Santoro-Nanny State!!!

Nanny State Indeed!!!

Roy’s post on Santorum’s proposed “war on porn” and Rightbloggers’ objections to said war, is full of win:

In fairness, we must say that many rightbloggers didn’t approve of Santorum’s porn crackdown — but not for the reason you might expect: They opposed it because cracking down on porn is, in their view, the liberal position.

Indeed, rightbloggers are forever attacking liberals with stories like “LIBERALS: ACLU Wants Porn in Prisons” and “Put sex in any vile cultural product and liberals applaud,” and putting out books like Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism is Corrupting Our Future.

Yeah, that seems weird to us, too. Liberals are notoriously pro-porn; why, just last week in the comments section to this column, we were repeatedly harangued by a troll yelling about liberals and their filthy porn.

Also, Obama has in fact called off the DOJ’s porn hounds, probably in order to weaken the nation’s moral fiber in preparation for a Muslim takeover. Republicans, on the other hand, sometimes require their own candidates (at both the local andnational level) to sign anti-porn pledges. And when they want to sink a Democratic jobs bill, they just stick an anti-porn clause to it, as they know Democrats are no more likely to support it than a vampire is likely to kiss a crucifix.

But when Santorum took an anti-porn position that, research suggests, would not go over well among red-state males, rightbloggers suddenly decided Big Government could take away their porn when they pried it from their warm, sticky fingers.

Good luck with this little crusade, Ricky.  Might as well vow to take away everyones Iphones while you’re at it.  I love how wingnuts rail about excessive government overreach, but then propose new laws (and with them a whole bunch of added costs to implement them) aimed at such pressing issues.  I know that with: 9% unemployment, tension in Iran, eroding infrastructure, and increasing inequality, we mustn’t let these distractions take our eye off the balls!!! –Uncle Eb/John

11 thoughts on “Santoro-Nanny State!!!

  1. Steph

    This is that split between social cons and hands-off-business (and on somewhere else?) cons again, that they don’t like to face up to or admit is a conflict.

  2. Steph

    Okay, it’s embarassing that I’m replying a third time, but I was just thinking about this when I was watching the (entirely predictable) IL results.

    I had planned to vote for Santorum, but just couldn’t, plus there was a judicial election I cared about and it turned out that Santorum had no delegates on my ballot (5th Dist, for the record). Plus, it seemed obvious that Romney would win IL, as should be predictable, when our R Senator campaigned successfully on being a moderate in ’10. (That ANYONE thinks it’s meaningful that Romney wins IL just shows how stupid the primary coverage is.)

    But I would have been delighted if Santorum had won, and I’m rooting for him to do as well as possible. I get the sense that you are instinctively anti Santorum, and I totally get that. If I’d lived in PA, I might be too. But the reason I’m pro Santorum (for the R primary ONLY, note, as I recently had to reassure a friend who was freaked by anyone not being horrified by his performance), is not only (although it’s largely) because I think he’d be a horrible candidate who couldn’t win. It’s also demonstrated by Romney’s immediate pre election speeches and his choice of location for his horrid victory speech (in Schaumburg, a Republican Chicago suburb). Indeed, as expected, Romney did great in the Republican Chi burbs and not so good in the rest of the state. What this means in IL, IMO, is that he got the people who just basically vote on class issues and are cynical about all the social stuff (or just care about the social stuff because they think poor people and non white people are immoral), but use them to drag in the (in their opinion) dumb poorer people.

    I find these people more offensive than the genuine Santorum supporters and the like. Listening to Romney’s idiotic speech, I couldn’t feel he believed a word, except for the the bit about how great he is, and I have more sympathy — all my disagreements with him aside — with Santorum’s prior comments (which are true!) that Romney’s Wall Street experience has zero to do with his abilities as president. I’ve come around to miceelf’s view that Romney’s basic dishonesty is so offensive that I can’t stand the idea of him winning, plus his lies about the economy are really starting to irritate me. The idea that the economy is bad due to Obama and too much restriction is just so f-ing stupid and dishonest. If someone must say that (hi Santorum! I know you and Gingrich and Paul all also say the same dumb things) I’d rather he just be an ideologue than someone I know is simply self-interested.

    With respect to the argument that my cynicism about Romney means we have less to fear from him, I see no reason to believe that. So far as I can tell, he’s bought and paid for, and will only govern to reassure the right. There’s nothing to suggest he cares about what’s doing what’d right or that he doesn’t truly care, primarily, about helping Wall Street, even at the expense of everyone else, for that matter. I think he may actually care about one issue — encouraging the economy policies that I think are destroying this country. Santorum may be wrong (so far as I can tell they agree on everything important), but at least I don’t think his active goals are to encourage economic inequality.

    1. Ocean

      Although I can understand your reasoning, the level of repugnance that Santorum’s absurd, regressive religious conservatism creates in me doesn’t allow me to share your feelings. The only aspect I could agree with, in terms of favoring Santorum’s win, would be a purely strategic one because we believe he would be less electable by moderates and independents. But other than that, I’d rather deal with sociopath silver spoon Romney.

      1. Steph

        Yeah, I do get that, but I’m not entirely sure there’s much difference between them. Santorum cares more about certain issues, probably, but Romney is saying basically the same things, taking basically the same positions, and tying his wagon to the same crowds and just hoping others won’t take it seriously. In the “is he lying now or did he lie before” argument, who knows what his real beliefs are. The fact is he probably has less freedom when it comes to actually governing to depart from the right-wing’s positions.

        What scares me about Romney is that people seem to be taking his dishonesty and old positions, which he has been trying to deny for years now, as a basis to see him as moderate and assume he’d govern moderately. And they extend the assumption of moderation to areas in which he’s never had moderate positions. With Santorum, there’s no fear of that. People get why he’s dangerous.

        Eh, also the whole “he was a businessman so knows about the economy” thing just gets to me. Maybe that’s why I’m feeling the need to rant.

        1. Ocean

          I think you’re reiterating the point that we agree on, that is that strategically for a general election, we would rather have someone who is very clear cut recalcitrant conservative (Santorum), and not a chameleon figure like Romney who can convince (or try to) different crowds that he holds the respective well matched values for each crowd, even if they are opposite to each other.

          I know that in what’s personal, I find Santorum’s social conservatism and religiosity repugnant. As a general phenomenon, blurring the lines between religion and state is one of the greatest threats that we’re facing in this country due to all the implications, both domestically and internationally.

          How far is Romney from getting nominated? Are there chances for Santorum? Any?

          1. Steph

            I don’t think there’s any realistic chance for Santorum to get the nomination. He’s mostly just effective to weaken Romney.

            It’s a good thing that it’s Santorum in this position, as he’s inherently a weak candidate, and not the Rick Perry that some of us once feared Rick Perry would be. 😉

            I’m actually more worried about economic issues than church and state, since I think the Courts can effectively protect us on those issues plus they are clear enough to most voters that there’s only so far one can go. Looking over the course of my lifetime, I think we’ve become way more liberal on social stuff and church and state stuff, that feminism is more ingrained in how we actually live (regardless of what people say), that we’ve largely won. I think the opposite is true on economics. Also, I think being extreme on church and state hurts you in the general in a way that taking bizarre economic views just does not. Paul Ryan scares me more than Rick Santorum, repugnant as I find Santorum’s “man on dog” comments or positions about women, etc.

            1. Ocean

              Well, I agree about Paul Ryan. Even when he did a service to Dems by scaring millions of senior citizens. As an anecdote, I have a patient who is very troubled because he’s always voted Republican but this time, he’s so afraid about Medicare and Social Security being destroyed by Reps, that he’s seriously considering voting for the Dems. He told me that abstaining wasn’t enough. Interesting, isn’t it?

              My concern about the blurring between church and state, is related to economy concerns. The concern goes through the effects of more wars sparked by religious tensions.

    2. kezboard

      I was particularly amused by Romney’s comments about how his whole campaign started “at a little farm in New Hampshire” with his “family and a couple of friends and supporters”. Seriously.

  3. Uncle Ebeneezer Post author

    Steph, thanks for the responses. No worries about being the only commenter for awhile, happens to the best of us! Just wanted to let you know that I have been reading them and find them interesting. My lack of response has been more due to me not paying much attention to the primaries (for my own mental health.)

    I hope you are right about the power of our courts to protect us from this current onslaught of contraception/healthcare laws being pushed at state levels. While Santorum may not be directly leading them (there was a great article the other day about how this strategy began several years ago and has been pushed by the GOP brass), he represents a symbolic figurehead to this disgusting movement. I agree with your strategy for votying in the primaries, and share your view that Romney is actually the bigger danger in the grand scheme, but like Ocean, I find Santorum so offensive to all that I believe in that it’s hard for me to even stomach a moment of his speeches etc. Frankly, not to sound like a wingnut, but he’s just about everything I hate about America.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>