“Santorum Is Dangerous,” And He Wants To Be President
He may not have a chance in hell of being nominated, or of winning if the GOP were crazy enough to make him their candidate in 2012, but that does not mean his presidential aspirations should not be taken seriously. Republican strategist Mark McKinnon says we need to sit up and take notice, because Santorum’s political ideology is as extreme as it gets:
A Rick Santorum presidency would be very, very dangerous for America.
Unfortunately, he’s thinking about it. No matter what they say, assume that any politician who steps inside the borders of Iowa or New Hampshire has got the presidential itch. And Santorum just announced a series of Iowa visits to scratch himself before conservative activists.
Santorum’s views on social and cultural issues don’t fit into any mainstream, pragmatic, or moderate conservative framework. His religious zealotry is frightening — jaw-droppingly so:
Santorum once grouped gay sex with incest, polygamy, and bestiality, and he believes consenting adults have no constitutional right to privacy when it comes to sexual behavior. He is a strong supporter of teaching intelligent design. He is anti-gay, anti-immigrant—supporting the most extreme anti-immigrant legislative proposals though he is the son of an Italian immigrant father—antiabortion, and anti-anything that smacks of progressive thinking, centrism, bipartisanship, or moderation in the Republican Party.
Santorum was one of only two senators who voted against Robert Gates to be secretary of Defense because Gates advocated talking to Iran and Syria, which Santorum said would be talking to “radical Islam” and would be a grievous error.
[...]
Santorum’s view of conservatism departs from the libertarian tradition of Republican icons like Ronald Reagan.
Here’s Reagan in 1975:
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism…The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
And here’s Santorum in 2005:
“One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right…This whole idea of personal autonomy, well, I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
[...]
Despite his actions and extreme ideology, and the fact that he was defeated in his bid for re-election by the widest margin of any incumbent senator since 1980, Rick Santorum should be taken seriously. He is articulate, focused, and a tenacious campaigner. And ideological conservatives love him. His base will be narrow but passionate. They will mobilize and they will vote. Especially in early primary states like Iowa and South Carolina.
And that means there’s one word that should come to mind when thinking about a Rick Santorum presidential candidacy: dangerous.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
16 Responses to ““Santorum Is Dangerous,” And He Wants To Be President”
Sanatorium isn't going to get much support, even with a far-left administration in power Republicans don't really care for him much.
Sanatorium isn't going to get much support, even wthe immoderate administration in power Republicans don't really care for him much.
He'll be competing with Palin for the crazy vote….Rudy and Mitt will blow them both away.
I'd take Palin anyday over Santorum. Believe me!
Actually, many of these issues that you have sumptuously lumped together have not been resolved within the Democrat party as well. Left, Right or Center, they have become side issues overshadowed by the issues currently under national debate. At some future point we will undoubtedly address them individually. As for Senator Santorum’s views on these issues, it would seem that if the Democrats must lose, horse trade, or compromise on some issues to succeed in the midterms, then these would probably be negotiated as such. Never forget that Senator Santorum was elected and remains elected, by the wishes of his majority constituency. Which makes his views valid on capital hill.
My friend Ron Beasley of Newshoggers once referred to Santorum as “One of the finest minds of the 13th century.” I had to agree. And yes, Rick would be competing with Palin for the crazy vote on the far Right. Far more likely that we'll see Romney (the current obvious pick) or a more dark horse (currently) candidate like T-Paw.
I'd be interested in hearing Kathy's views on some possible runners from the equally nutty fringe on the left. Can you imagine a Barbara Boxer candidacy? Or even Pelosi? We would soon be yearning for the days of when we only ran up one trillion dollar debts per year and eventually paid 60% of our wages in taxes.
Then again, I guess the liberals don't have any “crazy” on their end, do they?
Let's see, we'll have Santorum and Palin vs. Boxer and Pelosi. Wow… Talk about weird-o-rama. Let's throw Alan Keyes and Barney Frank in for giggles. Creepy fun wholesome goodness there!
