By The Right Scoop


People continue to say that Santorum has a problem with the Tea Party based on a sliced and diced video released by TownHall from a 2010 speech at the Pennsylvania Press Club. But the truth is he absolutely does not. I’ve tried to address this before, and I while I think it was sufficient, I admittedly was lacking a bit of context. Finally, we have the transcript from that event thanks to VoicesEmpower that offers definitive proof that Santorum had concerns about the libertarian movement trying to refashion conservatism within BOTH the Tea Party and the Republican Party.

Below is a photo from the video and the transcript:

Transcript from PA Press Club 05/24/10 PCN-TV:

24:05 Pennsylvania Press Club Moderator:
Should the Public Accommodations Section of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill be open for revision?

24:11-25:35 Rick Santorum:
No. Look I supported Trey Grayson over Rand Paul and there was a reason for that … I am not a Libertarian and I fight very strongly against Libertarian influence in the Republican party and the conservative movement. I don’t think the Libertarians have it right when it comes to what the Constitution is all about. I don’t think they have it right as to what our history is and we are not a group of people who believe in no government. We are a people that believes that government has a role to play: federal government has a role to play, state government has a role to play and local government has a role to play; and when there are clear wrongs in society, when there are injustices in society, sure you handle it at the local level if you can, but when the local and state level are in cahoots with the injustice, then the federal government has to step in and do something; and I’m just hopeful that is a mistake that will be corrected by Mr. Paul, but as I’ve said before, I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party Movement to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it and do my best to correct the record.

When you put it in context, it was absolutely about the libertarian movement as represented by the controversy between Rand Paul and Rachel Maddow on civil rights in 2010. The whole ordeal was spawned by Rand Paul’s comments, and Santorum was merely responding to them.

So once again, Santorum does NOT have any concerns about the Tea Party per this video. Please pass this around so people get the truth about what was actually stated.

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

    Thanks RS! I have been having the same argument over at other sites. The video is clear that the context is about libertarianism within and not about the Tea Party itself.

    When I first heard that Santorum had issues with the Tea Party, I found it hard to believe. So, I had to dig and dig, finding video with enough context to conclude exactly what you have stated: Santorum has no issue with the Tea Party. In fact, he resonates well with the Tea Party.

    For those who need a lesson on Santorum’s fiscal conservatism here is a link to read http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/was-santorum-senate-spendthrift_629850.html

    Thanks again RS for all your hard work

  • Yazz55

    Mr Santorum does sound at least somewhat like a libertarian. Nothing wrong with that.

    Perhaps folks are too focused on labels, rather than what a person stands for.

    • jollyjellybean

      All conservatives are somewhat liberterian in their views, mostly fiscal. We part ways in the morality arena.

      • http://punditpawn.wordpress.com PunditPawn

        Sometimes in the reality arena, too. ;)

      • johnos2112

        And foreign policy.

      • http://twitter.com/ceolas Mary

        Actually, no. Conservatives are NOT somewhat ‘libertarian’ in their views, libertarians have sought to frame themselves as being supportive and in aid of preserving liberties, but they aren’t really. Libertarians are people who view liberties through the lens of what their rights are, but they don’t respect obligation for those rights to be reciprocated. They view rights as something to exploit, therefore they don’t actually believe in constitutional liberties.

        • MrMicawber

          Interesting Mary, would you please expand upon this?

        • nawlins72

          “Libertarians are people who view liberties through the lens of what their rights are, but they don’t respect obligation for those rights to be reciprocated. They view rights as something to exploit, therefore they don’t actually believe in constitutional liberties.”

          This makes no sense. Rights are reciprocal, so long as they are not hindered by force. How can one “exploit” their rights?

          • Winghunter

            “Libertarianism is to authentic conservatism what Barack Obama is to 19th century liberalism” http://bit.ly/vBBvkk

            • nawlins72

              What does this have to do with the questions above?

      • M_J_S

        Yes, the RuPaul types are for the Articles of Confederation, Conservatives stand for the Constitution.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2GR77FIJZ2A2ZBKZFGRXYG7QY4 kim

          Agree. Think this is the most concise definition I’ve heard. We got rid of the Articles for a reason.

          • M_J_S

            Hat tip to Mark Levin!

  • jollyjellybean

    Thank you RS. I am SICK of the lying about this in order to paint rick as some sort of Big Government shill. PATHETIC.

    • Winghunter

      What A Big Government Conservative Looks Like http://bit.ly/xzpdiV

      Santorum’s Redistribution of Wealth: A Massively Expanded Welfare State is ‘The Genuine Conservatism our Founders Envisioned’ http://bit.ly/A0FZeg

  • sebastianjer

    I agree with what you are saying, that Rick has no problem with the Tea Party in the way that most people have framed the discussion. However it is also true that there is a strong Libertarian influence within the Tea Party so he can not have it both ways. I support both Rick Santorum and Rand Paul and I do not feel this is contradictory. Traditional Conservatism can embrace many aspects of the Libertarian Movement without embracing all of it. If the GOP can not grasp this fundamental political necessity then they are indeed the stupid party and will go the way of the Whigs.

    • Major914

      I think its even more the case that libertarians will have to embrace the fact that conservatives and the Republican Party will never embrace all of libertarians’ goals–and will continue over the long term to embrace the opposite of some of them…

  • http://twitter.com/strngernfiction strangernfiction
  • DavidRobertson

    THIS is why Paul’s campaign bothers me. He releases these commercials that HE KNOWS are completely out of context, but he justifies it because the criticism is over Libertarianism vs. Conservatism, not Tea vs. Statist. He lies in his hit piece commercial, and then stands around like he is the only one telling people the truth! He decries propagandists. His followers cry “oh, hypocrite” in their posts and forums. He claims to be the purist, but his fruits are spoiled. Is it good politics to go negative? possibly at times. Just don’t pee on me and tell me it is raining.

    • nawlins72

      “He releases these commercials that HE KNOWS are completely out of context, but he justifies it because the criticism is over Libertarianism vs. Conservatism, not Tea vs. Statist.”

      Santorum is a statist.
      http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13978

      • DavidRobertson

        If Santorum is a statist, then your boy Paul is an anarchist. It cuts both ways ronulan

        • nawlins72

          “If Santorum is a statist, then your boy Paul is an anarchist. It cuts both ways ronulan”

          Lets assume that you’re correct about Paul, the description of Santorum still stands.

  • http://punditpawn.wordpress.com PunditPawn

    Right. He’s just for a smaller version of Government that does what he agrees with.

    Like Specter and Kagan. OK, no. That was sarcasm.

    And he disagrees ideologically with Pennsylvania except when he represents them, and wants you to believe he disagrees with Big government except maybe when he might be President.

    Rick Santorum… Kind of uncertain, but certainly not Romney-uncertain.

  • Jaynie59

    I’d like to know the context of Santorum going to South Carolina and campaigning against Jim DeMint at the same time DeMint was up for re-election. Yeah, I know it was Santorum defending earmarks, which doesn’t bother me because Jim Inhofe has also defended earmarks on Constitutional grounds that I agree with. So I’m not against earmarks. I think the Republicans should earmark every dime of every spending bill because otherwise the money gets spent however Obama’s administration wants to spend it.

