1 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

2 Yup, Rick was a nice addition to the mix. I expect he'll be valuable going forward.

3 To me, a governmental response to such a large force -- a tidal wave of social dysfunction -- would require a government empowered beyond the point at which I'm comfortable.

It doesn't have to be, but it's Santorum's fault for not articulating that properly.

There are a few things we could do which would actually reduce government, instead of empowering it, but we have no political will to do so.

4

The breakdown of the family is also pretty damn important. My problem with highlighting that, though, is that it is a social problem, caused by tens of millions of decisions over the course of decades.

To me, a governmental response to such a large force -- a tidal wave of social dysfunction -- would require a government empowered beyond the point at which I'm comfortable.

 

It's so handy when someone else pithily states what I think. Totally stealing this.

5 Vote for Daddy! We love living in the WH & taking vacations that you pay for!  LOL! Back to work serfs!

6 Why not get government involved in "family" its done a bang up job when its gotten involved in the economy, religion, marriage, education, and news and entertainment media.

7 What, nothing more on Ashley?

8 I agree that government should stay out of family problems.

The Cultural Revolution addressed societal dysfunction with arranged marriages to party bosses. 

9 Part of me just looks at native American and Black families and says... ohhh damnnn we white people got to get in on that.

10 BOOM-TA-BOOM-TA-BOOM

11 Too bad that Santorum no have the persistence and longevity of Fidel Castro main

12 Meh.

13 To me, a governmental response to such a large force -- a tidal wave of social dysfunction -- would require a government empowered beyond the point at which I'm comfortable.>>

Which is why just getting the govt out of the subsidizing social dysfunction is the answer.

If you want more of something subsidize it. Stuff Jefferson said vol 8

14

To me, a governmental response to such a large force -- a tidal wave of social dysfunction -- would require a government empowered beyond the point at which I'm comfortable.

It's so handy when someone else pithily states what I think. Totally stealing this.

 

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at April 10, 2012 04:11 PM (VtjlW)

 

--------------------------------------------

 

I'm also not a believer in government legislating morality.  But what it can do to start fixing this is phase out the entitlements that enable the destruction of the family.

15 -- would require a government empowered beyond the point at which I'm comfortable. I guess I'm no Ashley Judd.

16 Gallant knows when he cannot win an election and bows out gracefully.

Goofus says fuck it, I need some fucking cash, buy my book.

17 I believe he would have won WI if NOOT had dropped out.

18 I tried clicking 'Continue Reading' to find the 100,000 word diatribe, but it seems to be missing from this post...

19 You guys still talking about puffy faces?

20 Man, does that Ashley Judd look like the Sta-Puf marshmallow man or what?

21 "To me, a governmental response to such a large force -- a tidal wave of social dysfunction -- would require a government empowered beyond the point at which I'm comfortable." It is an empowered govt that got us to this point. The key to turning it around is to take the power away from the govt.

22 To me, a governmental response to such a large force -- a tidal wave of social dysfunction -- would require a government empowered beyond the point at which I'm comfortable.

Since the government is already involved in the family a stripped down government would effect the  family  in a powerful way.

23 I wish they would concentrate on getting rid of laws instead of continously enacting new ones.  Enough is enough already.

24 There are those who say that family values have never been stronger. And others who say the the economy has never been more stronger. I take a balanced approach: Under my administration, bi-sexual cocksucking has never been more respected a vocation than now. During. My time here. as president of these United. States.

Now. It is late in the day. And I must adjourn. To get ready for tonight's state. Dinner. Please excuse me. While I shave my beard. and of course by that. I mean. Moochelle's face.

25 I haven't quit you yet.

26  Would sure have been a different game if Newt and Ron Paul had shit-canned their money-grubbing candidacies when the obvious was obvious.

To them, my ire. To Rick, my respect.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat at April 10, 2012 04:17 PM (phlKA)

 

-------------------------------------------

 

Agree.  Looking through the ole' retrospectoscope, Rick would have done himself a favor if he would have allied himself with Newt a little earlier in the campaign.  But.....maybe not. 

