John Hinderaker at Powerline seems to be having the same experience of disorientation and disbelief in looking at the latest polling amongst Republicans as I do. What has brought on his latest sense of unreality came from watching an extensive interview with Rick Santorum conducted yesterday, the last words uttered by the interviewer having been:
I had hoped to ask you about some questions about the economy. But, frankly, you made so much news yesterday, out there on the campaign trail, I felt compelled to ask you about that. Thank you so much for being with us.
Now what news would that have been? Perhaps these three items about Santorum listed today on Drudge might give you a clue:
- Santorum questions Obama’s Christian values…
- Agenda not ‘based on Bible’…
- Questions Prenatal Test Coverage…
This is how Hinderaker concludes his post which he titles, “Are There Republicans Who Think This Is a Good Idea? Seriously?”
Does anyone seriously believe that it is in the Republicans’ interest for the 2012 presidential election to center on theology and gynecology? …
With Santorum launching one social issues bomb after another, there is no time to talk about the economy. Is this the Democratic Party’s dream, or what? In a national poll that came out today, Santorum is leading Mitt Romney by eight points among likely Republican voters. Can Republicans possibly be that foolish? Is it conceivable that a president with Obama’s lousy record could coast to victory, virtually by default, because the Republicans nominate a candidate who would rather talk about gynecology than debt? At the moment, that prospect does not seem far-fetched.
There is no serious candidate running for the Republicans at the moment other than Romney. I suspect that there has already been enough trashing of the brand by other Republicans in the primary that he, too, is now possibly fatally damaged. But with the only three live alternatives being Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, some kind of Republican suicide mission seems to have been afoot.
There is, of course, the vague hope that apparently exists that an open convention will uncover some other candidate whose identity is yet unknown. This seems to be the desire harboured by Sarah Palin for one, another sure loser in any match up with Obama. Gingrich also seems to have made that part of his own deep strategy.
And I have been told that on the right of the right in the US, there is even the preference expressed in some quarters that it would be best for Obama to win this round so that someone really good might become President in 2016.
Just about every discussion thread here seems to end up ‘centering’ on the same bluddee topics.
Boring, boring, boring…
Rabz
20 Feb 12 at 9:02 pm
OH MY GOD! Steve from Brisbane is actually Rick Santorum!
Oh come on
20 Feb 12 at 9:03 pm
Ron Paul
He has not crapped on about vaginas or messiahs.
His message: repudiate big Government.
.
20 Feb 12 at 9:03 pm
To hideous to contemplate – four more years of obollocks and the place will look like this…
Rabz
20 Feb 12 at 9:06 pm
I’ve said it before, but I’ll stick my neck out and say it again. The USA is going nowhere unless they elect a President who is a lot tougher than Romney looks, and who is member of a regular church as well. The hope and change thing just didn’t work out, and the medicine has to have a nasty taste. The foreign policy has to have a nasty edge too. Back to basics, with a vengeance, or else Zero Hedge has he last laugh – i.e. no matter which party rep is elected they are stuffed.
blogstrop
20 Feb 12 at 9:10 pm
Steve, are you channeling John McEnroe?
Mother Hubbard's Dog
20 Feb 12 at 9:13 pm
For all Mark Steyn’s crowing about European and Canadian socialism, it is these countries that have the most viable and electable conservative parties, not the US. Canada is moving slowly in the right direction. Even Sweden (!) is getting its act together, with a non-Leftist government bringing tax-to-GDP down below UK levels. Not so the US. Obama’s reelection is looking better by the day.
Fisky
20 Feb 12 at 9:31 pm
Denmark was another one – 10 years of sensible policies before their branch of the Liars’ Party lied their way into power a few months back.
Fisky
20 Feb 12 at 9:34 pm
There is a debate coming up; and Santorum is under greater scrutiny now. And Romney is probably paying the price in Michigan for his opposition to the automakers bailouts.
Brett
20 Feb 12 at 9:40 pm
Come on America.
We can’t let that beta male “Tyler Durden” win.
.
20 Feb 12 at 9:51 pm
Romney is a despicable human being. Even his supporters think he is a weird, soulless c___.
He’s an American K-Rudd.
Les Majesty
20 Feb 12 at 10:07 pm
The republicans deserve to lose this election if this is all they are capable of. Anyone in their right mind should be voting for Gary Johnson.
Yobbo
20 Feb 12 at 10:27 pm
The old establishmentarian GOP myth:
‘Let’s imitate the left on “social issues” and concentrate on economics.’
Which economics, of course, are inextricably interwoven with social crises.
No, that’s just cowardice.
The gyneocology stuff was introduced by Obama, by the way, not Santorum. Obama believes pregnancy is an illness and that employers should pay for ‘curing’ it. This is, singularly, the weirdest bedroom-oriented policy ever proposed by a US president.
C.L.
20 Feb 12 at 10:30 pm
Well C.L. maybe Obama is more clever than we give him credit for. Malevolent but clever.
.
20 Feb 12 at 10:31 pm
Mitch Daniels could show up at the convention.
JC
20 Feb 12 at 10:33 pm
Why is he clever, Dot?
You think a war with Catholics, evangelicals and Jews is smart politics?
C.L.
20 Feb 12 at 10:39 pm
And Santorum believes that pregnant women should forgo medical consultations because it might result in an abortion in a small number of cases.
Yobbo
20 Feb 12 at 10:46 pm
You’re assuming Santorum is already the candidate. The Republicans are not talking about good policy. He has taken the initiative.
.
20 Feb 12 at 10:48 pm
Les
Who would you like to see on the GOP side?
JC
20 Feb 12 at 10:49 pm
John Hinderaker, like Steve Kates, Jennifer Rubin and some other center right commentators are in a panic.
Michigan, his home state and they’ve flpped the switch to utter vaudevillian madness.
The wonderful James Taranto of the WSJ wrote a whole column on the topic:
Fear and Feminism
Some criticism of Rick Santorum is downright irrational.
“Of late we have been struck powerfully by one such complication, namely the emotional intensity of the opposition to Santorum by some on the center-right. This has led them to criticize him on grounds that are utterly irrational”
Indeed.
Now we have Steve Kates using the aged time waster CBS’ Bob Schieffer whose infamous modus operandi is to ask conservatives as many inane time wasting and distracting questions as humanly possible.
His Sunday morning interview with Santorum was such an occasion and Santorum actually did very well and was very impressive, I think.
Anybody interested in American politics should view it. It last 12.30 mins
Of course, the ‘theology’ Santorum refered to was radical environmentalism.
Hardly controversial.
But the Obama protector chose to spin the subtext with the barely concealed slur that Santorum is the ‘typical’ right wing redneck who claims that Obummer is a Muslim and not a Christian.
Kates does more gharm than good to the conservative cause woith MSM genuflecting trash like this.
He’s doing eggsactly what they want him to do.
JamesK
20 Feb 12 at 10:55 pm
They fear Romney will lose Michigan, his home state….
(He will)
JamesK
20 Feb 12 at 10:56 pm
For Yobbo:
Only a certified nutter should vote for Gary Johnson.
It’s a gauranteed vote for Obummer.
There’s really not much diff between looney so-called self-described ‘libertarians’ and radical leftists
JamesK
20 Feb 12 at 10:59 pm
Yeah, I’m a regular “shutdown corporate Australia” guy and bombthrower.
Stop being a jerk.
.
20 Feb 12 at 11:19 pm
I should have qualified it with ‘some’ dot. Sorry.
