Now that he’s surging in the polls, Rick Santorum’s words are being scrutinized not just by his political opponents but also by members of the press. For example, Michael Scherer of Time magazine highlights this October 2011 quote from Santorum:
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 whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.”
It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also unitive, but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.
Again, I know most presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues. These have profound impact on the health of our society.
The problem here isn’t so much Santorum’s religious views on contraception, which are consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is that Santorum said as president he would make the moral and utilitarian case against contraception because he believes it’s having a profoundly negative impact on the health of our society.
I disagree with Santorum’s theology, and it’s certainly not clear to me how contraception among married couples is undermining American society. But Senator Santorum obviously believes deeply in this issue, and he’s made it clear it’s something he wants to talk about and thinks we should talk about. In October 2011, Santorum was making the discussion about contraception evidence of political courage, which means it won’t be easy for him in February 2012 to avoid the subject or brush it off as a distraction or a liberal “gotcha” question. After all, it’s important that you are who you are.
Rick Santorum now has his chance to make his case for contraception in Michigan, Arizona, and elsewhere. We’ll see how he does.
I have to believe that on some level, the Republicans WANT to lose. Rick Santorum is exactly the kind of person my unhappy non-partisan friends will NEVER vote for. n nthese are the Christine O'Donnell people again, proudly choosing defeat for a really high-minded reason. they're going to blow it for everyone.
I agree, but no one would even consider Santorum if Romney wasn't so damn weak.
I like(d) Santorum and dislike Obama intensely. But if Santorum sneaks into my bedroom, I will shoot him. What I am really saying is that I vehemently disagree with him, and this issue will cause the Republicans to lose against Obama. I would vote against him in favor,yuk, of Obama. My gosh, I thought suicide was prohibited by law and by the church. When are the church and the Republicans going to learn to not get involved with our sex lives? It is pornographic to even bring the subject up. What a bunch of loonies. Not too different than the radical sharia Islamists..
Oh please. This pedantic litany about how speaking out on the moral issues and how there can be serious negative side-effects that stem from them, is NOT a case of the "government getting into your bedroom" it's a case of showing some intelligent and thoughtful leadership on the subject that should make all people think long and hard about the choices they make in life. But hey, if you want to vote for Obama and see an end to the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion AND see the most pervasive assault on individual liberty ever take place all because you are so obsessed with standing up for the Sexual Revolution, then you sir, are a moron of the first order.
The GOP establishment refused to listen to a huge swath of tea-party sympathizers. The pundits (Lowry, Rubin, Rove, etc.) tried to force Romney down our throats. They also have torn down every single candidate; Santorum is the last non-Romney standing. And as a result, in an election where a true conservative could have won over independents by explaining limited government and pro-growth policies, we have the father of RomneyCare and a social con battling it out for the top of the ticket. n. nI blame this on the conservative media, all those lemmings that had to push Romney as "electable" instead of let the process work itself out. Way to go, morons.
How does "forcing Romney down our throats' square with a victory of huge proportions in Florida, the quntessential swing state? How does it square with victories in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire? nWhat a load of codswallops to assert that Romney is 'being forced down our throats". I fear that the attacks on Romney by the likes of Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and some other rightwing notables will weaken him fatally. Let the voters decide. Pundits have never decided elections.
Wait I thought Santorum won Iowa?
Santorum should run for Pope, not President. The country isn't going to elect a national scold.
Although I'd vote for a tomato can agaisnt Obama, many Americans will feel exactly as the poster said; electing a "scold'. He will lose in a landslide. Reagan was never a scold and on abortion, he could, at least, couch it in terms of saving a human life. But contraception?? nMethinks that Romey will gain votes as the voters realize what Santorum has said.
For gosh sakes, he was being interviewed by an Evangelical blog "Caffeinated Thoughts"–maybe he got a little carried away in his promise to carry the good fight the width and breadth of the land as a public policy issue.
Peter wrote: “I disagree with Santorumu2019s theology, and itu2019s certainly not clear to me how contraception among married couples is undermining American society.”r nr nI suggest that Mark Steyn could explain it to him.
Isn't this one of Romney's best hopes, that Santorum's extreme social conservatism make him perceivable as so censorious and hectoring to make him appear unelectable? It's an irony and a paradox that Romney's less than deeply felt views on these issues, that he is disingenuously suppressing his true moderateness, may, for however ersatz that is, be thought to make him more attractive to independents and thus more electable. Phoniness could pay off for him here.
When has it ever been the platform of the GOP to oppose the use of birth control by married couples? By the time the Obama team and the media got through with Santorum, people would be looking at him like he's some kind of space alien or carnival freak. n nWe've got a guy here who seriously believes that it's wrong for married couples to have sex unless it's for procreative purposes (I guess this is why he and his wife have so many kids). You really think you can sell him to a majority of the voters? There's a reason this guy lost his last election by eighteen points.
All politics are phony. It is the best "phony" who wins. look who sits in the Oval office now.
The GOP freak show rolls on!
Is Romney More Electable Than Santorum? nBy Jonathan Chait n n"Santorum has attracted a terrible reputation among the overclass. He is defined by his crude, bigoted social conservatism, which colors the broader perception of him as an extremist. This in turn leeches out into a sense, often reflected in news coverage, which likewise reflects the social biases of the overclass, that Santorum is a fringe candidate who would repel swing voters. n n"In fact, there are, very roughly speaking, two kinds of swing voters. One kind is economically conservative, socially liberal swing voters. This is the kind of voter you usually read about, because it’s the kind most familiar to political reporters – affluent and college educated. But there’s a second kind of voter at least as numerous – economically populist and socially conservative. Think of disaffected blue-collar workers, downscale white men who love guns, hate welfare, oppose free trade, and want higher taxes on the rich and corporations. Romney appeals to the former, but Santorum more to the latter." n. nNew York Magazine n02.14.2012
The GOP is already winning gay-hating, immigrant-hating, contraception-hating (????) downscale white men by large numbers. McCain won them against Obama. Look what it has done for the GOP in places like Pennsylvania. The GOP has lost the Philly suburbs big in every election since 1988 and won in exchange only sparsely populate countries in southwestern PA. They lose PA in every election. n nA Santorum nomination would just accentuate the problem the GOP has. It would be like nominating Sarah Palin. It would be committing suicide with relatively educated, relatively secular voters. I will swallow a lot to vote for the GOP against Obama, but I just can't vote for someone whose social views reflect the medieval Catholic Church. This is just embarrassing. The fact that a lot of GOP voters don't see it as such, apparently, really makes me wonder about the GOP and what I am doing in this party.
I think you'd be a lot happier if you focused only on the candidates for the city council, library board, and school board in your white, suburban, socially liberal, upscale community.
Good riddance to you if you'd rather see Obama elected for the sake of upholding your bigoted view of a Catholic who takes his faith seriously. Amazing how today's secularists have embraced all the propaganda of the 19th century "Know-Nothing" party when it comes to Catholics!
Look, Santorum is the one making an issue about this. He's throwing it in my face, not the other way round. I'd be perfectly happy voting for Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio or Scott Walker–the list is pretty long, really. I even will admit I don't have much enthusiasm for Romney (no one does outside the Mormon community). n nIf opposing Santorum makes me a snob, fine. I am not voting for someone who thinks his role as president of the country is to give us moral lectures against the use of contraception–not by minors, for God's sake, but by married people! What era does this man think he's in exactly? He was born in 1958 and it's like he thinks we are still there (or maybe 1858). Birth control for a lot of married couples was a godsend. They don't need to be lectured by Father Rick about the sins they are committing when they are having non-procreative sex. This man has managed to find a way to make the people in Planned Parenthood look like the reasonable ones. n nAnd, yes, I do live in a suburb, but I grew up in Alabama so have a good deal of familiarity with social cons. Rick S. probably could get elected governor of Alabama (despite the Catholicism). But Alabama is not the country at large. You really think Rick can win a battleground state like Florida in the general? I don't.
In spite of my rather conservative roots, I must agree with this view. The country at large is way beyond Santorum's beliefs- beliefs that, by the way, have nothing to do with conservative principles. Americna conservatism rests upon three legs- the fiscal conservatives, the defense conservatives and yes, the social conservatives- but this last group cuts across a broad swath of people and the ones opposing birth control are a minute part. (This is not to excuse the Obama administration from their naked attack on religious liberty with their madate). nI cannot remember a President who puts that much emphasis on a very narrow social aspect of life. Abortion was (and is) a great cause because it dealt with human life. Only the most devout Catholics would put contraception in any list of issues. If Santorum ever got the nomimation, he would be destroyed on this issue alone.
Amazing someone gave you a thumbs down for stating something perfectly obvious. n nThe day the GOP becomes the party of opposition to the use of contraception by married people is the day people ask for the check and leave the building. We are in wingnut territory here for most people, sorry social cons. Santorum has also stated he believes states should have the right to ban birth control. If you don't think the Obama would be able to make mincemeat of this guy, think again. But I'm waiting to see whether any prominent conservatives will dare admit anywhere besides Commentary that Santorum is not just an unwise, but an utterly absurd, candidate. Can you not speak plain common sense in the GOP any more on social issues? If social cons believed the Earth is flat, would we have to nod our heads and smile, just to humor these people?
I can't believe the lack of perspective here. Santorum himself said he is not running for national pastor but he is also not running from his beliefs. So he thinks contraception has harmful effects? So does coffee, eating red meat, etc… He doesn't seem to want to push this on anyone, so let him have his personal quirky values. Compared to the deeply held values of Obama (appease totalitarians, undercut democratic allies, redistribute wealth), what is this issue? The majority of Americans, when it gets down to it, are not going to care about this and all the Leftist snarking and media-created hype will, in the end, be seen as a sideshow and unimportant.
