Rick Santorum’s reaction to Mitt talking about Tax Releases…
Pretty much says it all.
**I am not going to re-gif this because tumblr’s stupid ass has issues with the color blue.
Tracks
If Santorum gets no votes; do you think that he will quit?
This is 1% reporting from AP.
Rick Santorum said Monday that comments he made last week in Iowa about food stamps that some construed as racially charged were the result of his having been tongue-tied and were not a reference to black people. Moreover, he said he has done more in black communities “than any Republican in recent memory.” He maintains that he did not say “black” people’s lives but rather stumbled verbally when he was trying to say “people’s lives” and uttered a short syllable that came out as “plives.
Santorum Tries Again To Defend Racist Welfare Rant: I Said ‘Plives,’ Not ‘Black’ | ThinkProgress
Alright, Rick.
You are a fucking moron. Instead of all of this fucking bull shit. Why don’t you just say; I said black. I’m sorry I am a racist jack ass.
And then shut the fuck up forever.
Do you think they intentionally made Santorum’s line brown?
No worries, Mitt, we all feel like this when Santorum speaks.
I’ve gotta agree with go— Governor Huntsman, the means test. And I talked about that in Hollis yesterday. We had about 1,200 people there. And I walked through and talked about how we have to make sure that— we’re not gonna burden future generations with a Social Security program that’s underfunded. It’s underfunded right now.
Press Pass - Read the NBC News-Facebook debate transcript
Rick Santorum on Social Security.
I thought it was the abortion rates, Ricky…
It is evident that this man does not have the slightest idea of how social security works.
After some crosstalk, Romney started up his answer again, and was insistent. “George, I—I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception. No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no—no state wants to do and asking me whether they could do it or not is kind of a silly thing, I think.” When Santorum again pressed him, Romney was incredulous, “Has the Supreme Court—has the Supreme Court decided that states do not have the right to provide contraception?” No—they decided the opposite in Griswold v. Connecticut, ruling that the right to privacy prohibited states from banning contraception. But it’s a sore point with conservatives, like Rick Santorum, who believe the right to privacy is a load of a baloney. And in light of the nationwide Personhood movement, it’s hardly a dead issue.
“There Are No Classes in America” | Mother Jones
Mitt really didn’t want to answer this question. The “birth control is working just fine” statement may have even been too much for some of the radical nut bag republicans out there.
And that is the problem it is either one of 2 things:
Either Mitt believes that it really is fine and wouldn’t seek to allow states to ban birth control and didn’t want to risk pissing off the 10% of loon voters.
OR
Mitt wants to let states ban birth control and didn’t want to piss off the 80 some percent of the country that does use birth control.
It is typical Romney. Right now he won’t give a straight answer because it will cost him votes.
However, they really let Frothy Mix get away unscathed on this one and it was based off of his own words.
“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.” And also, “Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
(link)
So that big scary “liberal” media pretty much handed him the opportunity to give a fluff answer and simply say that he thinks it should be left to the state with out asking why. And why is the most important part of this question.
If it is left to the state there is nothing holding back bills that ban birth control and potentially the freakish fetal personhood bills.
WOMAN: Mr. Santorum, why do you have a problem against black people? We are the only ones who need aid? The statistics show that it’s not the popularity [sic] that’s the most needy. SANTORUM: I didn’t say that. I understand that. WOMAN: OK, then why’d you say that? SANTORUM: OK, we gotta go. I didn’t say that.
Rick Santorum, you cannot honestly think any one other than delusional mindless Fox bots believes that you said “blah” instead of “black”.
Senator Rick Santorum’s campaign Saturday defended the candidate’s reliance in South Carolina on a former lobbyist convicted of bribing a Senate staffer. The lobbyist, James Hirni, figured in the Jack Abramoff scandals, and his campaign presence may resonate with critics’ attacks on Santorum as a creature of Capitol Hill. Hirni pled guilty in 2008 on charges that included giving Senate staffers World Series and strip club tickets in exchange for legislative action. He reportedly stayed out of prison by promising to work as an undercover informant for authorities. The Daily Beast described him as “The GOP’s Donnie Brasco.
