Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ann Coulter: THE PROBLEM WITH SANTORUM
AnnCoulter.Com ^ | February 29, 2012 | Ann Coulter

Posted on 02/29/2012 4:05:08 PM PST by Syncro

THE PROBLEM WITH SANTORUM

February 29, 2012
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. Read More »


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; antiborderpatrol; coulter; duplicate; godcomplex; hatesprotestants; holierthanthou; lacksfocus; minorleague; mouththatspews; obama; popericky; populistliberal; probiggovernment; proillegals; prounions; rick4anticondomczar; rickisbetterthanyou; rickspector; saintearmarx; santorum; voted2doubledepted
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: citizen
Santorum did do this in Michigan. S-l-e-a-z-y.

Not sleazy, smart. Reagan Democrats are a natural target for Santorum -- or any Republican candidate trying to win the conservative vote.

Face it. Romney would've run these ads, too...if he'd thought of it.

41 posted on 02/29/2012 6:39:10 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

Anne was persona non grata here, and suddenly 3 people post the same article in a few minutes.


42 posted on 02/29/2012 6:42:18 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lauren BaRecall

Unlike too many people on this forum, I’m not trying to fool anyone. I speak of current events of Santorum dirty ads recently in the news. This Santorum tactic was voted against just today 87 to 13 by the Special Report viewers. I suppose they are all just dirty Romney lovers, too? Actually, I hope that’s true.

Kindly document you accusation of Romney 2008 robo-calls asking Dimocrats to vote against any Republican. ANY Republican.


43 posted on 02/29/2012 6:47:00 PM PST by citizen (The Dims will all unite for Zero. We must soon unite behind our challenger and back him to victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: citizen

Next time, *read* my post!

Romney took a recorded endorsement Santorum made for him in 2008 and made a robocall of it and used it in this 2012 primary season. VERY SLEAZY.

I’ll find a link tomorrow.


44 posted on 02/29/2012 6:54:09 PM PST by Lauren BaRecall (I declare for Santorum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: citizen

I’m with you, City. Santorum’s robocalls were an act of desperate opportunism. And what’s wrong with Romney touting Santorum’s 08 praise? Has Mitt changed dramatically since then?


45 posted on 02/29/2012 6:56:23 PM PST by sand lake bar (You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: citizen
I read your post, I do that when I respond.

Allowing crossover voting is self destructive.

Weather you like it or not doesn't matter to me, I didn't comment one way or another on your support of it.

You may be a teacher in real life, but giving homework to posters here isn't part of the curriculum.

Or respectful, in fact it's disrespectfully condescending.

I didn't hear or need to hear the audio.

I heard the robo ad, that's enough for what I commented on.

I get what he did just fine.

If you have a problem with my previous post to you, I respectfully suggest that you go over both of them slowly.

46 posted on 02/29/2012 7:01:27 PM PST by Syncro (Sarah Palin, the unofficial Tea Party candidate for president--Virtual Jerusalem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: sand lake bar

These calls went out around the time that Newt was rising and there were people calling for Santorum to drop out. Romney used these calls to purposely confuse voters as to the status of Santorum’s candidacy. Did he drop out and decide to back Romney, as Perry did with Newt?

Sleazy and deceptive.


47 posted on 02/29/2012 7:01:55 PM PST by Lauren BaRecall (I declare for Santorum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

She is supporting a RINO! Her opinion means squat to me.

If she were supporting Newt, she would have more credibility. But Mitt! Please Ann, save it. I’m not interested in what you have to say anymore.


48 posted on 02/29/2012 7:02:14 PM PST by Mrs. Frogjerk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
Rick! We're conservatives! We believe the states can establish a religion -- and the federal government can't.

We do?

Did I misunderstand Ann's point, or is she really saying that conservatives "believe the states can establish a religion"?

This conservative doesn't believe that, any more than I believe the states can abridge free speech or infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

49 posted on 02/29/2012 7:05:19 PM PST by Washi (Surviving the Zombie Apocalypse, one head-shot at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Syncro

This woman is dead to me. She sold her soul for Mitt Romney? What a joke.


