Santorum's social views are somewhere to the right of Pat Buchanan. It will be interesting to see how the GOP steers over the next few months. With the improvement in the economy undeniable, will they revert back to focusing on their extreme social agenda? The vast majority of Americans will find Santorum repugnant. I will say this for him - for better or worse, he seems to be genuine. It seems like he actually believes what he says, and his views have been consistent over the years (unlike Romney and Gingrich). The contraception issue in healthcare, the Planned Parenthood/Komen fiasco, and the Prop 8 case will bring social issues to the foreground for awhile; we'll see how well Santorum can leverage that with the fringe.
"It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."
-- Thomas Jefferson
I can't imagine how anyone--Republican or otherwise--could view Santorum as a viable candidate. We're talking about someone who, as a senator, couldn't even get re-elected in his home state, after serving two terms.
"You travel alone because other people are only there to remind you how much that hook hurts that we all bit down on. Wait for that one day we can bite free and get back out there in space where we belong, sail back over water, over skies, into space, the hook finally out of our mouths and we wander back out there in space spawning to other planets never to return hurrah to earth and we'll look back and can't even see these lives here anymore. Only the taste of blood to remind us we ever existed. The earth is small. We're gone. We're dead. We're safe."
-John Guare, Landscape of the Body
While there's no way to spin this into a positive for Romney, he didn't campaign very hard in those states, and he hasn't unleashed his superPAC on Santorum yet. Still, he's losing states he won in 2008, and getting far fewer votes. The turnout in GOP primaries has been abysmal. As long as Gingrich and Santorum both stay in, I don't see how either can really challenge Romney, but they can both be a nuisance. I think the big winner was Obama.
"It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."
-- Thomas Jefferson
While I find Santorum repugnant, of those remaining in the race, he seems to be the ONLY one who genuinely believes the crazy crap he spews. So, I have begrudging respect for him standing behind his beliefs, even if they are crazy.
It seems weird to say, but there seems to be some honor in his hate - it is not merely pandering.
I have zero respect for him, whether is hate is sincere or not. I want to punch him in the face. Most of the time I can let bigoted hatred just pass over me, but for some reason this guy almost brings tears to my eyes. I hate him.
Maybe it's precisely because he sounds sincere...with people like Newt, you're never really in any doubt that Newt only really cares about Newt, so his bigotry is just pantomime.
Beyoncé is not an ally. Actions speak louder than words, Mrs. Carter. #Dubai #$$$
While I wouldn't say I respect Santorum, I think someone who believes what they say can evolve. Certainly not today, and probably not tomorrow, but maybe someday. My mother, who is a devout Catholic and life-long Republican, changed her views on gay rights, contraception, and many other issues late in life (after turning 75). If she can change her views, anyone can. With political whores like Romney, Gingrich, and to a lesser extent Obama*, you never know what they believe in.
* I think there's no way Obama does not believe in marriage equality, but he lacks the courage to say so. If he wins a 2nd term, I think he'll become an advocate.
"It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."
-- Thomas Jefferson
They did a big story on NPR this morning. The right maintains that the court "Tossed aside" the traditional definition of marriage and the people exercised their constitutional right to pass a law defining it, only to have that right again taken away by this court.
The spokesman was all about "Prop 8" didn't infringe on anyone's rights, but this ruling took away the rights of millions to make their own laws." I think we need to do some educating- the 13th Amendment "Took away" your right to own slaves, but that right is not as important as someone else's basic human right.
Back in the 60s, the SCOTUS 'tossed aside' the traditional definition of marriage with the Loving case. We seem to have survived. A public referendum is the wrong place for determinig rights, and the judiciary is the correct place. It's just a matter of time until marriage equality takes hold across our country, but we have to be vigilant to make sure the fringe isn't able to put up any unnecessary roadblocks. Let's keep in mind that one of the most important things that POTUS does is nominate justices; I can't even begin to imagine who Santorum would nominate.
"It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."
-- Thomas Jefferson
One of the things about this debate that I never is that whole "redefinging marriage" nonsense and how "Marriage always has been nothing but men and women."
If only these people would take two seconds to google "the marriage of chocolate and peanut butter." Their heads might explode.
'There are three sides to every story. My side, your side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each one differently'
-Robert Evans-
The funny thing is that the 9th Circuit decision was actually decided on very narrow grounds - it didn't advocate for a constitutional right to marry at all, and that was absolutely deliberate. They weren't trying to be revolutionaries; they were trying to make it all something arising from Romer v. Evans so it would look (judicially) conservative.
But I wouldn't expect politicians to get that. After all, they don't have legal training! Oh wait.