February 8, 2012

The attacks on Santorum have begun in earnest [updated]

For instance, Glenn Reynolds links an open letter from a very concerned libertarian (tell me: how are the libertarians going to feel when Ron Paul sends his delegates to Romney in exchange for some sort of quid pro quo?), who needs conservatives to know that Rick Santorum is a big government stooge, a guy who — just like Romney! Imagine that coincidence! — backed legislation approved by Ted Kennedy:

Rick Santorum has consistently voted in favor of big government, budget-busting programs. He has slammed former Governor Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) for signing RomneyCare into law, but RomneyCare and ObamaCare are hardly the first examples of big government intervention in the health care market. Another recent example was the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 establishing the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. While libertarians and limited government conservatives were busy arguing for the reduction of government health care entitlements, former President George W. Bush was busy expanding them — and Rick Santorum was happy to vote in favor of Medicare Part D along with other big government establishment Republicans in the U.S. Senate.

Many libertarians and limited government conservatives have targeted federal education policy as one area that should see significant reduction. Some have even suggested that the Department of Education should be abolished and most if not all of its functions eliminated. But reducing the role of the federal government in American children’s education wasn’t on Rick Santorum’s agenda in the U.S. Senate. Santorum voted for the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, described by the Associated Press as “a symbol to many of federal overreach and Congress’ inability to fix something that’s clearly flawed.” Nothing says big government GOP establishment like voting for an expansion of federal education policy backed by Bush and coauthored by the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

Of course, what most of us realize is that Santorum, as a Senator, was often-times asked to vote with the Party, and in particular to support the signature pieces of legislation from Compassionate Conservative George W. Bush.

He did, in several instances.

Ironically, those he backed are now backing Romney (the Bushes, Rove, etc.), and are busy helping Mr Inevitable orchestrate attacks on Santorum from the right in order to secure the nomination of a guy who is decidedly to Santorum’s left.

It is cynical, and it is one of the reasons, I’d venture to say, that so many conservatives are completely turned off not only by Romney, but by the whole Rovean wing of the Party ruling elite.

So let’s just put this out there and be done with it once and for all: Santorum, during his two Senate terms, received high marks from mainstream conservative groups, and even stayed in good favor with the Club for Growth, as noted in their white paper on him (Santorum was 4% above the CFG’s GOP Senatorial average). Ditto the National Taxpayer Union, where Santorum’s 76% was 5% higher than the Republican average.

Here are his other scores:

American Conservative Union — 88%
National Right to Life Committee — 100%
Americans for Tax Reform — 95%
National Tax Limitation Committee — 92%
U.S. Chamber of Commerce — 88%
League of Private Property Voters — 94%

Santorum is a conservative. And he’s far more conservative than those in the establishment now working to weaken him from the right so that they can install a man who distanced himself from Reagan, described himself as an “independent,” a “moderate,” and a “progressive,” and supported TARP, the stimulus, Cap and Trade, the individual mandate, state-run health care, gun control, a federal minimum wage increase, and a host of other decidedly non-conservative programs and ideas.

Oh. And he voted for Paul Tsongas.

So please. Can we just stop it? By laughing at it on its face — and if needs be, to its face?

****
update: Really? No, seriously. Really?

Recall, when Romney was confronted during one of the debates about an ad his SuperPac put up about Gingrich, his defense to something revealed to be taken completely out of context was to shoot back, “but did he say it?”

I’ve been saying it for years. No matter how careful you are, the dedicated misreader and misleader will be able to grab you out of context and misrepresent what you’ve said.

That Romney himself seems to think this fair game only further proves that he hasn’t the slightest commitment to individual autonomy, using language as he does to rob the individual of his meaning with the hope of convincing a motivated consensus to accept a bogus “interpretation” and use that new decoding to assert falsehoods knowingly.

It’s a failure of textualism. But a useful one, some have come to find.

(thanks to sdferr)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 8:43pm
138 comments | Trackback

Comments (138)

  1. If you’re a conservative and can’t trust Erick Erickson, who can you trust?

    I laughed enough at that to make my laughing at Nate Nelson superfluous, I think.

  2. “If you’re a conservative and can’t trust Erick Erickson, who can you trust?”

    go rick perry

  3. The disadvantage of being in the leadership (Santorum was #3 or #4 around the time) is that you often end up voting ways you’d rather not.

    But Ann Coulter keeps telling me you got to play the game in order to win the game, so I’m sure Santorum is at least as conservative as Romney on the inside.

  4. Here’s a link an account of another attack, and a false one at that: typical Romney shenanigans to play fast and loose with the truth of a statement.

  5. So who’s the libertarian approved alternative in the GOP primary?

    Inquiring conservative purists want to know.

  6. He has slammed former Governor Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) for signing RomneyCare into law, but RomneyCare and ObamaCare are hardly the first examples of big government intervention in the health care market.

    [Fe]Oooh, that one’s gonna leave a mark.[/Fe]

  7. The smart play isn’t to get bogged down in responding to individual attacks. It’s to point out that this is how the Romney campaign and it’s friends and surrogates operate. As they proved in their relentless attacks on Newt Gingrich Then add that they’re not going to be defined by a moderate Establishment figure, but continue to campaign on their conservative solutions to our social and economic problems.

