Rick Santorum appeared on Face the Nation Sunday to discuss the 2012 GOP nomination and the recent controversy over President Obama's contraception mandate on insurance companies. Here is Santorum's entire interview from Sunday, February 19, 2012:
Report from CNN:
The government shouldn't make health care providers fully cover prenatal tests like amniocentesis, which can determine the possibility of Down syndrome or other fetal problems, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said Sunday.
Santorum, an outspoken opponent of abortion rights, told the CBS News program "Face the Nation" on Sunday that amniocentesis "more often than not" results in abortion.
"People have the right to do it, but to have the government force people to provide it free, to me, is a bit loaded," he said.
The former Pennsylvania senator was arguing against what he called a mandate in the health care legislation passed by President Barack Obama and Democrats in 2010. He said Saturday at an appearance in Ohio that the law was intended to increase abortions and reduce overall health care costs.
Auto-Generated Tags:
- rick santorum face the nation
- do they want to ban abortion birth control and prenatal care?
- does rick santorum believe amniocentesis should be outlawed?
- face the nation sunday february 19
- rick santorum against fetal care
Santorum has really gone off the rails. After a week in which the GOP found itself fighting contraceptives-that even 98% of Catholic women use-now Santorum is against PRENATAL TESTING.
Whose side are these guys on??
How do you come up with the number 98%… no one knows as who uses birth control is no ones business. Not yours, mine or the media…
Polls, dude. I was brought up Catholic, I know. Trying to use the government to ban birth control is just insane. Next thing you know, the Christian Scientists will try to outlaw doctors.
Goethe Behr — LOL
Good one!
Santorum has stated many times that he is opposed to individual liberties that contradict Catholic teachings. This is just more confirmation of that.
Mike —
Spot on!
Implode! I cannot wait til the Santorum fad is over and we can go back to caring about actual issues besides banning birth control.
GO Rick… you stand for family values which even our president does not understand.
Just what we need! Another tyrant to impose his narrow, bias, values on everyone in complete contradiction to Gods given right of freedom. What about those who are not Christians. Why should they have to live by the tyranny of others values. I guess freedom of religion does not apply to them
Even Adam had a choice!
Devon —
Exactly!
Will, the people seem to like him. They keep voting for him and the media seems to be for him also. Thing is, I don't think he can win the general election, and if he does, I'm not too sure he would be good for our country. I like Romney better, but the people seem to want someone who is extreme right. They seem to think Romney is weak, yet he has made the most money, and not from government. I don't think a weak man can do that. They want personality, will,we have that in the White House alredy if thats what we want.
Carmen: Romney is like the old saying, "It's easy to make a million dollars. First, you start with a million dollars."
The idea that Romney is self-made is ridiculous. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and he wants us to be amazed that he was then able to get a silver fork.
Carmen, there haven't been any primaries since all of this social issue stuff started. It remains to be seen whether the national coverage of this debate will affect his primary/polling results.
The issue is really not about 'birth control'. It is about religious freedom to follow ones conscience. Both guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Abortion (the killing of the unborn) by a pill or instrument is also more the issue. The media has made a farce of it by calling it birth control. Many people do not take the time to find out or listen to the issue.
francis sullivan — re: "The issue is really not about 'birth control'. It is about religious freedom to follow ones conscience….".
You are OK with a fervent Christian Leader imposing his beliefs on the citizens.
What if a Muslim becomes President — would you (since you are all about religious freedom) still be OK for their religious beliefs to be imposed, so all women will have to cover their faces and walk ten steps behind their men?
Well put, Surfisher. Churches avoid paying taxes on even their profitable enterprises (you wouldn't believe the extent). AND churches sidle up to the trough to suck up federal grants and subsidies. Then they also want to be exempted from any rules.
If churches really wanted "religious freedom" they'd cut the government umbilical cord. Then they could make their own arcane rules to their hearts' content.
First it was banning abortion, then banning birth control, now banning prenatal testing. Why not just get rid of women altogether, since women's issues are all men seem to want to argue over now?
Goethe Behr
I agree, but perhaps we should begin with banning Roe v Wade. After all, Roe vs. Wade was decided by 7 out of 9 MEN!
law was intended to increase abortions and reduce overall health care costs.
No, the law was a return on an investment by the AMA.
Ron Paul is the best candidate and he as the only republican has real chance to win against Obama. Besides he is much better than Obama.
Sorry but the rest of these candidates: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich are prowar mongers, homophobs, and 1 and 3 are dishonest and corrupt, 2 is a little bit out of his mind, they have no programm, their programm relies upon making quarrels and criticising Obama
Rav — good post.
Here is my updated take on the 4 left:
a) Ron Paul — True Patriot
b) Mitt — tepid dishwater
c) Newt — polecat
d) Rick — scary religious nut
I guess I see 'em this way:
a) Ron Paul-Don Quixote
b) Mitt-Used Car Salesman
c) Newt-Nutty Professor
d) Rick-Escapee from a Sanitarium
To whoever keeps using the word "ban," as in "banning birth control" or a ban on pre-natal care. Stopping the use of taxpayer dollars for people to receive free birth control or free pre natal care does not amount to a ban. By your logic, anything that the government does not provide is banned. Are my clothes banned? The government doesnt provide me clothes so does that mean they are banned? Of course not. You only see this type of straw man argument from liberals trying to defend morality by forcing a misleading debate about whether you can ban individual liberties. Whether you agree with Santorum or not, I personally do not and wish he would drop out of the race, but he is not proposing a ban on anything other than abortion, which is seen by many as taking an innocent life akin to murder. Birth control and pre natal care are separate issues entirely.
I am really surprised how no one on here has pointed out that the contraceptive issue is being treated too much as a social issue as usual. Look no further for a rational approach to the problem than Ron Paul. He simply states the fact that the federal government has no constitutional right to mandate anything related to healthcare, that includes contraceptives. He wants to get the government out of healthcare, overturn Obamacare as it is unconstitutional, and bring those healthcare costs back down to where they are affordable without government intervention mucking it all up.
What's so bad about that?
Santorum is perfectly happy riding the wave of false support that turning everything into a social issue creates. Get the government out of healthcare. Period. He won't do anything but create more big government that won't do anything to deliver his promises to change these so-called issues but will instead further bankrupt the country.
Has anyone also considered the fact that a government mandate that health insurance providers pay for birth control pills absolutely reeks of prescription drug lobbying? I bet there aren't many articles in the MSM about that.
Get corporations out of government, get the government out of what should be a free market.
RON PAUL 2012!
Is it contradictory to support amniocentesis, which determines not only the sex of a child but also chromosomal and other fetal problems, and be pro-choice based on the belief that a fetus is not a child?
As Santorum pointed out, amniocentesis "more often than not" results in abortion. In the U.S., these abortions result from discovering chromosomal or a fetal problem. But, in areas where cultural norms value male children over female children, sex-selective abortion of female fetuses is common. If a fetus is male or female, is it not then a child?
Two issues that often demarcate the liberal left and the conservative right are abortion and gay rights, such as same-sex marriage. But, if being gay is not a choice but genetic - as the gay community argues, what happens when amniocentesis is able to determine that a child will be born gay?
Will the left still support a woman’s right to abort a fetus because she does not want to give birth to a gay child?
You nicely point out the ridiculousness of these social issues being the centerpiece of Santorum's (or anyone's) campaign. Where do you draw the line? Ron Paul draws it at the federal government staying the hell out of social issues and our private lives. If certain states feel like outlawing abortion, and others feel like legalizing gay marriage, that's their constitutional right. That way if you don't like it, you can leave your state. The way we're headed now, a law could be passed at the federal level that you don't like because we don't follow the constitution, and your only choice would be to leave the country.
Vote Ron Paul, make these things a state issue, where you actually have a chance of getting the change YOU and the people of your state want, and you don't have to dictate to the rest of the country.
Eric — well put!
