Posted on 04/26/2003 10:33:36 AM PDT by Remedy
The White House finally threw Sen. Rick Santorum a life raft.
After dodging questions for two days about Santorum's controversial remarks on homosexuality, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters Friday that ''the president has confidence in Sen. Santorum, both as a senator and as a member of the Senate leadership.''
Santorum is chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, the No. 3 GOP post in the Senate.
President Bush's support for Santorum contrasted sharply with his response to the firestorm that erupted after Republican Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott praised Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist presidential campaign.
Fleischer said Bush ''believes the senator is an inclusive man.''
Santorum was unavailable for comment Friday. Earlier in the week he stood by his statements but complained they had been ''misconstrued.''
He also said he has no plans to apologize or quit as conference chairman.
Many political observers had already concluded that Santorum, in his second term and considered a rising star in the party, would hang on to his leadership position.
Meanwhile, religious conservatives are among the most active part of the party's base and largely agree with Santorum's position. The only thing that upset them was the delay in the White House's defense of Santorum.
''This should not be a tough call for the GOP,'' Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council, said Thursday in an e-mail. ''The overwhelming majority of Americans and Republican voters support marriage and family and reject the political agenda of the homosexual lobby.''
According to its Web site, Connor's organization considers homosexuality to be ''unhealthy and destructive to individual persons, families and society.''
But other Senate Republicans, including Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, have affirmed their support for Santorum.
More will be heard from next week after the Senate returns to work on Monday after a two-week recess.
(Excerpt) Read more at mcall.com ...
She said that for him to say he had nothing against homosexuals but to deny them "TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION" was unconstitution.
That was the end of the segment and there was no rebuttal to this flagrant remark.
Yep, you're absolutely right, us voters will just elect some new legislators who will then appoint new justices who think like we do. Isn't that how we got rid of Roe v Wade? Gee whiz, it's so easy I don't know why Old Hoosier is even concerned about it.
Good news. He's being lynched by the media and by the extreme, radical, crazy, loony, and very dangerous, lefties. Hopefully he'll come out of this stronger than ever.
Nope. I just think he was a boob for picking this fight in the first place.
If he wants to argue for states rights, argue for states rights and leave all the equivalencies and hyperbolic "man-on-dog" references out.
Don't tell me you think man-on-dog isn't already on the way? Man-on-boy certainly is.
Lots of people speak out for the family every day. They don't equate homosexuality with bestiality, which Santorum didn't have the verbal dexterity to avoid doing.
That is the point. This case should be left to voters. When left to the courts the poster you referred to has the predictions about right. Those predictions are the logical outcome not hysteria.
The Defense of Marriage Act may easily be found unconstitutional by a simple extension of the precedent from the Texas sodomy case. Gay/lesbian activists are breathlessly anticipating the development.
What else is he going to say? That Santorum likes to exclude people?
It's sad that Santorum doesn't have the political grace to extract himself from the mess he's gotten himself into.
All he has to say is that he doesn't believe in having the Govt barging into people's bedrooms and arresting them for homosexuality or adultery.
Santorum's shown extremely poor judgement in his handling of this controversy.
While I believe Santorum's comments did not necessarily equate homosexuality with bestiality...the clumsy wording of his statement easily lends itself to such interpretations..and he should have known better.
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.