Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Santorum’s homophobia doesn’t play well in New Hampshire

By CAPITOL HILL BLUE Staff Reports
January 6, 2012

Rick Santorum: Homophobia doesn't play well in New Hampshire (AP Photo)

GOP Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum‘s homophobia may play well in Iowa but it ran head on into the boo birds in Concord, New Hampshire.

Trying to defend his anti-homosexual agenda and even equating it with polygamy, Santroum faced hoots, boos and catcalls from a gay-friendly crowd at the New England College Convention.

A female student asked Santorum about his anti-gay stance: “How can you justify your belief, based on these morals that you have about all men being created equal when two men who want to marry can’t?”

Shot back Santorum: “How about three men?  If reason says that if you think it’s OK for two men then you have to differentiate with me as to why it’s not OK for three?”

When the student tried to explain herself, Santorum interrupted:

“So anybody can marry anybody else?  So anybody can marry several people?”

That brought more boos but Santorum didn’t get the message.

“So if you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people,” he said, “is that OK?”

It wasn’t OK and Santorum eventually walked off stage amid a chorus of boos.

Enhanced by Zemanta

32 Responses to Santorum’s homophobia doesn’t play well in New Hampshire

  1. griff

    January 6, 2012 at 10:37 am

    What a retard! What does gay marriage have to do with polygamy?

    I repeat… What a retard!

    • Gregg

      January 6, 2012 at 10:44 am

      It’s a metaphor, Griff. Don’t you get it? You know, it the same as saying, “You have an apple in one hand and the landing gear of a 747 jet in the other hand….”

      Get it now?

      • logtroll

        January 6, 2012 at 3:38 pm

        What Santorum is objecting to is a man having the “landing gear” of another man in one hand, or the other, and how it does not serve the social good like when a man and/or a woman have the other’s “landing gear” in hand.

        What he doesn’t get is that it isn’t about his hand or his “landing gear” and another man.

        He was making such a reasonable case, then he moved on.

        • Gregg

          January 6, 2012 at 5:57 pm

          log, I’ve clearly understand his comment and beliefs on the topic, but it has yet been proved that it’s a detriment against the “social good”.

          He is way out of his league of terms of expertise to make any claims on the subject, unless he’d like to declarre them as opinion.

          His problem is that he believes that he’s 100% right.

  2. Sandy

    January 6, 2012 at 10:40 am

    There are a lot of Libertarians who vote in New Hampshire and they have very strong opinions that all Americans are equal in the law. Any candidate who runs under a pure Christian agenda will have a tough time in N.H.

    I believe Senator Santorum is flatly catering to the voters from South Carolina who are based heavily on Christian values.

    Christian values can be a good thing, but not within the political elections. Not all Americans are Christian or even religious and it would be wrong to exclude them in our federal elections. I have no problem with any state that has a majority of Christians and they should be able to elect their own kind in local elections. Utah is famous for this and their state is successful in their endeavours. People who want individual freedoms tend to stay out of Utah.

    Many states within the Union have majority of Christian residents like West Virginia, Virginia and the southern states. But to allow them a litmus test for federal elections is unfair to the rest of the American people.

    America has a reputation for being openly individually independent and sometimes even the citizens don’t always recognize the bigotry found in other States. I found it in Arizona and had to come back to my home state of California. I’m as square as Grandma Moses but my family and friends tend to be more openly individual.

  3. Keith

    January 6, 2012 at 11:27 am

    Santorum is the new Mike Huckabee, whom you may recall, ALSO won the Iowa Republican caucus back in 2008. But Huckabee later went nowhere politically…except perhaps to the far right talk show circuit.

    Santorum’s homophobia didn’t play well in Pennsylvania, either, which is probably one of the reasons why the voters of that great state tossed him out of the US Senate on his ear not too long ago.

    Fortunately, Santorum’s far right Christian theocracy ideas are embraced by only a minority of the American population. Indeed, at last count only about 35% of the American electorate call themselves “Evangelical Christians”, and fewer still are homophobes.

    So, while 35% comprises a good chunk of the population as a whole, it isn’t NEAR enough for someone to get elected President these days.

    So, relax, people….Santorum and his far right wing evangelical ideas are going nowhere….except perhaps back to church.

  4. Gregg

    January 6, 2012 at 11:33 am

    There was a discussion among a variety of people of all political persuasions from Ricks home state and they all said that it is extremely unlikely he’ll carry out a victory there…so therefore it would highly unlikely win a national nomination

  5. Sandy

    January 6, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    Senator Santorum is from THE AGE OF ENDARKENMENT. Good grief, I’m still being moderated on the home page. Don’t they realize I used to write for this site? I’d better dot my “T”s and cross my “i”s.

    • Editor

      January 7, 2012 at 4:54 am

      Ms Price:

      What most people do if they want to change the name they post under is send us an email. We get more than 1500 comments a day that go into the moderation bin and we don’t have the staff to always go through them on a timely basis. When someone uses a different name with the same email address it goes into moderation. I’ve fixed the problem but next time have the courtesy to ask through an email.

      • Sandune

        January 7, 2012 at 11:15 am

        The email address to the Editor is the one for Doug? I have asked hin many questions and never received a single reply. I know I am a pain to this site and have been on borrowed time on R.R. but again I did not realize R.R. is a Liberal Democratic forum at this time. I replied via email to one of your monitors that I will wait until the forum returns to equal representation.

        How I reply to the commentaries on the Home Page is done from my opinions and how I sign them is not important. I remember Doug having a problem with phoney names so I figured using my real name would be better. Not an issue!

        I’m back to Sandune or Sandy whichever passes the editor.

        The Home page has some outstanding writers and those who reply are the best I’ve ever read. I simply have a problem keeping up with the rules. You have my email address or you can answer me here. Which name will you accept? Both are mine.

        Today January 7th will air the GOP debate but sadly it is schedule at the same time a couple of NFL games. ABC 6 pm Pacific Time.

        New Hampshire voters are all over the place and it should have interesting results.

  6. thomas

    January 6, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    Every time he opens his mouth, he reminds the voters what BIGOTS Republicans really are!

  7. Dan

    January 6, 2012 at 4:54 pm

    Santorum constantly voted against the 2nd Amendment but voted repeatedly to give Penn State pedophile Jerry Sandusky the congressional Angels in Adoption award. Newt loves illegals (amnesty) more than Americans (Newt wants to bring back child labor for US kids). Mitt thinks corporations are people (killing his general election chances). Ron Paul is the only candidate with a plan to end the TSA and end the endless wars for Israel, it all started a decade ago after a false flag attack.
    9/11, US and Israel:
    http://www.amazon.com/America-Deceived-II-Possession-interrogation/dp/1450257437

  8. Carl Nemo **==

    January 6, 2012 at 7:14 pm

    Thanks Iowa for saddling us with this monkey until he flames out in New Hampshire. This guy came from behind…why so? He wasn’t even mentioned to any extent on CHB, but within the last week ‘bam’ up comes Santorum. The same happened concerning Newt Gingrich a few weeks prior when he was ‘Queen for a day’. / : |

    Too bad it isn’t just Mitt Romney vs. Ron Paul in New Hampshire.

    I’d love to see Mitt receive an upset as a function of Ron Paul’s campaign or at least Paul eclispes this a*sclown, Santorum, so it’s Mitt and Paul going forward.

    Everytime Santorum opens his mouth he puts his foot in it. Little does he seemingly realize every resposne to this gathering he dug himself in deeper as to the fact he’s operating with a bucket on his head when it comes to the game of politics especially his obsession with gays, plural marriages and other non issues relative to the tribulations this nation faces in the immediate future.

    Carl Nemo **==

    • woody188

      January 7, 2012 at 12:54 am

      I’ve seen more than one report from Iowa claiming there was no way Santorum came in second place. They claim he couldn’t even get a crowd of 100 people to any of his events.

