Martin Bashir: Santorum’s sort of like a theocratic version of Stalin

posted at 8:09 pm on February 14, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Newsbusters, Breitbart TV, and Verum Serum, this operates like a crude goof on MSNBC’s usual M.O. There’s a Republican lit scarily from below (note to Santorum’s advance team: don’t do that again), then some footage from “1984,” then a quickie rehash of some of Santorum’s social views punctuated by references to theocracy and Stalin, and … that’s it. I get the feeling that the only reason there’s no Hitler reference is because Bashir wanted to show what he regards as tasteful “restraint.” Good for him. He’s 99 percent of the way towards a cable-news Godwin-ing, but somehow he refrained from crossing the goal line by swapping in a communist totalitarian for a fascist one. Baby steps.

The dumbest part of this, per the imagery of Big Brother addressing a crowd, is the idea that Santorum’s ready to lead the brainwashed masses into supporting his social agenda. On the contrary: Not only is he increasingly on the wrong side of the majority on gay marriage, but he’s in a very small minority on the subject of contraception. As Michael Scherer notes today at Time, a recent Pew poll found that fully 85 percent of Americans view contraception as either “morally acceptable” or “not a moral issue.” According to the new CBS/NYT poll, 66 percent support Obama’s “compromise” requiring insurance companies to cover the cost of birth control. There’ll be no torchlight parades during a Santorum administration calling for a ban on condoms; in fact, precisely because his views are so unpopular on this, it’s unlikely there’ll be a Santorum administration at all. But it’s no fun for Bashir and MSNBC to point out that virtually no one agrees with Santorum because then there’s no teeth to the endless scaremongering about wingnut hordes descending on America to bring about the new dark ages. All this really is, ironically, is a Two Minutes Hate. At least when Olby used to do it, he’d give you 10 to 12 minutes to show that he cared. Ah, the good ol’ days.

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 2 3

I wonder if bashir has had any of his women stoned to death for showing a leg to an infidel or had their clitoris’s removed to make sure they don’t enjoy sex.

He strikes me as a highly intelligent and educated man. Perfect for judging the infidels.

acyl72 on February 15, 2012 at 7:58 AM

Bashir makes a good point….Santorum is kind of like Stalin

georgealbert on February 15, 2012 at 8:10 AM

The fear of Santorum is cute. The guy wants to overturn the Griswald decision that granted a right to privacy. Conservatives have been against that decision for…oh, pretty much since it was made. Santorum never said he wants states to ban contraceptives…he said he wants states to realize that, per the wording of the Constitution, they DO have the right to ban contraception. Personally he said he’d vote against it. I would too.

Let’s look at it this way. If you believe the state can’t ban contraceptives, what makes you think the state has the right to ban any drug/procedure? Is it because contraception has to do with sex? Pull the other one! The founding fathers found NO problem with state laws against sodomy, so that rules the sex issue out. I’m pretty sure they knew their own intent when they wrote the constitution.**

Note: for those of you whose anus just puckered because I referenced Founding Father’s lack of drive/tacit support of sodomy laws…get over yourself. It’s called an example and it is used to illustrate a point. I’m NOT for laws banning homosexuality. I’m just for lessening Fed power by giving states their rights back.

Pattosensei on February 15, 2012 at 8:30 AM

Oh, the irony of these liberals attempting to label conservatives, especially using communist imagery and propaganda. It is amusing to watch, but also very telling. The difference now from when liberals dominated the mainstream media is that we have alternative news sources now and the internet where people can do their own research instead of getting brainwashed by putzes like this guy. An educated and well informed electorate is the democrats’ worst nightmare. The more people learn about and research Rick Santorum, the more they like him. Hence his rise in the polls. He’ll be just fine despite these hit pieces by the media because we aren’t as stupid as they think.

mozalf on February 15, 2012 at 8:36 AM

Oh no, the horror. Rick Santorum is claimed to be for states rights, just as our Constitution says? Liberals must stick to the script with Romney as the elected republican candidate so the 1% vs 99% meme can be out played by a compliant media.

The real story is the racism of the democrat party where 45 million, mostly minority babies have been aborted over the past 45 years. Minorities have also been under the slavery of government control with medicaid, food stamps and social welfare programs for generations provided they continue to vote for democrats.

dthorny on February 15, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Bashir’s hyperbole aside, Rick Santorum’s totalitarianist views are clear.

Whether or not the country disagrees with his view on contraception or gay relationships is irrelevant if people hear Santorum CLEARLY “Pledge” to prohibit contraception when he is President, and then people VOTE FOR HIM.

I can’t comprehend why you’re so SANGUINE about such pledges by Santorum, when this site CLEARLY advocates him as President.

What do you think that says to people?

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 9:03 AM

If he’s like Stalin he will attract Democrats as well.

Does this guy actually know who Stalin was?

NoDonkey on February 15, 2012 at 9:05 AM

I find it interesting that Hitler is somehow worse than Stalin. I think if you look at it by the numbers, Stalin killed nearly double the number of his own people than Hitler. It was around 20 million or so, was it not?

I’m pretty sure if comparing a political rival to Hitler is considered to be jumping the shark, then comparing someone to Stalin would be the equivalent of nuking the fridge while jumping the shark.*

*I can think of no metaphor for how bad it must be to compare someone to Mao.

Pattosensei on February 15, 2012 at 9:07 AM

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 9:03 AM

I take it you’ve never closely read Santorum’s own words or a rebuttal to your argument. Scroll up, there are plenty in this thread for you to peruse and educate yourself.

Pattosensei on February 15, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Whether or not the country disagrees with his view on contraception or gay relationships is irrelevant if people hear Santorum CLEARLY “Pledge” to prohibit contraception when he is President, and then people VOTE FOR HIM.

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 9:03 AM

The only people who hear this are you and Rachel Maddow. Santorum has explicitly said he would oppose a ban on contraception. Did you get that? He would oppose a ban on contraception. If you read that to mean that he would pledge to prohibit contraception, then nothing anybody can say would convince you because you hear things that don’t exist.

AJsDaddie on February 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Here’s a typical Radical Leftist misrepresentation of Santorum’s position, and then a surprising rebuttal from the Washington Post, of all places.

MADDOW: …waging war on contraception at this point in a way that the–where the–and that’s where the discussion is going.

Is this even close to true? Not according to the Washington Post’s Melinda Henneberger who interviewed Santorum on January 6 about this very subject:

“I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions.’’

The former Pennsylvania senator recently told ABC’s Jake Tapper that, yes, he disagrees with Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1965 Supreme Court decision that struck down a ban on contraception.

He said Friday evening that it’s the idea that states don’t have a right to pass such a law that he opposes, because he does not see the right to privacy as a constitutional right envisioned by its signers. This is hardly a new argument.

“It could have been a law against buying shoestrings; that it was contraception has nothing to do with it. States have the right to pass even dumb laws.”

To be clear, he does think that laws banning birth control would be dumb “for a number of reasons. Birth control should be legal in the United States. The states should not ban it, and I would oppose any effort to ban it.’’

That bears repeating: “Birth control should be legal in the United States. The states should not ban it, and I would oppose any effort to ban it.”

I believe you’re starting to see honest reporting even from some on the Left because frankly we’re all getting tired of this sort of cheap misdirection from the establishment pundits. Santorum’s position is clearly and carefully delineated: he has beliefs that he won’t sacrifice, but he also won’t impose on others. I think even liberals would like to see this – some moral backbone, even in the face of the attacks and distortions of the media.

Whether he’s deliberately doing it or just misguidedly parroting the talking points, Mountainaires is typical of that sort of distortion, the kind of thing that is poisoning the discourse. Rather than discussing how much (or how little) control the Federal government should have over our lives, the focus is on whether Santorum personally believes in contraception. It’s stupid, it’s disingenuous, and it’s exactly what the establishment (R and D) want you and I to focus on.

