Before last week, I confess, I had pretty much ignored Rick Santorum. To me, he was just that former Senate culture warrior who had gotten his clock cleaned by Bob Casey in 2006.
But like a lot of people, I started paying attention to him after Iowa. And you know what? He said some stuff I really liked in the debate Saturday night.
(Meanwhile, I was less than enchanted by some of Jon Huntsman’s statements. For instance, I do wish he’d stop going on and on about term limits…)
My very favorite thing I heard Rick Santorum say was this, in response to Ron Paul:
I’m a conservative. I’m not a libertarian.
Wow. True, not all Republicans are libertarians, but when was the last time you heard one of them stand up and renounce that ideology? And then go on to say… you need to sit down before you hear this:
I believe in some government.
He actually said that! He dares to be a pre-2010 Republican! I just wanted to reach into the TV and shake his hand. Imagine, speaking truth to Ron Paul that way!
Earlier in the debate, he had done something even better. He pointed out that governing and running a business are two different things, and that being a CEO didn’t actually qualify you to be president!
I had gotten so used to Republicans either trying to sound like Mark Sanford or at least being afraid not to sound like Mark Sanford, that these statements were like a balm upon my soul.
And it reminded me — I always have liked the “values” conservatives more than the radical libertarians. (To my ears, “God and Country” sounds a whole lot better than “I, Me, Mine.”) And in general, more than the old school country-clubbers.
Maybe there’s a political future for guys like Bob Inglis yet. I hope so…
Related Posts
I did hear him make the point that governing and being CEO are different and was SHOCKED in a good way. I believe I came out of the kitchen and said to my husband, “I actually agree with that.” The jury is still out though. So far, with as much as I’m only casually aware of, my sense is that his history of lunacy is longer than his history of sanity. We’ll see. I haven’t listened very hard yet either.
This isn’t surprising to me, Brad. Catholic, generally social conservative … I get that you don’t hold much quarter for the culture warrior part, but generally, it’s not surprising that his thinking and yours might be somewhat similar. Please note that’s just an observation, not a criticism at all.
None taken.
How do you feel about this? ‘Cause it seems like crazy talk to me.
“One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea … Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘Well, that’s okay … contraception’s okay.’
“It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act.
I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues.”
http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2012/01/rick-santorum-the-dangers-of-contraception-in-this-country.html
“Our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God’s law.” says Santorum. So, he believes in Sharia law?
This man is a “values” candidate? What values are we talking about here?
Paul is a radical candidate, but so is Santorum. And just because he repudiates anarchists doesn’t mean he is any less so.
Rick Santorum: pledge signer. Remember that?
But he did say that thing that time about how he believes in some government. Good candidate, hmm.
Pledge signer? It can’t be! Ron Paul says he’s a wild-eyed, free-spending socialist, and you know he wouldn’t lie to me.
Ron Paul wouldn’t lie to you — unless it about a few particular newsletters.
And Santorum can be a big-spender unfettered by that pledge. Republicans don’t seem to me to believe there is any relationship between taxes and spending. Low taxes for all and deficits don’t matter! It’s the American way.
@David
What do the newsletters from 20 years ago say? Have you read them or do you just get your opinions spoonfed to you?
I do respect Santorum far more than Romney or Gingrich. Not for his policies but simply because he does seem to actually believe what he says.
“I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money. And provide for themselves and their families. The best way to do that is to get the manufacturing sector of the economy rolling again.”
So black people are only suited for manufacturing jobs? No teachers, doctors, businessmen/women?
Oh WAIT! He didn’t say “black people,” he said BLAH people!
“I looked at that, and I didn’t say that,” Santorum told O’Reilly. “If you look at it, what I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of — blah — came out. And people said I said, ‘Black.’ I didn’t.”
I think the Blah people are the same ones Andre Bauer referred to as “stray animals.”
“What do the newsletters from 20 years ago say? Have you read them or do you just get your opinions spoonfed to you?”
Well typically, Doug, I like my opinions spoonfed to me because forming them myself is hard and hurts my brain.
But I did feel the need to read the relevant portions of the newsletters. And that is for two reasons. First, though I certainly don’t agree at all with a significant number of his positions, I think Paul’s candidacy is a net positive. He challenges his party on many issues that otherwise go unchallenged. And many of these are issues (such as this, this, this, this, and this) that are bipartisan in nature and/or are unlikely to be brought forward in the general election by President Obama. And it’s hard to say Ron Paul’s candidacy is a net positive without judging all aspects of that candidacy.
And second, something I, like many people, find appealing in a candidate for any office is earnestness. I don’t feel that Paul came to his positions out of convenience, but because he believes they are right. And he doesn’t tend to criticize — or withhold criticism — based on party affiliation. I like that. You yourself, in another comment, brought up how some NH exit poll showed voters felt he had the most respected moral character. And I think Paul’s response to these newsletters is very relevant to his moral character.
So yeah, I did read them — anyone can. And they (see here or here, for instance), and perhaps more importantly his recent responses to them, should be weighed by anyone considering his candidacy, in my opinion.
What Gary Karr said, except that I do think something’s wrong with it.
I believe that Santorum’s conservatve hard Catholic line on contraception is especially harmful to women. I am a feminist, and dang proud of it. The “good old days” of unwanted pregnancies and overly large families and “barefoot and pregnant” are where Santorum and those who agree with him would put us.