      My local CBS affiliate last night said the 4 main candidates in New Hampshire were Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Huntsman. :shock:

      They forgot the guy that took 3rd in Iowa but mentioned two that placed even lower? WTF?

      Yeah, there is no media bias. Sure…

      Tonight my CBS affiliate finally showed Ron Paul with a huge crowd after showing only close ups of the Romney and Santorum events to conceal the smaller crowds. They did show about 10 seconds of the Santorum heckling.

      The best was when Santorum was asked, “What is your biggest mistake?”

      To which he replied, “My biggest political mistake?”

      And then a heckler chimes in with, “Running for President!”

      :smile:

      • Carl Nemo **==

        January 7, 2012 at 1:48 am

        It’s quite glaring Woody188 as to how the media puts Ron Paul on ignore. In the news roundup for the caucus on Tuesday they discussed every candiate but Ron Paul only at the very end would they acknowledge he came in third.

        What are they going to do if he should come in first in N.H., discuss all the losers and completely ignore the winner in the event it is Paul? / : |

        This in our face media bias is so over the top that voters should become quite concerned over our emerging ‘sovietski’ styled elections.

        I’m even disappointed in the editor/s of CHB so voraciously going after Ron Paul over his past newsletter issues. Newt was roughed up a bit, but Mitt Romney was given a pass no differently that the MSM’s treatment of Romney. It’s obvious that Romney is the ‘chosen one’ on the part of the shadowy powerbrokers that preselect the candiates while allowing the unwashed masses to indemnify at the ballot box this November.

        The entire nomination and voting process has been turned into a charade with this aforedescribed nonsense along with electronic voting machine tampering and fraud. Redistricting is another scam played on the electorate.

        For all practical purpses the USA is now an in our face ‘banana republic’.

        Carl Nemo **==

        • Editor

          January 7, 2012 at 5:07 am

          Mr. Nemo:

          I suggest you spend more time actually reading this web site and less time pontificating without research.

          Our publisher has written this about Mr. Romney:

          Romney is more product than candidate, a carefully-crafted package with shifting positions, varying opinions and changing themes depending on which special interest group that he wants to impress. He’s an image candidate without depth, a suit without substance and a political robot designed to spew out any words that work with a target audience.

          It is our position that Mr. Paul is just another flawed political candidate and no better than any of the others in a lackluster field. No amount of whining by the Paul faithful will change that position. The idea that Doug Thompson is in anybody’s pocket is absurd and laughable. Over the past six months, we have published 32 articles critical of Mr. Gingrich, 29 critical of Mr. Cain, 27 critical of Mr. Perry, 24 critical of Ms. Bachmann, 21 critical of Mr. Romney and 19 critical of Mr. Paul.

          So how, pray tell, is this singling our Mr. Paul? Only in the minds of those who hold the mistaken belief that he is beyond question. That belief is not held here nor will it ever be.

          As for why coverage of Mr. Paul has dried up, there is a simple explanation for anyone who takes the time to ask why without engaging in meaningless hyperbole. Mr. Paul took most of the week after Iowa off. He went home to Texas, his campaign said, to “to spend a little time with his family before coming to New Hampshire to push through to the primary.” He had no events scheduled in New Hampshire or anywhere else for three days.

          I suggest you and others here get your facts in order before making charges without substance and creating assumptions that don’t exist.

          • Bill Cravener

            January 7, 2012 at 6:39 am

            “Over the past six months, we have published 32 articles critical of Mr. Gingrich, 29 critical of Mr. Cain, 27 critical of Mr. Perry, 24 critical of Ms. Bachmann, 21 critical of Mr. Romney and 19 critical of Mr. Paul.”

            Touché! I was hoping CHB would point that fact out.

          • Carl Nemo **==

            January 7, 2012 at 12:28 pm

            Thanks for the feedback. Ah, so now I’m an unresearched, pontificator, meaning I must have ‘popely’ aspirations…no? :))

            Of course you published articles about the other candidates, but what stunned me was the incredibly fierce ‘tone’ of the Paul articles over some newsletters of twenty years past also implying that his foundations and campaign fund management borders on fraud when it’s not. I didn’t state you singled him out per se, but again it was the tenor of the articles, relentlessly hammering on the guy.