AJsDaddie on February 15, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Pattosensei on February 15, 2012 at 9:09 AM

I am quite well read on Mr. Santorum. He’s no conservative; he’s just another Obama–inexperienced, a radical ideologue, and a fraud. He’s a big-government statist who never met a spending bill he couldn’t embrace; he’s nothing but an opportunist. In fact, Club for Growth called Santorum a “Career Opportunist” who’s always voted in his own best interests on any issue of the day, who’s repeatedly lined his OWN pockets at the expense of others, and who doesn’t have the character we need to lead this nation. His own Republican party in Pennsylvania is on record as saying Santorum’s character makes him unsuited for the White House. There is so much about Santorum people don’t know; he’s just like Obama–a blank slate onto which people are projecting their own needs. But he is NOT what he appears to be.

You would do well to CLOSELY read these votes by Santorum. Check out his positions on 2nd amendment rights; on immigration; on spending; on unions!

I’ve closely read Santorums words for a while now and one thing is clear: Santorum will not be elected to the White House. Hopefully, conservatives will examine this man’s history and his ideological views and his voting record and conclude that this is a disaster in the making. IF not, you will rue the day you were ever so stupid as to think this man was an appropriate representative for the Republican Party.

Pennsylvania GOP leaders believe Rick Santorum isn’t a good fit for the presidency

Monday, January 09, 2012 by Robert Vickers

Influential party leaders who did not want to be identified said a Santorum nomination would doom the country to four more years of Obama.

“He’s rigid, and he’s too far to the right,” said one. “We need somebody that’s going to bring us together, not drive us apart, and Rick can be divisive.”

Added another: “If Santorum is our candidate, then that’s a sure victory for Obama, and we’ll just concentrate on other state races.”

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/01/pennsylvania_gop_leaders_santo.html

What a Big-Government Statist Looks Like

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/

Rick Santorum’s Negatives

21 Reasons Not to Vote for Rick Santorum

[click on newer entries at bottom of page to continue on through all 21 must read sections, with links]

http://thelibertyblog.org/tag/rick-santorum/page/3/

Politico (15 Jan 2012) has an excellent summary of one of the main reasons that Rick Santorum received 797,000 fewer votes in 2006 than 2000.

In all, Taxpayers for Common Sense estimated, Mr. Santorum helped secure more than $1 billion in earmarks during his Senate career, which stretched from 1995 through 2006. But because federal lawmakers did not have to disclose them, as they must do today, it is nearly impossible to produce a complete list.

Pennsylvanians in southeast Pennsylvania are very familiar with mega law firm BlankRome and Piasecki Helicopter in DelCo.

“This is the thing about earmarks,” said Ryan Alexander, the president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “It’s not that every project is horrible. It’s not that it’s inappropriate for lawmakers to garner resources for their constituents.

“The problem is it looks like it is pay-to-play. It looks like: ‘You want to get an earmark? You make a contribution.’ ”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/us/politics/as-rick-santorum-secured-earmarks-2006-donations-flowed-in.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

In the 104th Congress Sen. Santorum joined all Democrats and a minority of Republicans in voting to filibuster the bill S. 1788, the National Right to Work Act of 1995. (“On the Cloture Motion (motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to consider S.1788),” Senate Bill Clerk, Vote Number: 188, http://www.senate.gov, 7/10/1996)

During that same congressional session, Santorum also voted to retain the 1930s-era Davis-Bacon Act that forces taxpayers to pay union wages in government-funded construction and gives Big Labor an unfair advantage over non-union companies and workers (“On the Motion to Table (motion to table Kennedy Amendment No. 4031 to S. Amdt. 4000 to S.Con.Res. 57),” Senate Bill Clerk, Vote Number: 134, http://www.senate.gov, 5/22/1996)

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 9:40 AM

But he won’t nominate judges like Roberts or Thomas..

I would rather have a Scalia anyways. And despite Thomas’s quote, he agreed with Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas- that states can regulate sexual matters if have a compelling interest. In fact states regulate sex between consenting adults all the time-called prostitution laws. As I said earlier, Griswold was a decision that should have been interpreted in the strictist sense. It involved marriage which is a sacred legal tradtion. And we all know how most of you view the “sacred legal tradition of marriage with the push for gay marriage.” It was never suppose to be carte blanche for “a right to privacy.”

From Griswold:

“We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights – older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred…

MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join, concurring.
I agree with the Court that Connecticut’s birth-control law unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy, and I join in its opinion and judgment.

