I cannot help but notice that it was one of those typically formularic responses that ALWAYS reminds us that stuff may need to be regulated.
Look, I love regulation as much as the next fellow, but unless I wrote it myself I SIMPLY DO NOT TRUST IT.
BTW, I have written NUMEROUS regulations. When you stand in line at the post office one of my rules affects you in some way. Really comprehensive stuff in fact. But I go both ways on this stuff. I took a "handbook" with something like 75,000 words and trimmed it down to 750 words (and a recommend for a couple of pictures). That didn't endear me to the regulatory process fan base, but that's an idea.
I know what the politicians are doing when they look down their noses at the rest of us and go "tut tut, that may need regulation". They are SNEERING AT US and telling us we are stupid.
So, is that a reason to vote for someone else? Not really, but somebody who knows Santorum ought to get over there to him and tell him THERE'S NO PUBLIC DEMAND FOR THOSE REGULATIONS, and yes, by golly, we know all about regulation. We want a bunch of them eliminated!!!
Until Santorum's knee jerk response is "no new rules without justification" don't trust him.
From the OP:
“with respect to that bill, that I’m familiar enough with it that I can say that I have an opinion one way or the other on it.
It’s clear he’s saying that he doesn’t know enough about that bill to put his support behind it, therefore he doesn’t support the bill. OK? It’s not that hard to understand.”
I give Santorum credit for his honesty, plus he is astute enough to know anything he says will be nitpicked, so he is wise to study it first.