Rick Santorum blames liberalism for the Church Sex Scandal

[Keystone Phil]

And what you fail to realize, my friend, is that no one in PA will care (except people that already despise Santorum).

[Keystone Phil]

And what you fail to realize, my friend, is that no one in PA will care (except people that already despise Santorum).

As his approval continues to drop drop drop....

And so does Rendell's put you never acknowledge that. By the way, when his numbers drop like they did last time, they usually bounce back pretty quickly. Plus, these comments have nothing to do with dropping ratings.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When morals aren't being highlighted in culture, there tends to be these problems so I'd agree with Santorum. But to blame it just on liberalism? I don't agree. And Santorum never blamed it just on liberalism either.

[Keystone Phil]

As far as Rendell his approval isn't the greatest either I will admit that, but considering their opponents Santorum is in MUCH MORE trouble than Rendell is.

Well I wasn't talking about the election. I just wanted you to admit that Rendell's approvals are about the same as Santorum's.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not exposing the problem was the fault of the Church. He was referring to why the actual molestations took place and that can be attributed to a breakdown of culture.

[Keystone Phil]

Granted their approvals are about the same, but the main reason Santorum's approval numbers get talked about more is because of the fact he faces a much stronger opponent than Rendell does.  Mark Dewine's approval was actually slightly lower than Santorum's but your not going to hear all that much about it because of the differencial in opponents.

His opponent is not the reason for him slipping. People like Santorum here and if he loses, they still will. They just prefer Casey.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't see more "tolerant" groups like NAMBLA as a reason to blame for increased molestation?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He's not trying to portray it as proof. He said that there happens to be a relation and that there is "no surprise." And your coverup theory is not making sense. Santorum is referring to the actual molestation. People don't molest others because of coverups. You need to stop copying and pasting from DU and use that object known as a brain when you post.

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But we weren't even talking about opponents here. This isn't really a campaign related discussion. I don't know why you can't grasp that point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

NAMBLA is seen in our culture, correct? It is a voice in our culture that tolerates, no...encourages, these "relationships," correct?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The coverups aren't the point of his damn comments, Smash. Why can't you understand this point?

The reason why the scandal blew up was because of coverups. Santorum is commenting on what brought about the act that was covered up.

[Keystone Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was comparing Rendell's approval ratings with Santorum's. That's all. Nothing to do with an election. I was just trying to see if you'd admit Rendell's weak numbers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok I never said they were molesting because of NAMBLA. Try and follow my points. Don't make up stuff. Thanks.

Oh and just because Boston is more heavily Catholic doesn't mean it will necessarily have more priest abuse problems.

[Keystone Phil]

You repeat the same lines over and over again I don't know how many times in one post. It's ridiculous. I disagree with your conclusion as to why Boston was a problem. We're just not going to agree on it.

[Keystone Phil]

Please nominate this man for President.

And you nominate Hillary. Anybody but Hillary would be a lot stronger than Anybody but Santorum.

You have people attacking Santorum (like Smash) who gives this ridiculous argument and just repeats his lines over and over again. If Santorum gets the nomination, get this Smash guy a job on the Democratic candidate's campaign. I can bet that his repeating of his off-the-topic "answer" would bring in votes for Santorum.

[Keystone Phil]

Please nominate this man for President.

And you nominate Hillary. Anybody but Hillary would be a lot stronger than Anybody but Santorum.

You have people attacking Santorum (like Smash) who gives this ridiculous argument and just repeats his lines over and over again. If Santorum gets the nomination, get this Smash guy a job on the Democratic candidate's campaign. I can bet that his repeating of his off-the-topic "answer" would bring in votes for Santorum.

Off the topic answer??  huh What??  Santorum was talking about the problem regarding the Sex Scandal in the Church.  He tried to pin it on liberalism by pointing to Boston saying how its the center of the problem, and that its a liberal city.  Basically trying to blame liberalisim for the problem.  That is utterly insane.  Yes their is a problem, however part of the reason it got so big was due to the cover up & the priest transfers & all that other crap.  That nmade an already bad problem worse.  Yes instead of adressing that the reason this problem got so bad according to your nutjob of a hero is because of 'liberals', that is utterly insane and as a liberal Catholic I take offense to his remarks of trying to pin the problem of Sexual abuse owithin the Catholic Church on liberals.

You go on and on about the coverup which has nothing to do with his comments. And the worst part is that you call it "foot in mouth" when really someone only gets "foot in mouth" when they say something they'll later regret. Santorum won't regret because he believes it and people here won't care. Get over it!

[Keystone Phil]

Anywy foot in the mouth doesn't always mean someone says something they later regret, it also means when someone says something utterly stupid like try to blame liberals for the sex scandal in the Catholic Church

Foot in mouth would mean that he'd regret the statements, Smash. Foot in mouth means there was a mistake. He doesn't see one. He doesn't care. The people of the state won't care. If you want to make an issue out of it, go ahead. But the people really won't care.

[Keystone Phil]

He doesn't care.

I think we know he doesn't care at all any more. Look at his approval rating!

His approval ratings always bounce back. He's only got into the 40s twice in the past two and a half years.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil, he's done. GET OVER IT!

Awesome argument.

[Keystone Phil]

He doesn't care.