Adultery, homosexuality and the like are sexual intimacies which the State forbids . . . but the intimacy of husband and wife is necessarily an essential and accepted feature of the institution of marriage, an institution which the State not only must allow, but which always and in every age it has fostered and protected. It is one thing when the State exerts its power either to forbid extra-marital sexuality . . . or to say who may marry, but it is quite another when, having acknowledged a marriage and the intimacies inherent in it, it undertakes to regulate by means of the criminal law the details of that intimacy.”

melle1228 on February 15, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Santorum opposes contraceptives. You’ve got to be a real idiot not to know that AJsDaddle:

Quote:

“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…. Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” (Speaking with CaffeinatedThoughts.com, Oct. 18, 2011)

Santorum is a big-government statist and NOT a conservative at all. Moreover he’s a rigid ideologue akin to the Mullahs in Iran.

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 9:45 AM

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 9:45 AM

OMG the sky is falling, its falling… Santorum says that contraceptives are bad. Let say this slowly so you can understand, the have been bad. People think because they have contraception and abortion-they can act irresponsibly when it comes to sex with no consequences. Obviously from the children born out of wedlock since the Griswold decision-and even more so since the Roe decision- he would be correct. Our society has become more libertine, and the consequences are high.

melle1228 on February 15, 2012 at 9:50 AM

LOL…

melle1228:

That is the most laughable argument I’ve ever read. Pathetic.

Clearly, you have NO concept of what it means to be a conservative.

Get this straight: LIBERALS ARE TOTALITARIANS; Conservatives believe in INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

Look up those words in the dictionary, you fool.

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 10:03 AM

To reiterate my statement that Griswold was about marriage see Baker v. Nelson, the current precedent on homosexual marriage:

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965), upon which petitioners rely, does not support a contrary conclusion. A Connecticut criminal statute prohibiting the use of contraceptives by married couples was held invalid, as violating the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The basic premise of that decision, however, was that the state, having authorized marriage, was without power to intrude upon the right of privacy inherent in the marital relationship. Mr. Justice Douglas, author of the majority opinion, wrote that this criminal statute “operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife,” 381 U.S. 482, 85 S.Ct. 1680, 14 L.Ed.2d 513, and that the very idea of its enforcement by police search of “the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives * * * is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship,” 381 U.S. 485, 85 S.Ct.1682, 14 L.Ed.2d 516. In a separate opinion for three justices, Mr. Justice Goldberg similarly abhorred this state disruption of “the traditional relation of the family–a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization.” 381 U.S. 496, 85 S.Ct. 1688,14 L.Ed.2d 522./3/

melle1228 on February 15, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Santorum opposes contraceptives. You’ve got to be a real idiot not to know that AJsDaddle:

Not only can’t you read, but you call names as well! Every person on this list, and probably every human being who follows politics, knows that Santorum follows his faith and opposes contraceptives. You’ve got to be a real idiot to think we don’t know that.

“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…. Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” (Speaking with CaffeinatedThoughts.com, Oct. 18, 2011)

And this is 100% consistent with his position as a practicing, faithful Catholic. Just as Romney doesn’t drink alcohol. And neither one says YOU have to do as they do. Do I hear you carping about the New Prohibition under Mitt? No. Of course not. You’re just repeating whatever Talking Points Memo tells you to repeat.

Santorum is a big-government statist and NOT a conservative at all. Moreover he’s a rigid ideologue akin to the Mullahs in Iran.

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 9:45 AM

And this is so much crap my eyes turn brown just from reading it. I don’t remember once Santorum calling for people to be beheaded for using rubbers. So please, take your religion-baiting crap somewhere else. Every time you post you make yourself increasingly irrelevant.

