America's Anti-Reagan Isn't Hillary Clinton.It's Rick Santorum.

[TheLongshot]

I don't think, on the surface, that most people here would disagree with the goals. The devil is in the details, tho. The problem is, everyone has a different idea of what "morality" and "family" means. Who's definition are we going to use? Santorum's? I can't say I agree with that.

I'm also a big proponent of personal rights: I should be able to do whatever I want to do as long as I'm not harming other people. That, of course, has a lot of grey area as far as "harm" goes, and there are limits, like mental compency.

It is funny, but these views seem to be way out to the far left. Supress the individual, do what is right for society? The difference being, I guess, that the government isn't going to help you if you fall down, taking personal responsibility to the extreme. Problem is, people failing isn't good for society either. So, what do we do with such people? At least in that snippet, Santorum doesn't have an answer...

Jason

[twist]

I don't know if I'd call Santorum despicable, but he does scare the heck out of me. I've followed his career since his freshman term and from day one he's held a very cavalier attitude about the government's role in enforcing morality. I think that's a very dangerous road to travel, and needs to be approached with far more care than Santorum is apparently willing to give.

Well I will call him despicable, and dangerous. I’ve followed his career as well; the man is a preverse politician, I really can't understand him, and he seems to stand for every principle that I dislike.

Some quotes for you to consider:

Santorum in criticism of Bill Clinton’s action in Bosnia:

“[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”

Santorum trying to feign criticism of the Iraq war:

"I have concerns, as everybody does - and I'm sure the President does - about how effective every aspect of this policy has been. And I've been critical of certain aspects of that policy."

Of course he has never had a published statement against the Iraq war. And, when confronted with this fact he said:

"I do a lot of interviews on TV, on radio, with print reporters who don't happen to write everything I say," Santorum said yesterday. "The fact that it hasn't turned up in print doesn't mean I haven't said it."

:laugh:

Santorum on Liberty:

Rick Santorum says that the "liberal" view of freedom is "not the kind of freedom our founders envisioned." Elaborating, he says "It is an entire culture that focus (sic) on immediate gratification and the pursuit of happiness and personal pleasure. And it is harming America."

Forgetting of course this little line:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Oh well.... :doh: I guess the pursuit of happiness isn't all that important to me.

Here is a 180 degree turn on whether "intelligent design" is worthwhile science. Santorum is quite funny on this one.

"Research has shown that the odds that even one small protein molecule has been created by chance is 1 in a billion. Thus, some larger force or intelligence, or what some call agent causation, seems like a viable cause for creating information systems such as the coding of DNA. A number of scientists contend that alternate theories regarding the origins of the human species — including that of a greater intelligence — are possible.

Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes.

"Yet, opponents of intelligent design contend that by including the theory in the new teaching standards, the separation of church and state will be weakened. This is false. Proponents of intelligent design are not trying to teach religion via science, but are trying to establish the validity of their theory as a scientific alternative to Darwinism."

When asked about it on NPR:

"I think I would probably tailor that a little more than what the president has suggested...I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom."

So I’m confused

When the Supreme Court said that consensual sex between two adult men was not the business of local authorities:

AP: "OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?"

SANTORUM: "We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does."

It gets better:

It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold—Griswold was the contraceptive case—and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you—this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

Strangely enough he expands this to say that Grinswold was wrongly decided!

YOU DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE BIRTH CONTROLL IF THE STATE SAYS YOU DON'T!

Go look for yourself: http://santorumexposed.com/serendipity/exit.php?url=aHR0cDovL3NhbnRvcnVtZXhwb3NlZC5jb20vdmlkZW8vZ3Jpc3dvbGQud212&entry_id=42

Tell me if that doesn’t load up for you and you want to see it because it is really really really really telling.

More Santorum on Liberty:

SANTORUM: "And that’s sort of where we are in today’s world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we’re seeing it in our society."

So, no, I’m not sure what Santorum's actual position is on "liberty".

I think any position concerning liberty is in fact, liberty if you agree with him, government oppression if you do not.

[Predicto]

I have pretty much decided that Rick Santorum is my most reliable means of judging the value of anything. Basicially, if Santorum is for it, I'm against it, and if he is against it, I am for it. It works out a good 98 percent of the time.

[Prosperity]

Good post Twist, we have to call the monster by what it is. Santorum is a dispicable human being. Whats worse is I don't know if he is catering to the completely idiotic crowd that votes for him or if he actually believes his own BS.

[twist]

Good post Twist, we have to call the monster by what it is. Santorum is a dispicable human being. Whats worse is I don't know if he is catering to the completely idiotic crowd that votes for him or if he actually believes his own BS.

It is hard to say what he actually believes, because, like a typical "dust in the wind" politician, he changes them to suit the audience and the party line implications. He seems to believe some of it, which is enough for me. His devout Catholicism is admirable in and of itself, but I don't want the state to rise and fall on his intolerance.

I don't understand why what the man actually says, and says he believes, doesn’t get a huge amount of press coverage. I think because of the popularity of what he wants to enforce with government coercion, the coercion is overlooked by many. I think because of the unpopularity of the people he attacks, the attacks on their freedom are overlooked.

His book tour was to try to smooth over some of his rough edges, because he is already trailing in the polls to his likely challenger. Try to make his idea of "liberty" sound more workable. Try to move him over a smidge to the left and pick up the swing voters. If he keeps everything in broad sweeping generalizations people are less likely to disagree with him.

When he advocates that we deserve no protection from the government when it outlaws birth control, something tells me he doesn’t have the same idea of liberty as I do.