• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is Santorum the company he keeps?

tessaesque

tessaesque

Bring us a shrubbery!
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
15,910
Reaction score
12,630
Location
Plano, Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Rival presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s Iowa coalitions director, Jamie Johnson, sent out an email saying that children’s lives would be harmed if the nation had a female president. [...]
“The question then comes, ‘Is it God’s highest desire, that is, his biblically expressed will, … to have a woman rule the institutions of the family, the church, and the state?’ ” Johnson’s email said.
​
Johnson, who remains on Santorum’s staff, complained that the email was “blown out of proportion” and should not be held against him because it was sent from a personal email account.
But he refused to back away from the substance of the email, saying “I was sharing my personal reflections with a friend…[T]hey were reflections on over 25 years of formal, theological study [based in] classical Christian doctrine.”
Click to expand...

Is this the type of message Santorum wants to be reflective of his campaign? Do you think the doings of his staff should reflect on him, or should the people he employ have no reflection on him as a person/candidate?

Linky: Santorum Staffer Says Women Shouldn't Be President Because It's Against God's Will | ThinkProgress
 
tessaesque said:
Is this the type of message Santorum wants to be reflective of his campaign? Do you think the doings of his staff should reflect on him, or should the people he employ have no reflection on him as a person/candidate?

Linky: Santorum Staffer Says Women Shouldn't Be President Because It's Against God's Will | ThinkProgress
Click to expand...

I don't know about any of that, but I know you will be hammered at some point in this thread by someone who has a problem with your source.
 
Alright, I will attempt to answer the question in earnest - Is Santorum the company he keeps?

The answer, of course, is both yes and no. No individual is responsible for the beliefs of the people he hires or associates with - if you believe that, you're walking the fine line of accusing someone of guilt by association. We saw that with the whole Bill Ayers thing.

On the other hand, if there's more than a few people who hold such beliefs who are on his campaign staff, it may indeed be a reflection his own beliefs and the types of people he associates with - which can give us insight into the way HE thinks.
 
Last edited:
No, he is not the company he keeps - entirely. This reminds me of the controversy people drummed up for Obama with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers and I have the same opinion about this as I did about that.

In terms of the company we keep, the most important thing to consider is why we keep them, or what part of them, their ideas and their actions we identify with. For example, it's my understanding that Obama connected with Wright and Ayers because of their involvement in community betterment actions and similar things. His relationship with Wright does not mean that he approved of all his opinions. His relationship with Ayers does not mean that he supported Ayers' actions 40 years ago.

It's the same with Santorum. His connection with Johnson does not necessarily mean that he supports all of Johnson's opinions. The most important thing to learn about his relationship with this guy is why they connect with each other and what do they agree on. People need to be held responsible for their own beliefs - not the beliefs of other people. I certainly have friends and associates who have opinions that I find appalling, but our connection on other issues is strong enough for me to not be turned off by their other, less positive, attributes and if I were to run for political office and be held accountable for opinions that I do not share, that would be stupid.
 
tessaesque said:
Is this the type of message Santorum wants to be reflective of his campaign? Do you think the doings of his staff should reflect on him, or should the people he employ have no reflection on him as a person/candidate?

Linky: Santorum Staffer Says Women Shouldn't Be President Because It's Against God's Will | ThinkProgress
Click to expand...

In this case, yes. Santorum obviously agrees with the rightwing biblical version of gender roles which require women to be submissive to men, which rules out their being in charge of the institutions of family, church and the state
 
sangha said:
In this case, yes. Santorum obviously agrees with the rightwing biblical version of gender roles which require women to be submissive to men, which rules out their being in charge of the institutions of family, church and the state
Click to expand...

You say "obviously", but the article mentions nothing of Santorum's response or views. I don't see anything in his debates/treatment of his wife/website positions that say he agrees with the statement made by his staffer. Can you provide anything to back up your claim?
 
sangha said:
...the rightwing biblical version of gender roles which require women to be submissive to men, which rules out their being in charge of the institutions of family, church and the state
Click to expand...

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Click to expand...

Let's not smear the Bible for its interpreters. Right-wing version of gender roles would suffice.
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
You say "obviously", but the article mentions nothing of Santorum's response or views. I don't see anything in his debates/treatment of his wife/website positions that say he agrees with the statement made by his staffer. Can you provide anything to back up your claim?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that the article made Santorums' views obvious. He has a record. You should look at it

Santorum beleives that women shouldn't have jobs
"In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might find they don't both need to. ... What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else — or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon — find themselves more affirmed by society? Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism." (Santorum's 2005 book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good)
Click to expand...

He believes that women should not have the freedom to make their own choices wrt contraception.
“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.”
Click to expand...

