Santorum Shrugs Off Report Of Iowa Vote Errors

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum shrugged off reports late Thursday that the vote count from Iowa’s caucuses might be wrong, saying the errors appear not to change the fact that he and Mitt Romney were nearly tied.

Santorum told Fox News that Iowa’s Republican Party chairman, Matt Strawn, informed him of two cases in which errors were reported in the count from Tuesday night. Taken together, Santorum said, the changes would almost cancel out each other and that Romney would win by nine votes instead of eight.

“That doesn’t really matter to me,” he said. “This was a tie.”

Strawn said in a statement that party officials would not respond to “every rumor, innuendo or allegation” as it certifies results during a two-week certification process. Romney and Santorum each had just over 30,000 votes out of more than 122,000 votes cast.

Strawn said state party officials had been in contact with GOP officials in Appanoose County but that officials “do not have any reason to believe the final, certified results of Appanoose County will change the outcome of Tuesday’s vote.”

Des Moines TV station KCCI reported that a Ron Paul backer attending his first precinct caucuses in Appanoose County, in southern Iowa, said the vote from his precinct was inaccurately reported and gave Romney 20 more votes than he actually received.

The Paul supporter, Edward True of Moulton, told The Associated Press that he helped count the ballots cast at his precinct caucuses and that Romney received two votes. True said he was shocked to see the official results on the Republican Party website showed Romney with 22 votes in the precinct.

“I assume somebody made a typographical error,” he said in a telephone interview.

True said that when he contacted local Republican officials, “They said they would sort it out in the next couple of weeks, but how many primaries will have happened by that time?”

(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Comments

One Comment

  1. Murph says:

    The GOP is mathematically challenged to begin with! Somehow they seem to think that you and me have miraculous ways of paying more for taxes while the super rich keep getting richer right along with corporations and THAT will spur job growth.I have news for them the “JOB CREATORS” are regular people,with regular incomes that purchase things.Not rich people and corporations that just keep putting more money in the bank! The Public is getting tapped out.The banks and corporations are charging us more,also the doctors,drug companies,food stores ,all stores, gasoline ,utilities,insurers,on and on and on! The GOP is spouting their witchcraft economic recovery program as something workable and fair.Common sense says it is a recipe for making a disaster even worse! I’d like to know what kind of person would actually buy into their nonsense! The box of chocolate delights they are selling is just more rancid puke puffs and nothing more! Give us enough wages and our consumerism will pull this country thru.As of today and every day going forward this is not happening and it won’t happen!

    1. Tom says:

      @ Murph

      You are correct!

      1. Murph says:

        Tom,and all..this Santorum guy is no hidden gem>Like most politicians he is hiding something! Since he’s not concerned about counting votes,my guess is that he’s from Florida.They don’t care what the count is,they just burn the ballots! So we got Bush ! Wasn’t that nice! So the GOP supreme court judges decided that corporations are people and can give as much money to political campaigns as they want and do it in secret! Isn’t that special. So it is little wonder that once these creepozoids get in office they are going to reward, not me or you,certainly not grandma and grandpa[soon to be soylent green].Not workers union or not,nobody wins in that sorry scenario.So Beck can dance with his clipboard and the Aussie millionaire can fart out his line of bull on Faux TV all he wants.The truth is,if you ain’t in the 1% . You would be nutz to vote for any GOP’er even one your relatives!

        1. Citizen says:

          Right on, Murph!

    2. A Job Creator says:

      @Murph…Can a Democrat come up with any way to create jobs without spending money they take from others? Can a Democrat come up with business incentives to create job growth without increased regulations that cost businesses more? If you’re a Democratic entrepreneur that understands the risks and costs of running a business…then please explain your ideas on how to create jobs! Or are you a Democrat who wants government to tell entrepreneurs and businesses how much money they are allowed to make?

