. . . in the barrel . . .
Holy guacamole on a hot cross bun:
Where the hell is his birth certificate?!
It has nothing to do with your endorsement and everything to do with your perception.
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.
Here’s Santorum suggesting that contraception shouldn’t be covered by health insurance at all (not just by insurance plans paid for by Catholic employers). Here he is endorsing the states’ right to ban contraception.
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.
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:
- In the Griswold case, he supported the states’ right to ban contraception;
- He suggests contraception shouldn’t be covered at all under insurance;
- He is on record as being anti-contraception, for anybody:
I tend to think that if he thought he could get the support to legally ban contraception, he’d jump on it.
It’s definitely about contraception. 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.
Well, you see, when small government is in your bedroom, its not quite so much of an intrusion. Because, well, its small, you see.
He is a fool to even suggest there is something wrong with people using contraception.
I think it should be clear there is no “perhaps” about it. The man is a bigoted, reactionary asshole.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Wait, is the challenge as much a knuckle-walking Trog, or more so?
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:
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.
A nice postby Josh Marshall about how this primary is hurting Mitt Romney:a
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.
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.
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.