BuzzFeed posted this audio clip today under the headline “Santorum Loses His Cool During Interview With Cincinnati Radio Station.” I’m not sure what exactly they’re referring to, because honestly Santorum stays pretty even-keeled throughout the interview. He also does what he should be doing every time he’s asked about his views on birth control: call it out as a ridiculous, media-manufactured issue, and pivot back to attacking President Obama’s record.
Santorum: It’s a bogus issue. It’s just absurd. It’s a legal product, it should remain a legal product. It’s up to people to decide what to do. This is what the national media does. They don’t want us to be able to talk about Barack Obama’s pathetic record on the economy and jobs, so they bring up issues…This is my opinion on my personal faith, and they’re all of a sudden saying ‘Well, he must want to do this with everyone else.’ Well that’s just crazy. This is what the media does. They try to change the subject. I’m not going to let them. We’re going to talk about creating jobs, we’re going to talk about reducing energy prices, and we’re going to focus on what’s important to Americans, as opposed to what the media wants to do, which is to play gotcha politics.
Exactly. This is the position Santorum has maintained since the birth control issue was first raised in the race: he’s personally opposed to it, he wouldn’t use it in his own life, but he has no interest in regulating it in the lives of other people and believes birth control should remain a legal product. The media continues to try to divert attention away from economic issues by bringing up the much more sensational contraception debate, and Santorum needs to take a cue from the Newt Gingrich media relations playbook and simply refuse to engage on the subject.
On the other hand, as ridiculous as the media’s obsession with the birth control issue is, it’s hard to have a ton of sympathy for Santorum here. He’s the main reason this has become a campaign issue. If he doesn’t want the government to crack down on birth control use, then the public really never had any need to know his own personal opinions on it. Santorum was the one who shared this part of his private life by writing and speaking about it openly. Notice that Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich aren’t constantly pressed about their own personal views on contraception – that’s not a coincidence. They didn’t bring it up, and Santorum did.
The dichotomy posed by Ms. Goodman is false. Not wanting to use the government to "crack down" on contraception does not require that Mr. Santorum keep his opinion to himself. What is it about the subject of contraception that renders it devoid of public-policy aspects? Senator Santorum, it seems, must shut up or be justifiably accused (hilariously) of conjuring the subject of contraception from the sanctity of private, personal behavior where, supposedly, it normally resides. What a bunch of baloney! It's not as if the organs of government haven't taken a vocal and public position on the subject. Remind us again, Ms. Goodman, who exactly, what exactly, is aiding in and paying for the dispensing of contraceptives everywhere imaginable — 309 locations in NYC alone and free of charge too! The so-called benefits of contraception are already and for sometime have been aggressively extolled and pursued by government bodies at all levels: local, State, and Federal. Planned Parenthood alone is subsidized to the tune of $350 million a year. Evidently, all of that is to proceed at its own merry pace, without unfavorable comment. This is not difficult. There are sound public-policy reasons for questioning a policy of free condom distribution without, mind you, any need to make contraceptives illegal or to "crack down" on them.
And now the Arizona lawmakers are proposing that women be required to provide to employers the reason they are using contraception. Perhaps men should be required to provide certification from their wife that they are indeed afflicted with ED in order that the company provided health insurance pay for Viagra or Cialis.
"On the other hand, as ridiculous as the media’s obsession with the birth control issue is, it’s hard to have a ton of sympathy for Santorum here. He’s the main reason this has become a campaign issue. If he doesn’t want the government to crack down on birth control use, then the public really never had any need to know his own personal opinions on it. Santorum was the one who shared this part of his private life by writing and speaking about it openly. Notice that Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich aren’t constantly pressed about their own personal views on contraception – that’s not a coincidence. They didn’t bring it up, and Santorum did." n nSantorum didn't merely express his personal views. He said birth control was harmful to the country and he promised that, viewing it it as an important public policy matter, he would make a point of addressing it vocally and regularly in his presidency. Since he also stated that it was wrong for married couples to use birth control, he raised the specter that he would be spending time during his presidency condemning the intimate bedroom practices of married couples. People don't want a president who will do that. n nPlus, it goes to trust. Do you really trust someone who has such deeply held and extreme opinion on this subject to keep his personal views out of it? I don't. If Rick said he didn't approve of racial inter-marriage but had no plans to try to legislate against it (or appoint Supreme Court judges who would overturn the case on it), would Alana Goodman say this view should be a non-factor to voters, because it's just personal? n nRick's words also would make devastating Democratic attack ads, were Rick the nominee. Father Rick doesn't have a Reverend Wright problem; he IS a Reverend Wright problem.
I look at this guy, listen to what he says, and I'm amazed that so many people are so calm and rational in discussing him. Frankly, if I ever got the chance, I would let him have it at a decibel level that would blow out his eardrums. Excuse me, Rick, THIS IS YOUR BUSINESS? WHAT I DO WITH MY WIFE IN THE BEDROOM…WHAT MY DAUGHTERS DO WITH THEIR HUSBANDS IS YOUR BUSINESS? You're worse than the freakin' Taliban. And then there's his desire that there not be an absolute separation between church and state. Whose church exactly would that be, Rick? How about fire worship? That's an oldie but goodie. This yutz has one of the finest minds of the 11th century. When will someone other than me have the balls to say that Rick Santorum is not only a lunatic,,, he's dead, flat stupid!
What on earth does opposing a contraceptive-friendly government that dispenses contraceptives free of charge, that mandates that insurance companies pay for them, have to do with whatever you and your wife do in the bedroom. Contracept yourselves until your eyes water, your nose runs, and your ears bleed. Who cares??? That is not what the present controversy is about. Neither is Rick Santorum standing between your and your wife's conjugal relationship anywhere outside your imagination simply because he believes, as a personal matter, that contraception is wrong. As he has said again and again and yet again, "contraceptives are a legal product. Their use is a personal matter," and something which he has neither the power nor the inclination to interfere with legally. As a prudential matter, he has even voted funds for contraceptive provision. What the heck more could you want? That he agree (enthusiastically) that making contraceptives available on the scale that they currently are, free of charge, to all ages from 13 on up is an unmitigated good? I very much doubt even you believe that. n nSantorum has the courage to speak up about this scourge of on-demand-contraception, which has actually contributed to an increase in unwanted pregnancies, single-motherhood, and associated welfare dependency, not to mention sky-rocketing rates of infection by venereal diseases since 1960, the year the birth-control pill was introduced into the United States. Simply examining the statistical time frame makes that abundantly clear. Nor should it require great psychological insight to understand that. On balance, when people, regardless of age or marital status, are encouraged to use contraceptives when they have sex, they are simultaneously being encouraged to have sex regardless of age or marital status. And people — especially young people — have responded exactly as might have been predicted: they have increasingly resorted to sex as recreation with contraceptives and without contraceptives. n nFor forcefully pointing this out Sen. Santorum is repeatedly assailed with asinine attacks (such as yours) along the lines that he he must be a religious fanatic. The facts are the facts with regard to the cultural and financial catastrophe visited on this nation since contraception and its vicious progeny, abortion, have been made available ON DEMAND and as a matter of law. n nGot that? As a matter of law free distribution of condoms is provided and encouraged by government bodies, and now, also as a matter of law, health insurers must provide contraception free of charge. Health insurers! As if pregnancy were a disease like malaria. Wouldn't you agree, we are a long, long way from personal preference alone operating in this area without government interference? Why doesn't that "amaze" you? You seem to suggest that because Sen. Santorum has pointed out moral objections to contraceptives that, he always hastens to add are his own, personal beliefs, that the suggestion alone somehow makes any public-policy objections, of which there are quite a few, illegitimate? That is quite illogical as well as alarmingly intolerant of someone else's opinion. n nFinally, you simply do not understand separation of church and state. Separation of church and state, absolute or otherwise, means today, as it did in 1787, the non-establishment of any religious denomination by government. Got that? Or is it possible that you don't even understand what "establishment of religion" is? It certainly does NOT mean that citizens may not advance an argument about public policy that is wholly or, as is the case with Sen. Santorum, in part based on religious belief. Are you a completely un-metaphysical man? Do you not argue your opinions on the basis of some conception of the good that is personal? If so, then you are arguing religiously whether you are willing to call it that or not. Or do you delude yourself into thinking that everything you hold true is based solely in objective fact, so that you are licensed to shout at another man until you "blow out his eardrums"? Any nontrivial fact is just a condensed version of some theory or other. When you point a finger at Santorum on the basis of his spouting religion, please note the position of THREE other fingers on the same hand: They're pointed straight back at you.
Feel better now? Let's start with contraception. You need to read Torquwmada's statement more closely. He said not that he opposes a "contraceptive=friendly government," bit rather that he personally opposes the use of contraceptives. My position is exactly opposite. I oppose government giveaways of just about anything – including contraceptives. However, it's none of my business whether you or anyone else uses contraception. I'm perfectly comfortable with that, as long as I'm not paying for it. n nBut consider: Here's a devout Catholic, passionately supporting a tenet of his church, running for POTUS. That makes me nervous, especially because he says that the separation of church and state should "not be absolute." How, Ricky boY, should that absoluteness be diluted? Vouchers for Catholic schools? That way we can even more vigorously communicate our anti-contraception message. Would that be constitutional? Probably not, but all RIGHT-THINKING, G-D-FEARING AMERICANS WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR THEM. Since you instructed me in the true meaning of separation of church and state, my vision has been clarified. So if public policy rests on an article of doctrine of the Catholic church, or Anglican, or even Orthodox Judaism for that matter, that a large segment of the populace finds objectionable, that would be okay. Probably because as your boy Rick explains it, that separation need not be absolute. So state establishment of religion that does not surpass 12.65% establishment of religion would be within acceptable limits. n nI like your writing style. Your arguments are hollow.
"He said not that he opposes a 'contraceptive-friendly government,' but rather that he personally opposes the use of contraceptives. My position is exactly opposite. I oppose government giveaways of just about anything – including contraceptives. However, it's none of my business whether you or anyone else uses contraception. I'm perfectly comfortable with that, as long as I'm not paying for it. " n n"Exactly opposite"? Please forgive me, but that's just bizarre. The Senator is EXPLICITLY and on record as opposed to the Federal government giving away contraceptives, which entails, as a matter of plain logic, his also being against a "contraceptive-friendly" Federal government. n n"But consider: Here's a devout Catholic, passionately supporting a tenet of his church, running for POTUS. That makes me nervous." n nWhy? It's not as if he doesn't have a record to judge him by. He was in both the House and Senate for more than 15 years. In that time, he proposed no legislation on the subject of contraception and in fact voted to have the Federal government fund its provision under certain conditions. You do not seem to grasp that there are significant, non-religious public-policy arguments for discouraging contraceptive use, and Santorum has made them. I recapitulated a few, but not all, of them; and the remark that irritates you so much, namely, that Sen. Santorum "personally" believes contraception is wrong, was addressed not to the United States Senate but to a Church group (in a church, I believe), where, in my opinion, it was entirely appropriate for him to make it. You may not agree with any of his arguments against contraception on public-policy grounds — except, it would seem, for fiscal reasons — but, if so, you are NOT thereby disagreeing with Santorum on religious grounds. It appears that you're deliberately shoehorning the discussion into a conflict about religion versus secularism. Why? n nAgain, "separation of Church and State" is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. It first appears, as a tangential remark, in a letter of Thos. Jefferson to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, written more than a dozen years after the Constitution was ratified (Jefferson, by the way, did not even attend the Constitutional Convention, nor did he participate in the ratification fight that followed, being United States Minister to France at the time.) Again, if there ARE in fact non-religious policy arguments in opposition to the involvement of the Federal government in the provisioning of contraceptives, either directly or indirectly, then your notion that, were the Senator elected, "public policy [will rest] on an article of doctrine of the church" is wrongheaded and once more indicates an eagerness to intrude religion into the discussion where there is no good reason to do so — apart from your personal "nervousness," I mean, an affliction you may want to take up with an understanding therapist, pastor, rabbi, or prescription for Valium, but which does not much suit a public-policy debate. n nI maintain that vouchers for religious schools are not only constitutional but probably constitutionally required under the Equal Protection Clause. Notice, I said, "religious" not "Catholic" schools. So long as all religions are similarly aided, then all points of view are respected, from the Catholic position on contraception to the markedly different positions of the United Church of Christ and Reformed Judaism. None is favored or promoted by government if all faiths are treated the same, which is absolutely ALL that any doctrine of separation of Church and State consistent with the First Amendment would require.
You are sure working your ass off to persuade a dimwit like me of the fallacy of his thinking. Your logic (?) is so convoluted it's laughable: A religious zealot who holds public office or is campaigning for office makes a “religious” statement in a church and simply because of location it has no public policy meaning? Are you nuts? Better yet, your stand on school vouchers for every religion. Is that the result of an arcane, Clintonian parsing of the language? It doesn't say “any” – meaning none; it says “a” meaning only one. So two or more is just dandy. You silver-tongued devil! I look forward to the day when your Utopia comes and my tax dollars support schools where kids are taught the eternal truth of Wiccan religious practice or even the glory of fire worship.Okay, I'm just about done here. I'm going to do something really constructive now and play with my younger daughter's 18-month-old twins. They're adorable. And – I know this will really piss you off – they're in vitro babies.Zein Gezint,anadessma2012
Back of the bus!