50 posted on 02/29/2012 7:13:54 PM PST by Antoninus (Mitt Romney -- attempting to execute a hostile take-over of the Republican Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lauren BaRecall

I have no problem with a candidate, any candidate, repeating the words, in context, of whatever his current opponent may have said on tape at sometime in the past. Duh. That’s politics 101.

As for finding a link, don’t bother on my account. I have already heard it. Nothing wrong with publicizing what someone said in the past. BTW, Rick was 100% correct in his assessment of Romney being the best candidate in 2008.

C’mon people, the name of the game is beating Obama not beating Romney. Beating Romney just assures that Obama will win. Let’s keep our eye on the ball, please.


51 posted on 02/29/2012 7:18:47 PM PST by citizen (The Dims will all unite for Zero. We must soon unite behind our challenger and back him to victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: citizen

Rick Santorum just proved himself the smarmiest Republican candidate for President in memory.

Asking Democrats to cross over for a “one-time” vote, knowing those same Democrats would run back to Obama in the general election!!!

What a worm Santorum is. Almost ashamed I supported him in Pennsylvania.


52 posted on 02/29/2012 7:44:29 PM PST by Edit35 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: citizen

I’m going to look for it anyway because IIRC Santorum asked the voter TO VOTE FOR ROMNEY.


53 posted on 02/29/2012 7:55:32 PM PST by Lauren BaRecall (I declare for Santorum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Paperdoll

Levin is the only reliable talk show host who is left. I refuse to listen to any of the other hacks from now on, including his good buddy, Hannity, who was praising Romney on his show today. And what’s the deal with featuring 20 minutes with Velma, the Obama supporter with the IQ of a peanut?.
I tuned in to Sean’s show in the car for the first time in two years or so cuz nothing else was on. What a mistake, especially after yesterday.

I’ll not listen to another second rate back bencher pseudo Conservative talk show host.
Levin is a brilliant Constitutionalist who is unafraid of backlash from sponsors, misinformed friends or GOP elitist hacks.
He is the one solid Conservative voice that tells the truth consistently.


54 posted on 02/29/2012 8:02:15 PM PST by Mountain Mary ("This is OUR country and WE will decide"... Mark Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
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.

Like homosexuality in the military, Annie, and Roe vs. Wade, and the Public Accommodations Act, the FDA, and Obamacare, Annie? Like that?

55 posted on 02/29/2012 8:06:54 PM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mountain Mary
Levin is a brilliant Constitutionalist who is unafraid of backlash from sponsors, misinformed friends or GOP elitist hacks.

Certain people in New York will go after his show and try to shut it down now, like they did Glenn Beck and are doing Rupert Murdoch right now.

Play ball or fall off the face of the earth, is their rule.

56 posted on 02/29/2012 8:11:07 PM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
[Art.] States could outlaw purple hats or Gummi bears under our Constitution!

Not true. Not if they're homosexual hats and Gummi bears, not if they're Afro-American hats and Gummi bears, not if they're "Hispanic" or lesbian or Jewish or Asian-American or Moslem hats and Gummi bears.

Not if they've got "protection"! From the Protection Racket.

57 posted on 02/29/2012 8:15:12 PM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: citizen

Um...you mean the same tactic as used in operation chaos? You mean the same tactic (reportedly) used by Ronald Reagan in 1976 in Texas?

Sorry, but I don’t buy it. These are the rules which Team Romney wanted. Yet, when they saw the rules might work against their campaign, they were whining about it.


58 posted on 02/29/2012 8:39:30 PM PST by Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600
I understand your point but I do believe there are still Conservative Democrat voters, not office holders. Regardless, I just don't take seriously what they (the Kos Kids) think.

The one constant of Republican nominees in my lifetime is Moderates (Liberals) lose general elections, Conservatives win general elections. If Romney does become the nominee, that constant won't change.

59 posted on 02/29/2012 8:51:32 PM PST by Rational Thought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Syncro
problem
60 posted on 02/29/2012 9:15:49 PM PST by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson