Showing posts with label Rick Santorum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rick Santorum. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Monday, January 09, 2012
Complete Video of Meet the Press Debate
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Friday, January 06, 2012
Did Santorum Really Equate Homosexuality to Bestiality? Actually, NO.
From: Big Government.com
Following Rick Santorum’s impressive Iowa showing, the heretofore largely ignored GOP candidate is now being heavily scrutinized. Fair enough.
The morning following the Iowa caucus, I awoke to an Internet ablaze about Santorum’s apparent characterization of male homosexual relations as “man on dog.” Ouch. I was, as are many on the Right, immediately offended that Santorum would use such a crude, offensive, unnecessary analogy, embarrassing not only himself but Republicans as a whole, and I immediately Tweeted about my disgust with Santorum’s remark.
Others were similarly critical: National Review Online’s Michael Tanner blasted Santorum (“In fact, with his comparison of gay sex to ‘man on dog’ relationships, Santorum seldom even makes a pretense of tolerance”), as did Fox News’ Shepard Smith that afternoon on his show, Studio B (“Rick Santorum is, among other things, a man who equated homosexual sex to bestiality”).
Within minutes of Studio B’s airing, Mediate gleefully reported on the controversy with the headline: “Shep Smith: How Will Equating ‘Homosexual Sex To Bestiality’ Affect Santorum’s Run?” This morning, the L.A. Times unsurprisingly ran with it, writing: “He [Santorum] said gay marriage could lead to bestiality.”
Then I remembered the Gipper: “Trust… but verify.” So I did a little quick digging and looked at the actual text from which the controversial quote originated–the transcript of the April 23, 2003 Associated Press interview with Santorum.
It is as follows:
Now, does it sound to YOU as though Santorum was categorizing homosexual-male-sex as “man on dog”? Negative. To anyone with basic reading comprehension skills, it is clear Santorum was actually cautioning that he is not equating gay marriage with other prohibited-marriage categories such as “man on child” (individuals marrying minors) and “man on dog” (individuals marrying animals). Regardless of one’s views on gay marriage, or Santorum’s own, he did not, in any way, slam male-on-male sex as “man on dog.” It seems those who actively read that visual picture into Santorum’s comments need to get their heads out of the gutter and, ironically, stop revealing their own homophobia in even making the connection.
So, while there may be plenty of issues on which to criticize Santorum, this trumped-up “controversy” is not of them.
The morning following the Iowa caucus, I awoke to an Internet ablaze about Santorum’s apparent characterization of male homosexual relations as “man on dog.” Ouch. I was, as are many on the Right, immediately offended that Santorum would use such a crude, offensive, unnecessary analogy, embarrassing not only himself but Republicans as a whole, and I immediately Tweeted about my disgust with Santorum’s remark.
Others were similarly critical: National Review Online’s Michael Tanner blasted Santorum (“In fact, with his comparison of gay sex to ‘man on dog’ relationships, Santorum seldom even makes a pretense of tolerance”), as did Fox News’ Shepard Smith that afternoon on his show, Studio B (“Rick Santorum is, among other things, a man who equated homosexual sex to bestiality”).
Within minutes of Studio B’s airing, Mediate gleefully reported on the controversy with the headline: “Shep Smith: How Will Equating ‘Homosexual Sex To Bestiality’ Affect Santorum’s Run?” This morning, the L.A. Times unsurprisingly ran with it, writing: “He [Santorum] said gay marriage could lead to bestiality.”
Then I remembered the Gipper: “Trust… but verify.” So I did a little quick digging and looked at the actual text from which the controversial quote originated–the transcript of the April 23, 2003 Associated Press interview with Santorum.
It is as follows:
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality–At that point, Santorum was interrupted by the interviewer who apparently joked that he/she was not expecting to hear a U.S. Senator use the term “man on dog.”
Now, does it sound to YOU as though Santorum was categorizing homosexual-male-sex as “man on dog”? Negative. To anyone with basic reading comprehension skills, it is clear Santorum was actually cautioning that he is not equating gay marriage with other prohibited-marriage categories such as “man on child” (individuals marrying minors) and “man on dog” (individuals marrying animals). Regardless of one’s views on gay marriage, or Santorum’s own, he did not, in any way, slam male-on-male sex as “man on dog.” It seems those who actively read that visual picture into Santorum’s comments need to get their heads out of the gutter and, ironically, stop revealing their own homophobia in even making the connection.
So, while there may be plenty of issues on which to criticize Santorum, this trumped-up “controversy” is not of them.
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Romney leads Paul in Des Moines Register Iowa Poll; Santorum surges
FROM: DES MOINES REGISTER
Mitt Romney tops the latest Des Moines Register Iowa Poll in the closing days before the Iowa caucuses, but Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are poised within striking distance.
The poll, conducted Tuesday through Friday, shows support at 24 percent for Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts; 22 percent for Paul, a Texas congressman; and 15 percent for the surging Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania.
But the four-day results don’t reflect just how quickly momentum is shifting in a race that has remained highly fluid for months. If the final two days of polling are considered separately, Santorum rises to second place, with 21 percent, pushing Paul to third, at 18 percent. Romney remains the same, at 24 percent.
“Momentum’s name is Rick Santorum,” said the Register’s pollster, J. Ann Selzer.
Another sign of the race’s volatility: 41 percent of likely caucusgoers say they could still be persuaded to change their minds.
Selzer & Co. of Des Moines conducted the poll of 602 likely Republican caucusgoers, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. In the final two days of polling, 302 likely caucusgoers were interviewed, with a margin of error of plus or minus 5.6 percentage points.
Rounding out the field, in results from the full, four-day poll: former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, 12 percent, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 11 percent, and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, 7 percent.
The first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, which take place Tuesday evening, kick off voting in the presidential nominating process. The Iowa Poll, a Register exclusive since 1943, is a much-watched indicator of how candidates are faring in the leadoff caucus state.
The first three Iowa Polls of the 2012 caucus cycle, conducted in June, October and November, featured a different leader each time: first Romney, then retired business executive Herman Cain, then Gingrich. Other candidates took turns in the top tier, too. Bachmann was in second place to Romney in the June poll and won the Iowa straw poll in August. But her support plummeted this fall.
Gingrich surged to the lead with 25 percent support in the late November poll, but slid to 12 percent in the new poll.
Now, it’s Santorum’s time to rocket to the top tier. He has campaigned in Iowa more than any other candidate, stumping the state more than 100 days and conducting more than 300 events since the last presidential election. Next closest is Bachmann, at 80 days.
But until recent weeks, Santorum has struggled to escape single digits in state and national polls. He has campaigned as both a strong fiscal and social conservative, but social conservative voters had remained undecided or split among several candidates.
Romney campaigned lightly in the state until December, but he benefits from the network he built as a candidate four years ago, when he campaigned constantly and poured $10 million into a heavy advertising schedule and a big campaign organization.
Full coverage and analysis of the Iowa Poll will be published in the Des Moines Sunday Register and posted at DesMoinesRegister.com/caucus.
Mitt Romney tops the latest Des Moines Register Iowa Poll in the closing days before the Iowa caucuses, but Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are poised within striking distance.
The poll, conducted Tuesday through Friday, shows support at 24 percent for Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts; 22 percent for Paul, a Texas congressman; and 15 percent for the surging Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania.
But the four-day results don’t reflect just how quickly momentum is shifting in a race that has remained highly fluid for months. If the final two days of polling are considered separately, Santorum rises to second place, with 21 percent, pushing Paul to third, at 18 percent. Romney remains the same, at 24 percent.
“Momentum’s name is Rick Santorum,” said the Register’s pollster, J. Ann Selzer.
Another sign of the race’s volatility: 41 percent of likely caucusgoers say they could still be persuaded to change their minds.
Selzer & Co. of Des Moines conducted the poll of 602 likely Republican caucusgoers, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. In the final two days of polling, 302 likely caucusgoers were interviewed, with a margin of error of plus or minus 5.6 percentage points.
Rounding out the field, in results from the full, four-day poll: former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, 12 percent, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 11 percent, and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, 7 percent.
The first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, which take place Tuesday evening, kick off voting in the presidential nominating process. The Iowa Poll, a Register exclusive since 1943, is a much-watched indicator of how candidates are faring in the leadoff caucus state.
The first three Iowa Polls of the 2012 caucus cycle, conducted in June, October and November, featured a different leader each time: first Romney, then retired business executive Herman Cain, then Gingrich. Other candidates took turns in the top tier, too. Bachmann was in second place to Romney in the June poll and won the Iowa straw poll in August. But her support plummeted this fall.
Gingrich surged to the lead with 25 percent support in the late November poll, but slid to 12 percent in the new poll.
Now, it’s Santorum’s time to rocket to the top tier. He has campaigned in Iowa more than any other candidate, stumping the state more than 100 days and conducting more than 300 events since the last presidential election. Next closest is Bachmann, at 80 days.
But until recent weeks, Santorum has struggled to escape single digits in state and national polls. He has campaigned as both a strong fiscal and social conservative, but social conservative voters had remained undecided or split among several candidates.
Romney campaigned lightly in the state until December, but he benefits from the network he built as a candidate four years ago, when he campaigned constantly and poured $10 million into a heavy advertising schedule and a big campaign organization.
Full coverage and analysis of the Iowa Poll will be published in the Des Moines Sunday Register and posted at DesMoinesRegister.com/caucus.
Monday, December 05, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
Rick Perry Says I have No Heart
I have desperately been waiting for a true conservative to step up to the plate and win me over. I had thought Rick Perry was the guy. On the issues as a whole I’m in Perry’s corner. I would prefer his position on the issues to go forward as our standard, but then there was his defense of Texas’ “Dream Act”.
I respect Rick Perry defending his position on illegal immigration. He stuck to his guns despite its being a liability in Republican primaries. Most voters disagree with him, but he defended it. Ok. That’s why we have debates after all.
It was his concluding statement that has infuriated me. He defended his position by stating that those who oppose his position “have no heart”. Really? No heart? Rick Santorum jumped on this to his credit.
Rick Perry is free to defend his position as he sees it on the merits, but to suggest his critics are heartless is right out of the liberal textbook. As conservatives it is bad enough that we must endure such assaults from liberals and their acolytes in the mainstream media, but we’ve come to expect that and have effectively rebutted this view. But from Rick Perry? A conservative Republican Governor of Texas to criticize a dissenting view to label his conservative critics “heartless”? I would expect that from Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or Michael Moore, but from the front runner in a contest for President?
When it comes to politics, I can be as jaded and as cynical as they come in spite of an overall sense that we can overcome every obstacle. What Rick Perry said was an affront, an insult to every conservative who has ever had the indignity of being called “heartless”. I don’t agree with Rick Perry on the policy in question, so in his world I have no heart. That’s not politics, that’s personal to me. If Governor Perry insists upon employing liberal talking points to further his agenda, then maybe he should’ve remained a registered Democrat and stopped wasting my time in a Republican primary.
I respect Rick Perry defending his position on illegal immigration. He stuck to his guns despite its being a liability in Republican primaries. Most voters disagree with him, but he defended it. Ok. That’s why we have debates after all.
It was his concluding statement that has infuriated me. He defended his position by stating that those who oppose his position “have no heart”. Really? No heart? Rick Santorum jumped on this to his credit.
Rick Perry is free to defend his position as he sees it on the merits, but to suggest his critics are heartless is right out of the liberal textbook. As conservatives it is bad enough that we must endure such assaults from liberals and their acolytes in the mainstream media, but we’ve come to expect that and have effectively rebutted this view. But from Rick Perry? A conservative Republican Governor of Texas to criticize a dissenting view to label his conservative critics “heartless”? I would expect that from Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or Michael Moore, but from the front runner in a contest for President?
When it comes to politics, I can be as jaded and as cynical as they come in spite of an overall sense that we can overcome every obstacle. What Rick Perry said was an affront, an insult to every conservative who has ever had the indignity of being called “heartless”. I don’t agree with Rick Perry on the policy in question, so in his world I have no heart. That’s not politics, that’s personal to me. If Governor Perry insists upon employing liberal talking points to further his agenda, then maybe he should’ve remained a registered Democrat and stopped wasting my time in a Republican primary.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
