Posted on 07/22/2005 7:30:51 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
DSCC spokesperson Phil Singer said, "Rick Santorum's clear moral vision enables him to blame entire cities for the actions of pedophiles and declare that women who hold jobs threaten their children so it's surprising that he skipped the chance to tell Mr. Sherwood that adultery isn't part of the 'It Takes a Family' agenda."
Unfortunately, the article is in the archives and you need to subscribe to read it in its entirety.
He never blamed the city of Boston for the catholic priest scandal. Typical liberal lies.
Hmm...and when it was IMPOTUSX42's pecodillos and outright High Crimes and Misdemeanors, they somehow just "didn't rise to the level"...or there was "no controlling legal authority "(I know...AlGore, but go with it...), or it depended on the meaning of "Is"!
Pot....Kettle...Black!
DSCC has NO room to talk...Dur bin Laden...Kennedy...Hillary...Reid...Torricelli...their list knows no bounds, yet they are the FIRST to scream "Hypocrisy"?
And the Marxist-Stream Yellow Journalists just lap it up, like a dog returning to it's vomit!
That's a good one. Haven't heard that one. LOL!
Who cares to read it? I am sure that Santorum subscribes to the adage, Hate the sin, love the sinner. Santorum didn't say anything about Gays in his remarks about the Texas ruling on sodomy. He just said that it was opening the door to all other types of perversions (my word, not his).
What do these people want? Do they think that Santorum should have fired the guy because he is gay? These creeps are beyond belief, they claim to support Gay lifestyles, but just let a Gay person disagree with their political ideology and they want to ruin his life. Think Jeff Gannon.
It's such an incredibly stupid comment from a Republican that instead of giggling about it we should ask Santorum if he's going to continue on with this blaming of society for an individual's crimes, or stop with the cheapjack tactics and address the true source of responsibility for the actions of perverts--with the perverts.
This is obviously your own headline. The folks at Roll Call know how to spell "hypocrisy."
Now there's a beacon of credibility.
I'd say there's a distinction between opposing immoral legislation that will corrupt large numbers of people and criticizing an individual for immoral behavior.
It's his duty to support good legislation for the public welfare and oppose bad legislation. It's his personal choice whether or not to criticize a colleague for immoral behavior.
Most of us would probably think it unnecessary to pile on a guy who has already publicly screwed up, is being pilloried by the press, and has probably already wrecked his career.
The left has brought out all guns for a very good senator.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.