    But to go out of his way, long after he was no longer in the Senate, to attack Jim DeMint in his home turf during a re-election campaign? That’s unforgivable. I hate Santorum for a whole lot of reasons I can’t defend because it just boils down to hate. I hate his face.

    But Jim DeMint? How could Santorum do such a thing?

    • http://www.facebook.com/markbuse Mark Buse

      Produce proof. Just because you said it happened does not make it so.

      • Jaynie59
        • GraceKnows

          I keep seeing the slogan that says Santorum was Tea Party before there was a Tea Party. And he and his campaign seem to be making a claim for having always been for the Tea Party. I remember that March day in 2009 when Tea Party rallies began to spring up everywhere. It was very exciting, but since that day until now, I don’t recall Rick Santorum having anything to do with them. Maybe now he has some Tea Party supporters, but the values that birthed the Tea Party seem opposed to a lot of what he believes.

          I’m not here to attack. I just think it’s disingenuous on Rick’s part to assume some kind of Tea Party mantle. It reminds me of the story of The Little Red Hen. The entire time she was baking bread, she asked for help in getting the ingredients together, grinding the flour, etc. No one wanted to help. ‘Not I,’ said the mouse, and so on. Then, when she had done all the work alone, and the bread came out of the oven, they all wanted some. But the little red hen said ‘No.”

          That’s how I feel about it. Newt Gingrich embodies the labor and the proof of all of his blood, sweat, and tears. He’s the one that I’m ready to follow into battle.

  • RefudiateObama2012

    Santorum is guilty of painting with too broad a brush. Rand Paul is NOT Ron Paul. Libertarians are not anarchists. Santorum is playing word games. The fact that he painted the Libertarians as favoring no government is dishonest. The fact that he’s now trying to claim that he was Tea Party before Tea Party existed is silly.

    Was he a big government leftist? No, he was a big government rightist. He certainly was a socon, but at best, he was a fiscal moderate. He was a GWB mini me.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

    I’ve been trying to tell people who keep bring this up trying to claim he was bad-mouthing the Tea Party, that Rick was talking about the libertarian wing of the tea party, even with the chopped up edited video, because of the questioned asked “Should the Public Accommodations Section of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill be open for revision?”. That’s a an issue brought up within libertarian movement. I think Rand Paul is a good Senator. Thanks Scoop for setting the record straight again

  • http://www.facebook.com/markbuse Mark Buse

    Same old smear tactics that the Mittens vermin used against Newt. Game-on Mittens zombies!!

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2GR77FIJZ2A2ZBKZFGRXYG7QY4 kim

    He is right on the money.

    In Genesis, God avenges Abel’s death by Cain. But in Genesis 9, after the flood, God turns over this responsibility to man. In the New Testament, God reaffirms the purpose of civil government in Romans 13. The civil magistrates are to be “ministers for our good” and the primary purpose is to “punish the evildoer.”

    We cannot throw off all external government because of our inherent sinful nature. The state has its place but they need to stay in their place. Right now, they are waaaay outside their bounds.

  • Mary Beth House

    I never thought he had Tea Party issues. My concern with him is his general view of Government with regard to individual freedoms:

    http://www.politijim.com/2012/02/why-does-santorum-hate-individual.html

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      You mean like individual freedoms like smoking pot or other drugs? What individual freedoms are you concerned about?

      • Mary Beth House

        Did you read the article I linked to? Which specifically refers to what he said in his book and speeches such as the “Compassionate Conservative Social Justice Forum”?

        Now tie that thinking into this: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/15/rick-santorum-and-contraception-conservatism/

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

          No, sorry I didn’t, honestly I would rather listen to which individual freedoms you were concerned about specifically with your own words instead of referring me to someones rant blog spot.

          • Mary Beth House

            How about you read the quotes from Santorum versus the quotes from Reagan?

            That’s not a rant. That’s simply contrasting what Santorum and his big government philosophy of compassionate conservatism is versus Reagan’s recognition of the roots of libertarianism within the conservative philosophy.

            Like I said… read Santorum’s own speech at “The First International Conservative Conference on Social Justice” (the name of which, btw, gives me the creeps) which he chaired.

            Here’s a hint. It’s the quote where he discusses “sacrificial freedom.”

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

              The social justice part creeps you out? was it even about social justice, I read some of it but I didn’t get the feeling it was talking about social justice like the way progressive view social justice. And it says “ON” social justice, not 1st International Conservative Conference “FOR” Social Justice.

              And that sacrificial freedom comment doesn’t really bother me either. “Freedom is liberty coupled with responsibility to something bigger or higher than self. It is a self-less freedom.” As a Christian I believe this is true.

              “It is sacrificial freedom. It is the pursuit of our dreams with an eye towards the common good. Freedom is the dual activity of lifting our eyes to the heavens while extending our hand to our neighbor.” As a Christian I don’t have a problem with what he said. And I don’t feel like he’s trying to dictate where he’s trying to force a on my freedom, on my choice, and on my liberty for me.

              “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

              • Mary Beth House

                You’re not coupling what he’s saying here with what he’s saying elsewhere.

                And I agree with Adams quote. I disagree strongly however with Santorum’s opposition to “radical individualism.” There were no caveats to liberty that required sacrifice. And I don’t agree that conservatism has anything to say about bedroom activities.

                Freedom is freedom. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. I do not add things to that. Santorum does.

              • MLCBLOG

                I love what you are saying about sacrificial freedom. It is our choice and we happily make it in the service of a higher good.

            • MLCBLOG

              Can you just explain a few of the main points? I have enough to do without reading whole articles suggested on blogs. I think that is what is being asked of you. You can do it. Just focus and give us the main thinking.

              • Mary Beth House

                I already have laid out some of the broadstrokes. And quite frankly, I don’t care personally how busy you are. If you’re interested enough to check it out for yourself, you will.

                You know, it would have taken you less time to click on the link and read the Reagan/Santorum contrast than it did for you to come up with your snippy and condescending comeback to a total stranger.

                • MLCBLOG

                  I was just asking you to make your point. Sorry you got offended.

          • lndlyb4

            It’s too bad you’re not a reader. You can learn a lot that way.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

          As far as your dailycaller link.

          I don’t really have a problem with what Rick Santorum believes about contraception, but is there anywhere in his campaign where he is for a policy banning contraception? As far as I know he does not.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JYFHOF7HBLJ4KR5YV6PUCHI2RQ Jack

        Voted to raise debt limit 5 times
        Santorum received nearly 1 billion dollars in earmarks for Pennslyvania during his career working closely with Arlen Spector
        In 1993 Santrum went against his own party and sided with Clinton and Democrats in a bill to protect striking employees from being permanetely replaced by their employees.
        Santorum supported the Davis-Baco act, the federal law that requires government contactors to pay workers the local prevailing wage and a perrenial target for elimination by the business community and anti union Tea Party activists.
        In 1996 Santorum voted and supported Kennedy that the the bill should not be repealed.
        He has cast many votes for increses in minimum wage.
        In 2004 he supported Spector over the more conservative opponent in the primary.This gave us Spector who went on to be the 60th vote for Obama care.
        Santorum voted to kill national right to work act which helped to keep the big money flowing to Pelosi,Reid,and Obama.
        Santorum voted to with the likes of Boxer, and lautenberg to pass massive new federal gun control schemes and regulations.
        Voted to double the federal department of education
        Voted to create a brand new unfunded entitlement Medicare part D
        Voted for Sarbanes-Oxley which imposes dramatic new job killing accounting regulations on business.Newt has said this would be on his list to get rid of completely.
        Voted many times on raising taxed on oil comapnies
        Voted to give illegal aliens social security benefits while voting against increasing border control with 1,000 new agents.
        Voted to give North Korea 25 million dollars in foreign aid
        Voted to send hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars to Planned parenthood
        He endorsed Mittens four years ago
        He said and quote constitutional conservatives have a crazy ideal that government should keep taxes down and keep our regulations low quote.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

          I don’t care I still like him. Who are you supporting? Mitt, Newt, or Paul, each candidate has a dirty laundry list as well.

          • Mary Beth House

            Yes they each do. The difference is Santorum is a bit sanctimonious and acts as though he didn’t.

            Furthermore, he has no actual governing experience. I don’t favor legislators as presidential candidates as a general rule. I typically prefer Governors. Unfortunately, the only governor left running is a liberal.

            My choice is Newt. Yes he was a legislator, however the difference is that Newt as Speaker of the House was third in line for the presidency, created coalitions and moved massive reform through the House and got a democrat president to sign it. He had a leadership role and has a record of actual accomplishments.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

              I have no problem with your choice, I think he’d make a fine president, as I also think Rick would be too.

              • Mary Beth House

                He might make a great president. But as he’s had no executive/leadership experience, I can only go by his speeches to glean his intent. And that’s where I see a sanctimonious moral busybody and I’m trying to look at this from a national perspective, not just as a conservative.

                • MLCBLOG

                  Then get Sarah in here, quick!! she’s the one with executive experience and whipped the bad boys, too. The big ones.

                • Mary Beth House

                  Since Sarah Palin isn’t running, I can only go by the experience and record of those who are.

      • Mary Beth House

        “This idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do,” Santorum complained to NPR in 2006, “that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues … that is not how traditional conservatives view the world.”

        http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/14/santorum-is-severely-wrong

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

          How would a President Rick Santorum get involved peoples bedrooms? Is the fear about a policy or message?

          • Mary Beth House

            You tell me. I quoted him. What did he mean when he said “the idea…that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom…that is not how traditional conservatives view the world”?

            Because I am a traditional conservative, and that’s exactly how I view the world. Getting involved in cultural issues is one thing. Getting involved in people’s personal lives is quite another.

  • 911Infidel

    Rick is a true Conservative in the classic sense of the word. People often refer to him as a “religious zealot” because his moral compass is working so well. He’s a conservative on everything: whether the issues are financial, social, family, political or military issues. He doesn’t have to practice being a conservative like one guy does in this race. And he doesn’t have a problem with marriage, like another guy does. Then again his foreign policy isn’t from the land of make-believe like another guy is.

    Nope. He’s the genuine article and looks very comfortable in his own skin. So let the debates go on, its only making him stronger.

    Every Tea Party person I know is supporting him. We still like Cain, Palin, West and Rubio. And we think that a Santorum-West or a Santorum-Rubio ticket would be just fine.

    So what’s the beef? An empty tuna can would be a better choice than Ali Obama and Crazy Uncle Joe at this point.

    • http://punditpawn.wordpress.com PunditPawn

      He’s never run anything of substance. While he worked hard on legislation, very little of it was enduring, either. I agree with Newt… Romney and Santorum are thinking too small when we need EPIC changes from someone who’s proven they can make epic change.

      • 911Infidel

        I think a Santorum-Rubio or Santorum-West winning ticket would be a real EPIC change compared to what we got now in the WH.

      • Asian_chic

        Newt’s epic change is “Contract with the Earth”. He wants policies where the government can tax and take more of our freedom away! Since you know so much about Rick, you must know a lot about your candidate too i.e global warming, individual health care mandate, and tarp. Rush said it best- Nobody is innocent. Everybody is guilty of some transgression at somewhere against Conservatism except…(drum roll please) Santorum.

        The thing that really pi$$ed me off is in 2008, your wonderful candidate said the era of Reagan is over! I don’t want to hear from him anymore!

        • http://punditpawn.wordpress.com PunditPawn

          No candidate comes without a price, but I if have have to choose between Batman and Robin, I’m going with Batman.

    • RefudiateObama2012

      The TP peeps around here are pretty lukewarm about him.

      • 911Infidel

        I talked to my military friends at work, even they can’t see another Obama term. They’d support Rick over an Obama any day…all except the socialists, though, i must say, even some of them aren’t so sure about Obama anymore; especially when they see the prices of gas and food going up all the time.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JYFHOF7HBLJ4KR5YV6PUCHI2RQ Jack
    • lndlyb4

      I can’t agree with you that he looks “comfortable in his own skin” he looks fidgety and paranoid and dour in the debates. His eyes are shifty too.

      I am a Tea Party person. I don’t support him. You will see that the general public will reject him as too far to the right. The things he has said about gays and contraception will strike most people as very weird. Nominating Rick Santurum will hand this election to Obama. Obama will just sit back calmly and look cool while Santurum moralizes. I’m not a Romney supporter, I’m for Newt, but wait and see, Santurum will make Romney look like a balanced individual.

      You really should do some research before you call Santurum “conservative on everything”. I have found that people who are religious will believe anything a candidate says as long as he shares their belief system. Maybe that’s not true in your case. So, I apologize.

      There is plenty of info on the internet if you care to bother to look. legalinsurrection.com, politijim.com. Just remember there is a big difference between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives. Some people are both. You are being willfully blind if you think Santurum is.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

        When it comes to taxes, I believe Rick is a fiscal conservative.

        In his economic plan he’s for lowering taxes, cut spending, balancing the budget, reforming entitlements (SS and Medicare), phase out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Audit the Federal Reserve and return it to its original purpose Inflation. Yes that’s a Tea Party candidate in my eyes.

        • nibblesyble

          Steven, don’t you think Newt’s plan is much better? I think it is much more bolder!

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

            It doesn’t matter who’s I think is better, I could live with either one, my focus is beating Romney who’s plan I think is the worst!

            • FreeManWalking

              My focus is beating Romney then Oboma.

              I’m up in the air about how well I think Rick could do against 0b0.

              but not at all with Romney, I just do not see how the GOP establishment thinks that this time a liberal/moderate moderate/liberal GOP candidate can out liberal the Demonic at their own game and win.

              Ford / Carter Dolt / Clinton McCaint / 0b0

            • nibblesyble

              point taken

      • 911Infidel

        I’ve done my homework and made up my own mind. And as far as his views on so-called gays, even amongst the young canibals I know (that would be Military folk); they think that being un-hetero is weird. So I disagree with your comments completely. Conservatives win when they don’t morph into libsticks; stick to first principals, and embrace Nature and Nature’s God. Now that would be radical change from the current status quo in this government.