He also opposes sex for non-procreative purposes

"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!"
Click to expand...
 
ecofarm said:
Galatians 3:28



Let's not smear the Bible for its interpreters. Right-wing version of gender roles would suffice.
Click to expand...

In many cases, your last sentence would be correct, but in Santarums case, it's clear that his views are based on rightwing christianity, and not just generic rightwingerism

I'll add that none of what I said is a "smear" against the Bible. It's a criticism of Santorums' rightwing interpretation of the Bible
 
sangha said:
I didn't say that the article made Santorums' views obvious. He has a record. You should look at it

Santorum beleives that women shouldn't have jobs


He believes that women should not have the freedom to make their own choices wrt contraception.

He also opposes sex for non-procreative purposes
Click to expand...

You completely distorted the quotes you posted to create that interpretation.
 
"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!"

-Santorum

Santorum opposes the right to consensual sex in our homes. Amazing.
 
tessaesque said:
You completely distorted the quotes you posted to create that interpretation.
Click to expand...

Nope. They are spot on, except maybe the first one, which doesn't come out and say women should be banned from working, just that most don't need to (which is economic idiocy on Santorum's part too).
 
misterman said:
Nope. They are spot on, except maybe the first one, which doesn't come out and say women should be banned from working, just that most don't need to (which is economic idiocy on Santorum's part too).
Click to expand...

He didn't target women specifically in that quote, or the second one.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
No, he is not the company he keeps - entirely. This reminds me of the controversy people drummed up for Obama with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers and I have the same opinion about this as I did about that.

In terms of the company we keep, the most important thing to consider is why we keep them, or what part of them, their ideas and their actions we identify with. For example, it's my understanding that Obama connected with Wright and Ayers because of their involvement in community betterment actions and similar things. His relationship with Wright does not mean that he approved of all his opinions. His relationship with Ayers does not mean that he supported Ayers' actions 40 years ago.

It's the same with Santorum.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I didn't realise that Wright and Ayers were working for Obama, running his campaign. Then you're right, it's the exact same thing.
 
misterman said:
Sure. He thinks men should stay home and women work. Right.
Click to expand...

I don't like the man and won't vote for the man, but I don't have to assume and distort his messages to justify my dislike.

Just sayin'.
 
Andalublue said:
I'm sorry, I didn't realise that Wright and Ayers were working for Obama, running his campaign. Then you're right, it's the exact same thing.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize that the hundreds, if not thousands, of people working on a campaign all have the exact opinions as the person their working for. Oh wait, they don't. My points are true. Perry does not necessarily share the opinion in the OP and the important question to ask is 'what connects them' and evaluate whether or not that connection is a problem
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
He didn't target women specifically in that quote, or the second one.
Click to expand...

Wrong. He didn't target women ONLY, but he most certainly mentions women specifically in that first quote

The 2nd quote was to demonstrate that he believes in the rightwing christian views on gender roles, and was not specific to women
 
sangha said:
Wrong. He didn't target women ONLY, but he most certainly mentions women specifically in that first quote

The 2nd quote was to demonstrate that he believes in the rightwing christian views on gender roles, and was not specific to women
Click to expand...

He also mentions men specifically in the 1st quote.

The 2nd quote has nothing to do with gender roles; it has to do with contraception...which is both a male/female contributive area of sexual activity.
 
I'm not republican or 'right-wing', but I think it's best to have one parent home at the expense of higher 'living standards'.
 
tessaesque said:
He also mentions men specifically in the 1st quote.

The 2nd quote has nothing to do with gender roles; it has to do with contraception...which is both a male/female contributive area of sexual activity.
Click to expand...

Again, I pointed out that Santarum believes in the rightwing biblical interpretation of gender roles. That includes both women AND men. I never excluded men from his view of gender roles, so your arguing as if I did is dishonest.
 
sangha said:
Again, I pointed out that Santarum believes in the rightwing biblical interpretation of gender roles. That includes both women AND men. I never excluded men from his view of gender roles, so your arguing as if I did is dishonest.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that you never proved a point. You posted ambiguous quotes and your personal interpretation, which wasn't backed up by the quote itself. Then again, it's a tactic that's been pretty typical of your posting style since you joined, so I'm not sure why I'm surprised.
 
tessaesque said:
What I'm saying is that you never proved a point. You posted ambiguous quotes and your personal interpretation, which wasn't backed up by the quote itself. Then again, it's a tactic that's been pretty typical of your posting style since you joined, so I'm not sure why I'm surprised.
Click to expand...

No, those are widely accepted interpretations of Santorums comments and he has made many public statements concerning his belief in traditional christian rightwing gender roles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom