I really despise calling names, so I find myself very frustrated with Rick Santorum.
His "rhetoric" is not political rhetoric in today's sense.
Instead it is the extreme religious theology of his church.

John Kennedy found it necessary during his campaign
to draw the line between his politics and his church.
But Santorum is not making any such attempt.

Instead he is using phrases to code the far-right's attempt to make Obama an outsider,
an outsider in his race, in his religion, in his politics, in his care for the well-being of others.
Santorum is being extremely parochial with respect to education, sex,
women's rights, minority rights, and most other issues he discusses.

So, I'm no longer willing to avoid the use of certain terms when it comes to Santorum.
It's just a matter of which term(s) to use...

An enthusiast displays an intense and eager interest in something
An extremist is a supporter of extreme doctrines or practices, particularly in a political context
A fanatic is not only intense and eager but possibly irrational in his or her enthusiasm;
A zealot exhibits not only extreme devotion but vehement activity in support of a cause or goal
A bigot exhibits obstinate and often blind devotion to his or her beliefs and opinions.
- Bigotry implies intolerance and contempt for those who do not agree

Today, any of these would describe Santorum, but religious "zealot"
seems to me to be the most appropriate, and "bigot" is running a close second.
Santorum is on a religious crusade, and makes no effort to separate
his doctrines from his intentions, should he become President.

I do feel badly in using such terms, but I'm at a loss for alternatives
that come close to describing my reaction to this man.

Whatever his beliefs in regard to religeon, he supports banning birth control. That alone should make him anathema to most Americans.

Hell, even God used birth control. He only had the one kid.

But...he wears a sweater vest. He must be safe.

It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis

Full text

His views presently hold sway in the Scranton diocese. There has been a hard push to the right over the last couple decades essentially telling people to submit or leave. I chose the door. What surprises me is that there are people outside the door willing to play this game.

Wow ! ...if I'm reading you right... :headshake:

Saw a video that mentioned something I hadn't heard before--he's not just against employers/government having to pay for birth control, he's also against having to pay for a prenatal test known as amniocentesis, where a large needle is inserted into the placenta in order to collect a sample and do a direct DNA test on the baby. Pretty much the only reason this is ever done is to confirm a suspected genetic disability the baby may carry, and the procedure itself carries a risk of causing a miscarriage. So since the only reason one would really need to know this information before the child's birth is if one were planning to abort the baby if a severe disability is confirmed, he wants to disallow it.

On the other hand, at least he's not a hypocrite: he has one child with Trisomy 18, and another baby that had something else wrong that only lived 2 hours after being born.

Except that his wife has had a medically-induced miscarriage to save her life in 1996. Oops. I'd call that hypocrisy. While I obviously not only fully support her right to make the decision, and believe that it SHOULDN'T be our business WHAT sorts of medical procedures she's had, the "Frank Rule" - that anti-LGBT politicians' closeted sex lives become public business, when closeted gay politicians fight against LGBT rights - also applies here: if you believe that women DO NOT have the right to medical privacy, you don't have that same right to privacy as a public figure.

There are many reasons to perform prenatal screening tests,
including high risk pregnancies, etc., and not all lead to abortion.
For just one example: neural tube defects... (from Wikipedia)It would not be hypocritical of Rick Santorum to either have
or not have an abortion because he did not have the child.
It's whatever his wife wanted... for whatever was her own reason.

Touche. But Rick DOES apparently think that his wife's doctor - the one that saved her life - should go to jail for murder. He DOES apparently think that his wife's decision to save her life, rather than that of her unborn child, should not be a decision that his wife had the right to make.

Within 1 hour of making that post my Dad tried to give me some phone number from his priest to "stop Obama from making the bishops pay for abortion pills." I try not to be frank with Dad about this stuff but I did tell him that he doesn't want me providing my opinion. There used to be talk of stripping churches of their tax free status, I'm ready to listen.

Can we get a legit source on that... of course that would ironically enough not respect her privacy.

I read it, years ago, in Reader's digest. Reader's digest and me - how much more legit can you get?;)

http://www.examiner.com/progressive-...ve-an-abortion

"when she miscarried" vs "induce labor". A bit of a chasm of meaning between those phrases.