49 votes

Santorum attacked Paul at CNN debate for leaving abortion to states, but look what he said in 2003...

I sent this to Judge Napolitano in hope that he'll cover it on Freedom Watch
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-...

So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Another example of his double standard

Another example of his double standard on (not) killing Americans: http://www.dailypaul.com/205463/exposing-the-utter-hypocrisy...

SteveMT's picture

Their own hypocrisy will bury them.

They are destroying themselves by their own inconsistencies.

Gingrich and Santorum have lack-of-funding issues and are not on the ballot in a few states.

It will soon be a two man race.

He didn't switch I don't think.

He just said if NY wants to vote the way THEY want to vote, it's their right.

However, he HAS in the past REPRESENTED a state based soley on what they wanted, or so he claims, as RP pointed out in the debate.

The DIFFERENCE between the two men?

RP's district knows him and they like what he stands for. Santy's people don't know him and don't know what to expect of him.

Isn't That Why

Santorum LOST his last election by a LANDSLIDE?

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Santorum, like Romney and

Santorum, like Romney and like Gingrich continue to switch position on the issues. They have no real positions. They say what they think their audience wants to hear. They are empty suits.

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate with any integrity. I really can't understand how any American could even consider voting for one of these flip-flopping phonies!

Interesting Interview

This is another piece that reallly shows Santorum as a collectivist. His main concern is not about the individual, it's about the continuation of society. He's scared to let people make their own decisions. God forbid, they might do something that he doesn't condone.

You're either free or not free.

I'm a big states right's person but thinking through this stuff, I just don't think states should have the right to ban things that are consensual and do no harm to others. I think there should be some kind of amendment to that effect. There should be an explicit "right to privacy" amendment.

Tim Maitski
Atlanta real estate agent
Atlanta real estate website

Didn't Santorum push for

Didn't Santorum push for planned parenthood which is taxpayer paid abortions...!?

sodomy laws . .

should be of special interest to Santorum given his affinity to Jerry Sandusky(POST accusations).

Jackson County Georgia

War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
Thomas Jefferson

Articles like this have a way of disappearing

Excerpt from Santorum interview
The Associated Press
An unedited section of the Associated Press interview, taped April 7, with Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. Words that couldn't be heard clearly on the tape are marked (unintelligible).
AP: If you're saying that liberalism is taking power away from the families, how is conservatism giving more power to the families?

SANTORUM: Putting more money in their pocketbook is one. The more money you take away from families is the less power that family has. And that's a basic power. The average American family in the 1950s paid (unintelligible)% in federal taxes. An average American family now pays about 25%.

The argument is, yes, we need to help other people. But one of the things we tried to do with welfare, and we're trying to do with other programs is, we're setting levels of expectation and responsibility, which the left never wanted to do. They don't want to judge. They say, Oh, you can't judge people. They should be able to do what they want to do. Well, not if you're taking my money and giving it to them. But it's this whole idea of moral equivalency. (unintelligible) My feeling is, well, if it's my money, I have a right to judge.

AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?

SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.

AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?

SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.

AP: What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.

AP: Well, what would you do?

SANTORUM: What would I do with what?

AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe —

AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. 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. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

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 —

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

SANTORUM: And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society.

AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it?

SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

He is sickening,

sanctimonious and condescending....it'd be bad enough if he were actually a consistent, real, moral person. But he's a total fake.

How long do we have to put up with the insanity and cold-heartedness of people who PRIDE themselves on being "pro-life," smiling tenderly when talking about unborn babies, and then in the next breath vowing to bring agony and destruction to Iran?

What about all the depleted uranium causing grotesque fetal defects in Iraq? Think that keeps Santorum up at night? Seems he can't WAIT to do that to Iran's children!

Ron Paul is an unconventional spiritual leader (see http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/103809.html) and Santorum is like the worst kind of charlatan.

And to think these war

And to think these war mongers havent even been to war. And they have the balls to insinuate lets destroy all the radicals in middle east. I say if you havent been to war you have no right to send young children to die in an undeclared war. And also one more thing we need to borrow all the money we are throwing at useless wars, Its only a matter of time before we have another financial crisis bigger than 2008. WATCH OUT!

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."

bigmikedude's picture

You could tell, Rick had no intention of actually discussing

the issue. It was obvious he did that out of hunting whatever opportunity he could to get a punch in at Ron somewhere to try to keep him down in SC.

That's all it was. A desperate failed sly tactic attempt to knock out an opponent.

Man! If I were these guys,

I would be sooooo careful what I said considering the ability to have their words verified via an Internet search.

Have any of them (save Ron Paul) stayed true to their beliefs?

I watched RP on the Personhood forum - Dr. Paul's explanation of letting the States have jursidiction was excellent - at least we can start saving lives while we set a goal to change the Constitution (paraphrased). What in the world is wrong with that? He didn't say he would not pursue a Constitutional ammendment, only that dealing with this issue at the State level is a more expedient way to get more immediate results.

ALL the others give lip-service to this issue - RP is the only one with a pro-active plan based on the law of the land.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

This is why the Ron Paul grassroots

are the best.

Ha! Beautiful.

Ha! Beautiful.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

I love this, politicians

I love this, politicians can't get by with anything when we are around! I propose that after Ron is elected, we keep this site going as a place to vet all politicians, and to forward the campaigns of those who are truthful and support liberty!

Step 1. White House Step 2.

Step 1. White House

Step 2. Capitol Hill - that's a couple hundred shills to out and replace, we'll be plenty busy!

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

flip

flop