Santorum: “I would never vote for Barack Obama over any Republican”

Santorum responded to Hot Air’s post this morning on his comments yesterday, saying it’s preposterous to suggest he would vote for Obama over a Republican (via Hot Air):

“I would never vote for Barack Obama over any Republican and to suggest otherwise is preposterous. This is just another attempt by the Romney Campaign to distort and distract the media and voters from the unshakeable fact that many of Romney’s policies mirror Barack Obama’s. I was simply making the point that there is a huge enthusiasm gap around Mitt Romney and it’s easy to see why – Romney has sided with Obama on healthcare mandates, cap-and-trade, and the Wall Street bailouts. Voters have to be excited enough to actually go vote, and my campaign’s movement to restore freedom is exciting this nation. If this election is about Obama versus the Obama-Lite candidate, we have a tough time rallying this nation. It’s time for bold vision, bold reforms and bold contrasts. This election is about more than Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Rick Santorum – this campaign is about freedom and I will fight to restore your freedoms.”



In some ways I’m kinda glad this happened simply because it is my fear as well and I am glad he is getting the opportunity to enunciate this issue more. Everyone needs to understand this point because if we make Romney the GOP nominee, it will be that much harder to win this election. I can see the ads in my head already. He will be put forth as the candidate that you can’t trust because you don’t know which Mitt is telling the truth.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’d rather argue over principle than over mitt-flops.

Comment Policy: Please read our 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.

171 thoughts on “Santorum: “I would never vote for Barack Obama over any Republican”

  1. He needed to correct what he said. He DID say that if we nominate Romney we just as well stay with what we have. He said it, so Hot Air cannot be blamed for the criticism.

  2. Honestly, why say stupid things like that and then have to explain himself.

    This kind of electioneering really pisses me off. Fight Obama not each other you idiots.

  3. Having to back peddle from a huge gaffe is political suicide.

    Santorum is not adult enough to be President. He is far too reckless and unstable.

    Please quit!

    1. How the heck is he back peddling???

      How do you back peddle from something you never said!??

      This isn’t about what Santorum said; this is about what Obamney and his media stooges HEARD!

  4. As much as i like Santorum, he’s going to be a disaster against Obama, if he’s nominated. Both Santorum and Romney keep making the worst gaffes ever. I would prefer Gingrich to debate Obama, but now it’s looking unlikely he will win the nomination.

    1. What exactly did Santorum do/say to be a disaster against Obama? Rick will not be afraid to go after Barry, Mitt will just like John McLame.

  5. Now, Romney is fairly good on most topics, and Santorum has pushed his topics forward.

    Btw, since it’s friday, some über-simple pedagogy in US economics I just watched 😉

  6. IMO They just used his statement to try and get him to say he would support Mitt if he were the nominee. So I especially appreciate the first line of his response, which actually did not come out and say he would support Mitt – Rick didn’t fall for it, way to go Rick!

    1. Go RICK?

      Go big government-big labor?

      Have you even looked at his record as a legislator?

      His rhetoric for government living within its’ means and not selling out to the unions is a recent affectation.

      1. Whatever…He toted party line and has stated those votes aren’t indicative of his conservative values. No one else exhibits the common sense and moral values to lead this country. If you think it’s only about jobs you’re way off. Last thing we need is another BIG GOV’T RINO Like Bush. We either start to turn this ship around or we’re a communist nation. If you don’t think we’re on the brink then you’re lost.

  7. Santorum wants credit for an explanation to his prior assertion that Romney the nominee is not a viable alternative to Obama.

    He said it and is welcome to walk it back. FACT: He still said it.

    Vote Gingrich. Last I checked, everyone said Newt was unstable and incapable of staying on message.

    Looks like the Speaker has proven his critics wrong and the other non-Romney vote is the one likely of imploding.

    1. I agree that Gingrich was unfairly accused of being unstable and unable to stay on message. The man is a walking book of knowledge.

      1. His constituents have good reason for pause…most will remain with some of the others going to Romney and Gingrich.

    1. Please explain your logic. According to national presidential polls, Romney is tied with Obama and Santorum would lose by 4+ percentage points. Gingrich would lose by double digits.

      Many people are excited for a President Romney…regardless of what the media says and what fanatical right wingers say. We’re looking for someone who can restore fiscal conservatism and belief in America’s foundational values. I believe most of America is too.

      1. Many people are NOT excited about Romney, including the South which he has been unable to win. He will lose again tomorrow in LA.

  8. This is what i heard Santorum say: If you vote for Romney, we may as well keep who we have. How that got turned in to him saying he would vote for Obama is really stretching it as far as I’m concerned.

    1. MSM and Mitt camp trying to change the narrative. He had to do something to take the focus off the Etch-a-Sketch.

      I hope Rick wins BIG in LA.

    2. In other words: If you vote for Romney, we may as well keep who we have …because Romney is Obama-lite and is not going to beat Obama. The theory that it takes a RINO is a myth and since Nixon, perhaps because of him, it didn’t work with Ford, HWBush reelection, Dole, or McCain….because when given the choice between Dem and Dem-lite the voters seem to go with Dem as recent history proves. The only Republican to beat an incumbent in the last 100 years was a conservative named Reagan. This is a myth spread by progressives!

      1. And Mitt Romney is actually more conservative than Reagan!! Why don’t people understand this? For example, the incessant questions about Romney’s pro-life convictions are bordering on obsessive compulsive at this point. Ronald Reagan never faced this level of skepticism after his conversion. Nor did former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson after she left her job to become a pro-life advocate. A trademark of the pro-life movement is its ability to change hearts and minds by sharing the truth about abortion and the humanity of the unborn child.

        If Romney’s words or record as governor are not convincing enough, just look at what abortion advocates are saying. Abortion advocates are downright fearful of Mitt Romney winning the Republican nomination. They have devoted more time to bashing Romney than any of the other Republican candidates, even though they all share a pro-life stance on abortion.

        Mitt Romney is a good conservative, businessman and governor.

  9. “I would never vote for Barack Obama over any Republican and to suggest otherwise is preposterous.”

    Hmmm. Well, I heard what he said and I thought he inferred that folks shouldn’t bother voting for Obama if given the alternative of Romney.

    I must be one of those being “preposterous”.

    His lack of ability to remain disciplined and on message is not my fault. Santorum is not acting like a potential President by insulting folks like me, the Republican electorate who put him in office.

  10. This election is all about Barack Obama and anyone who doesn’t understand that is stupid beyond measure. It’s that simple.

    Barack Obama MUST be defeated and anyone who would stay home, or encourage others to not vote or waste their vote, will be responsible for the re-election of the man who is determined to destroy what’s left of this great nation. And he will do it. If Barack Obama gets another term it means he will most likely get to appoint more justices to the Supreme Court. It means the obliteration of the State of Israel and the deliberate murder millions of Jews. It means the continued assault on businesses and capitalism and basic freedoms. It means four more years of 1984 style doublespeak parroted by every mainstream media outlet until there is no hope of saving what’s left of the American Dream.

    You will vote for Mitt Romney if he’s the nominee. If you don’t, you will be responsible for the ruination of The United States. Barack Obama must NOT get a second term.

    1. Indeed! This election is about White Horse prophecy! As soon as the convention is over I’m looking into converting to Mormonism and worshiping Romney as a Messiah like with sycophantic zeal.

      /sarcasm

      I don’t think people parroting that crap realize they’re not doing Romney any favors because by the time the MSM and Obama’s PACs are done with all the “Constitution is hanging by thread” and WHprophecy contrast, Romney will be too bizarre for too many and its only guaranteeing an Obama victory. Irony I suppose.

        1. You have that exactly bass ackwards.

          RINOs and moderates got us to this place not conservatives. Don’t try blaming me for them because I don’t vote for RINOs and its a unbecoming and a cowardly thing to do.

          1. You’re the one promoting the idea that we’re better off with Obama. You’re either a coward or a liberal pretending to be a conservative. Romney scares you but Obama doesn’t? I guess that would make you a fool no matter what you’re pretending to be on the internet.

      1. You really need to watch this and understand that Obama is very different than any Republican and many Democrats for that matter: http://2016themovie.com/

        And your religious references are neither funny or valid.

        1. I’ve educated myself about Obama and Romney and will vote for neither. And what I said about the MSM contrasting Romney, Joseph Smite WHprophecy and all the idiots not helping Romney’s cause with the Constitution is hanging by a thread talk is going to happen regardless of your fantasy that it won’t. And people will be running away in droves as they find it too bizarre, that’s just the reality. If you think the MSM is going to be fair and balanced and not balls out for Obama then I’ve got some swampland in FL to sell you.

  11. While I think Santorum is not our TOP choice, a vote for romney is a vote for obama, because the conservative base that won a huge landslide victory across the nation in 2010 will NOT be excited about voting for Ted Kennedy with an “R” next to his name if the GOP got away with pushing that rino down our throats! Romney should be thrown out of the Republican party for KILLING GOP votes in so many States with his multimillion dollar LYING attack ads deceiving voters to feel there is no hope for a conservative Republican!

    1. You obviously don’t know Obama or Romney very well. They are two very different people with stark contrasts and ideas for America. Sure, Romney’s not the perfect conservative candidate, but who is?

      If you erroneously believe Romney isn’t truly conservative, what does that say about Santorum? He endorsed pro-abortion Specter AND Romney.

  12. You forget that Obama has a record to run on. That record begins with his stupid a$$ response to high gas prices. I got my own video in my head. It starts with the price of gas before Obama took office and covers everything that he has said on the subject and then everything he has said and done or not done to mitigate it. The vid ends with the price of gas nationwide and asks the question: So which is better 1.83 gas or 4.00 gas?
    Are you willing to pay European prices for gas? If so vote Dhimrat. If not, vote Republican for a change.

    1. If you think Obama is bad now, wait until his second term when he doesn’t need to concern himself with reelection.

      1. If we have ZERO leadership in the Senate and House that will do anything about ANYTHING, it doesn’t make a difference.

        If Romney is the nominee and wins (which he won’t) he will do very little to address serious issues, as will the fools in the leadership of Congress.

        If Obama wins he’ll push his agenda and the Senators and Congressman will still do nothing.

        It will be up to people to push the government to succumb to their will and the Constitution. We own the joint.

        My position is always, Romney will never defeat Obama to begin with. So what is your Plan B if Obama is re-elected?

