Santorum rears his ugly head......

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Phil's jeans probaly just got a bit tighter.


Santorum enjoys new interest in conservative agenda
Monday, May 24, 2010
By Tom Barnes, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

HARRISBURG -- Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum says it will be months before he decides whether to run for president in 2012, but the recent speculation that he might be a candidate has gotten him a much bigger audience with voters and the news media.

"It does give me a chance to have an influence on the (national political) debate," he told the Pennsylvania Press Club today.

Since Fox News, where he serves as a commentator, first mentioned that Mr. Santorum might run in 2012, "I am amazed and surprised at the response I am getting," he said. "But I am a long way from making a decision about whether that (2012 race) is something I will do.''

His decision on the presidency will come "in the months that follow the mid-term elections" in November. "We will wait and see how it all shakes out."

Mr. Santorum, who served two terms in the Senate before losing a re-election bid in 2006, said that before the presidential speculation began, he would travel to other states to campaign for candidates and neither voters nor reporters paid much attention to what he said.

But now, he's been traveling to states that have early presidential primaries in 2012, such as New Hampshire, South Carolina and Iowa, and a lot of people are interested in his views, such as the urgent need to reduce federal spending and do more to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon.

"There needs to be a voice (for conservative issues), to say it in a way that the American public needs to hear," he said.

"Our federal deficits are enormous," he complained, adding that federal "entitlement" programs such as Medicaid, Medicard and Social Security need to be less costly, a move that would carry political risks. But the first program he wants to get rid of is "Obamacare," the new national health care program that President Obama pushed to enact.

"That needs to be repealed," he said. "It will cost the federal government at least $1 trillion."

He was optimistic that Republicans will make gains in Congress this fall. "There is better than a 50-50 chance that Republicans can take the House," he said, with an outside chance the GOP could pick up a net gain of 10 seats in the Senate and control it.

"I think you will see some dramatic things happen in the coming months," he said, adding that the November election "is one of the most important elections in our lifetimes" because Republicans could regain power and rein in President Obama's liberal agenda.

Bureau Chief Tom Barnes: tbarnes@post-gazette.com or 717-787-4254.


Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10144/1060445-100.stm#ixzz0osJPcqGx

[Vepres]

I love anybody who advocates real cuts to entitlements, so go Santorum! (until I find out he has some very radical positions that automatically turn me off )

[Marokai Backbeat]

I love anybody who advocates real cuts to entitlements, so go Santorum! (until I find out he has some very radical positions that automatically turn me off )

...Do you know anything about Rick 'man on dog' Santorum?

[Torie]

I wonder what caused Santorum to think he was POTUS material?  I hope he is OK - seriously. I mean I kind of like the man on a personal level; he is quite genial these days.

[useful idiot]

I don't understand why he's doing this to himself. Why didn't he just try to run for governor or go back and try for congress(Unless he's stayed in VA and didn't go back to Penn Hills)? He was the poorest senator, I can't believe that he's going to be able to raise the money to run for president. I personally like the guy, his two speeches on the senate floor against PBA in the 90s are legendary. He seems like a genuinely good guy who loves his family, and he's a true believer. I just don't know how he thinks this makes sense, unless he's trying to get his name out there for a VP pick(unlikely) or a cabinet position if the Republican wins(probably not going to happen in 2012).

I love anybody who advocates real cuts to entitlements, so go Santorum! (until I find out he has some very radical positions that automatically turn me off )

...Do you know anything about Rick 'man on dog' Santorum?

He does have some less than mainstream positions, but just so we get the facts straight, he didn't equate homosexuality with bestiality, like was reported in the media. If anybody bothered to read what he actually said, which nobody did, they'd know that he said this:

" In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." (source)

While the phrasing was weird for a Senator to use, he was saying that homosexuality was clearly not on the level of bestiality or pedophilia.

[??????????]

If anybody bothered to read what he actually said, which nobody did, they'd know that he said this:

" In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." (source)

While the phrasing was weird for a Senator to use, he was saying that homosexuality was clearly not on the level of bestiality or pedophilia.

That doesn't make the smear as good, therefore the media shall not be allowed to report that.

[Derek]

Ugly? that's a bit misleading and biased. Why the insult?

[afleitch]

He does have some less than mainstream positions, but just so we get the facts straight, he didn't equate homosexuality with bestiality, like was reported in the media. If anybody bothered to read what he actually said, which nobody did, they'd know that he said this:

" In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." (source)

While the phrasing was weird for a Senator to use, he was saying that homosexuality was clearly not on the level of bestiality or pedophilia.

No he said worse! And directly before the 'misquote' too...

'We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. '

He's waffling clearly, but is position is clear. He supported the retention of the sodomy laws, says you don't have a right to privacy in your home regarding homosexual practice and then suggests that such acts damage 'The Family.'

That's far worse than his pithy misquoted analogy.

[Derek]

He was dead on with his polygamy, incest comment to a degree. Yes homosexuality is different but he was asking; where do you draw the line? Unfortunately, the media drug him through the mud. I was very proud to have Santorum represent me in Washington D.C.

[afleitch]

He was dead on with his polygamy, incest comment to a degree. Yes homosexuality is different but he was asking; where do you draw the line? Unfortunately, the media drug him through the mud. I was very proud to have Santorum represent me in Washington D.C.

Yes, but theres the thing; you said homosexuality is 'different'; Santorum could not bring himself to make that differentiation - he lumped them in with the 'slippery slope' regulars like polygamy, incest etc.

'The Family'; I hate that, I hate it when certain politicians use that phrase because you know what it infers; married mother and father and the kids. The only time western civilisation has got close to the 'mum dad and 2.4 kids' exclusive family unit was in the 50's boom. Anyone who thinks that's the ideal model for raising a family or in ignorance thinks that was the only family unit throughout history shows a crass lack of respect for modern family units and little historical understanding of past family units and extended family units.

'Kids need a mother and a father...um...preferably married...and preferably the natural parents'

Except prior to the war when working class families lived together. Then kids had a mother but maybe not a father, or their grandparent looked after them, or their sister did, or their mother who they thought was their sister did, or it was an aunt. Or it was the whole family or even friends who were as good as family. And if your family had money it was a procession of maids and nannies who looked after you until you were old enough to be packed off to residential school until you were eighteen.

Instead he and others like him obsess over what parents do in bed, or whether or not they are married. And he's stuck up two fingers to the families that come in all shapes and sizes and bring up their kids well.

[Derek]

He was dead on with his polygamy, incest comment to a degree. Yes homosexuality is different but he was asking; where do you draw the line? Unfortunately, the media drug him through the mud. I was very proud to have Santorum represent me in Washington D.C.

Yes, but theres the thing; you said homosexuality is 'different'; Santorum could not bring himself to make that differentiation - he lumped them in with the 'slippery slope' regulars like polygamy, incest etc.

'The Family'; I hate that, I hate it when certain politicians use that phrase because you know what it infers; married mother and father and the kids. The only time western civilisation has got close to the 'mum dad and 2.4 kids' exclusive family unit was in the 50's boom. Anyone who thinks that's the ideal model for raising a family or in ignorance thinks that was the only family unit throughout history shows a crass lack of respect for modern family units and little historical understanding of past family units and extended family units.

'Kids need a mother and a father...um...preferably married...and preferably the natural parents'

Except prior to the war when working class families lived together. Then kids had a mother but maybe not a father, or their grandparent looked after them, or their sister did, or their mother who they thought was their sister did, or it was an aunt. Or it was the whole family or even friends who were as good as family. And if your family had money it was a procession of maids and nannies who looked after you until you were old enough to be packed off to residential school until you were eighteen.

Instead he and others like him obsess over what parents do in bed, or whether or not they are married. And he's stuck up two fingers to the families that come in all shapes and sizes and bring up their kids well.

I don't think Santorum wants to know what people do in bed. He was referring to each of the categories we're mentioning though. He saw them as a slippery slope. For example, you take away school prayers and eventually you won't be allowed to say Under God either.

[Vepres]

I'd rather have homophobic people who save us from financial ruin than liberals who ignore it.

[War on Want]

I still can't believe people fall for the crock of sh!t that is Republicans pretending to care about the deficit.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'd rather have homophobic people who save us from financial ruin than liberals who ignore it.

Conservatives would save you from the financial ruin ? LOL

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Remember how Bush and the GOP congress were so fiscally conservative?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Remember how Bush and the GOP congress were so fiscally conservative?

Seriously........I mean Bush and the GOP Congress spent like drunken sailors.......and even when the GOP wasn't in charge Bush never became fiscally conservative.

I'm not a W hater by any means but let's be honest about his fiscal actions.

[Derek]

Remember how Bush and the GOP congress were so fiscally conservative?

Seriously........I mean Bush and the GOP Congress spent like drunken sailors.......and even when the GOP wasn't in charge Bush never became fiscally conservative.

I'm not a W hater by any means but let's be honest about his fiscal actions.

Me too. Bush should've advocated the cutting of alot of programs to compensate for Iraq.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Remember how Bush and the GOP congress were so fiscally conservative?

Seriously........I mean Bush and the GOP Congress spent like drunken sailors.......and even when the GOP wasn't in charge Bush never became fiscally conservative.

I'm not a W hater by any means but let's be honest about his fiscal actions.

Me too. Bush should've advocated the cutting of alot of programs to compensate for Iraq.

Or not launched a war of aggression against Iraq in the first place...

[Phony Moderate]

I think that Keystone Phil will return to the forum as soon as Santorum announces his candidacy for President.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Even if he does run, he won't get anywhere.  He's been out of the game for too long.

[King]

Remember how Bush and the GOP congress were so fiscally conservative?

Yes, there were no bailouts and stimulus packages supported by the Bush White House.

Except for well... you know... all those bailouts and stimulus packages.

[Derek]

Bush was a liberal his last year or 2 in office as I suspect he was becoming more pragmatic. The bailouts did need to happen unfortunately but the reasons as to why and how the bailouts were done is a different story.

[King]

Bush was a liberal his last year or 2 in office as I suspect he was becoming more pragmatic.

What about the expansion of Medicare with Part D and expanding federal control of schools with No Child Left Behind?  Or his failed immigration reform bill of 2005 and his support of amnesty? That's some fairly liberal stuff from earlier in his presidency.

[Derek]

Bush was a liberal his last year or 2 in office as I suspect he was becoming more pragmatic.

What about the expansion of Medicare with Part D and expanding federal control of schools with No Child Left Behind?  Or his failed immigration reform bill of 2005 and his support of amnesty? That's some fairly liberal stuff from earlier in his presidency.

Yes yes and yes you are correct lol. I was thinking more about the bailouts but yes. If you are conservative on immigration, then there is only one way to do it and Arizona just did it. No Child Left Behind my teachers hated that and there are parts of it that I do like but what this country needs is school vouchers to help parents rather than unions to help teachers who are unqualified. Medicare D was a waste of money and time but my grandparents who made a ton of money benefited from that with all the taxes they paid over the years. Well said NM.

[TeePee4Prez]

Oh Ricky.... PLEASE RUN FOR PRESIDENT!!!  PRETTY PLEASE?