I meant clowns who actually would vote for Johnson.
Even if you think he has many attractive policies, it’s a vote for Obummer.
Personally I think Johnson is shallow and unintelligent.
So I don’t find him an attractive candidate anyways
JamesK
20 Feb 12 at 11:23 pm
Romney (R)
Obama (D)
Johnson (LP) or (IND)
Who do you vote for?
.
20 Feb 12 at 11:30 pm
Whoever the Republican is
JamesK
20 Feb 12 at 11:32 pm
I think Romney would be a good President.
I think Santorum is more electable.
JamesK
20 Feb 12 at 11:33 pm
By the way, the only thing this signifies is that Matt Drudge is deliberately posting ‘social conservative’ links to caricature Santorum. He could just as readily have posted five links on Obama’s obsession with contraception, his recently stated belief that God told him to enact ObamaCare, that he regularly “falls to his knees in prayer” to Jesus, etc.
C.L.
20 Feb 12 at 11:47 pm
Okay, I didn’t realise that is why you favour Santorum. I thought you were anti Mitt.
Mitt might be alright. He needs a swingeing, miserly Congress. We can hope any Republican wins and the Congress is Tea Party dominated.
.
20 Feb 12 at 11:51 pm
Santorum isn’t electable, James.
Not only that but he doesn’t deserve to be president.
He’s done nothing in his life except mooch in representative politics.
We need somebody more experienced, more tough and less wedded to big government. Rick LOVES big government. The bigger the better.
C.L.
20 Feb 12 at 11:56 pm
I disgree CL for the following reasons among many others:
1. Obama wouldn’t be able to go with the 1% tax the rich/Wall St. narrative that his campaign would love to hit Romney with.
2. Santorum could hit the stimulus/bailouts of Wall St; Romney can’t.
3. Sanhtorum could hammer Obamacare and without Obummer’s Romneycare deflection.
4. The recent debacle that Obama tried to pull with the HHS Mandate forcing churches to act against their conscience as part of health coverage makes Santorum’s supposed social issue weakness and catholicism an advantage particularly in the swing states.
5. Obama’s weak foreign policyis Santorum’s particular expertise.
6. Santorum has crossover appeal to blue collar union social conservative Democrats – impoortant in swing states
7. He could win Pennsylvania as a son
7. The light of scrutiny would fall on Obama’s time in office.
8. All they have is a palinesque slime campaign. It will fail. Santorum is far more polished a politician than Romney
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 12:09 am
Charles Krauthammer after Iowa:
“Is this any way to pick a president? Absolutely. It works. It winnows. And it has produced, after just one contest, an admirably worthy conservative alternative to Romney”
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 12:11 am
Shorter JamesK: If you vote libertarian that means you aren’t really a libertarian.
Yobbo
21 Feb 12 at 12:17 am
James
If he continues talking about abortion and religious stuff he won’t be elected.
People want to know how he’s going to turn things around.
Odumbo talks about religion. Hell clinton talked about religion and walked the walk by going to Church each Sunday. However no one really believes them, which is why they can get away with it.
Santorum is different. They could actually become afraid he really does believe that stuff.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 12:18 am
Yobs
You’d vote GOP in the US. Stop the crap. You want Odumbo out of the white house as much as the rest of us.
Johnson would be an okay vote in a state like California where it doesn’t matter. So it all depends out of which state you’d vote Johnson. He should be the GOP candidate but he’s not.
He come across as too much of an aw-shucks dude to have caught on.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 12:21 am
Longer JamesK: If you vote Libertarian Paty/Independent in the fortcoming US Presidential election that means not only are you not really a libertarian but you are an utter leftist idiot pretending – like so many leftists – to be libertarian.
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 12:23 am
I would not vote for Santorum under any circumstances. He is a religous nutbag who wants to ban contraception and put gays in prison.
Yobbo
21 Feb 12 at 12:24 am
You’d vote Romney, though and you’d vote for Gingrich.
You’d sit it out.
But you’re not going out to pull the leaver for Odumbo. If say you would I’d come over to WA and choke you.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 12:26 am
I would vote libertarian, unless the Republicans presented a libertarian candidate.
The biggest issue facing the US at the moment is the war on drugs. Only 1 candidate is on record acknowledging this – Gary Johnson.
Yobbo
21 Feb 12 at 12:29 am
You really think the biggest issue is the drugs war? Why?
JC
21 Feb 12 at 12:31 am
He isn’t JC unless you happen to believe the MSM.
He’s busy tryin’ to win a Primary against the odds.
He knows eggactly what he’s doin’.
I’m beginning to actually believe that he’s gonna win.
I certainly think he’s gonna win Michigan which is a disaster for Romney.
Thye next week is gonna be insane as the Romney campaign goes rabidly negative – like Steve Kates – and pulls out all the stops in desperation.
Even if Santorum is a close second , he wins.
Lastly if Santorum does actually win the nomination, then that is a triumph of the US primary voters over money.
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 12:31 am
james
He lost his senate seat by 17 points!
JC
21 Feb 12 at 12:33 am
How can he win in Penn with that result?
JC
21 Feb 12 at 12:34 am
Yobbo
Ron Paul is also quite religious. However he wouldn’t interfere. How sure are you Santorum would? The reason I ask is that I haven’t heard him speak on anything.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 12:39 am
America is seriously going full-blown fascist because of the unwinnable war on drugs. Glenn Reynolds has been posting stuff on the militarisation of police forces across the US – most recently, today:
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/137417/
—————————-
People are getting pissed off:
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/02/17/small-town-up-in-arms-over-armored-transport-vehicle-purchase-w/
—————————-
I actually think the war on drugs is a police union and security agencies boondoggle. The employment numbers and careers in this scam number in the tens of thousands. They want the work.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 12:40 am
That was a wave election against the son of a former famously pro-life Democrat governor when Bush was at his lowest ebb before the surge.
That guy is expected to lose his Senate seat in November.
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 12:45 am
He is on record as saying that Americans have no right to privacy when it comes to sex, that homosexual acts should be illegal, and the government has the right to enforce those laws even if it means videotaping you inside your own house.
He is also on record as saying that he would allow the states to ban contraception. He wants to amend the constitution to ban abortion, and charge anyone who performs an abortion with murder.
He is a dangerous religious nut. The fact that so many here can support him makes me wonder just how bad someone would have to be before you broke your party affiliation.
Yobbo
21 Feb 12 at 12:45 am
Oh Okay thanks CL. I haven’t been very attentive on that.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 12:45 am
Okay too, thanks Yobbo.
He wasn’t ever in my contention anyways and paid little attention to him.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 12:48 am
Far out, did they solve the debt crisis? The war on drugs is insane, but it’s way down the list.
Infidel Tiger
21 Feb 12 at 12:50 am
Your last post is just dishonest utter garbage Yobbo.
Paul is also on record that he would like to see states decide abortion legislation
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 12:51 am
You’ve been spamming this site with your Santorum worship for 3 months, we assumed you thought he had won.
Infidel Tiger
21 Feb 12 at 12:52 am
WTF. DHS has spent 31 billion of these things for domestic use. Is the place going nuts?
JC
21 Feb 12 at 12:52 am
FFS JC why would you believe a t0sser like Yobbo?
If you believe that drivel you are a fool.
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 12:52 am
I’m not troubled one bit by Santorum’ social views, but he is freaking scary economically.
Infidel Tiger
21 Feb 12 at 12:53 am
He is a religous nutbag who wants to ban contraception and put gays in prison.
Mendacious lies you cannot substantiate without appearing ridiculous.
dover_beach
21 Feb 12 at 12:56 am
I’ve known Yobbo for years, James. He’s a good dude and always has been. He’s a libertarian and has always been consistent in his views.
He doesn’t want governments getting involved with people’s personal lives and believes that Santorum would do so.
I don’t care much about Santorum, so I’m not going to worry about it one way or another. If he comes closer to getting the nomination I will focus more on him.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 12:56 am
James Taranto again:
“Rubin proclaims herself puzzled as to how Santorum can “square” his attitudes toward birth control, on which he would not impose his religious views through legislation, and abortion, on which he would. But Santorum explains that right off the bat: The latter but not the former, in his view, is “the taking of a human life.” That’s Romney’s position too, and the position of every Republican presidential nominee since Reagan.”
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 12:57 am
To be honest I’ve never heard Santorum speak on any vid.
From a distance he sounds to me like a Huckabee type of candidate.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 12:58 am
He’s not a good guy JC.
He’s a t0sser who lies very very frequently.
Additionally he is both arrogant and ignorant which is never a combo that goes with goodness, wisdom or intelligence
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 12:59 am
Santorum makes Huckabee look like Goldwater.
Infidel Tiger
21 Feb 12 at 12:59 am
So why the extra special beat up on Santorum then? And how would this perception of him change if he went into the election as the GOP candidate?
JC
21 Feb 12 at 1:00 am
Yobbo, respectfully, your take on what Santorum said is a tad gilded, shall we say.
Santorum was asked (by an AP reporter whose husband is a Democrat strategist) unsolicited questions about privacy vis-a-vis the then current sodomy case in Texas, Lawrence v. Texas.
He pointed out that there is no absolute right to privacy to do whatever you sexually like in your own home. He was questioning the legal reasoning of Lawrence’s legal team in that case. Some people might not like the idea of sodomy being illegal but it was a fairly mainstream view until the gay lobby ramped up its PR campaign following the AIDS holocaust they caused back in the 80s.
1). The states should be allowed to do what they like.
2). If so, why is that undemocratic? So what?
3). I’m not sure what the charges should be called in all circumstances but following recent overwhelmingly backed laws, late term and ‘live birth’ abortionists are now jailed. As science improves still further, more and more abortionists will be charged pursuant to new laws.
I don’t support Santorum, presidency-wise, but the bed-wetting about his views is OTT.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 1:00 am
run that by me better.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 1:01 am
Well then listen to the 12 min hostile interview that Kates derided that I hyperlinked in my first post.
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 1:01 am
Isn’t 1 and 2 basically Ron Paul’s position? If the states banned contraception I wouldn’t expect Paul to interfere either.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 1:04 am
You think everything I say is a lie, DB. The fact is you can very easily google Santorum quotes which support what I’ve said. I’m not going to do it for you because you would just ignore them anyway.
Yobbo
21 Feb 12 at 1:05 am
What a surprise.
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 1:07 am
Yep, and interracial marriage/sex being illegal was a fairly mainstream view until the civil rights movement of the 60′s.
Yobbo
21 Feb 12 at 1:08 am
CL has already quoted them about 5 posts up James.
Yobbo
21 Feb 12 at 1:09 am
If you thought Huckabee was a treacle dipped social conservative with a love of big government, wait til you cop a load of President Santorum.
Rick Santorum is an outstanding father who’d make a terrible President.
Infidel Tiger
21 Feb 12 at 1:09 am
I wouldn’t have thought it possible but that makes your excuse to d-b even more ridiculous.
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 1:11 am
You think everything I say is a lie, DB. The fact is you can very easily google Santorum quotes which support what I’ve said. I’m not going to do it for you because you would just ignore them anyway.
No, just the statements I’ve referred to as lies in the past. And, no, I have googled these ‘controversies’ and no they don’t substantiate what you’ve said at all, as CL just ably demonstrated. May be you should attend to his response.
dover_beach
21 Feb 12 at 1:11 am
You lie Yobbo.
You do it repetively.
It’s normal for you.
You are a liar Yobbo
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 1:12 am
Here’s the thing James. Even if I do post them, it won’t change your opinion at all. You’ll still love Santorum because you 100% agree with all the things he does. So why should I be your errand boy? Go fuck yourself.
Yobbo
21 Feb 12 at 1:13 am
Actually CL just demonstrated that they did substantiate what I said, but “so what?”.
Yobbo
21 Feb 12 at 1:14 am
Actually CL just demonstrated that they did substantiate what I said
Brings to mind the following, sorry to say.
dover_beach
21 Feb 12 at 1:18 am
Here’s the thing Yobbo.
You have never constructed an honest argument ever that I’ve read on this blog.
But you lie often and frequently.
Your insane hatred of christianity overides any judgemnt – if any lurks in the dark recesses behind your prejudice and bigotry.
I’d be perfectly happy if Romney wins and i’d support him. I’d support Goingrich but not Paul
I happen to hold a minority view that Santorum is a better candidate and who has a better chance of defeating Obummer and I construct an argument to spport that.
You write drivel.
Ignorant prejudiced and dishonest drivel
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 1:22 am
I can’t disagree with anything said by Santorum in this interview.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7399318n&tag=re1.galleries
JC
21 Feb 12 at 1:22 am
James, you are an idiot barracker who is tolerated here, not enjoyed. You’re about as useful as Steve from Brisbane but since you picked the right side people mostly leave you alone. That doesn’t make you any less of a retard though.
Yobbo
21 Feb 12 at 1:24 am
As if to prove the point.
Quite apart from your incessant lies and prejudice Yobbo, you are quite incapable of constructing a rational argument.
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 1:25 am
JamesK, Santorum has no chance of winning the Presidency, thanks be to Allah, because the man is embarrassingly ignorant and pig-headed and has nothing of any use to say on any of the issues that actually confront America today.
Les Majesty
21 Feb 12 at 1:29 am
Here’s more on Santorum:
I think Santorum is basically expressing a view. He’s not suggesting he would ban anything. That still doesn’t go against libertarian thinking.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 1:31 am
Nice enough guy, though.
Les Majesty
21 Feb 12 at 1:32 am
Thanx Les. I see the Light.
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 1:32 am
Right, so not only is Santorum a hypocrite, but he is also a typical big-spending, government program Republican. But I repeat myself.
Les Majesty
21 Feb 12 at 1:33 am
James, don’t personalise everything.
Soon, Blair, Parish and Yobbo basically invented the Australian blogosphere.
1) he’s impervious to insults;
2) he’s a much loved atheist trouble-maker and small government, personal liberties campaigner.
He is what he is, as advertised.
Yobbo wasn’t lying about what Santorum said. He was presenting the MSNBC Cliffs Notes version that’s doing the rounds. Having said that, if you read the interview, Santorum did end up doing the chicken dance through a field of rakes.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 1:34 am
Actually JC he has explicitly said he would amend the constitution to ban abortion.
Yobbo
21 Feb 12 at 1:34 am
Les:
Dick Morris thinks Santurom could beat Odumbo. So the toe sucker isn’t a good political analyst?
JC
21 Feb 12 at 1:34 am
No worries, Jimbo. Happy that I was able to clear things up for you.
Les Majesty
21 Feb 12 at 1:34 am
“If the states banned contraception I wouldn’t expect Paul to interfere either.”
JC stay up to speed in a debate maybe a month ago Ron Paul pointed out that no effective ban on contraception can be put in place due to free trade between states.
Santorum can’t win unless this is a vote held at the Vatican versus Obama.
kelly liddle
21 Feb 12 at 1:35 am
Reagan:
Santorum:
Infidel Tiger
21 Feb 12 at 1:37 am
HE can’t, Yobbo.
It would be put to the people.
What are you worried about?
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 1:37 am
Truth is he can’t. He can say initiate an amendment (i really don’t know how they go about it), but he can’t simply bring it into law by himself as president. I think he’s just bullshitting.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 1:39 am
Dick Morris is a heavy breathing perv who has stroked his pecker so much that he damn near taught himself parkinson’s disease. He prostitutes himself by day so that he can fuck whores at night.
It doesn’t surprise me to hear Morris is a Santorum supporter, but it doesn’t change my view on Santorum’s prospects.
Les Majesty
21 Feb 12 at 1:39 am
He’s talking about foreign policy.
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 1:40 am
What he would do is appoint SC justices who would overturn not only Roe but also Griswold, thus allowing the states to ban abortion and contraception.
That’s a de facto amendment of the constitution.
Les Majesty
21 Feb 12 at 1:41 am
Morris is a Gingrich supporter, Les.
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 1:41 am
No, James. He’s talking about everything.
Yobbo
21 Feb 12 at 1:42 am
So would Romney. So would Gingrich
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 1:42 am
No, he’s talking about his whole political policy. He’s very open about believing government is the way the truth and the light.
Fine man, dud candidate.
Infidel Tiger
21 Feb 12 at 1:43 am
IT,
he’s not my candidate. I don’t care what he thinks about libertarians. However he espoused a lot of things libertarian types would agree with in the video.
Without knowing exactly what libertarian points he disagrees with, it’s hard to say what what they are. Perhaps he dislikes Ron Paul’s islolationism? Dunno.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 1:43 am
That’s true they all fucking did. But what does he believes now as a lot of them had a cathartic moment since the GFC, or so they say.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 1:45 am
He is the anti-libertarian in every way.
About the only common ground I share with Santorum are his views on the Israel-Palestine conflict, because I’m a hawk for Israel on that score.
In every policy he holds, he wants the opposite of what libertarians do.
Yobbo
21 Feb 12 at 1:45 am
A massive majority of GOP senators voted for Medicare Part D and No Child Left behind for their President.
And Santorum was in the leadership.
Did they all “fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement” too?
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 1:49 am
He is clearly referring to foreign policy.
That is the beef conservatives have with libertarians in the GOP tent.
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 1:51 am
A few Santorum policies:
Ban Abortion
Make it harder to get contraception
Reinstate Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
Ban medical marijuana (even though he knows nothing about it, thinks marijuana is a “narcotic”. Drugs are bad mmkay?)
Is willing to override states rights on both gay marriage and medical marijuana issues.
Believes that there is no right to privacy in the constitution
Santorum discussed what he called the “libertarianish right,” saying
Yobbo
21 Feb 12 at 1:52 am
Here’s Dick Morris read Les.
Romney’s attraction is that he can get the indeps to vote for him, as Dick thinks the indeps believe Romney is soft on the social policy issues most them are. That’s possibly true to some extent.
However Dick Morris thinks Romney has a hard time getting the votes of the core GOP voters. That’s also true.
The core voters are the ones voting in the primary making it hard for Romney.
Santorum would be able to stir GOP base support that Romney is unable to.
So Morris reckons it’s really hard to know which one would be the more likely candidate to beat Odumbo.
He’s guessing Romney would because of the Indep vote.
So it’s case of which slab of voters stay home at the margin. Morris thinks Romney would have a better edge, however also thinks Santorum would be able to beat Odumbo too.
I think you don’t really understand the dynamics of the GOP side, Les. It’s not a criticism but more of a blind spot you have. You read the NYTimes, The WaPo and think that’s all there is.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 1:53 am
“Perhaps he dislikes Ron Paul’s islolationism?”
First I assume you mean doesn’t like to bomb countries randomly and that qualifies for isolation. Yep Santorum wants to send the bombers into Iran on his first day.
kelly liddle
21 Feb 12 at 1:54 am
All conservatives will vote for the GOp candidate.
Romney’s relative strenght is unmarried women but Obama has ~80% of that demographic anyway.
Santorum’s strengh is white working class Dem Hilary Clinton but not Obummer voters in 2008 (sizeable)
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 1:57 am
What d’ya mean by that Yobbo?
That he doesn’t support the Madate?
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 1:58 am
Wrt ssm drivel, don’t you ever tire of lying Yobbo?
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 2:02 am
Ok Yobbo.
Show us the right to privacy in the US Constitution
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 2:03 am
He can’t. It’s just idol chatter to fire up the base. He is unable to do it.
Not if what he said in the vid is his policy. What he said in the vid is that it should not be a government directive to demand/mandate those sorts of policies in private healthcare. However he stressed that if insurance companies wanted it to be part of a plan, he doesn’t have any issue with that.
Is he lying in the vid?
The military is not a sex partner agency. Keep your private life to yourself. That’s what don’t ask and don’t tell is about.
He’s an idiot if he said that.
It’s a little more complex than that. States that don’t wish to recognize gay marriage would be forced to as a result of a particular clause in the constitution that deals with states rights and obligations to other states. Forgot which.
Has he explicitly said that?
JC
21 Feb 12 at 2:04 am
Keep out of it Kelly. No idol chit chatting at the taxi stand please.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 2:05 am
Yes, he has.
Yobbo
21 Feb 12 at 2:08 am
Santorum repeatedly supports the Defense of Marriage Act or a constitutional amendment to define marriage. He voted in favor of these measures each time they came up for a vote and co-sponsored an amendment proposal.
DOMA (Bill Clinton’s Law) is law which Obummer’s DOJ has refused to defend.
Which is their constitutional duty.
The GOP House of Reps have engaged a private law firm to defend as necessary.
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 2:09 am
Ok Yobbo.
Show us the right to privacy in the US Constitution
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 2:10 am
I think you missed your calling as psephologist with insightful analysis like that James.
Yobbo
21 Feb 12 at 2:11 am
Steve he didn’t question anything of the sort.
In the CBS vid , Santorum clearly explained what he said.
He was saying Odumbo believes in this voodoo Green theology..however he didn’t dispute he was a christian.
Santorum is right. “Greensterism” is voodoo theology.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 2:11 am
Yobs
Gun the your head. A loaded glock.. who of the two would you vote for.
Odumbo or Santorum?
JC
21 Feb 12 at 2:13 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
Yobbo
21 Feb 12 at 2:14 am
‘the right to privacy” has been inferred by activist judges in Griswold and is the basis of Roe vs Wade.
Santorum and very many legal scholars dispute it.
It will be the basis on which Roe vs Wade will be overturned in SCOTUS.
Privacy is not mentioned in the US Constitution
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 2:20 am
More from the vid:
Santorum was making specific reference to Green Theology and making the point that it is not based on the bible. He further said that the bible teaches we should use the earth to improve man’s lot in life whereas greensterism makes man the earth’s slave.
Frankly I don’t give a rats what the bible says, however Santorum’s stand and comments on green theology and who runs the show in earth is something I agree with.
It basically means Santorum would not have a problem with say signing in the Keystone pipeline and drilling for oil.
wants the government to stay out, but if insurance firms provide it he has no problem.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 2:25 am
If those are the only choices I’d vote for Obama. He’s useless but he’s not a nutcase.