Convicted Lobbyist Is Santorum’s S.C. Aide
Any one surprised by this news?
The Suffolk University tracking poll in New Hampshire continues to find Mitt Romney with a big lead over his GOP rivals, but it also shows Rick Santorum’s surge stopping as he slips back into fourth place. Romney leads with 39%, followed by Ron Paul at 17%, Newt Gingrich at 10%, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman tied at 9%, and Rick Perry at 1%. Key finding: “Santorum came under scrutiny at a campaign stop in Concord, N.H. earlier this week when he compared gay marriage to polygamy and admitted he did not know his medical marijuana laws very well. He was jeered for those answers by a predominately student audience. Overnight, his support dropped from 6 percent to 3 percent among undeclared (Independents) and also dropped from 9 percent to 2 percent among voters ages 18-34 years.
Santorum Slides Back in New Hampshire
‘Tis the beginning of the end.
And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, 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. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family.
–Rick Santorum on his belief that there is no right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution. In the Griswold case, the U.S. Supreme Court found that married couples had the right to use birth control.
Associated Press interview, April 2003.
(Source: santorumexposed.com)
Santorum’s Abortion
I am going to go ahead and clear this up.
“He’s not a little weird, he’s really weird,” Robinson said of Santorum. “And some of his positions that he has taken are just so weird that I think that some Republicans are off-put. Not everybody is not going to be down, for example, with the story of how he and his wife handled the stillborn child. It was a body that they took home to kind of sleep with it, introduce it to the rest of the family. It’s a very weird story.”
Fact 1: This fetus was not “stillborn” it was alive at birth and died two hours after.
Fact 2: Santorum’s wife had an infection in her uterus that was killing her.
Fact 3: The Santorum’s decided to induce labor in the full knowledge that the fetus would not survive. This was a medically necessary abortion procedure.
Taking it home while creepy is not entirely unheard of. During the Victorian Era the practice of memento mori was very popular; many instances involving treating the deceased as human and setting them up for photographs sometimes with the family. These are the only images of the “child” that this family has and is still widely used in the form of stillbirth photography.
I have doubts that it is all that partisan pundits are making it out to be and while we see fetus; they saw a “child” like many other individuals who are willingly carrying to term.
The lack of empathy here is as nauseating as the right wings insistence that women suddenly wake up one day in the final trimester and decide they simply don’t want to do it any more.
I realize that Santorum is a gigantic frothy mix of stupidity, racism, sexism, classism, and Christian supremacism, and that he deserves much ire for his blatant hypocrisy on abortion, but it really isn’t helping out arguments any to continually focus on how they chose to mourn the necessary termination of a pregnancy they wanted.
Santorum: I Didn’t Say “Black People,” I Said “Blah People”
Santorum defended his tongue-slip on FOX News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” saying: “I looked at that, and I didn’t say that. If you look at it, what I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of — blah — came out. And people said I said ‘black.’ I didn’t. And I can tell you, I don’t use — I don’t — first off, I don’t use the term ‘black’ very often. I use the term ‘African-American’ more than I use ‘black… I can tell you as someone who did more work for historically black colleges, I used to have — every year, I used to bring all the historically black colleges into Washington, DC to try to help them, because they get very little federal money through the bureaucracy, and so I help to try to introduce them to people in the Department of Education so they could have more resources.”
STUPENDOUS SAVE.
The only thing worse than a racist is a liar and the only thing worse than a liar is a racist liar.
1. it’s totally going to get overshadowed by the Ron Paul racism thing
2. Or Ron Paul will use this as an attempt to look LESS racist (look, he said black people are on welfare, I only had some dumb newsletters)
3. How many non-white people actually vote in Republican primaries?
4. I posted a video like 2 hours ago where he says black like 8 times.
5. TRIGGER WARNING: Why are people getting worked up about Santorum, who could never, not in a million years, win a national election?
Because someone this blatantly racist should never have made it this far.
but…someone this racist ALWAYS makes it this far. sometimes farther.
god bless america!
Santorum is a dead man walking. Even if he does manage to get the nomination (which is doubtful) he will not win the election. He is the most offensive to almost everyone in America in addition to being an extremist and hypocrite who just seems to generally hate everything and everyone.
