Jennifer Rubin Hits Santorum with Quote Out of Context

Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post’s supposedly conservative blogger, takes Rick Santorum completely out of context for no other reason than to smack her favorite whipping boy, Senator Sweater Vest again.  Here’s her lede:

Santorum: ‘Birth control harms women’

ByJennifer Rubin

Yesterday I speculated on some of the reasons Rick Santorum has problems with women voters. This interview from a few year back sure isn’t going to help

(youtube embedded video)

Santorum saying that ‘birth control harms women’ would be notable…  Except that’s not what he said. I’m not going to embed the video for one specific reason. I want you to be able to really understand the quote in context.  Here is both the QUESTION and his reply:

Interviewer Question: So would birth control be covered by that notion of freedom without responsibilities?

I vote and have supported birth control because it is not the taking of a human life but I am not a believer in birth control. -artificial birth control-  Again I think it goes down the line of being able to do whatever you want to do without having the responsibility that comes with that. …

This is from a personal point of view, from a governmental point of view I support ahh, title 10 I guess it is, and have voted for contraception and although I don’t think it works, I think it’s harmful to women, I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or or or tolerated particularly among the young.

I think it has… we’ve seen very, very harmful long term consequences to our society. Birth control enables that and I don’t think it is a healthy thing for our country.

Santorum was expressing what should be a pretty mainstream conservative belief, that sex without consequences, especially in the young outside of marriage harms society.  And it’s hardly a radical idea, even Bill Clinton said he agrees with it. (insert your own joke)

That was the whole point of the question. And the answer. Yet this is how the ‘conservative’ blogger Jennifer Rubin continues after the video.

… The impression that Santorum finds the prevalent practice of birth control “harmful to women” is, frankly, mind-numbing. If he meant to focus on teen sexual promiscuity, he surely could have, and thereby might have sounded less out of touch.

It is obvious to any honest observer that is exactly what he was was focusing on. He only said it explicitly after all.

Likewise, he wasn’t saying that ‘birth control does not work’ either. He was saying allowing sex without consequences (as facilitated by birth control) did not work to make society better. Rubin is a professional wordsmith yet pretends she does not see this.

It’s bad enough that liberals are going to lie to smear Republican candidates, shouldn’t ‘conservative’ bloggers be a little more honest?

 

 

Shortlink:

Posted by on February 15, 2012.
Filed under Categories.


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Commander_Chico

    The establishment is crapping their pants that Santorum might beat out Romney.

    • http://www.pohdiaries.com/ TWB

      Chico, a comment from you that I agree 110% with.

    • Meiji Man

      I would modify your statement to say ”
      The establishment is crapping their pants that ANYONE might beat out Romney.”

      • Brian_R_Allen

        I will modify your statement to say:”The establishment is crapping its pants that anyone might beat Romney.”Although, given that Mittens’ sinecure-seeking bought-and-paid-for Ricky-Bob Vander Plaatsantorum’s already Romney’s, I guess only Mr Gingrich any longer qualifies as “anyone.”At least (I pray and trust) until our brokered convention. And a whole new raft of real Republican candidates. 

    • Hugh_G

      The democrats are salivating at the prospect. Barney Rubble will be overjoyed as will all the 16th Century cardinals who aren’t burning in hell.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

      If you look at Mitt Romney, he’s costing himself his own nomination.  Personally, I would have to laugh if Romney loses to Santorum.  I’m willing to bet that Obama would take a 2 month vacation after he won too.

      • SCSIwuzzy

        So no change to how he behaves now?  Long expensive trips for Michelle, and plenty of time on the links for Barry…

  • jim_m

    Better get used to it.  The left wing media will never broadcast this part: I support ahh, title 10 I guess it is, and have voted for contraception

    • http://www.pohdiaries.com/ TWB

      What’s funny is that I think this says a lot about Santorum as a person and as a politician. He states explicitly that personally and religiously he doesn’t agree with contraception, yet his personal views didn’t sway the way he voted on the matter.

      • jim_m

        Are you complaining that he didn’t stick to his values or do you find it interesting that he is willing to accede to the demands of his constituents?  Part of the art of being a good Senator is knowing when to go against your personal position and knowing when to stick to it.

        • http://www.pohdiaries.com/ TWB

          The latter. I guess what I meant to say is that he could use this to his advantage. You were able to articulate better what I was thinking.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

       The public will never hear how he treated his gay staffer after the guy came out, either – no change, nice as ever according to the staffer – but they will get plenty of the red meat for the left and gay lobby, and unfortunately young voters have been through a school system which teaches anything less than a full embrace of the full gay agenda constitutes homophobia.

