E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Shannon Stapleton / Reuters
A supporter of Republican presidential candidate and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum attends a campaign stop at Rockingham County Nursing Home in Brentwood, New Hampshire Jan. 4, 2012.
“I’ll be very upfront about this: I am not a libertarian,” Republican presidential contender Rick Santorum told those who showed up to hear him at a two-hour town hall meeting in Brentwood, New Hampshire on Wednesday night. “I am a conservative. I am a Reagan conservative; I am not a libertarian. And the people who call me a big government guy are libertarians.”
If you couldn’t be there to hear Santorum, or if you missed the live broadcast of his town hall event on C-SPAN, the former Pennsylvania senator detailed his views at great length in his 2005 book “It Takes A Family,” which is, in part, a rebuttal to Hillary Clinton’s more famous “It Takes A Village.”
Send in your questions for Sunday's NBC News-Facebook debate on Meet the Press
Santorum’s book doesn’t deal with foreign policy but does set out his approach to domestic policy: an active use of federal power and of the tax code to promote traditional behaviors and to preserve man-woman marriages.
Unlike Tea Party activists, Santorum doesn’t shrink away from the federal government; he wants to use it to nudge people toward more virtuous behavior, which he thinks will be best taught in traditional heterosexual families.
“Every statistic I am aware of ... indicates that marriage is better for children, and usually by a very wide margin,” he says in the book.
“There really should be no family ‘debate,’ no marriage ‘debate.’ The social science, four thousand years of human history and common sense have long settled the question. In a decent society, every child should have the best shot of growing up to be a healthy and successful adult. That opportunity is found in healthy, married, mom-and-dad families.”
Santorum spends much time in the book denouncing and rebutting what he see as the misguided live-and-let-live attitude of liberals.
He says, “Liberals believe that the traditional family is neither natural nor vital, that it’s an antiquated social convention which has not only outlived its usefulness, but is now inherently discriminatory and repressive toward legitimate alternative ‘families.’”
He rails against the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court which in its 2003 Goodrich decision legalized same-sex marriages and ruled that Massachusetts marriage law discriminated against gay people for no rational reason. “No amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain,” the court said, to which Santorum replies, “So, traditional marriage is a stain on the fabric of America that needs to be ‘Shouted out.’ How have we come to this?”
He contends that smaller social units than the federal government – the family, the neighborhood, churches, schools and civic associations – are best suited to build up America’s “social capital” – its legacy of traditional values.
“When government steps in and imposes a bureaucratic solution based on individualistic presuppositions, it removes expectations and responsibilities from smaller social units – especially the family,” he says, citing the pre-1996 welfare system as the prime example of a top-down federal solution that led to disaster in his view.
He does say there have been times in American history when the federal government had to act “in the face of gross failure at the smaller levels of the state or community,” citing the creation of the Social Security system and the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as examples. But he adds, “Usually it is best if the government is the silent partner, not the managing partner.”
A look at the Pennsylvania politician — his career on Capitol Hill and his White House aspirations.
But Santorum does support “aggressive enforcement” by the Federal Communications Commission of standards that ban obscenity on television. And he praises the Federal Trade Commission for monitoring marketing to teenagers and children. He calls for greater federal scrutiny of violence in the movies and in video games. “Government has a role to play here, just as in food safety and drug certification,” he says.
He does not argue for creating a federal Department of Marriage, or Department of Parenting, but he does call for grants to local governments and to non-profit agencies to bolster traditional marriages and educate people about the benefits of marriage. “Other eligible projects might include premarital counseling, couples counseling, conflict resolution and parenting classes,” he writes in the book.
Along with former Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, a Democrat, Santorum called for $50 million a year in federal outlays for “community- and faith-based programs that promote and foster healthy fatherhood.” He says, “There is simply no substitute for the natural family, no substitute for a real dad, however flawed.”
Arguing that parents need to spend more time with their children, Santorum calls for federal outlays and tax credits to encourage telecommuting, so that mothers and fathers could work at home. He also gets in some sardonic asides at “radical feminism’s misogynistic crusade to make working outside the home the only marker of social value and self-respect.”
If families could keep more of what they earned, he says, they could better care for their children: “The more government taxes someone, the less they are able to take care of themselves and their families ... .”
So “we need a tax policy that stops discriminating against families and starts favoring them,” he says, calling for an increase in the $1,000 tax credit for each child under age 17 and for revamping the Alternative Minimum Tax so it does not impose a penalty on families with lots of children.
On Thursday, we saw both the Rick Santorum who has a serious shot to challenge Mitt Romney for the party's nomination and the Rick Santorum who can be marginalized and thrown off message. Msnbc's Chuck Todd reports.
In rhetoric that might appeals to some in the Occupy Wall Street movement, Santorum says, “When the top 20 percent of our population commands 83 percent of the wealth, we have a wealth gap that is unhealthy. It leads to class envy and hopelessness, in addition to political hyperbole. The opportunity to build wealth, and the understanding of how to do that, needs to be democratized.”
How to do that? Santorum calls for federal, state and private grants to faith-based organizations to help their low-income clients set up tax-free Individual Development Accounts, which would be used to build assets to buy a house, pay for education or start a small business.
"It Takes A Family" supplies ample proof that, as Santorum said Wednesday night “I’m not a libertarian” and that his critics’ charge that he is “a big government guy” is not so off the mark.
