This just in from veteran Democratic strategist Bob Frum: “Catholic leaders are self-righteously trying to infringe on the liberty of all Americans.”
How does one respond to an argument so unhinged from reality? Glenn Reynolds takes a stab: “It’s as if we passed a law requiring mosques to sell bacon and then, when people objected, responded by saying ‘What’s wrong with bacon? You’re trying to ban bacon!!!!’”
And here’s Rick Santorum, having to respond to this ridiculous accusation, as occasioned by the Foster Friess goofiness, yesterday:
“The bottom line is my position is very clear,” Santorum told Fox News host Greta van Susteren. “I’ve had a consistent record on this of supporting women’s right to have contraception. I’ve supported funding for it.”
I just want to know from the heavy breathers on the left: can you think of one rational scenario under which a President Santorum would be able to ban or restrict Americans’ access to contraceptives? Just tell me how he’s supposed to accomplish this, please, you nippleheads.
For the record, I’m not happy that he voted public funding, but it’s a long way from insisting that religious institutions pay for it.
I’m like to mention that any such mandate has all the hallmarks of a lefty wedge issue: in my estimation, attractive women and alcoholic skanks will benefit disproportionally from this imposition.
Please, if you’re interested, listen to [friends of] Lisa Graas interviewing Santorum on just this issue.
Joy McCann on February 17, 2012 at 1:40 pm said:
We’re in danger of conflating two things: the current debate over public funding/mugging Roman Catholic institutions into offering contraception, versus Santorum’s history of supporting state-level restrictions on human sexuality such as sodomy laws, and the old Connecticut birth-control laws.
These are different things. The first, recent issue is an outrage that attacks religious liberties. The latter issue is troubling on two levels, because for Santorum to have defended state laws that restrict individual liberties (but only, apparently, ones that have to do with sex!) it 1) says something not-good about his instincts WRT the individual, and 2) provides massive fodder for the lavishly funded attack ads that we know are coming once the GOP has a nominee.
Dan Collins on February 17, 2012 at 1:50 pm said:
I just mean in this post to help stop this ridiculous rhetoric from the left dead in its tracks.
Meep on February 17, 2012 at 6:38 pm said:
You and your fruitless endeavors.
Poor, deluded Dan.
Dan Collins on February 17, 2012 at 8:05 pm said:
I know it’s pity, but . . . I’ll take it.
EBL on February 17, 2012 at 10:19 pm said:
Stacy McCain supports Santorum because he supports the patriarchy! Repeal the 20th Amendment!
That was a joke.
Paul Zummo on February 20, 2012 at 11:35 am said:
No conservative in good standing could possibly support the Supreme Court decisions that overturned the CT contraception ban (Griswold) or the sodomy statute (Lawrence). That one disagrees with SCOTUS on these issues does not imply a desire to actually have the states or the feds legislate on these issues.
Joy McCann on February 20, 2012 at 12:12 pm said:
Ah–nice argument. People who think that the SCOTUS got those decisions right are not “conservatives in good standing.”
Presumably, we shan’t be allowed to join in any reindeer games, either. Noted.
For those of you who are more interested in ideas than clubbishness, here’s Glenn Reynolds’ defense of Griswold:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=979786
Please note that if one were a U.S. Senator, there are ways of saying what so many claim Santorum said–that the correct result was achieved by means of poor legal reasoning. But at least in the case of Lawrence, that’s not what the man said at all: he protested the decision without any nuance whatsoever, and to all appearances supported Texas’s stupid sodomy law.
Now, if we’re going to bank on the socons in the rust belt to carry him to victory if this election is very close . . . okay. I can understand that, though the strategy makes me uneasy.
But let’s not whitewash the stuff he’s said that WILL come out in a general election, and WILL make a lot of swing and indie voters profoundly uneasy.
jefferson101 on February 17, 2012 at 2:13 pm said:
I think that there are some issues besides contraception that Santorum really ought to get nipped in the bud, because it’s not just contraception that is getting blown totally out of proportion.
I think that the same question can be asked of people who seem to fear that he would impose some kind of anti-sodomy laws. Exactly how would he get these passed, and in light of the Supreme Court ruling, how long would such a law be on the books even if Congress got stupid enough to pass it? Yes, Joy. I’m asking you.
