Billionaire Santorum backer: In my day, contraception was women putting aspirin between their knees

posted at 3:45 pm on February 16, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, behold the left’s newest viral sensation. This is a, shall we say, unhelpful soundbite in service to a worthy point, namely, that there are bigger policy fish to fry than birth control at a moment when Obama’s pushing a catastrophic new budget and Iran’s getting closer to nuclear breakout capacity. What I can’t figure out, though, is why a Rick Santorum supporter would be eager to make that point. No one’s benefited more politically from the uproar over HHS’s contraception mandate than his guy, and there may be no politician in either party who’s willing to riff on sex and morals as freely as Santorum is. And not just on sex, of course: Jim Geraghty flags this bit on gambling from RS’s interview with Vegas reporter Jon Ralston a few weeks ago.

I’m someone who takes the opinion that gaming is not something that is beneficial, particularly having that access on the Internet. Just as we’ve seen from a lot of other things that are vices on the Internet, they end to grow exponentially as a result of that. It’s one thing to come to Las Vegas and do gaming and participate in the shows and that kind of thing as entertainment, it’s another thing to sit in your home and have access to that it. I think it would be dangerous to our country to have that type of access to gaming on the Internet.

Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations. You might want to say the same thing about a whole variety of other things that are on the Internet — “let everybody have it, let everybody do it.” No. There are certain things that actually do cost people a lot of money, cost them their lives, cost them their fortunes that we shouldn’t have and make available, to make it that easy to do. That’s why we regulate gambling. You have a big commission here that regulates gambling, for a reason.

I opposed gaming in Pennsylvania . . . A lot of people obviously don’t responsibly gamble and lose a lot and end up in not so great economic straits as a result of that. I believe there should be limitations.

You could swap in “drinking” for “gambling” there and have a rough argument for banning alcohol consumption in homes. (If you’re free to indulge in private, who’ll stop you from going overboard?) If you nominate Santorum, you’re getting a guy who’s more willing to try to save people from themselves than the average “personal responsibility” conservative, which means you’d better prepare for occasional moral tutelage from the presidential podium and maybe some new morals regulations if he can cobble together a congressional majority for it. Which, of course, is what makes Friess’s objection to Mitchell’s question so ironic: Contraception issues are Santorum’s bread and butter, whether he wishes they were or not. He’ll be sidetracked endlessly with this stuff in the general election if he’s the nominee. Arguably that makes him a stronger candidate than Romney since, unlike Mitt, he’ll still have something to campaign on even if the economy recovers. Thing is, it won’t be just abortion questions that are thrown at him on the trail; it’ll be questions about contraception and online gambling and other things he considers vices as a way of teasing out how far his “there is no right to absolute freedom” reasoning extends in the interest of keeping people on the path to virtue. Is that reasoning more or less likely to deliver a victory in the midst of an economic comeback?

By the way: He’s finally overtaken Romney for the national lead in Gallup’s tracker.


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 2 3 5

My dad used to call it the quarter technique. Keep a quarter between your legs and don’t let it drop.

John the Libertarian on February 16, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Was that quote supposed to HELP Santorum, or make an audience laugh?

listens2glenn on February 16, 2012 at 3:47 PM

At least I finally have an answer to the question, “Who is worse than Romney in this field?”

lorien1973 on February 16, 2012 at 3:49 PM

I was thinking if Santorum was the nominee we would lose women by about 20 points, I think that number is now on the low side. Terrific.

nswider on February 16, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations.

First I pose the question: if Obama said this, how would you react?

Then some disingenuous people answer “Well, it’s true, so I’d react the same way. Santorum 2012!!!”

MadisonConservative on February 16, 2012 at 3:51 PM

John the Libertarian on February 16, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Nice. Sounds like a fun loving man. ; )

Bmore on February 16, 2012 at 3:51 PM

You are going to have to explain to me how this video hurts Santorum. I don’t see how it influences at all those who haven’t already decided Santorum is the devil.

NotCoach on February 16, 2012 at 3:51 PM

AP is determined to turn pretzels in spinning anything as favorable to Santorum.

This Freiss interview is just a foretaste of what will occur if Santorum is the nominee: a referendum on sex and reproductive rights instead of a referendum on Obama’s lousy record. Election over, Obama re-elected.

There is no way that this aenemic recovery is going to rebound by November such that it is not the major issue, along with Obama’s foreign policy disasters.

Want 4 more years of Obama? Nominate Santorum.

matthew8787 on February 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM

You could swap in “drinking” for “gambling” there and have a rough argument for banning alcohol consumption in homes.

Isn’t that the case in dry counties?

Not that I support the laws, but I do support a localities’ ability to pass such a law.

mankai on February 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Was that quote supposed to HELP Santorum, or make an audience laugh?

listens2glenn on February 16, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Both?

Bmore on February 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM

At least I finally have an answer to the question, “Who is worse than Romney in this field?”

lorien1973 on February 16, 2012 at 3:49 PM

You weren’t aware of the presence of Crazy Uncle Paul, before this A.M….? ;)

Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Well, I thought it was funny…

philoquin on February 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM

nswider, if that’s the case, then it shows that those women have a very warped sense of worldview… though it’s men too. It’s called relativism, hedonism, whatever you want to call it, the root is pride, that the individual is the center of the universe and that only what they want matters.

Logus on February 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Allah, give it up. Romney will never be the nominee.

Norwegian on February 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM

The Rick Santorum ’12 policy on contraception: Stop being such whores, women.

Esoteric on February 16, 2012 at 3:53 PM

As a Roissy Republican I just want voice my support for sl***.

Bill C on February 16, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Then some disingenuous people answer “Well, it’s true, so I’d react the same way. Santorum 2012!!!”

MadisonConservative on February 16, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Why don’t you stick an aspirin between your a$$ cheeks and post to us in the morning?

NotCoach on February 16, 2012 at 3:53 PM

It’s one thing for the party to lose an election. A candidate like Santorum can cost the party a generation.

OptionsTrader on February 16, 2012 at 3:53 PM

It’s for the benefit of the men too. Men don’t improve their characters by sleeping around either.

RBMN on February 16, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Monty Burns this is not helpful.

NoDonkey on February 16, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Great. This is the hill we’re going to die on because we’re so desperate to find a conservative alternative to Romney that we’re willing to believe Santorum is one.

Caiwyn on February 16, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Greeeeaat.

Philly on February 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM

NotCoach on February 16, 2012 at 3:51 PM

No one except political junkies like us even know who Santorum is yet. He is being defined rapidly by the media to the casual viewer as some extreme Christian fundamentalist. This is going to hurt, its all apart of the narrative the Obama media is building just in case this guy is the nominee.

nswider on February 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Allah, give it up. Romney will never be the nominee.

Norwegian on February 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM

If Allahpundit’s a stealth Romney backer, pal, he’s doing a fantastic job of redefining ‘stealth.’

KingGold on February 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations.

First I pose the question: if Obama said this, how would you react?

Then some disingenuous people answer “Well, it’s true, so I’d react the same way. Santorum 2012!!!”

MadisonConservative on February 16, 2012 at 3:51 PM

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

All rights have limitations.

sharrukin on February 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM

NotCoach on February 16, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Sounds like you’ve got something bigger than an aspirin between your own.

MadisonConservative on February 16, 2012 at 3:55 PM

At least it shut Andrea Mitchell up for a moment.

Back to reality.

Santorum = Electoral disaster.

aquaviva on February 16, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Now I’m back to hoping for a brokered convention. Ugh. Is the GOP trying or are they doing this crap on purpose?

magicbeans on February 16, 2012 at 3:55 PM

What is the world was he talking about?

teri_b on February 16, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Note to Santorum Campaign: Put Foster Freiss on ice.

Deafdog on February 16, 2012 at 3:56 PM

All rights have limitations.

sharrukin on February 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Constitutional scholars should be pointing this out, not presidential candidates running against the guy who has played fast and loose with the Constitution for the last three years.

