SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Which Is Creepier: President Santorum or President Paul? A...

POLITICS JANUARY 5, 2012

Which Is Creepier: President Santorum or President Paul? A TNR Survey.

BY TNR STAFF

Cameron Abadi: I’d say Ron Paul. If Santorum ended up in the White House, I fear we’d end up with an established church. But I’m pretty sure we’d still have an established currency.

David Bell: Urrgh. What a horrible choice. But in the end, I guess I’d have to give the prize to Ron Paul by a hair, because his temperament is more genuinely fanatical than Santorum’s. And his views on foreign policy and the Federal Reserve suggest a significantly greater inability to perceive reality. But I’d still call both of them true crazies, as opposed to Romney’s “Crazy Come Lately.”

Jonathan Chait: Rick Santorum is a standard-issue right-wing Republican while Ron Paul is a delusional conspiracy theorist. So, Paul.

Gregg Easterbook: President Santorum, an honest man who honestly holds strong views that reflect maybe 5 percent of the American population. 

T.A. Frank: Fanatics who do things are scarier than fanatics who don’t. Ron Paul would spend four years saying no to everything, while Rick Santorum would show up in my bedroom to make sure I was suited up for our invasion of Vanuatu. 

Lawrence Kaplan: Ron Paul, because he misunderstands—a kind euphemism—two vital and intersecting peoples. Jews and Americans (among other Earthlings) might “creep” President Paul right over the edge. 

Michael Kazin: In the creepy sweepstakes, I vote for Rick: Paul would let us all smoke dope, keep our shoes on when we go through airport security, and would not blow up the Mideast by starting a war with Iran. Santorum would outlaw birth control pills, if he could, and basically shares most of Paul’s Ayn Randian views on the economy. Of course, neither has any chance of winning the nomination.

Ed Kilgore: President Ron Paul creeps me out more, because it would indicate he had won the Republican nomination. And that would be a sign the End Times are upon us. 

Damon Linker: Authoritarianism or anarchy—what a choice! I choose Ron Paul by a hair, because he’s a conspiracy-monger and lives (intellectually) in a scummy neighborhood.

John McWhorter: Ron Paul. Never mind the Father Coughlinesque positions on the social fabric—the cranky, sociologically tone-deaf independence that exerts a certain fascination on the stump would leave him incapable of statecraft, suasion, charm, or gravitas. We’ve veered alarmingly close enough to that over the past three years.

Tim Noah: President Ron Paul, because he would take advantage of the government’s natural tendency toward inaction to paralyze it entirely. Also, his foreign policy is more dangerous.

Sacha Scoblic: In the battle of the racist versus the homophobe, President Santorum scares me more. It’s like this: If I’m invited to party with Santorum supporters (the Duggars) or Paul supporters (the stoners), I’m so gonna chillax with the Paul peeps, and I don’t even partake.

Alan Wolfe: Santorum. Paul may have an ugly past and reality-blind views, but his very libertarianism would check any powers he might exercise.  Electing Santorum would put the presidency in the hands of a man who proudly identifies with a tradition of using state to power to persecute dissenters, of whom, should he ever reach the presidency, there would be many.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 43 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

43 comments

I say Paul in part based on J. Kirchik's drawing together here the connection between Paul's fanatical unbending libertarianism and the extreme craziness he attracts and has been associated with. Between the two of them Santorum is moreva creature of the institutions he's been part of and would be more moderate in office. But, of course, the choice is a nightmare scenario that's happily over the minute you pinch yourself.

- basman

January 5, 2012 at 12:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait, Kaplan, Kilgore, and Noah are serious observers of these two "Iowa flavorites". basman: "extreme craziness he attracts" would be a relief Youtube January 5, 2009: Ron Paul interview with Iranian PRESS TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1t4O9CcZQ0&feature=related So, before I am swarmed by the least harmless of the Luap Nor conspiracy theorists (the chemtrail spritzers seem least harmless but they do not conduct the cyber-war), I earned my vote here for having endured one comment exchange with a Santorum social conservative in Iowa. Last week, to Santorum's credit, he publicly made the point, targeting Ron Paul by name, that the President is constrained on domestic policy by Congress, but has extraordinary discretion as Commander in Chief, and in the conduct of foreign policy. I also want to see The New Yorker do a public service by reprinting their three-part series that author William Greider turned into the best-selling book, "Secrets of the Temple: a History of the Federal Reserve". One can argue that the Fed may need some independent oversight, but too many otherwise normal, usually younger Republicans seem to think that, while his foreign policy is dangerous and they would never vote for him unless he is the GOP nominee, the destruction of the U.S. Federal Reserve system makes sense. This poll is a red herring. Santorum can not survive the Florida primary. He will be the 'pinata at the party' at the January 7-8 debates in New Hampshire whilst the media dissects him. Poof! So ironic that one current tidal wave of attacks is that Santorum endorsed Arlen Spector for his last Senate contest, and then Spector was the deciding vote for PPACA aka Obamacare. The other is that Santorum is a 'Big Government earmarxist statist'. I am counting on the Mayan prophecy for December 21, 2012, to come true. Just saw the new "Sherlock Holmes" film yesterday, and, with the exception of the Thatcher biopic "The iron Lady", every preview trailer was about one apocalyrpse after another. Got to go - time for a Gary Cooper film, circa 1957 - the only antidote to the Iowa caucus I can think of :) Ron Paul is not so easy, because he can transfer his mantle to his son, Rand Paul. I wish it were just about the stoners and those who want the Patriot Act revisited. Libertarians deserve better.

- K2K

January 5, 2012 at 1:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I go with Ron Paul. He reminds me of another Ron, as in L. Ron Hubbard. With Paul as president, the Secret Service people would be accused of being aliens and fired daily.

- magboy47.

January 5, 2012 at 2:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like the wife who says you've changed as she walks out the door never to return, I cannot help but point out that the former editor of this magazine has endorsed Paul. Somebody has definitely changed, and I'd say it's the wife. Goodbye and good riddance.

- rayward

January 5, 2012 at 7:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now, my serious entry, prompted by Wolfe's choice of Santorum over Paul because the latter is deemed less of a threat because he is a libertarian. What's wrong with today's libertarians is that they are applying 18th century logic to 21st century reality, the former a time when the power of the state was indeed the major threat to liberty, when the power of the state and economic power were one and the same. If today's libertarians were to open their eyes to 21st century reality, they might notice an enormous escalation in the power of non-state actors. Today the power of the state and economic power are not one and the same; indeed, the power of the state has been ceded to non-state actors in many areas, including the military. Libertarians complain about the power of the state as a threat to liberty while simultaneously complaining about economic globalization as though the latter occurs by spontaneous combustion. America's most famous libertarian, believer in limited government, especially at the federal level, became a maximalist in the exercise of the power of the state once elected president; even 18th century libertarians did not have the courage of their convictions. If Paul and Santorum are serious about their religions, however, I would give the nod to Santorum as the greater risk to individual liberty. Why? Paul is a Baptist (or claims to be), the most decentralized of all major Protestant denominations, whereas Santorum is a Roman Catholic, the most centralized of all religions; indeed, the Catholic Church recently blamed too much emphasis on individual liberty for the child abuse committed by Catholic priests. Catholics are many things, but libertarian is not one of them. And while the combination of the power of the state and economic power was the greatest source of evil in the 20th century, the combination of the power of the state and religious power is the greatest source of evil in the 21st century. At least that's what I see when I open my eyes to 21st century reality.

- rayward

January 5, 2012 at 8:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm going to say Santorum by a mile. Paul would be so boxed in by the rest of the Hill, he'd barely be able to move. Santorum has the relgious nuts all worked up and I, like our founding fathers, hate those people. They've also got plenty of muscle in DC - lots of US Senators traipsing off to Africa to give seminars on How To Hate At Every Level of Society, etc. Santorums' bigoted, mysoginist, dopey, religio-facism makes me so angry, I feel it in my spine.

- WandreyCer

January 5, 2012 at 8:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course if Paul wins all of the states which voted for Obama could secede from the union and he wouldn't do anything about it.

- stanmvp48

January 5, 2012 at 8:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Santorum is far creepier than Paul. Paul's essential idea is that we should leave each other alone, do whatever the hell we want. Santorum wants to regulate my use of contraceptives, and would use the powers of government to restrict the liberties of those whose lives are not aligned with the doctrines of right-wing christianity. We would survive Paul, might even find it enjoyable for a while, but a Santorum presidency, if accompanied by a Tea Party Congress, would be an ordeal beyond my darkest imagining. Neil

- purcellneil@aol.com

January 5, 2012 at 8:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Totally with Wandrey and Neil on this one. Would Paul make a creepy president? Yeah, sure. But Santorum is such an utterly disgusting, loathsome creature, I cannot and will not try to envision the level of shame I would feel having that thing in charge of our country. Ugh.

- Tristan

January 5, 2012 at 8:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ron Paul, because he has far too many enablers outside of the party, and because too few Americans seem aware of the threat that anarchy posses to liberty. Also, I expect that Paul would do more than Santorum to induce a depression. I would like Paul's apologists on the Left to explain how depriving more Americans of the opportunity to make a living is "consistent" with a commitment to expanding individual freedom.

- STTaylor

January 5, 2012 at 9:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I dislike most right-wingers and their platforms, but this is pathetic. The Republican party & its constituents deserve so much better than this. Santorum by several miles, if for no other reason than that his visage literally makes me nauseous. I couldn't believe he was even allowed on the stage for the first few debates, and I couldn't believe anyone ever legitimized his babblings as valid contributions to American politics. Now I'm mystified at how Iowa and political media coverage arrived at this point. I'm losing sympathy for anyone who has ever been pregnant, a condition I'll never fully understand or appreciate, because I now anticipate 9 months of regular morning sickness.

- Konstantin

January 5, 2012 at 9:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If you were captured by the Nazis during World War II and they gave you the choice of blowing the SS guy or eating his turd, which would you choose?" Sorry, that's what this reminded me of.

- Mikelawyr22

January 5, 2012 at 9:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A classic case of Morton's Fork, or, as the Spanish proverb goes, a choice between a sword and a wall. Dan

- dbuck1

January 5, 2012 at 10:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mikelawyr... Thank you, Mike. The integrity of my sleep has been forever compromised.

- Tristan

January 5, 2012 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mikelawyer - I was drinking coffee when I read your post, and I laughed so hard it almost came out my nose.

- WandreyCer

January 5, 2012 at 10:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nazis don't seem so bad if you just envision them wearing sweater vests.

- Konstantin

January 5, 2012 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@Konstantin: LOL. Classic.

- Tristan

January 5, 2012 at 11:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Santorum is scarier because he actually has a chance - a very slight chance, but a chance nonetheless - to win. If he wins, his administration will have the support of much of the conservative establishment, who will claim that his fusion of theocracy, bellicosity and bigotry (conservatives will use a different word - maybe "moral clarity"? - but "bigotry" is more accurate) represents a winning formula for Repubs. "We told you voters were looking for real, hardcore conservatives, not squishes, and Santorum is proof." In addition, there are a substantial number of Repub congresspeople who would vote for the most reprehensible legislation you can imagine Icky proposing. In contrast, most of Paul's positions - the attractive ones like strong civil liberties and dope legalization and the unattractive ones designed to recreate the 19th Century, but with even less government - couldn't get anything near a majority.

- GeoffG

January 5, 2012 at 11:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is the question which is creepier, or which more dangerous? Santorum wins hands down on creepy - they guy would attempt to inject the government into every bedroom in the country, roll back tolerance for gays, probably women, and certainly religious minorities, while appointing the worst kind of social throwbacks to the bench, all in the name of making us over into his notion of a "Christian" nation. That's creepy. But Paul is more dangerous in the long run - Santorum would cause a great deal of discomfort, but the country would survive a short social dark age and emerge, I am convinced, wiser on the other side. The old f***s amongst us are leaving at an accelerated rate as the boomers age, after all. Paul, on the other hand, could destroy or abet the destruction of the economic foundation of the country, and cause plenty of trouble for the world, in a way that could take a LONG time to rebuild. The only consolation being that we'd all be free to get stoned on our abundant free time after he did it - and we'd very likely need that consolation. Both manage to identify and cater to some of the baser instincts of the American electorate - Santorum on the strict constructionist side of social issues, with a chaser of looney fiscal policy; Paul on the "no responsibilities" side of social issues, with a chaser of completely looney monetary AND fiscal policy. When can we have someone who sees conservatism as being about people aspiring to better themselves and their country through rewarded personal responsibility and hard work, and government's responsibility as promoting those aspirations and enabling their reward for EVERYONE in the country? Oh yeah, I forgot, this isn't THAT Republican party.

- IowaBeauty

January 5, 2012 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oy.

- Sophia

January 5, 2012 at 12:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is no doubt in my mind that Santorum represents a clear and present danger to the 1st Ammendment. Paul does not.

- GSpinks

January 5, 2012 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Konstatin, the Nazis were partial to Lederhosen in their early years so sweater vests are only a logical progression. http://www.flickr.com/photos/igeldard/3624558984/

- wildboy

January 5, 2012 at 12:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Santorum, hands down. A Catholic version of Sharia law at home, and Mr. Sweater Vest will have us in wars all over the globe in no time, to show how tough he is. This contest could be a lot worse, though. We might have had to throw Sarah Palin into the mix.

- dubyadoubte

January 5, 2012 at 1:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

They're both fanatics (if in slightly different ways) but Santorum's demeanor seems definitely creepy to me. I wouldn't trust my children with him.

- Erik_S

January 5, 2012 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The arguments for Santorum as scarier are well made here. But I still go with Paul. Per Chait: ....Jonathan Chait: Rick Santorum is a standard-issue right-wing Republican while Ron Paul is a delusional conspiracy theorist. So, Paul....

- basman

January 5, 2012 at 1:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Choosing either of the two as more dangerous or creepy might somehow imply that the other is in any way tolerable or non-disastrous for the United States in the short *or* long run. So I am not choosing.

- cspencef

January 5, 2012 at 2:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What everybody said, but especially what cpencef said. For that matter, which is the genetically enhanced lady or the transgender tiger? Not that I understand it, but isn't there a logical error involving false dilemmas? From Wikipedia: A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes). For example, "It wasn't medicine that cured Ms. X, so it must have been a miracle." In other words, to truly explore the full dimensions of creepiness (why would we want to deprive ourselves of the experience?), should we not force ourselves to contemplate, taste, touch, smell, and grok all the Republican candidates?

- skahn

January 5, 2012 at 2:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If we could only combine these two ideological warriors into one big anarcho-authoritarian supper-ideologue! Imagine the glories of a President Paultorum: a heady mix of abundant marijuana, latch-key children, deserted military housing, and sweater vests over ill-fitting sport coats!

- polcereal

January 5, 2012 at 3:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Nazis don't seem so bad if you just envision them wearing sweater vests." Konstantin, I thought you were against comparing American politicians to Nazis. But I agree with you that Santorum has peripheral elements of Nazism in his makeup. I once did a survey of whom I considered to be the top 20 Nazis in Germany. 19 of them, including Hitler, of course, had a strong Catholic upbringing. And Santorum is one strong Catholic. He denies belonging to Opus Dei, but so do most other Opus Dei members. During World War II and afterward the Vatican was strongly pro-Nazi behind the scenes (Odessa network, etc.). That doesn't mean, of course, that Santorum is--just that his church was.

- magboy47.

January 5, 2012 at 4:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I once did a survey of whom I considered to be the top 20 Nazis in Germany." Magboy, was this during your stint as copy editor for People Magazine's special commemorative issues? I still treasure my issue with the "20 Most Beautiful People of the Third Reich". Also, good move with featuring Young Goering and skipping over Old Goering -- time and bratwurst really were not kind to him.