  8. “Nothing says big government GOP establishment like voting for an expansion of federal education policy backed by Bush and coauthored by the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).”

    and nothing says commie loser than voting for the ppaca. stupak where are you?

  9. so is it safe to say that the bush’s sux plano? those yellow bellied idiots should be farted at in polite company. then driven to a mexican gang held territory on a wagon pulled by feisty armadillos.

  10. Mitt has his minions play the game that way. He is loathsome.

    If Iraq was GW Bushs way of soothing his daddy issues, one has to wonder if Mitt is driven by the same force.

    It would be cool if Ricky beats Romney in Michigan and he might given the Catholic dust up currently in play and the manufacturing angle.

  11. Just to re-express my thoughts in the other thread; the world was very different 10 years ago. I can’t condone anyone that had anything to do with Medicare part D, but there has been momentous events and a general awakening since 2003.

    I think many people, like me and Santorum, took the TEA Party to heart. In fact, of the entire field of Republican candidates at the start of primary season, Romney was the only one that hadn’t fully endorsed the sentiments of the TEA Party. Funny, huh?

  12. Yeah, Romney’s the one. He knows how the Left plays their game, and he can do it too, though not quite as well and just a little slower. Mr. Electable.

  13. “If Iraq was GW Bushs way of soothing his daddy issues”

    That is a load of horse shit. After the invasion of Afghanistan, going into Iraq was the right thing to do, and we’re damn lucky we still had a president with the balls to do it after 9/11.

    Yes, your BDS makes your head look fat.

  14. you know w is all about letting history decide his stay in power. well w you eff up in the conservative sphere. all the rickys things are your bs. you had the prez senate house and you called ted kennedy. effin loser domestic. foreign baracky be effin you big time. w and jeb please effin go to mexico you effin idiots. take grandpa with you

  15. A regular concern troll is to a moby as a libertarian concern troll is to a ____________________.

    (Really, fill in the blank. I got nuttin’).

  16. doobie?

  17. Romney’s use of the proggs usual and customary mendacious and sophist techniques is utterly loathsome. This latest example alone, that sdferr saw the post on, should be more than enough for all but the most Rockefeller of Rethugs! to abandon the Mittanic before he hits the big one…

    Not to mention that he’d guarantee a loss in the fall, since as we so often say, why would lefties vote for Dem-lite when they can vote for the actual product. Romney’s is unelectable if anything.

  18. “Yes, your BDS makes your head look fat.”

    all the bushes sux. let’s do a bill with ted kennedy – bush/romney

  19. Recall, when Romney was confronted during one of the debates about an ad his SuperPac put up about Gingrich, his defense to something revealed to be taken completely out of context was to shoot back, “but did he say it?”

    Missed the mark on that one by just a little bit. It wasn’t a SuperPac ad, it was a Romney campaign ad, despite Romney claiming unfamiliarity with it. And it wasn’t something taken out of context, it was something Gingrich hadn’t said. The Romney campaign was Hispandering in Florida.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/206955-gop-debate-romney-denies-knowing-about-ad-he-approved

    What Gingrich actually said:

    “We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and so they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto,”

    What the Romney ad claimed:

    And Reagan would have never offended Hispanics as Gingrich did when he said Spanish is the language of the ghetto.

    It’s tough to tell which of these shitweasels I like least.

  20. Sorry, Lee. I did not claim with certainty that Iraq was Bush’s way of handling his daddy issues. The IF was a dead give away.

    You are pretty quick on that trigger, don’t shoot any hunters by mistake.

  21. the bush/kennedy establishment:

    Barbara Bush has shared her thoughts on Sarah Palin, and it sounds as if she hopes the former Alaska governor decides against running for president.

    “I sat next to her once, thought she was beautiful, and I think she’s very happy in Alaska,” Bush said, before adding, “and I hope she’ll stay there.”

    link

  22. Ronulan?

    MV, were you looking for something that rhymed or substance; sloganeering or defining?

  23. We’ve three presidents in a row now working out there daddy issues.

    I don’t want another one, Mr. Inevitable.

  24. yeah, motionview, reading the letter by the “libertarian” set off my “concern troll” alarm also.

  25. I think many people, like me and Santorum, took the TEA Party to heart.

    I think it goes deeper than that. I think Santorum was sympatico to the TEA Party before their was a TEA Party. I think Santorum made political compromises with the party establishment, partly out of loyalty, partly out of the idea that you had to work your way up before you could take over. And I think that Santorum learned the hard way that loyalty is a one way street with those guys.

  26. The only Daddy issue Bush was working out in Iraq was whacking the guy who tried to kill said Daddy. While that must have been satisfying, it was clearly secondary.

  27. I think it goes deeper than that. I think Santorum was sympatico to the TEA Party before their was a TEA Party. I think Santorum made political compromises with the party establishment, partly out of loyalty, partly out of the idea that you had to work your way up before you could take over. And I think that Santorum learned the hard way that loyalty is a one way street with those guys.

    This.