27 It doesn't have to be, but it's Santorum's fault for not articulating that properly.

There are a few things we could do which would actually reduce government, instead of empowering it, but we have no political will to do so.



Well this goes against his blue collar base. I know its not accurate but when people think of helping families stay as traditional families people think of subsidizing not cutting welfare.

28

I wouldn't compare Santorum to Pawlenty. One isn't afraid to confront evil and the other is. Pawlenty is more like Romney.

29 7 What, nothing more on Ashley?

Posted by: Avid National Enquirer Reader at April 10, 2012 04:12 PM (+XVQe)

http://tinyurl.com/aqs7wh

There ya go.

30

But what it can do to start fixing this is phase out the entitlements that enable the destruction of the family.

 

Exactly.  For The Children never ends well, no matter what side is saying it.

31 I just finished my #*%%!!! taxes. Yeah, the government needs to get smaller, small like Alan Alda's little tiny winkie.

32 >>>To me, a governmental response to such a large force -- a tidal wave of social dysfunction -- would require a government empowered beyond the point at which I'm comfortable

Two things:

1) Even as a small government conservative, there are things that can be done (or undone) by the government that would affect coherence of the family unit.  Schools and tax incentives come to mind immediately.

2) The job of the president is to lead as well as to function as a cog in the wheel of government.  Therefore, it is important for our president to talk about these issues, even if no specific legislative action can be taken.  The laws that are enacted take root in what society considers to be morally important.  Therefore, the president should take the lead in talking about important moral issues.

33 Since the government is already involved in the family a stripped down government would effect the family in a powerful way.

Posted by: kdny at April 10, 2012 04:20 PM (63qg4)

 

----------------------------------------

 

You mean a truly Constitutional government?   Hell yes it would.

34

The breakdown of the family    and the poor state of the economy are inextricably intertwined.      I just don't know how you can fix one without fixing the other.   It has to be a simultaneous effort by the whole country,   with the government doing what it can on the economic side while the citizens do what they can on the personal family side.     Unfortunately    I    don't think that's going to happen.  

 

Right now what we have to do is patch the hemorrhaging (I know I spelled that wrong)   economy to try and give people's lives more    economic    stability.      Economic stability goes a long way toward familial stability, and a stable family is a solid precursor to sustained economic prosperity.   They feed off each other.     And when one is failing, the other necessarily falters. 

35 "Well this goes against his blue collar base. I know its not accurate but when people think of helping families stay as traditional families people think of subsidizing not cutting welfare."

MSM outwardly -Are you questioning this premise HERETIC!  Burn the Witch!

MSM inwardly- We have done our job beyond all expectations.  The only people we hurt were all those children that grew up without fathers.  Hey Dreamboat Obama is worth every jailed boy and pole dancing girl.  How we managed to get their votes as well... I still don't know.

36 Lowry had this in the can for a while

37 Matter of fact, when Pawlenty was still in it and was given the opportuniuty back up what he said about Obomney Care, he pussied out. And so did Romney. Like two weaklings sparing.

38 To me, a governmental response to such a large force -- a tidal wave of social dysfunction -- would require a government empowered beyond the point at which I'm comfortable.

Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that the social issues should be ignored in political discussions, right? I mean, a strong case can and should be made regarding the moral benefits of economic conservatism.

After all, it was economic liberalism that inflamed, and in some cases caused, the social dysfunction that plagues us now.

39 Would sure have been a different game if Newt and Ron Paul had shit-canned their money-grubbing candidacies when the obvious was obvious.

To them, my ire. To Rick, my respect.

The biggest difference that would've made?

Weed dealers would've had a lot more money in their pockets instead of watching it go to the Paul campaign.  Also, Moon cheese futures would've crashed.

40 Posted by: dan-O at April 10, 2012 04:22 PM (sWycd)

I don't think the Federal Government should say f*ck-all about schools.  Not their business.

For the Record.

The breakdown of the family and the poor state of the economy are inextricably intertwined. I just don't know how you can fix one without fixing the other.

This.

Social Issues are Fiscal Issues.  People just choose not to see them that way.

41

Shoot Ace, you don't need a bunch of government intervention to fix the family.

 

All you need to do is repeal the no-fault divorce laws, slash and burn the welfare edifice, and start requiring people to actually be responsible for their own decisions once again.

 

Problems solved.

42 I'm not a believer in government trying to "fix" the family, but I agree with the folks who've said that the best thing they can could be to start turning off the spigot of entitlements that have served to make families more dependent on Uncle Sam than they are on each other. I give Santorum credit for genuinely attempting to explain why the family is important and why family dependence on government is detrimental. He didn't always do the best job, but at least he was willing to talk about it instead of cowering at the accusations of how cruel we are for wanting to starve little Timmy and his mommy or whatever by reforming entitlements. The sad fact is that we're not supposed to talk openly about a lot of our social ills because it might hurt someone's feelings. But not talking about those things has only served to entrench the idea that if you don't want to just throw money at problems you're evil and greedy and want people to die.

43 Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that the social issues should be ignored in political discussions, right? I mean, a strong case can and should be made regarding the moral benefits of economic conservatism.

After all, it was economic liberalism that inflamed, and in some cases caused, the social dysfunction that plagues us now.

Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at April 10, 2012 04:24 PM (IlZPo)

 

-------------------------------------------

 

As I've said before, we can't talk about fiscal conservatism without talking about social conservatism.

44

Honestly, my biggest problem with Santorum (and I know this has been mentioned here before) is that though I probably agree with him 95% or more on social issues (being a fellow Papist and all that) he comes across on those issues in such a way that makes me not want to agree with him about them, at all, ever.

And if he comes across like that (basically a scold) to someone who agrees with him I just don't see how he can be persuasive with the persuadable.

Also, his record in Congress really wasn't all that much better on economic issues than was Romney's as Governor of MA, but that's also already been beaten to death.

45 Somone better run over to Hot Air and hide all the sharp objects and rope.

46 Somone betterrun over to Hot Air and hide all the sharp objects and rope.

Why?

47 Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that the social issues should be ignored in political discussions, right? I mean, a strong case can and should be made regarding the moral benefits of economic conservatism. Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis a

Yes, but the distinction is between the private, individual philosophy of conservatism and the public, governmental philosophy of conservatism. One conservatism, two distinct spheres.

We lose sight of our central thesis of maximum freedom, maximum individual responsibility when we try to mix the two. You cannot legislate morality, and you cannot make the government a moral beast.

48
The sad fact is that we're not supposed to talk openly about a lot of our social ills because it might hurt someone's feelings. But not talking about those things has only served to entrench the idea that if you don't want to just throw money at problems you're evil and greedy and want people to die.

Posted by: Mandy P. voted and is All Dead Inside now at April 10, 2012 04:27 PM (qFpRI)

 

Exactly!       A problem can't be fixed if it isn't acknowledged.    Tiptoeing around the negative    social, economic and cultural impacts of government dependency does no one any favors and just worsens the problem by making it taboo.    

49 Ace, much of the breakdown of the family can be traced to a single moment: When individuals realized that because of the social welfare state they didn't need to be nice to their children as insurance against their eventual old age.  Indeed, they didn't even need to have children. 

50

Shoot Ace, you don't need a bunch of government intervention to fix the family.

All you need to do is repeal the no-fault divorce laws, slash and burn the welfare edifice, and start requiring people to actually be responsible for their own decisions once again.

Problems solved.

 

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at April 10, 2012 04:25 PM (+inic)

 

---------------------------------------------

 

It really is as simple as that.  As soon as the violence is quelled from making those cuts.  To be honest, I'm up for it. 

51 Shoot Ace, you don't need a bunch of government intervention to fix the family.

All you need to do is repeal the no-fault divorce laws, slash and burn the welfare edifice, and start requiring people to actually be responsible for their own decisions once again.

Problems solved.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at April 10, 2012 04:25 PM (+inic)

-------

If you don't feed your kids, you're an unfit parent, and whatever consequences from that should be persued. First by removing the kids from the unfit parent. Tell them when they get out of jail for the crime of child neglect, get a job and a safe household they can have them back. Did they try that yet?

