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

Skip to comments.

White House backs Santorum; he's 'inclusive'
The Morning Call ^ | April 26, 2003 | Jeff Miller

Posted on 04/26/2003 10:33:36 AM PDT by Remedy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last
To: Remedy
...The only thing that upset them was the delay in the White House's defense of Santorum...Philadelphia mayor John Street, gearing up for his reelection bid this fall, last night claimed his likely 'pub opponent Sam Katz was friends with Santorum - "they're in the same political family" - and Katz in effect disowned Santorum - "he shouldn't talk about who my friends are when he knows nothing about it" - at least Bush finally came out in support - maybe he learned from the Lott fiasco that running away from the problem doesn't make it go away.....
21 posted on 04/26/2003 11:27:26 AM PDT by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Intolerant in NJ
INCREDIBLE SUSAN ESTRIDGE REMARK Re Santorum (FOX): She said that Santorum's remarks were "unconstitutional"....She teaches it and she knows...according to her.

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.

22 posted on 04/26/2003 11:59:29 AM PDT by Carolinamom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
It's also hysterical. You're assuming that voters and legislatures will have nothing to say about any of this.

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.

23 posted on 04/26/2003 12:04:25 PM PDT by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
The White House finally threw Sen. Rick Santorum a life raft.

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.

24 posted on 04/26/2003 12:12:00 PM PDT by b4its2late (This post is over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Even good FReepers like yourself are shouting down Santorum, arent you?

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.

25 posted on 04/26/2003 12:41:33 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Anyone who speaks out for the family must be a boob.

Don't tell me you think man-on-dog isn't already on the way? Man-on-boy certainly is.

26 posted on 04/26/2003 12:44:38 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Besides, he only said "man-on-dog" to show he wasn't just picking on homosexuality, if you read the interview.
27 posted on 04/26/2003 12:46:06 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Anyone who speaks out for the family must be a boob.

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.

28 posted on 04/26/2003 12:55:08 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Santorum claimed that once the courts admit they have no ability to restrict certain kinds of relationships, it creates the precedent to allow other forms of relationships (ie: polygamy) that most of America is against. That's not controversy-worthy. Of course, liberal reporters are doing their best to take Santorum down...but I'm guessing they'll fail this time.
29 posted on 04/26/2003 1:30:29 PM PDT by jagrmeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Did you read the interview? You should.
30 posted on 04/26/2003 1:43:51 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Weasel wording by W. That makes it sound like his support is onditional on Snatorum being "inclusive" of perverts. Santorum is being given another chance to show how "tolerant" of perversion he is. Should he stick to his guns, the knife will come from the backside.
31 posted on 04/26/2003 1:49:15 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You're assuming that voters and legislatures will have nothing to say about any of this.

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.

32 posted on 04/26/2003 2:03:03 PM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom
She said that for him to say he had nothing against homosexuals but to deny them "TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION" ...I guess for most leftwingers their politics do take the place of religion - homosexuality, affirmative action, etc become more "sacred" than family, country, law - and evil conservatives and republicans are equivalent to the devil himself - but for Estridge to slip and admit it on the air is bizarre - glad I'm not learning constitutional law in her class......
33 posted on 04/26/2003 9:32:03 PM PDT by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The Defense of Marriage Act says otherwise.

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.

34 posted on 04/26/2003 9:37:16 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Fleischer said Bush ''believes the senator is an inclusive man.''

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.

35 posted on 04/26/2003 9:48:53 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.

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.

36 posted on 04/26/2003 9:54:44 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

To: Jorge
Support Sen. Santorum's strong stand for family (PETITION) 18,094 Signatures
38 posted on 04/27/2003 1:37:14 PM PDT by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last

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.

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