      2. Hmmmmm, sounds like White Horse prophecy, guess I better drop my Christianity and convert to Mormonism because the White Horse prophecy is coming true.

        /sarcasm

        Actually the GOPE is blackmailing us…oh boy! Now I’m going to be called a racist besides a bigot. Its hard to speak in a PC-world where words have twisted meanings instead of their true defintions.

      3. I honestly believe he would try to round a bunch of us up. Money was snuck into the stim-u-less bill for at least 5 detention camps.

  13. “” I’d rather argue over principle “”

    Thank you TRS! Take it back to principles. That is the only way out of this mess.

    We have let the government drown the essential principles of the greatest Nation, in a swamp of political complexity and trickery. Now they tell us only they can lead us out. Nope. It is they who perish without us.

    It just takes leaders with character and principle.

  14. Why is Romney, like Obama, commenting on the Trayvon Martin murder when the official investigation has not begun or completed? Should one wait to see the investigation results before given an opinon? This what we are talking about, similar mindset!

    1. Because he is a liberal. The incident is being blown out of proportion to sabotage Florida’s Right to Defend law (which this guy MAY have violated) and more gun control.

      Regardless of what he says we know where Romney is on those issue from his record.

  15. 1-Santorum you make me sick. You continue to look like Obama more and more everyday. You now are going to blame Romney and his group for your misspeak. You refuse to take responsibility for your error.
    2- You played the game with the etch a sketch statement made by Romney camp and created a fire storm and thought you were cute, however, now for them to come after you is unfair?
    3- This is the part I love about you. Your last statement is as close to plagiarism without actually being plagiarism from Newt Gingrich. Bold Visions, Bold reforms & Bold contrasts.
    4- Someone please tell me what really qualifies Santorum to be President! (Please do not embed santorums web site)
    5-Last but not least, once again you endorse Romney by your first statement. Even if it is true, no need to broadcast it.

  16. I’m sure Drudge will plaster this announcement in Huge headlines at the top of Drudge Report for hours.

  17. Santorum: “this campaign is about freedom and I will fight to restore your freedoms

    What freedoms?

    I don’t want generalities. Santorum should be saying he will “fight to restore individual rights”, because they’re what encompasses the entire spectrum of unalienable human freedoms of action when in a society.

    The thing is though, it all depends on his interpretation of what the individual rights actually imply, because he won’t talk about individual rights having objective implications; he will think of them purely in subjective terms. This should trouble you all greatly, but I expect that it won’t because most people think individual rights are totally subjective too.

    Will Santorum fight to restore the freedom to consume, grow, sell, buy and distribute drugs?
    Will Santorum fight to restore the freedom to have an abortion?
    Will Santorum fight to restore the freedom to run a business without first spending hundreds if not millions of dollars in compliance costs with government regulations?
    Will Santorum fight to restore the freedom to watch, make, sell, buy and distribute pornography?
    Will Santorum fight to restore the freedom to get married and have sex if the individuals are the same gender?
    Will Santorum fight to restore the freedom to keep ALL of the fruits of one’s labor?
    Will Santorum fight to restore the freedom intrinsic in having a gold standard and sound money?
    Will Santorum fight to restore the freedom to NOT be one’s brother’s keeper?
    Will Santorum fight to restore the freedom to run a business with an almost 100% market share, making it a de facto monopoly?

    How many NOs do I see here? I see a whole bunch of them. Don’t give me crap about “restore your freedom”, and then proceed to tell me how you intend to either retain the status quo of government control over my life, or intend to introduce new controls over my life. Don’t talk about protecting individual rights, and then proceed to violate individual rights in numerous ways.

      1. I just want my individual rights to be respected and protected. Is that so offensive to conservatives?

        As far as I can tell, conservatives don’t really advocate individual rights; they just advocate a compromise between their violation and their protection.

        1. Our Founding Fathers never envisioned the right to pornography or hard drugs. Ppl on hard drugs commit violent crimes at a much higher rate. There is no liberty when folks are drugged out and doing whatever with no regard to others.

          1. Actually the founders were focused on limiting the power and reach of the central government, which is why the document reads like it does.

            1. Of course, that is what the Constitution was about. The Constitution placed constraints on the federal gov’t, but it was not why we had the revolution.

              1. No, of course not, I never stated that the Constitution had anything to do with the Revolution. If you’re looking for the “why” for the Revolution, look no further than the Declaration of Independence. The Founders never chose to expound fully on what they referred to as “inalienable rights” like the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” mentioned in the Declaration, which kind of leaves them to individual interpretation. Jefferson himself, in his notes on Virginia, albeit on the subject of different religions, but still a lens through which he viewed personal liberty stated, “it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”. “Rights” are a tricky business, however as long as we hold to and acknowledge the responsibilities that go hand in hand in our exercise of those rights, the responsibility to ensure that, the exercise of those rights does no harm to others, nor infringes upon their rights. Of course this applies to others as well, a fact which many Libertarians overlook when they get on a tear about “their” rights.

                “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

          2. All of those things were envisioned in the right to the pursuit of happiness – Drugs, pornography, aircrafts, cars, plasma TVs, big macs, light bulbs, etc – All of it, and the things yet to be discovered, were envisioned in that individual right.

