Quotes of the day

posted at 11:00 pm on February 8, 2012 by Allahpundit

“After the returns came in, I asked Santorum spokesman Hogan Gidley what he thought about Rich Beeson’s message. Sure, Santorum did well on Tuesday, but doesn’t Romney have the money and infrastructure to outdistance Santorum, and everyone else, in the long run?

“‘What an inspiring message,’ Gidley said sarcastically. ‘That is really inspiring. I can’t wait to put a bumper sticker on my truck that says MONEY-INFRASTRUCTURE 2012.’

“‘No one had more money and infrastructure than Hillary Clinton, and hope and change wiped her off the map,’ Gidley continued. ‘We’ll have money, and we’ll have infrastructure, but our nominee has to have a message that people can get behind and inspires people.’”

***

“The Rick Santorum boomlet presents an interesting conundrum for Mitt Romney: It neutralizes the section of the GOP establishment otherwise known as the conservative commentriat.

“While the center-right media intelligentsia were more than happy to help destroy the ‘unserious’ candidates such as Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich (and others), they generally like Santorum. There are likely many reasons for this…

“At a time when Catholics (arguably the swing vote in America) are coming under fire by the White House, Santorum’s intelligence, faith, and ability to communicate effectively seem to be especially appealing attributes. My guess is these factors have converged to make Santorum just as appealing to conservative intellectuals as he is to blue collar ‘rust belt’ workers.

“Romney must tread lightly when attacking Santorum. And he won’t be able to count on the help of his willing accomplices in the conservative media this time around.”

***

“It’s also worth thinking about the psychology behind last night’s vote. The turnout for Romney was pathetic, with particularly embarrassing results in Colorado and Minnesota, states where he prevailed over John McCain in 2008. But there’s a reason Romney would have won those states then and lost them now. In 2008, as in 2012, you had a frontrunner who, though he may face lingering opposition within the party, has achieved a strategic position of overwhelming superiority. People willing to accept Romney as the nominee didn’t have much incentive to turn out and vote on Tuesday; they understand that he’s basically a lock. The same held for McCain in 2008.

“The people with a greater incentive to vote on Tuesday were those with a high preference intensity, probably based around issues like abortion, or an extreme distaste for Romney. That vote was surely easier to capture, and Santorum did it. Sure, at some point, if a front runner looks strong enough, you’d expect holdouts to give up. But in this case, you’ve got a front runner who is an unusually bad fit for his party’s base, which keeps kicking at his shins. To put it another way: I’m not sure that Tuesday night told us anything we didn’t already know, either about Romney or the party.”

***

“The most generous interpretation of Tuesday night’s results is that Mr. Romney’s campaign failed to make much of an effort in the contests. He did not make many personal appearances in the states, nor did he run a significant amount of advertising. And his campaign worked to diminish expectations in the day or two before the voting — a practice that can annoy voters who are undecided in the race if they feel like they are being told their vote doesn’t matter.

“Why Mr. Romney’s campaign made these decisions is hard to say. One of the advantages of having a resource-rich campaign, as Mr. Romney does, is precisely that you are able to leave less to chance. Mr. Romney would have had the luxury of running commercials in Colorado or Minnesota, or of establishing a set of field offices in those states. Instead, his strategy was complacent. He gambled and paid the price, as Hillary Rodham Clinton did in the caucus states in 2008.

“Fortunately for Mr. Romney, none of his rivals are in the same ballpark as Mrs. Clinton’s opponent, Barack Obama, as measured by metrics like fundraising, organizational strength, or oratorical skill. But Mr. Romney is not a strong enough candidate that he can afford more nights as bad as Tuesday.”

***

“Romney has more money, more national experience, more consultants, more staff. Heck, he even has better hair. His super PAC outspent Santorum’s by a 40-to-1 margin. Forty to one. And yet Mitt Romney lost. He lost to a guy who lost his home state by 18 points the last time he was on the ballot there. There’s a technical term in political consulting for a performance like that: it’s called sucking. If Romney can’t beat Rick Santorum, he needs to find another party to run in.”

