Mark Levin Supports “The Big Government Statist” in The Republican Race

Nobody has written more about or railed more against big government statism than conservative radio host, Mark Levin. He argues that we are all “under attack from big government regulations and the redistribution of wealth that the statists love and preach.”

So why on earth would Mark Levin, the author of the conservative manifesto against big government statism, Liberty and Tyranny,  support Rick Santorum, if he’s such “a big government statist”?

In early December, when they were both in the back of the pack,  Levin said that if the primary were being held in his state, today, it would come down to two people, Santorum or Bachmann – “the most consistent conservatives in the race – people he would trust – without thought in the oval office”.

Now that Bachmann has bowed out, that leaves Santorum.

Here’s some thoughtful analysis from James Pethokoukis on the different economic visions of Romney and Santorum.

Whom should the U.S. economy—and U.S. economy policy—revolve around, the entrepreneur or the family? That is really the core economic debate between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney (and Jon Huntsman, too, for that matter). Not that there isn’t plenty of overlap between the two conservative economic visions, but embracing one or the other does lead down different policy paths. Think of it as traditional conservatism vs. modern, free-market conservatism. Edmund Burke vs. the Austrians, Friedrich Hayek, and Joseph Schumpeter. Tradition and order vs. creative destruction.

Read it all, and read also First Left-Wing Talking-Point Against Santorum: He’s ‘Big Government’ at  Right Pundits, where  Warner Todd Huston asks, “is Rick Santorum a big government Republican?”

Sort of. But not really. You see, Santorum’s focus is in assuring the integrity of the traditional, nuclear family and he’s not averse to using government to secure those ends. He most certainly is not a Republican that leans toward a libertarian interpretation of what government should do — i.e. operate in a hands-off policy.


He places the family much higher on the list of things conservatives should conserve and this might make him a bit distasteful to laissez faire economists. I feel his stance is a legitimately conservative view, too.

See also:

The Shark Tank: Rick Santorum is ‘No’ Mike Huckabee


Oh, and the gay mafia is weighing in now with typical subtlety.

Big Journalism: New York Times, NPR Contributor Compares Rick Santorum to Harvey Milk Assassin Dan White

And just what you were waiting for – Meggie weighs in:

Breitbart TV: Meghan McCain: Santorum Nomination Will Mean ‘Bedlam And Hysteria’

From the likes of people like you, right?

Check out  Santorum on the Issues.

No, he’s not a big government Republican.

Linked by Michelle Malkin, and Doug Ross, thanks!

14 thoughts on “Mark Levin Supports “The Big Government Statist” in The Republican Race

  1. A Santorum candidacy will likely leave the jackasses in general (Democrap and Republican) and liberals/socialists in specific in apoplexy, if for no other reason than because that’s not who the MSM thinks should run against Obhammud.

    Rick Santorum has his warts, but his explanations of most of them are perfectly acceptable to me. I have supported him in the past. I just hope he’s still on the ballot by the time of the Oregon primary so I can vote for him.


  2. “Whom should the U.S. economy—and U.S. economy policy—revolve around, the entrepreneur or the family? ”

    That’s an extreme division, even if restricted to “the US economy”. Does it have to be one or the other?

    “[Santorum] places the family much higher on the list of things conservatives should conserve….”

    [What’s all this fuss about “family”, anyway. The government is here to help.]

    Besides, isn’t “family” a social thing, whereas “entrepreneurship” is, well, an economic thing?

    Without question, the family is at the heart and brain of everything. We can support both families and entrepreneurs. Come to think of it, most entrepreneurs come from families.


  3. He has a legislative record. Check it out.
    Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
    Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
    Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
    Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
    Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

    Rated 25% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
    Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
    Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
    Rated 100% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
    Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
    Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
    Rated 81% by NTU, indicating a “Taxpayer’s Friend” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

    Yeah – he’s obviously a “big government statist”.


  4. Let’s see, ND – hates unions (must love Big Business), hates government schools (must hate “the children”), hates the environment (must love big polluters), and hates public health NAZIS (must want everyone to die!).

    Yep, that’s my man.


  5. Rick Santorum was a SENATOR! I love the guy but come on! To compare “votes” to decisions as a governor of a state like Massachusetts is like comparing a platoon sergeant back in the supply line with shined boots to a general leading the charge behind enemy lines with blood on them and coming to the conclusion that the platoon sergeant is much more “squared away”. A senator is one of 100 and a congressman like Newt is one of hundreds. Governors stand alone and the people they represent are everyone in their respective states and not a local consituency or just on a Federal level with another partner that gets elected every six years. Santorum and Gingrich are Washington D.C. career politicians that have made their living being politicians and reaping the spoils of same. Romney is a career successful businessman that specialized in turning around failing entities who did a stint in one of the toughest states in the country to govern as a conservative Republican who actually deploys troops. Who should the American people trust with the economy or the military?

    Make a chart and line up all three candidates and all the issues that are important picking a Republican nominee… taxes, pro-life, Christianity, Israel, spending, smaller government, Iran, judicial philosophy (Romney has Borque advising him), repealing Obamacare, and so on. They’re all the same and Romney runs to the right on many issues. Washington congressmen and senators don’t “veto” anything. In four years Romney vetoed over 800 times. In Massachusetts that’s like the Davey Crockett at the Alamo being compared to the Davey Crockett in Congress like Santorum and Gingrich.

    I like to remind all conservatives every chance I get that the “individual mandate” for which Romney is being cruicified was a CONSERVATIVE IDEA at the time. Remember phrases like “personal responsibility” for healthcare? I find it appalling that I don’t read or hear this much in the conservative media anymore and worse yet most are playing Monday morning quarterback and running away from it now that Obamacare has reared its ugly head. I remember, I AM a staunch conservative who was paying attention, I live in Massachusetts, and saw the business oriented individual mandate as something a conservative governor remained firm on and managed to push through a completely left wing state legislature coached by Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank who wanted a government takeover of the Massachusetts healthcare system using the excuse that 8% of the citizens were uninsured which is STILL popular in our state 3 to 1! And for the record “Romneycare” which maybe I should call “Heritagecare” or “Newtcare” isn’t Obamacare, not even close. I can just hear all these same people if Clarence Thomas or Justice Scalia ruled to allow Obamacare. “I knew they were liberals all along!”.

    Finally I’d like to put this notion that Romney wouldn’t pick “conservative” judges to rest once and for all. I’m in law enforcement and have been a Detective for 36 years in Massachusetts. I know, have testified in front of, or am familiar with most of the judges in the Commonwealth. In our state lawyers very seldom declare they are “Republicans” while they are prosecutors or attorneys because it doesn’t matter and is a hinderence to them. They all declare they’re Democrats. Some of these “Democrats” are more conservative than Rush Limbaugh for crying out loud. Romney very deftly chose these guys (mostly prosecutors) as nominees and many of them went on to pass the all Democrat appointing authority and become judges. Since Romney left we have seen how significant his choices were when compared to the “bench legislators” and “intellectually challenged” political hack dopes that are being processed at this moment.


  6. I’ve never seen Santorum as a big government statist guy, though, he did have some big spending predilections while in the Senate, as did most Republicans, to our dismay. He actually has some excellent economic positions. The problem with him is that he is known more as a social issues guy rather than an economics guy, which is not the best thing when the election will hinge on the economy.

    Still, I’d rather have Santorum than Obama.


  7. The problem with him is that he is known more as a social issues guy rather than an economics guy,
    But he has all year to correct that faulty impression. Luckily he’s good in debates, on the stump, and in interviews.
    Watch him facing down (with a smile) hostile interviewers David Gregory and Candy Crowley:

    Senator Santorum became one of the most successful government reformers in our history, taking on Washington’s powerful special interests from the moment he arrived in our nation’s Capitol. Along with John Boehner and Jim Nussle, Senator Santorum was a member of the famous “Gang of Seven” that exposed the Congressional Banking and Congressional Post Office scandals. It was this record of reform that prompted a Washington Post reporter to write in a recent article that “Santorum was a tea party kind of guy before there was a tea party.”

    He was also an author and floor manager of the landmark Welfare Reform Act which passed in 1996 that has empowered millions of Americans to leave the welfare rolls and enter the workforce.

    Granted, that’s from his own website, but it’s true. Look, every candidate will have issues that we disagree with. None of them are perfect, but Santorum really did do great things when he was in office. And he’s astronomically better than Romney, who’s core beliefs are impossible to ascertain because of his flip flopping history.


  8. I like to remind all conservatives every chance I get that the “individual mandate” for which Romney is being cruicified was a CONSERVATIVE IDEA at the time.

    It was a conservative idea Santorum opposed.


  9. Santorum would be ok….Newt sure is having a hard time dealing with the negative ads, maybe he’ll go off like a roman candle!


  10. “Look, every candidate will have issues that we disagree with. None of them are perfect …”

    You could take all the faults, real and imagined, of all the GOP candidates, wrap them up in a ball and they’d still be nowhere as bad as Obama’s.

    Meanwhile, our guys, with the helpful assistance of the media, are ripping each other to shreds. All Obaba and his minions have to do is sit back, watch, and wait to renew the lease on the White House.

    Obama needs just one more term to complete the destruction of the country. I’s really rather he didn’t get that.

    Two items from today’s news:
    1. The Obama budget will severely cut back the military.
    Defense Cuts
    “… the administration’s goal of trimming defense spending by about $480 billion over the next decade. If Congress cannot come to an agreement on how to cut the federal deficit, the Pentagon budget could be forced to shrink by as much as $1 trillion.”

    2. Bill Gertz of the Washington Times reports that President Barack Obama has indicated he is prepared to convey information about secret American missile defense technology to Russia:
    Obama to Share Missile Defense Secrets With Russia?

    “… Mr. Obama said restrictions aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on U.S. Standard Missile-3 velocity burnout parameters might impinge on his constitutional foreign policy authority.”

    Those of you who have been in the service know what “Top Secret” means, and why things get that classification. For everybody else, here’s the definition:

    “(Mil.) containing information whose disclosure could result in grave danger to the national security – the highest of the three commonly known levels of national security classification.”

    (There are other kinds of “Secret”; most are variations of the above.)

    There are more than a few people in long-term prison sentences for giving away Secrets (Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen, Jonathan Jay Pollard – among others).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s