MadisonConservative on February 16, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Logus on February 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM

A lot of married folks use contraception too, not just the hedonists. Its just bad optics man “put an asprin between your knees?” SERIOUSLY? The media is going to have a FIELD DAY with this.

nswider on February 16, 2012 at 3:56 PM

“Obama scrooms the country. We need contraceptives” — Santorum 2012

Schadenfreude on February 16, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Well thank you Santy ,you brought the presidential race to this low level, how awful.

evergreenland on February 16, 2012 at 3:57 PM

I’m not a Santorum supporter… but this obsession with his take on contraceptives is stupid. The man said he would never support banning them at any level.

I don’t support his personal position on contraceptives, but that has nothing to do with the ship of state sinking at the moment.

The Titanic is headed for a gigantic iceberg and we’re arguing whether the guy who could possible steer it in a different course than the current drunk captain is qualified because he once noted that he thought women’s skirts were getting too short.

I’m not buying the Left’s (or the Paulians’) narrative.

The issue is economic policy and Newt is best man for the job… but Santorum is light years superior to Obama.

mankai on February 16, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Mark Levin is right! The democrats are obsessed with sex and with the genitalia of each of us. This guy is a breath of fresh air!

mozalf on February 16, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Aspirin between the knees as a form of birth control? Hardy-har. Strange how Mr. Friess (crummiest Batman villain evah!) doesn’t seem to know that married women sometimes engage in calculated acts of family planning, too.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on February 16, 2012 at 3:57 PM

No one except political junkies like us even know who Santorum is yet. He is being defined rapidly by the media to the casual viewer as some extreme Christian fundamentalist. This is going to hurt, its all apart of the narrative the Obama media is building just in case this guy is the nominee.

nswider on February 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM

I really don’t think it does. It is a little off color humor from a donor. The only ones screaming it is horrible are those convinced that Santorum will recreate a Holy Roman Empire in the US.

NotCoach on February 16, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Isn’t that the case in dry counties?

Not that I support the laws, but I do support a localities’ ability to pass such a law.

mankai on February 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Dry counties won’t sell alcohol at certain designated times, but there aren’t any rules against drinking in one’s own home, which is what Allah’s getting at.

KingGold on February 16, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Do people understand that this is just wedging the door open to more Socialism on a National level with a condom?

Chip on February 16, 2012 at 3:58 PM

It really is sad that the entertainment section of the GOP talks about Santorum, much to the delight of the DNC..and leftists everywhere..so that they don’t have to talk about this

http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=280695

the labor participation rate. (p.s. you guys know that the SSDI rate is climbing fast..right?)

that chart is brutal

r keller on February 16, 2012 at 3:58 PM

This whole issue boils down to a simple thing.

Women can have all the birth control they want anywhere, any time any quantity. Just don’t force other people – insurance companies or employers or taxpayers – to pay for. That’s it.

It boggles my mind that Santy can’t frame the debate this way. Framed in this manner, I think most people would agree.

angryed on February 16, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Sounds like you’ve got something bigger than an aspirin between your own.

MadisonConservative on February 16, 2012 at 3:55 PM

I do sometimes feel constipated after reading your posts.

NotCoach on February 16, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Yeah, Santorum os the guy we need to run. Lousy on fiscal conservatism, crazy on social conservatism. You might as well send Obama a big check.

V7_Sport on February 16, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Billionaire Santorum backer: In my day, contraception was women putting aspirin between their knees

LMAO!

Dr Evil on February 16, 2012 at 3:59 PM

I’m not a Santorum supporter… but this obsession with his take on contraceptives is stupid. The man said he would never support banning them at any level.

mankai on February 16, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Thank you. Santorum already settled this issue by saying he’s opposed to banning contraception. There’s nothing more to discuss. If the media wants to continue to harp on it, it’s because they want to distract the electorate from what really matters in this election. Let’s not do the job for them by obsessing over a non-issue.

Doughboy on February 16, 2012 at 4:00 PM

If it’s O.K. for FLOTUS to peer into kids’ school lunchboxes, why isn’t it O.K. for Rick to peer into voters’ bedrooms? He could get a group together and call it,…The Moral Majority.

a capella on February 16, 2012 at 4:00 PM

First I pose the question: if Obama said this, how would you react?

Then some disingenuous people answer “Well, it’s true, so I’d react the same way. Santorum 2012!!!”

MadisonConservative on February 16, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Yup.

Allahpundit on February 16, 2012 at 4:00 PM

You might as well send Obama a big check.

V7_Sport on February 16, 2012 at 3:59 PM

He won’t need it. Since Santorum basically exists as a campaign ad against himself when he talks about culture issues (and he will talk about culture issues), Obama can take his half-billion dollars and destroy us in the House and Senate races instead.

KingGold on February 16, 2012 at 4:01 PM

NotCoach on February 16, 2012 at 3:57 PM

I agree with that, but its the media who thinks he wants to create that world. I dont agree with it, look Im a Romney supporter, I’d vote for Santo in a heartbeat in the general, but the media right now is trying to Palinize Santorum and stories like this aren’t helpful. This will be on the daily show tonight and all over them morning shows tomorrow.

nswider on February 16, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Allah, give it up. Romney will never be the nominee.

Norwegian on February 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Really? Darn it. That’s been my goal since day one!

Allahpundit on February 16, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Billionaire Santorum backer: In my day, contraception was women putting aspirin between their knees

LOL

That and stay away from jerks.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 16, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Constitutional scholars should be pointing this out, not presidential candidates running against the guy who has played fast and loose with the Constitution for the last three years.

MadisonConservative on February 16, 2012 at 3:56 PM

No, actually its well past time that Obama’s unconstitutional BS be called out in public.

sharrukin on February 16, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Thank you. Santorum already settled this issue by saying he’s opposed to banning contraception. There’s nothing more to discuss. If the media wants to continue to harp on it, it’s because they want to distract the electorate from what really matters in this election. Let’s not do the job for them by obsessing over a non-issue.

Doughboy on February 16, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Anything to keep the discussion away from Obama and Romney’s records.

Doomberg on February 16, 2012 at 4:01 PM

I do sometimes feel constipated after reading your posts.

NotCoach on February 16, 2012 at 3:59 PM

You should try removing the sequoia wedged up there.

MadisonConservative on February 16, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Billionaire Santorum backer: In my day, contraception was women putting aspirin between their knees

Sounds unBayerable.

Kent18 on February 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Yup.

Allahpundit on February 16, 2012 at 4:00 PM

As one of those persons, are you calling me a liar?

NotCoach on February 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Isn’t that the case in dry counties?

Not that I support the laws, but I do support a localities’ ability to pass such a law.

mankai on February 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Dry counties won’t sell alcohol at certain designated times, but there aren’t any rules against drinking in one’s own home, which is what Allah’s getting at.

KingGold on February 16, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Are there laws against playing Black Jack in your home?

angryed on February 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM

If you nominate Santorum, you’re getting a guy who’s more willing to try to save people from themselves than the average “personal responsibility” conservative, which means you’d better prepare for occasional moral tutelage from the presidential podium and maybe some new morals regulations if he can cobble together a congressional majority for it.

Sorry Ricky, your not going to fly.

We already have a statists in the oval office and many on capitol hill. Where’s the leader that will get the government out of my life and reduce the cumbersome regulations on my business? Bueller?

CTSherman on February 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM

No, actually its well past time that Obama’s unconstitutional BS be called out in public.

sharrukin on February 16, 2012 at 4:01 PM

…how is Santorum saying that rights aren’t absolute “calling out” Obama for…believing the exact same thing, and administrating on that concept?

MadisonConservative on February 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM

If you nominate Santorum, you’re getting a guy who’s more willing to try to save people from themselves than the average “personal responsibility” conservative, which means you’d better prepare for occasional moral tutelage from the presidential podium and maybe some new morals regulations if he can cobble together a congressional majority for it.

Which is about the extend of that “Threat”.

Isn’t that better than the threat of the continued Downgrading of the country?

Chip on February 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Old White Guy Billionaire Santorum backer: In my day, women knew their place. contraception was women putting aspirin between their knees and while you’re in there make me a samwich LOL!

Dr Evil on February 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Allah, give it up. Romney will never be the nominee.

Norwegian on February 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Really? Darn it. That’s been my goal since day one!

Allahpundit on February 16, 2012 at 4:01 PM

To the barricades!!!

Schadenfreude on February 16, 2012 at 4:03 PM

AP is determined to turn pretzels in spinning anything as favorable to Santorum.

matthew8787 on February 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Allah, give it up. Romney will never be the nominee.