  • kathykattenburg

    So, in other words, he DID say that birth control is harmful to women. Oh, and by the way, as Jennifer Rubin pointed out, married women use contraception, too. Santorum does not appear to know this. 

    • http://www.pohdiaries.com/ TWB

      Come on Kathy, you know good and well Santorum knows that married women use contraception. Santorum’s problem with contraception is purely based on religious grounds and you know it. You’re basically twisting what he said just like Jennifer Rubin did in the original post. 

  • kathykattenburg

    Read that complete quote again, TWB. Santorum quite clearly says that he opposes birth control because it encourages sex outside of marriage. Nowhere in there, or in anything he’s ever said publicly about birth control that I know about, does he give the slightest indication of knowing that married couples use birth control — nor, for that matter, does he indicate any awareness that birth control is used for many medically indicated purposes that have nothing to do with preventing pregnancy at all. I trust that you do know that, yourself, so I don’t have to specify all the reasons a doctor might prescribe birth control pills apart from family planning.

    Why would Santorum even oppose birth control at all, or say that he does, if he realized that married people use it and/or that it’s prescribed for many purposes unrelated to pregnancy prevention? It literally does not make sense, your statement that it’s obvious he knows it, when it’s obvious he doesn’t know it. Or, to be 100% accurate, that he doesn’t act like he knows it. I really don’t know what he knows or doesn’t know; I can only go by what he says, by his own words, and those words unarguably say that contraception is bad because it encourages premarital sex.

    “Santorum’s problem with contraception is purely based on religious grounds and you know it.”

    Of course, it’s purely based on religious grounds, that’s the entire point. Obviously it couldn’t possibly be based on public health or medical or scientific grounds.

    • Oysteria

      Just go ahead and admit that no matter what he said, you’d have a problem with it because you already don’t support him.  You’re really nit-picking it.

      I happen to agree with the above comments that it simply shows he is fully capable of separating his personal beliefs from his professional decisions.

      • kathykattenburg

         “Just go ahead and admit that no matter what he said, you’d have a problem with it because you already don’t support him.”

        Not at all. If Santorum were to say that contraception is part of basic preventive health care for women, that almost all women, including Catholic women, have used birth control at some point in their lives, and that this is 2012, not 1912, and in 2012 there is absolutely nothing controversial about contraceptive use, I would not have a problem with that at all.

        “You’re really nit-picking it.”

        Only if you believe that it doesn’t really matter if women can make their own personal health decisions without Big Brother breathing down their neck. I happen not to believe that.

        “I happen to agree with the above comments that it simply shows he is
        fully capable of separating his personal beliefs from his professional
        decisions.”

        Actually, I think it’s pretty clear that he is NOT capable of separating his personal beliefs from his political beliefs. Any candidate for President who tells a reporter in the context of a political campaign that he thinks “I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that
        says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged
        or or or tolerated particularly among the young,” and that “we’ve seen very, very harmful long term consequences to our society” from birth control and that  “Birth control enables that and I don’t think it is a healthy thing for our country,” is clearly not capable of separating his personal feelings about contraception from his feelings about how he’d handle the issue as POTUS. It also shows that his personal beliefs about contraception are totally out of touch with reality.

        You’re damn right that I don’t support him. The man scares the crap out of me.

        • Oysteria

          “Actually, I think it’s pretty clear that he is NOT capable of separating his personal beliefs from his political beliefs.”

          That’s odd because I seem to have read above: “This is from a personal point of view, from a governmental point of view I support ahh, title 10 I guess it is, and have voted for contraception…”

          And this: “I vote and have supported birth control because it is not the taking of a human life but I am not a believer in birth control.”

        • SCSIwuzzy

          Not at all. If Santorum were to say that contraception is part of basic preventive health care for women, that almost all women, including Catholic women, have used birth control at some point in their lives, and that this is 2012, not 1912, and in 2012 there is absolutely nothing controversial about contraceptive use, I would not have a problem with that at all.

          So… you won’t have a a problem with what he said, so long as he says what he doesn’t believe.

          • kathykattenburg

             That was sort of my point, SCSIwuzzy. Oysteria wrote, “Just go ahead and admit that no matter what he said, you’d have a problem with it because you already don’t support him.” That was a ridiculous statement because obviously I don’t support him because of the things he believes, and obviously no matter what he says it’s going to be something he believes, and I don’t support what he believes.

