Santorum leaps on social issues in Republican race
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 3 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 8 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
38 Comments
Login to comment
3
SushiSake3
But how is banning sodomy going to create jobs and revive the U.S. economy?
Conservatives need to be asking Santorum critical questions like this.
1
plasticmonkey
Santorum, on the other hand, gets his science from oil companies, who have no ulterior motives whatsoever.
3
SushiSake3
When Americans are hollering for jobs, Santorum wants to talk about banning sodomy.
When Americans want a strong economy, Santorum wants to talk about birth control.
When Americans want a president who will protect them, Santorum wants to talk about whether president Obama is a Christian.
Talk about tone deaf
3
SushiSake3
When even Mitt Romney talks about jobs, the economy and his resume as a can-do corporate executive, Rick Santorum is more focused on criticizing President Barack Obama’s theology for not being “based on the Bible."
With unemployment sky high, Rick Santorum feels it is far more important to engage the nation on tax deductions for charitable donations and "civil liberties."
RICK SANTORUM -
Wrong man.
Wrong issues.
Wrong century.
0
Laguna
And Ron Paul supporters wonder why Ron Paul doesn't receive the attention they think he deserves!
1
SushiSake3
"In a December 1995 Philadelphia Magazine article, Santorum conceded that he "was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress... But it had never been something I thought about." Asked why he changed his mind, he said that he "sat down and read the literature. Scientific literature," only to correct himself and note that religion was a part of it too."
Huh?
So Santorum was pro-choice before he was anti-choice?
Is this a Romneyesque flip flop?
Where does Santorum REALLY stand and is he really genuine about his position??
1
SushiSake3
It's not that Rick Santorum's probably a Christian, I mean he talks about the Bible a lot, he looks like a Christian, and is always very well dressed.
And it's probably not that he seems to be very "Christian" in that he says all the "right" words about taking away women's freedoms to choose what to do with their bodies, pouring hate on gay folks and blocking women from using birth control.
No, and it's not that Rick Santorum might be talking about some issues that aren't of great importance to Americans at the moment (I'm sure his heart is in the right place when he talks about banning sodomy instead of fixing the economy).....
No, my beef with Santorum is:
WHY AREN'T YOU TALKING ABOUT JOBS??
0
LFRAgain
Santorum is an utter fool. Americans couldn't care less about the "social issues" Santorum wants to champion, i.e., Christianity, when placed against the broader backdrop of an economy recovery that needs competent direction.
The fervor with which Santorum is pushing his radical social agenda (hee hee! Fun to use that asinine phrase on conservatives for a change) should scare the bejeezus out of most Americans, because what it loudly trumpets to all but the deafest is that he has absolutely no economic battle plan whatsoever.
-1
Wolfpack
No, the media leaps on Santorum on social issues. CNN and the other arms of the Democratic media conglomerate pound on Santorum's traditional views to avert attention from Obama's economic and debt disaster. Religion bad, atheism good. Pro-life bad, pro-death good. It's the same thing every election cycle.
0
Virtuoso
You have it completely backward@Wolfpack. Santorum raises the social issues because he knows that the US economy is in such bad shape that no politician will be able to deliver on promises to reduce unemployment, lower gasoline prices, fix the deficit, etc. It's a classic bait and switch.
0
SuperLib
This is officially a bumper sticker. You can insert your own words if you want, "(Insert entity) is spreading fear about (insert topic) so they can control your lives."
2
Laguna
Wolfpack, freedom is the ability to abstain, not the ability to impose. Even many a humanist atheist has great admiration for the social work of the Catholic Church, say, or a stay-at-home mother of six who excels in homeschooling her children. The slippery slope is in saying that what is good for some is mandatory for all. Take the contraception requirement, if you'd like: you MAY take it if you'd like - but you are equally free not to. Institutions that oppose it are welcome to vociferously council their members against it, but as it is a legal right, they are not welcome to prohibit it. The optional nature of contraception Democrats propose is in direct opposition to the position of some on the Republican side, who would allow states to prohibit it altogether.
Anyway, many have mentioned Obama's great luck in Santorum's felicitous feting of an issue that nobody would have dreamed of otherwise. Romney must be stewing in his economic proposal broth. Some on the right also complain that Santorum's comments are taken out of context, but in actuality, they are an integral part of a narrative that stretches back almost a decade: that while he may personally oppose some draconian action as a matter of policy, he does find it both morally upright and legally viable. This rightly gives great pause to those who prefer to remain in the 21st century.
Furthermore, what Santorum finds morally upright - and what in his mind therefore IS ALL that is morally upright - is a shade of morality defined by white, Christian males of a very "whitewashed" bygone era. As Josh Barro put it in Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/02/21/the-real-problem-with-rick-santorums-satan-remarks/
Santorum's strategy may be inevitable: his current opponent is Romney, not Obama, and his ability to compete on this field via economic issues is weak. His doing what he has to do, though, is rapidly reducing Republican's chances of beating Obama from slim to none.
2
Laguna
To put Santorum's moral stance more simply, let's say you're considering hiring a babysitter who states, "Corporal punishment is not only good, it is God's will. Modern caretakers who have forsaken corporal punishment do so at the risk of angering God. Children in today's world are deficient compared to those in the past precisely because corporal punishment is no longer considered acceptable. I believe caretakers have a moral and legal right to inflict corporal punishment on their charges. That said, if hired, I will not personally inflict corporate punishment on your child."
This might cause you to consider other babysitting candidates.
0
sailwind
Laguna,
A guy by the name of Ed Morrissey said it best:
Even if I were the biggest proponent of contraception in the world, even if I spent my weekends passing out condoms to college kids, even if I spent my days pleading with my female peers to pop the pill, I would still say no one should be forced to subsidize another person’s contraception.
0
Virtuoso
This is a reasonable statement. Perhaps subsidized contraception should be seen in the same light as polio or smallpox vaccine were in their day. The preventative aspect makes it more practical to dole out contraceptives at the taxpayers' expense than to bear the costs of the results of not using contraception.
0
sailwind
Just for consideration. Contraceptives may prevent pregnancies but it hardly prevents disease. As a matter of fact it actually encourages more sexually transmitted diseases such as V.D, and syphillis to be spread because their is no fear of pregnancy to stop soemone from having sex whenever they wish to.
Cost as of 1996 from the Academy of National Science "We need to fight this hidden epidemic by bringing together entire communities to promote healthy sexual behaviors, protect adolescents, provide high-quality clinical services, and energize strong leadership in the fight against STDs," said committee chair William T. Butler, chancellor, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. "Even though all of these diseases are preventable, the United States has the highest rate of curable STDs of any developed country." STDs cost taxpayers at least $10 billion annually, not including costs associated with sexually transmitted HIV infection. The public sector spends only $1 to prevent and fight STDs for every $43 spent on treatment and other costs.
STDs refer to any of the dozens of diseases that can result from unprotected sex -- including chlamydial infection, syphilis, gonorrhea, and hepatitis B virus.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=5284
0
Laguna
Thanks for that tidbit, Sailwind,
Morrissey writes for the Heritage Policy Blog and is married to a Roman Catholic, so of course he would hold that opinion, and he is free to do so. Let's extend the logic: Federal employees' insurance includes the option of contraception; this insurance is paid for through the taxes of the people; therefore, the people are forced to subsidize another person's contraception and such an option should be abolished.
It's not likely that Santorum would advocate such a policy, but his logical flow (just like Morrissey's) segues directly there. And what a Pandora's box such a concept would open! - but then, that is the risk of any exception. Conservatives trod that road at their own peril.
0
sailwind
Laguna,
Your logic is flawed. Federal Employee's insurance covers contraception it is not an option it is part of the coverage whether one wishes it or not. Taxpayer dollars also fund a myriad of things that many people find objectionable and is nothing more than a red herring. If a person becomes a public servant he or she is going to get whatever benefits package they have. If a person based on his or religious beliefs or morals feels so strongly that including contraception in the benefits package has a choice to ummmm.........actually not apply for work with the Federal Government in the first place, or if employed and the rules changed he or she can quit and work for a maybe a Catholic charity that doesn't have the objectionable part of the coverage..........Oh, wait they can't that as this isn't an OPTION anymore.
1
Laguna
Sailwind,
Options are results of regulation, not acts of God. The contraception that Federal regulations have given it can also take away, in whichever case we are discussing.
Agree with the former; the latter is my whole point. Because the US foolishly lacks public health insurance for anyone but the indigent or elderly, companies are charged with running what in effect is a government program. If allowed to pick and choose there based on "moral principles," why would general taxpayer dollars be different? I do not expect that this will happen, but the precedent has been set.
Let me help you out here: to not utilize that service.
It is now an option, actually, for a charity to choose to exclude such coverage. It then must be covered free-of-charge by the insurer itself - not an ideal situation, but then exceptions must be minimized as much as possible for the reasons I'd mentioned above.
The logic Santorum espouses places extra-legal considerations of morals as defined by one narrow constituency on an equal footing with legislation. Make an exception, then make another - broaden matters subject to such exceptions, then broaden them again. That is the slippery slope. Again, I have faith that Americans are not so foolish as to allow this to happen (one reason why Santorum stands zero chance of being elected); I just want to point out the logic conclusion of this way of thinking.
0
sailwind
Sorry, fails the logic test on two fronts. Opting to exclude the coverage but it has to be included anyway is not excluding the coverage at all it just rearranging the mandate. Smoke and mirrors, just as its going to be "free of charge".......Pharmacy industry is just going to make birth control pills and give them away for free????? That is total nonsense (no personal offense intended)
Laguna, I enjoy discussions with you and I know for a fact that your smarter than that.
0
Laguna
Thanks, Sailwind, and I expected that you were smart enough to notice this discrepancy in logic, too.
It's been noted that insurance companies would act in their own self-interest to offer contraceptives when their other choice is to bear the cost of pregnancies, whether intentional or not: covering the costs of several hundred of the former would equal one of the latter. But that's balance sheet stuff, not law, and law is where this will be decided once it is inevitably sent to the Supremes.