            If I have the right to the pursuit of happiness, then I have a right to do whatever I please, so long as I don’t violate the individual rights of others by initiating force against them. I can go take the hardest drugs imaginable – How does that initiate force against others? – It doesn’t!! I can go watch the hardest porn imaginable – How does that initiate force against others? – It doesn’t!!

            That is the standard that you need to come to terms with.

            1. So, you don’t see Abortion as an “initiation of force” against a defenseless human being?

              1. “Human being” is not the criteria for individual rights. Being an “Individual” is the criteria for individual rights.

                I don’t see it as an initiation of force so long as it’s during the early stages of development where a foetus or cells are not capable of existing as an “individual”. An individual should be capable of existing independently.

                There are other criteria which make an “individual”, such as possessing the capability to develop the faculty of reason/rationality, thus separating us from animals, plants and other forms of life.

                The later stages of development are not the issue here. The issue is with many people claiming that the early stages of development should be protected by individual rights (particularly the right to life), even though the organism is not an individual at those early stages.

                We have to apply individual rights to true individuals. If we start applying them to non-individuals, then it’s a slippery slope towards “animal rights”, “plant rights” and the whole plethora of rights that actually violate authentic individual rights.

                I blame the whole abortion hysteria on a complete lack of understanding of individual rights. It’s sad how often I have to deal with demagogues on the Right, just because it’s this particular issue. I should expect it from the Left, but not from the Right.

                1. Life begins at conception. It’s not about being an individual. It’s about being formed in God’s eye. You are an individual at conception. Your DNA is different from your mother’s right at conception.

                  Thank you for showing what drug use does to a person. It makes a person selfish. It’s all about you.

                2. The government wasn’t instituted to protect “life” – The government was instituted to protect the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

                  You’re saying that an “individual” is formed at the moment of conception, without making ANY effort to understand what an individual actually is. You’re just coming up with your own definition of an “individual” to suit your agenda. You’re not even acknowledging that an individual is by very definition capable of existing independently; you’re just ignoring that completely, even though it is crucial to understanding what an individual is.

                  If I was a statist, you know what I would do to your “Life” argument? – I’d say: “Well, you know, plants and animals are “alive” too, so therefore plants and animals are “individuals” as well!“, and then I’d proceed to deny people the ability to kill and eat plants and animals, thus dooming the human race to starvation.

                  Of course, you’ll bounce back with “Oh but, I meant human life!”, and naturally the statist would respond “You can’t change your mind like that! Why should it be ‘just’ human life? You initially said “life”, so therefore plants and animals are individuals too. We’ll go with that!” – Don’t you see that your arguments are superficial and easily exploitative by statists? You’re so obsessed (for whatever reason) to make sure that abortion cannot happen at any stage following conception, that you’ll happily walk straight into a statist’s trap. Geez -_-

                  Quote: Thank you for showing what drug use does to a person. It makes a person selfish. It’s all about you

                  My dear fellow, if you weren’t “selfish” then you would have to commit suicide lest you deprive someone else of oxygen or food or water. Don’t you understand that if “selfishness” is evil/wrong, then your desire to live is therefore evil/wrong? Selfishness is a virtue. It is very hard to achieve because living selfishly requires one to make one’s life the best and happiest life that it can be. I try hard every single day to live selfishly; it’s tough as hell. I have to figure out what actions will make my life the best and happiest life that it can be, and then I have to have the willpower to actually act on the knowledge. It’s tough, it’s really tough!

                  …. And yet there you are, telling me that it’s bad to be selfish -_-

                  My dear fellow, you misunderstand selfishness if you think taking drugs is in your self-interest. Just as it’s not in your self-interest to steal or murder. I would argue that taking drugs, stealing and murdering are actually “selfless” acts, since you are acting destructively of the self; you are acting in a way that will make your life the worst and unhappiest life that it can be.

                3. So an individual is capable of living independently? Absurd. What about a baby? They can’t live independently. They must be fed by someone else.

                  You want your porn and your drugs. That is not liberty, but go for it anyway..

                4. “Independent survival” does not necessarily mean that one must live unaided. I mean, if you think about it, pretty much no human being lives without aid from others, in some form (trade, charity, secondary consequences, etc). If the qualifier for independent survival (and thus being an individual) is “absolute independent survival”, then 99% of humanity would not be individuals, which is clearly absurd.

                  It doesn’t matter whether ‘I’ want porn or drugs. I haven’t even said whether I do or don’t. I merely want the freedom to do whatever I want to do, just so long as I don’t initiate force against other individuals and thus violate their individual rights.

                  It may be argued that those who want to stop/control people doing the many freedoms of action that do not involve an initiation of force against other individuals (eg. taking drugs, watching porn, etc), are actually advocating the violation of individual rights. When you stop that individual from smoking a joint of marijuana, you are violating his individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; you are being just as immoral as the statist who stops that individual from using incandescent light bulbs, or from throwing frisbees on the beach. Anyone who advocates the violation of individual rights is acting immorally.

                5. Your rights ends where the next person’s begins.

                  You are free to drink, but not drink and drive because you could hurt someone.

                  Hard drugs ruin ppl and make them useless and often violent. Over 70% of street crimes involve someone using hard drugs.

                  Killing a baby in the womb is the ultimate liberty stealer.