I worry about a President Santorum managing to come up with all sorts of things that would be total clusterisms, but outlawing sodomy is about as likely as outlawing contraceptives.
AFAIK, online gambling is mostly already illegal anyway. The .Gov is not going to stand for it unless they figure out how they can wet their beaks in the profits, and when the business is offshore, they don’t have much luck that way.
Joy McCann on February 17, 2012 at 5:21 pm said:
Exactly how would he get these passed, and in light of the Supreme Court ruling, how long would such a law be on the books even if Congress got stupid enough to pass it? Yes, Joy. I’m asking you.
It says something about the unconservatism of his instincts that he has defended these laws. And if he wins the nomination, and then the Presidency, he’ll be appointing Supreme Court Justices, so nothing is off the table, unless you’re banking on the left to protect us from his lack of conservatism, his lack of concern for fundamental liberties.
I worry about a President Santorum managing to come up with all sorts of things that would be total clusterisms, but outlawing sodomy is about as likely as outlawing contraceptives.
Not the point. The point is that he’s okay with state interference in matters that are highly personal, and not the state’s business at all. Come on, you know the logic: “first they came for Group X, and I didn’t speak up. Then they came for Group Y, and I didn’t speak up . . . ” If he’ll support the states’ supposed right to outlaw birth control, there’s nothing standing between him and gun-grabbing.
AFAIK, online gambling is mostly already illegal anyway.
Yes; that’s been the case for about a year, and it has meant that my friend who likes to play poker on a serious level has had to spend a lot of time out of the house that he previously spent with his family. That particular law was a legislative effort, but as we saw with healthcare “reform,” a President can get plenty of bad laws passed simply by lending his name to the congresscritters who sponsor and write it.
jefferson101 on February 17, 2012 at 6:00 pm said:
Yes; that’s been the case for about a year, and it has meant that my friend who likes to play poker on a serious level has had to spend a lot of time out of the house that he previously spent with his family. That particular law was a legislative effort, but as we saw with healthcare “reform,” a President can get plenty of bad laws passed simply by lending his name to the congresscritters who sponsor and write it.
I don’t differ on that part, which is why I have issues with the “Social Conservatives”.
On a personal basis? I don’t buy Lottery Tickets. They are a tax on the stupid. When we had the Lottery up for a vote as a Referendum here, I voted against it.
It gets complex. I’m not morally opposed to Gambling, but I have issues with the State licensing it so that the rich get richer. Donald Trump or the Mob can get a Casino license. John Q. Public can’t. That’s my issue.
If they want to sell Casino Licenses for $10k each, and give one to anyone who can come up with the money and a Zoning permit? I have no problem. But limiting them is simply rent seeking, and makes all the kickbacks and under the table payoffs more easy to accomplish.
I don’t disbelieve in Government licenses, but I do believe that they ought to be universally available at a reasonable cost. Think Driver’s license here, or suchlike. You demonstrate reasonable knowledge of the laws, pay your fee, and get licensed.
Don’t even get me started on liquor licenses. Talk about a greased slide to corruption? There you have one.
But, having digressed, I have to come back to my concerns with Santorum. Is he going to bother me in the slightest? No way, other than his apparent liking for a lot more gun control that I prefer, and I doubt that he’d get that passed either, so I’m not notably worried in that regard.
But he’s a soft touch if you hit the right buttons. I could spend a day with him and have a couple new tax breaks in my honor, if he were President.
I don’t want them. Rick scares me a bit, but not nearly as much as a second Obama term does. Him, I can discuss and dispute with on his own ground. Obama and his crew I can’t. Those folks are not rational, to my lights. Santorum isn’t as rational as I’d prefer, but he’s not that bad.
‘Nough said.
EBL on February 17, 2012 at 3:53 pm said:
This is all a big lie. Santorum is being targeted and Santorum needs to avoid the trap. I love Rick’s Rombo ad. Why not do one on contraception. Use a little humor on why this is nonsense.
Rick stop making enemies among potential allies. Libertarians are not bad. If you really believe this, you will lose the general election. We might as well give it a shot with Mitt or Newt or someone we get a brokered convention.
EBL on February 17, 2012 at 3:58 pm said:
I do not have a problem with Rick on contraception. I have a problem with Rick on this.