Can you believe that McCain is calling for the United States to declare war on Syria now? That guy has never missed an opportunity to cheer for war.
Goethe Behr
Really? Didn't the Republicans and the Democrats "shred" the Constitution years ago? I didn't think the United States "declared" War anymore. McCain must be getting some kind of a "kickback" from the Carlyle Group.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B55RozuF0WM
That does bring up a pet peeve of mine. The Constitution DOES say that it's the job of CONGRESS to declare war. They get around this by saying that using planes and tanks to kill people isn't really, you know, "war."
Congress should get off its butt and tell the president that it will shut off ALL military spending if the president tries some new foreign adventure.
In the days when the winner of American Idol can be chosen by hundreds of thousands of people in minutes, WHY can't Congress use cell phones and/or Facebook and/or Twitter to have a quick conference call and decide whether to commit the nation to war? The President should not be allowed to make that decision by himself-aside from the fact that it's unconstitutional.
Goethe Behr
"Fat Chance" that Congress will get off it's butt, unless their "palms are greased". The "Special Interests" which are made up of the Defense Contractors and the Wall Street and International Bankers who "fund" these wars have these Congresspeople in their "pockets". "Money" will ALWAYS dictate the "Policy of War" and the only hope for the average person is that there is a Special Place in HELL for these Insidious and Evil Warmongers and Mass Murderers.
It's a shame that the MSM Media is just as compliant to the Status-Quo. They LIE, COVERUP and Fail to Inform the People of what is really going on.
I hope that people will "Wake Up" SOON to Ron Paul. However, now that Congress is SO CORRUPTED by "Money", it may not even matter. It may be too late. WW3 is right around the corner as America "sleeps" under the Blanket of Apathy. Look for an "Event" to wake-them-up to a Bigger Nightmare.
That's what America needs right now, an infantile preseident who is anti-science. He should be a lobyist (or a priest for that matter) instead and leave the kiddie debates outside of the presidential primaries (which are supposed to be sophisticated.) Santorum is almost as goofy as Newt (next stop - Mars!!) haha
haha, two spelling mistakes, 'lobbyist' I guess I'm the one who is maybe a bit infantile. haha
sorry for my spelling, that was meant to be 'President'
Rick Santorum - The "Fake" Conservative
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdTfvLFlz-c
Dude, that's a BS commercial. I like Ron Paul, and I think Santorum is more of a clown than Father Guido Sarducci, but that kind of ad is not fair.
Over twelve years, you could pick at anything. I'm sure that if Ron Paul were to rise in the polls, they'd pick through his record and find ridiculous things he voted for, too.
Bills usually have lots and lots of riders, so if you vote for motherhood and apple pie, someone will stick funding for a bridge to nowhere onto it. Then, what do you do? Vote against motherhood and apple pie? The opposition would REALLY use that against you, so you vote for it.
This kind of cherry-picking of a guy's record is beneath Paul.
Goethe Behr
Gee, Goethe Behr. I thought you were against the way things are done in Washington DC??? You seem to come across that it's OK for Bills having lots and lots of riders.
So, let me get this straight - Are you saying that it's "impossible" for Statesman in Washington DC to be "Consistent" and to vote on "Principle"? Are you saying that if a Bill is "Popular" with the American People, that CORRUPT Politicians will "stick in" an "Unpopular rider" in order to get it passed and implemented? Are you saying that that's the WAY things are done in Washington DC and We-The-People should just "Shut-Up", Sit Down and Accept it?
Is that what you are saying? Then, it's NO Wonder that the American People are so Apathetic. It's either we just "Buckle our Seat Belt" as we Drive Off the Cliff or we STAND UP and do something about it!
Nonsense. If it were up to me, there would be no irrelevant riders on ANY bill, but the way it works, they tack all kinds of crap on bills that MUST pass.
I think it's extremely dishonest to say a guy "voted for" something that was not the main title of the bill. He did not necessarily vote "for" it. In real life, sometimes you swallow hard and do what has to be done.
I don't like Santorum. He's a Christian version of the Islamic Ayatollah, and frankly, more scary, because he could possibly get into a position of power here.
But it's not fair to criticize him for votes for tangential items that may have had nothing to do with what he was really voting for. It's dishonest.
Goethe Behr
So, that's what you're saying. We should just Shut-Up and "Accept" that that's the way things are done in Washington.
Again, let me get this right. If a Statesman is presented with a Bill that contains a rider which Violates his/her Core "Principles", but because it has "motherhood and apple pie" is the Title of the Bill, he/she SHOULD Vote FOR it? Gee… I wonder how come this hasn't been used by the Republicans to overturn Roe vs. Wade? If it were that easy, that should have been done by now. Don't you think? I mean - the Republicans did have control of the 3 branches of Government at one time.
My point is that the Democrats and the Republicans are essentially the SAME! However, a TRUE Statesman's "Principles" are Measured. They are NOT predicated on NOR should be compromised with what is GOOD in a particular Piece of Legislation. The "Bad" Apple DOES and SHOULD "spoil" a Politician's Reputation, and people shouldn't be "Making Excuses" for Rick Santorum because he Violated his Core Principles. It's not only FAIR to criticize Rick Santorum for doing this - it's the Right Thing To Do!
Oh, geez, grow up. You know very well that was not what I was saying.
IF RON PAUL SUDDENLY GAINED IN THE POLLS, THEY WOULD USE THIS KIND OF DISHONEST COMMERCIAL AGAINST HIM. Cherry-picking through 12 years to find appearance is just not right.
It's beneath Paul's integrity and I was disappointed.
Goethe Behr
Grow up? That's funny. Dishonest Commercial. That's Hilarious!
I'm not being personal with you, Goethe Behr. But I suppose in America today, the bar has to set REAL LOW to make an accurate and "Fair" (as you say) analysis of a Politician's character and credibility. We SHOULDN'T look at their "Voting Record" with such scrutiny in order to discover HOW they will Govern and Represent We-the-People, if elected. We should just "accept" that the Constitution, the Oath of Office and a Politician's Core Principles are NO longer meaningful or relevant. It's what's FAIR that counts. If an obvious hypocrisy is pointed out in their Voting Record; then it's "Oh well. That's not Fair, cuz that's the way things are done."
Meanwhile, we all have to sit there and listen to each of these "unprincipled" Politicians "tout" their "Marvelous" accomplishments, while any violations to the Constitution, their Oath of Office and their Core Principles go unchallenged, unquestioned and unnoticed - because that's what's FAIR!
But Hey! Politicians have a "Let Them Eat Cake" mentality anyway. Right? All you and I are "good for" to THEM is for votes and taxes.
If you guys think an adman couldn't thoroughly gut Ron Paul by cherry picking his voting record, you have no idea how advertising works or how politics works. I've watched every campaign since Ike's second campaign, and I've seen incredibly dishonest advertising.
I guarantee you that they could find stuff that would make Paul look like a raving Commie or a reactionary nutcase. Look what they did with his newsletter. Taking things out of context is simple.
That's why I am so disappointed in Ron Paul for using this technique, especially against a fruitcake like Santorum.
Santorum should be slammed for the things he brags about!
One angle that would have been fair and effective would be to show that Santorum voted for the Bush program no matter what. The thing that makes Ron Paul unique is that he's against spending and war, whether it is proposed by Republican OR Democrat.
Goethe Behr — the real nonsense is your above post.
When a person compromises his/her principles (regardless of the goal) — that person is guilty of dishonesty to their principles (not the ones pointing out the fact).
This is such nonsense.
I like Ron Paul.
I respect Ron Paul.
That is why I am so disappointed in his sleazy ad.
There are lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of reasons to legitimately criticize Santorum. This was not one of them, and it is beneath Ron Paul to use this sleazy tactic.
On President's Day, Veterans and Active Duty Military MARCH in Washington for Ron Paul. 100's MARCHED on the White House chanting "End the Fed", "President Paul" and "End this War"! Ron Paul is the ONLY Veteran in the Race for President!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsSGTnYfsFM
The "Establishment" Media IGNORES Massive Ron Paul Veterans March! Ron Paul is America's leading voice for a Limited and Constitutional Government, Low Taxes, Free Markets, Sound Money, and a PRO-America Foreign Policy. He will REPRESENT America and NOT another Foreign Country!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOJIwiSrq3M
US Troops MARCHED on the White House for Ron Paul. Ron Paul's consistently strong "anti-war" message is one that resonates with many U.S. Troops today. Hundreds of Active Duty Troops, Veterans, and Paul supporters MARCHED from the Washington Monument to the White House on President's Day. They're Sick of Fighting seemingly "never-ending" wars overseas. The Troops that took part in the MARCH say they are ready for "radical" change. Are you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHAnGCsSkQU
Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Obama NEVER BOTHERED to SERVE this Country in the Military - yet they want to send OUR CHILDREN into War for the PROFITS of the "Special Interests"!
Goethe Behr — re: your post:
"Oh, geez, grow up. You know very well that was not what I was saying."
The responses given were to your exact wording — one cannot be expected to "divine" what you meant or did not mean. (A grownup would now better than to complain about his failure to word it properly).
—————————————————
"IF RON PAUL SUDDENLY GAINED IN THE POLLS, THEY WOULD USE THIS KIND OF DISHONEST COMMERCIAL AGAINST HIM."
This is your opinion — as such it will have merit only when the "if", "would" uncertainties become fact. (Not badly phrased…you get points for this…
…).
——————————————————-
"Cherry-picking through 12 years to find appearance is just not right."
Very weak argument that tries to turn an opinion into a conclusion (a logical faux pas most youngsters commit…so only a few point deduction…
….).
——————————————
"It's beneath Paul's integrity and I was disappointed."
This is fine — since it displays your emotions (and without them, we'd be logical robots)!
——————————————————-
Goethe Behr — the reason I'm so hard on you, is because I recognize that you have a wonderful mind. It can only be improved by carefully weighing the impact of your wording…before you press the 'send button'. I believe your young mind will eventually blossom into mature intellect (once you lose terms as "dude", "Oh, geez, grow up", "you know what I meant"…you'll be on the right track).
I've not seen the commercial. I don't particularly "like" anyone in the current political race. Maybe that's why I am absolutely laughing at the argument(s) currently going on right now. Darryl either is or should be in the media, due to how he can latch on to a few words and redirect the point of anything that anyone says. Goethe Behr has gotten so angry trying to restate his point that he's lost his focus. Surfisher (the educated public) made the mistake of following Darryl's (the media's) lead and logically emphasized the misdirected argument. There you have it, a perfect example of our society, with the media leading the way! If I may be so bold, re-emphasizing my statement that I don't really like anyone in the current race (and some less than others), I'd like to make the point that Behr was trying to make regarding voting records … NOT who was best or right or wrong, but rather the problem with "voting records" in our Congress is that when a bill is submitted, it is NEVER a "clean and clear" bill on just ONE subject. There are ALWAYS other things tacked on to the bills, that have NOTHING to do with the original bill. That's how stupid crap in our government gets passed. No, we are not just supposed to sit back and do nothing (although I would bet that the majority of the population does not think there is anything they CAN do). We are supposed to yell and scream at our congressmen/women and hold them accountable, not just for their voting records but also for the bills they submit to Congress. Maybe we should look more at the Bills that are being submitted: who submits them and what stupid crap is tacked on to the end of them. Yes, we can also hold them accountable for their voting record, but Behr is correct in that MANY times a congressman/woman votes for/against the main "beef" of a bill, while that crap that's been tacked on to the end may compromise/ride against what they truely believe. Its kind of voting for/against the least of the evils. I don't know how this was ever allowed to become an acceptable way of doing business in Congress, but it apparently IS. Now the question is, what are WE THE PEOPLE going to do about?! Those in Congress work for US, and we have allowed them to do business like this for decades!