    All I can say is that Mark Levin thinks he’s a completely stand-up conservative. And Levin was backing TEA Party candidates long before it was popular — and without worrying about who could win or who couldn’t. So his judgment carries weight with me.

    And while I’m not a social con, I’ve on a number of occasions now pointed out how I think a social con, in a leftist Utopia, is the perfect type to beat back government intrusion into liberties, because practicing his faith the way he wishes and with a clean conscience appears to depend on it.

    Happily, the country was founded around just such an idea.

  28. The only “Daddy” issues Dubya Boooooooosh! was working on was aceing Ude and Kuse’s daddy…

  29. All issues aren’t bad, Pablo. GW idealized the old man.

  30. and idolized.

  31. One thing George W. had going for him, he knew when to tell Brent Scowcroft to blow it out his ass.

  32. Thanks, Pablo. I’m just recalling what Romney claimed at the time. What the truth is I expected was something different.

    The point being, he thought if Gingrich had said it even out of context, that legitimated his using it in just such a way.

  33. Dubya had class and a terrific sense of decency and humor, too. All sadly lacking in the asshole who won last time ’round.

    Scowcroft had it coming to him.

  34. Santorum voted for NCLB and medicare part D because he was a team guy; it doesn’t mean he advocated fiercely for these pieces of legislation.

    When you’re a lineman, and the coach calls a deep post passing play, you don’t block for a FB trap just because you think he should be grinding it out instead. You go with the call…

    If the team ultimately loses, well, then you lose with them. And if at some later date you’re in the position to set the strategy, then you decide when to run or go deep.

  35. When i think of W one word comes to mind.

    Trust.

    I trusted him to do what he thought right.

  36. Besides, I’d like to see Obama and the lefties try and frame Medicare D as being equivalent to Obamacare…Because they certainly can with Romneycare.

    I’d love to see Santorum call Romney on his proggy tactics, to his face, in the next debate. Let Romney try the, “Did you say it, Senator?”, connivance, and have Santorum reply along the lines of; “There you go again, trying to twist my meaning by taking me out of context-just like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the media!

    Romney’s stammering would be delicious…

  37. this: we be doing no bush/kennedy no more. the progg stuff don’t work. tell it to peolsi.

  38. Did anybody ever come up with video links to the Santorum Weld Co and/or Loveland speeches cited in the earlier post? If so, would ya link ‘em here?

  39. Dubya was like a trusty sheepdog keeping us safe.

  40. Aparently Nate Nelson, when he’s not defending the honor of Mitt Romney, likes him some Ron Paul, and possibly* left-libertarian anarcho-capitalists (whatever fresh devilry that is).

    *(Full disclosure, I didn’t click through to read the whole thing, as they say, so for all I know, he excoriates the very thought of a Left-libertarian alliance. Somehow though, I doubt it.)

  41. “Dubya was like a trusty sheepdog keeping us safe.”

    yea go ted kennedy. hey how’s that iraq/afaghan thing is working out? you go grrl. effin idiots.

  42. “The only “Daddy” issues Dubya Boooooooosh! was working on was aceing Ude and Kuse’s daddyThe only “Daddy” issues Dubya Boooooooosh! was working on was aceing Ude and Kuse’s daddy”

    And then he iced Ude and Kuse to work on his “rage issues”.

    Or maybe ‘cuz Cheney needed a good laugh…

  43. “hey how’s that iraq/afaghan thing is working out?”

    After “hey how’s that iraq/afaghan thing” has been stumbling along in the hands of Barack Obama for the last three years, not so goddamn well, thanks very much. But you knew that already, right, moron?

  44. Ladies and gentlemen, freedom is at stake in this election. We need to be the voice for freedom.

    And that founding document, the Declaration of Independence, at the end of that document, those founders signed their names. But the last clause of that document said we pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

    Ladies and gentlemen, every generation of Americans doesn’t create freedom, but they have, in many respects, a harder job. They have to maintain freedom.

    Your charge tonight — your charge tonight here in Missouri — because we’re not done yet with you here in Missouri. You’ve got a caucus coming up next month — is to go out and pledge, pledge — no, not your lives. Maybe your fortune. RickSantorum.com is the website.

    But your honor, the honor that you stand on, on the backs and the shoulders of your ancestors. The people here in St. Louis, the people here in Missouri, the people across this country who sacrificed for this country, for the freedoms we have. America’s honor, your honor is at stake. Go out and preserve the greatest country in the history of the world.

    link

  45. “. But you knew that already, right, moron?”

    yea i’m a moron in believing that the muslim/islam thing is an idiot “religion”? you go ottaman turks dude. me i’m going with the idiot “religion” of the proggs. less female surgeries. nor luap 2012!!11!!

  46. geoffb posted on 2/8 @ 10:22 pm

    And when Paul decided to give all his delegates to Romney, I think a whole lot of heads are going to explode.

    Of course, many Reason libertarians were pumping up Obama last election, so who knows. Crazy shit happening out there.

    My thesis which I expressed a while back is that the Progressive left has more recently done to the Libertarian Party what they did in the late 60?s early 70?s to the Democrats. Infiltrated their own true believers into it, got some control of positions of power within the Party structure and twisted/nudged the whole thing into alignment with the aims of the Progressives in the Democrats.