Norwegian on February 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM

AP can’t win.

Fezzik on February 16, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Arguably that makes him a stronger candidate than Romney since, unlike Mitt, he’ll still have something to campaign on even if the economy recovers.

Even if the economy recovers it won’t generate enough tax revenue to fix our debt problems. An economic recovery would probably mute concerns over entitlement reform, but Santorum’s extreme social views — much more extreme than W.’s, and presented without Bush’s uniter charm — would drown out the concerns entirely. Not to mention how Santorum will poison an entire generation of voters against the Republican Party. These are risks Santorum supporters should consider before giving him the nomination.

RightOFLeft on February 16, 2012 at 4:04 PM

You should try removing the sequoia wedged up there.

MadisonConservative on February 16, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Then how would I defend myself from your advances? I am not sure my clench reflex is strong enough where you’re concerned.

NotCoach on February 16, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I don’t like our candidates, and my vote probably won’t count anyway, but if I have to choose, one thing I would like to see in a presidential campaign is the absence of any talk about wombs, vaginas, or penises. Newt is penis-centric, and if he gets the nomination we’ll be treated to stories about his bj’s from various campaign workers, interns and other mistresses. Santorum is non-stop sex talk. At least with Romney, I would assume there would less sex talk.

So I’m starting to feel more comfortable with Romney, but then his supporters jailbreak, chudi, or bluegill jump into threads to viciously insult everyone present, which turns me off Romney. They put so much effort into being repellent, it’s as if they’re secretly working for another candidate.

juliesa on February 16, 2012 at 4:04 PM

AP is determined to turn pretzels in spinning anything as favorable to Santorum.

This Freiss interview is just a foretaste of what will occur if Santorum is the nominee: a referendum on sex and reproductive rights instead of a referendum on Obama’s lousy record. Election over, Obama re-elected.

There is no way that this aenemic recovery is going to rebound by November such that it is not the major issue, along with Obama’s foreign policy disasters.

Want 4 more years of Obama? Nominate Santorum.

matthew8787 on February 16, 2012 at 3:52 PM

There are going to find something about each candidate and spin it in a way to distract from Obama and his cr*ptacular record.

If that’s your criteria for who to nominate, best of luck to you.

You can’t worry about the sliming as it’s going to happen. You can only worry about how to fight it and that’s going to happen to WHOEVER IS NOMINATED.

I don’t understand why some people think there’s a magic candidate out there that the media and Obama’s minions (redundant) are going to be fair with. Just baffles me.

kim roy on February 16, 2012 at 4:05 PM

…landslide…women will vote in force against Santorum. The House may be lost as well.

rubberneck on February 16, 2012 at 4:05 PM

It’s one thing to come to Las Vegas and do gaming and participate in the shows and that kind of thing as entertainment, it’s another thing to sit in your home and have access to that it. I think it would be dangerous to our country to have that type of access to gaming on the Internet.

There’s also gambling (gaming) closer to Santorum’s backyard, in Atlantic City, NJ, and other states (including CT) allow casino gambling owned by Native American tribes as “sovereign nations”.

Even if he wants to regulate Internet gaming on the Federal level (which can be considered “interstate commerce” if the service provider and gambler live in different states), Santorum can still retain his conservative credentials by claiming that regulation of casino gambling (where the bettor and the casino are in the same state) is a “states’ rights” issue, where each state reserves the right to ban casino gambling or allow it, regulate it, and possibly tax it.

Steve Z on February 16, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Is the aspirin to cure the woman’s “I can’t right now, I have a headache” headache?

Bishop on February 16, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Santorum reminds me of an old lady, like the ones you see in those old pictures from the temperance movement.

Mark1971 on February 16, 2012 at 4:06 PM

…how is Santorum saying that rights aren’t absolute “calling out” Obama for…believing the exact same thing, and administrating on that concept?

MadisonConservative on February 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Is that what you think Obama believes and is in fact doing?