                6. Saying that I can’t do something because I ‘might’ hurt someone, is called “preventative crime” – It is a tool of tyranny, because it is “subjective law”. Statists can use that subjectivism to criminalize an unlimited plethora of human activity that shouldn’t be a crime in the first place – http://principlesofafreesociety.com/objective-laws/

                  Yes, hard drugs “ruin people and make them useless and often violent”, but…

                  a) Their body belongs to them; they can ruin it and make it useless, if they please.
                  b) If they become violent, or threaten violence against others, then the police can act to stop them or failing to do that, punish them after the fact.

                  Drinking and driving is a contractual issue. The government owns the roads and if you want to drive on their roads then you must agree to be bound by the contract (of rules). If you “drink and drive” on their roads then you are breaking the contract between you and the government, and there are punishments (eg. fines) which you will have agreed to subject yourself to when you signed that contract.

                7. You are doing the “dance of equivocation” around the question, which I would expect from any Objectivist, but I am not going to hijack the thread by way of critiquing the contradictions inherent in that philosophy. I did not ask how you defined individual or human rights. I asked if you thought it was an initiation of force or not. Being as you answered in the negative, I would conclude from that answer, that you do not fully grasp the term or its implications. Considering that the term denotes the beginning of the use of physical coercion, violence or restraint, the act or procedure of abortion “fits the bill”, as left to its (the fetus) natural course it will develop to, what you choose to define as an individual. The capacity for the independent survival of a given entity is hardly a qualifier for what defines an individual, in the case of humans, that individuality begins in the moments after conception as the DNA of the parents intermingles and becomes one to create a new individual. Which is different than trying to define when the capacity for independent life begins.

                  Demagogues? Not sure who you are referring to with that hamfisted attempt at dismissal. I would posit that you are exhibiting a degree of naivete, bordering on the absurdly ignorant. To come onto a site that is predominantly Christian-Conservative, toss out in such a cavalier manner, the positioning of abortion as a “freedom”, and then state that you would not expect it to draw fire from those on the political right, more specifically, the Christian right? Yeah, sure.

                8. Quote: “The capacity for the independent survival of a given entity is hardly a qualifier for what defines an individual, in the case of humans, that individuality begins in the moments after conception as the DNA of the parents intermingles and becomes one to create a new individual

                  Independent survival is fundamental to what it means to be an individual. Until you’re capable of that then you’re just part of a collective; a cog in a machine; no individualism is possible to you.

                  Granting individual rights to a non-individual necessarily violates the individual rights of actual individuals, since the woman would be denied the freedom to separate the organism from herself, lest it kill the organism. She would be forced, at the point of the government’s gun, to take actions that ensured its survival to full gestation. Women who chose to starve themselves and hope for a natural abortion would have to be strapped down to beds and then fed by tubes to ensure that the foetus was fed. Don’t you see the disgusting evil that you are advocating?

                  The right to life? What about the woman’s right to life? Oh, sod her, I suppose? Strap her to a bed for 9 months and feed her by tubes! Who cares about her, right?? Who cares if her life is a prison for 9 months?? Who cares about her happiness?? Who cares about her liberty?? She shouldn’t have got herself pregnant in the first place, right?? >_<

                  I really do think that the whole pro-life movement is advocating an incredible evil. There is no doubt in my mind of this.

                  Quote: "You are doing the “dance of equivocation” around the question, which I would expect from any Objectivist, but I am not going to hijack the thread by way of critiquing the contradictions inherent in that philosophy

                  Go right ahead, because I have no idea what you’re talking about. As far as I am aware there are no contradictions other than those that people who failed to comprehend the philosophy erroneously came up with. I’ll happily debunk whatever troubles you about it.

                  Quote: “To come onto a site that is predominantly Christian-Conservative, toss out in such a cavalier manner, the positioning of abortion as a “freedom”, and then state that you would not expect it to draw fire from those on the political right, more specifically, the Christian right? Yeah, sure

                  Oh I know I’ll face a lot of opposition, but since when does healthy debate (especially intellectual debate) bother Conservatives? I often find that I can actually have a debate with Conservatives, whereas Liberals prefer to just ban/mute anything they disagree with.

            2. No they weren’t. There was a basic level of decency back then that we don’t have today. Doing hard drugs makes a person worthless and unable to hold a job. In turn, they need gov’t assistance. I thought you Paul fans were for smaller gov’t.? Burnt out druggies can’t support themselves.

              Pornography is not free speech. Free speech was free political speech. The freedom to speak out against our gov’t without fear of retaliation.

              Abortion is murder. You do not have a right to murder.

              1. Quote: “Doing hard drugs makes a person worthless and unable to hold a job. In turn, they need gov’t assistance

                Yes, I agree that “hard drugs are bad”, but where I depart from you is in the (seemingly automatic) assumption that people who screw up their lives should be assisted by the government – I reject the notion that irresponsible people should be assisted by the government. I reject it because I know that the only way for government to help person A is to pick person B’s pocket, since government has no money of its own.

                I’m all for drug legalization, but I’m also for people paying the price of their actions, no matter how irresponsible those actions are. For instance: If you take hard drugs and screw up your life, then it’s your own fault and you’ll either have to work out of it yourself, or ask friends/family for help, or ask private charity for help.

                I’m for personal responsibility. If you’re a conservative then you should understand that.