***

“‘In this race, I’m the only guy that hasn’t spent time in Washington,’ he told reporters on an airport tarmac in Atlanta. ‘And Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich, they are the very Republicans who acted like Democrats. And when Republicans act like Democrats, they lose.’”

***

***


***

Click the image to watch.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

“‘In this race, I’m the only guy that hasn’t spent time in Washington,’ he told reporters on an airport tarmac in Atlanta. ‘And Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich, they are the very Republicans who acted like Democrats. And when Republicans act like Democrats, they lose.’”

Which is why Mittens will never beat the Black Narcissus.
To be sure, neither can Newt or Rick.
What we need is a “brokered convention” with the introduction of an unknown dark horse.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 9, 2012 at 7:54 AM

A change of pace this morning.

Authentic or photoshop?

Demon behind the sofa picture scaring web users

Flora Duh on February 9, 2012 at 7:55 AM

kingsjester on February 9, 2012 at 7:48 AM

Here’s a short list. It only took a couple seconds of googling. It isn’t as though he hides it:

1. Rape victims would be forced to give birth to the rapist’s child. Santorum has stated that his religious beliefs dictate that life begins at conception, and as a result, rape victims would be sentenced to carrying the child of the rapist for nine months.

2. Gay marriages would be annulled. Santorum recently declared that not only does he oppose gay marriages, but he supports a federal constitutional amendment that would ban them, invalidating all previous gay marriages that have legally been sanctioned by states and thus callously destroying marriages and thrusting families into chaos.

3. Santorum would ban all federal funding for birth control and would not oppose any state that wanted to pass laws making birth control illegal.

4. No porn! I’m not kidding. Santorum signed “The Marriage Vow”pledge (PDF) authored by the Family Leader organization, under which he swears to oppose pornography. I think many would agree that alone should disqualify him from being president.

MJBrutus on February 9, 2012 at 7:56 AM

What we need is a “brokered convention” with the introduction of an unknown dark horse.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 9, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Oh please, the devil we don’t know is better than the devil we do know? What was the point of drawing the primary out so we can vet everyone if we are just going to throw all that away on an unknown that we could put all our Hope & Change into? Like Carter, like Clinton, like Obama… Democrat much?

rhombus on February 9, 2012 at 7:57 AM

MJBrutus on February 9, 2012 at 7:56 AM

Those aren’t quotes. Would you please provide the links?

kingsjester on February 9, 2012 at 7:59 AM

Cthulhu 2012!

antisense on February 9, 2012 at 8:00 AM

What we need is a “brokered convention” with the introduction of an unknown dark horse.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on February 9, 2012 at 7:54 AM

We are sharing the same head space, but that unknown dark horse would need name and face recognition to compete nationally…did you read that post by Tina, that stated 30% of South Carolinian’s don’t know who Joe Biden is?

Those same folks probably think the republicans control the U.S.Senate.

Dr Evil on February 9, 2012 at 8:01 AM

So I ask, since PBHO is wrong, how can Santo justify legislating his religion? Is the difference simply that more on the right agree with Santo’s Jesus than Obama’s?

MJBrutus on February 9, 2012 at 6:24 AM

Wait a second. You already said that Romney has it all under control and that Santorum is just a flash in the pan. But that has to be accompanied by a bunch of mini-Romney attack ads painting Santorum as a raging theocrat. So which is it? And as the quotes above suggest, I’d be a little more careful in flinging poo at Santorum than I was with Gingrich if I were you.

ddrintn on February 9, 2012 at 8:01 AM

2. Gay marriages would be annulled…thus callously destroying marriages and thrusting families into chaos.

MJBrutus on February 9, 2012 at 7:56 AM

Surely you jest.