And for let's have Pat Robertson be the emcee for the Right and Al Sharpton for the Left!
We'll put Cirque du Soleil out of business in Vegas!
But if nuts like him runs, all the other candidates will pull right. This Liberal could have stomached Mittens if he ran as a moderate technocrat, not the phony far right candidate he portrayed…
Rick Santorum was my congressman and senator in Pennsylvania. He is truly scary and what makes it worse is that he will spend millions of other people's money to feed his ego. What a waste of time and resources….he was not only one of the lunatic right, but also outright lied about many aspects of his living conditions.
I'd be interested in hearing Kathy's views on some possible runners from the equally nutty fringe on the left. Can you imagine a Barbara Boxer candidacy? Or even Pelosi?
I don't know as much about Boxer as I do about Pelosi, but neither one of them could reasonably be described as the “nutty fringe” of the left. I guess it just shows you how far to the right political discourse in this country has become, that a middle-of-the-road liberal like Pelosi could be seen by anyone as the “extreme left.” What would the non-extreme left be, then? Joe Lieberman? That other guy with the funny name I've blocked out of my memory? (Starts with a “Z,” I think.)
We would soon be yearning for the days of when we only ran up one trillion dollar debts per year and eventually paid 60% of our wages in taxes.
We had a surplus when Clinton took office and a $1.3 trillion dollar deficit on Pres. Obama's first day in office. So you're yearning for the Bush days — which is, if I read you right, what you are saying. That doesn't make much sense to me, but then I'm a liberal, right?
As for paying 60% of “our” wages in taxes, of course the highest tax bracket now is what? 35? And under the surtax for the wealthy provision, it would be, I think, 45% for the highest income bracket — people making over $2 million a year.
Of course, the larger point I have in mind is that you should be glad you have any income at all in this economy, and if you have a high enough income to even imagine being in a non-existent 60% tax bracket, you should be grateful. You should not be complaining or sounding bitter about it. I will allow myself to let out a small part of the testiness I feel inside, and say that I find it unseemly and off-putting to hear someone who clearly has a decent enough income to not be on unemployment or food stamps, and to be able to pay for housing and other essential expenses whine about the harm being done to him by government spending designed to get us out of a deep recession.
Jazz is right. TMV – via writers like Kattenburg – does a good job of watching for extremism on the right, but what about on the left? Balance is necessary in all things, is it not? Are you listening, Mr. Gandelman?
[...] very, very dangerous for America. Unfortunately, he’s thinking about it. No matter what they say, click for more var _wh = ((document.location.protocol==’https:’) ? “https://sec1.woopra.com” : [...]
He may not have a chance in hell of being nominated, or of winning if the GOP were crazy enough to make him their candidate in 2012, but that does not mean his presidential aspirations should not be taken seriously.
I'm not going to take his aspirations seriously because he doesn't have a chance.
I agree with DaGoat— he couldn't even defend his Pa Senate seat-so there's no chance that he'd be nominated. If he were, it would be an early Christmas gift for the Democrats, who would wipe the floor with him.
Think Johnson/Goldwater in '64= landslide for the Dems in 2012.
Jazz is right. TMV – via writers like Kattenburg – does a good job of watching for extremism on the right, but what about on the left? Balance is necessary in all things, is it not? Are you listening, Mr. Gandelman?
LOL! Ummm… well, wouldn't Jazz be that “balance” you seek? Logic, redbus?
Jazz? He's hardly right of center. I've read lots of his stuff. The mast-head here at TMV says: “popular features from the left, center, and right.” Unless you count the very occasional columns by non TMVer Michael Reagan, where is the “right” on this site? Instead, we get the kind of stuff like Marc Pascal put up today, lionizing FDR and dissing “white men” who if he had his way should just go kick the bucket already. Nope, still looking for a conservative member of the TMV staff. Haven't seen him (or her ) yet…