    What is left there is simply a tool for the left to use when needed. All those who believed what the Party stood for in say the 80?s have either themselves left, been neutered or have been purged. Potemkin Party is what it is.

    Sex Drugs and Rock and Roll will have that affect.
    I mean, no self-respecting libertarian whose brain wasn’t fried roasted and stewed would be making a case for Romney, would they?

  47. “hey how’s that iraq/afaghan thing is working out? you go grrl. effin idiots.”

    How’d Pan Am Flight 103 work out? USS Cole?

    At least in A&I we killed them back. I bet they both would be doing better if we had a President Fred Thompson(or Giuliani) now too…

  48. “After “hey how’s that iraq/afaghan thing” has been stumbling along in the hands of Barack Obama for the last three years, ”

    hey let’s give it to this guy:

    Below is a clip of former House Speaker and GOP presidential frontrunner Newt Gingrich, in which he dubs himself a “Realpolitik Wilsonian.”

    link

    i luvs some progg wilsonian/obama realism in the mourning

  49. “How’d Pan Am Flight 103 work out? USS Cole? ”

    well nuke the bastards. you folks don’t want to kill people who hide behind innocent people. me i don’t give two turds about muslims or islam. they’re fighting for their beliefs and so am i.

  50. I’ve no idea what you’re talking about newrouter, quoting me on the one hand and then talking about “giving it” to Newt Gingrich. Really, what the fuck are you smoking?

  51. Thanks for the link Jeff. Off to watch.

  52. what funny is the effin muslim in chief shutting down the oil pipeline for the saudi bastards he bowed too. unreal. buy squid™ pitchforks

  53. “After “hey how’s that iraq/afaghan thing” has been stumbling along in the hands of Barack Obama for the last three years, not so goddamn well, thanks very much. But you knew that already, right, moron?”

    ok try again

  54. What does Realpolitik Wilsonian even mean?

    I know Beck hates Newt, and others too have pointed out his glowing references to Theodore and FD Roosevelt with contempt, but I have a nagging feeling you need a whole lotta context to understand what he is really getting at.

  55. “I’ve no idea what you’re talking about newrouter, quoting me on the one hand and then talking about “giving it” to Newt Gingrich. Really, what the fuck are you smoking?”

    hey link it if you got stuff. such as:

    http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=33632#comment-1163927

  56. “me i don’t give two turds about muslims or islam. they’re fighting for their beliefs and so am i.”

    You were also the one asking how Afghanistan and Iraq were working out.

    You might just be high enough where you don’t need to do no more. Of whatever. Just saying…

  57. Okay, I’ve read the articles now. Nate Nelson is a confused young man (at least I hope for his sake he’s young).

    It could be that Zach made no mention of left-libertarians or market anarchists in his piece because they are currently a minority within a minority, a small contingent of libertarians. But there’s reason to believe that won’t be the case forever. As we’ve seen in the Occupy Wall Street protests, many younger Americans are just as alarmed by the power of big business as they are by big government. Market anarchists would argue that the two go hand in hand, that government will always favor big business and that big business will always be looking for a handout from government. Market anarchism could find a receptive audience among younger generations, and if so it could have a much greater impact on the libertarian movement further down the road than it is having today.

    At the end of the day, I agree with Zach that anarchism is impractical and thus undesirable whether we’re talking about Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, Proudhonian mutualism, or Tuckerite market anarchism. But we ignore the ideas of market anarchists at our peril.

    They’re offering a critique of crony capitalism that one doesn’t often find among more right-leaning libertarians and alternatives that — however infeasible they may be — could appeal to a younger demographic. If minarchist libertarians are going to compete with them, we’re going to have to deal substantively with both their critique of crony capitalism and the alternatives they offer. We should consider incorporating some of their more feasible ideas into our agenda. And we should above all shift our focus away from fighting statist socialism, which is not a serious threat in the United States, and toward combating big government capitalism.

    But Bain Capital would seem to be untainted by big-government/big business cronyism:

    The race for the Republican presidential nomination has turned ugly over these past few weeks thanks primarily to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), whose campaigns have resorted to an “everything but the kitchen sink” smear campaign to destroy former Governor Mitt Romney (R-Mass.). Both Gingrich and Santorum have attacked Romney’s success in the private sector by criticizing his work at Bain Capital [....]Apparently fiscal restraint has now joined business success in this race’s growing list of taboos.

    In leveling these attacks against Romney, Gingrich and Santorum are engaging in a scorched earth campaign that could destroy the GOP’s chances of retaking the White House this year. Republicans don’t attack fellow Republicans for success in the private sector or practicing fiscal restraint because Democrats already do that so well. [....] Republicans should stand united in declaring these kinds of tactics off limits because they are attacks not only against Romney but against the very ideas of free market capitalism and fiscal restraint. Instead, Gingrich and Santorum have provided Obama with cover.

    Congressman Ron Paul[!] (R-Tex.) has stayed away from these scorched earth tactics, perhaps recognizing that attacks on free market capitalism and fiscal restraint won’t just hurt Romney but will also undermine the message of liberty the Paul campaign has been promoting.

    crazy shit indeed

  58. Thanks Ernst.

    In a sorta OT:

    This was written Tuesday Feb 7th. I’ve inserted the actual results in bold after the polling company’s weekend poll numbers. Question, Is there any reason to believe this outfit on any poll from now on?

    In a survey by Public Policy Polling, an independent but Democratic-leaning firm, Mr. Santorum was in first place there in the last week of January, leading Mr. Romney by 45 percent [55.2%] to 34 percent [25.3%], although the firm’s interviews were actually conducted before the boost Mr. Romney may have received from his blowout Florida win Jan. 31.
    [...]
    A Public Policy Polling survey released over the weekend showed a tight battle for the Minnesota contest, with Mr. Santorum and Mr. Romney in a dead heat, 29 percent[16.9%] to 27 percent [45.0%], followed closely by Mr. Gingrich, at 22 percent [10.8%], and Texas Rep. Ron Paul, at 19 percent [27.1%].
    [...]
    Colorado looked like a better bet for Mr. Romney, with a weekend poll depicting him with a substantial lead over Mr. Santorum, 40 percent [34.9%] to 26 percent [40.3%].

    That’s just pitiful or more likely since they are “Democrat leaning” purposefully done.

  59. “What does Realpolitik Wilsonian even mean?”

    maybe go to iraq kill a dictator, build a boondoggle of an embassy, decide that its not worth the effort, give afghanistan back to the peeps you took it from, wonder why osama bin laden is in pakistan, stop talking about islam in your bureaucracy et al: definition supplied. we need more harvard/yale peeps!!11!!

  60. “You were also the one asking how Afghanistan and Iraq were working out. ”

    yea asking ’cause that effin idiot bush didn’t finish the job. passed it to his good progg friend baracky. how’s it going dude? i ain’t covering for the asshole bush clan anymore. you?

  61. At the end of the day, I agree with Zach that anarchism is impractical and thus undesirable whether we’re talking about Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, Proudhonian mutualism, or Tuckerite market anarchism. But we ignore the ideas of market anarchists at our peril.

    You know there is supposed other area of the political landscape that has the same, “how many angels are on that pin from this view”, way about their speech. Some of them currently “occupy” the WH while others do it in the street for the theatrical effects.

  62. Oh. Acually, I was wondering how Newt would define Realpolitik Wilsonian. Kind of a rhetorical question really.

    As for your definition, it seemed to conflate Bush and Obama more than getting at what Newt meant by the term.

  63. NR, you didn’t swipe that box wine from cynn, did you?

  64. “Oh. Acually, I was wondering how Newt would define Realpolitik Wilsonian. Kind of a rhetorical question really. ”

    Newt Gingrich: I’m a Wilsonian

  65. Nelson is a Libertarian for Romney. Largely, it would seem, in the hopes that Romney will be willing to pander to libertarians, perhaps by including a more libertarian friendly Republican on the ticket.

    Faced with a choice between Romney and Gingrich, it would seem that Romney is the better option for libertarians. [....] Romney … is a Washington outsider with experience as a businessman in the private sector. He has offered a more consistent and coherent limited government platform than Gingrich has offered. And as an added bonus, he was elected governor of a state that has been dominated by Democrats for decades.

  66. “NR, you didn’t swipe that box wine from cynn, did you?”

    nah just say fu to texas losers named bush. that is all.

  67. “i ain’t covering for the asshole bush clan anymore. you?”

    I never felt I ever was “covering” for them.

    There were reasons to criticize W, but he was a better president than any since Reagan, including his daddy. And quite a few before.

  68. “Romney … is a Washington outsider with experience as a businessman in the private sector.”

    effin delusional ax zombie kennedy?

  69. “There were reasons to criticize W, but he was a better president than any since Reagan”

    bull feces. the only reason we didn’t fight back is because of the mbm. that ain’t the case anymore. the time to battle the proggs is now!

  70. Caucuses are a right bitch to poll geoff. Also I think the Gingrich Romney back and forth is taking it’s toll on them both.

    Long may they keep it up!

  71. BS? OK, minus Reagan, who was the last president better than W?

  72. effin delusional ax zombie kennedy?

    Well, the advantage to repeatedly failing at your attempts to become an insider is you get to call yourself an outsider.

  73. The business of our nation goes forward. These United States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions. We suffer from the longest and one of the worst sustained inflations in our national history. It distorts our economic decisions, penalizes thrift, and crushes the struggling young and the fixed-income elderly alike. It threatens to shatter the lives of millions of our people. 3
    Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, causing human misery and personal indignity. Those who do work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from maintaining full productivity. 4
    But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children’s future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. 5
    You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation? 6
    We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding—we are going to begin to act, beginning today. 7
    The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we, as Americans, have the capacity now, as we have had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom. 8
    In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem.
    From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price. 10
    We hear much of special interest groups. Our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and our factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we are sick—professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truckdrivers. They are, in short, “We the people,” this breed called Americans. 11
    Well, this administration’s objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunity for all Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination. Putting America back to work means putting all Americans back to work. Ending inflation means freeing all Americans from the terror of runaway living costs. All must share in the productive work of this “new beginning” and all must share in the bounty of a revived economy. With the idealism and fair play which are the core of our system and our strength, we can have a strong and prosperous America at peace with itself and the world.

    link

  74. “OK, minus Reagan, who was the last president better than W?”

    clinton then coolidge

  75. oh please w sux. domestically he effed internationally. the bs horn was good but over the long haul gwb sux sean penn.

