Posted on 02/15/2012 6:55:30 PM PST by Mariner
BOSTON (Reuters) - Republican candidate Rick Santorum has won support from American conservatives for his views on social issues but a habit of hyperbole may lead to stumbles in his White House bid.
In Boise, Idaho, on Tuesday, Santorum compared contraception to deodorant and soap when making a point about why he believes birth control should not be covered by health insurers.
"Let's mandate that every insurance policy covers toothpaste. Deodorant. That might be a good idea, right? Have everyone cover deodorant, right? Soap. I mean, where do you stop?"
Santorum also fell back on a well-worn Republican criticism that President Barack Obama and his administration are elitists.
"Don't you see how they see you? How they look down their nose at the average Americans? These elite snobs," said Santorum, who reported 2010 income of almost $1 million, according to financial disclosure forms.
Though he is giving Republican rival Mitt Romney a run for his money in the nomination race, Santorum's language might be an obstacle if he wins his party's nomination to challenge Obama in the November 6 election.
"As a frontrunner you have to watch exactly what you say," said Donna Robinson Devine, professor of government at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts. "The attention has moved to Santorum, but to me he seems very whiny. I just can't imagine him as president."
Santorum's most famous equivalence came from 2003.
In an interview, he said that if the Supreme Court protected the right for gays to have consensual sex in their own homes, "then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."
Comments in that interview that homosexuality was not as bad as bestiality...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
John Kerry was going to heal the sick, the wheelchair bound would walk again! Al Gore was going to heal the planet!
What a huge load of crap you peddle .
The same BS was said about Reagan !
Your code for vetting involves smears , lies , AstroTurf and pure vs !
That’s your vetting and no one is fooled anymore !
Paul bot or Romney bot ?
I agree they will go after all of them from whatever angle they believe will do the most damage. They're good at it. Better than our side because they control so many outlets and through the entertainment "industry" have the opportunity to shape the cultural narrative.
Therefore I think Gingrich is the better candidate to run against the left. He has the ability to define what subjects will be discussed.
>> Well I can honestly say that I’m not helping Romney. You?
And when Newt was pouncing on Romney, all the Santorum supporters made sure that came to halt. So were you then helping Romney?
While Santorum is wonderful person and family man, I’m not that interested in his projections of Liberty regardless of his campaign rhetoric. Newt is the visionary, and the one with the capacity to turn this mess around. Rick is too green — maybe in 2020.
Oh. Your a Catholic Hater !
Now we know the reason for your Rick hate !
Dude.
You need to call a family member and tell them you lost your medicine.
That would be me, for one.
I guess I don't quite understand why criticism of things like Rick's puritanical views on contraception is considered “an attack from the Left.” However, even if one concedes that somewhat imprecise characterization, shouldn't we examine all our candidates strengths and weaknesses; or, should we just proceed directly to the coronation of our nominee and then let the media and the Dems dissect and eviscerate him?
Somehow I don't quite “get” the latter “ignore the obvious” school of thought.
But that's just, “people like us,” I guess. Logic can be so ...”unpleasant” at times.
Take care,
-Geoff
He’s better off asking why providing abortifacients is considered “health care” at all. Since when was being with child equivalent to a disease?
He guy is a Dem troll and been scurrying around here for awhile
One part of me feels that Santorum has this in the bag, but the other part of me is terrified of the debate coming up right before Michigan and Arizona...
If Newt does well... it would cut into Santorums numbers at the last minute and hand Michigan to Romney, or if Romney stacks the audience with Mormons that give him standing ovations after he says anything ... then it might give Romney just enough of a boost to squeak out a victory in Michigan and enter super Tuesday in a much stronger position.
I wish the debates were over, they’ve done like 25+ of them, it’s just to risky at this point.
I’m really concerned about the administration’s ban on hunting rifles, myself.
I have a right to keep and bear arms, the constitution is plain on that, but no one has given me one (in a long time... and that one is long gone in a tragic gun show accident...).
After all, they are not forcing my employer to provide me one, or even making the NRA give me one for free. They seem to insist I buy my own, and jump through lots of hoops just to get one and even more to use it.
Why is there no discussion of this ban in the media?
Exactly.
>> Let the parents and families get back to the morals and the govt get the hell out of our personal lives and stop spending our nation into oblivion
I completely agree with that position. A few will seize on that, however, as being supportive of an immoral candidate.
Since when was being with child equivalent to a disease?
Since at least AD 391, as pointed out in another thread:
“[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 28:5 (A.D. 391).
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2847102/posts?page=1
It’s not like Obama has some decisive advantage in social issues.
He’s the guy who once voted for infanticide.
I think the democrat machine will make mincemeat out of Santorum if he is nominated. He is just too preachy and pompous, and a bit whiny, too.
It was only some months ago almost no one on FreeRepublic would give Santorum the time of day — now after winning a few fairly inoccuous polls he’s become a hero to many of those same folks.
I’ll stick with Newt Gingerich, thank you.
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.