      I would rather have a government that regulates only to keep the playing field fair. There are many business practices that are allowed that are simply unfair to those with smaller pocketbooks. If a product is for sale…people should be allowed to buy that product for the same price…only the quantity should vary and depend upon the size of your pocketbook. If a person or business needs a loan, the rate should be the same…only the amount loaned should vary and depend upon your worth and ability to pay back the loan. I also want a government that doesn’t enter into trade policies that are unfair to our country.

      I used to work for a company that when “volume discounts” were introduced, the number of dealers decreased by 50% within 5 yrs. My boss laughed while drinking his beer as he said these small dealers would be gone by next year. The attack on the middle class is those with business ideas that are designed to unlevel the business playing field. Businesses are now legally allowed to discriminate against future employees based upon their credit score.

      You said quote “Give us enough wages…”. If the playing field was fair, working harder and better than anyone else would allow you to compete and earn enough wages. You should not be ENTITLED to just get enough wages, you should have to EARN it.

      The GOP think the rich only create jobs and enact policies to support the rich. The Dem think the rich need to pay more taxes so they can spend more of it claiming they are for the middle class. Neither parties know how to level the playing field and truely help the middle class. Bush – oil…..Obama – solar / wind, the only difference is color (black vs green). The playing field is still unfair!

      1. common sense 101 says:

        you had me until you said “Businesses are now legally allowed to discriminate against future employees based upon their credit score.” That is not discrimination, it is making a sound business decision. Do you really want to hire someone to run your cash register that does not know how to balance their own check book? Do you want to hire a person that is 200K in gambling debt and put them in charge of yoru accounts receivables? Do you want a person that will be running your computers that collects all your income and pays your bills that is not capable of paying their own bills? I am not saying these people will steel from you, but the likelihood of them steeling is much higher compared to a person that paid off their house, has no defaults, pays all of their bills on time, and has a high credit score proven through years of sound decision making.

        1. A Job Creator says:

          @common sense 101…Since when does the credit score tell you all that information (gambling debt, if the person can balance a checkbook, etc…)? A credit score is only a snap shot it time….not the entire history of the individual. Wow, everyone who has fallen on hard times are now more likely to be thieves! Business paranoia to the extreme! So as a former owner of a Bible Book and Gift shop, using your logic, I should be able to make a business decision only to hire Christians and call it “a sound business decision” because my customers might NOT be willing to buy religious products from nonbelievers?

          @common sense 101…you simply lack COMMON SENSE!

          1. politics 600 says:

            I was waiting for you to come back with exactly that “Job Creator”. Seems Mr. 101 needs to continue his education in many subjects beyond the basic electives.

          2. A Job Creator says:

            There are people running cash registers in stores today that can’t even make the right change and it’s NOT because they have a bad credit score!

            So as a former owner of a Bible Book and Gift shop, using your logic, I should be able to make a business decision only to hire Christians and call it “a sound business decision” because my customers might NOT be willing to buy religious products from nonbelievers? Oh wait…there is a law against that…even though I knew it would negatively affect my business because of the many jerks who claim to be Christians.

            If one’s credit score drops because of a job loss, how is one ever raise it, if businesses are allowed not to hire the individual unless their credit score is higher? That’s the type of “sound business decisions” that keeps people down instead of letting them rise above hard times!

            1. Citizen says:

              @Job Creator. A credit check is used more for the detail information it provides. A score only tells the investigator one thing and it is a simplistic measure of what is going on that person’s financial life. What can be found in the credit detail is criminal activity or fraud, living beyond someone’s means (criminal activity, again), paying history, etc. Has the person defaulted or failed to pay student loans lawfully obtained from the government? Tells the investigator about honesty, ethics, and loyalty to the government who provided the ability to obtain an education. And so on. From reading your other rants, you like simplicity. The world is not simple and neither are credit reports.

              1. That's just wrong says:

                Then perhaps employers should be allowed to see our medical records and medical history. How many times have we been sick or what could possibly become a problem for the employer as far as needing days off for asthma attack. Maybe employers should have access to our tax returns to investigate if we donate a dollar to political parties or write-off too many expenses and for how many dependents. Or… maybe a background check is enough! An employer shouldn’t be a voyeur Citizen.