Cleombrotus on February 9, 2012 at 8:03 AM

kingsjester on February 9, 2012 at 7:59 AM

No, because I have no desire to make the source the issue. Do you deny that those are his positions?

He and PBHO are mirror images. What one’s Jesus wants to make mandatory the other’s Jesus wants to make illegal. They are both guilty of the same abuse, just from the opposite direction. They are both enemies of religious freedom and liberty.

MJBrutus on February 9, 2012 at 8:03 AM

Wait a second. You already said that Romney has it all under control and that Santorum is just a flash in the pan. But that has to be accompanied by a bunch of mini-Romney attack ads painting Santorum as a raging theocrat. So which is it? And as the quotes above suggest, I’d be a little more careful in flinging poo at Santorum than I was with Gingrich if I were you.

ddrintn on February 9, 2012 at 8:01 AM

Well, the past pattern has been to jump from one person to another after each self-destructs. Santorum is the last one left. We have 3 weeks until the next primary and 4 weeks til Super Tuesday.

antisense on February 9, 2012 at 8:04 AM

ddrintn on February 9, 2012 at 8:01 AM

I don’t think that Santorum is a theocrat, but he does want to use the tax code to influence social norms. He stated as much in his book “It takes a family” If people want to know what Santorum thinks, they should read his book. Santorum talks about his book all the time in his campaign stump. This book has been out for quite a while. Santorum is not an unknown quantity.

Dr Evil on February 9, 2012 at 8:05 AM

And when Republicans act like Democrats, they lose.

Mitt is very right, but he just does not seem to be able to see the forest because of all those pesky trees.

Southernblogger on February 9, 2012 at 8:05 AM

No, because I have no desire to make the source the issue. Do you deny that those are his positions?

He and PBHO are mirror images. What one’s Jesus wants to make mandatory the other’s Jesus wants to make illegal. They are both guilty of the same abuse, just from the opposite direction. They are both enemies of religious freedom and liberty.

MJBrutus on February 9, 2012 at 8:03 AM

Uh huh. That’s what I thought. Gotcha.

kingsjester on February 9, 2012 at 8:06 AM

kingsjester on February 9, 2012 at 8:06 AM

Are those his positions or not?

MJBrutus on February 9, 2012 at 8:08 AM

Are those his positions or not?

MJBrutus on February 9, 2012 at 8:08 AM

I don’t know. You won’t cite your sources.

kingsjester on February 9, 2012 at 8:10 AM

And when Republicans act like Democrats, they lose.

And hoping for an unknown “dark horse” to rise after we spent months in a primary vetting other people is VERY DEMOCRATIC. Carter, Clinton and Obama were all “unknowns” when they ran. Yeah, they won but look what the Democrats stuck us with.

rhombus on February 9, 2012 at 8:10 AM

I don’t think that Santorum is a theocrat, but he does want to use the tax code to influence social norms. He stated as much in his book “It takes a family” If people want to know what Santorum thinks, they should read his book. Santorum talks about his book all the time in his campaign stump. This book has been out for quite a while. Santorum is not an unknown quantity.

Dr Evil on February 9, 2012 at 8:05 AM

To me, that stuff is even worse than the Nanny-Statism promoted by Bloomberg.

antisense on February 9, 2012 at 8:11 AM

Well, the past pattern has been to jump from one person to another after each self-destructs. Santorum is the last one left. We have 3 weeks until the next primary and 4 weeks til Super Tuesday.

antisense on February 9, 2012 at 8:04 AM

Mitt is a weak front runner, this was his path to the nomination running as a moderate to split the conservative vote among his opponents. Gingrich’s campaign is in disarray. Santorum is popular among social religious conservatives – far right not moderates.

