SHUT MOUTH TOO!
Posted on 03/10/2012 12:04:55 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Even when I agree with Rick Santorum, listening to him argue the point almost makes me change my mind.
I also wonder why he’s running for president, rather than governor, when the issues closest to his heart are family- oriented matters about which the federal government can, and should, do very little.
It’s strange that Santorum doesn’t seem to understand the crucial state-federal divide bequeathed to us by the framers of our Constitution, inasmuch as it is precisely that difference that underlies his own point that states could ban contraception.
Of course they can. States could outlaw purple hats or Gummi bears under our Constitution!
State constitutions, laws, judicial rulings or the people themselves, voting democratically, tend to prevent such silly state bans from arising. But the Constitution written by James Madison, et al, does not prevent a state’s elected representatives from enacting them.
The Constitution mostly places limits on what the federal government can do. Only in a few instances does it restrict what states can do.
A state cannot, for example, infringe on the people’s right to bear arms or to engage in the free exercise of religion. A state can’t send a senator to the U.S. Congress if he is under 30 years old. But with rare exceptions, the Constitution leaves states free to govern themselves as they see fit.
In New York City, they can have live sex clubs and abortion on demand, but no salt or smoking sections. In Tennessee, they can ban abortion, but have salt, creches and 80 mph highways. At least that’s how it’s supposed to work.
And yet when Santorum tried to explain why states could ban contraception to Bill O’Reilly back in January, not once did he use the words “Constitution,” “constitutionally,” “federalism,” their synonyms or derivatives. Lawyers who are well familiar with the Constitution had no idea what Santorum was talking about.
He genuinely does not seem to understand the Constitution’s federalist framework, except as a brief talking point on the way to saying states can ban contraception. Otherwise, he wouldn’t keep claiming, falsely, that Obamacare is the same as Romneycare.
Rick! We’re conservatives! We believe the states can establish a religion — and the federal government can’t.
If he truly believed in the Constitution, Santorum wouldn’t be promoting big social programs out of the federal government, such as tripling the child tax credit exemption and voting for “No Child Left Behind.”
No federalist can support this man.
Most recently, Santorum assailed Obama for saying everyone should go to college by responding: “What a snob!”
No! No! No!
Santorum’s response merely reinforces the insane liberal worldview that going to college is the preserve of our betters, a hoity-toity proof of social class, a desirable consumer product like a Louis Vuitton bag.
This isn’t the ‘20s, when only the upper classes went to college. These days, every idiot who can scratch an “X” on his checkbook assumes hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to make himself less employable by taking college courses in — for example — “Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame” (University of South Carolina, Columbia), “GaGa for Gaga: Sex, Gender and Identity” (University of Virginia), “Arguing With Judge Judy: Popular ‘Logic’ on TV Judge Shows” (University of California, Berkeley), “The Phallus” (Occidental College), “Zombies” (University of Baltimore), “Comics” (Oregon State University), “Harry Potter: Finding Your Patronus” (Oregon State University), and “Underwater Basket Weaving” (University of California at San Diego).
My fellow Americans, Meghan McCain has a bachelor’s degree.
It’s not snobbery that compels liberals to promote college for all; it’s a scam to manufacture more Democratic voters, much like their immigration policies.
Is a Valley Girl who takes courses in Self-Esteem at Cal State Fresno (an actual course at an actual college) a finer class of person than a skilled plumber with approximately 1,000 times the earning capacity and social worth of the airhead?
No. But she is more likely to vote Democratic.
Encouraging everyone to go to college creates an all-new class of people entirely dependent on the government, which is to say: reliable Democratic voters.
First, the taxpayer subsidizes the wasted human space teaching these moronic courses (at prices far outpacing inflation), and then the taxpayer pays the incomes of the graduates who are resigned to filling ever-growing no-show, self-paced and self-evaluated government jobs.
Who else would employ a graduate with a degree in Women’s Studies, Early Childhood Education, Physical Education , Sociology or Queer Studies but the government?
Santorum can’t be the one arguing for our side.
Even when he’s asked to defend his own blindingly obvious point, Santorum manages to blow it. A few weeks ago, George Snuffalupagus asked Santorum about a perfectly reasonable quote from his book “It Takes a Family,” where he suggested “that a lot of women feel pressure to work outside the home because of radical feminism.”
Santorum disavowed the quote and gallantly blamed it on his wife: “Well, that section of the book was co-written, if you want to be honest about it, by my wife, who is a nurse and a lawyer.”
Mrs. Santorum is neither listed as a co-author nor thanked in the acknowledgments of the book. (Rick should read his book! It’s probably chock full of interesting quotes like that.)
Then, when asked about another criticism of radical feminists from his own book, he said: “I don’t know — that’s a new quote for me.”
My imaginary beagle could have defended Santorum’s book better.
(The only worse quote in the campaign so far was from Newt Gingrich explaining why he denounced the Paul Ryan plan on Social Security as “right-wing social engineering.” Newt went on Fox News and said: “Let me say, on the record: Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood.”)
It was the same thing with Santorum on gays serving openly in the military. Again, Santorum is right — but he still manages to lose the argument.
Back in October, when Chris Wallace was interviewing Santorum on “Fox News Sunday,” he fell into a trap a 14-year- old high-school debater wouldn’t have walked into, by agreeing with a quote — without knowing who said it.
Wallace asked Santorum if he agreed with the following quote: “The Army is not a sociological laboratory. Experimenting with Army policy, especially in time of war, would pose a danger to efficiency, discipline and morale and would result in ultimate defeat.”
To no avail, I screamed at the TV: “NO! DON’T AGREE! IT’S PROBABLY A HITLER QUOTE! SAY YOU’LL USE YOUR OWN WORDS!”
Santorum agreed with the blind quote only to be informed that it was a quote from someone arguing in 1941 against blacks in the military. (I didn’t catch the segregationist’s full name ... Franklin Delano something.)
He still could have recovered by demanding to know if Wallace was suggesting, therefore, that the Army IS a sociological laboratory and a splendid place for social experimentation in time of war, but Santorum just shrugged sheepishly and mumbled something about how that was different.
The problem is not Santorum’s conservative positions, it’s that he can’t defend them.
Why is Ann and the rest of the “Elites” in the bag for Romney??????????
Romney is not now or ever been any kind of Conservative, he is the typical Elitist Eastern Liberal Rockefeller Republican.
“Romney is not now or ever been any kind of Conservative, he is the typical Elitist Eastern Liberal Rockefeller Republican.”
I thought this column was about Santorum, who I wouldn’t elect POUS unless my only other choice was Obama.
yeah...I ain’t reading anything by Ann Coulter anymore, she is Persona non grata around here....
Ann is a Romneybot loser who’s Conservative credentials have been flushed down the toilet. Supporting GOProud and dating Bill Maher is not what real Conservatives do.
Sorry, but Ann’s column was rather anti-Santorum and she seems to be pushing Romney.
Now to be fair I don’t like either and would find voting for for them hard to swallow.
Um, because Ann is too. She writes books about Conservative theory but likes the perks of being a Moderate.
Pray for America
I dunno, I’ve been down on Ann of late and I should be predisposed to support Rick but I find this analysis devestatingly accurate. I wanted to support Rick but the more I actually listen to him the less I like him.
Of course, that's how it should be (with the Federales having little to do with almost everything) but post Lincoln that's not how it is. To pretend that all we should care about now is national defense and post offices is absurd. I'm sure that even the formerly esteemed Ms. Coulter has said something similar in a former life.
ML/NJ
Sure! Long story short: Neither Gingrich nor Santorum spell their names R-O-M-N-E-Y, so she can't like either because it goes against her cocktail party buddies' tastes. Adams-Apple Ann went over to the dark side years ago. Her transition is now complete.
As a conservative that is all that keeps Romney going politically.
Coulter has sold her soul to Romney, Inc. To paraphrase what she wrote in this column, even when I agree with Coulter, listening to her argue the point almost makes me change my mind.
Actually, Ann called Maher a idiot in her latest book “Demonic”. I doubt that she is still dating him.
I haven’t been a friend of Adams-Apple Ann since she swore Bush fell off the wagon when he nominated Miers to the SCOTUS. Yes, she was a poor choice, but accusing Bush of being a boozer again was over the line.
Man, when it comes to spamming a thread, you don’t go half-way! Hat tip!
The more I listen to Romney the MORE I like him!
