# In Sanctum Santorum-i.e. it's your turn! **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 11, 2012, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556 "2012-02-11T22:16:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/21 "2012-02-13T01:51:33Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > **In Sanctum Santorum-i.e. it’s your turn!** . . . in the barrel . . . ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/22 "2012-02-13T03:01:31Z")
Holy guacamole on a hot cross bun: [Santorum leading Romney in Michigan polling](http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/02/10/santorum_surge_seen_in_michigan.html) > [@](#): > > After one night in the field, a Public Policy Polling survey in Michigan shows Rick Santorum leading Mitt Romney. There are two more nights of polling. > > Key finding so far: Just 20% of Republicans surveyed actually consider Romney to be from Michigan. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/23 "2012-02-13T03:41:52Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > Just 20% of Republicans surveyed actually consider Romney to be from Michigan. Where the hell is his birth certificate?! ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/24 "2012-02-13T05:16:31Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > And unless Santorum is an utter fool he is not going to do anything to actually get such a measure passed if he’s President (and I agree if he gets nominated he will lose massively) and if he does Congress and/or the Supreme Court is going to block it very easily. > > The possibility there is if after Super Tuesday, one of the two anti-Romneys has a clear advantage over the other there’s going to be tremendous pressure for the latter to drop out. There might be a deal of the other as VP which would be disastrous in the general election. > > I never endorsed him, indeed all my statements are to the contrary-I am just letting his voting record speak for what they are. Santorum is not a Ron Paul or Michelle Bachmann. > > I meant Super Tuesday, not Gingrich getting knocked out immediately. It has nothing to do with your endorsement and everything to do with your perception. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/25 "2012-02-13T13:41:01Z")
Can I get a cite that Santorum wants to outlaw birth control for anyone, let alone married couples? I know that as a Catholic, he is personally opposed to using birth control (he’s got 5 or 6 kids) but I have yet to see where he wants to make it a crime to purchase a condom or take a birth control pill. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/26 "2012-02-13T14:12:18Z")
Here’s Santorum suggesting that contraception shouldn’t be covered by health insurance [at all](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/rick-santorum-contraception_n_1269008.html) (not just by insurance plans paid for by Catholic employers). Here he is endorsing the states’ right to [ban contraception](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/santorum-explains-06-loss-still-supports-state-right-to-outlaw-contraception/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter). ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/27 "2012-02-13T14:24:31Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Here’s Santorum suggesting that contraception shouldn’t be covered by health insurance [at all](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/rick-santorum-contraception_n_1269008.html) (not just by insurance plans paid for by Catholic employers). Here he is endorsing the states’ right to [ban contraception](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/santorum-explains-06-loss-still-supports-state-right-to-outlaw-contraception/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter). I think he’s just against the Courts ruling in Griswold, I’m not sure that’s the same thing as thinking states should ban contraceptives. Griswold found the right to privacy that was cited in a bunch of other court cases (like Roe v Wade and the recentish case that banned anti-sodomy laws), so I don’t think its so obvious that Santorum’s problem with that case is specifically that it keeps contraception legal. ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/28 "2012-02-13T14:40:00Z")
While Santorum may never have outright said “I want to ban all contraception” when you add 2 and 2 together, it tends to lean towards 4: 1. In the Griswold case, he supported the states’ right to ban contraception; 2. He suggests contraception shouldn’t be covered at all under insurance; 3. He is on record as being anti-contraception, for anybody: [http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/10/19/348007/rick-santorum-pledges-to-defund-contraception-its-not-okay-its-a-license-to-do-things/](http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/10/19/348007/rick-santorum-pledges-to-defund-contraception-its-not-okay-its-a-license-to-do-things/) > [@](#): > > Rick Santorum pledged to repeal all federal funding for contraception, during a recent interview with [CaffeinatedThoughts.com](http://CaffeinatedThoughts.com) editor Shane Vander Hart, arguing that birth control devalues the act of procreation. “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” I tend to think that if he thought he could get the support to legally ban contraception, he’d jump on it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/29 "2012-02-13T14:54:01Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > I think he’s just against the Courts ruling in Griswold, I’m not sure that’s the same thing as thinking states should ban contraceptives. Griswold found the right to privacy that was cited in a bunch of other court cases (like Roe v Wade and the recentish case that banned anti-sodomy laws), so I don’t think its so obvious that Santorum’s problem with that case is specifically that it keeps contraception legal. [It’s definitely about contraception.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2MKZZ9c4kQ) He _also_ disagrees with the Supreme Court that there’s some sort of implied sexual privacy right in the Constitution, which conveniently fits into his notions about government regulation of sexual activity, but he’d certainly oppose the use of contraception even if the Constitution explicitly protected its use. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/30 "2012-02-13T15:07:47Z")
Well, you see, when _small_ government is in your bedroom, its not quite so much of an intrusion. Because, well, its small, you see. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/31 "2012-02-13T15:44:23Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > And unless Santorum is an utter fool he is not going to do anything to actually get such a measure passed if he’s President (and I agree if he gets nominated he will lose massively) and if he does Congress and/or the Supreme Court is going to block it very easily. He is a fool to even suggest there is something wrong with people using contraception. > [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > I think his social conservative (or perhaps reactionary) aspect is overrated I think it should be clear there is no “perhaps” about it. The man is a bigoted, reactionary asshole. > [@jtgain](#): > > Can I get a cite that Santorum wants to outlaw birth control for anyone, let alone married couples? I know that as a Catholic, he is personally opposed to using birth control (he’s got 5 or 6 kids) but I have yet to see where he wants to make it a crime to purchase a condom or take a birth control pill. There is no way he has any chance of every being in a position to initiate such legislation and if he ever did it would die a quick death. However, it doesn’t change the fact that based on the things he has said, he probably would try. His comments indicate he believes sex without the intent to procreate is wrong. I have no problem if that is how he chooses to live his life but he is a hypocrite if he thinks the government should be telling consenting adults what they can and can’t do in the bedroom. Small government conservative my ass. He’s a bigoted, reactionary jerk who makes no effort to disguise his hatred of gay people and his belief women should be barefoot and pregnant. The fact someone who possesses such vile ideas could be considered a serious contender for the nomination of the major political parties in the US at the start of the 21st century saddens me. And the fact that others in his party and most members of the media lack the courage to call him out on it is pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/32 "2012-02-13T15:57:15Z")
I believe it was Sen. Bob Kerrey who said that “Santorum is Latin for asshole”. He couldn’t have been more right. Look at his comments on women in the military, going from aw gee women in combat would trigger emotions in their fellow soldiers to well it kinda sorta maybe alright if women were allowed to fly small planes. Heavens no, put a big plane in the hands of a mere female? It’s clear that he hates gays and he thinks the only reason that anyone should ever have sex is to procreate. I could see him having a following in the 1950s, or at the latest the 1960s. But he’s at least 50 years behind his times. He’s a bigoted, homophobic, warmongering little man. Part of me wants him to get the nomination so that he gets shellacked and leads to Democratic control of the House, Senate, and White House, the other part is scared shitless that the little douchebag might actually win it all. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/33 "2012-02-13T17:06:35Z")
To put it in poker terms, if he goes all in hoping to catch an inside straight flush on the river, you call. If you lose, its because there is no God, and He hates you. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/34 "2012-02-13T17:11:30Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Santorum has a supermajority in favouribility rating… > [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > _Favouribility_? Are you suddenly turning into a Brit? No, he’s always been doing that. He seems to think it makes him appear more sophisticated (or cosmopolitan, or something). It’s not THAT big a deal. More difficult to fathom is his protestation that the former Senator isn’t really as reactionary as all that. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2012, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/35 "2012-02-14T02:48:20Z")
So, if Obama had been recorded saying that he believed we should live by Sharia law (because there is, after all, one God, Allah, Mohammad, his prophet, yadda yadda); But had never specifically said he would pass laws subjecting Americans to Sharia law; You wouldn’t think his comments were reason to vote against him? Think about this and you’ll realize: - How absurd it is to claim that Santorum is anything but REALLY out of the mainstream of the opinions of Americans on social issues; and - How many on the the right lie shamelessly about where Obama is on the spectrum (“socialist” my ass), and expect everyone else to naively hope for the best when \*they \*nominate someone who really is an extremist. If Santorum’s not a right-wing extremist on social issues, I challenge you to name some other politicians who are (and if all you come up with are locals who couldn’t get anywhere nationally, you’ll prove my point). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2012, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/36 "2012-02-14T03:08:08Z")
Wait, is the challenge _as much_ a knuckle-walking Trog, or _more_ so? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2012, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/37 "2012-02-15T00:58:06Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > While Santorum may never have outright said “I want to ban all contraception” when you add 2 and 2 together, it tends to lean towards 4: > > 1. In the Griswold case, he supported the states’ right to ban contraception; > 2. He suggests contraception shouldn’t be covered at all under insurance; > 3. He is on record as being anti-contraception, for anybody: > > [http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/10/19/348007/rick-santorum-pledges-to-defund-contraception-its-not-okay-its-a-license-to-do-things/](http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/10/19/348007/rick-santorum-pledges-to-defund-contraception-its-not-okay-its-a-license-to-do-things/) > > I tend to think that if he thought he could get the support to legally ban contraception, he’d jump on it. I’m with **Simplicio** on this. Defunding contraception is not banning it. It’s clear that he thinks birth control has had some negative effects on society (increased promiscuity among unmarried couples, specifically), and he does want states to be able to ban it, but it’s unclear if he would actually do so himself. Here he is on Meet the Press last Sunday: > [@](#): > > MR. GREGORY: Do you think this is a public health issue for women? I’ve heard you say before you think contraception is dangerous. > > FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: Well, I–what I’ve talked about it with respect is my Catholic faith, which, you know, I, I agree with the Catholic Church on the issue of contraception. But as you know, I mean, I–that’s, that’s a different position than I have with respect to public policy. You know, public policy, women should have access to contraception. I have no problem with that at all. The question is whether some religious organization should be forced to pay for something that they believe is a moral wrong, and the issue is–the answer to that is no. And under the Obama administration policy they are continuing to be forced to do so. Emphasis added. Now, he may be trying to soften his public stance as he’s come out pretty strongly against birth control in the past, but I don’t think it’s quite as cut and dry as some are making it. We did a thread about this not long ago, and I remember being pretty much convinced that Santorum would sanction banning birth control. Now, I’m questioning that. Does anyone remember the thread, and what his statements were? I think they were more disconcerting than anything anyone has linked to in this thread, but I could be wrong. n.b.: I would not dispute that Santorum is about as right wing on social issues as they come. He certainly is. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2012, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/38 "2012-02-15T05:52:37Z")
A nice [post](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/02/earlier_this_evening_i_noted.php?ref=fpblg)by Josh Marshall about how this primary is hurting Mitt Romney:a > [@](#): > > First, the intensity of the primary fight is forcing Romney to take increasingly hard right positions that are alienating independent voters. As much as it’s a cliche, he can’t effectively tack to the center until he’s got the primaries behind him. > > Second, and a bit more intangibly, running around the country in a long twilight struggle with Rick Santorum is just … how to put it? inherently demeaning and diminishing. It’s like struggling to land a one pound fish or searching for the way out of a paper bag. People see you doing that and you just look weak and feckless, even pitiful. Michigan is going to be absolutely crucial. If Romney can claw back like he did in Florida, he will salvage his campaign and perhaps sew up the nomination by Super Tuesday. If he loses all bets are off and he will face a really serious threat from Santorum and will be seriously damaged even if he ends up winning. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2012, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/39 "2012-02-15T14:14:26Z")
Right. Obama came out of his long primary battle against Hillary stronger, because both he and Hillary were credible candidates. If Romney has to spend his time battling Santorum, Gingrich and Paul, well, what does that say about him? These guys are joke candidates, and Romney can’t beat them. ---
**Author:** ![Gagundathar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2012, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556/40 "2012-02-15T14:31:38Z")
This is easily the weirdest election cycle I have ever witnessed. It baffles me that the GOP can’t come up with any better candidates. When the front-runners are both religiously crazed neo-cons with no concept of the mainstream at all, then something has to give. Surely there is a core group of sane people in the party who could broker something to bring some reality into the equation. But, no. Not now. Maybe not ever. Weird extremes have become the norm. OG save us all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-sanctum-santorum-i-e-its-your-turn/612556.md?page=3)