Leave a Comment:
“There really should be no family ‘debate,’ no marriage ‘debate.’ The social science, four thousand years of human history and common sense have long settled the question. In a decent society, every child should have the best shot of growing up to be a healthy and successful adult. That opportunity is found in healthy, married, mom-and-dad families.”
Four thousand years of human history?! So, Rick, what is your bs explanation of the grave in Palestine from 12,000 years ago in which both a dog and a human were buried? What of the migration over the land bridge from Asia? All those pesky fossils?
If Santorum, Perry, Bachmann or any of their ilk ever attain any positions of true power, the United States as a free county is doomed. They will rewrite laws just as they rewrite history to turn the U.S. into a country run by 'Christian' jihadists.
There will be a reversal of migration. U.S. citizens, to preserve their freedoms, will flee to Europe.
You'd have to be a fool to vote for anyone who opposes abortion, and then turns around allows his wife to have one.
When he say's his ideals are an "Open book" He's just saying "I'll say whatever you pay me to say".
To a conservative, there is nothing so persuasive as unsubstantiated, anecdotal evidence. And the insistence in being right, is never as important as doing right.
It is all about the economy stupid! It is not about all this social position BS that MSNBC is trying to make more of than is needed...But the Democrats cannot run on economics since thier record horrible! It is about undoing all the crap that Obama and the Pelosi and Reid led liberal Congress have done to destroy the economy in his country . All of these sideshow article are just that! Distractions from the real issues! Maybe MSNBC can find a paper Rick wrote back in grade school that said he does not like cats or maybe even (oh should I say it) broke up wiht a girl once back years ago! Open book ocnspriacy theory... Only distraction my firends becuase they cannot attack him on the real issues that are impacting this country! That owuld maybe move the ocnversation to the Obama failures... and the liberals just cannot thave that be the focus of the election!
You do realize the economy was collapsing entirely when Obama took office, right? Argue all you want that the recovery would have been faster without his policies, but the utter destruction of our economy predated Obama, and would have likely lead to a massive depression is the Fed hadn't intervened as it did.
@ FUS
Please elaborate on these "failures" of Obama. I keep hearing about them, but nobody can ever give an example.
FedUp, you are so wrong. It is the Republicans who are making this about social issues. It is the Republicans who want to legislate in people's bedrooms and private lives.
The Senate may be Democratic by a slim margin, but the House is Republican.
Even so, the Democrats have been trying to address the economic issues but they are constantly and consistently thwarted by the Republicans who insist on filibustering, over-burdening or sidetracking every issue, every appoinment.
We started this country to escape theocracies and prejudices in Europe. The Republicans seem to want to reverse all of that.
FedUp - Can you lay out Rick Santorum's economic policy? The part that doesn't involve pushing "traditional Christian values" via the tax code?
Thought not.
.....Which very frequently mistreat the children, get divorced and fight like cats and dogs...Dad hits mom when he is drunk or he is absent altogether.....etc.
This moron lives in another planet.
jkatze - there are only 4000 years where significant amounts of history were written and have survived. After that we only have bits and pieces that are difficult to piece together.
The old testament contains part of the Jewish ancestry that was recorded since the time of Moses. The complete records were destroyed when Rome marched on Jerusalem for the last time and flattened the city. Following that through, man has been on earth for just about 6000 years and came from two human beings.
Sound far-fetched? Forget about incest at this point for illustration purposes. With our current birthrate and length of life and an annual growth rate, the earth could be repopulated to it's current number in just about 2000 years. Disease, accidents, and wars really slow things dow a good bit.
Umm DB, this isn't about the old testament...sorry. We aren't talking about religion here. Well, Rick S is and that is all he talks about whether he thinks he is talking about the economy or anything else. He just wants his religious beliefs (well, when they are convenient for him to follow) crammed down everyone else's throats. So I guess you were there when those two humans 6000 years ago got together and you have fossil evidence to prove all you are saying? Seriously..lol.
And FUS, you are so clueless and blind about so many things I won't waste my time listing them. Let's just say if you read the quotes in the story above (not listened to Fox or even read the MSNBC part of the story) and weren't part of his religious agenda you would see what he really wants for this country and be terrified. It's too bad you don't see that they just aren't your friends. He just isn't your friend...but you wont' see that every time Democrats (and even some Republicans) try to make it about the economy and our crumbling infrastructure, to make the tax code fairer, and so many other things that really will help the country recover it comes right back to making Obama a one term President and keeping religion in the government. You will get what you vote for and it may not be what you expect if you aren't really listening.
good
Libya
Egypt
Morroco
Iraq
Syria
Iran
Git-mo
jobs
schools
etc..etc..etc...
Rick Santorum has declared war on 10% of the legal citizens of the US. He is the biggest piece of sh-t ever to show his ugly mug to the political stage. He has already said again and again he does not wish to serve all Americans. He should drop out of the race and go to hell, where he belongs, if he is in fact a practicing Christian.
Could not have said that better.
To alwaysanother--- You share soooo much truth here. Too bad so many are unable to see it or just don't want to see it. Thanks for setting the record straight for those who want to know truth.
I notice Alwaysanother has been deleted or has turned tail and run again, he or she wouldn't know what the truth was if someone whacked 'em over the head with it.
How exactly is same gender marriage attacking "traditional" marriage?