Sue — excellent post!
Always liked a straight shooter!
Sue
I see you're just as gullible as Behr. The problem with your analysis is that you're leaving out the ONLY Candidate who HASN'T Compromised his "Core Values" - who HASN'T "shirked" his Oath of Office - who HASN'T "violated" the Constitution - That would be Ron Paul! And if ANYONE is "acting" like the MEDIA, that would be Behr and Yourself! And even though Behr acknowledges Ron Paul in a positive light, YOU, on the other hand, ACTS just like the Media who IGNORES Ron Paul and leaves out his name when discussing Policy or who-would-make-the-best President. Through your gullibility, YOU have allowed yourself to follow what the Media says, rather than to think-for-yourself.
I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but "Voting Records" do COUNT! And if there is something in a "Good" Bill which is "Evil", a TRUE Statesman WOULDN'T vote for the Bill because of the "Lesser-of-2-Evils" Scenario. Why? Because even the "Lesser" is still Evil! Even Rick Santorum recognizes this when he voted for the TRILLION DOLLAR Expenditures of Medicare Part D - that he now REGRETS voting for. Either a "Statesman" is "Principled and Consistent" - or he/she is just another "indecisive and corrupted" "Politician"!
Sue, your argument is brilliant. I believe the crap attached to it was a way of compromise. Meaning I give you this for that. Then it went in to extra time and got out of hand. But it was useful in order to avoid a Congress that does nothing other than lie, spin, fight and posture as we have now.
Sue and Steve L — great posts!!!
Here is my take on compromising:
Compromise — worth noting its logical meaning (the degradation of principles into eventual nothingness).
When the highest principle (let's call it "A" for absolute) is bartered to achieve a compromise with a lower one ("F" for failure) — a compromise is reached, creating a lesser principle (call it "B" for barter).
Thereby, the now LESSER principle "B" becomes the NEW "highest" principle.
When "B" is renegotiated as a compromise with another low point — then "C" is created as an even lower standard NEW principle.
Then "C" reaches a compromise with "D"…and so on.
Reason clearly shows that continuous compromises lead to eventual disappearance of all principles.
Yet, many think that to compromise is the way go, to GAIN SOMETHING TEMPORARILY, at the expense of something IRREPLACEABLE, the LOSS of true principles!
Just my thoughts on this subject — probably wrong in this day-and-age…..
•Santorum was a serial earmarker, requesting billions of dollars during his time in the Senate, and not reversing his position on earmarks until he was out of Congress in 2010. As recently as 2009, Rick said, “I’m not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.”
•Santorum voted for H J Res 47 Debt Limit Increase Resolution
•Santorum voted to raise the national debt ceiling five times
•Santorum voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands and thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere. In fact, according to Club for Growth, “in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.”
•Santorum voted for CAFTA, which removes duties on textile and apparel goods traded among participating nations, resulting in nearly ALL textile companies leaving the South.
•Santorum voted for Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (though he now says he will repeal it), which imposes job-killing federal regulations on businesses.
•Santorum voted against the National Right to Work Act of 1995, which would have repealed provisions of federal law that “require employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment.”
•Santorum voted for taxes in the Internet Access Tax Bill
•Santorum voted for HR 3448 – Minimum Wage Increase bill, which allows punitive damages for injury or illness to be taxed, allows damages for emotional distress to be taxed and repeals the diesel fuel tax rebate to purchasers of diesel-powered automobiles and light trucks.
•Santorum voted to confirm President Bill Clinton’s nomination of Alan Greenspan to be chairman of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System for a fourth four-year term.
•Santorum voted for Medicare prescription drug benefit known as Medicare Part D, though critical of it now. It is the largest expansion of entitlement spending since President Lyndon Johnson, which now costs taxpayers more than $60 billion a year and has almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities, according to Club for Growth.
•Santorum voted in 1997 to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, “which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouse’s wrist,” according to a press release from Dudley Brown, executive director of the National Association for Gun Rights.
