National Review’s Jim Geraghty wonders whether there might be a business-related reason behind casino magnate Sheldon Adelson’s reported opposition to Rick Santorum. Take a look at what the former Pennsylvania senator had to say about gambling during a recent interview with Jon Ralston:
I’m someone who takes the opinion that gaming is not something that is beneficial, particularly having that access on the Internet. Just as we’ve seen from a lot of other things that are vices on the Internet, they end to grow exponentially as a result of that. It’s one thing to come to Las Vegas and do gaming and participate in the shows and that kind of thing as entertainment, it’s another thing to sit in your home and have access to that it. I think it would be dangerous to our country to have that type of access to gaming on the Internet.
Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations. You might want to say the same thing about a whole variety of other things that are on the Internet — “let everybody have it, let everybody do it.” No. There are certain things that actually do cost people a lot of money, cost them their lives, cost them their fortunes that we shouldn’t have and make available, to make it that easy to do.
Santorum seems mainly to be talking about internet gambling, which I imagine Vegas casino moguls would prefer to see shut down anyway. But it’s easy to see how Santorum’s argument could easily lead to stricter casino regulations – and even all-out bans – if taken to its logical conclusion.
The question is, where’s the conservative outrage? If Santorum’s comments aren’t nanny state-ism in its purest form, then what is? If President Obama made the same remarks, the story would be getting the Drudge siren. Conservatives would be up in arms. Twitter would be flooded with speculations over what “vices” the president would try to clamp down on next.
If you’re a conservative and you give Santorum a pass on this, you forego any future right to complain about liberals taking away your Happy Meals and trans fats. There have to be consequences for these things.
this frightens me. I'm a Republican and even I think of Santorum as an over-the-top social conservative FAR to the right of most of America. why are the Republicans doing this? are they absolutely determined to lose this thing?
"why are the Republicans doing this? are they absolutely determined to lose this thing?" n nYes. That is what an animal that's sick & dying does. n nThis degenerate GOP has run out of ideas or decent energy; it has become a paid lobbyist in the pocket of un-free capitalism . The party is beholding to a base that can't congregate without engaging in hate speech which publicly demonstrates their ignorance, bigotry and weakness — a base that no longer has ideas in common but merely experiences a common rage — can only lead a great nation over a cliff. n nA political party, that can not take responsibility for the near-total failure of the last Republican administration, has no future. People remember that an ignorant and incompetent charmer turned the helm of state over to the a group of neo-con fantasists who led the nation into unjust and unnecessary war, from which their cronies profited while tens of thousands of mostly innocent civilians died. Those who might forget that can easily be reminded. n nWhen a party in power passes "personhood" legislation in red-states, that is too extreme and too stupid to pass Mississippi's electorate, you know you're head for an political Little Big Horn. When a major political party needs a Southern Strategy to suck up the bottom-feeding bigotry of racist former slave states to stay competitive, you know that the party's moral bankruptcy is showing. When Jews in power in a political party wink and give the nod to blatant racism where it enhances their personal power, you know that party has lost its moral moorings. n nNeed I go on. This party would be better of to suffer crushing defeat — which would drive it to return to its roots for renewal — than to crawl along in its present corrupt form. n nPS . I entered the Republican Party as a volunteer in the Goldwater campaign and served as an advisor in a GOP senate race in 2008. n nPPS. Governor Romer may be the only worthwhile exception to the above, and this Money-Ball run Republican Party won't even let him on the stage to present a vision of a GOP that wants elections not auctions.
First of all, you guys are conflating libertarianism with Burkian conservatism. Second of all, you think you are carrying Romney's water but Obama's name is written on the bottom of the buckets. We look forward with bated breath to your next blogs denouncing the nanny-state's refusal to let us legally gut our paychecks on blow and hookers (as the saying goes, the rest we wasted)
Yup…the only difference between someone like Nancy Pelosi and someone like Rick Santorum are the types of things they want to ban. n
"Yup…the only difference between someone like Nancy Pelosi and someone like Rick Santorum are the types of things they want to ban." n nInteresting assertion. Please, cite specific examples.
Nice parody, Alana. Do you work for The Weekly Standard, too?
Actually, I take my last comment back: internet gambling is already illegal in the US, and he seems to be claiming that legalizing it would lead to more harm than good. That's not the same as wanting to ban it. n n
I can see where Santorum has a point to make. People should be free to do as they please with their own resources to the extent that they can afford to pay the consequences. If we gamble away our wealth we should not expect taxpayers to rescue us. Addiction to gambling is a common problem leaving families dependent on taxpayers as the result. n nIf we eat our way into morbid obesity and/or clogged arteries, our health insurance premiums should reflect the additional risk and expense associated with that choice. But if we hide behind government regulations that prevent insurance companies from basing premiums on lifestyle choices, that means those who abuse themselves pay less for health insurance than they should and those who take care of themselves pay more. Freedom of choice should not come at public expense, and to the extent that it does, as a taxpayer I like the idea of politicians trying to minimize the financial impact.