AJsDaddie on February 15, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Does this loon have any relevance to anybody, but The Blaze? Who would possibly listen to one minute of this stupidity. I wouldn’t even know he exists if it wasn’t for The Blaze.

volsense on February 15, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Rick Santorum: UNION Supporter

Voted against National Right to Work Act
Voted against Real of Davis-Bacon Prevailing union wages
Voted for Alexis Herman to be Secretary of Labor
Voted for mandatory Federal child care funding
Voted for Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Voted for Job Corps funding
Voted twice in support of Fedex Unionization
Voted against allowing a waiver of Davis-Bacon in emergency situations.
Voted for minimum wage increases six times here here here here here and here
Voted to require a union representative on an IRS oversight board.
Voted to exempt IRS union representative from criminal ethics laws.
Voted against creating independent Board of Governors to investigate IRS abuses.

Patrick Semmens of the anti-union National Right to Work, said:

Rick Santorum’s’ position on Right to Work should be deeply troubling to the 80 percent of Americans who believe workers should not be forced to pay dues or fees to a union just to get or keep a job. Not only has he refused to answer the National Right to Work Committee’s Presidential Survey, but while in the Senate he joined with Democrats to filibuster the National Right to Work Act. Siding with Big Labor in favor of union boss forced dues powers should be particularly troubling to the people of South Carolina, who’ve spent the last year fighting off attacks by the Obama Labor Board on the state’s popular Right to Work law and the jobs it has helped create.

Rick Santorum on Illegal Immigrants:

Voted against increasing the number of immigration investigators
Voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive the earned income credit before becoming citizens
Voted to give SSI benefits to legal aliens.
Voted to give welfare benefits to naturalized citizens without regard to to the earnings of their sponsors.
Voted against hiring an additional 1,000 border partrol agents, paid for by reductions in state grants.

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM

LOL…

melle1228:

That is the most laughable argument I’ve ever read. Pathetic.

Clearly, you have NO concept of what it means to be a conservative.

Get this straight: LIBERALS ARE TOTALITARIANS; Conservatives believe in INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

Look up those words in the dictionary, you fool.

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Okay, I may be pathetic, but atleast I have basic reading comprehension skills. Santorum has never said he would make contraception illegal. In fact, he has gone out of his way to say time and time again that he wouldn’t vote for a ban.

Your turn, please give me proof that widespread contraception/abortion use has been good for our society. Has it cured sexual diseases-nope more sexual diseases since the 60′s. Has it cured poverty when children are born out of wedlock-nope. Please give me proof that it hasn’t hurt society.

melle1228 on February 15, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Rick Santorum–”This is what a Big-Government Statist Looks Like.” Erick Erickson, Redstate

Rick Santorum:

Voted against a flat tax.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for Medicare prescription drugs
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to fund health insurance subsidies for small businesses.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an $8 billion increase in child healh insurance.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an increase in NIH funding.
Voted twice for internet taxes.
Voted to allow gas tax revenues to be used to subsidize Amtrak.
Voted to strike marriage penalty tax relief and instead provide fines on tobacco companies.
Voted against repealing the Clinton 4.3 cent gas tax increase.
Voted to increase taxes by $2.3 billion to pay for an Amtrak trust fund.
Voted to allow welfare to a minor who had a child out of wedlock and who resided with an adult who was on welfare within the previous two years.
Voted to increase taxes by $9.4 billion to pay for a $9.4 billion increase in student loans.
Voted to say that AMT patch is more important than capital gains and dividend relief.

Voted against food stamp reform
Voted against Medicaid reform
Voted against TANF reform
Voted to increase the Social Services Block Grant from $1 billion to $2 billion
Voted to increase the FHA loan from $170,000 to $197,000. Also opposed increasing GNMA guaranty from 6 basis points to 12.
Voted for $2 billion for low income heating assistance.

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Rick Santorum: Big-Government Statist and “Career Opportunist” according to the Club for Growth.

Rick Santorum’s votes on:

Spending and Entitlements
Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies an new entitlement.
Voted against paying off the debt ($5.6 trillion at the time) within 30 years.
Voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
Voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.

Health Care
Voted to allow states to impose health care mandates that are stricter than proposed new Federal mandates, but not weaker.
Voted twice for Federal mental health parity mandates in health insurance.
Voted against allowing consumers the option to purchase a plan outside the parity mandate.

Education
Voted to increase Federal funding for teacher testing
Voted to increase spending for the Department of Education by $3.1 billion.
Voted against requiring courts to consider the impact of IDEA awards on a local school district.