Yobbo
21 Feb 12 at 2:26 am
Is the penny dropping JC?
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 2:29 am
I salute you Yobbo.
My bet was that you’d say Johnson and play pretend that it wasn’t a vote for Obummer.
But your answer to straight question is the first honest thing I’ve seen you do on this blog.
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 2:31 am
Yobs
There’s no doubt Santorum is a social conservative. There’s no doubt in my mind. He’s not my ideal candidate, but I think you’re making a few errors here.
Santorum is closer to libertarian philosophy than Odumbo is. But both are far apart.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 2:32 am
Santorum: Court Ruled Wrongly in Griswold v. Connecticut–the Pre-Roe ‘Right to Privacy’ Decision
“Santorum said that he would not have voted for the law restricting contracptives or for a late Texas law banning same-sex sodomy that was struck down under the court’s post-Griswold “right to privacy” doctrine in the 2003 Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas.
“I said I wouldn’t have voted for that law,” said Santorum. “I thought that law was an improper law, I wouldn’t have voted for the Texas sodomy law. But that doesn’t mean the state doesn’t have the right to do that–I just didn’t think they should do it.”
He continued: “You shouldn’t create constitutional rights when states do dumb things. Let the people decide if the states are doing dumb things get rid of the legislature and replace them as opposed to creating constitutional laws that have consequences beyond the specific case that was before them.” “
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 2:40 am
I don’t agree with some of these policies. I don’t know why manufacturing should get zero tax, while other industries shouldn’t. Frankly I don’t know who it would work. However his polices are not big government in any shape or form.
What are Santorum’s economic policies, and would they help Americans?
Presidential candidates don’t need dozens of different economic policies that Congress is unlikely to adopt. Voters won’t read many policies. They mostly want to hear what candidates will do to fix the economy and to put them and their friends and loved ones back to work.
Americans are concerned with the burden of debt they are leaving to future generations. Many young Americans wonder whether Social Security and Medicare will be there for them when they retire.
One of the most carefully-crafted proposals for entitlement reform is by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, who spoke at CPAC on Thursday.
Santorum supports Ryan’s plan. For Medicare, it would allow workers who retire in 10 years to choose from a variety of plans, with some part of the premiums paid by the government. Premiums would vary, depending on income and health. Current retirees, and those retiring before 2022, would stay on traditional Medicare.
Santorum wants to balance Social Security by gradually raising the retirement age for younger workers and changing indexing of benefits.
As well as reforming entitlements, Santorum wants to cut non-defense spending to 2008 levels. He would end energy subsidies and other wasteful government programs, cutting $5 trillion over 5 years.
Uncertainty over taxes is hobbling American business decisions and undermining consumer confidence. The complex tax code means that many Americans can no longer calculate their own taxes, and use software programs or accountants.
Santorum wants to simplify the tax code by moving from five to two rates, 10 percent and 28 percent, eliminating many deductions, and expanding the personal exemption for children. This is in contrast to President Obama, who regularly proposes new taxes on different classes of Americans.
In addition, Santorum would abolish the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax (AMT). The AMT, adjusted downwards every year by Congress, is now paid by millions of Americans, particularly those with large families in high-tax states.
Santorum would lower corporate tax rates, at 35 percent now the highest in the world. He would cut the rate to 17.5 percent and allow the cost of all business equipment to be deducted in the year of purchase. Manufacturing would have a zero rate of tax.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 2:42 am
JC, Yobbo is an anti-religious bigot first and a libertarian (perhaps) second.
You guys should stop making excuses for him.
He lies routinely.
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 2:43 am
oops… should be in quotes after the first para.
JC
21 Feb 12 at 2:43 am
Beck in Rome with Cardinal Dolan…
Glenn Beck: Why We Are All Catholics Now.
Makes a great case against Stalinist lapsed Muslim, Obama.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 3:09 am
Beck in Rome with Cardinal Dolan…
Glenn Beck: Why We Are All Catholics Now.
Makes a great case against Stalinist lapsed Muslim, Obama.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 3:10 am
Glenn Beck: Why We Are All Catholics Now.
Makes a great case against Stalinist lapsed Muslim, Obama.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 3:10 am
Test.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 3:11 am
Catallaxy’s impossible filter has blocked it but Gateway Pundit has the story of Glenn Beck in Rome.
Makes a great case against Stalinist lapsed Muslim, Obama.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 3:12 am
Try again:
Catallaxy’s impossible filter has blocked it but Gateway Pundit has the story of G. Beck in Rome.
Makes a great case against Stalinist lapsed Muslim, Obama.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 3:13 am
Santorum way out in front in Texas, ahead nationally way ahead of the others on favourability rating.
Romney will be destroyed in Texas.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/20/santorum-crushing-the-field-in-texas/
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 3:18 am
Ron Paul beclowned on ‘social issues’ debate.
Also, some quantitative historical facts:
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 3:24 am
Santorum worries me. Not a fan. I remember in one of the earliest debates (when he was roundly considered a joke – jeepers that seems like a long time ago!) he was complaining that he was the only candidate taking a stand on social issues. Which sounded to me like a pretty great reason to ignore him.
I don’t agree with Yobbo’s assessment of the man that he’s a religious nutcase, however I’m not as sanguine as JamesK about his (un)willingness to foist his religious convictions onto others. I’d rather someone with a stronger focus on the economy.
JC: loaded Glock to the head – Obama or Santorum….um….hope for a misfire?
Oh come on
21 Feb 12 at 3:48 am
CL: that doesn’t establish causality. Other factors may well have been involved that explain the shifting GOP electoral fortunes over those periods.
Social issues almost never rate highly when voter concerns are polled.
Oh come on
21 Feb 12 at 3:51 am
C.L., Karl in HotAir’s Green Room today has more on Bell’s book here: Winning with social conservatism?
I haven’t had a chance to read through all the links he’s included to others’ views/reviews yet, but if you have some time on your hands you might want to check it out.
Cheers.
spot
21 Feb 12 at 4:09 am
What sort of idiot ignores social issues?
Honestly, this dvision between the economy and everything else is just stupid.
And, ironically, it works to the advantage of the left and thereby increases the size and role of government – via entrenched social ‘programs,’ welfare, wealth redistribution and large chunks of money to Planned Parenthood etc.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 4:11 am
Yobbo wasn’t lying about what Santorum said. He was presenting the MSNBC Cliffs Notes version that’s doing the rounds.
That is being charitable but the implication is embarrassing, nonetheless.
What sort of idiot ignores social issues? Honestly, this dvision between the economy and everything else is just stupid. And, ironically, it works to the advantage of the left and thereby increases the size and role of government – via entrenched social ‘programs,’ welfare, wealth redistribution and large chunks of money to Planned Parenthood etc.
Well, yes, at some moment in time libertarians of this variety are going to have to confront the fact that there is historically and pragmatically a nexus between (incl. their) social liberalism and political welfarism, even though there might not be a logical nexus between the two (and honestly they need to stop hiding behind the latter’s skirt).
dover_beach
21 Feb 12 at 4:46 am
Utter bullshit.
.
21 Feb 12 at 7:29 am
Most of the public.
.
21 Feb 12 at 7:31 am
Pop quiz.
Who introduced the baby bonus in Australia?
Was it:
A) JOHN HOWARD
B) JOHN HUMPHREYS
.
21 Feb 12 at 7:39 am
Thomas Jefferson (Notes on the State of Virginia, 1785, abbreviated from Jefferson Memorial) said: “Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are of the gift of God?”
Franklin D. Roosevelt (State of the Union, Jan. 6, 1941) said: “This nation has placed its destiny in the hands … of its millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God.”
George Washington (Farewell Address, Sept. 19, 1796) said: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
Ronald Reagan (“Evil Empire” Speech, March 8, 1983) said: “Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.”
Abraham Lincoln (Gettysburg Address, Nov. 19, 1863) said: “This nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.”
John F. Kennedy (Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 1961) said: “The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 8:09 am
Do you think that amounts to an argument, dot? Seriously?
dover_beach
21 Feb 12 at 8:45 am
Santorum:
“What Paul Ryan’s budget does is a good start. But on one program he doesn’t touch it — social security — and we need to deal with ALL of the programs that are causing the deficit right now. Medicare he waits ten years. Folks, we’re going bankrupt, we can’t wait ten years, we can’t take big parts of the budget off the table.”
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 9:10 am
Matt Lewis in the Daily Caller:
“As much as moderate Republicans and cosmopolitan conservatives might lament the resurrection of the culture wars (which were foisted upon us, and appear to have been rekindled once again by liberal overreach), they were electorally fruitful for the GOP.
What is more, the notion that running on the economy (what Mr. Romney presumably seems comfortable doing) is a panacea, is dubious. The economy appears to be recovering (at least, the unemployment rate is dropping), a point which will obviously make it harder, should the trend continue, to oust Obama.
Even more to the point, history does not seem indicate that a struggling economy — regardless of who is to blame — or who currently occupies the White House — will ultimately benefit the Republican candidate in a general election. (This, of course, is controversial. Jimmy Carter’s handling of the economy was surely one cause of his 1980 defeat, but would he have been defeated had it not been for the Iranian hostages?)
The trouble for Republican presidential hopefuls trying to make hay of a struggling economy is that, when times are hard, liberals can always out-promise and out-class-warfare their adversaries. Thus, national elections that focus instead on foreign policy or cultural issues have tended to skew more favorably to the GOP.”
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 9:21 am
What I don’t get is how social conservatives who are inclined towards libertarian/small government ideas think that the social ideas they value are going to be imparted to the public.
By mere example of a President who wants to talk about the evils of contraception, and how sex should only be in marriage?
By cutting back social welfare to certain groups (de facto couples?)
I mean – CL & DB are presumably against government ad campaigns that promote a change in social attitudes, such as the anti domestic violence ads, or anti speeding campaigns. CL even hates things like random breath tests. He’s also said before he accepts the Clintonian “legal safe and rare” formula for abortion, and has no expectation of the Coalition ever doing anything like restricting Medicare funding for abortion. The “war against drugs” is hopeless, according to him, and maybe cannabis should be legalised; but if so, is he against government advertising against the dangers of young people smoking it? Hard to see how you could be if you think anti-tobacco measures have gone too far.
What seems to me to happen is that CL & D-b criticise a large part of libertarianism for its lack of interest in social issues (good point), but at the same time have their small government views that offer nothing different anyway, as far as making a difference to social attitudes is concerned.
I have my doubts that Catholicism in particular is really consistent with libertarianism anyway, given the long history of Catholic social justice teaching.
steve from brisbane
21 Feb 12 at 9:50 am
I know that isn’t a counter argument.
John Howard foisted the baby bonus on Australia. It is a terrible policy and has nothing to do with liberalism.
.
21 Feb 12 at 9:54 am
test
Les Majesty
21 Feb 12 at 10:09 am
John Howard foisted the baby bonus on Australia. It is a terrible policy and has nothing to do with liberalism.
And I never said that only social liberalism contributes to political welfarism.
What seems to me to happen is that CL & D-b criticise a large part of libertarianism for its lack of interest in social issues (good point), but at the same time have their small government views that offer nothing different anyway, as far as making a difference to social attitudes is concerned.
Steve from B, you’re labouring under the illusion that only governments can change social attitudes.
I have my doubts that Catholicism in particular is really consistent with libertarianism anyway, given the long history of Catholic social justice teaching.
So do I insofar as certain versions of libertarianism are concerned, but given the principle of subsidiarity, among others, Catholicism is not incompatible with libertarianism.
dover_beach
21 Feb 12 at 10:10 am
And I am asking you, how in Australia (where you have less influence of religion socially than in parts of America) do you think social attitudes can be nudged in the direction you want them to go?
steve from brisbane
21 Feb 12 at 10:13 am
Rupert Murdoch tweeted approval of Santorum:
“From distance, Santorum doing great. Values really do count in America, and not sneered at as in parts of Europe. Win Michigan game over.”
Or does Murdoch wants Obummer to win a second term?
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 10:19 am
That is a very hard task. By example. By argument.
dover_beach
21 Feb 12 at 10:23 am
JC
“I don’t know why manufacturing should get zero tax, while other industries shouldn’t. Frankly I don’t know who it would work.”
Now you are getting the idea the guy is an idiot that also along with Romney blames the banker China for all the US woes. This is the sort of policy that makes our ALP look good. As Santorum said a company that manufactures anything won’t pay tax so you will be able to look forward to cheap hamburgers I assume. So if people want to vote for an idiot because he speaks populist crap then they deserve what they get.
kelly liddle
21 Feb 12 at 10:42 am
By example is OK: that is why I (quite seriously) say social conservatives should be happy if Gillard were to marry.
By argument: I wonder, who should do the arguing? George Pell hasn’t exactly won many converts in the last decade: the entire Catholic Church teaching on sexuality is seen as tainted by sex abuse scandals. (Don’t bother telling that is unfair – it’s true nonetheless.)
steve from brisbane
21 Feb 12 at 10:53 am
Aaargh! SoB’s at it again!
F’n unbelievable.
Pedro the Ignorant
21 Feb 12 at 10:57 am
Pedro – I rarely say anything about the Catholic church and child abuse – and don’t intend doing so today.
steve from brisbane
21 Feb 12 at 11:03 am
Washingtom Times op-ed:
“Mr. Santorum has not only pushed for special treatment for manufacturing in his economic policy platform – the former senator from Pennsylvania has provided a cogent rationale, reminding dogmatic Republicans and conservatives in particular that industry faces offshoring and foreign competition threats simply absent for most service sectors.
Just as important, Mr. Santorum has eloquently explained the vital link between manufacturing’s stagnation on the one hand, and, on the other, the divisive forces fracking so many middle-class families and breeding so many social and cultural pathologies. It’s an intelligently populist message that, with a bigger dose of tolerance, has extraordinary potential to unite blue collar Reagan Democrats and other downwardly mobile Republicans and independents into a powerful and perhaps winning national political coalition.
Consequently, whatever Mr. Santorum’s short-term political fate, real manufacturing supporters should start showing him why the standard conservative cure-all of tax cuts – and even his proposal to end federal corporate income taxes for manufacturers – can’t significantly advance the manufacturing, broader economic and core values goals shared by so many Americans.”
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 11:05 am
Great big fat LYING LIAR LIES.
You make Gillard look like a saint.
Gab
21 Feb 12 at 11:05 am
that is why I (quite seriously) say social conservatives should be happy if Gillard were to marry.
Not quite the ‘example’ I had in mind; that would simply appear opportunistic.
I wonder, who should do the arguing?
Not you.
George Pell hasn’t exactly won many converts in the last decade
I wouldn’t be too sure.
the entire Catholic Church teaching on sexuality is seen as tainted by sex abuse scandals.
That is confusing ‘by example’ with ‘by argument’. But it is amusing that the former is tainted by the latter when a more liberal teaching on sexuality would have been immune of such criticism.
dover_beach
21 Feb 12 at 11:28 am
I see the voice of Peter Kennedy is back, trolling for attention.
The separation of the economic from the ‘social’ is moronic.
All spending cut decisions, for example, involve debates anout health, end of life considerations, welfare, schools, imprisonment, therefore drugs, one parent homes, ageing populations etc.
Adam Smith wouldn’t recognise an economics without a social morality dimension. Hayek would regard it as a scientistic wank.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 11:32 am
I have never ‘accepted’ Clinton’s formula.
Abortion, by definition, is not and cannot be “safe” and should not be legal.
So Steve is lying.
What I have said is that it is Catholic policy to educate the public about what abortion is – this in an invincible ignorant society is the most efficacious way forward.
And it’s working.
Most pollsters now show a majority of Americans opposes abortion on demand. Late term abortions are illegal (pro child murder lunatic Obama objected to this, naturally).
Dick Morris said last week that Democrats have now decided that the “right” to an abortion is officially considered an electoral loser by his party.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 11:38 am
The liberal Public Policy Polling: Obama now less popular than Bush…
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/51777
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 11:42 am
Steve is confusing C.L. with R.L.
.
21 Feb 12 at 11:42 am
I think that it is entirely appropriate to talk about moral issues. The fundamental problem with western economics and society is to do with a decay in moral attitudes, particularly with respect to debt and entilements. Any economy that relies on debt financing can only do so if there is faith that the debts taken out will be repayed. This can only happen if the leander is allowed to select who he will lend money to and if the borrower has the moral attitude that leads him to a strong belief that it is immoral not to pay one’s debts. Both of these things are currently missing from the economic debate and are increasingly missing from our societies as the doctrine of moral and cultural relativism continues to spread.
The forcing of lending institutions to lend money to people who everybody knew could not pay it back for “social” reasons is one example. The fact that these people actually accepted the loan when they knew they would not be able to pay it back is another. The constant calls by the occuppy hippies for somebody else to pay of their student debts for them is another, and to show that it goes right to the top, the continued borrowing by the US government when it is apparent that they do not have the capacity to repay the debt.
The other issue is with entitlements. While a large and increasing section of the community feels that it is morally acceptable for the government to pick to pockets of their neighbours that that they can get benefits without working for them it will be difficult to get excessive spending under control. My Father explained this to me back in the 1960′s when I left work as the equivelent of recieving stolen goods.
This moral decay goes from top to bottom and until it is reversed there is not much hope of recovery.
Cyril of Gladstone
21 Feb 12 at 11:46 am
CL: I believe the context of it was Tony Abbott saying on some show that he accepted the Clintonian formula; I questioned you about that, and you indicated you did not have a problem with Abbott saying that, even though he be Catholic.
Let’s be clear here – didn’t you say the other day that the Church had accepted that the argument on abortion is not going to be won by seeking to make it illegal?
I also believe that you have never criticised the Coalition for not having a policy of placing restrictions on Medicare funding for abortion.
You do want it to be rare (or as close as possible to never).
I therefore do not see how your position is different from accepting a current position of “legal, safe, rare”, even if you would be happy for it to eventually be “illegal, and never happen.”
steve from brisbane
21 Feb 12 at 11:48 am
By the way: CL has proposed one means of influence (Church led campaigns) on public morality on one thing – abortion.
All other social issues (or as he said: “debates anout health, end of life considerations, welfare, schools, imprisonment, therefore drugs, one parent homes, ageing populations etc.”) are to be dealt with by whom?
steve from brisbane
21 Feb 12 at 11:54 am
Abortion is not “safe,” Steve.
It kills people.
But even the so-called Clintonian formula was a surrender for the pro-abortion wackos.
They had to back down from their previous, much beloved dogma – namely, “abortion on demand.”
The capitulation has continued apace in the years since.
So we’re winning. This frustrates pro-abortion loonies who would prefer a distraction about “banning” and all those laughable sob stories about what James Taranto calls “back hangers and coat alleys.”
As Morris says, the issue is now officially seen as a loser by Democrats.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 11:57 am
Not just Texas…
Santorum will crush Romney in Oklahoma.
So much for Mitt The Inevitable.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 12:00 pm
Cyril
Well put. Taxes as share of GDP state and federal have about doubled since the 60s to around 30% so maybe it is just wait until they reach about 45% of GDP like with some Scandinavian countries or alternately go broke by continueing to increase welfare (corporate and personal).
kelly liddle
21 Feb 12 at 12:00 pm
And the death penalty, marriage, family, education, health, palliative care, euthanasia, public spending and the crowding out of private charity, moral obligations of employers and employees etc etc.
The lies just never end with you, do they Steve?
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 12:08 pm
CL: what lie? Are you saying that all matters of morality and social influence are therefore merely to be by virtue of influence from the Churches?
So: what is your criticism of libertarians? That they aren’t Catholic or conservative Protestant?
Is that what it amounts to?
steve from brisbane
21 Feb 12 at 12:31 pm
I have no idea what you’re talking about, Steve.
And that’s not contrived puzzlement designed to insult.
I really don’t know what you’re talking about.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 12:36 pm
Where has ever said either of those things? You constantly play this intellectual game of pea and thimble. It really is tiresome slop.
dover_beach
21 Feb 12 at 12:39 pm
CL
You’re on fire in this debate. I agree 100% with you. God knows why Dot should think that SfB is confuding you and I.
I have always believed, as a Tory, that society and not government should take the lead in moral issues, and that Government should always take moral issues into account when making policy.
The economy cannot be considered in isolation. It has no separate being from the rest of life. Many people of the lLeft in Australia are making the argument that our economy is in good shape and that the government should get kudoos for that. What about the rest of us? It is we, through millions and millions of transactions and scoial interactions who make up the economy. And we think that it is in bad shape, despite the statistics trotted out by government symphathisers. We are succeeding despite them.
Rococo Liberal
21 Feb 12 at 12:41 pm
Loser Romney tragic, Matt Drudge, having a big sook about Santorum…
Rick questions president’s Christian values…
Offends the Dutch with euthanasia talk…
Trump Takes Hatchet To Santorum…
PAUL: Santorum has ‘atrocious voting record’…
SANTORUM CAMP: OBAMA’S ‘RADICAL ISLAMIC POLICIES’
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 1:21 pm
d-b, I am playing no game of “pea and thimble”.
You’re playing a game of provide no real answer.
I’ve been questioning where either you, CL or RL (apart from CL being happy with Church associated campaigns on abortion) think that influence on social morality is supposed to come from.
RL refers to “society”, CL refers to Catholics educating people on abortion – he doesn’t explain whether Catholics should also be educating people on problem gambling, abuse of alcohol, drink driving or the “dangers of contraception” (as Santorum wants to),
and you leave it up to “someone” should put conservative arguments.
I don’t understand the CL critique which runs (I think) libertarians can’t be true libertarians unless they endorse socially conservative values.
I say – what does that matter? A libertarian who personally doesn’t give a stuff about social moral values is not crowding out CL’s church, or RL’s “society” from influencing private morality.
And you all agree that the government shouldn’t be a “nanny state”.
