Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: xzins

Remember, it’s the Wall Street Journal, which is pushing for Romney.

I suspect Adelson fears that Santorum would lose badly to Obama in the general election, so the he wants him out of the race. At times, Santorum sounds like he’s running for pope, not president. We don’t need a pope. We already have one. But we don’t have a president. We have a radical-in-chief.

Santorum’s recent comment that as president he would fight ‘the dangers of contraception’ is the kind of thing that will send independents running back to Obama in droves.


80 posted on 02/15/2012 5:45:31 AM PST by Josh Painter ("We intend to change Washington, not accomodate it." - Newt Gingrich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]


To: Josh Painter; P-Marlowe; Cincinatus' Wife; Jim Robinson
This comment was made to an evangelical blog in October and it was in the context of Santorum's faith. He mentions prayer, he discusses core values of his faith, he mentions the Word of God.

So, in the context of religion he mentions the gift of sexuality, and that he thinks contraception cheapens that gift by making it all about pleasure and not about love and commitment. I, as a mainline protestant pastor, agree with an awful lot of that statement.

Now, since this is recently "out" it can only be inspired from the Romney camp, for this is Romney's MO and has his fingerprints on it out of the MSM Time magazine, and surprisingly, that means that Romney the Mormon is attacking Santorum's faith. Absolutely amazing!

How many realize that Mormon's consider Catholicism to be the Church of Satan?

"One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea ... Many in the Christian faith have said, 'Well, that's okay ... contraception's okay.'

"It's not okay because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal...but also procreative. That's the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that's not for purposes of procreation, that's not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can't you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it's simply pleasure. And that's certainly a part of it—and it's an important part of it, don't get me wrong—but there's a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.

"Again, I know most presidents don't talk about those things, and maybe people don't want us to talk about those things, but I think it's important that you are who you are. I'm not running for preacher. I'm not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues."

- Richard John "Rick" Santorum (b. May 10, 1958), sometime U.S. Senator representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Senior Fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and a contributor to Fox News Channel.


83 posted on 02/15/2012 6:10:05 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

To: Josh Painter; P-Marlowe; Cincinatus' Wife; Alamo-Girl; Jim Robinson; wagglebee; narses

Marriage, Obamacare, pro-life, and moral concerns that touch on public policy: that’s the precise context of the contraception discussion back in October, and it shows Santorum to be prescient about the turn the campaign would take. (Given Obama’s desire to overthrow religious liberty last week.)

Santorum says a president can discuss these things as part of a discussion, not as legislation, and that a president can have an impact.

He says he is who he is, and he’ll not pretend to be someone else.

Rather than soaring rates of single-mother parenting, absentee fathers, pleasure-only sexuality promoted by the culture, and children with guidance, his suggestion is that contraception can dull people’s judgement so they get into these kinds of messes. The dangers of contraception are real.


86 posted on 02/15/2012 6:22:47 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

To: Josh Painter; P-Marlowe; Cincinatus' Wife; Alamo-Girl; Jim Robinson; wagglebee; narses

Marriage, Obamacare, pro-life, and moral concerns that touch on public policy: that’s the precise context of the contraception discussion back in October, and it shows Santorum to be prescient about the turn the campaign would take. (Given Obama’s desire to overthrow religious liberty last week.)

Santorum says a president can discuss these things as part of a discussion, not as legislation, and that a president can have an impact.

He says he is who he is, and he’ll not pretend to be someone else.

Rather than soaring rates of single-mother parenting, absentee fathers, pleasure-only sexuality promoted by the culture, and children WITHOUT guidance, his suggestion is that contraception can dull people’s judgement so they get into these kinds of messes. The dangers of contraception are real.


87 posted on 02/15/2012 6:23:07 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson