Santorum: Still Incredibly Dishonest

Another lie. In fact, most of those “executive orders” (many were not that at all) were entirely within his purview. The few that required congressional approval were stated as exactly that, a commitment to try to pass legislation. Santorum doesn’t point to a single one of those 23 recommendations or policies and make an argument for why Obama can’t do them. Why should he? His audience is immune to facts.

I can do a much better job of arguing that Obama has shown “disregard for the United States Constitution and the separation of powers” than this. He has done exactly that in many ways, from the use of the State Secrets Privilege to make the executive branch immune to civil suit to the relentless pursuit of whistleblowers to his expansion of the NSA data mining program to his support of a range of unjust court rulings on prosecutorial immunity, access to DNA evidence and illegal surveillance. But Santorum can’t mention those things because he agrees with them, so he lies and invents “despotic” actions that don’t exist.

Page 2 of 2 | Previous page

16 comments on this post.
  1. Randomfactor:

    If Santorum’s lips are moving, he’s either lying or reading something.

  2. shouldbeworking:

    Frothy would never issue an executive directive if he was President. It would be unbiblical.

  3. eric:

    I fully expect every President to try and increase the power and scope of the executive. That’s kind of the nature of the office. We’ve come to this point where Presidents can get away with it because congresscritters view party loyalty as more important than their role as a check/balance to executive overreach. Cowardly or self-serving congresscritters is where the problem lies. They’ll allow a President of their own party to get away with just about anything (would it be fair to say: literally murder?).

    Want to hold a war without our express approval? Well Mr. President, you looking hawkish will help with my reelection, so I will stand here and clap for you instead of doing what I ought to as a legislator, and slapping you into next week with an act of congress reminding you that that’s OUR power, not yours.

    And the same sort of calculus applies to just about any other issue. Will I, as a legislator, personally benefit from ceding power X to the executive? Yes? Would I lose if I was seen as aligning with the other party’s legislators in trying to prevent the executive from doing X? Yes? Okay, I cede that legislative power. They give no thought to the long term consequences of such decisions.

  4. Rodney Nelson:

    “Constitutional” in frothyspeak means “I don’t like this.”

  5. baal:

    I love the last paragraph. I hold special contempt for folks who have good (at least respectable) arguments for thier views but decide to use personal attacks or made up bull instead.

    “The Supreme Court upheld such executive agency discretion” <–True but a pity. One of the under remarked power shifts over the last 30 years has been the increase in power of administrative agencies. Another name for "administrative agencies" is bureaucracy.

    I've met with a handful of my State legislators (both chambers but only a few individuals) and they frequently cited to how various agencies 'tied their hands.' Some of that was plain deflection but there were good points too.

  6. aluchko:

    “Wrong again. The policy requires insurance companies to provide contraception coverage for all people covered by a group insurance policy even if that policy does not include it. The employers don’t have to do a thing. ”

    This has always struck me as disingenuous. The insurance companies aren’t going to do this for free out of the goodness of their hearts, they’ll just call it ‘free’ and fund it by raising prices elsewhere, you either pay $5 for contraception and $95 for other insurance, or $0 for contraception and $100 for other insurance, all that’s changing is a line on the bill.

  7. eric:

    This has always struck me as disingenuous. The insurance companies aren’t going to do this for free out of the goodness of their hearts,

    Its not disingenuous. Statistically, including contraception coverage saves them money. If this were purely a capitalism issue, insurance agencies would treat them like air bags and give you a discount for having them. Medical payouts associated with babies are, like auto injury payouts, orders of magnitude higher than the costs associated with providing preventative mechanisms.

  8. Modusoperandi:

    aluchko, a not-pregnant insuree is cheaper than a pregnant one (and regularly inspected ladyparts are cheaper in the long run than those that aren’t). That’s why the insurance companies didn’t make a peep.

  9. Gregory in Seattle:

    I find it amusing when the wanna-be dictators are so ignorant of how government works.

  10. Michael Heath:

    aluchko writes:

    This has always struck me as disingenuous. The insurance companies aren’t going to do this for free out of the goodness of their hearts, they’ll just call it ‘free’ and fund it by raising prices elsewhere, you either pay $5 for contraception and $95 for other insurance, or $0 for contraception and $100 for other insurance, all that’s changing is a line on the bill.

    eric responds:

    Its not disingenuous. Statistically, including contraception coverage saves them money. If this were purely a capitalism issue, insurance agencies would treat them like air bags and give you a discount for having them. Medical payouts associated with babies are, like auto injury payouts, orders of magnitude higher than the costs associated with providing preventative mechanisms.

    eric, a cite would be welcomed. The last time I researched this, in 2009, there was no consensus position amongst economists about which approach lowered insurance company costs. An early-2012 Factcheck.org article reports this question remains an unknown: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/cloudy-contraception-costs/ .

    I understand why “common sense” would have one intuitively conclude free contraception coverage lowers the cost insurance company costs. But King Evidence frequently falsifies common sense, which is why scientific literates find Sarah Palin so absurd.

  11. Area Man:

    “Earlier this month, as the nation endured the “fiscal cliff” crises and negotiation, the administration floated the idea of minting the trillion-dollar coin.”

    Bah, I know this may seem trivial, but he’s got the “fiscal cliff” completely mixed up with the debt ceiling ransom. They are completely different things brought about for different reasons. Although in both cases it was Santorum’s part that caused the crisis, on purpose, in an attempt to extract concessions that they couldn’t get through the normal Constitutional process. If you want to complain about abuse of power, that would be a good place to start.

  12. patrickashton:

    It’s truly amazing how someone who spent 16 years in Congress can know so little about how our government works.

  13. Right Wing Round-Up – 1/24/13 « Radical Right Thugs: assassins of gay soul and spirit:

    [...] Ed Brayton @ Dispatches from the Culture Wars: Santorum: Still Incredibly Dishonest.  [...]

  14. Christoph Burschka:

    Ronald Reagan did it when he implemented the policy by executive order in 1984. And when it was overturned by executive order by Bill Clinton in 1993 and then reinstated by George W. Bush by executive order in 2001.

    Like kids fighting over the thermostat. <_<

  15. iangould:

    “It’s truly amazing how someone who spent 16 years in Congress can know so little about how our government works.”

    I don’t find it at all amazing that someone who spent 16 years in Congress can think the average WND reader know so little about how our government works.”

  16. shouldbeworking:

    “It’s truly amazing how someone who spent 16 years in Congress can know so little about how our government works.”

    I don’t find it at all amazing that someone who spent 16 years in Congress can think the average WND reader writer know so little about how our government works.”

    I fixed that for you.

Leave a comment

You must be