If Santorum’s comments aren’t nanny state-ism in its purest form, then what is? n nGood grief. Yet another young D.C.-based pundit who doesn't understand the difference between conservatism and libertarianism.
Ah. So we have a political party that thinks it doesn't need the libertarian vote. OK. You won't get mine. n nBTW libertarian sentiment represents about 10% to 15% of the current electorate. Try winning elections without them. If we assume that vote skews right it represents 7% to 10% of the Republican voters. n nI don't know what it spells. It is not victory over Obama.
Ugh. I have to admit, I was interested in Santorum, but he does seem to have a very strong paternalistic streak. n nIn some ways, though, this illustrates the impracticality of libertarianism. Libertarianism would be fine and dandy IF we lived in a society where people were allowed to fail in spectacular fashion with no public taxpayer support. But everyone knows that is never going to happen. Take the biggest Libertarian cause celebre, legalizing drugs. For better or worse, American society will never, for example, allow someone who has blown his mind out on legal drugs to suffer the consequences for his poor choices. Taxpayer money will be used to rehab him at great expense. And the same can be said for gambling, I suppose. It's great to be in favor of freedom to gamble in Vegas, at Dover Downs and, heck, right in your kitchen on-line *in theory*. But when that "freedom" for you to gamble yourself into homelessness means I have to pay higher taxes to keep you fed and sheltered, then the whole thing breaks down. It's not much different than the entire Socialist fantasy: when the productive class increasingly subsidizes the non-productive class with welfare, food stamps, government grants, make-work jobs, etc… it is unsustainable. n nAs much as we hate the idea of someone like Santorum sounding like a nanny, he at least lives in the reality of our society as it is and not how we wish it was. We DO live in a nanny state. Until we can get a better balance of where government helps and where individuals (families, charities, private sources) have responsibility for their own welfare, the only solution is some form of damage control by prohibiting the behaviors that will lead to unsustainable levels of public support. n nKind of depressing, actually.
"Take the biggest Libertarian cause celebre, legalizing drugs. For better or worse, American society will never, for example, allow someone who has blown his mind out on legal drugs to suffer the consequences for his poor choices. Taxpayer money will be used to rehab him at great expense." n nSince currently illegal drugs are a fact of life; it would seem that realism might play a role in policy. When you shut down domestic manufacturing jobs , then promise vast quantities of easy money via drug-selling to the domestic unemployed and even greater quantities of cash for drug producing to the foreign poor, the person who failed to predict those consequences of that incompetent policy never studied economics. n nI am not a Libertarian. I support ending the drug war, because it is an economic, social an humanitarian failure. In fact it is worse that a failure because after it failed our society for decades "drug war" became a fraud until, now it is a farce. The money spent on prisons is taken from universities. Drug war in one of the ongoing incompetencies that is costing America her future. n nThe existence of drugs present dangers to individuals and society, which can be and are being managed more intelligently that is done in the US (see Portugal's drug polity for example). There is no reason to accept the current failed system, unless you run a Prison Guards Union or own a private prison,. n nPS: As to "when the productive class increasingly subsidizes the non-productive class with welfare, food stamps, government grants, make-work jobs, etc… it is unsustainable. " When the country divides citizens in those delusional terms democracy fails. Who do you think you are? Do you know how many people have been helped to return to productive lives? Do you understand how many people helped you not to need that assistance? A country divided by the denial of social injustice, has no common ground and no vision based in any viable political or religious tradition that I know of. n nThe politics of resentment is better exercised against the bad management of these programs than against their existence. Every first-world country protects against the worst effects of personal failure — partly out of self protection. As someone once wrote: "The most dangerous animal in the world is a man with nothing to loose." Of course, others say that "The most dangerous animal in the world is a lame-duck politician." Either way, self-righteousness does not provide the basis for successful social policy. n nThat sort of self-righteous and self-serving vision continues to divide the American people from their future. When society becomes a struggle of stereotypes, where the "unproductive poor" are pitted against the "idle-rich," vicious things happen that benefit no one. n n n n n
Re: any comments above. n nThe Republican Party needs the libertarian vote to win. Why does it put so much effort into making sure those votes are not welcome? n nDeath wish.
"The question is, where’s the conservative outrage?" n nI'm more interested in finding the conservative outrage over "Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute?" If Santorum doesn't believe that gun rights are absolute then he has no business being a Republican.
If there is no nanny state safety net there needn't be any nanny state forbidden foolish personal behavior. It all gets so simple if we just stand back and let the chips fall where they may.