My criticism of the lot of you is that government can and does appropriately influence public morality and behaviour in beneficial ways: in my lifetime, for example, attitudes to drink driving have changed a lot due to government campaigns and steps like RBT. The government campaign on HIV probably did influence behaviour significantly, as does campaigns against smoking, and probably domestic violence. The government effect is usually a combination of both education plus regulatory steps, and the outcomes are frequently pretty good, or at least in the right direction.
That libertarian/small government types want to abandon this means they are useless in taking social issues seriously. There is little evidence that, particularly in a society like Australia, that “society” or “church” led campaigns to influence behaviour succeed.
steve from brisbane
21 Feb 12 at 1:35 pm
The big problem with Santorum is he is just not on the board where it counts – in the delegate totals. Current projections of where delegates are ending up has Santorum running last.
Current estimates (after Maine) have Romney at 41%, Paul at 36%, Gingrich at 13% and Santorum at 11%.
(Notes: 243 delegates so far, 14 of which are super delegates not counted in the above percentages).
Driftforge
21 Feb 12 at 1:36 pm
Driftforge I hope those numbers you suggest are correct that will mean Paul is in with a real chance.
kelly liddle
21 Feb 12 at 1:51 pm
It’s no longer really a church campaign, Steve.
It’s science and culture change.
That’s why even the un-churched and non-religious backed the ban on late term abortion (murder). Obama favoured a continuation of infanticide, of course.
Abortion is the killing of human beings by the thousands. Comparing it problem gambling is a bizarre banality.
More importantly, the Church’s teaching on abortion is infallible dogma. Unchangeable doctrine.
The Church has no dogma on gambling – it does teach that skilled games of chance involving money are perfectly legitimate, morally, if not always advisable – or drink driving (.08 or .05??, OMG BBQ!).
You’ve tried this before MANY times, Steve.
Comparing something that is dogma with things that are more policy-oriented and moveable (like ‘climate change’).
You cannot help being dishonest in the service of your hyper-partisan extremism.
Why should it concern anyone that you don’t understand my view of social policy and libertarianism? You don’t understand lots of stuff.
News at 11, etc.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 1:51 pm
There once was a guy called Santorum
A sanctimonious borum
Behind his pretty boy look
lurks a bourgeois sook
Just like Albert Gorum
Viva
21 Feb 12 at 1:56 pm
I don’t know that it means ‘he is in with a real chance’. It does mean that he is doing better than most realise, and it does reflect the fact that a large proportion of the early states are caucus states where he will inherently outperform.
What is different this time around is that in most caucus states, he is picking up between 50% and 75% of the county delegates. This will flow through the two or three stages of the caucus process and result in him picking up the vast majority of the delegates in those states.
Even in states where the delegates are bound to the poll results, that binding is only valid for the first round of any convention. So states like Nevada, where he nominally has 5 delegates in a first round vote, will likely switch to something like 20 in later rounds.
Why does this not necessarily mean he ‘has a chance’? Well there are lot of votes still to come, including a substantial proportion of primaries. Although the probability is that his delegate count is similar to Romney, that is not being presented nationally through the media and thus is not netting him the publicity that comes with actually winning the polls.
Driftforge
21 Feb 12 at 2:02 pm
Thanks for clearing up nothing, CL.
I think I made my question clear, and you answered it by a rant that explained nothing.
The question again: why do you and d-b have a problem with libertarians who don’t care about “social liberalism” or “social conservatism,” when by doing so they are not crowding out the non-government spheres of influence in social issues?
steve from brisbane
21 Feb 12 at 2:03 pm
I don’t think Santorum can win the nomination but Nate silver suggests he might do better against Barry than some think.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/nate-silver-obama-reelection-chances.html?hpw=&pagewanted=print
Les Majesty
21 Feb 12 at 2:56 pm
Steve, when you criticise a response like that, it means you’re debunked with nowhere to go.
We all know this.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 3:01 pm
CL – your rant about dogma/not dogma in Church teaching had nothing to do with my question.
We all know you are avoiding the question. We all know this.
steve from brisbane
21 Feb 12 at 3:03 pm
Steve
I would say unfortunately there are some self described “libertarians” who are just as dogmatic about certain issues even with no evidence as the Greens are on other issues. I don’t know what I would call myself on the political spectrum maybe a pragmatist if that is a political term.
kelly liddle
21 Feb 12 at 3:12 pm
Troll Steve with his standard troll tactic of avoiding the answer that crushes him.
Abortion is the killing of human beings by the thousands. Comparing it problem gambling is a bizarre banality.
More importantly, the Church’s teaching on abortion is infallible dogma. Unchangeable doctrine.
The Church has no dogma on gambling – it does teach that skilled games of chance involving money are perfectly legitimate, morally, if not always advisable – or drink driving (.08 or .05??, OMG BBQ!).
You’ve tried this before MANY times, Steve.
Comparing something that is dogma with things that are more policy-oriented and moveable (like ‘climate change’).
You cannot help being dishonest in the service of your hyper-partisan extremism.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 3:19 pm
I could be wrong, but I think you’re the only one left still reading Steve’s belaboured screed, CL.
Gab
21 Feb 12 at 3:21 pm
test
Capitalist Piggy
21 Feb 12 at 3:23 pm
You can’t be serious.
This thread has gone completely off the rails.
Rick Santorum has opened up a double digit lead over rival Mitt Romney in Gallup’s latest daily tracking poll.
The survey finds Santorum with support from 36 percent of registered Republicans nationally, topping Romney at 26 percent.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) follows at 13 percent, with Texas Rep. Ron Paul at 11 percent support.
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 5:36 pm
The context of the “phony theology” Santorum religious intolerance remark:
The comments came at an event in Columbus shortly after the former senator from Pennsylvania said efficacy and safety improvements in oil drilling technology are considered by the president to be “a dangerous technology.”
“It doesn’t fit his pattern of trying to drive down consumption, trying to drive up your cost of transportation to accomplish his political science goal of reducing carbon dioxide,” he said.
Obama, he continued, is not motivated by “your quality of life.”
“It’s not about your job. It’s about some phony ideal, some phony theology,” Santorum said. “Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology. But no less a theology.”
JamesK
21 Feb 12 at 5:44 pm
Problem gambling adversely affects the lives of tens of thousands of families made up of thinking, breathing human beings. It’s a significant social issue.
But abortion?
Les Majesty
21 Feb 12 at 5:51 pm
In any event, CL, in his effort to (once again) declare himself a crushing victor has gone on a rant which is irrelevant to my question, which was:
steve from brisbane
21 Feb 12 at 5:59 pm
I say this with compassion, Steve.
FFS.
Gab
21 Feb 12 at 6:01 pm
Gab, can you explain the answer to my question and while you’re at it explain CL’s response about abortion and dogma and gambling and not dogma is relevant. OK?
steve from brisbane
21 Feb 12 at 6:05 pm
Steve, what Oh Come on said in the OT. Ok?
Gab
21 Feb 12 at 6:08 pm
The Church has a mission to teach handed to it by Christ. It teaches its doctrine. It doesn’t have any doctrines on drink driving or climate change.
That’s your query answered three times now.
Keep pretending, Steve.
C.L.
21 Feb 12 at 6:12 pm
This should keep Steve busy for at least half an hour’s worth of ogling:
Wired For Sound
A health warning should come with that clip.
Oh come on
21 Feb 12 at 6:12 pm
I ask:
and CL says:
You are not answering the question I want answered. See above.
steve from brisbane
21 Feb 12 at 6:55 pm
Jesus Mary and Joseph, do you nag your wife like that too, Steve?
Gab
21 Feb 12 at 6:57 pm