http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n4jopm7hYFk#!
On Feb 21, 8:03 am, Tommy News <[email protected]> wrote: > Is Rick Santorum running for president or pope? > > -by Bill Press > > Headline from the Detroit Free Press website: “New Polls Show Rick > Santorum Leading Mitt Romney in Michigan Primary Race.” > > That’s the welcome Romney received when he returned to campaign in his > home state. The Free Press reports that an MRG Michigan Poll, > conducted with Lansing-based Inside Michigan Politics, “showed > Santorum up 43 percent-33 percent on Romney.” And that Mitchell > Research, a polling firm in East Lansing, “released a survey showing > Santorum ahead of Romney 34 percent to 25 percent.” > > Which prompts me to ask my Republican friends: > > What are you smoking? Are you seriously considering picking Rick > Santorum to be the Republican Party’s nominee in 2012? He’d be worse > than Newt Gingrich. > > Santorum brags about his electability. But, remember, this is the man > who, after two terms in the Senate, lost his 2006 bid for re-election > in blue-collar Pennsylvania by 18 points. Why? Because he was so > extreme on the social issues — and still is. > > Look at today. With all the serious challenges facing this country — > on jobs, housing, health care, immigration, education, Iran, Syria — > what is Rick Santorum talking about? Birth control! He was quick to > support Catholic bishops in their opposition to President Obama’s > policy of providing all women access to contraception, free of charge. > Because he, like the bishops, believes contraception is morally wrong, > no matter who pays for it. And he argues that states should have the > power to ban contraception. That’s right, to make birth control > illegal. > > But Santorum goes further. He thinks contraception is dangerous. Asked > about birth control in a 2006 interview, he said: “I don’t think it > works. I think it’s harmful to women. I think it’s harmful to our > society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is > something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among > the young. And I think we’ve seen very, very harmful long-term > consequences to our society. Birth control, to me, enables that, and I > don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.” > > Can we dismiss that as just some careless comment made six years ago? > > No way. > > As reported by conservative commentator Matt Lewis just last October, > Santorum promised: “One of the things I will talk about, that no > president has talked about before, is, I think, the dangers of > contraception in this country. ... It’s not OK because it’s a license > to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are > supposed to be.” > > Welcome to the emerging Republican Party platform for 2012: No birth > control. No sex outside of marriage. And no sex inside of marriage, > except for the purpose of procreation. Now, it’s perfectly acceptable > for Rick Santorum to hold and preach those beliefs about sexuality, no > matter how medieval. But he’s running for president of the United > States, not for pope. Is that what the American people want to hear? > And is that really what Republicans want to campaign on? > > What’s even more disturbing is the fact that Santorum’s crusade > against contraception doesn’t stand alone. It’s part of his long-time > war against women. In his 2005 book, “It Takes a Family,” for example, > Santorum scolds working mothers for using the excuse of having to help > support the family only because it “provides a convenient > rationalization for pursuing a gratifying career outside the home.” > > So many women are working outside the home today, charges Santorum, > not because they have to, but because “the radical feminists succeeded > in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that > professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.” Asked recently > by David Gregory on “Meet the Press” to explain or defend that > statement, Santorum — in a stunning display of masculine courage — > blamed his wife for helping to write that paragraph. > > But it was Santorum himself, not his wife, who dumped on women yet > again last week when he expressed concerns that “emotions” might > prevent women from handling a greater role in combat under new > Pentagon rules. > > He later backtracked, claiming he was talking about men’s emotions, > not women’s. But he’s wrong on either count. Men and women have > already served side by side in many combat operations in Iraq and > Afghanistan, where, according to data compiled by icasualties.org, > more than 100 female soldiers have given their lives. > > Everybody knows that women vote in higher numbers than men. > > So if Republicans want to nominate a candidate who alienates most > women, be my guest. Barack Obama could carry all 50 states. > > Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal - Bill Press Is Santorum running > for president or pope > > More:http://mdjonline.com/view/full_story/17588816/article-Bill-Press--Is-... > > -- > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. > Have a great day, > Tommy > > -- > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time. > Have a great day, > Tommy -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