Santorum has announced that he thinks married couples should not use contraception and has pledged to speak out against married couples doing so. He considers this an "important public policy issue"–that some married couples out there might be having sex sex simply because thy enjoy it. n nYou think this guy is going to be viable in a general election in 2012? When he isn't running to be President of the Amish? n nThis is the guy who was one of the ringleaders in the extraordinary Terry Schiavo federal intervention into private family business. Who knows what else he might be capable of doing in the pursuit of the most conservative Catholic social doctrine? n nI'm astonished that you don't realize that this guy sounds like an absolute kook to a lot of us.
He can have any "quirky values" he wants as a private citizen, but as President it's a bit different. Remember, this is the guy who was a key ringleader in staging the federal intervention into the Terry Schiavo matter (one of the key reasons he lost his reelection race in PA by 18 points). I think it's a legitimate question whether this guy is capable of separating himself from any of the most very conservative Catholic social beliefs. n nRomney's magic underwear now, that's a harmless, "quirky value";yet I've seen the anti-Mitt people play that one up too. I would say Santorum's pronounced hostility to birth control is a little more relevant. n nThis comment of yours does reflect a certain obtuseness among the Tea Party types, I have to say. You're convinced most Americans will be more upset about Obama's "appeasing totalitarians" and wanting to "redistribute wealth" than Santorum's subservience to the most conservative Catholic social doctrine (what you call "quirky values"). I beg to differ. I imagine a lot of Tea Partiers thought the birth certificate was a more important matter too. Most general election voters are not Tea Partiers and they see the world rather differently. n nBut, okay, wonderful, let's just nominate Santorum and put it to the test. Let's go down gloriously. Onward Christian soldiers and all that.
If the GOP cannot do better than Santorum who would represent a medieval Catholic church or Obama who represents, or sometimes appears to, the Muslim nuts, then the USA is doomed. My G-d, there are infinitely better people out there. Will they not come forward?
Right now, Santorum represents the protest vote of many conservatives. Nothing wrong in that. I 'll bet you a couple of dollars that Romney still comes out on top (no pun intended) and that the party will-maybe begrudgingly- rally around him. Then the real fun-or battle will start.
Ayatollah Santorum is finally revealed. What would SantorumCare look like? He is the opposite side of the Obama/secularist coin. Glad it is coming out now before he becomes the nominee. It is one thing to believe in sex only within marriage. That's fine to teach your kids. But a POTUS candidate cannot survive saying it like he wants to make it policy and that is how this quote rfeads to me. The MSM will play this to death in the general. All other issues will be subsumed by it.
Rick was on Hannity's radio show yesterday afternoon and, as far as I'm concerned, cleared up any misperceptions about his personal beliefs being an issue. He stated very plainly that the role of president DOES NOT mean shoving his personal beliefs down the throats of the American people. He acknowledges that while his faith colors his own personal choices (as they do everyone's), he feels that this (as well as most other things) should be an individual's personal choice, not some federal government mandate, whether that mandate comes directly or indirectly. n nIt is THAT understanding, acceptance and – most importantly – support of the makeup of our Constitutional Republic that matters.
Santorum's current riff today is that Obama is driven by a phony theology that includes consuming less and acting as if the 98% of climate scientists might be right.I guess Rick's theology doesn't include "to till and to tend".And this idea that we should be concerned about contraception within marriage is just nuts.Not unexpected from a sect governed by a bunch of celibate priests. I agreed (once)with the President who said we were addicted to oil.If we had acted on that we could much more easily tell Iran to pound sand now . I truly care about only two issues-the first being doing something about that fossil fuel addiction-for multiple reasons not the least being national security .What annoys me about all of the Republican candidates is how they are pandering to the right's antipathy to Gore et al,and the appeal of the status quo.The candidates want to tinker with taxes rather than ask why we tax payroll,income,and investment, as if we want less of these.What we should want less of is dependence on oil period, (and coal and gas),as well as pollution.
highly regarded in the Senate before he lost his seat in a 17-point landslide…I'll give you that. n nI didn't mean to imply that Santorum is unqualified, as O'Donnell was. I was referring more to the electability issue. you're a little naive in saying that he won't "make it a campaign issue" (although how you could possibly know that is not clear). whether HE mentions it or not, the Democrats sure will. and America will not elect a president who doesn't like birth control. I don't see how anyone can call themselves a "conservative" but want to tell people what they can and can't do in the bedroom. (note…I am NOT talking about abortion.) n nthat fight's been fought and it's over. if the Dems can spin this so that it looks like the "wacky Christian extremist Republicans want to take away your birth control pills" the GOP will lose in a landslide of proportions we've never seen in this country. n
The "electability" issue? I can just picture you saying George Bush was more "electable" than Ronald Reagan in 1980. And gee, look at all those other "electable" Republicans we've thrown up like Bob Dole and John McCain.