Posted on 01/05/2012 10:21:11 PM PST by Libloather
Santorum booed for his positions on same-sex marriage, legal pot
By Alicia M. Cohn - 01/05/12 06:21 PM ET
Amid boos and occasional cheers, Rick Santorum defended his views on same-sex marriage and legalized marijuana, as he was peppered with questions by a crowd of college students in New Hampshire on Thursday.
The conservative candidate did not sidestep a challenge issued by several members of the crowd on the subject, but instead asked students to break down their argument so he could reply at length.
“Don’t you have to make the positive argument why the law should be changed?” he asked.
Santorum was speaking at the College Convention 2012, an event in Concord, New Hampshire planned ahead of Santorum’s recent surprise jump in the polls.
The initial question posed to Santorum was to explain how same-sex marriage “personally” affected him. Santorum has expressed his support of a federal ban on same-sex marriage.
Santorum noted that he was not surprised to take a question on same-sex marriage from a college-aged audience, and said he was “happy to engage in a discussion” but emphasized that it would be “civil” even as he faced interruptions from various members of the audience.
Santorum grilled one female audience member who chimed in on the subject, challenging her to defend her argument in favor of same-sex marriage by answering questions about whether the definition of marriage should be changed to reflect whatever makes various people happy.
"Are we saying everybody has the right to marry," Santorum asked.
"Yes, yes," a significant segment of the crowd responded.
"What about three men?" Santorum challenged. “If she reflects the values that marriage can be for anybody or any group of people, as many as is necessary, any two people or any three or four, marriage really means whatever you want it to mean.”
The student fired back a qualification that people should be allowed what makes them happy so long as it didn’t harm anyone else.
“Who decides that, though?” Santorum said.
Santorum concluded with a passionate defense of traditional marriage that included his argument in favor of a “birthright” of every child to know and be loved by a man and a woman. His argument earned applause.
Asked about laws to legalize marijuana, Santorum admitted he is not familiar with the nuances of medical marijuana laws. Marijuana use by prescription has been legalized in several states, with various restrictions. Santorum pushed back against rumbling in the already testy crowd, joking he knows he’s “supposed to know everything.”
But he said he believes marijuana use is dangerous, based on his personal experience of seeing it used. "I went to college, too,” he told the crowd.
Santorum hit the campaign trial in New Hampshire after a near-win in the Iowa caucuses on Tuesday, where Mitt Romney beat him by just 8 votes. Santorum is enjoying a slight bump in the most recent polls in New Hampshire as a result, hitting 11 percent and 8 percent in the most recent polls from Washington Times-JZ Analytics and Suffolk University, respectively. Santorum's win in Iowa was credited in part to the large evangelical voting population and Santorum's credibility with social conservatives.
“George Bush Pere was never a conservative nor considered one.”
Sorry, he was running as a continuation of Reagan in 1988...you can BET that he was positioning himself as conservative, which is why he won.
...but, of course, he wasn’t. And that ended his political career.
I won’t argue without anything you said, BECAUSE IT’S RIGHT!!!
I'm not saying to ignore the Evangelical vote anywhere (you gotta get your message out with the people who are most likely to be your base), just that it is good to engage younger voters, too.
Despite the crude characterizations, not all of Ron Paul's supporters are 'whackadoodles, neonazis, dopers, or code pink types', most of the ones I know are young, idealistic, and scared of living their lives in poverty because the government has spent the country into a hole.
I think those folks could be readily converted to support Santorum, but it isn't going to happen with the incredible rabid displays of spew I have seen on this forum lately. Give them clear evidence in a rational manner, and they'll vote for the next guy who is most likely to call for less government, one which lives within its means and Constitutional mandate. That isn't Romney or Newt, at least in their perception.
I'll grant these aren't the 'low hanging fruit', but in the end, he is likely to need those votes too to beat Romney (for whom the establishment fix is in).
So I'm not saying to ignore the Evangelical vote anywhere (you have to get your message out with the people who are most likely to be your base), just that it is good to engage younger voters, too.
Despite the crude characterizations, not all of Ron Paul's supporters are 'whackadoodles, neonazis, dopers, or code pink types'. Most of the ones I know are young, idealistic, and scared of living their entire lives in poverty because our bloated government has spent the country into a hole doing things it was never meant to do.
I think those folks could be readily converted to support Santorum, but it isn't going to happen with the incredible rabid displays of vitriolic spew I have seen on this forum lately. I can't think of a faster way to turn them off, and entrench their beliefs. (Anyone who remembers what it was like to be young and idealistic would recognize that, especially the 'young' part.)
Give them clear evidence in a rational manner, and they'll vote for the next guy who is most likely to call for less government, one which lives within its means and Constitutional mandate, or at least more so than the current iteration. That isn't Romney or Newt, at least in their perception.
I'll grant these aren't the 'low hanging fruit', but in the end, he is likely to need those votes too to beat Romney (for whom the establishment fix is in).
It goes beyond almost. The destruction of the American Family began in the '60s. My mother caught on right away and mentioned it to me. In her words, with the family in the way, the police state indoctrination would not take.
No totalitarian society (and recall then, the concept was on the order of Orwell's 1984) could exist as long as the family (and God) stood in the way.
Perhaps the Soviets started the process, it was one of the Communist goals of '63, but with or without them, the process has followers here in the US, and they have been forging ahead.
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.