This politician talks about encouraging marriage and raising children in a family with married parents, and that's fine, but where does he get off saying that that family must be made up of a Mom, a Dad, and the kids?
In reality, if a politician cared about people getting married, and raising children in a loving and nurturing family environment, then he'd include same gender marriages. He obviously doesn't care about anything except his own homophobic opinions...and trying to force them, and his personal religious beliefs...on all Americans.
And there are people out there who would elect this ultra conservative fruitcake to the office of President?
Apparently you didn't get the memo. I heard my heterosexual marriage will fall apart when gay people are married. /sarc
Fed up Sr. Really, you think that the economy was better under Bush? Have you actually looked at a chart and seen when the economy tanked? Hint. Look at 2008 and watch the job losses as they went vertical. The last two quarters of 08 were horrible and we knew it but then as they have revised the numbers, it was actually far worse than imagined. This is not feeling, this is fact. I have plenty of issues with Obama but to not acknowledge the mess and who got us there and support those who want to turn back the pages to the good old days pre Obama is idiotic. I am an old school Rep but of course, that means not welcome in this party. The party is wrong on every major issue. We will end up with either a public universal healthcare of a European style (like the swiss) of regulated private care. Why, everyone has to be covered and we have to drive down costs and there is no other way. We have to cut our energy use and come up with clean solutions. Fracking may be cheaper in the short run but it is an environmental disaster. Religion and politics don't mix. The right wing court is a joke. Really, corporations are people? Obama sucks, just much, much, much less than anyone on the other side. He has faced unprecedented opposition. Also a fact. The reps don't believe in democracy, they love it when they win then try to drive down the other side when the lose and make it impossible to govern.
I love how he assumes that "married mom-and-dad" parents will be good at it. I had married heterosexual parents. They made it clear all my life that I was a mistake and a burden. My home life was miserable. However, I had a friend growing up who was raised by a lesbian couple who doted on her and made every effort to give her the best possible opportunities in life, although their means were limited. Guess who grew up into the more stable adult? Don't get me wrong, I'm doing alright socioeconomically, but I have some emotional and psychological hang-ups that my friend from the "deviant" family doesn't seem to suffer from. And I haven't had any contact with my natural family in over a decade. It's just to painful to even contemplate. "Natural" isn't necessarily better.
Dabow, what a coincidence: I consider myself more of a Democrat, but I agree with you on every point (including that Obama's a disappointment, but the best of a bad field)! Though maybe, if Obama disappoints everyone equally, that actually means he's doing a good job as president in walking the center line, or something. Meh.
Robbie, I agree. My heterosexual parents were married and the abuse was horrendous, we were neglected and abused, and I have known gay couples who had children who were loved, cared for, and educated. There are many single mother and fathers doing their very best (despite all the odds stacked against them) to raise happy, healthy, successful kids. But the argument he makes isn't based on facts at all. It is based on his personal skewed religious beliefs, and no matter what facts are presented he won't change that or even tell the truth that it isn't the gender or sexual preference of a parent that makes him or her a "good parent", but a variety of other factors.
Who defines what is natural anyway? Really to do that you would have to name a time frame you were using as a norm. What we do with kids now is not the norm from 100 years ago or 30 and won't be from 30 years from now either. "Norms" and normal are just definitions humans made up to justify wanting everyone else to live the same way they do.
I agree with you, Ram. My father was a cruel, angry drunk and my mother took her misery out on her children, particularly me and my younger sister. She should have tossed him out, but her priest (not surprisingly) discouraged it. It disgusts me the way this ridiculous man simplifies life, and then applies these simplifications to the masses, without any regard for their unique circumstances. This approach to "thinking" is always a red flag for deep, pervasive ignorance on the part of the speaker. I was also struck by his assertion that marriage is natural, which in fact it is not. From a biological perspective, as those of us who don't fear science know, the human species is not monogomous. On that basis alone, commiting to one person for life is about as unnatural as it gets, particularly when one factors in how long people live these days. Marriage itself is a social construct, and, in fact, a contract designed to confer rights and protections on the parties. If it's so god damn natural why do you need a legally binding document when you enter into one? Rick Santorum needs to pack up his medieval morality at which point he can flop and slither his way back to the fifteenth century where he belongs. While he's at it he can take Michelle "I'm a subservient wife as the Bible commands" Bachman and her gay husband with him.
Just so we don't get the wrong idea I have heard that there have been a few heterosexual marriages in history that have provided stable, nurturing parents who have provide for their children both socially and economically with a good education and all the love available, did not abuse them or stand in their way....or so I have heard anyway.
Let's not get too carried away with the antedotcal comparisons, I have known gays and straights who I would and wouldn't trust my dog with.....it's people.
and BTW I was wearing sweater vests long before Ricky boy was out of grade school and still do .... please don't assume by that that I support him or his daffy "my idea"of Family First politics....he is just as much of a right wing religious fanatic (when it suits their purposes) as Bachman or Perry or any of the rest of that crowd.
What did you call yourself when you were pimping for big-government lobbyist firms after you lost your last election? Was that Reagan conservatism too?
This article on a REPUBLICAN blog gives some of the dirt on Sicktorum's money making tenure on the Board of United Health Services:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/30/get-ready-to-hear-all-about-rick-santorum-and-universal-health-services/
UHS is known by health care professionals as a law breaking, high profit driven cesspool- it's facilities are hellholes where kids are abused. I guess that's why Sickie Rickie opposes birth control- more kids born to parents with no parenting ability or resources- so his friends can money off them when they land in psychiatric facilitiess.
Funny -- all these born agains talk about family and how liberals are anti family. What's funny is the lowest divorce rate in the nation is in Massachusetts - the most liberal state in the nation. The highest is in Alabama -- one of the most conservative state in the nation. If you break it down by religions -- born again Christians have the highest divorce rate and Mormons have the lowest --- but -- atheist have an even lower rate than Mormons.
Charlie: I don't dispute the statistics you cite, and have grown more than a little cynical myself at all the self-righteous Republicans' posturing around so-called 'family values'. It should be borne in mind, however, that Massachusetts has a large Catholic population for whom divorce is not an option, while Alabama - not unlike my native Mississippi - has a lot of aimless uneducated young adults who marry too early and irresponsibly because there's nothing else to do.
And the Mormons? Don't even get me started. . .
however, that Massachusetts has a large Catholic population for whom divorce is not an option,
Having grown up a Catholic I can tell you divorce IS an option. It's remarrying that isn't.
So now the truth comes out, not only is he against gay marriage and gay people, he is against all single people who may choose not to marry. He feels their should be a fairer tax system so that the more kids you have the bigger tax break you get. How is that fair to single people who already are getting ripped off at the local level by paying the same school taxes as their next door neighbor with 2 or more kids? A flat tax for everyone individual would make a lot more sense. Ok, so the book is titled "It Takes A Family"... I believe, however, that it takes a nation of people from all walks off life that made this country what it is.
INTERSTING HOW LITTLE SANTORUM TALKS ABOUT THIS!
When she met Rick, Karen was living with Tom Allen, an OBGYN who in the early-1970s cofounded Pittsburgh's first abortion clinic. It was a somewhat unusual pairing. Allen was the doctor who delivered Karen. She began living with him while an undergraduate nursing student at Pittsburgh's Duquesne University. She was in her early 20s, he was in his 60s.
"When she moved out to go be with Rick, she told me I'd like him, that he was pro-choice and a humanist," said Allen, an elderly but vibrant man, during a brief conversation on the porch of his Pittsburgh row home. "But I don't think there's a humanist bone in that man's body."
Santorum has often said that at the time of their meeting neither he nor Karen were that devout in their faith. Upon falling in love, he says, they embarked on a soul-searching examination of their lives that brought them both closer to God.
Opportunist sounds more like it.
And there is nothing nastier than a religious fruitcake who "found" religion as an adult.
Wow. Yet everyone else is supposed to do as they feel is right based on the religion they found. Umm, no thanks.
I'm curious about a flat tax. About how fair it is. Ten percent of a million dollars, still leaves a lot of money to throw around on Limos, swimming pools, month long vacations and everything else that that earner might want. Ten percent of fifty thousand dollars, leaves just about enough to keep you out of the bread lines even if you don't have a family. Both people would need government services equally and possibly professional services as well. Which earner can better pay for food, medical care and all of the other necessities of life. I don't think a flat tax is an equal tax until everyone is making the same thing in terms of dollars. A person earning a million dollars a year cannot earn that amount based on his own efforts, there has to be at least a hundred people supporting that income, therefore he should be required to put a larger share back in the pot. Show me a millionaire who couldn't get by on $500,000.00 if thats all he had and then maybe I'd be for a flat tax.
Rick's book is not backed up by the evidence, but like most of his ideas that did not stop him. Research shows that it really takes a village to help raise children, not just a family. This propensity to go against the evidence is why I can not vote for republicans.
I do not want a village raising my children, It will be me and my husband, no one tells me how to raise my kids.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61804-2005Apr17.html
Rick Santorum is not ready for the major stage or, any stage except the exit stage!
Stop using government to promote and impose social (religious) viewpoints. So sick and tired of these politicians say you must live a certain way because this is what the god I believe in says. You are put in a position to run the country, not to impose your own biased standards.
The same goes for people like Pelsoi and Reid that drove thier agenda down our throats with sweetheart deals behind closed doors to buy thier agenda!
FedUp, stay on the subject.
Fed Up, you really need to read what the article is about. We aren't talking about politics here. We are talking about people who try to force religious beliefs on a whole country and who will use back room deals and underhanded tricks, as well as outright lies to enforce and push their that agenda. Different topic here...nice try though.
You can hate or like someone's politics all you want, but this is about pushing one man's religious beliefs on everyone. That's sort of okay if you happen to agree with each thing that person believes, but you better hope you never change your views at all or you might be a bit unhappy at having to go to his church 24/7 and having him in your bedroom and doctor's office, too.
fielden.... Fed Up Sr. is on subject, as a die hard Republican there is only one subject and all debates, discussions and actions wind back to their one and only policy....Make Obama a 1 Term President! That's it folks there is no other policy, no ideas, no jobs policy, no tax policy, nothing notta.... just get that N out of the White House and get back in the Power Seat.
Thank you, DarkShadow1701 !
Oh well.....social conservatives. This is probably your last chance to throw both hands in the air before Rev. Santorum. He has lasted this long primarily by keeping his mouth shut on TV and his head down at debates.
Now, he is in the spotlight and is quickly beginning to remove all doubt.
We (democrats) can only hope he lasts a while longer though. He might be able to get in a few lucky punches against Mitt Romney on the Mormon cult and other social issues.
But, one thing is certain: Rick Santorum will NEVER be POTUS. That is, unless some alien craft comes down and covers us all with doofus dust. Still, if Santorum (by some magical mystery) were able to win the GOPeaParty nomination, President Obama would make him tap early in the first round. He might even quit the contest and let Obama win by concession.
From your comments , I would say the doofus dust has already invaded your house! Probaly why you voted for Obama last time and you are still drinking inthe koolaid!
Fed up, I voted for Obama last time - it wasn't such a hard decision choosing between someone with an intellect and a nice older guy with six houses (he thought) who kept crashing jets while in the military and his running mate - some idiot from the Far North.
Looking at the Republican candidates this time around, it will be an even easier decision to support Obama for re-election.
And by the way, care to detail the Pelosi and Reid agenda and those sweetheart deals behind closed doors? Anything like Cheney and his oil friends writing the nation's energy policy?
Ian- Great post and the dufus dust is covering fed-up senior! LOL
Yeah, mcsenile, the only only person to ALMOST accomplish what it took the ENTIRE Imperial Japanese Navy to do - sink a United States Aircraft Carrier.
Remember 2010...millions will
Hateful
......
You, RP-2387990, have taken hypocrisy to the next level. Are you supporting Santorum? You do fit the profile.
It is always the same. You cannot keep the democrats out of your business and you cannot keep republicans out of your bedroom. We get to pick. I don't know that I have done anything Santorum would disapprove of but I hate being preached to and lectured by a damn politician so bad I am tempted to.
I have the perfect solution for of you who are so much against gay marriage. This solution involves no new government agency, no new laws, no enforcement requirements, and no new taxes
If you're against gay marriage ---- DON'T MARRY A GAY PERSON.
Santorums OBSESSION with homosexuality more than suggests that he is gay himself
At some point photos of Santorum engaged in a Same Sex situation will surface
His response will be the same as that of Bathroom ToeTapper Larry Craig
I Am Not Gay....just enjoy having sex with men
justina777,
That is hilarious. Maybe it's a case of he dost protest too much!
Here's the proof of that premise:
F##k all you queers...analize this....
I heard the reason all liberals love obama is because they think he has a big d.....k!!
Saw some research on it.
Sounds like you think about Obama's big, throbbing dick a lot.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
so, RP, when you fantasize about Obama's dick, does it taste communist?
RP-2387990 and skrekk, you are both suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
The GOP have never been so crazy as they are today. Every election they seem to be getting worse and worse. The GOP complain about big gov't but Santorum wants gov't agencies "Department of Marriage" & "Department of Parenting". Why gov't agencies and why not education classes in schools? But who would teach these and whose standards or values would we follow? If it were taught it needs to be kept into perspective with separation of church and state, and include a variety of ideas which would include pros and cons of single parenting, and same sex relationships, or it should not be taught at all.
DarkShadow1701 you hit the nail right no the head! Santorum has no place running this great country. There are much greater problems we face than to be wasting time on pushing "family values" down everyone's throats. Santorum, go away! We DON'T need you.
One more thing....Santorum is no Kennedy!!!!
In Rick Santorum what we have is a simpleton culture warrior with a holier than thou attitude. He thinks that the family structure of folks on the other side of town somehow makes his family less effective. He thinks that by allowing gays to marry that heterosexual couples will split up.
He wants to use the federal government to enforce laws inside the bedrooms of Americans. He wants to outlaw sexual behaviors he doesn't participate in. He wants to outlaw what he considers vice. Rick Santorum will do nothing for this country but piss a lot of people off and create a whole new host of crimes by making ordinary people criminals by virtue of changing the laws. He will drive deeper wedges between the cracks in our society.
What he won't do is create jobs, strengthen the economy, and bring this nation together. It's not in his manifesto. But he thinks that if only we could end homosexuality that jobs would simply materialize. He is fully disconnected from reality and should be running for witch-doctor not president.
This man is a nut case. He doesn't deserve consideration for any post in our government. His priorities are simply not the priorities of this nation.
“Usually it is best if the government is the silent partner, not the managing partner.”
Is he subconsciously thinking of ANAL SEX? Why is EVERYTHING that comes out of Santorum's mouth reminiscent of anal sex?
he is a fool
Why do you hate
RP-2387990 Why are you so presumptuously mono-topical ?
Is it because you think Santorum has a cute butt..?
"He says, 'There is simply no substitute for the natural family, no substitute for a real dad, however flawed.'"
...is he sure about that, that a flawed dad is better than none at all? Apparently he has never met my father-in-law!
And Santorum never met my late natural father who amused himself by getting drunk every night and beating either my Mother or my brother and me every night.
Santorum must have spent much of his youth watching "Ozzie and Harriet" episodes.
If he's so natural family, why doesn't Santorum want to outlaw divorce, force men who father children to marry the mothers.....he's not pro family, he's anti-gay
Or those fathers that molest their kids, or the frequent murder-suicides perpetuated by fathers in just the last few weeks.
Better a flawed father than, GASP, TWO MOMS.
Silly Santorum, these gay marriage bans don't turn gay couples into straight, married couples with kids. They just keep gay couples from being married. How does this help your family values again?
the comments on here against santorum are coming from the gay community yet it is the heterosexuals or heterosexual activity that put them on earth, if we are wrong or guilty of anything it is making you...romans 1:24-32 and for you closet judges roman 2:1-3 we see you legion clearly
Oh fun, a delusional bible thumper. I'm straight, thanks, and this guy turns my stomach. Keep out of people's personal lives!
and by the way Santorum Acts he is clearly hiding something, he should stop playing God..God did not ask for Santorum help...If God had ask for his help Santorum would not be so evil and vile to others, he has little tolrance for others, he tone is that of the Anti-Christ...
sherobes:
I wanted to mention that while I may come off as pretty anti-religious on these boards, I really do appreciate and get along well with people like you (regardless of which religion they are).
Understanding that religion is a personal choice, and something to guide your own life as opposed to controlling others, is a very enlightened perspective. I just wanted to say thanks for your views and comments.
D truth
I am not gay....I was a Republican....I am for tolerance...I am NOT for promoting politicians that exhibit Anti- Christ behavior Santorum, Newt, Perry, Cain, Palin, Rush ALL exhibit behavior that is not Christ like..they speak hate and intolerance....Newt and Santorum are trying to cause a race war....Newt is a whore and Santorum has some deep sexual issue, I've been around long enough to know that any politician that outwardly attack Gay people has some serious sexual issues themselves. Santorum sexual history should be checked...
If i catch you working on Sundaymy friends and I will personally come by and stone you to death.Says its Ok in Leviticus.
I am not gay. I am a married wife and mother of a 5 year old child. I also am not Christian, Jewish, an Atheist or Muslim. I follow a path in spirituality that comes from my ancestors - the Celts and the Lakota. I am an Independent who is liberal on some issues and conservative on others. I have very rarely voted a straight ticket in all of the twenty-three elections I have voted in. I do NOT skip a year voting if I can help it. The local, state/commonwealth and Congressional elections are just as important as the Presidential ones so I vote EVERY year. My 5 year old goes with me or my hubby to the polls so he learns that it is a REQUIREMENT of living in a Representative Democracy to go vote EVERY year.
I will not be voting for any of the Republican Presidential hopefuls. They are all deeply flawed - more flawed than Obama. I hate that our political process has de-evolved into always voting the "lesser of two evils" but that's the way it HAS become. I have watched the Congressional Republicans/Tea Party people obstruct and DECLARE that their first priority is to "make Obama a one-term President". That DISGUSTS ME. Their first priority SHOULD be governing this country, trying to get our economy stimulated and moving, getting the waste out of politics and political process as well as Governmental departments (which will help to curtail the deficit) and INCREASING the revenue to outlay ratio (meaning finding a way to BOTH increase the revenue AND cutting waste from the budget). But the gridlock in the halls of Congress last year leaves me feeling that ALL of our Congressional members (in BOTH houses) are more intent on Party Politics than in really doing ANYTHING. The Democratic members seem to have been willing to compromise. but the Republicans/Tea Party folk have been interested in "my way or NOTHING".
Santorum is a JOKE. He wants to turn us into a Theocracy. We are supposed to have separation between religion and politics in our country. I HONESTLY want to see a Pagan (Wiccan, Druidic, Lakota Shamanistic) NATIONAL candidate. We are NOT a "Christian" nation. We are more of a "Deist" nation where the majority of people believe in either a singular deity or a plural of deities (and I consider Catholicism to be a pluralistic system since they have the Holy Mother and TONS of "Saints" who govern different aspects of life in addition to the "Holy Trinity"). I believe in a plural of deities - a female mother (with three faces of maiden/mother/crone) and a male Great Spirit... Santorum would likely prefer that *I* go away and not inspect his motives and theological bent. But I was born here, my parents were born here, their parents were born here ... On one side alone I have BOTH DAR and Lakota "membership" so I am eminently qualified to be an American. Santorum in my mind is FAR from qualified to be the leader of this PLURAL country.
Your comment is just silly, D, and you have no clue about anyone here posting..lol. Just because you happen to believe a particular thing about posters doesn't make it true. I'm not gay and many who think he is a religious nut who shouldn't be president aren't either. Good try, though.
Like Cat, I am a straight woman, married, and a mother. My spirituality is a private matter, because none of us understands how this rather large universe works, and it is arrogant to believe otherwise. Like Sherobes, I am an ex-Republican, from a long line of Republicans.
After religiously-endorsed intolerance divided my own family, I turned my back on the Gross Old People and their opportunistic embrace of the hateful, savage social conservatives who make up the Republican Base.
I cherish my gay family members and friends because they are decent human beings. Though the Bible always struck me as an assortment of incoherent scraps mixed up with some Middle Eastern tribal history, I do not ever remember reading, "Thou shalt hate, and hate, and hate, until Everyone Who Isn't Just Like You Is Beaten to a Bloody Pulp."
Santorum reflects ugly past attitudes that grow weaker with every day.... and yes, you really do have to wonder about people who are so panicked by the sexual orientation of others.
Anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-poor, anti-freedom, Republican. But then I repeat myself.
What Larry-111 whatever meant to post (before his ideological hallucinations took over: Pro-traditional marriage, pro-woman (larry, half of aborted babies are female, so please explain how abortion helps women), pro-self reliance, pro-responsible freedom responsibly used, a real Republican and solid citizen - where did my liberal education fail me?
Hatred, discrimination, and oppression by any other name are still worthless.
There is nothing virtuous about Rick Santorum or you.
Call my values what you will. I don't care. I have truth, justice, and righteousness on my side. Things you so called moral guardians are bankrupt of.
So if Ricky practices family values, why did he defend his former Senate colleague, John Ensign when Ensign was whoring around behind his wife's back? When Ricky was soundly defeated in 2006 he left for Fox News and there he baired a story on the Ensign affair and scandal that included monetary bribes along with a lobbying position that Ensign promised his former staffers to keep hush hush. Ricky never once spoke out about this affair between a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman. Ricky also goes on to bash former Congressman Anthony Weiner last year and demanded he resign after his affair. Once again a tuskless elephant wants big government only when it suits "his" interests. He was a loser in Pennsyvania in 2006 and he'll be a sure loser in 2012!!!!
'In a decent society, every child should have the best shot of growing up to be a healthy and successful adult.' So what happened to Santorum?? Did his family cause him to be the hateful, ugly, judgmental, wackjob that he is?
earth to ktrav: Santorum's position is called clinical normalcy. Take off those rainbow shades - the silly idealism of your generation was old and tattered when the hula hoop was new. So, given your warped lefties version of reality, I want you to tell us poster here what the opposite of "hateful, ugly, and judgmental" is? No, wait let me guess: unquestioned acceptance of the left's notion that freedom means everyone should do whatever they want reagrdless of the consequences. As far as "wackjob" (it's spelled whackjob) the only ones in sight here are you and your lefty buddies. Do you seriously think that name-calling settles a debate? Did they teach you anything in school? Anything?
Since they clearly did not, here's a dose of normalcy for you to ponder: Whether one believes in God or not, it is an undeniable fact that tens of millions of years of evolution have devised sexuality for the purposes of pro-creation. Nature is a very harsh mistress, as those who make their livelihoods by studying can readily attest. Therefore, we can, with all honesty, call a homosexual devolutionary; an individual whom nature, for reasons that may always remain obscure to us, did not intend to reproduce. Under normal circumstances, that is, in a sound and happy marriage, there is no more natural affection as that shown between a husband and wife, and between parent and child. In response to what we can call the naturalness of marriage, it is incumbent upon both citizen and public official to continue to recognize the centrality of marriage and to maintain that centrality in law, and to reject all attempts to abolish it or legalize so-called alternatives. Traditional marriage was created to safeguard the welfare of, and to establish responsibility for, any offspring ensuing from heterosexual sex activities, and not for legalization of unrestrained sexual activity.
Let the members of the demimonde live out their lives and conduct their private business privately, far from the public eye and with no control over public institutions.
Nature is as Nature does; she has placed homosexual minorities within all human societies for as long as anyone can remember, yet not only is the human species still growing, it keeps making more homosexuals. This minority is "natural" by definition since Nature insists on perpetuating it.
Yes, of course, the primary value of marriage to society is to raise kids in a stable, loving home. Letting people without kids get married too needn't detract from that. In fact, many couples that cannot produce their own kids adopt, and their legal marriage helps support a good upbringing for their adopted kids. Allowing gays to marry is in keeping with that social precedent.
Anyway, the gay marriage argument is not really motivated by concern for children and families, on either side. The real goal of gay marriage supporters is to make gays feel more included and wanted in society, just as the real goal of gay marriage opponents is to make them feel more excluded and unwanted.
Old King Blog...so...basically.....the ONLY people who should be allowed to marry are those who are fully intending to have children. If, after lets say...3 years of marriage, children have not been produced, that marriage should be considered invalid. Since children have not been produced, both individuals must be tested for fertility. Infertile people should not be allowed to marry...let alone have sex (gasp at the though -sarc). Also to...as soon as a woman is no longer able to bear children, and all children have been raised to the age of 18, that marriage should be considered invalid.
Since that is, more than likely, not what you have in mind...please explain how NATURE created marriage. If you want to know the history of marriage...please research it. Nature did not create the institution, man did. If nature created marriage...then all animals would mate for life and that is certainly NOT the case as it is rare to find monogamy in nature. Marriage is a religious ceremony that became a legally binding contract. Today, it is a legally binding contract that some people celebrate with a religious ceremony. It has nothing to do with child bearing.
Alexander the Great was a lover of men. "History" proves nothing. I am bisexual. But I do not intend on having children. Does than mean it should be illegal for me to have sex? I do not wish to pass on the several genetic illnesses that I am prone to, that have made my life extremely difficult, to another person. I would rather adopt, and give a child who was abandoned, probably by a hetrosexual, a chance. Should my sexual being go unfulfilled because of that? Should I not be allowed to marry? You, sir, are a bigot.
The recession was the direct result of policies the GOP still advocates, and which the Dems allowed to dominate the debate.
Most of the damage was done before the election. Obama got hit with the fallout.
Mr Santorum has some serious mental issue when he expect for the goverment to teach morals...I for one do not want big brother telling me how to run my life...and as a Christian only God can tell me how to live and he left very clear instructions....Rick Santorum is NOT a true Christian and the people that follow him are not true Christians if I remember correctly there is a separation of Church and State, and his racist views are not Christian....Rick Santorum and the people that blindly follow him are anti-christ...
Dear sherobes: you are ONE lost little doggie if you think YOU are a Christian. What exactly do you think a Christian is? No, wait, let me guess, someone who thinks "compassion" and being "loving" means supporting the old "anything and everything goes" notion of sexuality left over from the Sixties. I think you better start doing some serious headwork ... and start actually READING up on Christianity. Seriously. It's high time you and other memeber of your most selfish and shallow generation got out that "nobody is going to tell me how to run my life" box. That's just a leftover from the "hippie" days of the Sixties.
Well, Old King... you're old, all right.
Some of us weren't even born in the Sixties, and weren't the children of anyone remotely resembling hippies, but you keep steering that massive Pontiac o' Judgement 'n' Inference toward every Unter Mensch who doesn't fear the Homo. What are you so worried about, anyway? Don't you already have your fast pass to Heaven?
Old King Blog, I am an ordained minister and I find your posts somewhat offensive and nowhere near what the bible has taught me. The bible has taught me that it is not my place to judge how others live their lives - that is God's right and job and nowhere in the Bible does he relinquish that right to me. Jesus taught me to love others, even my enemy, as I love myself. The Christian faith has taught me to spread the word of God and the teachings of Christ. It did not teach me to spread hate in the name of God. It did not teach me to pass judgment on any of God's children, or to "push" my religion onto those who did not care to hear my message.
Now...am I not a Christian either?
Skirvich, you have to cut OKB some slack here, you see he worships a God who DEPENDS on HUMANS to carry out that gods unfinished tasks. His god needs the "devoted" to carry out that which his god could not or would not for lack of ability , time or consideration. Our God gave us free will his god gave him the power to judge others. Our's gives us the choice of heaven or hell, his say's everyone is going to hell except him. Our's gave us Commandments his gives him authority to make up his own as they are needed.
If that guy EVER grasps the true meaning of " Do NOT take the Lord's name (to inflate your own value) in vain (vanity) ", he just might turn into dust .
Skirvich: Just giving an opinion about something does not mean that Christians, hate. I see a lot more hate coming out of the left than anywhere else, I mean really, are you not reading these posts??? And have you never been on these message boards before, because the hate I see coming from the liberal side is disgusting .
"In a decent society, every child should have the best shot of growing up to be a healthy and successful adult. That opportunity is found in healthy, married, mom-and-dad families.”
Where are the facts to back up this ridiculous claim? What are facts is that for the past decade about 50% of first marriages and 65% of second time marriages ended in divorce!
What are facts is that studies over the years show that between 1 million and 6 million children in the U.S. are being reared by committed lesbian or gay couples and prove that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way. There are even claims that in some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over heterosexual family structures.
He says he's conserving the sanctity of marriage by supporting a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and revoking the states rights to choose their own policies but aren't we a nation suppose to be growing and developing into a better more equal nation. How is taking away rights and moving backwards in any way growing?
And so you absolutely take away homosexuals right to marry the person the love but how is that conserving the sanctity of marriage when you have idiots like kim kardiashian and larry king who've married for 72 days and to 8 different people!! Are they not making a joke out of the so called sanctity of marriage!?!?!?!?!!
I guess there should be an amendment to the constitution banning how many people one person can marry in a lifetime or put a max amount of years you can marry before you can divorce!
Santorum is the Anti-Christ.....
dear sherobes: your anti-Catholic bigotry is acting up ... its time to take your meds! There ... attagirl!
Dear Brittney: Such bloviations! Now that your iedological hallucinations have subsided (I know, it must be tough trying to adhere to the silly ideals of the Sixties at this late date, and especially when someone like Santorum, who speaks a language that you lefties will never understand - common sense and clinical normalcy), so to take you journey toward normalcy easier, here's the real deal on marriage and sexuality to ponder:
Whether one believes in God or not, it is an undeniable fact that tens of millions of years of evolution have devised sexuality for the purposes of pro-creation. Nature is a very harsh mistress, as those who make their livelihoods by studying can readily attest. Therefore, we can, with all honesty, call a homosexual devolutionary; an individual whom nature, for reasons that may always remain obscure to us, did not intend to reproduce. Under normal circumstances, that is, in a sound and happy marriage, there is no more natural affection as that shown between a husband and wife, and between parent and child. In response to what we can call the naturalness of marriage, it is incumbent upon both citizen and public official to continue to recognize the centrality of marriage and to maintain that centrality in law, and to reject all attempts to abolish it or legalize so-called alternatives. Traditional marriage was created to safeguard the welfare of, and to establish responsibility for, any offspring ensuing from heterosexual sex activities, and not for legalization of unrestrained sexual activity.
Let the members of the demimonde live out their lives and conduct their private business privately, far from the public eye and with no control over public institutions.
Old King Blog - "Traditional marriage was created to safeguard the welfare of, and to establish responsibility for, any offspring from hetereosexual activities, and not for unrestrained sexual activity"
Not necessarily true - if you look up marriage in all societies - marriage is interpreted in a myriad of different ways - some to keep family strains pure or to keep wealth within the family
During the Middle
Ages marriages were arranged, sometimes as early as birth, and these early
pledges to marry were often used to ensure treaties between different royal
families, nobles, and heirs of fiefdoms
I could go on but you get my drift - children, yes were expected, but they weren't the end-all or be-all for marriage unions nor to keep unrestrained sexual activity, as a matter of fact mistresses were tolerated in many societies and in earlier times so were concubines
So did you make that up- because it is totally false?
OKB has figured out how to CUT & PASTE !
Now if you could only get your brain to function normally & without glitches, I say you could get your rights restored & vote again !