  76. Clinton? The guy that ran from Somalia, segregated our intelligence agencies, and thereby set us up for 9/11? The guy that gave all our missile technology to China? The guy that implemented the strategy of forcing banks to give home loans to deadbeats? The fella that let newt force him into a balanced budget?

    That Clinton?

  77. the texas oil guys that gwb represent suck. we don’t need these aholes anymore. butt they’re dc butt boys and need to be serviced. oh allan let’s hold hands. oh we need the romney to keep this bs enterprise going. senate committee ships little peeps.

  78. Oh, and Alito and Roberts…

  79. “Oh, and Alito and Roberts…”

    santorum and his 18 point defeat did that not the effing bush. next.

  80. Santorum and his 18 point defeat did what now?

  81. “The fella that let newt force him into a balanced budget?”

    the asshole texan balanced what? oh yea medicare part b/c/d/e/f/g and nclb. those ted kennedy things are fun

    w romney early

  82. I like Texas oil guys. Wish I was one. Oh well, I’ll just burn their oil in solidarity.

  83. Texas asshole? I thought you were talking about the Arkansas whore monger. Best president since Coolidge!

  84. santorum and his 18 point defeat did that not the effing bush. next.

    the effing bush. lead to an 18 point defeat for santorum. don’t join loser karltherover stuff

  85. texas asholes like t pickens, rick perry, gwb, kay bailey hutch, ross perot. texas sux. k street losers.

  86. “newrouter posted on 2/9 @ 12:18 am

    “Oh, and Alito and Roberts…”

    santorum and his 18 point defeat did that not the effing bush. next.”

    What did Santorum have to do with Bush giving us two great SCJ’s?

  87. Good grief. It’s like an Abbott and Costello skit. I surrender!

  88. What do you think will happen to the Supreme Court if Barack Obama is reelected?

  89. “What did Santorum have to do with Bush giving us two great SCJ’s?”

    “Senator Arlen Specter was the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee when Rick Santorum was in the senate. Being the sneaky opportunistic little devil that Specter was he pretty much blackmailed Santorum, saying if you support my reelection bid I will support whichever Supreme Court nominees that Pres. Bush picks. The fact that Specter was the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee meant that he had a lot of power over who was going to make it out of the committee. So, yes, Santorum supported Specter over Toomey. Santorum knew that his decision to do so would be a greater benefit in the long run to both conservatism and the pro-life movement. Now, we have Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts, two conservative strict constructionists that will be on the Supreme Court for a very long time which will benefit us for years to come”
    http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/2012/01/thank-you-rick-santorum-if-it-wasnt-for.html

  90. “What did Santorum have to do with Bush giving us two great SCJ’s?”

    eff bush santorum took the heat. the ahole bush nominated effin harriet minors

  91. “What did Santorum have to do with Bush giving us two great SCJ’s?”

    oh gwbullshit nominated harriet and meyers and a karltherover

  92. What do you think will happen to the Supreme Court if Barack Obama is reelected?

    About the same as if Romney is elected. Gingrich might do slightly better, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

  93. As well as targeting Rick Santorum, the vanguard elements of the Left are also seeking to target his ‘wealthy donors’ – one Foster Friess of Wyoming, the gentleman funding Santorum’s supporting super PAC, the Red, White and Blue fund. Mr. Friess is, it seems, a Good Man who will now be targeted by the assholic Left, just as they have targeted the Koch brothers.

  94. And while I’m not a social con, I’ve on a number of occasions now pointed out how I think a social con, in a leftist Utopia, is the perfect type to beat back government intrusion into liberties, because practicing his faith the way he wishes and with a clean conscience appears to depend on it.

    Yes. Perfectly stated. Seems that people who would attack issues dear to SoCons also would have no qualms going after any ideology that matters to stability and structure and that includes the principles that went into framing our nation, written so well into our Constitution. Oh, and those sorts seem to favor Marx and Friends over our own group of founding patriots.

  95. This is disheartening…

    In every case except the match-up against Ron Paul, more than 20 percent of Republican voters said they are more likely to support Obama than the Republican challenger. And Ron Paul is close, as 19 percent of Republicans said they are more likely to support Obama than Paul.

    Making the situation more bleak for opponents of Obama, independent voters are apparently quite put off with the Republican nomination fight. While polls last fall showed them leaning Republican by roughly a two-to-one margin, they are now either split evenly or favoring Obama.

    Sigh. Four more years.

  96. what funny is the effin muslim in chief shutting down the oil pipeline for the saudi bastards he bowed too

    Who gave newrouter the jalapeno and LSD enema? Seriously, NR, you are spouting all kinds of delusional crap, here.

    Not beginning or ending with “muslim in chief”. There isn’t much that I like about Obama, but none of the things that I think he can legitimately be faulted for have anything to do with Islam being his religion. Which it isn’t.

    You sound like my mother-in-law.

  97. What do you think will happen to the Supreme Court if Barack Obama is reelected?

    Not much. Ginsburg might go and be replaced with a carbon copy. Now if we’d had a conservative instead of Obama last time, then we’d have been getting somewhere.

  98. RomneyCare and ObamaCare are hardly the first examples of big government intervention in the health care market.

    Yeah man… like…pot is like… a beagle… an’ all… and it’s like natural… and like… you love god, but god put pot here… so like… we should like smoke it… and that’s why I am, like…like… a librarian. IT’S A CONSPIRACY!

  99. In every case except the match-up against Ron Paul, more than 20 percent of Republican voters said they are more likely to support Obama than t

    Umnnn … no. I give that poll about zero chances of being correct.

  100. Umnnn … no. I give that poll about zero chances of being correct.

    They were polling Republican voters in Chicago — who are invariably dead and vote Democrat.

  101. Right after the libertarian concern troll link Insty had a link to Inhofe asking us to listen to the libertarins. Guess who Senator Inhofe is supporting?

    The four areas are fiscal (budget deficits, which Inhofe blames entirely on Barack Obama), the decline of the military, energy production, and the rapid growth of the regulatory regime. Inhofe says the best candidate of the four remaining to deal with all four issues is … Rick Santorum.

  102. motionview, I thought it was De Mint was the one asking us to listen to the libertarians.

  103. Libertarians who speak of free markets garner my attention, ‘libertarians’ who purport that “statist socialism” is somehow distinguishable from “big government capitalism” do not.

  104. When you’ve lost Gabe Malor…

  105. It’s a WorldNetDaily poll, and it says Ron Paul would lose fewer voters to Obama than any of the others. I question the respondent pool.

  106. ..and now I see that Crawford nailed it in #102.

  107. When you’ve lost Gabe Malor…

    It’s a net positive?

  108. So is Malor telling us Santorum isn’t a true conservative because he’s not pure enough (on whatever it is he’s supposed to be pure on)?

  109. Remember, for every 1 person who reads me, 50 read Malor these days.

    Rejoice.

  110. On the plus side, Jeff, Malor’s being attacked (even by his own co-bloggers) in the comments for this.

  111. John —

    One person not attacking him is a former regular commenter here (she still sometimes makes an appearance), Sarah W. To her, Santorum’s suggestion that states have a constitutional right to ban contraception — that is, to make a stupid law — is insane.

    SarahW left here discouraged by my many arguments about language: she insisted on textualism and tried desperately to beat back intentionalism (I particularly remember her strident suggestion that, if something looks like an Islamic crescent than that’s what it is; arguments that it was intended as an arch don’t matter. People might get offended!). I believe she wound up over at the DDAs place, and also at Ace’s, where textualism is often vigorously defended.

    And herein once again we see the inherent flaw in the lawyerly/ textualist mindset: the Constitution is great until it allows something about which you are OUTRAGED, at which point the courts should naturally step in and make the correction.

    This is the precise kind of thinking that allows us to pretend that we’re free and engaged in politics; but in reality, it’s just the courts letting us play up to and until the smart set have to step in and tell the masses in their hater states that they have to comply with “rights” that simply don’t exist in the federal Constitution.

    And every time someone purporting to be on our side backs such a weakening of the Constitution and such a power grab by the federal judiciary, we take yet another step toward our own demise.

    Ironically, Santorum’s opinion on Griswold is academic: what state is going to outlaw contraception these days? The question is, who has the right to make the law, and who has jurisdiction over its enforcement?

  112. motionview —

    It was Demint saying listen to libertarians. Inhofe is a very staunch conservative, the guy who made the conservative argument for earmarks that Gabriel Malor is telling us is enough, b/c Santorum shares the argument, that we should dismiss Santorum out of hand.

  113. Are you on the Santorum train, then, J0hn?

    Excellent. Big tent!

  114. Honestly, Jeff, until Tuesday I could even read/follow the news. With Santorum’s winS, I am a tad more heartened.

  115. I had been considering just going completely blog-cold turkey. Michelle’s Mirror was about all I could stand to read.

  116. The greasy public union fucks in Ohio put signs in their yards to the effect of “Repeal SB5: Your life could depend on it.”

    Dickwad firemen in TV commercials talking about how SB5 was going to make it impossibele to “put your fire out old lady.”

    So I personally would like to see Santorum talk about public unions in the manner they deserve. Bloated, beak-dipping protection rackets, destroying state economies in order to preserve they’re own economic status.

  117. The longer this goes the worse it gets for Mittens. His big money backers have known this from the git go, hence their scorched Earth approach.

    They will drive the party into the ground rather than lose the reins.

  118. Sorry about Inhofe / Demint confusion, I think of both of them as pretty staunch. I’m having a hard time this morning seeing through the rage at the moderates preparing to split the party because a conservative might take the nomination. Their loyalty to their cultural clique (of which I am a part) is more important to them than defeating the main enemy.

