Reason Magazine Blogger Finds Pleasure in Tears of Rick Santorum's 8-year-old Daughter

Right Reason philosophical conservatism. ^ | 11/11/2006 | Francis J. Beckwith

[Matchett-PI]

Reason Magazine Blogger Finds Pleasure in Tears of Rick Santorum's 8-year-old Daughter

Because the libertarian universe has no place for the vulnerable, weak, or the dependent--since none are autonomous adult-choosers in search of virtual kiddie porn--it has no qualms in providing a forum in which children and their families can be verbally abused and have profanities hurled at them. Read and weep Julian Sanchez's "Your Tears Are So Yummy and Sweet" in which the writer says he finds joy in the tears of Rick Santorum's eight-year-old daughter, who is pictured crying next to her father as he gives his concession speech on Tuesday night, November 7. Most of the comments that follow celebrate and contribute to Mr. Sanchez's meanness. In fact, one commentator, named Jon H., makes sarcastic reference to the Santorums' newborn child who died in 1996. ~ Posted by Francis J. Beckwith at 11:25 PM

Your Tears Are So Yummy and Sweet

Julian Sanchez | November 8, 2006, 2:44pm

Man, I haven't taken this much pleasure in the suffering of a small child in days.

Click link to read other like-minded comments.

[Unknown Pundit]

If it was really an accident, as Rush claimed afterwards, why didn't he apologize right then and there on the show as it happened? As Rush would say "Hmmmmm?". Morely likely, he thought it a funny joke, caught hell for it, then claimed it was an accident. Obviously, you think otherwise. So be it.

And this from his apology:

I mean, she can't control the way she looks.

He still slighted her on her looks, even as he was apologizing. Or was that meant as a compliment? Hmmmmm?

[Cheburashka]

Francis J. Beckwith is a philosopher, specializing in politics, jurisprudence, religion, and applied ethics. He is on the faculty of Baylor University, where he is Associate Professor of Church-State Studies, and Associate Director of the Institute of Church-State Studies.
---
My only comment is there are moral perverts everywhere. The Lefties have far more than their share. Mr. Beckwith is one.

[Albion Wilde]

(Hey, since he brought them on stage for sympathy they're fair game).

It's standard practice for the families of candidates to stand with them, win or lose. Considering them "fair game" is crude.

[Nancee]

"Hey Sanchez, we'll drop a dime on you and have somebody check your papers!"

CHECK HIS PAPERS??? No! I'm going with post #126 on this one!! "surgical": "2 very accurate, precisely targeted, etc."

I am furious! This - - - - - - - is unworthy of any mercy!!!

"melancholy", I sat across the table from this precious little girl just a week ago today. All of the Santorum children and a niece were at the event here in Lancaster. She gave me such a happy smile when I shared with her what I think of her daddy! I also told her she can be soooooooo proud of her daddy for sticking up for what is right! She smiled again. I have thought of her and her brother, Dan, all week. I have prayed for them for healing in their souls over the days and weeks to come. Then I read this. I almost fell apart with sadness and anger.

Forgive my intensity, but I am passionate about this. It is disgusting to do this to children; is it not? I remember some idiots on our side picking on Chelsea Clinton too, and I thought that was reprehensible, my contempt for her parents notwithstanding!!

I need to pull myself together so I can find this "dirtbag" and follow #126!

Thanks, my friend!

Nancee

[Matchett-PI]

You perceive it one way, others perceive it differently. But no matter, let's not change the subject to Rush, and then attempt to make a moral equivalence to the incident in 1992 on Rush's show, and the plain words of Julian Sanchez who said:

"Man, I haven't taken this much pleasure in the suffering of a small child in days."

Or, another which gabidale89 points out in post #43, saying, "That's sick. They even made fun of Rick Santorum's baby who died in 1996.

Here's just one of the disgusting comments directed at the girl:

"I think Frowny is the best. She is trying SO hard to look sad... but in reality she can't wait to go home and tell her diary about all the fun she and her friends had at the meth-fueled lipstick party, while Daddy and Mommy were out campaigning.

Either that, or she'll die a fat virgin, and she really IS sad. Not sure which."

[alnick]

I missed that show. I didn't really catch any of Rush's television shows. I will say this, though. If someone wants to attack a leftist, that's fine. It just seems to me that there is plenty of substance to attack them on without resorting to going after a child.

Now, most adults can allow attacks about their looks roll right off their backs, but something like that can really scar a child. It's bad enough when the other kids make fun of a child, but to have a television or radio personality do it on the air and to think that people all across the country are laughing at their expense has got to really hurt.

And behavior like that is definitely NOT going to win over any fence sitters to our cause either.

[dixiechick2000]

Poor little thing.

Mr. Sanchez has shown his true colors,
as have his followers.

Thanks for the ping.

[Nancee]

BUMP!!!

[lentulusgracchus]

....no one's hands are clean here....

Really? So, how are things at DU? You "post with a bag over your head" there, too?

[Matchett-PI]

"My only comment is there are moral perverts everywhere. The Lefties have far more than their share. Mr. Beckwith is one."

Put down the bong and step away from the keyboard. I made it clear to you that Dr. Beckwith has nothing to do with this. If you care about not continuing to make a fool of yourself, I suggest that you refrain from commenting further until you get straight / sober up.

[little jeremiah]

Good detective work, Grampa Dave! It's amazing how many there are in the enemedia. Considering that they're only around 2% of the population, they are way over-represented.

Character counts. One who succumbs to the temptation of same sex acts, what to speak of jumping on the bandwagon to promote such acts as normal, natural and moral, has such grave character faults and moral blindness that it will taint everything they do and say.

[pray4liberty]

The response could be: (little children chanting)

Hateful vicious horrid gay
son of Satan go away!

Hateful vicious horrid gay
son of Satan go away!

(In the name of Jesus, Amen!)

[little jeremiah]

People with moral blinders see everything as twisted. More evidence that this is so.

[Uriah_lost]

For a true Libertarian (Ayn Rand style) there is no place for compassion. In fact it is one of the only "sins". Objectivists are very Darwinian and do not support anything beyond self interest. Like the Communists they also believe in the "perfectibility" of man though by a different path. This is where I depart from them. Man is corrupt by nature and can only be channeled into good for society by a codified law and societal pressure.

[lentulusgracchus]

[replying to cryptical] That's "your take" that they were standing with their father so as to elicit sympathy. Your conclusion says more about you than it does about Rick Santorum.

Worth-saying-again bump.

BTTT.

[lentulusgracchus]

Courtesy bump.

[Matchett-PI]

"Man is corrupt by nature and can only be channeled into good for society by a codified law and societal pressure." ~ Uriah_lost

When you click my screen name and scroll down - you will find this:

Emory Report 11/29/99 Vol.52. No. 13 Excerpt:

"...Marci Hamilton ... [is] a nationally recognized expert on constitutional and copyright law. ....

Her forthcoming book, Copyright and the Constitution, examines the historical and philosophical underpinnings of copyright law and asserts that the American "copyright regime" is grounded in Calvinism, resulting in a philosophy that favors the product over the producer.

Calvinism? Hamilton's interest in the intersection of Calvinist theology and political philosophy emerged early in her career when she began reading the work of leading constitutional law scholars. She was puzzled by their "theme of a system of self-rule." "They talked about it as if it were in existence," she said. "My gut reaction was that direct democracy and self-rule are a myth that doesn't really exist."

What Hamilton found was that a "deep and abiding distrust of human motives that permeates Calvinist theology also permeates the Constitution." Her investigation of that issue has led to another forthcoming book, tentatively titled The Reformed Constitution: What the Framers Meant by Representation.

That our country's form of government is a republic instead of a pure democracy is no accident, according to Hamilton. The constitutional framers "expressly rejected direct democracy. Instead, the Constitution constructs a representative system of government that places all ruling power in the hands of elected officials."

And the people? Their power is limited to the voting booth and communication with their elected representatives, she said.

"The Constitution is not built on faith in the people, but rather on distrust of all social entities, including the people." ...

..Two of the most important framers, James Wilson and James Madison, were steeped in Presbyterian precepts.

It is Calvinism, Hamilton argued, that "more than any other Protestant theology, brings together the seeming paradox that man's will is corrupt by nature but also capable of doing good."

In other words, Calvinism holds that "we can hope for the best but expect the worst from each other and from the social institutions humans devise."

"Neither Calvin nor the framers stop at distrust, however," Hamilton said. "They also embrace an extraordinary theology of hope. The framers, like Calvin, were reformers." ~ Elaine Justice

[Unknown Pundit]

LOL. My point all along is that individuals from all over the spectrum have, from time to time, crossed the line. Some are grass-rooters, others are pundits and columnists, and sometimes the politicians themselves cross lines they shouldn't.

I just proved to you that it does happen on the Right. I showed how Rush did so with Chelsea Clinton, where on one TV show he puts her name up under a picture of a dog, then, when apoligizing, he slighted her looks again. Now you want to change the subject back to something I never condoned in the first place, the asinine gloating of this Sanchez character.

I never defended Sanchez's comments. All I was trying to say is that we all need to be wary of what we say, and that sometimes Repubs may cross the line now and then too, and we shouldn't. No one should, Left or Right. Perhaps I stated it clumsily. Fair enough? FWIW, I went over to Reason and critized his puerile statements. Take care.

[Uriah_lost]

Good stuff!
I'm also enjoying the other links on you page....gonna take a while though!

[True Republican Patriot]

But Nancee, that doesn't hurt enough, lets only do that after they are thoroughly smashed. Seriously, I cannot imagine how someone can be so sick and perverted as to enjoy the tears and the pain that the little one is expressing. But then We are not Demorats. HELL is too good a place for that pervert!! :-)