            We simply have a difference of opinion and yes I’m a supporter of Ron Paul for President of the United States of America.

            I’m tired of shallow draft ‘personalities’ for president, the likes of Obama, possibly Romney, Santorum et al. that once elected will simply provide more of the same; I.E. puppets for the globalist agenda.

            Carl Nemo **==

      • Carl Nemo **==

        January 7, 2012 at 3:39 am

        Hi Woody188…

        I ran across a link exposing the possibility of voting fraud/errors? at the primary level in Iowa.

        http://www.infowars.com/iowa-officials-deny-vote-count-error-reports-as-rumor-innuendo-allegation/

        An interesting read for all.

        Carl Nemo **==

    • Sandune

      January 7, 2012 at 11:18 am

      I agree Carl. A shoot out between Romney and Paul would be worth taping.

      • Hal Brown

        January 8, 2012 at 1:43 pm

        Sandy, a shoot out with pistols, basketballs, or befitting this primary, tiddlywinks?

  9. bob kunst

    January 7, 2012 at 1:14 am

    Dear Media:

    It didn’t take long for Santorum to get into his gay bashing in New Hampshire.

    Littly Ricky say that gays in the military and getting married isn’t a right.

    Little Ricky needs to re-read the U.S. Constitution, because gays, bisexuals and heterosexuals gave life and limb since the beginning of this nation, so that this emotionally and sexually insecure jerk could run for President with the rest of the losers.

    The issue isn’t ‘gay marriage’,but ‘taxation with representation’ and ‘equality’ under the law which is why a number of states have adopted this and domestic partnerships, as well as a number of countries. Inevitably so will the Supreme Ct.

    Mr. Moralist should be concerned more about the lack of marriages with heterosexuals and 1/2 of them getting divorced, but this hypocrite, when he gets to Florida, the homeland of Gay Rights, where we threw out Anita Bryant and Jerry Falwell out of this state, should finally set the tone for this boob’s campaign.

    Here we have Obama and his anti-Israel, pro-Jihadist politics that is appeasing Iran and the Muslim militants, who care less about gay marriage, when we are all ‘infidels’ they want dead and Santorum is too stupid to focus on real issues and real threats while his desire is to keep America divided and to be made the symbol of homophobia and fool he is at every turn. American and Israeli security is just a side show for his reality of massive stupidity.

    I led the opposition to Anita Bryant and Jerry Falwell. I also confronted Santorum in S. Carolina last year,at a debate in Greenville about his anti-gay politics and he flew off the handle. Talk about a weeny, unable to deal with his own sexuality while attacking others.

    Below is a statement from Sen. Simpson on Santorum said on the Chris Mathews Show on April 12, 2011.

    I urge the media to stop playing games with the security of America and Israel and not expose fully the insecurity of Santorum and gang. Too bad Iowa played their game with Santorum. On the other hand Iowa gave us Obama. Oy!

    Yours in Shalom,
    Bob Kunst
    Pres., Shalom International
    305-864-5110
    http://www.defendjerusalem.net

    ———————-

    • Carl Nemo **==

      January 7, 2012 at 12:40 pm

      Thanks Bob Kunst for your input to the discussion. I concur with your evaluation of Santorum and so too President Obama. It’s refreshing to hear from participants that have something say. : )

      No fear, Santorum’s campaign isn’t moving away from the dock. New Hampshire voters are going take care of the problem. Gregg mentioned that Iowa had only a 4-5% turnout; if so, it’s less than a ‘dipstick’ sampling of Iowa’s electorate much less nationwide.

      Carl Nemo **==

    • woody188

      January 7, 2012 at 3:43 pm

      Bob, I think a little research would show Obama has only been “anti-Israel” when it comes to the issue of Palestinian statehood. Every other policy has been a continuation of Bush Doctrine. Turns out Obama is a chicken hawk.

  10. egc52556

    January 7, 2012 at 3:38 am

    Hey guys, when you bash my home state of Iowa please remember it was Iowa REPUBLICANS who gave Santorum this lift.

    The rest of us despise this theocratic bigot (and his ilk: Bachmann & Perry).

    • Carl Nemo **==

      January 7, 2012 at 3:48 am

      Good point egc52556. : )

      Hey, I’ve missed your contributions to the site over time. You’ve always demonstrated common sense in your writings which isn’t all that common nowadays. : )

      Carl Nemo **==

  11. Gregg

    January 7, 2012 at 10:42 am

    I saw a headline on Huff that Iowa only had a 5.4% voter turnout. It’s impossible to get a grasp of what the outcome would be at the general election with such a low voter show at the cacus.

  12. Sandune

    January 7, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    Good point Gregg, I did not know that. It may not matter in the long run. I’m hoping for S. Carolina and Florida to start the race. I’m also waiting to see who throws a hat into the Libertarian pot. My State (CAL) will be on Super Tuesday and since I’ve been back, I’m seeing that a lot of my neighbors agree with my point of view.

  13. Sandune

    January 8, 2012 at 11:28 am

    During the NBC debate, Santorum has stated clearly that Iran must be bombed when they go nuclear because they are a THEOCRACY. He wants a religious war against Islam. Seems as if I warned about this in 2000. Christians will never allow Islam to have a nuclear bomb. It’s fine with Russia, No. Korea but not Islam. If we put that man in the White House or even back in the government, we are asking for the destruction of America.

    Damnit! Wake up Republicans! We must return to the separation of church and state or regret the consequences. Must I blow up a blimp and fly it across America? Rewrite the GOP agenda for all Americans. Dump the Evangelicals…..

  14. Hal Brown

    January 8, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    Okay, I am in Portland, Oregon having flown in from Boston Thursday just now and I am still a tad jet lagged. It is difficult for me to take this Potsie game played with square marbles on a gravel playground quite seriously.

    But I suggest a question for the next debate when it comes to the subject of homosexuality.

    Actually I can think of a few; but if I had to choose one it would be to inquire whether sex between a man and two bisexual women at the same time, one of whom may be the man’s wife, is acceptable.

    Of course they would answer know and babble on about the sanity of the marriage (and Newt known a bit about that). But I am rather evil and I’d just want to see if I could get a blush (or a rise – pun intended) out of any of them.

    Also, some of these candidates have said they do not object to loving relationships with two men who are homosexual (why is is always men and not some they refer too?). They say that loving someone sexually who is the same gender is fine as long as no santorum sexual contact is involved.

    Can such a couple sleep in the same bed and cuddle? Are erections allowed as long as the organs in question do not contact the other person?

    How about looking lovingly at each other and engaging in onanism?

    What about holding hands in public?

    • Carl Nemo **==

      January 8, 2012 at 4:40 pm

      A solid post Hal, which in summation demonstrates government at all levels needs to keep their stinkin’ noses out of the sexual activities of our citizens…period!

      We’re financially bust as a nation, continuing to wage engineered wars we can ill afford, financed with ‘debt bucks’, while these presidential wannabes are discussing the sexual proclivities of citizens as to what’s ‘approved’ behavior and what’s not per their myopic standards. Yikes!

      Seemingly we’re doomed as a nation with mattoids such as these on the stump. By November, a second term for President Obama is going to seem the lesser of evils at the polls.

      Welcome to the Pacific Northwest. : )

      Carl Nemo **==

  15. Watchman

    January 9, 2012 at 11:42 am

    The gay thing is becoming a distraction for this candidate, taking attention away from whatever sensible points Rick S. may have to offer. His comparisons with dogs and gang bangs will follow him wherever he goes. He has little to gain from this, as most people don’t care much apart from the Bible right…. and the gay left, which is a small but vocal group who make up for numbers by creative use of the media. Rick S. is foolish to underestimate them, as they will chase him to h*** and back if they have to.

    How about this guy saying something positive for a change?