I don’t think any of them could go toe to toe with Obama, he’s got the advantage of the Incumbency. What republicans need is for Obama to keep making mistakes, like the one he’s making mandating that religious institutions provide contraception in insurance plans for employs, that goes against the Catholic church’s doctrine. Folks don’t seem to get that lot’s of folks got waivers – pay for play but the Catholic church is not going to participate in that kind of behavior – because it’s immoral. The other mistake Obama made was pandering to the enviro-nuts over the Keystone Pipeline decision. Every time Obama panders to one of his extreme left constituencies it helps the republicans in the general, the nominee is going to need all the help they can get.

Dr Evil on February 9, 2012 at 8:16 AM

“‘No one had more money and infrastructure than Hillary Clinton, and hope and change wiped her off the map,

Hope, change and illegal gift cards used to make campaign contributions. Even Mickey Mouse contributed to Obama’s campaign.

the_souse on February 9, 2012 at 8:19 AM

A change of pace this morning.

Authentic or photoshop?

Demon behind the sofa picture scaring web users

Flora Duh on February 9, 2012 at 7:55 AM

I call BS. Why would a demon be cowering under a couch cushion? That’s just silly- LOL

Night Owl on February 9, 2012 at 8:20 AM

the center-right media intelligentsia

Who are these people? FNC?

Right now, Obama has started a culture war that favors Santorum, an underfunded candidate with limited national name recognition. Obama is keeping quiet on immigration and healthcare right now, which are Romney’s top priorities.

Are we going to be manipulated again? Don’t get me wrong, I would take any of the top three over Obama; does Santorum have the resources and recognition to win a national presidential election? Think about it.

the_souse on February 9, 2012 at 8:23 AM

In the words of New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) Executive Director Vincent Giordano, “life’s not always fair”

J_Crater on February 9, 2012 at 8:24 AM

Night Owl on February 9, 2012 at 8:20 AM

Yep!

Flora Duh on February 9, 2012 at 8:25 AM

It’s also worth thinking about the psychology behind last night’s vote. The turnout for Romney was pathetic, with particularly embarrassing results in Colorado and Minnesota, states where he prevailed over John McCain in 2008

These “beauty contests” are decided by the fringe elements (and some Democrat plants) of the GOP. Romney’s saving constituents will be the middle of the Party.

Turnout was not bad for “Romney” — it was bad for the GOP overall. Why would I get out of bed to attend a caucus that has no direct bearing on actual delegates? Things can change quickly.

Primaries are where the money is, and that’s the play Romney is taking. It’s about scoreboard, baby.

the_souse on February 9, 2012 at 8:27 AM

Just heard an interesting tidbit on local radio here in CO:

In several counties; Romney got fewer caucus votes than he had “volunteers” according to earlier campaign statements.

LMAO, what a loser. He can’t even get his paid MittBots to bother showing up and voting for him!

Norwegian on February 9, 2012 at 8:35 AM

The media spent days telling people these “constests” didn’t really matter. And then there’s a low turnout? And we’re going to do what they want and agree that a low turnout proves anything/something/whatever? Please. What the media wants is a horse-race to keep us tuning in when the RNC did everything they could to bore us to tears by over-exposing these candidates with too many debates. Now we hate all of them and want some unknown to rise from the ashes at the convention? Just more theater for the rubes.

rhombus on February 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM

Rick must really be getting to Mitt if they compare him to Obama 08. They’re worried because they know we always wanted somebody other than Mitt. Maybe if they didn’t try so hard to convince us he’s a conservative we would have admired him for his honesty.

Kissmygrits on February 9, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Night Owl on February 9, 2012 at 8:20 AM
Yep!

Flora Duh on February 9, 2012 at 8:25 AM

Also, thanks for the links for CPAC.

Night Owl on February 9, 2012 at 8:52 AM

This is the part where, as Romney is essentially a lock, people line up behind whoever and claim he is a TRUE CONSERVATIVE. Knowing he’ll lose but arming the “SEE YOU SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO US” cannon.

Dash on February 9, 2012 at 9:13 AM

A change of pace this morning.

Authentic or photoshop?

