn’t just one interview where Santorum misspeaks, it runs in his blood. Who could forget this little gem where Santorum denounces small government:

“They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world.”

And this comes on the heels of recent brouhaha over birth control, where Rick Santorum described birth control as “harmful,” railed against the “dangers” of using it, and said sex shouldn’t be about pleasure. Then one of his major campaign donors framed the birth control debate in this manner: “Back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly.”

The more that comes out about Rick Santorum, the more people (like Jim Geraghty) are beginning to realize what many of us already knew: Rick Santorum is nothing more than a pro-life statist – rather like his predecessor Mike Huckabee, only without the charisma. The question now seems to be how far the Tea Party faction of the GOP is willing to go to ignore their supposed beliefs and support any candidate not named Mitt Romney… and whether or not being made aware of these big-government views is enough to make the primary electorate wake up and realize that Santorum isn’t the conservative savior they’ve been waiting for, either.

by @ 10:06 am. Filed under Rick Santorum
Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42016.com/2012/02/17/jim-geraghty-santorum-uses-same-arguments-as-nanny-state-liberals/trackback/

68 Responses to “Jim Geraghty: Santorum Uses Same Arguments as “Nanny-State Liberals””

  1. Booyeah Says:

    TRUCONS!!! WHOOOOO!!!!!

  2. DavidG Says:

    What the heck does all these social issues have to do with our national debt and fixing our economy? C’mon voters let’s make our country survive its economic mess and worry about social issues later. Let’s vote in someone who can fix this thing.

  3. Kermit Says:

    Amen DavidG. . . . .

  4. EDDY Says:

    Let’s get the truth out there on Santorum, so we get this thing over with and go after the real target.

  5. Granny T Says:

    May I have the link to the “said sex shouldn’t be about pleasure” comment in context?

    “What the heck does all these social issues have to do with our national debt and fixing our economy?”

    Research the “dad deficit” for a little bit of an explanation on that.

  6. Dave Gaultier Says:

    I think Santorum would make an excellent comic book character. By day, he is a mild-mannered former senator. By night, his alterego, the Allentown Autocrat, ensures that no one within the bounds of Gotham is participating in games of chance, “unapproved” sexual activities, or staying out past 9pm.

  7. Florida Conservative Says:

    When will the new Michigan Poll be released here and on RCP.com that had Romney and Santorum tied? It is a legit pollster correct?

  8. NoMoreModerates Says:

    But here’s the rub: Romney is a bigger nanny-state liberal. This is Romney’s second biggest problem behind being inauthentic, he can’t attack Santorum from the right. Due mainly to Romneycare through which Romney has expressed his belief that the state should make your healthcare decisions, can make you purchase products and can confiscate your property for not following gov’t edicts.

    And as Gov. Palin put it, whether by the state or feds it is still a gov’t mandate.

  9. Mark in PA Says:

    2
    I agree with you, and very much don’t.

    This campaign needs to be about the economy. Stay on message. The middle cares about JOBS, and will vote thier pocketbooks.
    Santroum’s main problem is that his campaign foundation is social issues, but that doesn’t mean that I disagree with him when talks about them. I think we should have a Federal Amendment defining marriage, and I think we should get that as fast as we can (if you call that Nanny State, then so be it – I’m not a libertain). With that said, I DO NOT think we should talk about that very much/at all during the GE. Santorum can’t talk about anything else. Mitt, based on how hard he fought Gay marriage in MA, would love to get an amendment like that through, and I think he’ll try.

  10. Dave Says:

    There are 2 main strains of Conservatism. There are those with a libertarian streak, who want to be left alone, and want to keep the fruits of their labors, while having a government that creates the right business-friendly economic environment for as many as possible to prosper…..and then there are the populists, who welcome an active, benevolent, government to even the playing field, prevent people from doing harm to themselves, and prevent certain individuals from lording it over everyone else by partaking in conspicuous consumption or hoarding their wealth.