- wildboy

January 5, 2012 at 5:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sitting here on my antipodean perch watching the Republican freak show from afar, I'm reminded of that which I both miss and abhor about my native land. With the possible exception of India, no other democracy does crazy like the USA.

- AaronW

January 5, 2012 at 5:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I broke my rule, magboy. I did it for the lulz. You're right.

- Konstantin

January 5, 2012 at 6:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We shouldn't even have to consider making such a choice. But, alas, these two guys have big followings apparently, so - I was going to say Paul is worse but then I read the list of terrible things Santorum has said. He's really bad news. And what a hypocrite. Faith family and - freedom? FREEDOM? Give me a break, so aaaacckkkkkk. We have a winner.

- Sophia

January 5, 2012 at 6:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On the other hand. Those newsletters.

- Sophia

January 5, 2012 at 6:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wildboy, That was the only Top 20 or Top Anything list I've done in my life. It was a slow day, and I wanted to find the relation between the Catholic Church and Nazism. Sorry about that. Fanatic Catholics (they're in a distinct minority among the general religious population) are also fanatic anti-communists. They believe that communists were sent by the Devil to destroy the Church. And fanatic anti-communists are not that far from being pro-Nazi. Hitler and his boys consciously co-opted some Catholic rituals for use in their ceremonies. Konstantin, Thanks. You're one of the more thoughtful posters on this site. Keep up the good work.

- magboy47.

January 5, 2012 at 7:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Santorum. I fully expect a President Santorum to launch a pre-emptive strike against the San Francisco Bay Area hours after being sworn in.

- ironyroad

January 5, 2012 at 9:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ron Paul. He thinks that any white man can have NO N*****S allowed signs on the outside of his establishment, and see no contradiction in the fact that black men fight and die to keep them free to discriminate against them. He sincerely believes handicapped people will just have to beg people to carry them inside buildings and up stairs if establishments don’t want wheel chair accessibility. The creation of an assortment of 300 million unaffiliated hostile and armed individuals instead of a diverse nation does not appeal to me in the least.

- gwhitaker

January 5, 2012 at 10:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ron Paul is the scarier. We've had lots of religious nut presidents on both sides (Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, Bush) and we're no worse the wear for it.

- seattleeng

January 5, 2012 at 10:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

01/05/2012 - 8:16am EDT | rayward, for outstanding clarity with "...today's libertarians is that they are applying 18th century logic to 21st century reality..." malahat: Ron Paul does not seem to be personally antisemetic, like his ideological predecessor Henry Ford, Sr.. Paul just thinks it would be better for everyone if Israel did not exist. And that the Federal Reserve is a private corporation secretly owned by foreign (code for Jewish, especially Rothschilds) bankers. A few online supporters are starting to proudly quote The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. He IS more dangerous than Santorum because Ron Paul is trying to change the GOP, and has a physically more attractive heir apparent. So far, only Huntsman and Gingrich have been trying to get Ron Paul discredited out of the GOP. Should be a very interesting weekend of debates. 01/05/2012 - 12:05pm EDT | IowaBeauty nails it, especially "...Paul, on the other hand, could destroy or abet the destruction of the economic foundation of the country, and cause plenty of trouble for the world, in a way that could take a LONG time to rebuild. ..." The only Americans who could afford to get stoned would be those with a place to grow their own and an arsenal to stave off the starving hordes of homeless. One benefit of this post and thread is that apparently there are no obvious Paulbots at TNR.com, although so many 'Santorum is the creepier' may suggest infltration :) I just came from Steve Coll's blogpost on Ron Paul at The New Yorker, and the Paulbots had swarmed the comment thread, even though Steve Coll decided to be diplomatic and ignore Ron Paul's conspiracy-addled coalition. America survived the Comstock Laws (which Santorum would re-impose), and Prohibition. Americam and some parts of the wrold, can not survive Ron Paul, although I hear he really likes the submarine part of the USN. My prediction is that Santorum may not survive New Hampshire except the NOT-Romney 75% is now really angry.