    • MLCBLOG

      Thank you, and I hope you are correct. I am concerned about his liberal stance on so many issues.

      • 911Infidel

        I’m still holding out for a Rick-Rubio or West ticket. Any “liberal” tendencies on Rick’s part will quickly go out the window if he teams up with any one of those two stellar citizens. And Rubio is a fellow traditional Catholic type. That is a plus, plus in my book.

  • xymbaline

    I’m just not buying it.

    Rick Santorum does not look or sound like someone qualified to be President.

    Everybody has their own idea of what the “Tea Party” thinks, so I’ll just tell you, he isn’t 15 points ahead down here.

    I see no reason to savage him, but I’ve never had any kind of warm sense of real competence to him.

    I’d prefer him to Romney, but that’s as far as I’ll go.

    Newt is so much *more* qualified that there’s no real comparison.

    Newt’s the only real choice in this election.

    • BankGuy

      Please expand as just saying Newt is more qualified just doesn’t do it for me. Both candidates have pro’s and con’s but I’d like some explanation as to the why’s. On this board, we typically place some meat on the bone when we make such statements.

      • xymbaline

        Thanks for the kind invitation. I’ll be as concise as possible.

        I’m 62, and am a member of the Republican Executive Committee locally. Back in the Dot-Com days, I was a corporate CIO, and occasionally, the Director of Mergers and Acquisitions. I’ve held both NASDAQ and Real Estate Licenses in Florida.

        As such, I saw a spate of IPO’s, reverse mergers and various propositions that were usually backed by Venture Capitalists. I’ve been in IT since the late 70’s, so I’ve known a lot of people involved in tech enterprises.

        Mitt Romney is a familiar ‘type’ to me. I’ve known at least a dozen people much like him, and many more who were a lot zanier than I suspect he ever was.

        On the other hand, when I look at Newt Gingrich, I see someone who is as much or more a master of bureaucratic institutions as Mitt is a master at financial firms.

        So think back to the old Britcom of the 80’s, ‘Yes, Minister’. There’s no doubt that there is a ‘permanent bureaucracy entrenched in both Washington and London, and it is ruled over by people with lifetimes’ experience in getting things done their way regardless who was the Minister or Senator at the moment.

        In my estimation, these people would eat Mitt Romney alive. They’d spin him every which way from Sunday for his full four years.

        Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, would be the “Old Man’ from the first second on, and he’d be able to make Government do things just as George S. Patton was able to make the 3rd Army perform miracles.

        Rick Santorum, I believe, would be completely out of his depth.

        My choice is Gingrich/Patton.

        • FreeManWalking

          xym, reading your comments I pictured willard encircled by congress, blindfolded, spinning in circles, with the proverbial donkey’s tail in his hand stumbling trying to find something to pin it on.

          Totally agree, but since we will have a difficult time getting Patton on board I will settle for West.

          • xymbaline

            :=)))

      • lndlyb4

        BankGuy, If you read your history, you’ll see that Newt has been fighting for conservative causes for decades. You do remember that he was a significant player in the Republicans taking over the house during the Republican revolution? It had been 40 years since the Rs had control. That is no small feet. The budget was balanced during the Clinton years and our country had a surplus. That was in large part because Clinton had to deal with Gingrich and a republican house.

        Newt has the experience of standing up to, not only the Democrats, but the R establishment as well. This is what many of us are saying here. Santurum didn’t stand up against George bush and put a stop to his spending. He was part of it.

        What has Santurum accomplished?

        • nibblesyble

          I agree with you. Newt is a leader, Santorum is a good role model…we need a leader!

    • NCHokie02

      What are you considering as “qualified”?

      Why doesn’t he “look or sound like someone qualified to be President”?

    • MLCBLOG

      Oh, please! that stuffed-sausage suit? not attractive.

      Too much wobbling on issues. Too skitterish, always changing. Lacks character.

      • xymbaline

        You can certainly think what you like, but I just listened to the stuffed-sausage suit give an hour and 11 minute lecture to the students of the Citadel over the history of the American Revolution from a military standpoint.

  • http://onthemark1.blogspot.com/ On The Mark

    Based on the this transcript, it is unclear whether Santorum was referring to the Tea Party or to Libertarianism within the Tea Party. As a result, it might be argued the transcript suggests that Rick was not referring to the Tea Party, but it’s far from conclusive. It may as well suggest he didn’t understand or didn’t agree with the Tea Party.

    I don’t think they have it right as to what our history is and we are not a group of people who believe in no government.

    Santorum has confused Libertarianism with Anarchy.

    It seems the best defense this transcript has to offer to Rick is a plea of ignorance.

    Look, I would gratefully pull the lever for Not Romney Santorum because he seems as decent as a politician can be. But, let’s not sugar coat it. I’m pretty sure he’s not going to be the guy to overhaul Corruption, DC.

    • Major914

      I don’t think Santorum has libertarians confused at all. If anything, it is libertarians themselves who are confused….they are all over the philosophical/political map…

      According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.

      Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchistic schools advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchist schools advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some minarchist libertarians accept minimal public assistance for the poor.

      Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead.

      Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and those that support common ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a socialist economic system.

      In some parts of the world, the term “libertarianism” is synonymous with Left anarchism. In the United States, the term libertarian is commonly associated with those who have conservative positions on economic issues and liberal positions on social issues.

      • KenInMontana

        I would agree generally with that assessment of libertarianism, however where most people run into confusion over libertarianism and left leaning anarchists is that they confuse libertine with libertarian. It is the libertines that are actually closer to the left wing of anarchism. Those literal “bomb throwers” (libertines and syndicalists) are real “problem children” for everyone, but especially for libertarians because so many associate them (mistakenly) with “libertarian”.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2GR77FIJZ2A2ZBKZFGRXYG7QY4 kim

      Can you define what you mean by libertarianism then? I want to understand better how you differentiate between conservatism (I define conservatism as what our Founders left us) and libertarianism. There are anarchists in the libertarian movement. Heard one just this morning on Alan Butler’s show.

      • KenInMontana

        The problem with defining “libertarianism” is that it has become more of an “umbrella” encompassing such a wide range of philosophies, so much so that even “originalist” libertarians can no longer define it precisely. Which is why you see so many overly defined and narrowed definitions under the umbrella of libertarianism. We are seeing that splintering in both the republican and democratic parties as well.

      • MLCBLOG

        To me, conservatives more likely relate to the idea of being moral and regulated from within, whereas libertarians just don’t really like rules.

    • NCHokie02

      overhauling crruption in d.c. is left up to the people. Santorum can’t throw members of congress out or even impeach them (if he were to become president).

      Again it is the people’s duty to overhaul corruption in d.c. at the ballot box which I fear will never completely happen. They keep the likes of Reid, Pelosi and Waters (to name a few) in there already.

  • kessi7

    I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party Movement to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it and do my best to correct the record.

    Question: In what wayy is the TP trying to refashion conservatism, in or outside conyext?

    • RefudiateObama2012

      The TP is NOT trying to refashion conservatism, they are trying to restore it. Plus, the TP will never support all planks of the Libertarian platform.