 

 

52 I would just like to state that Rich Lowry is probably my least favorite pundit and no doubt the worst predictor of potential outcomes.

53 The best quote about Santorum I've read was from The Onion:

"But I get the sense that Santorum is speaking nothing but his completely unfiltered thoughts.  I know it's weird to say this about a politician, but I sort of wish he were lying to my face at least a little".

54
18 "Would sure have been a different game if Newt and Ron Paul had shit-canned their money-grubbing candidacies when the obvious was obvious."

How? Romney is still the nominee, and 60% of the Republican base and a large number of Democrats still think he's an Etch-a-Sketch.

Which he is.

55 Moon cheese is a viable and sustainable resource, it just hasn't been done right yet.

56 Rick is right. The destruction of the family unit is something that is openly listed as a necessity for achieving a communist utopia in the writings of Marx and Engles. Don't for a minute think that what we're witnessing isn't something desired by the "progressive" crowd in their quest for collective Nirvana. I give kudos to Santorum for being unafraid to bring it up. We as a society MUST address this if we are to survive, and I don't care if John D Rockefeller is running the economy. The solution is to drastically pare back the government largess that nurtures it, however, and I'm not sure if Rick was willing to go far enough down that road. He would have been a good start, however. That being said, I hope and pray that this wasn't due to bad news about Bella's health. That little girl is amazing and precious, and seeing the love she nurtures in that family brings a tear to my eye. She'll be in my prayers.

57

"The breakdown of the family is also pretty damn important. My problem with highlighting that, though, is that it is a social problem, caused by tens of millions of decisions over the course of decades.

To me, a governmental response to such a large force -- a tidal wave of social dysfunction -- would require a government empowered beyond the point at which I'm comfortable."

Sure, there are millions of little decisions that led to the breakdown of the family, but most of the dysfunction can be attributed to only a handful of big government decisions. The welfare state was designed to break up families. Santorum can't articulate that because he doesn't believe that part of it.

58 Moon cheese is a viable and sustainable resource, it just hasn't been done right yet.

Posted by: lincolntf at April 10, 2012 04:37 PM (hiMsy)

 

--------------------------------------------

 

Don't forget the  Skittle-shitting unicorns.  Poor folks in need.  

59 Personal responsibility has precented, avoided, and fixed more problems big and small then all the welfare apparatus in the world for literally 0% of the cost.

60 precented =prevented sorry

61 Someone run over to Hot Air and hide all the sharp objects.

62

The solution is to drastically pare back the government largess that nurtures it, however, and I'm not sure if Rick was willing to go far enough down that road. He would have been a good start, however.

 

----------------------------------------------

 

So it's a good thing we nominated Romney, huh?

63 This is pretty much the end of the GOP primary analysis phase, so I can say this one last time: Santo was less a phenomenon as a candidate than he was a vessel for the unsatisfied-with-Romney wing of the party that scattered when Palin decided not to run. It just turned out that he had sharper political skills (debating, stump speech, retail politicking chops) than Gingrich, Perry, Cain, Pawlenty, and Bachmann, which no one (certainly not me) saw coming. In that way, Iowa is still pretty important in the predictive sense, isn't it? Palin, with all her baggage and flaws, would have been Romney's toughest opponent, not just because she had a strong base and better media presence than the rest of the field combined, but because I think there would have been a tremendous backlash if Romney carpet-bombed her with ads the way he did everyone else. It just wouldn't have worked the same way on her. But Romney still would have won. Just later. I don't know if Ace is right about there really being a Republican "establishment" that has the power to pull strings or not, but that maybe-real-maybe-not entity sure seems to get what they want in the way of GOP candidates, doesn't it?

64

Sorry for the double.

 

Why?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at April 10, 2012 04:30 PM (8y9MW)

Because they've been Santorum's biggest cheerleaders.

65 Another day another used to be regular person I know becomes a bitter left wing extremist social crusader.   That victimology is really potent stuff.  They will turn on their famalies churches anything that gets in the way getes steamrolled out of their lives.  They form little support groups for each other where the reinforce their beliefs and bury their questions. 