Demon behind the sofa picture scaring web users

Flora Duh on February 9, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Mitt Romney’s situation room? (kidding)

This is obviously not a “show off my decorating” shot, so why would someone take a picture of their sofa? Is the person/family having some issues? Not real convincing without some additional where and whyfor’s.

Portia46 on February 9, 2012 at 9:22 AM

WryTrvllr on February 9, 2012 at 12:56 AM

I don’t see anything ‘above’.
As for my Aspy…I’m kind of a hybrid.
I understand sarcasm and most figures-of-speech…but it’s really rough for me when it comes to looking,at people, I talk too much, quickly, I tend to ramble…and I tend to tell my life story to those I don’t know. Despite the fact that I was walk VERY fast…I’m ungainly. Like most Aspies…I also talk to myself(Yeah-I know I’m doing it)
If you were to meet in person-the fact that I’m on the quirky side would be evident almost immediately.
Either you’d like me-or you wouldn’t.
First impressions tend to be a problem for those like me.
*shrugs*

annoyinglittletwerp on February 9, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Cthulhu 2012!

antisense on February 9, 2012 at 8:00 AM

A poster on another thread suggested SMOD (Sweet Meteor of Death)/Cthulhu 2012! for the winning Republican ticket. That’s a much more conservative and potent option than Obama/Biden or Obama/Hillary.

Gladtobehere on February 9, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Quoting Paul Begala ALLAHPUNDIT? Yeah, it’s come to this.

rubberneck on February 9, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Yeah, let’s nominate the guy who brings his dead kid home and goes to bed with it. PS. Main stream America will find that more than usual. They will.

BTW, his wife lived with an twice her aged abortionist before she married good old rick…don’t think that will come out?

He wants to eliminate contraceptives, and check out what’s happening in your bed.

He’s into speaking about man-dog love.

Google his last name, and uh, gross.

Laides and gentlemen, not the next president of the united states.

Oh, and he lost his home state, a swing state by 18 points.

Enjoy!

rubberneck on February 9, 2012 at 9:39 AM

The media spent days telling people these “constests” didn’t really matter. And then there’s a low turnout? And we’re going to do what they want and agree that a low turnout proves anything/something/whatever? Please. What the media wants is a horse-race to keep us tuning in when the RNC did everything they could to bore us to tears by over-exposing these candidates with too many debates. Now we hate all of them and want some unknown to rise from the ashes at the convention? Just more theater for the rubes.

rhombus on February 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM

A low turnout proves Mitt Romney is a weak front runner. But Romney isn’t trying to excite the conservative base. He simply wants to survive the primary, he wants to win by any means. Take a look at the delegate count, Romney is ahead. Will Colorado go back to Red in 2008? This is the only state of the three, that it looks like Romney was bothering to compete in. Romney puts some money into Colorado, because it might be a swing state in the general. Minnesota will probably go to Obama in 2012 (Minnesota hasn’t voted republican since Richard Nixon in 1972), the republican caucus goers were down by 24%, and the Missouri caucus was down by 57% turn out, and awarded no delegates, just how much effort and money should Romney have contributed to those 3 states? What did Santorum win? He was able to raise half a million dollars on a 3 state win- that’s all? How much money has Romney raised in comparison?

There is no reason not to hope for a brokered convention if all the alternatives are FAILING to excite the American electorate, the people the republicans need to turn out, and vote for them in the general.

Dr Evil on February 9, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Correction: Colorado went Blue for the first time since 1992 in 2008, will it swing back to Red in 2012?

Dr Evil on February 9, 2012 at 9:41 AM

rubberneck on February 9, 2012 at 9:39 AM

You’re a total ass.
*did I mention that you’re an ass?*

annoyinglittletwerp on February 9, 2012 at 9:47 AM

There is no reason not to hope for a brokered convention if all the alternatives are FAILING to excite the American electorate, the people the republicans need to turn out, and vote for them in the general.

Dr Evil on February 9, 2012 at 9:40 AM

The people the Republicans need to vote for them in the general are mushy moderates. Santorum ain’t going to get it done. Hoping the GOP can pull a rabbit out of their hat at a brokered convention is a media wet dream. Oh, and I expect the so-called GOP “base” would lose again as they spend more time insulting people instead of raising money and building orgainizatons. Hey, but keep hope alive and chase that dream! In the last 50 years it’s been RINOs 3, so-called Real Conservatives-1.

rhombus on February 9, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Even Mickey Mouse contributed to Obama’s campaign.

the_souse on February 9, 2012 at 8:19 AM

It doesn’t surprise me that Mickey went all Goofy on us. Take a look at the foolish Republican leadership. In 2011, John McCain, after two years of an Obama presidency, “called Obama a ‘patriot’ intent on using his presidency to ‘advance our country’s cause’ and rejected accusations — many coming from members of his own party and the tea party movement — ‘that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America.’” With weak leadership like this, how do you expect to win an election? When you’ve lost Mickey Mouse, you’ve lost the soul of America.

Gladtobehere on February 9, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Don’t worry, twerp. Guys like rubberneck were. Ever gonna vote Republican no matter WHO they nominated.

Cleombrotus on February 9, 2012 at 9:58 AM

we’re NEVER, that is

Cleombrotus on February 9, 2012 at 9:59 AM

The people the Republicans need to vote for them in the general are mushy moderates. Santorum ain’t going to get it done. Hoping the GOP can pull a rabbit out of their hat at a brokered convention is a media wet dream. Oh, and I expect the so-called GOP “base” would lose again as they spend more time insulting people instead of raising money and building orgainizatons. Hey, but keep hope alive and chase that dream! In the last 50 years it’s been RINOs 3, so-called Real Conservatives-1.

rhombus on February 9, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Look at the republican primary field who do you think can beat Obama in the general?

Dr Evil on February 9, 2012 at 10:16 AM

rubberneck on February 9, 2012 at 9:39 AM

You’re a total ass.
*did I mention that you’re an ass?*

annoyinglittletwerp on February 9, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Morning :)

Dr Evil on February 9, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Look at the republican primary field who do you think can beat Obama in the general?

Dr Evil on February 9, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Maybe no one now since everyone is sick of these poeple. Whoever booked all those debates should be shot. This is why there’s no excitement. Have you really learned anything new about the candidates in months? The only thing I’ve learned is how low they’ll go and how much some acted like Democrats to tear down other Republicans. Since when do we support amnesty and condemn private sector wealth creation?

rhombus on February 9, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Morning :)

Dr Evil on February 9, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Mornin’.
I really shouldn’t hold back my feelings like that.
It isn’t healthy.
///

annoyinglittletwerp on February 9, 2012 at 10:58 AM

rubberneck on February 9, 2012 at 9:39 AM

You’re a total ass.
*did I mention that you’re an ass?*

annoyinglittletwerp on February 9, 2012 at 9:47 AM

The truth hurts…doesn’t it?

rubberneck on February 9, 2012 at 11:17 AM

The truth hurts…doesn’t it?

rubberneckdick on February 9, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Truthfully, you’re an ass.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 9, 2012 at 11:22 AM

I’ve never understood why the quotes are never attributed. It lessens the value of them, not knowing the context or speaker.

I generally don’t even read this page, but pop in on occastion to see if it’s become useful.

To me, it hasn’t.

osborn4 on February 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Dr Evil on February 9, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Mornin’.
I really shouldn’t hold back my feelings like that.
It isn’t healthy.
///

annoyinglittletwerp on February 9, 2012 at 10:58 AM

It’s not good for you to hold it in, it will give you ajada

Dr Evil on February 9, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Maybe no one now since everyone is sick of these poeple. Whoever booked all those debates should be shot. This is why there’s no excitement. Have you really learned anything new about the candidates in months? The only thing I’ve learned is how low they’ll go and how much some acted like Democrats to tear down other Republicans. Since when do we support amnesty and condemn private sector wealth creation?

rhombus on February 9, 2012 at 10:25 AM

That’s how I got to the point of pining for a brokered convention. It may be pie in the sky, but what’s the worse thing that could happen? We could do worse, the same or get lucky :)

Dr Evil on February 9, 2012 at 11:42 AM

My brother-in-law is very politically aware. But my sister said, “I’ve never heard of him [Santorum].”