But in Santorum's case she's right. Call it the blind squirrel or broken clock effect but she's right. It's not Rick's positions, it's his inability to defend them convincingly when they are the easier arguments to defend. He says dumb stuff all the time. I loath the idea of Romney as much as anyone, and also believe Ann has sold out and become a Romneybot (her distinction between Romneycare and Obamacare misses the point entirely) but in this case she happens to be right. Rick just makes an easy target. All the more reason to support Newt. He may never overcome the "unlikeability" factor, but he clearly would make the best President at this point in time.
The remaining field of candidates depresses me. We have a big government social conservative, a big government economic conservative, a big government liberal — and one remaining candidate who is a small government conservative but unwilling to lift a finger to prevent Iran from getting/using nuclear weapons.
Hmmm...
Santorum is a big government Republican who once said we need more government in the bedroom.
Obama would probably win 40 states against Rick.
Huh?
Of the three GOP candidates remaining opposing Mitt Romney for the presidency Newt Gingrich , Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum. Only one has had the courage to take on a what they call a third rail issue...Eugenics... and has had his chacter asassinated for it... He’s been characterized as a women hater ,, a religious nut, a one trick pony, .... pummeled from both sides and that is Rick Santorum ,,,,What’s really in Obamacare and
What is Eugenics....? It’s control.... and all that goes with it.
Two groups late in the last century led in Eugenic development. The Nazis and the Communists. Few know or remember how the Nazis began. First citing “health risk” “nicht rauchen” baning cigarette smoking, Then terminating Down Syndrome children, and then on to mentally defective children and adults,. then on to besides murdering opponents, races. All done to make the German Reich healthy and last a thousand years.
Eugenics put in common words is this :You surrender your individuality to the group to advance the greater good of the group. If your unhealthy or too old and you can’t work for the greater good of the group any more, you are disposed of in the way the group decides. If there are too many people , the group decides no more babiys, kill them. Now lets take the word”group” and change it for the word “ state”. That is what’s in Obamacare which is deceptively titled “The Affordable Health Care Act”
.So you go to the MSM (Main Stream Media) the so called “gate keepers” for information about these things and you find closed gates . Either it’s not mentioned at all , or downplayed, and given Obamacom talking point excuses for their reason. An example of this is how the sorcerers in the media were allowed to conjure Eugenics which is an integral part of Obama/Romneycare known as the Affordable Health Care Act magically reduce a 2000 page Hydra , a nine headed venomous snake that must be slain by a firebrand ,and morph it into the mourning after pill and a “womans health care issue.” .
The “gatekeepers” never called it out for what it is ..Obama and his Demo-com HHS department Secretary Selbelius who is a CINO (Catholic In Name Only and should be excommunicated period) .Yet Obamacom tzars who hail from that foreign land, the deep swamp of Acadamica are all preaching the utopian wonders of Eugenics. Why it’s the final solution (remember him ?) population control. Which is part of the Obamacare package. Obamacomms are on record and actually called it population control and demanded Catholic bishops support it. Their statements are out there .But not offered by the so called gate-keepers but by the AM the alternate media, meaning radio talk shows like Limbaugh’s and websites like Britebart’s Government . Places Obama wants to shut down and will once re-elected .
Another issue is its constitutionality imposing a current government position on religious groups. And BTW (by the way) one group has been excluded in the “Affordable Health Care Act” for religious reasons ...the Amish....Again silence from MSM
.Demanding changes of acceptance in what was traditional core cultural values held by religious groups and advancing eugenics meaning infantacide and condeming seniors to soylent green centers certainly does have a place in the political discussion.
Once upon a time there were Democrat voices who would warn when pitfalls of bad legislation appeared. Saddly there are no longer any independent voices in todays Democrat Party. Liberal watch dogs like Proxmire or Moynihan are gone . A liberal would be screaming about the benefits from private job creation projects like an iron mine in Wisconsin for a desperate area in need of jobs or the Keystone pipeline transfering oil from Canada to American refineries and support them. A socialist or communist because of a political agenda,would reject them and they have. In each case the US Senate, and the Wisconsin state (hate the governor) senate dominated by agenda driven democrats killed both projects .They’re not just Democrats but hyphenated Demo-Coms placing their political agenda above the common good.
The Keystone pipeline and iron mine decisions which would have provided employment to thousands and reduced gas prices. Their rejection by the demo-coms should send a signal to the Republican bleeding heart establishment . “Bi-partisanship” doesn’t exist with socialists and to its leading presidential candidate ,Mitt Romney. Mr Romney should start realizing Obama is a “socialist”.. Everyone including the monthly liberal magazine Newsweek knows he is but Mr Romney just can’t seem to get around to saying it .