            So my response to Oysteria pointed out (sarcastically, I admit) that if he said something contrary to the things he always says that he says because he believes, but those things he believes are the reason I don’t support him, then I would support him.

            You basically underscored my point. Unless he says something the opposite to what he obviously believes, then no matter what he says I’m not going to support him.

            Get it?

            LOL

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Haters gotta hate.

          • kathykattenburg

            Santorum hates the idea that women have (a) the right to a sex life outside marriage; (b) the right to control their own destiny; and (c) the right to their own basic preventive health care. Santorum believes that because HIS personal religious beliefs tell him that premarital sex and birth control are harmful to women and threaten our entire society, that this must actually be an objective scientific truth as opposed to just his personal religious belief. Santorum wants to impose his personal religious beliefs on every American, particularly female Americans.

            Do I hate the above beliefs Santorum holds? Damn straight I do. Am I going to support a man, or any candidate for high office, who would allow his personal religious beliefs to harm all Americans and particularly all female Americans by taking away our freedom to make such decisions ourselves? Hell no, I’m not.

            If that makes me a “hater” in your eyes, I can live with that.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Problem is, he voted to support contraception.
            You’re making a lot of assumptions and leaps here, and I don’t think they are supported by anything in Santorum’s voting record or what he has actually said.

            Your overwrought reaction and disengenious position is what led me to jokingly call you a hater. Your follow up put the truth to it

          • kathykattenburg

             Yes, wuzzy, he voted to keep birth control funding in Title X when he was Senator, that’s true. But he has also made his opposition to birth control very clear, and he’s gone on about it at great length and on numerous occasions. Also, it’s the *way* he expresses his opposition to contraception that is so offensive. He doesn’t stop at saying, merely, that in his own personal life, he and his wife don’t believe in using birth control. He goes on and on at great length about how it’s harmful to women because it gives them a sexual license to have sex outside of marriage and that’s contrary to God’s plan, and that sex “without consequences” (i.e., pregnancy) is immoral and harms our entire society.

            I do make the assumption that when a candidate for President puts his personal opposition to birth control in a context of national public policy like that, he would be open to public policies hostile to birth control if he actually became President.

            And that is why I do not trust or believe him when he says that he would do nothing to restrict access to birth control.

            I believe that you would feel the same way if this issue were as important to you as it is to me. I don’t believe you would or could support a candidate whose position on a vital public policy issue was so utterly opposite to yours.
             

          • SCSIwuzzy

            I think you’re hearing a dog whistle.
            You’re saying that you don’t believe what he says (I won’t try to outlaw abortion and contraception, even though I don’t subscribe) even though it matches up with his actual track record.
            Do you fear an Orthodox Jew would outlaw pork for all?
            That Bush, a recovering alcoholic that doesn’t touch a drop would bring back prohibition?  That Al Gore would ban rap music?  Jimmy Carter force us all to wear cardigans?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

            He wants to give states the decision to ban contraception.  How do you justify such a stance when he’s trying to be president of the US?

          • SCSIwuzzy

            I don’t have time to
            confirm your current claim, but you do realize that they have the right to make
            that choice now, don’t you?

            If a state has the will
            and the votes in their legislature to craft a law that limits or bans abortion,
            and can get it past their own courts and survive the inevitable appeal to the
            US Supreme Court, there is precious little the Executive branch can do.  Roe V Wade was a court decision, not a
            federal law.  So far, not a single state
            has made a credible try in the decades since RvW.  Do you honestly (I chuckle when I use that
            word for you Jay) think that will change if the President, who can’t stop them
            if they do, doesn’t want to stop them?

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    The biggest problem with the Not Romney crowd is their willingness to believe absolutely anything as long as it favors the leading Not Romney of the moment.  People were willing to delude themselves that Trump was serious, Bachmann was qualified, Perry was another Reagan, Cain wasn’t just on a book tour on steroids, Gingrich wasn’t hated by independents, and now that Santorum’s often-expressed views will play in the general election (not to mention that his is some sort of fiscal conservative, although they have a hard time finding any Republican spending idea he opposed).

    You kind of understand the cults of personality surrounding Paul and Palin where their fans treat any criticism as a personal attack and retaliate with both barrels.  This is more of a Movable Cult, transferring to whoever is, in Palin’s own phrase, the “Flavor of the Month.”

    The only job is beating Obama. 

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

      The problem is in figuring out how to beat Obama.

      And if people really want to see some context, they should question why Santorum opposed the ’06 decision on trying to ban contraception.