As more people “hear” of him, his viability will only increase.

I had never considered Santorum as viable and never really thought he had the forcefulness to be POTUS. If he will take it to MackDaddy, I can get behind him.

davidk on February 9, 2012 at 11:53 AM

MJBrutus on February 9, 2012 at 7:56 AM

And? I agree with him on those.

1. Rape victims would be forced to give birth to the rapist’s child. Santorum has stated that his religious beliefs dictate that life begins at conception, and as a result, rape victims would be sentenced to carrying the child of the rapist for nine months.

Yes, nothing like killing an innocent witness to make the victim feel better about themselves.

2. Gay marriages would be annulled. Santorum recently declared that not only does he oppose gay marriages, but he supports a federal constitutional amendment that would ban them, invalidating all previous gay marriages that have legally been sanctioned by states and thus callously destroying marriages and thrusting families into chaos.

I know that you are using this as a boogeyman, but let’s consider the logic of this. IF the people support an amendment, and the states support it by passing it, THEN it would be an amendment. What part does a President play in passing a Constitutional Amendment?

3. Santorum would ban all federal funding for birth control and would not oppose any state that wanted to pass laws making birth control illegal.

EXCELLENT! Please cite the Article, Section and Clause of the US Constitution that authorizes that funding. And what a concept!… a President that states support for the 10th Amendment!

4. No porn! I’m not kidding. Santorum signed “The Marriage Vow”pledge (PDF) authored by the Family Leader organization, under which he swears to oppose pornography. I think many would agree that alone should disqualify him from being president.

I oppose pornography. It destroys relationships by exploiting women as pieces of meat to feed our carnal desires. If you want to consider that speech, you’re welcome to your opinion. I don’t think its speech. Should it be struck down? That’s a different subject. If I were President, I would also oppose pornography… but that doesn’t really mean anything since CONGRESS makes the laws.

It seems you just have a problem with his integrity. Personally, I find it refreshing.

dominigan on February 9, 2012 at 11:54 AM

The truth hurts…doesn’t it?

rubberneck on February 9, 2012 at 11:17 AM

How on earth would you know?

Bmore on February 9, 2012 at 12:32 PM

rubberneck
A person who turns their head to stare foolishly at something.

Bmore on February 9, 2012 at 12:35 PM

osborn4 on February 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Click on the links in the quote to see who made them.
Allah does it this way to get you to read the articles instead of simply reacting to the quote.
It’s not that difficult.

VelvetElvis on February 9, 2012 at 12:45 PM

MJBrutus on February 9, 2012 at 7:56 AM


1.
Abortion will NEVER be abolished as an option for rape victims.


2.
Marriage, as a recognized ‘institution’, is NOT about giving your sex partner “legal spousal benefits” (tax purposes and insurance coverage).
Marriage, as a recognized ‘institution’, IS ALL ABOUT REPRODUCTION AND RAISING CHILDREN. Period. (that does not imply an opposition to the use of contraceptives within a marriage)


3.
We should ban ALL Federal funding for contraceptives.
States should have the right to enact their own legislation, as long as it does not contradict the U.S. Constitution.

4.
HAH, I wish. Opposing pornography is NOT the same thing as abolishing pornography. It really can’t be ‘abolished’ any more than alcohol was during prohibition. We would end up with another “Joseph P. Kennedy” empire, if we tried it.
However, government sponsored STIGMATIZING (demonizing?) of pornography is totally acceptable, by me.

listens2glenn on February 9, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5