Some of us think what he is doing is unconstitutional and that it goes a lot farther than just legal constitutional limitations on individual rights.

sharrukin on February 16, 2012 at 4:06 PM

In his day, he was absolutely right. It’s STILL the recommended procedure in places where sex can KILL you (like in Africa). Those most able to sell that as the primary method (followed by fidelity, and protection), have lower AIDs incidence- and death rates. I know the Hollywood-drenched morality here is different, but then Rome had some detrimental ideas before it collapsed as well.

michaelo on February 16, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Heh, I guess my comment went to moderation for too much talk about sex. That’s exactly what my comment is complaining about–too much talk about sex in this campaign!

juliesa on February 16, 2012 at 4:06 PM

AP can’t win.

Fezzik on February 16, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Unlike all these other fools, I know the TRUTH!!!!! AP is a secret RON PAUL supporter!

\\\\\\

Doomberg on February 16, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Apparently, we’re still falling for the switch, and dancing to their tunes.
Clue:
Its not about contraception.

We’re doomed.
Does anything stick?..so once learned, it doesn’t have to be relearned and relearned every single frickin time??
Stop being sucked into them setting the narrative.

We’re doomed. Obama wins by 12%. Seems we just may be the stupid and gullible party. They’ll play the same game on the economy….and we’ll act on the defensive….same thing on energy…and we’ll fall for their shtick..etc.etc.
Theres just no time left for enough people to “wake up”.
Gird yer loins, and when you’re tired of that, you’ll become accustomed and appreciative of the scraps the government allows you………………..is what some people might say. I’d never say anything like that though..its too depressing.

Mimzey on February 16, 2012 at 4:07 PM

If you nominate Santorum, you’re getting a guy who’s more willing to try to save people from themselves than the average “personal responsibility” conservative, which means you’d better prepare for occasional moral tutelage from the presidential podium and maybe some new morals regulations if he can cobble together a congressional majority for it.

We already have a statists in the oval office and many on capitol hill. Where’s the leader that will get the government out of my life and reduce the cumbersome regulations on my business? Bueller?

CTSherman on February 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM

I read the same thing and came away with the impression that this supposed ‘issue’ won’t be an issue at all.

Is the Santorum campaign getting off message – yes.

Is this issue the biggest threat to the country – that’s a big fat NO.

Chip on February 16, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Hey, the moon base sounds so much better all of a sudden. Go Newt!

tinkerthinker on February 16, 2012 at 4:07 PM

The Rick Santorum ’12 policy on contraception: Stop being such whores, women.

Esoteric on February 16, 2012 at 3:53 PM

There has been worse advice given.

*waits for people’s heads to explode*

Did I just say that anyone who uses contraception is a whore? No, I didn’t just say that. However, there is absolutely no doubt that the widespread availability of contraception over the last half century has promoted the idea of “consequence free sex” and led to people engaging in a lot of immoral, and frankly dangerous, sexual behavior that they would not have engaged in previously.

And regardless of what the libertarian contingent would like us to believe, that does have a direct impact on our society and is directly tied to the economic mess we are in as well.

Shump on February 16, 2012 at 4:07 PM

santorum’s message is about freedom
You can’t have a similtaneous anti-freedom message, and win. You need a consistent, straightforward message. Santorum must work extra hard now to allay serious libertarian concerns that are brought up by stories like this. If people sense that the “freedom of the internet” is under attack, they’ll hightail it, even vote for O.
Funny, on contraception, if you got Morning Joe on your dvr, watch the first bit, and the biggest Santorum supporter on contraception is… Mika Brzezinski. Paraphrased, she says “he has a point.. unbriddled promiscuity, esp. among teenagers, can be harmful,” and “he doesn’t want to change any laws regarding contraception.” Mika says this, and I think it’s an Operation Chaos type ploy. But more importantly it shows that her argument is fully sound, and will be fly in the fall election. So contraception need not be a problem for Santorum.

anotherJoe on February 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM

So, to summerize the Republican’s plight…

support Santorum and get lectured about the vice of the week

support Romney and validate that Obamamcare is the law forever

support Newt and figure that the country can afford a base on the moon (or whatever looney idea is next)

support Paul and open trade with Iran

…pick your poison.

Deafdog on February 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM

The only ones screaming it is horrible are those convinced that Santorum will recreate a Holy Roman Empire in the US.

NotCoach on February 16, 2012 at 3:57 PM

He’s not? But I have this inquisitor outfit ready to go.

Bishop on February 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM

You could swap in “drinking” for “gambling” there

How many $ can you lose in a single night of drinking? Now on gambling? Will other people notice if you are drunk all of the time? Will other people notice if you are in debt to gambling? There ARE differences between them which should result in differences in how society treats them. And BTW, gambling has historicaly been a vice.

AnotherOpinion on February 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Freedom’s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations.

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.

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right.

They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.

That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”

“Severely” conservative.

MadisonConservative on February 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM

So for all of you Rick haters, I still have not had an answer to a simple question, one that you would think you would be eager to answer.

Please show us the bills he passed that support your contention that he is trying to shove his morals into your private life.
Now show us the speech or the comment that he proposed any bill that would limit your “social” personal life.
He as a senator, passed bills on many items, so I am sure you will be able to find one out of the hundreds you seem to try to make us believe.

I have been asking this for the past couple of days…and still no one has come up with one…hint, I have bills that he voted yea on for contraceptives…oh my, kind of sinks your boat huh???

right2bright on February 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Bishop on February 16, 2012 at 4:05 PM

Only if it’s Excedrin and since you can’t get those right now, well….

CTSherman on February 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Billionaire Santorum backer: In my day, contraception was women putting aspirin between their knees

Does that mean that pregnant women have aspirin in their beds?

Women could also avoid getting pregnant by not taking the aspirin, and telling their partners they have a headache!

Steve Z on February 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM

How long is it going to be before Santorum is mentioned in the same breath as chasitity belts? Two days? One?

KingGold on February 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Heh, I guess my comment went to moderation for too much talk about sex. That’s exactly what my comment is complaining about–too much talk about sex in this campaign!

juliesa on February 16, 2012 at 4:06 PM

The two recent Not Romney campaigns in a nutshell:

Newt: Too much sex
Santorum: Too little sex

Doomberg on February 16, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Santorum reminds me of an old lady, like the ones you see in those old pictures from the temperance movement.

Mark1971 on February 16, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Heh. The quote I remember about him on twitter was something to the effect that “he has the same beliefs I do, but he makes them seem unpleasant”.

juliesa on February 16, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Obama’s at 43% approval per Gallup today and the economy is not getting better. Forclosures are going to skyrocket over the next several months and gas will get to $5.00/gallon. Any of our candidates will take out obama.

Ta111 on February 16, 2012 at 4:10 PM

As one of those persons, are you calling me a liar?

NotCoach on February 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM

yup

DHChron on February 16, 2012 at 4:10 PM

NotCoach on February 16, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Now you’re actually fantasizing about homosexual advances from me? Ugh. Well…I guess it’s better than you telling me to sodomize myself.

MadisonConservative on February 16, 2012 at 4:10 PM

He’s not? But I have this inquisitor outfit ready to go.

Bishop on February 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM

\

“Nobody expects Bishop!”

What are your one…I mean two…I mean three…I mean four…weapons?

NotCoach on February 16, 2012 at 4:10 PM

…landslide…women will vote in force against Santorum. The House may be lost as well.

rubberneck on February 16, 2012 at 4:05 PM

….so you think women are all that gullible?

Mimzey on February 16, 2012 at 4:11 PM

So, to summerize the Republican’s plight…

support Santorum and get lectured about the vice of the week

support Romney and validate that Obamamcare is the law forever

support Newt and figure that the country can afford a base on the moon (or whatever looney idea is next)

support Paul and open trade with Iran

…pick your poison.

Deafdog on February 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM

That versus 4 more years of Obama.

Pick your poison now.

BobMbx on February 16, 2012 at 4:11 PM

I’m not sure I could stand having a POTUS who doesn’t believe in hooding the johnson. Yes I know the economy is crumbling to dust and the nation is falling apart, but that whole condom thing just can’t be dismissed.

Mike Castle 2012

Bishop on February 16, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Now you’re actually fantasizing about homosexual advances from me? Ugh. Well…I guess it’s better than you telling me to sodomize myself.

MadisonConservative on February 16, 2012 at 4:10 PM

How did we get here? This thread is derailing fast!

philoquin on February 16, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5