Rick Santorum, indiscreet homophobe and GOP presidential candidate, made an unusual move by appealing to gay voters, saying they were more than welcome to join his campaign as he fights for strong national security and lower taxes.
On Fox News' On The Record with Greta Van Susteren Tuesday night, Rick made a case for pulling gay voters to his campaign even as he said that his efforts against gay marriage should not be seen as a personal attack. "You know, we can have a public policy discussion that says that, you know, certain things... our laws should be certain ways without seeing it as a personal attack. It's not a personal attack. It's what we believe is best for the country" he told Greta, explaining why he wants their votes even after acting directly in contrast to their desires. Rick turned up the charm by saying, "I have nothing against gay people," a statement that may not be accepted by anyone who has even the faintest idea who he is.
Santorum's appeal was based around the idea that his other policies would be something that gay voters would support. He rejected their attempts to redefine what marriage is, but said, "We have a public policy disagreement. I know there are a lot of gays who are strong on national security and believe in lower taxes and getting this economy moving, and welcome them to join our campaign." He has basically told groups looking for equality that they can't have it, but that's okay, because his other ideas are just so fantastic that they'll like him anyway. It may not take a rocket scientist to figure out how well this one will go over.
Rick's record against gay marriage isn't just simple disagreement with the idea. In the past he talked about the battle on same-sex marriage, saying that he would "die on that hill" to fight what he viewed as a threat to "the very foundation of our country." He said that he rejected legalizing gay marriage because then, oh the horror, it would be seen as equal to straight marriage. As well as his rather infamous claim that failure to defend the institution of marriage will cause "our country will fall," he was also endorsed by an anti-gay group in Iowa called "The FaMiLY Leader," yet another organization that attempts to disguise bigotry by oh-so-cleverly tossing "family" in the name.
But surely gay voters will look past all that and offer him their overwhelming support. Nothing could possibly go wrong with this, nothing at all.
Photo: Gage Skidmore
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 28
No, of course not. How can it be a personal attack? Nor is your well-considered stance that DADT should still be in place. Since you've never had the guts to serve in the armed forces, your ideas about the military and what goes on "in there" is about as clueless as with real, live gay people, how they too deserve the same benefits and responsibilities as you do, married to an opposite sex partner.
Don't hold your breath about gays flocking to your campaign.
Now the rest of America can learn how goofy he is.
Otherwise I think I agree with you. People will vote according to what they want, and that's fair. If a candidate doesn't fit someone's ideals, they don't have to vote for them. In this case I thought it was amusing that someone who comes out so strongly against a particular cause would then ask supporters of it to support him. Kinda makes me wonder, but I guess when you're a candidate you have to try what you can.
That's certainly your opinion, as unfettered to reality as it is.
Most homosexuals understand this and are against it; only radical Leftist homosexuals push the issue.
I know quite a few, Lora. Friends, neighbours, and acquaintances. I know many via my Profession; and also, there are a few Salons in the Family that I have a hand in...so, quite a few.
You've enjoyed that one, eh? Thank you; I'm glad that my humour is working on you...you are a rather surly sort!
(laughs!) "Backwardness!" Psshhh...Such a silly, surly one, you are... ;)
Yeah? Well, there are places you couldn't even get a decent Steak...so the frick what?
You do understand the meaning of the word "bigoted," don't you Lora? Because, you sound awfully bigoted toward Mr. Santorum, myself, and anyone else who doesn't believe what you believe.
Firstly, Patriarch and Matriarch both have an integral part to play in the raising of a child. Well-adjusted children grow up (ideally) to create a more well-adjusted society. Secondly, homosexuals cannot have children. In order to support a Society, believe or no, our population must constantly be replaced, above the death rate. Or you can kiss those entitlement benefits "goodbye;" there will be no one to pay for them. Europe will give you all the empirical evidence you need.
Thirdly, and you aren't going to like this, it is the way we are created. Children should NOT be denied the benefits of a Mother and a Father. THEY are the innocent ones in this scenario, and we owe it to them to be responsible in ensuring that they are given the best chance for adjustment...and the best chance is to provide them with the UNIQUE influence that Man and Woman bring to development. Each has a unique gift to bring a Child. Surrogates are not Mothers and Fathers, and Children know this, instinctively. They also know, instinctively, that two Mothers, or two Fathers, is unnatural.
Also, I don't understand the 'can't have kids' argument. Is there a problem with that? The only population crisis we have on this planet right now is that there are too many people.
As for it being unnatural, I disagree. I think it's less common, but not unnatural, and I think that's an important distinction. It's not like same-sex couples are completely unable to provide what a secure family needs. Again, look at all the kids who have turned out just fine.
And even if everything you say is right and I'm wrong... that still doesn't really explain how it would destroy the country. At the very most it would cause some inconvenience to a few children growing up in homosexual relationships, and they're in the minority (and note, that's only if everything you said was true, which I happen to disagree with).
Thanks for your input though, I do appreciate the change to discuss it (I don't get that with many comments here :P).
So, are we going to vote on a Constitutional ban on divorce as well? Many kids are raised by a single parent and turn out just fine.
And a Constitutional amendment to say that a child must be given up for adoption if the mother and father are not married?
I'm finished..I have made my point and you have made yours so I see no need to return to this article. Have a nice day.
Applying that same thinking, then you hate me as well; correct, Lora? After all, Santorum doesn't think that homosexuals should be given privilege that neither you or I are given. I agree with him. Therefore, you hate Santorum, using that same logic; correct, Lora?
Well...you're not a very tolerant person, are you?
Santorum's appeal is to the anti-gay block, not the gay block. And the anti gay block is not going to be something to ride into the white house, not in 2012. Younger Republican voters largely look at gay marriage and gay military service and do not get high blood pressure.
Santorum's candidacy is going going gone. Wait a few weeks.
He wants to protect the Sanctity of Marriage...so do I, and most of the People in the United States. So what? Is it your purview to decide what his opinion on any given subject should be?
I see the spread of "hatred," and it's not coming from Santorum. ;)
You are wrong that "most people" want to ban gay marriage "Most people" don't care if gays marry. The people that oppose it are those that are ignorant. Do you know the definition of ignorant?
this is a common ailment of the social conservatives who have started to wave the "Tea Party" banner but are really just the same old social conservatives that they always were. They think that everybody in the good ol' USA is completely with them except for a few radical socialist perverts. But in reality, they can't even get real traction in the Republican Party outside of some of the caucuses that are run by the Evangelicals.