The case of contraception is related to the core of Obamacare itself: Precedent exists requiring citizen participation in a government-run program but not in one run by the private sector; similarly, government edicts rule government programs but are untested (and likely easily overturned) in the private sector. Both of these are essential to Obamacare, and its shape and very survival will depend on an inevitable Supreme Court ruling.
A Court ruling against either private sector provision will eviscerate Obamacare: Near-universality is necessary for a functional healthcare system, which can only realistically be achieved by mandate for public participation; and definition of what health insurance encompasses is required to ensure equality and full coverage, implying mandate for coverage parameters. Simply, these are the who and what of the program; both are essential.
A failure of either would give a big push for the public option as the legal rational for private participation would crumble, and this, ironically, is what most Republicans (particularly Santorum, who is on the health industry payroll) most fear. The way things are heading, push will come to shove, and I would not be surprised to see the foundation for a real public option to be one of the landmark achievements of Obama's second term.
0
lostrune2
Aren't there any more good Protestant candidates?!
0
Laguna
Nope - just Ron Paul.
0
Serrano
If Rick Perry would somehow get the Republican nomination, and then if somehow Barack Obama screws up what should be an easy re-election, and Perry gets into the White House, he'll force all his personal views on all Americans, lol.
Sushi: "With unemployment sky high"
After 3 years of Barack Obama in charge? How is this possible?
0
Virtuoso
It's possible because Obama's predecessor departed the White House with the US economy on life support.
0
Serrano
How long will people continue to blame Bush for policies that have resulted in stubbornly high unemployment that is worse than at any time during the Bush presidency? Until the end of Obama's second term?
0
plasticmonkey
Yeah, we need a solution right now! Uh, how about that guy over there who's against birth control?
-1
Serrano
"birth control"
How about people exercising some self control? Nah, we need the federal government to pay for birth control, lol.
0
LFRAgain
Ah, the old and eternally meaningless, "I want to pick and choose where my tax dollars go" argument. Sorry, Sailwind, try again.
0
Madverts
"How about people exercising some self control?"
Great idea. Maybe we could have Catholic priests spreading the word on abestenance just to show how truly a ridiculous suggestion you have there...
0
Madverts
I agree with Sail. I'd much prefer to be forced to pay social security for un-wanted babies from irresponsible breeding. Then enjoy being forced to pay for them in correctional facilities where most end up. Then we can enjoy paying again as they breed irresponsibly when their time comes.
Dammit I'm just throwing common sense outta the window on this one, it must be because Obama proposed it or something.
0
sailwind
Begs the question on where one would stop minding to be forced to pay for another persons contraception to prevent pregancy. Mandatory Government Sterilization for those that are deemed most likely to have children that will end up in jial in the future perhaps?............A very slippery slope here.
Also instead of forcing taxpayers to pay for someone's else's birthcontrol, how about this novel idea. They pay for it themselves period and leave Govt out of it.
0
plasticmonkey
I didn't know Glenn Beck was still on TV.
0
sailwind
I'm not sure if he is or not. I don't listen to guy at all. I do know Magaret Sanger's writings though are still popular though. You do know that she was the founder and first advocate for birth control in the U.S
As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit." Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing reproduction by those considered unfit. Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating.
It is a very slippery slope, plasticmonkey.
0
plasticmonkey
Such a slippery slope that Sanger's eugenics proposals have never come to pass.
It's just birth control. There is no sinister plot, sailwind.
0
sailwind
Agreed, in the U.S at least but it did actually come to pass in Germany though in the thirties. It also started out as "just birth control" with Germany and not a sinister plot and is often cited by historians as one of the reasons that Germany was conditioned enough as a society to not really protest the Nazi racial policies and we all know where that ended ulitimately ended up going. This is the slippery road I am pointing out and it all starts out with small well meaning steps in the beginning. I pointing this out, not out of fearmongering or politics, but as lessons learned from history. Whether you are left or right when Government starts mandating things that really should be left to private individuals to decide for themselves in their private affairs and sex is the ultimate private affair between individuals, in my opinion should give everyone pause as to where it may actually lead to in the future.
In my opinion, this is an area the Government should really stay out of altogether and let people decide for themselves based on their morals and beliefs whether to use birth control or not and not force those private organizations that don't wish to have it be force to pay for it or included in their insurance plans. In the great scheme of things it is a small step if the mandate stands but is it really a step in the right direction? That is the question and It really is worth asking without all the political noise in the background.
0
Madverts
I have a hard time understanding how encouraging responsible breeding is the debut of the slippery slope to nazism, but that's just me.
0
plasticmonkey
Yeah, the slippery slope thing doesn't really convince me. Obama is not the first president to encourage a coordinated effort to curb unwanted pregnancies. And there are a number of states that require employers or their insurers to cover birth control. Obama's 'mandate' is different in detail, but not sufficiently to start screaming about eugenics.
If Catholics don't want to use condoms, they don't have to. Their unwanted pregnancies are going to be paid for by somebody, though.
Back to top