•Santorum voted in 1999 for a bill “disguised as an attempt to increase penalties on drug traffickers with guns … but it also included a provision to require federal background checks at gun shows,” again according to Dudley Brown’s release.
•Santorum “came to anti-gun Arlen Specter’s defense in 2004 when he was down in the polls against pro-gun Republican Pat Toomey. Specter won and continued to push for gun control during his years in the Senate,” per Brown.
•Santorum voted with Barbara Boxer in 2005 on the Gun Lock Requirement Amendment
•Santorum voted for the Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill and then flip-flopped and voted against it in S 1805 – Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill
•Santorum voted against HR 2356 – Campaign Reform Act of 2001
•Santorum voted for an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934 that requires television broadcast providers to give their lowest rates to political candidates.
•Santorum voted for HR 1 – No Child Left Behind Act
•Santorum sponsored legislation to force companies to pay laid off workers benefits.
•Santorum worked for an increase in funding big government programs like Head Start.
•Santorum voted for taxpayer money to go to Pennsylvania families for their heating bills.
•Santorum introduced and co-sponsored big government health-care bills.
•Santorum voted for HR 796 – the protection of abortion clinics
•Santorum actively supports the Global Fund, which was created by the United Nations to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, but also “channels a large portion of its funds through Planned Parenthood’s affiliates around the world and through a British group Marie Stopes International (the largest chain of abortion mills in the UK, with 66,000 abortions a year.)… to operate in Cambodia, Fiji, Bangladesh, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Burma, Kenya, Tanzania, and other countries,” according to the pro-life Gerard Health Foundation that provides millions of dollars to pro-life groups.
•Santorum boasted of teaming up with Joe Lieberman, Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton in his 2006 political ad for re-election to the U.S. Senate, which he lost to Democrat Bob Casey Jr. by the largest margin of victory ever for a Democratic Senate nominee in Pennsylvania and the largest margin of victory for a Senate challenger in the 2006 elections.
•Santorum opposed the tea party and its reforms in the Republican Party and conservative movement just a couple years ago saying, “I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican party … to sort of refashion conservatism. And I will vocally and publicly oppose it.”
It’s no wonder in January that Rep. Ron Paul accused Santorum of having a “very liberal” political record.
Birds of a feather…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu50Hb61jVQ
If the conversation is based in part on the media's role in a particular topic, then you are technically correct to say "the media is leading the way," but not in the arrogant way you are characterizing the situation.
@Steve. A candidates personal views are not indicative of an agenda. Santorum is against abortion, so am I, so are millions of Americans. That is the one thing that, if the political landscape allows, he would impose. Contraception, birth control, and continuing the ban on women in combat arms were nothing more than a candidate espousing his personal views in response to a question or something he brought up in a speech. I wont vote for Santorum because I simply dont think he would be a better president than Mitt Romney but Santorum should not be seen as a potential president who would force his views on the country. If you can name a president who was able to force the country into a religious theocracy, please compare and contrast.
Ron Paul will not be president…this time. Maybe next time. Probably never. Forget substance of his views for now. He has not won a state. He knows this. His message is getting out there which is good for the libertarian movement. Now I like Ron Paul and I dont think he is the best suited to be president. Practicality is absent in Ron Pauls supporters. If a candidate voted for a bill that spent tax dollars for something questionable, a Paulbot sees someone who violated their oath of office. That is extreme and not to mention untrue. Arguing with a Paulbot is much like arguing with a 9/11 Truther or Birther. You cannot win because their opinions are akin to facts to them.
Prepare to be slammed, Kev. Even if you like Paul, they'll tear you up if you dare stray from total praise.
Actually, I was surprised that Ron Paul ran this year. He's 76. Remember all the talk of how OLD Reagan was? He was 69-the oldest man to be elected president. I'm not much younger, so I'm not an ageist, but you do have to look awfully carefully at a veep candidate in that situation.
Anyway, I've heard that Ron is working so hard this year-and not running for his own House seat-so that he can pave the way for Rand to run next time around.