      I pointed out that Democrats say that one of the reasons Santorum lost in 2006 was because they say he’s more conservative than mainstream America. One issue was Santorum’s opposition to the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling that invalidated a Connecticut law banning contraception. Santorum said he still feels that a state should be able to make such laws.
      The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have. That is the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court, they are creating rights, and they should be left up to the people to decide,” he said.

      How can you take the guy seriously when the Judicial branch is upholding laws already on the books and believing that judicial branches shouldn’t weigh in on bad laws?

  • Pingback: The Politics Of Distraction: Obama's Contraception Mandate - The POH Diaries

  • http://otisthehand.blogspot.com/ OTIS the hand

    Most Romney boosters seem to share the same integrity problem. I will just point out how shocked people were at Raquel Welch’s views on the pill when she was asked to write about its impact on the 50th anniversary of its use. While many assumed her high praise was to be forthcoming, she instead agrees completely with Santorum. I guess you don’t have to be a religious zealot to agree with him.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    Actually, it turns out Santorum did say those words, on video:

    “I guess it is and have voted for contraception, although I don’t think
    it works. I think it’s harmful to women. I think it’s harmful to our
    society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is
    something that should be encouraged or tolerated …, particularly among
    the young and it has I think we’ve seen very, very harmful long-term
    consequences to the society. Birth control to me enables that and I
    don’t think it’s  a healthy thing for our country.”

    That’s not from Rubin, but Byron Wolf at ABC (http://tinyurl.com/6ukwxdn) – and he includes a link to the video.

    Welcome, Thomas, but making a false accusation against a girl is not a great way to start out.

    • SCSIwuzzy

      I think the point he is making is not physical harm, but the greater harm to society and women that comes from making “free love” an accepted and encouraged norm.
      The transcript that Thomas quotes has the exact words you have posted, but the bolded emphasis on where he  [Santorum] was going with that thought process.

  • Pingback: Lying about Rick Santorum | Southern Prose

  • Brian_R_Allen

    Let’s pray and trust folks wise up that Ricky-Bob Vander Plaatsantorum has never had a real job, has never managed so much as a night-shift in a 7-11 or a day shift in a Dubuque Iowa cab nor met a payroll nor been responsible to a profit center. 

    When it comes to executive experience Ricky-Bob Vander Plaatsantorum is a mobbed-up-big-union-oriented big-government 0=Zero without the street-agitator experience. And with a 20-point home-state election loss on his record. 

    Republicans will nominate and Americans will elect him only at our peril.

  • klaffner

    It is an indication of Santorum’s problem in the general.  He just can’t pass up any opportunity to pontificate on issues like this. He was in a town hall a few months ago and was asked about Gay marriage.  He had to engage the audience in a Socratic exercise.  He looked like what he is.  A preachy moralist.  Romney just lays out his position (which is identical to Santorum on social issues) and moves on.  He doesn’t get drawn in.  Santorum is just too much like us (by us I mean the people on this board) to ever win the presidency.   

  • kathykattenburg

    “I think you’re hearing a dog whistle.
    You’re saying that you don’t
    believe what he says (I won’t try to outlaw abortion and contraception,
    even though I don’t subscribe) even though it matches up with his actual
    track record.
    Do you fear an Orthodox Jew would outlaw pork for all?
    That
    Bush, a recovering alcoholic that doesn’t touch a drop would bring back
    prohibition?  That Al Gore would ban rap music?  Jimmy Carter force us
    all to wear cardigans?”

    In the interest of avoiding comment width so narrow that it’s one word per line, I’m starting a new comment instead of clicking Reply.

    A dog whistle is coded language intended to be heard for what it really is by a target audience but not recognizable by anyone else. That’s not what Santorum is doing here. He’s stating straight out that contraception is wrong and harmful for women because it frees them to have sex outside of marriage, any time they want to, just for pleasure, while avoiding the punitive consequence of pregnancy and childbirth. The fear of pregnancy is what’s supposed to keep women pure and virginal until they marry, at which point they stay home and have babies. Santorum thinks it’s wrong and harmful for women and for society to remove the probability of that consequence because it gives women the same freedom that men have, and that’s bad and contrary to God’s will.

    I do not want a man who has those beliefs about women to get into the White House. Period. Just as you most likely would not want a man in the White House who says that people in rural areas cling to guns and religion because it comforts them for not having good jobs — even if that man said he supported the Second Amendment and freedom of religion.

    You should be able to understand this. I think you probably do, but since you also probably think contraception has nothing to do with health care and is a frill that women really don’t have to have, Santorum’s saying he supports birth control while also saying he thinks it harms women and society does not bother you and would not keep you from voting for him. Heck, it probably would be a plus for you in deciding whether to vote for him.