                Quote: “Pornography is not free speech. Free speech was free political speech. The freedom to speak out against our gov’t without fear of retaliation

                You think I’m arguing that pornography is a free speech issue? – Wrong! I’m not your typical dolt libertarian – I know that this is an individual rights issue, which is why I originally framed it as such. If Man is endowed with the right to pursue happiness, then this implies that Man has the freedom of action to buy, sell, distribute and watch as much pornography as he wants. No bloody self-repressed religious nut has a right to tell Man that he has a right to pursue happiness… unless it involves pornography or doing hard drugs.

                This boils down to a basic idea: That we own ourselves.

                If I own myself, then I can destroy myself, just like I can destroy any other property I own. If I want to destroy myself by watching the sickest pornography possible, or doing the hardest drugs possible, then I have a right, a selfish right, the “right to the pursuit of happiness” to do all of that and more.

                People who watch porn and do drugs don’t initiate force against anyone else, and hence don’t violate the individual rights of others. If you don’t violate the individual rights of others, then the government has absolutely no right to do anything to you – But if you do violate the individual rights of others, then the government is empowered to arrest you and punish you for it.

                Quote: “Abortion is murder. You do not have a right to murder

                See my reply to KenInMontana below.

        2. Individual rights are for everyone including the unborn. Most of the “rights” you list is called anarchy. I didn’t see you put rape and murder on your list. Where does it stop?

          1. It stops when one initiates force against other individuals. Individual rights can only ever be violated by the initiation of force. The government was instituted by the founders for the primary purpose of protecting individual rights. I advocate a government that is limited to the army (national defence), the police (against criminals) and the court system (protecting contracts and judging crimes). That is not anarchy.

            As for the unborn, I would argue that individual rights do not apply to early stages of development which cannot exist independently of the mother. Unborn in those earlier stages are not individuals, and are hence not endowed with individual rights. You may have made the common mistake of thinking that individual rights meant an “individual number of rights”.

              1. The initiation of force is only a violation of individual rights IF it’s against an individual. If the organism has not reached the status of “individual” then force can be used against it, ie. to remove it from one’s body.

                It is an initiation of force to prevent an individual from removing an organism from their body – just as it would be an initiation of force to prevent an individual from removing their appendix or tonsils, should they wish to do so.

                From my perspective, the whole “pro-life” movement is advocating that force be initiated against individuals, and hence that their individual rights should be violated. So quite frankly, I have nothing but contempt for said movement. I consider it a very evil movement indeed, since it is anti-individual rights.

                1. How sick that you view a baby in the womb as an organism.
                  That is not what God tells us.

                2. Check the dictionary. It is perfectly applicable, especially given that the organism has not reached the status of being classed an “individual”.

                  btw, it’s amusing to see your arguments crumble and then you resort to ad hominem. I shall now declare victory.

                  I bid you good day.

                3. LOL, thinking that your viewpoint is “sick” is an ad hominem attack? Not.

                  Go ahead and declare your victory. I find that to always be the case with a Paul supporter. They always want the last word.

  18. It’s sad when even Matt Lewis gets it and others say that comparing Mitt as Obama-lite is wrong.

  19. Rick bungles his words. He is not a good speaker, BUT I think he is honest. Honesty and integrity are what is missing from our politicians. I will never vote for someone I know is dishonest. Mitt Romney (Mr. Most Electable) is as dishonest as they come. None of our problems will be solved, unless we have moral people at the helm. Do you think for one minute that Mitt Romney will appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court? Do you think for one minute that he will repeal Obamacare? When he is elected, you will see the real Mitt Romney — he will govern as he did in Massachusetts. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have a flawed but honest President than a fork-tongued Mr. Slick. A liar is a liar, whether it’s Romney or Obama.

    And I have to wonder about the folks supporting Romney (Jim DeMint comes to mind), that they would endorse an obvious liar over a person that is not perfect but seems to be of good moral character. What the heck is going on? Either the Tea Party “representatives” have been bought and paid for, or their lives have been threatened, because they have not done a thing to advance the conservative agenda in Congress or the Senate.

    A nation of people that can lie and deceive so easily will not survive. Can you say Roman Empire?

        1. Ah, that it explains it. Guess he’s still mad that Brigham Young was not allowed to practice his polygamy and moved out west to what later became Utah.

        2. Exactly what does it explain? You will not hear a single Mormon leader saying bigoted hateful things about anyone regardless of religion or lack thereof.

          1. Well, they do some things I don’t agree with. My one of my mom’s friend’s daughter married a Morman. They got married in the Mormon tabernacle. They wouldn’t let the mother of the bride in for the wedding because she wasn’t Mormon! Horrible. Talk about bigotry.

          2. Jesus said that NO ONE come to the Father but through Him. Paul said that if anyone teaches a different Gospel than what he preached they should be accursed. Are they bigots??????

    1. Hmm, Rev. Wright wasn’t bigoted? Ayers, was just a guy in O’s neighborhood oh, and Farrakhan too. Critical Race Theory, Mao lover and the fundamental transformation of the country… and the world. Then we have all the Czars, Holder, Sebellius, Biden, etc. I cannot say who will win or won’t so I shan’t make that argument, I will say that it’s a fight i’d like to see.

    2. Oh boo hoo! I guess you couldn’t be bothered to look at the post that Scoop posted yesterday. Nothing bigoted about telling ppl who want to destroy our country to get out.

  20. I agree, Scoop. This ‘gaff’ is good if it leads to more discussion about Romney’s Liberal, Statist record and his weakness in a head-to-head against Obama. Santorum’s response above is superb.

  21. I’m trying to figure out which one of you is actually Rick Santorum using an alias. None of us would ever vote for the Mao man, but I still don’t think I can vote for the Mitt man either.

  22. “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’d rather argue over principle than over mitt-flops.”

    EXACTLY! Right there with ya…on all the rest above as well.

  23. Santorum is blaming Romney unfairly. The Blogosphere isn’t run by Romney. Most conservative websites and commentators that had been previously disposed to Santorum were astonished at what he said.

        1. Romney was Governor of a state with 200 folks in the State Legislature and only 29 Republicans. I live in New England and can tell you it’s hard to find a more Blue State than MA.

          Despite inheriting a huge (Democrat) deficit, he balanced the budget every year of his tenure – without raising taxes. He cut spending by 600 million dollars.

          What more do you want?

          A moderate in MA is a Conservative by most folks definition.

          Is he as conservative as Santorum? Or Gingrich? Nope. Not even close on the social issues.

          But short an absolute meltdown from Romney, neither of them is going to be the nominee.

          So your choice is Mitt or Barack. And staying home IS a choice, and half as good as an actual vote for the incumbant. I don’t recommend it.

          Stay thirsty my friends…

            1. Nah, nah. Mike, don’t engage the Romney Troll. They’ll tell ya — like Showbama does — that they know what’s best for regular folks like you and me.

              1. I’m just engaging in a Marine Corps sport which is taking pteradactyl size dumps on yo-yo’s heads. Worry not, I’m in a great mood and this is what I do.

                1. So let me get this straight…unless I bow down and praise Rick, my opinion is not welcome here?

                  When did this become the Daily Kos….or the Santorum for President web site?

                  If any of that is actually true, when Santorum does get out of the race, it’ll be crickets in here.

                  In the meantime, I direct you back to your regularly scheduled hero worship.

                2. Your opinion is welcome but your facts on Romney are way off and we do self police against propaganda. You may be getting the impression we are a branch of Santorum’s campaign but, in actuality we (royal we as in most of us) aren’t very thrilled with our options and many of us, me included would prefer Newt Gingrich.

            2. Nice. Thanks for bringing actual facts to the discussion.

              By the way “dude”, it’s not about me…nor is it about you (sorry).

              It’s about getting rid of a failed president.

              Focus would you please?

              1. We have a Taxachusettes poster on this board and between his details and our own research I have come to the conclusion that Romney was the last straw in bankrupting massachusettes, laid the ground work and outline for maobamacare and, by his own words, agrees with maobama about the necessary sky rocketing of the cost of energy. That isn’t even a little conservative. I argue he isn’t a moderate either. Maybe moderate in a similar way as Bill Clinton. I do like that you are exorcised about this as we all are. I am curious, however, if you were as interested for the 2008 election or if it is a new focus?

          1. Exactly, Joey. Staying home is always a choice, and most Conservatives — based on the Republican establishment and people like yourself repeatedly shoving Romney down our throat with labels that defy logic — are sadly gravitating toward that. As I’ve said, Romney supporters have done more to disenfranchise voters than Showbama has these days, and that is very tragic.

          2. He didn’t raise taxes he just raised user fees sky high. 47th out of 50 states on job creation.

          3. The race isn’t over and we do have a choice. Mitt is not the nominee yet and if some people have anything to say about it, he won’t be the nominee.

      1. I read it, thanks. I suspect that more of that kind of support will come out today. Redstate said something similar. But yesterday it was a different story.

        My point was that it wasn’t Romney wildly accusing Santorum. I reacted the same way to it, I thought Santorum clearly was saying “you may as well vote for Obama”. Not helpful to Santorum or to defeating Obama.

          1. Mike, are you saying that you would not vote for Romney if he is the nominee? I think you are because I think we’ve had this conversation before.

            Romney is not the ideal candidate, but neither is anyone else who is running. We have four Supreme Court justices over the age of 75, and an Obama second term will change the course of the court for decades. I don’t think we can take that risk.

            If you believe that Romney is just a political opportunist with no ideology, then I would assume he would be more likely to govern in line with the party that puts him in office. As far as whom he would appoint to the courts, Robert Bork is advising him, and I feel good about that.

            I have spent my entire adult life working in the pro-life movement, and I know what damage Obama can do to the causes that I care about.

            And no, it is not the only cause I care about. The debt scares the hell out of me.

            1. We have discussed this before. Previously I said that I would vote for Mittens after chopping off a finger but the more I dig on him I am not sure I could vote for mitt. I just don’t know. What I am sure of is that if Mitt wins the GOP nomination I will no longer be registered as a republican. I will bust my own backside starting a true third party.

  24. He was also on Becks radio show this am and pretty much made the same statement. Louisiana polls show him with a double digit lead. Keep your head clear and your chin up, Rick. 🙂

  25. Can’torum said iwe might as stick with Obummer than take a risk on mitt. Now he’s flipp flopping back. While calling Mitt a flipp flopper. Talk about irony.

  26. I knew what he meant and he is simply saying what most Conservatives are thinking. Romney would be slightly better that Obama but anyone who believes any different is dilusional.

      1. You need to investigate Romney’s comments and record as Govnah of Taxachussettes. There is no difference between Mao and Mitt.

        1. Right. Philosophically, no. None. Zip. Issues? Sure, probably. But ya got it: he’s a statist, which is why he gets the establishment’s endorsement.

      2. Yes you RINO, slightly better. Romney is a gash, a dufus, a loser, a big government John Boehner Republican.

        So a half-witted, liberal, non-Christian, Romney, is better than a half-witted, liberal, non-Christian, Obama? I see.

      3. Guest- You want to put a dog in this fight? Get a name.

        Otherwise everyone will just going to assume that you are another PaulBot.

    1. No, no. This Conservative has repeatedly said a vote for Romney IS a vote for the same political philosophy — i.e. statism — that Showbama supports. Mind you: the issues will differ, but, based on his record, Romney appears to be as much a statist as Showbama is.

      1. Well E.Lee Zimmerman now just let me say the I am a Conservative and a Rick Santorum supporter. But, I believe that Romney is pro-Israel, for a strong military, strong economy, and a strong energy policy. I think that’s it, but my point is that Obama is really against all of those that I mentioned. So, given that I think Romney would be slightly better than Obama. I am still struggling with Romney Care and Obamacare, Cap & Trade which is the reason I question the energy policy, and so many other issues. I am still fighting for Rick though until Rick decides not to fight!

          1. But, Romney care has an individual mandate, which is why 26 States are going to the Supreme Court, my friend. Jeb Bush is for illegal immigration, and President George W. Bush tried to implement amnesty and both support Romney. So I really question if Romney would follow through on an illegal immigration law given his track record of flop-flopping.

            1. Mitt was strong on illegal immigrants when he was my governor. Romneycare is worse than Santorum’s RighttoWork but not by much. Both guys have screwed up a lot. That’s the no-spin truth. The hate is getting ridiculous though. I know all eyes will be on Obama after this regardless of who wins the primary, but the rhetoric is getting out of control on this thread. Mitt being compared to Mao? Really?

    2. Right, elect Romney, then have the coup. No one will back him, not even in Massa-2-shetts.

      Romney/West-2012

      1. But, how do you shake the etch-a-sketch depiction? Will anyone want to run with Romney given the many sides that he has taken on every issue? This is very troubling. Do you understand that Obama is gearing up to run against Romney on the very issue of Obama care while 26 other States are fighting against the law. The first thing the media will say is that this Health care law was first implemented by a Republican. Look I have very liberal people in my family and they are already saying it. How do we defend that when those who crafted Obama care are the same who crafted Romney care? At least with Rick he hasn’t taken sides on every issue.

    1. For him to say “its an attempt from the Romney campaign…to distract the voters” is disingenuous. You said it in the first place Rick, not Mitt.

      I’d have preferred if he was truthful and said “I was trying to make a point on the fly, and it came out wrong.” instead of trying to shift some sort of blame on Romney and the media for his poor choice of language. I think it would gain him more respect in the eyes of voters, than the whiny “not my fault” approach.

      1. Wrong. Santorum said what he said and, as usual, it was taken out of context by the MSM and by Romney supporters just like the sermon Santorums preacher gave, which I also agree with. You need to start reading the actual words rather than the reactions to them. You are welcome to come here and see the truth. Scoop keeps us informed of the actual comments daily.

        1. I watched him say it on RightScoop’s post yesterday…there was no twisting of words. Do I believe he would vote for Obama? No. Did it come out that way? Yes.

          1. No, you did not see him say that yesterday. Scoop has another link at the top of the page but since you don’t complete any research I will help you out. It is the very top link at Daily Caller. IF you don’t watch the whole thing, please hold your tongue.

      2. No it isn’t. The Romney campaign is in distraction mode to attempt to have everyone forget about the fatal mistake of etch-a-sketch. Romney is a cancer that conservatives will root out of the Republican party.

        Romney admitted that he didn’t vote for Reagan. When it came time for party unity he flipped the party the bird. Nicole Wallace admitted that she didn’t vote for McCain/Palin. When it was time for party unity she stabbed the party in the back.

        There is a double standard for the country class. The political class believes party unity for thee and not for me.

        Etch-a-sketch was a defining moment. We owe no allegiance to the politicos. They gave us Obama because they refused to vote for Palin on the bottom of the ticket. They are responsible for Obama and now they want to shift the blame to us.

        Romney didn’t believe in Reagan. Well I will emulate Romney’s behavior should he get the nomination.

        You reap what you sow Mittbama.

  27. I’d rather argue over principle than over mitt-flops.

    I’d rather lose over principle rather than having someone destroy the party by not having any principles.

    1. That’s the ideologue that got Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Chavez, and our newly elected dictator in Hungary elected. What ever happened to principle? This statement makes me sick and I think it’s pathetic. Your statement means, in Martian language, “Do you want to drive the car off the cliff slowly or quickly?” Don’t keep saying that. Look at all the African nations – that’s what they usually say too. It’s not a good policy!! IN fact, it’s not a policy at all. You’re saying, any other heroin (the drug), than the one I’m using now. God, can someone scream at these people. Maybe Beck, or Mark – well, they are both saying the same thing too. Not good, not good at all. I’m with Santorum.

Comments are closed.