    • Major914

      Rick Santorum is referring to a single movement (libertarianism) that is w i t h i n the Republican Party and the Tea Party, which is, as you know, trying to refashion conservatism into something it never has been, and never will be…

      I’m very glad Rick Santorum straightforwardly calls out libertarians.

    • BankGuy

      Several tipping points:
      Conservatives are strong national defense and Libertarians are isolationists.

      Conservatives believe that there is a role of government as opposed to Libertarians who ascribe to laissez faire government

      Conservatives believe in economic freedom up to the point where government intervention is required such as regulation of securities exchanges, law enforcement and destructive behavior which impacts our society (drugs etc.)

      In the general spectrum of things, libertarianism bridges the gap between conservatism and anarchy.

      • KenInMontana

        Conservatives are strong national defense and Libertarians are isolationists.

        While there are indeed “isolationists” in amongst Libertarians, most Libertarians are very much in favor of a strong national defense. Isolationism is a philosophy found throughout the political spectrum in every political “party”. The Isolationist view has been around for much longer than “Libertarianism” has been, we can find examples of it throughout the entire history of our nation. The run up to both world wars are rife with it, particularly in the established parties of the time. I see Isolationism as more of a faction unto itself, much like an additional qualifier in addition to a general political philosophy one might hold.

        Other than that, you’ve come as close to defining Libertarianism in general as most original Libertarians could. I would only point out while Laissez-faire economics still sees a role for government in economics, it is much more tightly defined and strictly limited, but not a complete absence.

  • http://twitter.com/WilliamKronert William Kronert

    Look, Santorum has lost of problems from his clear documented voting record in the senate showing big gov’t ways to his 1990 interview calling himself a “progressive conservative” with no position on abortion, his statements concerning “birth control harmful to women” to his statements concerning women to his general support of TARP, it goes on and on. The guy is nuts and totally unelectable in the general.

    “Progressive Conservative”
    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_t4cAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3GMEAAAAIBAJ&dq=rick%20santorum&pg=6015%2C5485825

    Santorum said, “Birth control ‘harmful to women’
    You Tube Clip: http://youtu.be/9MBO9tNNejo

    Santorum Blames Wife for Anti-Working Woman Book Passage
    http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-blames-wife-anti-working-woman-book-passage-144227076.html
    “2005 book — “The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness” — Santorum”

    TARP:
    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08293/921163-176.stm
    “..from a man who also spent a long part of the visit explaining the intricacies of the financial bailout bill; the reason the added “sweeteners” could benefit the economy; his worries that not enough private sector money went into the package.

    Voting record:
    What A Big Government Conservative Looks Like (Santorum)
    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/

    You want more; http://teaandfedup.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/the-santorum-file/

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      *yawn*

      • PhillyCon

        Give the guy credit, at least he didn’t post that over-used/cherry-picked Erickson hit piece.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000679899592 John Bohler

      woooooooow, if thats all you can bring against him then he’s going to one hell of a good president!

    • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

      And yet, he ranks as one of the top Fiscal Conservatives in the Senate http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/was-santorum-senate-spendthrift_629850.html

      You need to re-evaluate.

    • NCHokie02

      Who cares if he believes birth control is harmful to women? I’m sure there are studies out there to support that. And because he is anti-birth control doesn’t mean he is pro-abortion.

      I don’t see anything wrong with his comment from his book about women. The feminist movement has tried to make women believe that having a successful career is the key to happiness an that being a homemaker is archaic and outdated. Well my wife is a homemaker and we both agree on it. I don’t want some other person raising my kids the majority of the day so we both can have a “successful” career. Some things are more important than money…..like family.

      He’s also got a very good record on conservative voting according to the ATU (American Taxpayers Union).

    • FreeManWalking

      I like him in this clip taking a stand and clearly identifying his support of conservative principals and ideology.

  • teri_b

    I am not sure whether there has been discussion on this website of how Santorum seems to think it is okay to use government for the causes he likes.

    One example is his zero taxes policy for manufacturers. That is just another example of picking winners and losers. I cannot go all out for Rick because that policy gives me great pause, even though I think it is a big problem in this country that we are losing our manufacturing base. But it goes against my conservative core to start using government to solve problems.

    The tax code should not be used to reward a politician’s pet causes.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      Manufacturing is a big fat loser right now, making them winners, even competitors would be a great thing for this country.

      • FreeManWalking

        Santorum’s Manuf Tax will open up a great ole big can of worms for lobbyist defining their company as a Manufacturer.

        To me this is just another example where he lacks depth of thought on issues. Newt’s 12.5 % corporate tax and 100% write off for new equipment, Repealing the Sarbanes-Oxley will do much more for the economy than Santorum’s and will actually solve some of the regulation problems we are facing now. And it will boost all businesses, not just 1 sector.

        • teri_b

          Yes. There are always unintended consequences because running a government is never simple.

          The answer is a simpler government, which means the least amount of legislation possible.

    • BankGuy

      Don’t believe it’s a matter of picking winners and losers or purely a matter of jobs. Manufacturing, in my opinion also falls into national defense. I’m not talking about unskilled labor but also skilled labor (very difficult to find today). Tool & Die/CNC, welders, pipefitters, electricians, millrights etc. etc. etc. In this day and age, we get non-manufacturing government union jobs.

    • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

      Which company did Santorum pick? He has not champion a specific company at all like the Dem’s do. I tend to not like the favoritism towards one segment of our economy but it is not equivocal to what Obama is doing.

      • teri_b

        I think Obama is doing something similar with his green energy causes. He hasn’t rewritten the tax code for them, but through his stimulus bennies.

        My heart wants me to be okay with giving manufacturing an edge. I have long complained that it is a national security issue to not be producers. But I think we have to let the free market work. And if we let one president favor manufacturers, the next one might favor or punish another segment of industry.

    • MLCBLOG

      Sometimes we can be so pure in our beliefs that we lose the battle.

  • http://twitter.com/CharlieZangelQQ DaMz

    Thanks so much for posting this. I’ve been debating people on the Ron Paul hit job “Santorum hates the tea party ” video for weeks and weeks.

  • Been_There_BT

    Pass it around? But … but … I support Newt!

  • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

    There was someone who kept bringing this up here, and I kept linking to the post that you had put up Scoop. Thanks for settling it once and for all though! I’ll put it up on Facebook now.

  • tosler

    He sure had a problem with Tea Party principles in 2004 when he trashed Pat Toomey personally, while he and Pres Bush lobbied Pennsylvanians to support Arlen Specter in the Senate primary. …and Tea Party-minded folks abandoned him in his ’06 reelection bid because of it (one of several reasons). Only politics, not principles, would lead you to support Specter over us Pennsylvanians who “cling to our God and our guns”!
    Luckily we still got Toomey elected….just six years later than we wanted.

    • blueboypink

      I want to trust Santorum, but because of what you are relating, I’m leery, and wonder is it politics again???

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IDAKYMXLZIRLMLGEZJXV3AOO7E Vorlath

    The way it’s worded, it might let people believe that he’s opposed to libertarian and Tea Party movements. But what he’s actually saying is that he’s opposed to the libertarian movement within the Republican Party and opposed to libertarian movement within the Tea Party.

    Here is what he actually means:

    “[...] but as I’ve said before, I have some real concerns about this [libertarian] movement within the Republican Party and [also have concerns about this libertarian movement within] the Tea Party Movement [...]”

    Leaving out the part in brackets causes some confusion in what he’s opposed.

  • toongoon

    Good, So maybe we can quit arguing and start getting him elected so we can get rid of the Marxist.

  • John_Frank

    Sorry, but I am obliged to disagree.

    One of the principles of the TPM was to set aside the whole social issue debate and focus on fiscal issues, the economy and the constitution.

    The end result is that the TPM represents the “leave me alone” coalition of conservatives/libertarians.

    Rand Paul was strongly supported by the TPM in Kentucky.

    Santorum acknowledges he has a problem with the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.

    In saying so, he is making it clear that he rejects the “leave me alone coalition of conservatives/libertarians.

    So, yes he does have a problem with the TPM.

    • GraceKnows

      Well said! We seem to be talking a lot of fiscal vs. social conservatism, but forgetting about limited government. From a lot of what he’s said and is still saying, Rick Santorum believes in a lot of government involvement.

      Rick is fond of aligning himself with Reagan. Here’s something Reagan said in 1975:

      “The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

      I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves. I have illustrated this many times by saying that I would recognize the right of government to say that someone who rode a motorcycle had to protect the public from himself by making certain provisions about his equipment and the motorcycle–the same as we do with an automobile. I disagree completely when government says that because of the number of head injuries from accidents with motorcycles that he should be forced to wear a helmet. I happen to think he’s stupid if he rides a motorcycle without a helmet, but that’s one of our sacred rights–to be stupid.”

      Reagan had more to say on the subject of libertarianism, and it’s far from anarchy. I don’t really believe that this is where RS is in his words, actions, or beliefs. It doesn’t make him bad, but I agree with Reagan and Gingrich, not someone like Rick, who has demonstrated (sincerely) his desire to use government beyond what the Founders ever intended.

  • nibblesyble

    Here is the thing about what he said, even in context, we have to be careful not to marginalize any aspect of the Republican party. Sarah Palin said that specifically regarding libertarians. Besides, I like Rand Paul, I think he is good for the party and not nearly as radical as his dad! Santorum has been on the wrong side of endorsing the not so good republicans(I know Newt did it with Deedee what’s her name, and had to take his lumps) and it seems Santorum mislead people as to why he campaigned for Specter(check Legal Insurrection for the source)

  • PFFV

    I didn’t even know there was an issue of Santorum vs. The Tea Party. I think Rick is in line with the Tea Party but I would like to hear more of his solutions and his eagerness to implement them to get our injured nation back on track.

    • nibblesyble

      I think the issus he may have with the tea party is that fact that he was a big Gov’t spender during the Bush years. He was someone to go along to get along..voting for no child left behind, things like that.

  • lndlyb4

    In response to Steven Valdez,

    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

    Yes. But who decides what is moral? Is it only Christians who can do that? This is what turns people off about Santurum. He seems all too eager to tell people what is moral. Hey, I have an idea. Let’s go back to the whole “Family Values” theme! Maybe we can resurrect the “Moral Majority” organization! That really went over big for Bush #1! Jerry Fallwell for president!

    We are screwed!

    • John_Frank

      The phrase used in the declaration of independence is “our creator.”

      As to libertarianism:

      Santorum: I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the GOP and conservatism

      Reagan: I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism

      Palin: I have a healthy libertarian streak

      When Santorum talks about morality, that’s fine.

      Our society was founded on judeo-christian principles.

      Today, we live in a pluralistic society. One of our founding rights is freedom of religion. This has lead to a strong belief in tolerance and respect for people of different religious beliefs. To square the circle, we must remain true to our principles, while being tolerant.

      Hence the view that “the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism” is the correct stance and why Santorum is actually the “anti-Reagan.”

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

        I agreed with most of what you said, until you called Santorum anti-Reagan.

        • nibblesyble

          me too, it is hard to press like sometimes, because I ‘like’ a lot of what is said but sometimes have to qualify it. Santorum is not the anti-Reagan..Romney is!

        • John_Frank

          Okay, let me elaborate.

          Within the Republican party there a number of different factions.

          Santorum opposes libertarianism. Reagan believed that libertarianism was the heart and soul of conservatism.

          Reagan was the leader of the “leave me alone” coalition within the Republican party.

          Santorum is emerging as the leader of the “we will protect the public from themselves” coalition within the Republican party.

          As such, Santorum did not have objections to the “compassionate conservative” agenda of the George W. Bush administration, which ultimately lead to a bigger Federal government.

          When confronted with a problem of whether the Federal Government should get involved, Reagan’s instinct was to get government out of the way, so empowering the individual.

          Santorum’s instinct will be to ask, what needs to be done to protect the public from harming themselves?

          That is why I wrote that Santorum is the anti-Reagan. Perhaps it would have been better to write “Santorum is the opposite of Reagan in their views about the role of libertarianism within conservatism.”

          P.S. I have not read what Romney’s views are on libertarianism, but clearly he falls within the “we will protect the public from themselves” coalition in the Republican party. What has left many conservatives cold is that while Romney was the Governor of Massachusetts he signed into law legislation which mandated individuals are obliged to acquire prescribed health care insurance or pay a fine and believes the legislation in Massachusetts can serve as a model to provide for universal health care across America. Romney just says that instead of doing this at the Federal level, the best course is to do this at the State level, so allowing for a decentralized set of solutions.

      • drphibes

        All that scaffolding to say “Santorum is the Anti-Reagan”?

        UNSUBSCRIBE!

      • Major914

        Except:

        Creator is capitalized, as in Sovereign Lord, Supreme Diety, Almighty God.

        • John_Frank

          Corrected. My error. Thanks.

    • Major914

      When you say, “But who decides what is moral? Is it only Christians who can do that?”

      The important point is that some group must decide–the issue must and will be decided–there is no such thing as absolutely neutral with regard to societal values…

      A majority of voters will decide what is established in law and government, based on their personal morality. It is past the time to start having that debate fully and openly, on the issues, rather than pretending nobody can possibly decide…

    • MLCBLOG

      The dictionary! Moral = relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. We all know this deep in our hearts.

      ,,,all right, decent, ethical, honest, honorable, just, good, nice, right, righteous, right-minded, straight, true, upright, virtuous.

  • DeCentralizer

    Santorums popularity is a result of Romney’s carpet bombing Newt and Santorum going after Newt as well. Look at the legislative record of all 3. Newt cuts and balances budgets, Santorum is a big time spender and Romney is not a conservative. Newt has no friends in DC because he is anti- pork.

  • FreeManWalking

    I think I have been Santorumated today…

  • John_Frank

    Santorum: I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the GOP and conservatism

    Reagan: I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism

    • xjesterx

      He was talking about Rand Paul’s supposed quote to dismantle the 1964 civil rights act. this is a non issue.

  • ellebb

    Wow, Rev. Sanctimonious is sure being pimped here.

    • KenInMontana

      You are toeing the line of finding yourself identified as a troll and being dealt with as such. Yes, that is a warning, I don’t care who you support, but your rhetoric has become tiresome.

  • gothicreader

    Every candidate should be vetted – vetted he will be. Remember Newt and his vetting? Even if they were not true?

    The lies about Newt and how the press not setting the record straight? At least with sticky Ricky he has Rush and Mark.

    Anyway, I hope he doesn’t mess this up and go all morality – unfortunately this turns people off, especially independents. This is the reality that everyone must remember.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1668858553 Faith M Martin

    “I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party Movement to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it and do my best to correct the record.”

    I realize that this was a discussion about Ricks concern over the Liberatarians in the GOP, and if he had said Liberatarians only I would agree with this, but he threw in the Tea Party, including it in his statement of opposition, that raises some serious concerns with me as a Tea Party member. Context IS an important thing, but so are personal “slip ups” which give a view into a persons way of thinking.

    • xjesterx

      But he wasn’t “throwing in” the Tea Party. He said his concerns were about the Libertarians WITHIN the Tea Party movement. He could have said the same thing in 1992, about Libertarians within the Reform Party.

      There is an element that is way past Ron Paul even and their views end up coming full circle to match many liberal ones.

      I think a lot of average Republican voters (maybe most?) are “Libertarian leaning”, where their thought process is “I wish the government would stay out of my life”. However, this is not what Rick was talking about here.

  • teri_b

    Santorum has campaigned against Pat Toomey, Rand Paul, and Jim DeMint? I think that summarizes what I have been reading here.

    It is hard to consider him the original Tea Partier or whatever his ads are saying.

    • c4pfan

      I’m glad that Rand Paul’s voice is out there. I don’t agree with him on everything though.

    • MLCBLOG

      Against Jim DeMint? was that for his buddy Arlen Specter? anybody know?

  • drphibes

    Reagan didn’t embrace the “coincidentally liberal” outcomes of libertarianism – like being pro-Choice. ‘Nuff said.

  • c4pfan

    He’s basically saying that he doesn’t agree with the Libertarians that social issues should be ‘put aside’ like the GOP does every election cycle. If he truly believes the importance of those issues, why lie and pretend it doesn’t matter to him?

  • nawlins72

    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams

    This is the same Adams that passed the Sedition Act, jailing people who spoke out against government.

    • KenInMontana

      I am taking that by “passed” you meant to say “signed”, as any student of government knows that an act must first be “passed” by a majority vote through both houses of Congress first. To “hang” the Sedition Act of 1789 on Adams alone is disingenuous at best, it was the Federalists in Congress that actually passed it and it very nearly caused a second revolution in the US, over enforcement.

      • nawlins72

        I don’t “hang” it on Adam’s alone, but he did not veto the Alien/Sedition Acts, nor oppose them, knowing that this legislation would incarcerate individuals for the act of speaking against government.

        • KenInMontana

          This is the same Adams that passed the Sedition Act,

          Actually, you did. You may want to try working on getting past that ” Adams talking point” and reading up on the history behind the act and the actions it provoked. It has been beat thoroughly to death and beyond by the progressive left for some time now, in order to combat the resurgence of Constitutional Originalism, it was also used to attempt to legitimize Wilson’s use of almost the exact same act . Historical context destroyed it.

          Addendum: It should also be pointed out that the act spurred Jefferson and Madison to author the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves in direct opposition.

          • nawlins72

            “Actually, you did. You may want to try working on getting past that ” Adams talking point” and reading up on the history behind the act and the actions it provoked.”

            I know the history behind it, as well as the fact that it was roundly decried as unConstitutional by the people, states and finally the House Judiciary.

            Some may look favorably on giving up their liberties at every “crisis” government can contrive, but I do not. And it seems that neither did Americans of the day.

    • MLCBLOG

      We need some limits on people inciting the violent overthrow of the govt.

      • nawlins72

        “Congress shall make no law…”. The limits you propose would consider the Declaration of Independence illegal.

        • KenInMontana

          US Constitution;

          Article 1 Section 8;
          To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

          Article 3 Section 3;
          Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

          The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

          • MLCBLOG

            Thank you for this.

          • nawlins72

            “Article 1 Section 8;
            To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

            How do you get from free speech to insurrections? Who is arguing that the government doesn’t have this authority? The topic was over “speech”.

            And treason is so difficult to pin down that it has, thankfully, rarely been used by government. Do you want government to use this power more and ramp up convicting people who speak out against it? How long before every “right-wing” group was deemed “inciting insurrection” with their “anti-government rhetoric”?

            Is this treasonous speech?

            “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”

            • KenInMontana

              When it was written, yes it was. Our forebears were subjects of the British Crown. Fact, that’s why it is called “Insurrection and Revolution”. If you understood the history of what led to the American Revolution you would also realize the founders exhausted twice, thrice all possible avenues of peaceful settlement, the Declaration was the absolute last resort. When you call for the violent overthrow of a government you are “preaching sedition”, when you act on it, that is insurrection and by definition that is treason.

              Once again, you leave out the qualifying context,

              Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

              You think this is despotism we’re under now? If so you’ve never seen it. We aren’t there yet, not really even close. In my opinion and by my observations, No you don’t really understand the history, you may have read it, but you fail to grasp it.

        • MLCBLOG

          These are the famous words contained in the Smith Act which was passed into law in FDR’s day and are still in effect though I don’t see their enforcement much.

  • http://twitter.com/politiJim PolitiJim

    Wow. Some people will spin anything to fit a narrative. Is there ANYONE THAT ASSOCIATED THE TEA PARTY WITH the “RON PAUL” libertarians in the video where Santorum distanced himself? Hell NO! He then goes on to say that “RAND Paul” believed in NO government!! Do you know who Trey Grayson was?? Mitch McConnell’s RINO pick!! Do you know who Rand Paul was? THE TEA PARTY CANDIDATE! (not the libertarian candidate).

    That should tell you all you need there! Do some homework, people. Go find how many “pro-Tea Party” statements you can by Mr. Santorum up until this time. As opposed to Michelle Bachmann. As opposed to Newt Gingrich.

    What does “libertarianism” mean to Santorum? OR RONALD REAGAN?? Reagan said that libertarianism was part of the BASIS for the conservative movement. Santorum on the other hand wants the government in your bedroom. He argues AGAINST Jim DeMINT on removing earmarks. He sees government as a way to ENFORCE family values by getting the government to pay for Head Start and “conservative” social engineering (and he authored a bill to have the government start funneling money to pro-life groups).

    Like the guy in THE PRINCESS BRIDE who kept saying “inconceivable”…I don’t think you understand what that word means.

    How Reagan saw libertarianism:
    http://www.politijim.com/2012/02/why-does-santorum-hate-individual.html

    • c4pfan

      That doesn’t explain how Newt worked with Pelosi, Sharpton and Dede against the Tea Party person.

      • nibblesyble

        he worked with Nancy on the couch, because he wanted people to know conservatives care about the environment too.(don’t forget, during that time, the majority of american’s believed in GW) he worked with Sharpton who believes in school choice, so that he would be welcome in black neighborhoods. Newt should be commended for that..working with the enemy by finding common ground. That is why he was effective as Speaker. As for dede whosits, he didn’t do his research, but instead went out because the party sent him, when he realized his error, he backed off. Santorum backed Arlen Specter and mislead people as to why(check Legal Insurrection for source)

        • MLCBLOG

          Why? (specter) You explain! right here. What are you talking about?