    No one for whom contraception is a fundamental part of women’s health care as well as a matter of basic human rights (for women to be able to plan their families *and* safeguard their own health could possibly consider voting for a candidate who feels as Santorum clearly feels about women as human beings fully equal to and fully as human as men. I don’t want Santorum in the White House because he clearly does NOT view women as having rights equal to men, doesn’t feel their choices should be equal to men’s, doesn’t think their lives and choices and concerns are as important s men’s.

    I am not trying to convince you that Santorum’s beliefs are wrong or terrifying. I am telling you that *I* find Santorum’s beliefs to be wrong and terrifying, and that for that reason I will not vote for him. You can’t seem to accept that I have that right, and I really don’t know why.

    • SCSIwuzzy

      So you live in Santorum’s head?
      I still say you’re projecting your own prejudices onto Santorum, his beliefs and his motives.
      I think you have a right to your opinion, but not to your own facts.  The fact that you immediately go to the claim that I don’t acknowledge your rights says quite a bit about you.  It’s like a pathology.

      Now, where have I expressed my opinion on Santorum, on contraception or women’s healthcare?  Again, you are projecting your own fears onto my unexpressed opinion.
      Go ahead and tell me what I believe.  It’s been good for a laugh so far.

      • Kathy Kattenburg

         “So you live in Santorum’s head?”

        Jesus, no. God, that would be a scary place to live. No, no, I don’t live in Santorum’s head.

        “I still say you’re projecting your own prejudices onto Santorum, his beliefs and his motives.”

        Say away, but Santorum’s own spoken and written words say quite clearly for my understanding.

        “The fact that you immediately go to the claim that I don’t acknowledge your rights says quite a bit about you.”

        Yeah, it says I believe in fairness and honesty. Still, wuzzy, *immediately*? This is like, what? the 10th series of exchanges between us?

        “Now, where have I expressed my opinion on Santorum, on contraception or women’s healthcare?”

        You haven’t, directly, and I haven’t claimed to know your opinion. I’ve said it’s obvious the issue isn’t important to you, and I stand by that assertion. It’s clearly not important to you, at least not as an issue in the presidential race, which it’s become. That’s not the same as saying you *oppose* contraception. You just don’t care one way or the other. You’ve made that clear; it’s not necessary for you to state it in so many words to know it’s not all that important an issue to you.

        “Go ahead and tell me what I believe.”

        I don’t really care what you believe. You’re not running for POTUS, as far as you’ve indicated. Santorum is, and I would never vote for or support a candidate whose views about women’s health care, women’s rights, and women’s role in society are as backward as Santorum’s obviously are.

        • SCSIwuzzy

          4th, not 10th. ;)

          It is my belief in fairness and honesty that made me respond in the first place.  I prefer to judge someone on what they’ve done rather than what I fear they may do.  That’s the kind of logic that made people afraid to vote for JFK (OMG, a Catholic!  He may do the bidding of Papist Rome!) or Lieberman (the Israel Lobby!).

          Nice assumption about bitter clingers to boot, btw.  I’ll assume you’re talking about Obama, who has said to many audiences that he wants to restrict guns and gun ownership.  I’ll base my opinion on that against what he has done, not what he says to the audience at hand alone.

          Since Santorum is too backwards and hateful for you, what about the other Republicans in the running?  Any of them palatable to you?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay


    I don’t have time to

    confirm your current claim, but you do realize that they have the right to make
    that choice now, don’t you?

    That’s in my response to Adjoran.  His stance is more than disturbing when you add in how worse it’s going for the GOP in general.

    If a state has the will
    and the votes in their legislature to craft a law that limits or bans abortion,
    and can get it past their own courts and survive the inevitable appeal to the
    US Supreme Court, there is precious little the Executive branch can do.  Roe V Wade was a court decision, not a
    federal law.  So far, not a single state
    has made a credible try in the decades since RvW.  Do you honestly (I chuckle when I use that
    word for you Jay) think that will change if the President, who can’t stop them
    if they do, doesn’t want to stop them?

    Factor in his other bad positions and the guy is not fit to lead.  But we’ll sure find out what lengths the GOP will go to in order to turnover Roe v Wade is truly astounding.

    • SCSIwuzzy

      DailyKos?
      You do realize that the Republican party doesn’t hold enough seats in the House of Delegates or the Senate in VA to do anything without support from the other side of the aisle?