I think we know he doesn't care at all any more. Look at his approval rating!

His approval ratings always bounce back. He's only got into the 40s twice in the past two and a half years.

But the past two and a half years weren't under a year until the next primaries begin. Stupid statements such as these by Santorum will come back and bite him in the ass in 2006.

His gay comments received a lot of coverage. His approval ratings stayed the same. These statements will get hardly any attention and even if they do, I can guarentee that people won't care at all.

The only real reason Santorum will lose in 2006 is because Casey is a Casey. That's it. People like Santorum here and even if he's defeated, I bet they still approve of him as a person and as a Senator.

[Keystone Phil]

[quote author=Keystone Phil


You seem to almost put him in God status there.  That is certaintly not the case, he has one of the lowest approval ratings of any Senator & among the highest disapproval ratings of any Senator.  Do some people like him??  Yes, but he isn't remotley as popular as you try to imply.

Because I said people like him, I have him in God status? You're such a hack with such poor arguments.

Look at his Quinnipiac approval ratings. Look how they only dipped into the 40s twice. More people put Rendell is God status than Santorum and you don't give a damn so don't even start.

[Keystone Phil]

But  what I'm saying is that he was not running for anything at that time. Now he is. Now he will have to worry about Casey using his (Santorum's) consistantly idiotic statements in attack ads, and losing re-election. He was using the fact that the senate race had not begun as free pass to make himself like a jerkass.

And Casey has had some harmful quotes in the past, like when he said he didn't see himself running for anything anytime soon if he lost the 2002 Dem primary. Sure they aren't controversial like Santorum's but it has more relation to the Senate race.

 People know Santorum's quotes. I know he'll be running in 2006 but they were familiar with them before. They won't care.

[Keystone Phil]

 People know Santorum's quotes. I know he'll be running in 2006 but they were familiar with them before. They won't care.

You hope.

I have a pretty strong feeling. Look at what happened after his comments about gays. His approval rating hardly budged. He's consistently had good approval ratings and some of the lowest disapprovals but the Santorum haters won't hear that.

[Keystone Phil]

Of course show the poll results that you like as opposed to the most recent polls....

That's what we've been going with for awhile. That's what most Pennsylvania posters go by. That's what I'll continue to go by even if Santorum falls to 40%. I'm not a hack like you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I don't. I say he's popular. I say he's well liked. You guys are just as guilty with your Rendell worship yet he's in worse condition in these ratings than Santorum!

He CURRENTLY has one of the lowest in ONE poll. I'm not going to take the word of that one poll which is put out every five months or so over a more frequent, more accurate poll. You are the one that just picks and chooses what poll to go by whenever, not me.

[Keystone Phil]

Where are his approvals NOW, where are his disapprovals NOW,

Calm down, Smash. Quinnipiac should be coming out with new numbers soon. I don't know if you know this but approval/disapproval polls can't be done everyday.




Granted people know about his past comments, however the vast majorit of his controversal comments have come during this Senate term.  Also he ran in 94 & 2000 as a Moderate-Conservative, he can't do that anymore.  While you may disagreee that he isn't a far right conservative.  He can be portrayed as a far right conservative much easier now than in 00 or 94 because of his comments.  I do think he is far-right, I know you disagree, but thats not the point I am trying to make, how he can be portrayed is the point I am trying to make, and you can't deny his comments doesn't make it easier to portray him as far right now than it was to portray him that way 5 years ago

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People knew about the comments. Why do you have so much trouble understand this, along with other, points? It received a lot of coverage. If people were to be outraged, they would have been outraged then. They aren't going to say, "Well, it's the middle of his term so I'll be mad later."

People have been portraying him as a far right Republican forever. I'm not worried about that.

And once again, if you want to have a debate about this, don't put so much in one post especially since you repeat things like "It's easier now to make him into a far right winger than 2000 and 1994 because of his comments and I know you disagree but it's easier now than it was five years ago because of his comments that have come within the past five years since his last race when he was not making these comments."

[Keystone Phil]

Out of interest Phil, assuming (as is looking likely) Casey boots Santorum from his Senate seat... who is your new go-to-guy gonna be? Or are you a die-hard Santorumer for life?

Santorum will still remain my political hero. Unlike most, I don't just leave people because they aren't in office anymore.

And it may look likely now but let's not go by now. Casey was crushing Rendell in 2002 but Rendell turned it around. I think Casey is more likely to win but I don't judge it on the present outlook.

[Keystone Phil]

I am going by the MOST RECENT POLL.  I am not picking & choosing which poll to use, I am using the most RECENT POLL.  And in the most recent poll Rendell's ratings are better than Santorum's, a little better, but better nonetheless (Rendell 48-43, Santorum 45-44).  Anyway point about the poll is I am using the most recent poll.

You've ignored Quinnipiac in the past. You go by what makes the Dems look better, Smash. You're a huge hack.

[Keystone Phil]

Its not my fault you choose to ignore the MOST RECENT poll

I am consistent. I'm not going to sudden get off track with one of the most accurate polling institutes in the area to follow some drastic change in a poll that doesn't come out all that often.

[Keystone Phil]

It seems like you are just throwing out results you don't like.

If that was the case, I'd throw out the most recent Santorum approval ratings since he slipped four points.