    Santorum is mostly the second type, but, despite occasional lapses that add up to quite a lot, has a mostly good voting record. The problem is all the instances of personal corruption. He was named the third most corrupt Senator in 2006, had Pennsylvania pay for his kids education, despite the fact he lived in Virginia, made millions as a lobbyist after losing his last Senate race by 18 points, supported his wife suing a chiropractor for $500,000 despite supporting a bill to limit medical malpractice suits to $250,000….all while supporting unions, Spector, earmarks, and any number of other atrocities.

    Most of this won’t get out, and there’s plenty more….but some of it will, and Spector is going down.

  11. MarqueG Says:

    Then one of his major campaign donors framed the birth control debate in this manner:

    “President Obama needs to show us his birth certificate! Now!”

  12. Jeff Fuller Says:

    This is an important issue, but hard to communicate to voters by opponents in the short term. This is long-term big news and will pull Rick down over time, but I doubt it will effect MI/AZ.

    But put this with Rick’s statement “I am not a libertarian” and his opinion that Libertarians have no place in the Tea Party and u can kiss 100% of Ron Paul folks away from voting for nominee Santorum.

    Mitt has a MUCH better chance of getting these folks as the nominee.

    Nominee Santorum would guarantee a viable libertarian 3rd party run.

    Mitt has a history of building coalitions and Rick has never had to do so.

  13. RayinRI Says:

    #2 Dave,

    Excellent post, I’ve been stating this for weeks now. It seems the Dems have got this social stuff to the forefront with the whole contraception thing, they are trying to drive the narrative and doing a pretty good job. Romney needs to change the direction of this by continually changing it back to the economy. Believe me, if the ecomomy and debt continue to sink, the only social issues we will be discussing is the total caos and anarchy that will follow. This elections NEEDS to be about the economy and national debt. Romney can not continue let Ricky and the Dems dictate the issues. Come on, Mitt, Step up NOW!

  14. Mark in PA Says:

    5
    Of course it’s taken out of context when used like that. He was saying that while pleasure is certainly part of it, he doesn’t want to see sex reduced to ONLY an act of pleasure. Which I completely agree with.
    But why is he giving interviews like this in the first place?!?!!?!?!!!! This is much more damaging even than Mitt’s “I don’t care too much about the poor (…because they have a safety net)” gaffe. Rick can’t win a GE when topics like this are his bread and butter.

  15. Dave Says:

    Pablo, aka No More Moderates,

    You mean, after ALL this time, you don’t understand what Romney did in Massachusetts? LOL!!!

  16. Tommy Oliver Says:

    I’ve had the same opinion. Santorum, I think, is a more dangerous candidate than Huckabee because so far, he hasn’t pi$$ed off anyone the way Huckabee did. He’s not as qualified (if you are using the executive experience) because in that sense, Huck was probably the most qualified candidate in the field.

    Right now, Santorum is appealing to Huckabee supporters as well as those who had regional, or ideological similarities as the Huck, but Santorum dones’t have the dealbreaking baggage at this point. Whereas for a lot of those folks, Huckabee’s problems were deal breakers, such as the pardons (which many felt were based on Huck’s preference of those who were “repented”).

    In the end, Santorum hasn’t alienated a large portion of the ABR crowd the way Huck did. In other words, Santorum might be a “pro-life liberal” (to quote Fred), but he doesn’t have any competition for the SoCon votes (with Newt’s fall), and isn’t as offputting to the ABRs in crucial areas the way the Huck was.

  17. Vin Says:

    All social conservatives are nanny-staters. It doesn’t take much thinking to figure that out. Romney wants a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Santorum wants video cameras in bedrooms to ensure nobody engages in improper sexual positions. All based on these men’s interpretation of religious beliefs.

  18. MarqueG Says:

    It’s time for Romney to be held accountable for everything anyone supporting him has ever said. It’s extremely urgent that he be made to explain everything. Right now!

  19. krissmith777 Says:

    So my suspicions about him are confirmed yet again. Santorum shows us again that he does not believe in freedom.

    How can an anti-freedom, anti-constitutionalist the RomNots pick? — Oh wait, I as good as answered my own question: Santorum is not Romney. That’s good enough for them.

    I don’t mean to sound trollish, but it is starting to look like the RomNots care more about defeating Romney than they do about freedom……And it certainly does not help things that many other Pro-Republican sites don’t appear to be vetting him: Santorum is last man standing before they have to jump ship and say “If we must support Romney, we must.” And they seem to want to now avoid that at all costs.

  20. Dave Says:

    Ray,

    Mitt was asked about this on FOX and said he would immediately refocus on the economy. If we have just one failed bond auction, we’re going down….following a run on the dollar…..and Mitt knows this, and has said it.

    His campaign is all about the economy, and a lot of that is cutting back on the size of the State.

  21. NoMoreModerates Says:

    Actually, it is a tough a enough job for Romney to explain everything he himself says.

    Romney said yesterday that “I love michigan. The trees are the right height here.”

    What does that even mean? And who talks like that?

  22. MarqueG Says:

    21. Mitt has become such a weak frontrunner that he can’t even afford dissing the foliage.

  23. Reginald from texas Says:

    Michigan is known for tall trees, no joke

  24. Smack1968 Says:

    Who was for the Wall Street Bail Out?

    Who was against the Wall Street Bail Out?

  25. Reginald from texas Says:

    Michiganders make fun of short trees in other states

  26. Mark in PA Says:

    21
    Talk like that is why Mitt has an advantage in Michigan. He speaks their language, and is definitely a favorite son.
    He also pulls out stuff like “I like being in a State where when peole tell you where they’re from, they just hold up their hand and point.”

  27. MarqueG Says:

    16. Tommy, Club for Growth is far less negative about Santo than it was against Huck — even though Santo (stupidly) backed Specter for reelection over former C4Ger Toomey.

  28. MarqueG Says:

    26. We in West Virginia also proudly show our state in a hand gesture. But it’s a gesture that is unfortunately censored on television… ;-)

  29. the TRUTH Says:

    8.NoMoreModerates Says:
    February 17th, 2012 at 10:22 am

    And as Gov. Palin put it, whether by the state or feds it is still a gov’t mandate.

    She sounds more and more like an ex-wife….screeeeecccchhhhhhhh. If Palin is the spokesperson of the Tea Party, FOX news or the Republican Party, count me out of all of them!!!

  30. K.G. Says:

    #8 OK…NMModerate: One more time. It’s time for your home school lesson. We have a Constitution. The primary point of the Constitution is to provide for a federal government with limited, ennumerated powers. Eighteen to be exact. Progressives/liberals/socialists are NOT happy with that. They look around, see problems in society and want to “fix” the problems using “unlimited” federal power (see Obama’s 2002 NPR interview where he lamented that the Constitution didn’t allow for redistribution and other stuff, but not to worry: The Constitution could be circumvented by the courts and Congress).

    However, the 10th Amendment allows STATES to pass laws as long as those laws don’t violate the US Constitution. You cannot, for example, write a law that prohibits racial intermarriage because the SCOTUS ruled on that in VA v. Loving.

    Mass was well within their rights to pass a health care law requiring citizens to buy their own insurance (since Reagan had signed EMTALA, requiring all hospitals to treat anybody and eveybody.) Anytime Mass citizens want to change MassCare, that is their right.

    Mitt is DEAD set against ObamaCare, because (1) It’s horrible for the economy and (2) Probably violates the US Constitution. Mitt is Dead set against Roe because it violates the US Constitution. However, if states want to have abortion laws, that is their right.

    Santorum is a big SoCon preacher, who seems to want federal intervention to fix society’s ills. This is the definition of a progressive NOT a conservative. A conservative wants to follow the US Constitution and allow the states to “fix” their states as the citizens of the states see fit.

    If you want a Conservative in the White House, vote Mitt. If you want a progressive nanny-stater in the White House, we already have one of those.

    BTW:

    Due mainly to Romneycare through which Romney has expressed his belief that the state should make your healthcare decisions.

    Santorum has been a rotten liar over and over and over, misrepresenting Mitt’s stands and records–and now you’re joining him in the lies. Exactly WHERE has Romney EVER “expressed his belief that the state should make you healthcare decisions?”

  31. Tommy Oliver Says:

    Marque,

    That’s what I was trying to say. In the eyes of these voters, it could be that Santorum isn’t perfect, but he isn’t as offputting in as many critical areas as Huck was, hence CfG being more positive towards Rick, where they absolutely pummeled Huckabee.

    It’s why I tend to think he’s potentially a more difficult opponent to defeat, in the sense that he’s not going to alienate as many socons who are also committed to other aspects of conservatism.

  32. K.G. Says:

    #19

    I don’t mean to sound trollish, but it is starting to look like the RomNots care more about defeating Romney than they do about freedom……

    Gee, kriss, do ya’ think??????????? You don’t have to be a troll to figure that one out–just a person with half a brain.

    Who was it here in Race some months ago who said they would vote for Satan himself over Romney? And who is it that inspires that sentiment? Hm…………..?

  33. ilfigo Says:

    No. 8: The rub is that there is a major difference between Romney and Santorum. Santorum is willing to require government to take care of government as HE sees fit. Romneycare was not a campaign promise or even discussed during Romney’s campaign. The issue was placed before him by a 85% Democrat legislature that wanted to perform a healthcare program that was worse for businesses and much more like Obamacare. Had there not been an alternative (despite its shortcomings) then something worse would have been in place (evident by fact that even some parts of Romneycare were passed over Romney’s veto).

    I love how Santorum and his supporters give him a pass for voting against Right to Work legislation because his state wanted it but Romney is not given the same luxury. (HYPOCRITES)

    By the way, is there any source for the statement in that Chuck Norris posting about Santorum speaking ill of the Tea Party…the Super Pacs need to drop that bomb next week. The TP members are appearing less and less principled.

  34. MarqueG Says:

    CfG conclusion on Rick:

    On the whole, Rick Santorum’s record on economic issues in the U.S. Senate was above average. More precisely, it was quite strong in some areas and quite weak in others. He has a strong record on taxes, and his leadership on welfare reform and Social Security was exemplary. But his record also contains several very weak spots, including his active support of wasteful spending earmarks, his penchant for trade protectionism, and his willingness to support large government expansions like the Medicare prescription drug bill and the 2005 Highway Bill.

    As president, Santorum would most likely lead the country in a pro-growth direction, but his record contains more than a few weak spots that make us question if he would resist political expediency when it comes to economic issues.

    http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=902

  35. MarqueG Says:

    CfG conclusion on Mitt:

    Because of his long tenure in public life, especially his presidential run in 2008, Mitt Romney is considered a well-vetted candidate by now. Perhaps to his consternation, he has developed an unshakeable reputation as a flip-flopper. He has changed his position on several economic issues, including taxes, education, political free speech, and climate change. And yet the one issue that he doesn’t flip on – RomneyCare – is the one that is causing him the most problems with conservative voters. Nevertheless, he labels himself as a pro-growth fiscal conservative, and we have no doubt that Romney would move the country in a pro-growth direction. He would promote the unwinding of Obama’s bad economic policies, but we also think that Romney is somewhat of a technocrat. After a career in business, quickly finding a “solution” seems to be his goal, even if it means more government intrusion as a means to an end. To this day, Romney supports big government solutions to health care and opposes pro-growth tax code reform – positions that are simply opposite to those supported by true economic conservatives. How much Romney’s philosophy of governance will affect his policy goals if elected, we leave for the voters to decide.

    http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=905

    The summary of Santo’s history sounds less tepid and unsure.

  36. aspire Says:

    32 Some of them have firm beliefs, but others are so shifty, going from one candidate to another, taking one side of an issue, then another, that it’s hard to pin down why they don’t support Romney. How do you even try to persuade someone whose defining issue, is they won’t agree with you?

  37. bumskyred Says:

    Glenn Becks fellow DJs – Pay and Stu – were going ga ga over Santorum today (of course). Someone called in to tell them Santo wasn’t a FiCON – they laughed it off.

    I think it was brilliantly put that Santorum is akin to Huckabee in his ration of Socon/Ficon. Although much less likeable.

    The 2012 components equal to the 2008 components:

    Santorum = Huckabee(same sicon/ficon ratio)
    Romney = Romney
    Newt = McCain(washington insider, full of himself)
    Paul = Paul

  38. aspire Says:

    33 If only Romney were judged by the bill his team wrote, rather than the one that finally passed, or far, far more often the case, the one the only exists in the minds of RomNots.

  39. bumskyred Says:

    Would be interesting to see if Santo’s wife balances the family finances – because then you could couple his fiCon record with his TOTAL lack of balancing ANY kind of budget – and to give him the entire American Economy would be IRRESPONIBLE

  40. krissmith777 Says:

    32.

    Okay, well, I guess I’m over sensitive to being banned. I was recently banned over at “the Right Scoop” because of my “Pro-Romney, and sympathy for Paul” tone. Perhaps I had it coming, but oh well.

  41. criggs Says:

    There is nothing inauthentic about Santorum’s conservatism. It is simply of a different brand from the Tea Party or libertarians. What Santorum’s candidacy highlights is NOT ABR’ers blind support of anyone who’s Not Romney, regardless of the RomNot’s beliefs. Rather it illustrates the resurgence of the Pat Robertson brand of conservatism. It is a brand which some conservatives might wish would go away; but it is certainly not liberalism or moderate.

  42. aspire Says:

    Santorum = Huckabee(same sicon/ficon ratio) – likability, + crazy gaffes, + whining and crying
    Newt = McCain(washington insider, full of himself) + affairs, + crazy plans, – military heroism

  43. aspire Says:

    Rather it illustrates the resurgence of the Pat Robertson brand of conservatism.

    In the past couple of weeks?

  44. K.G. Says:

    #31: I believe you’re right. Santorum comes across as the clean-cut kid next door. Chummy. Understanding. Non-threatening. He comes across as something he’s not in many ways, but people go by appearance and ASSume.

    Huck ran as the “Christian leader.” That got him support among the “Christian” community, but was going to scare the beejeebers out of the rest.

    Mitt scares people too. First, no one’s sure about Mormons or what they’re up to. Second, he doesn’t seem chummy or understanding. And just how DID he make all that money. “They say” everything’s kosher and on the up and up, but really….How do you get to be the that rich by being honest?

    I don’t believe Santorum can beat Obama. Rick goes around saying, “Mitt is just like Obama.” That’s hilarious because IMO most people who are not politically paying attnention will see Rick and Barack very much the same: Youngish-looking, clean cut family men, lawyers, nice families. senators, no real private sector experience. No business experience. Progressives in their own way. DC insiders. Career politicians. No real success stories.

    Actually it’s Mitt is who very, very different from Obama.

  45. K.G. Says:

    #40: kriss: I was just teasing. I should be more careful or I will get banned here.

  46. criggs Says:

    43. Yes. It is a resurgence not based on support level; it is based on political opportunity. Right now Santorum is the leading conservative candidate so they are uniting around his candidacy. Some months ago, Newt tried to sell this Robertson/conservative community on his own born-again virtues, and was largely succeeding until the Romney Super Pac got a hold of him. They have shifted a lot over the past year, but they have always been there, they have always been vocal, and they have always been looking for a standard-bearer. The reason why they will never support Mitt, or at least never support him enthusiastically, is, to no small extent, cultural. Romney came out of Massachusetts, a sure sign of sinfulness and social tolerance, regardless of what his record may be like. Couple that with the fact that Northeast Republicanism is notorious, rightly or wrongly, for moderation on social issues and you end up with a brew that is too much for the Robertson conservative.

