Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    06 Jun '11 15:33
    It's fairly plain that Bachmann and Palin are unelectable and people like Gingrich have too much baggage. Pawlenty and Romney may win the nomination, but the TP will either not or only half-heartedly support them.

    The one guy that would not represent any sort of compromise for the TP and who would have a shot at winning the general is Rick Santorum, who has just now officially joined the race for the GOP nomination for 2012.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/0606/Election-101-Nine-things-to-know-about-Rick-Santorum-and-his-White-House-bid/Why-is-Santorum-running

    For those who may not know him, Santorum is a staunch conservative, both socially and economically. He was a Congressman from PA and won election to the US Senate in 2000. He got crushed by pro-life Democrat (and son of a popular former PA governor) Bob Casey in the Dems sweep to power in 2006. In retrospect, however, that was an unwinnable race for any Republican in a bluish state in a tidal wave election against a very popular opponent.

    He is too conservative for my tastes, but I would strongly consider voting for him against Obama. I reserve the right to think and read a lot more carefully before I decide whether I'd vote for him.

    The difference between he and people like Bachmann is that he is hardly a caricature. He is a clean cut good looking fellow who is a good orator, has an intact marriage and 7 children and, as far as I can tell, no skeletons in the closet.

    He also doesn't really shoot his mouth off like the Bachmanns and Palins of the world. ThinkProgress published a list of Santorum's "12 most offensive statements" and, as you can see, most of them are either obviously tongue in cheek or simply not that bad.

    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/06/06/237112/rick-santorums-top-12-most-offensive-statements/

    If that's the best they can come up with, this appears to be a man whose mouth isn't going to get him in as much trouble.

    If he emerges as a strong TP type candidate to challenged the Romneys of the world, this could be an interesting primary season.
  2. 06 Jun '11 15:43
    What do independents think of him?

    I also noticed he is a Roman Catholic. This will make it harder for him to get support from the Christian Right, though it's not as problematic as being a Mormon, I guess.
  3. 06 Jun '11 15:52
    I saw quite a bit of blatant bigotry in there. Yep, he has a shot at the nomination.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    06 Jun '11 16:43
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    I saw quite a bit of blatant bigotry in there. Yep, he has a shot at the nomination.
    Let's see


    1. “In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be….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.” [4/2003]



    I don't see any prejudice there. I see an anti-gay marriage stance and opposition to an unlimited right to privacy. Now, I disagree with both statements, but bigotry? I don't see it.


    2. “Is anyone saying same-sex couples can’t love each other? I love my children. I love my friends, my brother. Heck, I even love my mother-in-law. Should we call these relationships marriage, too?” [5/22/2008]


    No bigotry. Whether you agree with the argument or not, it's an argument that an argument for same sex marriage doesn't hold water. I see nothing bigoted about this statement.

    3. On repeal of DADT: “I’m worried when many people will stand up and say, ‘well whatever the Generals want.’ I’m not too sure that we haven’t indoctrinated the Officer Corps in this country that they can actually see straight to make the right decisions.” [2/20/2010]


    This is a statement liberals would generally agree with if the subject matter of the conversation were different and if it came from, say, a Michael Moore discussing orders to make war on a foreign country.

    4. On gay adoption: “A lesbian woman came up to me and said, ‘why are you denying me my right?’ I said, ‘well, because it’s not a right.’ It’s a privilege that society recognizes because society sees intrinsic value to that relationship over any other relationship.” [5/3/2011]


    No bigotry here. He says adoption is not a right. He's right. It's not a right. Nobody has a natural right to adopt children. If anything, this is an equal protection issue, not an individual rights issue.

    5. On teaching history of gay Americans: “I certainly would not approve of [a bill moving through the California legislature compels the state to add gay history to the state education curriculum], but there’s a logical consequence to the courts injecting themselves in creating rights and people attaching their legislative ideas to those rights that in some respects could logically flow from that. So I’m not surprised.” [5/10/2011]


    He doesn't like a bill compelling the state to add gay history to the state curriculum. Is that bigoted? Doesn't seem very bigoted to me. I don't know the context of the rest of the statement and can't really figure out what he's referring to.

    RACE:

    6. “I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say ‘now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people’.” [1/19/2011]


    Stupid pot shot at Obama... no question. But bigoted? Not really.

    7. “Marriage is an institution that’s a bridge too far for too many African-American women and is not desirable among African-American males….I think [Obama] has to realize that flying to New York is…self-indulgent. Go down to the corner bar and have a drink, a shot, and a beer.” [6/2/2009]


    The breakdown of the African American family is a very real and has had very serious consequences for the African American community. We can debate the reasons until the cows come home, but the fact remains. Calling attention to it is not bigtory. Or was Daniel PatricK Moynihan a bigot?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229730/moynihan-report-and-ongoing-family-breakdown/rich-lowry

    WOMEN:

    8. “In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might find they don’t both need to….The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness“. ['It Takes A Family,' 7/6/2005]


    Not bigotry, but a legitimate political opinion.

    ISLAM:

    9. Santorum responded to the Pentagon’s decision rescind its invitation to evangelist Franklin Graham to speak at the upcoming National Day over his statement that Islam is “evil” by saying that Graham’s comment was “a reasonable statement at the time.” [3/23/2010]


    Yeah, this is a bad one; though the "at the time" qualifier seems to me to mean that Santorum excused Graham based on the idea that it's understandable to be so emotional right after 9/11. Still, I'll bet this is one Santorum wishes he could have back.

    10. “I think the Democrats are actually worried [Obama] may go to Indonesia and bow to more Muslims.” [3/23/2010]


    Please. This is obviously a quasi-joke based on the bowing to the Saudi king incident. That he phrased it that "the Democrats are actually worried" makes it obvious that this is tongue in cheek. If it's anything, it's anti-Obama and critical of him for the Saudi thing than it is anti-Muslim or "racist."

    11. “The creeping Sharia throughout Europe and here in this country and in Canada. The Islamization of Europe that is already on the way and will visit these shores not too soon is a concern for us and something that we need to identify and we need to talk about and we need to fight with every ounce of our being“. [2/28/2009]


    A little paranoid, but bigoted? Nah. I'm sure you would agree that IF Sharia law were to replace secular law in the US or Canada, that would be a bad thing. This isn't going to happen and the inroads it has made in Europe are greatly exaggerated, but is this statement bigoted? I don't think so.

    12. “Now we have the Attorney General confirming to Osama bin Laden just bide your time and the effeminate and pampered Americans will cower away.” [2/28/2009]


    Frustration with his perceived failure to go after OBL (in which he obviously turned out to be wrong) is not bigotry. Everyone in the US government has been criticized for failing to go after OBL adequately until they actually got him. No bigotry in this statement.


    The point is that if this is the best they got on him from a 20 year political career, he's plainly not a Bachmann or a Palin.
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    06 Jun '11 17:02
    Originally posted by sh76
    Let's see


    [quote] 1. “In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be….If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you h ...[text shortened]... a 20 year political career, he's plainly not a Bachmann or a Palin.
    He seems pretty out there in outspoken opposition to gay rights at a time when the electorate is going the other way (HMM, realized after I typed that it sounds like a bit of a double entendre). Can't see him appealing to the independents that the Republicans need to wrest from Obama to have a chance to win.
  6. 06 Jun '11 17:05
    Originally posted by sh76
    It's fairly plain that Bachmann and Palin are unelectable and people like Gingrich have too much baggage. Pawlenty and Romney may win the nomination, but the TP will either not or only half-heartedly support them.

    The one guy that would not represent any sort of compromise for the TP and who would have a shot at winning the general is Rick Santorum, who has ...[text shortened]... ate to challenged the Romneys of the world, this could be an interesting primary season.
    Come on, something must be wrong with the man. Does he have the charisma of Ron Paul or the diplomacy of Palin? I know, does he shoot purple monkeys out his arse?

    We all know that the Tea Party are a bunch of loonatics, so someone get some dirt on this guy ASAP!!!
  7. 06 Jun '11 17:08
    Originally posted by sh76

    1. “In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be….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 ...[text shortened]... e right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.” [4/2003]
    How is this not accurate? I defy any of you leftists supporting gay marriage to counter this arguement. So long as two or more consenting adults wish to marry, what right does the state have to intervene?
  8. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    06 Jun '11 17:09
    Originally posted by sh76
    It's fairly plain that Bachmann and Palin are unelectable and people like Gingrich have too much baggage. Pawlenty and Romney may win the nomination, but the TP will either not or only half-heartedly support them.

    The one guy that would not represent any sort of compromise for the TP and who would have a shot at winning the general is Rick Santorum, who has ...[text shortened]... ate to challenged the Romneys of the world, this could be an interesting primary season.
    What do you like about him? The push for smaller government or is there anything else?
  9. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    06 Jun '11 17:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    How is this not accurate? I defy any of you leftists supporting gay marriage to counter this arguement. So long as two or more consenting adults wish to marry, what right does the state have to intervene?
    You seriously think that the statement "if the Supreme Court says you have a right to consensual sex in your own home ............... You have the right to anything" is an "accurate" statement?

    Of course, Santorum was speaking in 2003 as regards the Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas which declared state criminal laws against homosexual sodomy unconstitutional. http://articles.cnn.com/2003-04-23/politics/santorum.gays_1_santorum-traditional-heterosexual-relationships-homosexuality?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS Such a stand seems quaint now, but it was a right wing screaming point in 2003 (including Scalia's hysterical dissent).

    An interesting question to 2012 Republican candidates would be if they think Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided and whether they think states should have the power to pass laws criminalizing homosexual sodomy. I wonder if any of the present group would say "no".
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    06 Jun '11 17:38 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Palynka
    What do you like about him? The push for smaller government or is there anything else?
    A track record of fighting corruption

    See:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Seven

    He's also willing to take "liberal" stances when they are necessary for his moralistic outlook (animal rights activism). I think in general he's sincere in his beliefs.

    I'd bet he'd be a deficit hawk.

    I don't agree with his social conservatism, but social issues don't really matter to me that much... at least not as much as national security and economic issues do.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    06 Jun '11 17:50
    Originally posted by sh76
    A track record of fighting corruption

    See:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Seven

    He's also willing to take "liberal" stances when they are necessary for his moralistic outlook (animal rights activism). I think in general he's sincere in his beliefs.

    I'd bet he'd be a deficit hawk.

    I don't agree with his social conservatism, but social issue ...[text shortened]... ter to me that much... at least not as much as national security and economic issues do.
    His position on the Israeli-Palestinian situation is typically hysterical:

    Several years ago, Charles Krauthammer pointed out that small nations can disappear, and they know it. Like Czechoslovakia in the late 1930s, Israel is a small nation and it has never been in more danger of disappearing. Today, Israel is surrounded by an armed alliance of Jihadist fundamentalists and nationalists, from North to South to East. Its West is the Mediterranean ocean, where Israel’s enemies would like to push her Jewish population. And Pres. Barack Obama has just put Israel’s very existence in more peril.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267797/israel-peril-rick-santorum

    I fail to see how US national security interests are advanced by such a one-sided, unrealistic position.
  12. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    06 Jun '11 17:54
    He says adoption is not a right. He's right. It's not a right.

    True. With that said, I still think it's ridiculous that some people would argue that
    the state should keep (i.e., financially support) orphans in state-sponsored foster
    homes when there are homosexual families that would gladly take them in, love
    them, and provide educations for them, if it weren't for the fact that, despite their
    provision of an otherwise acceptable household, they are homosexuals and
    therefore "unacceptable" as potential parents.

    Is Santorum bigoted, in the sense that he has no respect for people who
    disagree with his opinions? Maybe, maybe not. But it doesn't sound like he's
    particularly interested in pushing back against discriminatory practices.
  13. 06 Jun '11 18:00
    He thinks incest is consensual? Wow.
  14. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    06 Jun '11 18:03
    I think any Republican who is said to "have a shot" is hinting at Second Amendment solutions!!!
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    06 Jun '11 18:22
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    He thinks incest is consensual? Wow.
    How is incest not consensual?