  • rightklik

    Is there a longer transcript somewhere?

  • c4pfan

    I’m a big supporter of Rand Paul and have no problem with what Santorum said. The problem with any person part of congress or the Senate are the too club like thinking they end up having. It’s good to have a Rand Paul type in there to shake things up.

    However, Santorum has always been clear his beliefs and I see nothing wrong with having a discussion about it. That’s how you end up with the Mitts in politics saying anything that’s polled or PC for people supporting another person.

    • Reckoner_3

      “Santorum has always been clear his beliefs and I see nothing wrong with having a discussion about it. That’s how you end up with the Mitts in politics saying anything that’s polled or PC for people supporting another person. ”

      Yes, and here’s background contextual information of why Santorum takes the position he does on hard Libertarianism……he doesn’t believe in “leave it up to theoretical rigidity” that some Libertarians uphold

      ——————————–

      “Although the Libertarian Right? I am very tough on! When it comes to this idea of personal autonomy. I refer to as, No FAULT Freedom, Freedom without Responsibility. Which is the ideal of the LEFT that you should be able to do whatever you want to do, as long as you’re not hurting anyone else.

      The view of Freedom on the LEFT is you should be able to do whatever you want to you do.
      Well the Libertarian Right has adopted that I think >> at their peril…
      That you should be doing whatever you want to do.
      No society survives if everybody is doing whatever they want to do.
      Of course people are going to get hurt.
      If I’m coming into a red light and you’re coming on a green light. We’re doing what we want to do? I’m in a hurry — boom.

      We’re running into each other every day. And we’re destroying the fabric of society. We’re just focused on us.

      Our Founders View of Freedom, was a SELFLESS FREEDOM. It was something BIGGER than ourselves. It was a WE kind of Freedom, not an I kind of freedom.

      I was at the National Conference of the Constitution. We were all given a snippet of the preamble. We were all given a little snippet on the Preamble of the Constitution and my little snippet was ‘ Promote the General Welfare ‘ as I got thinking of giving a three minutes speech on the words ,

      Promote the General welfare, I decided to read the entire preamble and when I read the entire preamble?

      I realized The FIVE things of the reason for the Constitution, that’s what a preamble is, the REASON for the document. Of the FIVE things, FOUR were Active verbs.

      ESTABLISH
      ENSURE
      SECURE
      PROVIDE

      those were the other four verbs and that was the role of the Government

      The Constitution was to set up the government, that was to do these things.
      But when it came to the General Welfare , it was not an active verb or response
      It was to PROMOTE.
      It was just to create a general atmosphere. So Whose responsibility was it? For the General Welfare, or the Common Good?

      It’s the people. It’s our individual responsibility, to CREATE the General Welfare, and To BE Asource of the common Good. I think a lot of Libertarians have abandoned the field on that, and they’ve sort of joined with the LEFT, YOu know it’s uh, really just a bout me, it’s about doing what I want.

      It’s not the way our founders sought freedom. ”

      - Rick Santorum, After Words , CSPAN 2005

      ——————————–

      http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/188127-1

      That’s just where he is coming from. That’s his view. The criticism against him is overblown or out of ignorance of why he would criticize the movement in the Republican party that focuses solely on the Economic and spending, while being lax on things like promotion of things like legalizing harder and harder drugs, and a truce on “social issues” etc. etc. “Who cares about the definition of marriage! ” moral relativism etc etc.

  • MLCBLOG

    This is info I need and welcome.

  • wodiej

    Don’t forget he’s said some derogatory things about Gov. Palin too. That aside, he simply does not have the depth or vision to run the country. His main focus seems to always be on social values and we need someone like Gingrich who can see the many crisis we have and the know how to fix them. Tea Party or not, Santorum was a big spender in Congress. I don’t see the argument for him being the best one to go against Obama or to fix our problems.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Teri-Mount-McCall/100001392291805 Teri Mount McCall

    With articles such as this one I am starting to understand why Santorum is gaining in the polls … taking a play out of Bill Clinton’s book about what the definition of is “is” are we? Pay no attention to the guy behind the curtain … no you did not hear what you thought you heard … etc … This is SPIN pure and simple and only those who want to fall for it actually will. I know what Rick said and it was his own words that hung him with me.

    Newt 2012 All the way!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Teri-Mount-McCall/100001392291805 Teri Mount McCall

    Furthermore, he still says “I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party Movement to sort of refashion conservatism and I will vocally and publicly oppose it and do my best to correct the record.”

    “this movement within the Republican Party” referring to the Libertarians … of which by the way Rand Paul did not run as (he ran as the tea party candidate) then he uses the word AND “the Tea Party Movement” indicating to me he clearly has a problem with BOTH Libertarians AND the Tea Party Movement. The editing in the video does not edit this sentence at all. Therefore your “definitive proof” is BOGUS!

  • Sober_Thinking

    Thanks Scoop! MUCH appreciated!

  • Winghunter

    Well, the Tea Party sure as hell has serious problems with Santorum!

    Santorum’s Brand of The Redistribution of Wealth: A Massively Expanded Welfare State is ‘The Genuine Conservatism our Founders Envisioned’ http://bit.ly/A0FZeg

    What A Big Government Conservative Looks Like http://bit.ly/xzpdiV

    Rick Santorum’s anti-gun history http://bit.ly/uiyBCe

    Santorum wants appx. 12 Million murderers/rapists/kidnappers & the like to be able to vote: Felon Voting & The Constitution http://bit.ly/xATsu7 (Who thinks a single one of them would vote Republican??)

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OIRSIZYCFPWB4I5GUE7VICVLLI Victoria

      Thank you. Please make sure to spread this around so people in their right minds will have second thoughts before voting for this serial hypocrite!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OIRSIZYCFPWB4I5GUE7VICVLLI Victoria

    Nice spin! The fact is Tea Party is made up of different people to protest the government’s growth, out of control spending and tax increases and federal debt and deficit. The Tea Party should actually be the one who has problems with Santorum as they are not aligned with his big government conservatism and his voting records and his proud defense of his Earmarks. But now, he wants the Tea Party to support him even if has “real concern” about them. What an opportunistic hypocrite! This buffoon will lose in a landslide against Obama! Vote wisely! Vote Mitt, our only chance to beat Obama!

  • Bren4824

    hahahahahahahaa………..You have all been hoodwinked by Ricky Santorum!!

    Here are the videos……Santorum’s own words!!

    Santorum says…….The Tea Party does NOT belong in the Republican Party and does NOT belong in Washington!!!

  • http://twitter.com/DavidCrespoUSA David Crespo

    THANK YOU SO MUCH RIGHT SCOOP! Passing the information.

  • http://twitter.com/politiJim PolitiJim

    I’m calling on TRS to post the Gingrich ADS to join the tea party, his live Hannity appearance the NIGHT of the Tea Party – and contrast it with ANY Santorum media the night of the first tea party. (you won’t find any)