Seriously, I can be around them for years and they never voice any objections or moral doubt about anything which the leftist hive mind passes down.

They are as bad as the worst type of religious people I have ever spent much time around.  No wonder they get along so well with Islam.

66 Santorum's internal poll numbers in PA must have been really bad. Losing his home state would have been the end of any political aspirations.

67

@9: "Part of me just looks at native American and Black families and says... ohhh damnnn we white people got to get in on that."

 

We's wun step ahead of you, but we likes the way whut you thinks.

68 rich santorm probally will be elect if he wuold not

stop talk about how some guys beat off all the time

being against the bible and such but still guys will

do it even if the goverment always say its bad for you

most guy will rather get a blow job but some times

even a fat girl wont do it so the guy will beat off

its called bilogy idiots read a book some day

#JusticeForPlayton

69 Well, Santorum was an open borders nut, but it would almost be worth it to use Seibelius's power to drive a evangelical abstinence policy down the throat of the smugs like the smugs are trying to do to the catholic church with their pills and abortions for everyone lolz policy.

70 Rich Lowry? He's dead to me now.

71 What would we do without  Jose bringing the whole point to a focus. 

72 Liberal AoSHQ Reader,

A decent attempt but it would take a response several times as large as what you wrote to clarify all your wrong assumptions about us.  At least we know your really leftist because they can never not believe that Palin does not have large base of conservatives that want her in the White House.  Even while in a place like this among frankly the more extreme elements of conservatism even her supporters know there is no there there.

Let me take a stab at this, we talk about Palin about as much as most democrats talk about John Kerry or Michael Moore. =they are not the center of our worlds but our opponents think they are.

73 @Shiggz - I think you took it the wrong way, like the "I think all conservatives are knuckle-draggers" thing. If you've followed my posts I hope you wouldn't assume that. And I lurk every day and know the sizable anti-Palin sentiment here at AoSHQ. Campaigns are long, twisty turny things. She had fallen way out of favor for some things she said and did in the months leading up to decision time. But things change quickly, and the moments in the media spotlight are the ones that matter the most to the most people. You really don't think Palin would have had a crack at the large group of people that were swinging from Bachmann to Cain to Perry to Gingrich to Santorum? There was a large group of conservative voters out there looking for somewhere to land. A couple of months on the road and she would have been sharper than steel, and if she got in, half of them wouldn't have. She may not have been the center of the conservative universe, but Santorum certainly wasn't either, and look where he ended up. Of course, she didn't get in, so that's that.

74 70 @9: "Part of me just looks at native American and Black families and says... ohhh damnnn we white people got to get in on that."

We's wun step ahead of you, but we likes the way whut you thinks.
Posted by: Crackas

A lesson "American white culture" embraced and others would do well to understand.  We arent some hivemind, those people are weird.  Some hillboy gets shot trying to rob some blackmans house and we don't all come running off the golfcourse and hop out of our trucks worked up into a froth about it.   We probably would have shot him ourselves if he was robbing us.

We think more in terms of individuals when it comes to individual matters.  That's what that Sherrod story was all about.. she couldn't believe we we didn't all help each other out based off skin color.

75

"To me, a governmental response to such a large force -- a tidal wave of social dysfunction -- would require a government empowered beyond the point at which I'm comfortable."

 

I agree with the earlier points made that this was almost all caused by the Government 'doing' things - the solution is not for the government to do more things but less.

 

As for the deadbeat parent trap, don't put them in jail - doesn't do anybody any good. Fine 'em 10% of their income for every kid the State has to raise for them until such time as they are willing to step up to the plate.

 

76 At this point, I see a "Rich Lowry said - " reference as along the same lines as "David Frum said -"

77 I keep reading "can't legislate morality". For cryin' out loud what do you think laws against murder, stealing, fraud etc are? I've been just lurking the last year or so. Got me a smaaht phone now so can comment some. Really starting to like a lot of things I'm reading from Alleng, Tea party hobbit, soona. and others. Don't tell ace though, he doesn't like me.