The sole reason he has gotten this far is that he is not Mitt Romney or King Newt of the Ego and that the press has largely ignored him.
It is in my opinion the the GOP isn’t even trying to win this election and has allowed the people they would like to not deal with trash their political careers in an non-winnable election.
The longer the GOP has to fear monger about the big scary African American “liberal” in the White House the better it is for them. They are concentrating on what really matters to them; gaining and keeping control of the house and senate. That is where the power is.
Yes, that means exactly what you think it does: Santorum believes that each and every one of our government’s laws must match God’s law, warning that “as long as there is a discordance between the two, there will be agitation.” I’m not exactly sure what “agitation” means in this context, but I think it’s a code word for something much worse than acid reflux.
And as an aside, when Santorum says “God,” he means “not any god (but) the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” So, if your god differs from Rick’s, your god’s views will be ignored, just like the father is on “Keeping Up with the Kardashians.”
Some of you might be asking: How far will “Santorum Two” take this? It’s not like he’s going to base public policy decisions on Bible passages, right?
Well, here’s what Santorum had to say just last week when asked about his opposition to gay marriage: “We have Judeo-Christian values that are based on biblical truth. … And those truths don’t change just because people’s attitudes may change.”
(Source: CNN)
A HEARTFELT APOLOGY FROM A REGRETFUL IOWAN
As a lifelong Iowan (born & raised & still residing), I sincerely, profusely, self-flagellatingly apologize on behalf of all forward-thinking Iowans for allowing Santorum to be #2 in our caucus last night.
Honestly, we didn’t think he’d make it in the top 3, let alone the top 2, & a sickeningly close #2 at that.
For Republicans, Santorum was the last possible rung down the “I’m Not Romney (or Ron Paul)” ladder. Every other non-Romney (& non-Paul) candidate had their moment at the top of the heap, but then imploded under the spotlight.
Perry, Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich—each one of them had their moment in the sun, & then they said or did something so incredibly stupid/crazy/bizarre that voters finally realized that he/she was not a viable candidate in the long run.
(E.g., Bachmann’s HPV vaccine statement, Cain’s slow & ignorant response to a question about Libya, Perry’s “3rd government agency” that he couldn’t remember, & Gingrich’s many egotistical statements.)
Santorum apparently lucked out by having his flavor-of-the-month moment occur RIGHT before the caucus—& then not having enough time before the caucus to say something incredibly stupid/crazy/bizarre.
(Truly, almost everything Santorum says or does is at least a little stupid/crazy/bizarre—but nothing he said during his moment was incredibly so. Santorum was [& is] fairly consistent in his stupid/crazy/bizarre-ness, so nothing he said or did stood out.)
But i’ll wager that Santorum that will soon say something so incredibly stupid/crazy/bizarre, it’ll make primary voters abandon shit.
Even without an implosion, it should be apparent to most that Santorum won’t be the nominee. And so it’s not really surprising that Santorum almost won the Iowa caucus.
The history of Iowa caucus Republicans show they’re more likely to pick a candidate who doesn’t get the nomination. In the past 5 caucuses where the incumbent Republican President was not a candidate, Iowa Republicans have been wrong 3 of 5:
- Huckabee won the Iowa caucus in 2008 (but McCain got the nom—in fact, McCain came in 4th in the caucus)
- Dole won the caucus in ‘88 (but Bush Sr. got the nom—in fact, Bush Sr. came in 3rd in the caucus, & Pat Fucking Robertson came in 2nd)
- Bush Sr. won the caucus in 1980 (but Reagan got the nominatiion)
On the other hand, Iowa caucus Democrats have shown themselves to be more likely to correctly pick the candidate that gets the nomination. In the past 5 caucuses where the incumbent Dem President was not a candidate, the Iowa Dems have been right 3 of 5:
- Obama in 2008
- Kerry in 2004
- Gore in 2000
Actually, going back to 1980, the Iowa Dems have correctly picked the nominee 5 out of 7 times. (See Iowa caucuses.)
Once again, I’m truly, deeply, profoundly sorry. Now this asshole believes he has a shot at becoming the nominee.