  47. machtyn Says:

    5. Granny T. Link for full context of interview. http://swampland.time.com/2012/02/14/rick-santorum-wants-to-fight-the-dangers-of-contraception/

    As the article in the link states, start watching at about 17:55 in the video. Taken in full context, it really is damaging to Rick Santorum as a candidate for conservatives that want government to stay out of their private lives. This is not a position that will win Libertarians, Independents, and half the Republican party. And we need all 3 groups as much as possible in order to defeat the Unions and the DNC to remove Obama from the White House.

  48. Kristina Says:

    One problem I see is that even if they are tied, the dems voting in the primary could tip the scales. Does anyone think that could be a problem?

  49. Kristina Says:

    Last comment was supposed to be in poll thread.

  50. K.G. Says:

    OK…I’m going to venture out in the tall grass and maybe make some people mad. (Maybe Matt MWS has gone to the dentist and won’t read this.) I have always wondered about this and heard Rush discussing it this week.

    Maybe you that are Catholic can comment. The Catholics have always been especially senstive to helping the poor: very commendable. But it has seemed to me (and this was Rush’s point), that they have been very willing to accept/seek government involvement in their endeavors. So even among Catholic Republicans, there is a little different mind-set about government involvement in charitable and moral endeavors. Government involvement and progressivism is not such anathema as it is to hard-core, died in the wool conservatives.

    Everybody has their perspective and it seems to be this perspective influences Santorum.

    Or maybe the hard-core conservatives, who eschew government involvement, are just hypocrites.

  51. "The Commish" Michael Illions Says:

    **What the heck does all these social issues have to do with our national debt and fixing our economy?**

    If that was the case DavidG, then we would all be supporting Ron Paul, as he is the only one with the answers on those issues.

  52. machtyn Says:

    36. “How do you even try to persuade someone whose defining issue, is they won’t agree with you?”

    Even moreso when they take positions that they agree with you on and yet still claim they don’t agree with you?

    Santorum is out there saying Romney and Obama (not even close) are the same person, Romney supported Cap-n-Trade (he did NOT), etc. And the RomNots believe it.

    You have Romney who cut taxes 19 times (most TEAPartiers agree with that), cut 2 government entities (most TEA Partiers agree with that), and reduced debt so that it became a surplus (most TEA Partiers agree with that). And, right now, we need a person in DC that is willing to make cuts and who “likes” to fire people. Get these people back in the private sector working where the country really flourishes.

  53. K.G. Says:

    #46

    The reason why they will never support Mitt, or at least never support him enthusiastically, is, to no small extent, cultural. Romney came out of Massachusetts, a sure sign of sinfulness and social tolerance, regardless of what his record may be like. Couple that with the fact that Northeast Republicanism is notorious, rightly or wrongly, for moderation on social issues and you end up with a brew that is too much for the Robertson conservative.

    You hit the nail on the head.

    Add to that brew the 2010 heady success of the Tea Party, Freedom Works new book entitled “Hostile Takeover of the GOP,” Sarah Palin’s refusal to “sit in the back of the bus” by accepting Rom as our nom, Rush’s yelling everyday: “Rahm-knee is not a conservative,” Beck declaring, “Mitt is a (hated) progressive, while Rick is the true, blue real deal,” and Murdock obviously hatin’ on Mitt (whether it’s real or just to appeal to his Teavangelical audience)…

    …it’s a bad cup of tea for Mitt.

    The only ads we’ve heard here in CA are from Newt’s PAC (although they don’t mention Newt’s name): “Mitt is the horrible, awful Mass moderate the “Establishment” is forcing down our throat, just like “they” did with Dole and McCain. We do not believe like they do; Mitt does not believe like you do.”

    The ad doesn’t say who to vote for; just not Mitt.

  54. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    If you nominate Santorum, you’re getting a guy who’s more willing to try to save people from themselves

    That’s the money quote. Thanks, Allahpundit. And by the way, wasn’t Allahpundit for Santorum before?

  55. Katechon Says:

    54– nope. He wasn’t.

  56. Sandi Says:

    We should just call him Sanctimonious Santorum!!!

  57. Katechon Says:

    As a libertine gambling trader – I would be fracking scared of a Santorum presidency!

  58. krissmith777 Says:

    51.

    That normally would be my inclination, but realizing Paul has no prayer with the nomination….

  59. Healing Humor: How Laughter Therapy Can Help Says:

    [...] to an endIf You Want An Efficient Female Ehancement Product Choose Provestrabelly laughJim Geraghty: Santorum Uses Same Arguments as “Nanny-State Liberals”Jim Geraghty: Santorum Uses Same Arguments as “Nanny-State [...]

  60. K.G. Says:

    Santorum and Michelle Obama should hook up. It’s the same mind-set. Instead of using the bully pulpit to encourage ADULT RESPONSIBILITY, they want laws and tax payer money to save people from themselves.

    Liberty is messy; people are free to screw up their lives and therefore screw up the country. But goverment is messy; it screws up the country too. Mitt keeps saying: I believe in the American people. That might be mighty naive too, but which is it people? A screwed up free people or a screwed up enslaved people?

    Santorum is a nanny do-gooder. It’s in his genes just like making money in the free market is in Mitt’s genes.

  61. K.G. Says:

    It was the do-gooder progressives who gave us Prohibition. We see how that worked out. Like all their proud progressive policies: Sound good, don’t work.

    Just ask me: I live in CA. You keep giving government more and more power via laws and more and more ability to tax, fine and fee, and you’re living in Tyranny through Bureaucracy.

    We just got a fine $600 because one of our delivery trucks was leaking a little power steering fluid at the weight station on I-5. The Founders were right: A powerful government is an evil government. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  62. Ryan60657 Says:

    “You could swap in “drinking” for “gambling” there and have a rough argument for banning alcohol consumption in homes”

    Then swap in “porn” or “sports illustrated swimsuit edition” or “cinemax” and pretty soon we have government censorship of the airwaves and American women in burkas.

  63. Ryan60657 Says:

    42. “Santorum = Huckabee(same sicon/ficon ratio) – likability, + crazy gaffes, + whining and crying
    Newt = McCain(washington insider, full of himself) + affairs, + crazy plans, – military heroism”

    Mitt Romney = John Kerry

  64. Massachusetts Conservative Says:

    63

    Only similarities: rich, nice hair, Massachusetts.

    Can you bring the intellectual level of your discussions up a bit?

  65. David Shedlock Says:

    Mr. Coulter, you are clueless. Mike Huckabee a statist? The one that opposed bailouts while Romney was for them. The Huckabee who opposed TARP? The Huckabee that has been against mandates and covering pre-existing conditions from the beginning? The true freedom to own firearms Huckabee and not a Mitty-Come-Lately?

    That is the problem with all you Romney supporters, you can’t ever speak in measured terms. Your guy is Mr. Perfect, the only who can save us, yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah. Then you have to resort to exaggerations to make your guy appear conservative.

  66. David Shedlock Says:

    “Mitt, based on how hard he fought Gay marriage in MA”

    Yes, the man who will go down in history as the first person in the USA to hand out marriage licenses to two men and two women.

  67. Mark in PA Says:

    66
    He fought hard, but yes, he lost the battle in 85% Dem contolled, bluest-state-in-the-land MA. But if you’re insinuating that he didn’t take a very principled and very unpopular stance against gay marriage in MA, then you are choosing which reality to see and which to ignore.

  68. Swimwear, Swimsuit, T Shirt, Towel Says:

    We are clothing manufacturer and designer based in GuangZhou China, mainly in women’s T shirts and swimwears.

    Usually, our dedicated experts designs 150 styles of women’s clothing once three months, and are positioned to handle high volume orders from buyers.

    You are welcome to talk to us if you are interested in some of our clothing or have your own clothing which needs to be manufactured.

    Details about us and our designed clothing are available at http://www.s-reen.com for your review.

Join The Community


Sponsored Ad

Meta

Site Meter

Recent Posts

Sponsored Ad

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Site Syndication

Main