Where the Santorum campaign failed was to allow the media and the opposition to describe the issue and reduce it into popping a pill. Furthurmore in Ohio’s case you had some local major market so called “conservative” talk show hosts ridiculing Santorum on this issue not just the drummers (as in venomous snake oil hustlers) on MSM.
Whether Santorum decides to shy away from this issue or re-frame it is up to him and his advisors. But he should be encouraged to re-adjust the focus. One way the Catholic bishops can help is use the mechanisms they have to do so...After all they have shut down parishes which retained the latin mass but can’t speakout and act on this despicable movement ? Particularly when that is being shoved on religious groups by the Demo-Coms . Especially when they’re ignoring constitutional rights...
I still dream of Sarah tossing her hat in. The only problem with that would be that she probably can’t beat obammy, and she is aware of that.
One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, 'Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay'. It’s not okay..."
No doubt about it, Newt is the most authentic conservative. He is also the most underrated candidate.
I am concerned about the use of the word “baggage.” I think it is an underhanded method to attack Newt because of his physical appearance. He does look like he carries excessive “baggage.” But then, how about Gov. Chris Christie? Criticize Christy about his weight and you will get bitch slapped across the room with his words.
The same bitch slapping should go to those who use the word “baggage” for Newt. The perception of “baggage” is mostly myth and we know it. It has taken a life of its own by the continuous exaggeration and propaganda campaign by the media and “Myth” Romney operatives.
I wish sometime that Newt will take the time to bitch slap the baggage myth—across the room and to the moon!
And who thinks the traitor Bradley Manning is a hero and a patriot, and who believes a fence on the border is a bad idea because the US government might use it to keep Americans from fleeing to Mexico, etc, etc, etc.
Let's not minimize what is wrong with Wrong Paul. It isn't only his loopy views on Iran that make him impossible to even consider supporting.
I’m absolutely convinced that Newt Gingrich is the junkyard dog we need to rip Obama a new one and send him slinking back to his Chicago slime pit with his tail between his legs. Newt has plenty of DC experience as Speaker, executive ability from his many enterprises, and a silver tongue that’s razor sharp! He’s fast on his feet, delivers it straight up with no hemming and hawing, and is often witty. His work with American Solutions was very impressive and as we’ve seen recently, Newt is able to put into words what the vast majority of Americans really believe. His fevered brain also has plenty of ideas for making government work better for taxpayers. Is Newt pure as new-driven snow? No - none of the presidential candidates are in line for sainthood. Whatever Newt’s “baggage”, it pales next to Obama’s habitual lying and outright corruption - and unlike Obama, Newt is 100% American! Newt is like Larry the Cable Guy: send him to DC and he’ll “Get ‘er done” for all of us. Newt has “Been there, done that! Junkyard dogs are not show dogs, but they’ll save your bacon!
I am damn mad at what Obama and his fawning bootlickers have stolen from us - you should be too - and I want someone to represent me! Newt Gingrich is that man! Sic ‘im, Newt!
See Tagline
Paraphrase of Ann Couter to Romney:
“I’ve gone around the country running my shrieking, flapping yap, telling everybody you are a conservative. Are you?”
Thank you for your comparison of Santorum/Gingrich voting records. Very helpful!
Newt is a big government conservative despite what you hear in the echo chamber. He’s the only one in the race that actually proposes a whole new “environmental solutions agency”. For every federal agency he proposes eliminating he continues on with further plans for the money.
I hate to say it, because I don’t like AC, but she’s right on this one. In order to be fair, let me say from the start that I have never liked Santorum and I don’t like him now. But this is exactly for all the reasons she has enumerated.
He sounds like he’s running for Ayatollah. Actually, I think he’s trying to adopt Obama’s irritating, oppressive moralizing tone, granted with a different morality, and even though I may agree more with Santorum’s morality, I don’t think that’s what being president is all about.
I want somebody who has knowledge of our history and ideas, who understands economics and science, who understands the Constitution and is willing to defend its validity in US life, and who will simply reject the whole nanny-state apparatus built up over the last 20 years and taken to oppressive, dictatorial levels by Obama.
Santorum isn’t that person. He has no objection to the basic concept, he just wants it to reflect his values (and all of us will then have to go along with them) rather than somebody else’s.