78

"He believes deeply in the American ideal"

Hmmm, doesn't the "American ideal" include the very thing Santy is against -- "Personal autonomy" -- he's against that. Also, last I checked, it included freedom of speech -- something else Santy is against (SOPA).

79

Posted by: teej at April 10, 2012 05:30 PM (GJ/ww)

You do know that murder is not against FEDERAL law, right? It's all state laws. Santy thinks BIG GOV (i.e. FEDERAL) is the answer to EVERYTHING. He is NOT a conservative; he's only a Social Con.

80 When people talk about legislating "morality" what they are talking about is not hard crime where people are injured.  They are talking about things that are made against the law simply because they are a "sin".



As for Rich Lowery.  I have lost any respect for him that I may have held.

81 Oh, and who knew that voting for ONE BILLION DOLLARS in PORK is an "American ideal".

82

Posted by: Vic at April 10, 2012 05:48 PM (YdQQY)

ITA and I lost respect for Lowry when he became an embarrassing fanboy of Palin's in '08 (he said smthng like, "when she winked, I thought she winked AT ME!!!eleventy11!").

83 Rich Lowry can bite me. He's off my list of acceptable humans.

84 I'm sure we haven't seen the last of sanitarium. The anti sex league will be back for another hurrah in 2016

85 Until Lowry hires Derbyshire back, he can suck my cock.

86 If Santorum would have won the nomination, social left leaning Republicans and libertarians would have freaked out and run about screaming about the doom of the party but he'd have made a pretty good president anyway. Not great, but it doesn't take much to be better than Obama.

87 Since I'm from Texas I have absolutely no say so in choosing the republican candidate. All of the early races are fucking liberal states and thats why we get such poor goddamn candidates. I do hope Obama loses but it will have to be without my vote, I absolutely refuse to vote for a shit sucking liberal. I hope that if Romney wins he doesnt spend all his time giving reach arounds across the aisle. My hair is on fire.

88 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

89

Santy needs to get a real job. I don't believe all that working class shit from anyone who hasn't worked in the private sector for more than a couple of years. For all you can say about Mitty, at least he participated and did very well in the private sector.

90

To me, a governmental response to such a large force -- a tidal wave of social dysfunction -- would require a government empowered beyond the point at which I'm comfortable.

 

Not at all necessary to empower the government - just take away the government incentives to single motherhood and broken families.

 

I think the no-fault divorce created a lot of problems.  Women still get treated by the courts as helpless, essential beings, while men can lose everything through no fault of their own.   They have it whichever way they want.

 

All of this is predicated on not marrying dirtballs, though...

91 Sorry, I meant to put the first sentence in quotes.

92 "To me, a governmental response to such a large force -- a tidal wave of social dysfunction -- would require a government empowered beyond the point at which I'm comfortable." If we try to create government programs to "fix" this problem it would only make it worse, because big government is one of the symptoms driving these breakdowns. However, if we cut down on the parts of government that are most responsible for encouraging these dysfunctions, we could shrink government, save some money, and hopefully fix the problems.

93

I'm somewhat so-con but all I really want any of the candiates to say on the break down of the family is something along the line of " I worry about the breakdown of the family, mostly because of the undue influence Government has had in the past and it's direct tie to decreasing the family's strength. As a result, I would puruse a policy of removing the government's influence from the American family and do my best to return the freedom and responsability we were given by our creator back to those to whom it belongs."

That would give me wood.

94 "The breakdown of the family is also pretty damn important. My problem with highlighting that, though, is that it is a social problem, caused by tens of millions of decisions over the course of decades." Damn Ace. In two sentences you just utterly nailed why "social conservatism" isn't really conservative, and running on social issues doesn't make sense at all. Seriously, well put. I might have written a lengthy post just to say as much.

95 >>He takes politics seriously. << No he doesn't. He doesn't do what people who really are serious about politics do: plan, raise money, hire people whose expertise is in winning elections, motivate supporters into effective grassroots efforts, refuse to argue petulantly with co-eds, win. Coffee is for closers.