  119. I’m cool with the moderate Repubs bolting out of cultural clique loyalty, motionview. Because as I said way back 3 years ago with the OUTLAW thing, I suspect they can be replaced by the kinds of Democrats that have come over to the TEA Party.

    It’s a new coalition. Call it classical liberalism — but at base, it’s a fundamental agreement about the relationship between the individual and the State, and I think (and always have) that it has cross party appeal, especially once many Democrats realize that the Democrat Party of today is run by the very same people who in the 60s and 70s announced their absolute hatred for traditional “liberal” (in the actual sense, not in the contemporary sense) Democrats.

  120. In a perfect world, I’d get a candidate who:

    1) recognizes the Constitution intended to limit the powers of federal authority and acted accordingly.

    2) understands that when times are tough, everyone (including) the federal government must cut back.

    3) is an articulate spokesman for his principles. You must have principles and believe in them deeply to articulate them clearly.

    4) actually wants to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution.

    5) generally wants people to be free to do whatever they want within the limits of the Constitution.

    Since we’re not living in a perfect world, I go with the candidate who comes closest and that’s Santorum.

  121. That’s pretty much my thinking as well, John.

  122. John, I think Ron Paul also meets your five items. You may want to add

    6) Is not bugfuknutz crazy

  123. So I personally would like to see Santorum talk about public unions in the manner they deserve. Bloated, beak-dipping protection rackets, destroying state economies in order to preserve they’re own economic status.

    I too am interested in Santorum’s positions regarding the public union vs. state government fights. I haven’t heard him stress this yet (for obvious reasons, I guess), but as he moves toward campaigns in Ohio and Michigan now, and Wisconsin or Arizona later, he’s going to be pressed to articulate his views. How his benign stance toward private sector labor unions in the past translates to these newer issues will be something to watch.

  124. DL, duly noted and amended. For some reason, I always expect to hear the good Dr. Paul yell “They’re always after me Lucky Charms!”

  125. I’d also add anyone who doesn’t believe and practice the Gipper’s nine most terrifying words is immediately disqualified. Sayonara, Mitt and Newt!

  126. Rick Santorum Is Right

    He just lacks a bit of nuance in a stump speech.

  127. Santorum gets his very own web banner from the Romney campaign. Money grubbing Catholic eh?

  128. Santorum’s right; here’s the demonstration in one graph. Shown are the US unemployment rate, US deficit as %GDP, and normalized oil prices. Oil trades in a pretty narrow band from 1986 – 2006, then prices are driven sky-high, with the US deficit and unemployment rate trailing right behind.

  129. Hey, if any of you are having too pleasant a day, go peruse the comments on Gabe’s Santorum post.

    Back when I used to read Ace’s Smart Military Blog I thought the “moron” identification was just a bit of self-deprecating humor. Now — all too apt.

    You could find a calmer, better-reasoned discussion in YouTube comments.

  130. Some are kinda neat.

  131. Mostly it’s a confused mess of people throwing “Big Government conservative” back and forth like fellow-travellers cursing the “running-dog capitalists.”

  132. People like Sarah W, that claim Santorum isn’t electable, make me wonder. If Santorum is the candidate, will she vote for him?

    I mean, we’re always obliged to concede that if Willard is the candidate, yes, I’ll vote for him. I like to see that thrown back at’em.

    Of course, it’s always at that point when they sputter about independents and electability. Also, an impenetrable barrier is erected against any arguments for principle. They are blind to the difference between winning on election day, and winning during the days after election day.

    Trading Obama for a sober version of Ted Kennedy with an R on his chest might be a win in November, but it won’t be a win for 2012.

  133. I mean, we’re always obliged to concede that if Willard is the candidate, yes, I’ll vote for him. I like to see that thrown back at’em.

    What I’ve been doing, when told that a refusal to vote for His Electable Inevitableness in November is a vote for Obama, is point out that, no, at this stage of the game every vote to give Romney the GOP nomination is a vote to re-elect Obama.

    They don’t like that.

  134. Here’s the thing. Both Romney and Santorum should be evaluated on their own. Pointing out Santorum’s flaws should not be countered by saying either “Yeah, but Romney…” or “Yeah, but Newt…”.

    The fact of the matter is that Rick Santorum is a big government, GWB style “compassionate conservative”. It is almost weekly that I read conservatives arguing with liberals who claim we conservatives had no problem increasing the deficit so long as George W. Bush was doing it. To which we respond, “Well, GWB was not an actual conservative”.

    And neither is Rick Santorum. Period. No “But Mitt…” or “But Newt…” required. That is a plain and simple fact.

    So I ask you, what are the biggest issues facing this country in 2012 ? Fiscal, you say ? The debt, the budget, the deficit ? You think a big government “compassionate conservative” is the way to go ? Really ?

    I sure as hell won’t vote for Santorum in the primary and I’ll be really interested to see how he answers the charges of “theocrat” if he is the nominee before I vote for either him or Obama.

  135. Aw, but deadrody — Big Tent!

    A failure to vote for Santorum is a vote for Obama!

Leave a Reply