BTW, also in the interests of honesty, I’m also a Catholic, and a very conservative one, and most of the conservative Catholics I know don’t like Santorum because they feel he considers himself more Catholic than the Pope...and at the same time, he’s the old-style big-government welfare-state type of Catholic.
Ann jumped the shark long ago... she is petulent and self-serving
You’re welcome !
I agree. I wish Ann would stop acting like the smartest kid in high school and grow up. It's time for the goofy sarcasm to stop. She has a brilliant mind that is being wasted by the appearances of her silly antics.
BTTT
Coulter, you have become a pathetic Christie, ...errr... Romney shill. Bob
I agree! But since life is like high school and the vast hordes in the middle of the intelligence curve determine the outcomes, don't get your hopes up.
Oooops.
Get a picture with him tomorrow!
"Who in his/her right mind doubts the President's commitment to accelerate the agenda to which he has devoted the past several years of his life?
"Does anyone believe that he came to such a commitment just before, or during, the 2008 campaign?
"The American people need to hear from an informed Republican candidate about the real nature of the battle of ideas in which citizens must be engaged, and the design and serious intent of the November 2012 opponents.
"Long ago, a Freeper posted the Agenda of a 2002 meeting of so-called "intellectuals" in Chicago.
"Note the participants in that conference are the major "players" in the headlines emanating from White House policy makers in 2012, including the now-President.
"Romney's cavalier description of the President as "a nice guy" who "just doesn't understand" how the "private sector works" is either shallow and uninformed, misleading, or something else. The "battle of ideas" for the future direction of the Republic is too important to be engaged in on such a level.
"American voters, like the citizens of 1776 and 1787 can understand and connect dots--if they are adequately articulated to them now, allowing them time to think about it.
"Picture this: a group of people who describe themselves as being "intellectuals," declaring of the conference: "It will be both a celebration of ideas and a rigorous examination of the roles and responsibilities that intellectuals play in society."
"Nothing is so pitiful and shameful that, in a country whose document of liberty was authored by a true intellectual, and was said by him to be a mere representation of "the American mind" of 1776--in such a country, in 2002, after over 200 years of basking in the "light of liberty" first shed by that document--we now have a group of people sitting around in Chicago and plotting how their so-called "intellectual" efforts will play a role "in society." Consequences of their "role" are being played out now in the "society."
"As Weaver said, "Ideas have consequences."
"The ideas of 1776 resulted in more liberty and prosperity for more people over a longer period of time than ever had been experienced in the history of civilization!
"So-called "intellectuals" who occupy positions of excessive coercive power in Washington today may, if unstopped, precipitate another age of darkness in the world, where the ideas of liberty have been censored, and "other ideas" from other sources have been exalted.
"Dr. Russell Kirk years ago warned of what T. S. Eliot had labeled a "new provincialism--the provinciality of time, imprisoning people in their own little present moments." Picture the participants of that Chicago conference, and we have a visual of Kirk's words.
"The enduring and essential ideas of Creator-endowed individual liberty must be defended against the "redistributionist" ideas which have led to tyranny in every society where they have been implemented.
Where is the Jeffersonian intellect of 2012 who is up to the task? Whose study of the founding ideas can equip him to help American youth and other voters discover and preserve the ideas of liberty for their posterity?"
It's strange that Coulter has endorsed the architect of communist health care, with its unconstitutional mandate that forces American citizens to overpay for their insurance policies so society's bums, deadbeats, and parasites can have their health care for "free'.
Who in their right mind listens to this woman anymore? She’s proven himself to be a card carrying member of the communist party, with all the crap she’s been saying lately.
Santo is running and Willard too to KEEP Newt out of the Presidency..
It pure and quite simple.. Willard and Santo have no plans to eviscerate the federal givernment.. Newt does.. Willard and Santo are Union stooges.. ringers.. you know fakes.. phonies.. shills..
You too Ann are a useful tool.. being played like a rented donkey..
Maybe even a Rhino in an Elephant costume.. but then the bright side is you can no longer “play me”..
You are not dumb so what your doing must be ON PURPOSE..
That of course, makes you, a malefactor.. I’ve got my EYE on you..
I think that's the way it was planned:
The big government pol with the most money wins by default.
And, it doesn't hurt that he has been "next in line" for four years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.