- K2K

January 6, 2012 at 2:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's a neck to neck race, but Santorum has just moved into my lead. It has to do do with abortion. Perhaps the most divisive issue in our society is abortion. On the one hand, I risk becoming an outcast at TNR by saying that abortion should be legal and available BUT we as a society should strive to make it rare and we should avoid turning abortion into a “standard” birth control method (as seems to be the case in China and Japan). On the other hand, the evangelical-Catholic horror of abortion is – to put it bluntly – crazy and oppressive. It's very strong evidence for the viability of sociobiology in my mind. To put it as pithily as I can – we are genes in tight jeans – for all our rationality we are obsessed with reproduction and offspring. This is a societal obsession that climaxes (so to speak) in the issue of abortion and miscarriages. I say this after reading about Santorum's behavior in regard to a dead baby. (Perhaps everybody here but I was already aware of the rather bizarre details of the event.) If not, read the article. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/rick-santorum-dead-baby-critics-lambasted-families-grieve/story?id=15306750 My theory – (based on some evidence including some family experiences and other close observations but with no claim to social science) is that evangelicals/Catholics become distraught if they are unable to conceive or unable to bring a baby to term. If a baby miscarries then this is an “Act of God” (a phrase that strikes me – a nonbeliever – as a very silly one). For those who regard “God as Great” – a slogan Christopher Hitchins aptly sliced at – then a logical conclusion is that God caused the death of the baby. The cognitive dissonance is stunning. One way to resolve it is to project all one's [forbidden] anger at God onto people who CAN get pregnant, who probably CAN carry the baby to term, and who CHOOSE to /k/i/l/l abort the baby. Displaced rage against God for not being able to have a baby is not the only reason why evangelicals/Catholics foam at the mouth about abortion, but it's definitely high on the loony rage scale. Also, isn't Santorum's wife a stunning BABE! Be still my heart, not to mention my hormones.

- skahn

January 6, 2012 at 7:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was also aware of the story of the Santorum's stillborn infant earlier, and I don't want to judge what people in their position feel to be spiritually or psychologically legitimate or even healing (Ross Douthat in the NYT pointed out today that some experts do advise not just to bury/forget a stillborn baby as fast as possible). I do object, however, to Santorum's conviction that his and his wife's beliefs are the measure by which all other people should live their lives, and his dribbling hypocrisy, and his contempt for others not like him, and his shit-eating grin, and his sweaters, and his 1950s uptight-white-guy vibe (what IS it with Republicans and this Fifties fetish), and his complete wall-to-wall lack of any ideas for dealing with major national and global challenges in the 21st century.

- ironyroad

January 8, 2012 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Santorum, if for no other reason than his last name. Ron Paul may be an economically stangnant, socially inept vampire, but at least, as Wolfe states, his pseudo-anarchic views would keep him from really doing anything negative to me personally. In fact, I actually agree with him on his views regarding the war on drugs, our wars overseas, and the necessity to oversee the Federal Reserve more closely (I know he wants to abolish it entirely, which is a little extreme, but at least he's drawn more attention to it). Seriously though, Santorum is the worst candidate I've ever seen. One of the most corrupt politicians, thinks we should ban pornography, openly derided internet free speech, made a retarded pseudo-analogy between Lord of the Rings and Iraq. Jesus Christ, Santorum really is santorum. Ron Paul may be crazy, but he's f***ing Christopher Hitchens compared to this guy.

- Madara

January 9, 2012 at 11:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am an ex-Democrat because the party is infected with anti- Semitism, an incurable disease. Ron Paul or Santorum to replace Obama the anti- Semite? No problem both of them can't be as bad for the Jewish State of Israel. For a while what is also important to me like women having the right to control their own body would be in danger. But this too will pass if we all stand up to those two Yahoo's. By the way, did you read the latest? Santorum is not a made up name evoking sainthood It is his real family name. He is the exception in his family of Communists! Searching in Google can get you some wild information.

- Poupic

January 14, 2012 at 7:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close