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Get this straight: LIBERALS ARE TOTALITARIANS; Conservatives believe in INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY

BTW, totally individual liberty to the detriment of society is a libertarian position-not a Conservative position. Conservatives are not anti-government. The are anti-federal government.

melle1228 on February 15, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Rick Santorum is not a conservative.

Rick Santorum’s votes:

Guns

Voted to require pawn shops to do background checks on people who pawn a gun.
Voted twice to make it illegal to sell a gun without a secure storage or safety device
Voted for a Federal ban on possession of “assault weapons” by those under 18.
Voted for Federal funding for anti-gun education programs in schools.
Voted for anti-gun juvenile justice bill.

Reform

Voted for funding for the legal services corporation.
Voted twice for a Congressional payraise.
Voted to impose a uniform Federal mandate on states to force them to allow convicted rapits, arsonists, drug kingpins, and all other ex-convicts to vote in Federal elections.
Voted for the Specter “backup plan” to allow campaign finance reform to survive if portions of the bill were found unconstitutional.
Voted to mandate discounted broadcast times for politicians.

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Not only is he increasingly on the wrong side of the majority on gay marriage…

You keep telling yourself that AP.

NotCoach on February 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Melle1228:

Get the big cluebird, dearie:

Rick Santorum took it upon himself to clarify to ABC News that — make no mistake about it — he completely believes states should have the right to do something as extreme as ban birth control:

“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.”

Rick Santorum pledged–less than 6 months ago, in October 2011–to repeal all federal funding for contraception, during a recent interview with CaffeinatedThoughts.com editor Shane Vander Hart, arguing that birth control devalues the act of procreation.

“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 former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be”:

SANTORUM: [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.

Watch it at 17:48:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KN7WfIZh690

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Melle1228:

Get the big cluebird, dearie:

No you get a clue mmkay:

“I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions.’’

BTW, still waiting on your proof that contraception hasn’t been bad for society…

melle1228 on February 15, 2012 at 10:33 AM

melle1228:

You have now conclusively revealed the complete vacuum between your ears.

BTW, totally individual liberty to the detriment of society is a libertarian position-not a Conservative position. Conservatives are not anti-government. The are anti-federal government.

melle1228 on February 15, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Honey, you’re going to have to start reading, that’s all there is to it.

LIBERTARIANS are the conservatives. You clearly don’t know the first thing about the history of conservatism. Watch this video interview with Sen. Jim Demint on what conservatism really means–libertarian principles:

Here’s Sen. Jim Demint: Why Republicans Need to Embrace Libertarian Principles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89kx4hBrBrE

Rick Santorum–big-government statist:

“[I will] fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican party and the conservative movement.” Rick Santorum

‎”Rick Santorum could be the George McGovern of his party.” -John Samples

John Samples is director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute and the author of The Struggle to Limit Government.

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM

More clues for you mountainaire since you don’t understand the difference between a personal view and a political position:

“He said Friday evening that it’s the idea that states don’t have a right to pass such a law that he opposes, because he does not see the right to privacy as a constitutional right envisioned by its signers. This is hardly a new argument.

“It could have been a law against buying shoestrings; that it was contraception has nothing to do with it. States have the right to pass even dumb laws.”

To be clear, he does think that laws banning birth control would be dumb “for a number of reasons. Birth control should be legal in the United States. The states should not ban it, and I would oppose any effort to ban it.’’

That bears repeating: “Birth control should be legal in the United States. The states should not ban it, and I would oppose any effort to ban it.”

melle1228 on February 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM

LIBERTARIANS are the conservatives. You clearly don’t know the first thing about the history of conservatism. Watch this video interview with Sen. Jim Demint on what conservatism really means–libertarian principles

No they aren’t they are libertarians and they fall in the Republican party, but they are not conservatives.

melle1228 on February 15, 2012 at 10:37 AM

LIBERTARIANS are the conservatives. You clearly don’t know the first thing about the history of conservatism.

Show me where the Republican party or conservatives in majority in this history you have have supported gay marriage and the abolishment of drug laws.

melle1228 on February 15, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Rick Santorum on Illegal Immigrants:

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Really, SERIOUSLY? You’re going to hit Santorum for his immigration stance? You are just a glutton for punishment, arent’ you?

Immigration Report Card: Obama, F-; Paul, D-; Gingrich, D; Romney, C+, Santorum, A-.

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/action/2012-presidential-hopefuls-immigration-stances.html

That’s an A- for Rick. Meanwhile Romney barely passes, and everyone else competes for the bottom. You do know that you can’t get out of a hole by digging, right?

AJsDaddie on February 15, 2012 at 10:54 AM

At about the 17:30 mark in this interview Santorum explicitly states that as President, he will repeal all federal funding for contraceptives, and says he’ll look at other ways to BAN CONTRACEPTIVES. States it clearly and unequivocally. This isn’t an expression of a “personal” belief; it is a clear statement of INTENT. Santorum states that is what he will do as Pesident. He stated this intention in October, 2011.

Santorum clearly stated in this interview with an evangelical organization, taped last October, that if he becomes President, he will ban funding for contraceptives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KN7WfIZh690

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Santorum clearly stated in this interview with an evangelical organization, taped last October, that if he becomes President, he will ban funding for contraceptives.

And why as a self-described conservative do you have a problem with this? Why in the world should my taxes pay for your condoms?

It becomes clearer and clearer that the word conservative doesn’t mean what you think it means.

But by all means, keep on digging, dude!

AJsDaddie on February 15, 2012 at 11:05 AM

AJsDaddie on February 15, 2012 at 10:54 AM

You are damned straight I am “SERIOUSLY” saying Santorum is not conservative on this or on any other issue. And, I am correct. He’s a big-government, big-spending, theocrat and religious ideologue. and a career opportunist.

This is clearly an INFLATED GRADING SYSTEM. Because THIS is not a conservative:

Santorum votes on Immigration:

Voted against increasing the number of immigration investigators

Voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive the earned income credit before becoming citizens

Voted to give SSI benefits to legal aliens.

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 11:05 AM

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Just to annoy you I am going to vote for Santorum twice.

NotCoach on February 15, 2012 at 11:09 AM

AJsDaddie on February 15, 2012 at 10:54 AM

You are damned straight I am “SERIOUSLY” saying Santorum is not conservative on this or on any other issue. And, I am correct. He’s a big-government, big-spending, theocrat and religious ideologue. and a career opportunist.

This is clearly an INFLATED GRADING SYSTEM. Because THIS is not a conservative:

mountainaires on February 15, 2012 at 11:05 AM

So, Numbers USA says he’s the best on immigration and because you cherry picked a few votes, you know more than they do.

It has to be tough being so much smarter than everyone else in the world.

AJsDaddie on February 15, 2012 at 11:12 AM

And why as a self-described conservative do you have a problem with this? Why in the world should my taxes pay for your condoms?

It becomes clearer and clearer that the word conservative doesn’t mean what you think it means.

But by all means, keep on digging, dude!

AJsDaddie on February 15, 2012 at 11:05 AM

He is obtuse, and clearly doesn’t understand that funding someone elses personal choices is clearly a Republican and a conservative position.

BTW, mount nowhere in that video does he say he would pass a law banning contracetion. He has said that they are dangerous for the widespread contraception use has been good for our society.

melle1228 on February 15, 2012 at 11:12 AM

*He has said that they are dangerous for the widespread contraception use has been good for our society

He has said that they are dangerous for our society for the very reasons I laid out to you above. I am still waiting for your proof that widespread contraception use has been good for society.

melle1228 on February 15, 2012 at 11:13 AM

For those who think Santorum is a theocrat who will flood the country with immigrants, read this:

In a December 13, 2011 interview with Iowa Public Television, Sen. Santorum made the following comments regarding the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ pro-amnesty statement: “If we develop the program like the Catholic bishops suggested we would be creating a huge magnet for people to come in and break the law some more…. We’d be inviting people to cross this border, come into this country and with the expectation that they will be able to stay here permanently…. We have to have rules and we have to keep those rules in America, or we would be a magnet for more people who want to break the law,” he said during his interview for Iowa Public Television. Santorum warned against any immigration policy that would slight “all the families who are doing it the right way” and those “who are separating from their families” and “making those sacrifices….. And then we say well, everybody who broke the law came here and we’re going to let you in – and those folks, well, sorry, you’re chumps, you played by the rules.”

Not only is he against making the country a magnet for immigration, he is willing to oppose the Church on it. Santorum is a man of deep faith, but he understands the division between Church and State.

Unless you’re truly anti-religion, then there’s nothing here to bash Santorum on.

AJsDaddie on February 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM

BTW, mount nowhere in that video does he say he would pass a law banning contracetion. He has said that they are dangerous for the widespread contraception use has been good for our society.

melle1228 on February 15, 2012 at 11:12 AM

I’m finding that mountainaires hears voices in his head that tell him special things that nobody else knows. He’s smarter than everyone else and if someone disagrees, they’re simply wrong.

AJsDaddie on February 15, 2012 at 11:18 AM

I’m finding that mountainaires hears voices in his head that tell him special things that nobody else knows. He’s smarter than everyone else and if someone disagrees, they’re simply wrong.

AJsDaddie on February 15, 2012 at 11:18 AM

You guys need to stop trying to treat him like a rational creature. Obsessed individuals do not live in a rational world.

NotCoach on February 15, 2012 at 11:23 AM

Sen. Santorum earned an A+ on stopping amnesties while in Congress. And he has challenged his own Catholic Church leaders as well as other candidates for supporting the legalization of millions of people who have broken immigration laws.

On December 8, 2011, Sen. Santorum said, “You can’t be here for 20 years and commit only one illegal act … because everything you’re doing while you’re here is against the law…. I understand Congressman Gingrich saying, ‘Well, you know, people have been here and they’ve been good citizens and paying taxes.’ Yeah, under somebody else’s Social Security number because you stole it.”

During his time in the United States Senate, Sen. Santorum consistently voted against amnesties for illegal aliens (despite voting for the small amnesty for Cubans and Nicaraguans in 1997), earning an A+ grade in that category.

On his 2006 Senate reelection website, Sen. Santorum wrote: “Giving blanket amnesty, approving guest worker programs masked as amnesty, or charging nominal fines to become an American citizen mocks and demeans the sacrifices of legal immigrants. Illegally crossing our border and breaking our immigration laws must carry real and serious consequences.”

—–

Yeah, that Santorum sounds like a real pro-illegal immigration guy!

AJsDaddie on February 15, 2012 at 11:23 AM

You guys need to stop trying to treat him like a rational creature. Obsessed individuals do not live in a rational world.

NotCoach on February 15, 2012 at 11:23 AM

True. But I like getting these topics out, because this is what Obama will attack. And the more people can point to clearly factual counter-arguments, the more shrill and desperate the Left will look.

AJsDaddie on February 15, 2012 at 11:25 AM

I’m still trying to spot the similarities between Bashir and a journalist.

Pilgrimsarbour on February 15, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Governor Romney continued to walk back his previous position on immigration by stating in a Meet the Press interview that calling the 2005 proposals reasonable was not tantamount to endorsing those plans. When asked, Governor Romney refused to state that illegal aliens would be required to abide by US laws and leave the country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6_ktWZZmSo&feature=related

AJsDaddie on February 15, 2012 at 11:48 AM

This is why he will never win. Bashir didn’t even go after him on his comments about women. He’s a zealot and a majority of the country will laugh at him on election day.

rubberneck on February 15, 2012 at 1:59 PM

This is why he will never win. Bashir didn’t even go after him on his comments about women. He’s a zealot and a majority of the country will laugh at him on election day.

rubberneck on February 15, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Does this even have a point? What exactly are Santorum’s “comments about women”? Please, provide a link for us. It should be amazing.

AJsDaddie on February 15, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Santorum = Stalin. Oh, obviously! When I look at Santorum, I foresee 20 million deaths at his hands. Obviously, Santorum is a communist.

Seriously, was that nonsense intended as comedy? If so, I didn’t get it.

Pablo Snooze on February 15, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3