                1. Citizen says:

                  No, an employer should not be a voyeur. I worked for the federal government and credit reports were used in background investigations. If you use psychological counseling services sponsored by an employer, the employer can access those records–which is one VERY GOOD reason to never use employer-sponsored counseling. An attorney once told me that medical records are pretty fair game for employers if they really want to know about you. Facebook is now a common source of background information on hirees. The point is, the more you stay “off the grid,” in ALL ways, the better off you are. Of course, being off the grid will also be a “red flag” to a tech savvy employer. You can’t win….

                2. Okay says:

                  Thank you. You had me concerned there for a second. Your initial response to job creator wasn’t very “Citizenesque”

              2. A Job Creator says:

                @Citizen…If one’s credit score drops because of a job loss, how is one ever raise it, if businesses are allowed not to hire the individual unless their credit score is higher? Should we discard people then because of a bankrupcy? Is failure and mistakes not to be forgiven? If a brother wrongs you, how many times should you forgive him? Never? Whether you are religious or not, you do have an answer. I am curious of what your answer would be. You’re right, a simple number would be fine.

  2. Citizen says:

    Today the DPE had this to say about Santorum:
    “Ok, like every other Conservative who wants cuts in spending and have “entitlement reform” (whatever that is) Mr. Santorum refuses to say what he has in mind. That’s understandable, once a candidate actually says which programs he will cut the public turns against him, so instead of specifics we get an “honest discussion”. Of course an “honest discussion” would start with Mr. Santorum telling us exactly what he plans to do. So no “honest discussion” from Mr. Santorum.

    As far as earmarks, those Congressionally mandated expenditures that all members of Congress put in legislation to bring spending to their state or district, Mr. Santorum says this.

    Asked by voters about criticism from Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.)–a Mitt Romney supporter–about earmarking of federal funds, the former Pennsylvania senator shot back: “I would put my record on entitlement reform against his, and more importantly, against Gov. Romney’s.”

    Uh Rick, see Mr. Romney has never been in Congress and therefore he has absolutely no Federal earmarks in his history, none, zero, nada. Really, you can look it up, and please do so before your ignorance makes you look even more foolish.

    The really revolutionary ideas of Mr. Santorum though are on health care.

    He said he also had a problem with the idea that insurance companies should have to cover “anybody, pre-existing condition or not.”

    That, he said, does not give people incentive to buy insurance while in good health, he said. “What are people going to do? Wait to get sick to buy insurance.”

    You are right Rick, see that is why you require everybody to buy insurance, so you avoid this problem of adverse selection where people game the system. But if what Mr. Santorum is saying is that he wants to eliminate the requirement to buy insurance and couple that with the fact that insurance companies do not have to cover pre-existing conditions, this results in only healthy people being able to buy or afford insurance. Oops, another plug for the Obama health care plan.”

    1. th says:

      If people have insurance before they need it they can go to the doctor and get proper care before something major comes up and it costs them, the insurance company and everyone else more money and maybe even their life. It is called being proactive

    2. A Job Creator says:

      @Citizen…yea, mandated health insurance in an unfair playing field is exactly what we need. Again, larger businesses currently can provide their employees health insurance at a lower cost per individual than a smaller business can because of “volume discounts.” Smaller businesses can’t compete and lose because of the size of their pocketbooks. Businesses get bigger and are too big to fail…so government steps in to bail them out and the middle class are the losers once again.

      Both the GOP and Dem are pushing our country towards socialism because neither have the guts to level the playing field. For government, I believe the “KISS” (keep it simple stupid) principle is smart. Instead we have a tax code that is so complicated that most middle class lose, because paying lawyers to figure it out so an individual can get the most in return isn’t as benefitial to the middle class as it is to the wealthly. The lawyers and wealthy seem to be the big winners here.

      In business, I thought the “KISS” (keep it simple stupid) principle was smart. Loyalty programs and bundling are new business strategies to keep the consumer so confused and disorientated that they can charge two people different prices for the exact same product or service. For example, you can sign up for a phone service and later find out the phone company offered a better price to someone else and didn’t lower the cost to you automatically or even tell you about the new lower cost. A great way to unlevel the playing field by keeping the rules changing and not letting everyone know the new rules. Why should business (or government programs…tax codes) practices be allowed to create confusion to increase income?

      Inventions and inovations have made businesses profitable and made Amercian lives better, but the emphasis of many businesses today seems to be making profits off of business ideas designed NOT to make American lives better but to keep the consumer confused. This maybe another reason why the middle class is losing. Not only is the playing field not level, the rules of the game have become extremely complicated and the average to lower educated people are the big losers.

      “Fairness” is being touted by Dem today as Obama says the rich need to pay their fair share. A president who touted he would bring unity has done little to unite this country. Creating a level playing field is what’s fair and I don’t hear any Dem or Rep talking about leveling the playing field. The Dems and Reps together have supported policies that have kept the playing field unfair both here in America and abroad. The next war we Americans may be involved in may not be World War III…but Civil War II.

      1. Citizen says:

        @Job Creator. First, I quoted the Dismal Political Economist above. Second, we are already a “socialist” country–if you want to use that term. Most countries are a blend of different philosophies. Providing public services through taxation is a form of socialism. Get over the problem of labels, already! Third, all health insurance payees presently have the cost of the uninsured population built into their premiums, so we all are paying both privately and publicly for the uninsured. Might as well mandate insurance and spread the costs around. Fourth, the rules of the game are complicated because we live in a complex, interdependent world–you need to remember that before you rant about simplicity. This is not 1950, or the 19th century any more. The middle class is losing because it is being sacrificed to corporate profit and greed of the wealthy. As for being too big to fail. Hello! The huge banks did fail, and should have been nationalized and/or broken up. There never has and never will be a “level playing field” in life. Every person, every company, every situation is unique. Competition is the very essence of capitalism AND innovation, so your rant sounds much more socialistic when you harp about a level field. As for a civil war, the rich have already made war on the middle class, and the rich are winning.

        1. A Job Creator says:

          @Citizen…”we are already a “socialist” country”? Sorry, I disagree. As you said, our country provides public services through taxation so we have some aspects of a “socialist” government, but we are far from being a “socialist” country! Both the GOP and Dem are pushing our country towards a country with a much greater degree of “socialistic characteristics because neither have the guts to level the playing field. Is that a better statement and now easier for you to understand my point?

          So you have no solutions? There is no way to “level the playing field”? So does our “uniqueness” (every person, every company, every situation…etc.) mean, that we are incapable as a people of creating fair (equal opportunities) competition which is the very essence of capitalism? Or are we just plain unwilling to create fair competition? I said…”If a product is for sale…people should be allowed to buy that product for the same price…only the quantity should vary and depend upon the size of your pocketbook. If a person or business needs a loan, the rate should be the same…only the amount loaned should vary and depend upon your worth and ability to pay back the loan.” Why would this be “socialistic?” How would this stifle competition or innovation?

          This is the war where those in power stomp out ideas that would allow competition to occur but prevent an unfair competitive advantage due to the size of one’s pocketbook. The argument for allowing the opposite has been…society benefits because of lower prices…and the middle class bought into it, hook…line…and sinker. When did the small “mom and pop” businesses in this country start to drastically disappear? When did small farms start to drastically disappear? When did the “middle class” start to drastically disappear? That’s when the war was started! And we’re not talking 1950s…
          more like 1980s – 1990s. Many business ideas and inovations have forced others out of business, but the middle class survived. However, when a business idea forces many out of work and changes the entire economic landscape (shrinking the middle class)…that idea is wrong and should not be allowed to be implemented! This is not me spitting out a socialistic idea, this about my belief that our government has failed the middle class by not regulating fairness in the business field of play. As far as a complex and interdependent world, it is my belief the our government has again failed the middle class by allowing foreign countries to gain unfair competion by poorly thought out trade policies.

          The rules of the game are complicated because we live in a comlex, interdependent world…duh!…but is that a reason or justification to simply make things even more complicated in the next 10-25-50-100 years? After all, it is mankind who has made it more complicated in the first place…I guess your answer is mankind is either incapable or unwilling to even try. Cars have become more complicated and yet the operation hasn’t changed all that much. Just because concepts, solutions, etc. maybe complicated doesn’t mean the fuction, operation, user interface has to be.

          1. frozenrunner says:

            Farming changes as equipment changes. When farmers had only horses and kids farms were only 160 acres. As equipment grew, so did the size of farms Technique also has changed. One does not mechanically weed anymore. One person can farm a section of land or more. To start farming from scratch with todays land and equipment costs would be impossible.
            Your continued theme of one price regardless would require a large bureaucratic system. Ethics can be regulated, pricing by government is not the best of ideas

            1. A Job Creator says:

              Is it ethical to treat somone differently solely based on the size of their pocketbook and give the wealthy a competitive advantage? We have anti trust laws to keep competition thriving in an industry. Could we not have had a law disallowing the business idea of volume discounts? As Citizen has stated each person, company, and situation is different. You are correct that farming is quite different. The farmers product is a commodity with no added value…and so the farmer even though he has a commodity to sell, doesn’t truely set the price. The manufacturer adds value to the commodity and sets the price, not only on what the company is willing to pay for the commodity but also on the products they create with added value. Would we have seen more farmers if seed companies (and likewise to any business that offered products with added value to the farmers) were required to sell the seed at the same price to a larger farmer as they he did to a smaller farmer? A large farmer could buy more seed, but should not gain a competitive advantage just because his pocketbook was larger than the smaller farmer. Again in an industry, where used equipment is sold, that is different and unique as well.

              I’m not saying that government should set the price of products, and therefore decide how much a company should make. Looking back, this would have limited profitability to some extent, but would have kept more players and competition thriving. In industries where monopolies are not allowed, doesn’t that do the same? Business grew and were profitable before the concept of volume discounts…but I believe volume discounts is one business idea that has tipped the playing field scale and changed the landscape of competition like no other concept. I’m not sure that would have created a large bureaucratic system, because the watchdogs would be the businesses themselves watching their competitors.

              Some will argue that the rich already have a competitive advantage to some extent. As you stated, “To start farming from scratch with todays land and equipment costs would be impossible.” So yes, today the option to go into farming is out of reach based on the size of one’s pocketbook. The wealthy have an opportunity advantage, but we did nothing to keep the competitive advantage fair.

              1. frozenrunner says:

                First off, not a business major, never worked retail, not a sales type although I did do a little business for a while.
                The notion of businesses monitoring themselves given history is to put it mildly, absurd. Should the price of an individual item be the same as a case, a carton, or a truckload? There is a reason for different prices as the cost to get each item to retail is different. WallMart can by shovels by the truckload, Sunnyside Gardens might only sell 5 a year. I am sure that the distributor would like to sell shovels the same price to Wall Mart as to Sunnyside Garden, but that is not going to happen. It costs more to get the shovel to the garden store. So why can the garden store sell shovels. Service and other unique products.

                Retailers also have the option of what price to sell at. What the price is one day is not what it is another. There are by three at reduced prices, etc.

                Yes those with money have an advantage. Then again Sam Walton started with nothing, as did Bill Gates Questionable practices on both men’s part, but they did start from nothing.

                1. A Job Creator says:

                  You stated…”Should the price of an individual item be the same as a case, a carton, or a truckload?” If you break down the bundling price, the individual product price should be the same. So yes, because bundling is just another form of a volume discount.

                  You stated…”There is a reason for different prices as the cost to get each item to retail is different.” That is true, packaging costs vary per bundle size, but not enough to create a huge competitive advantage. Just as one example, a can of pop is seldom sold individually by the manufacturer. Also a retailer seldom orders one can. Whether you would order a truck load or a case there is a maximum package size you can handle when loading. You don’t shrink wrap a truck. So again, I don’t believe that packaging costs would create a huge competitive advantage. Separating those costs out could have been done and passed onto the buyer similar to shipping charges. This is a disadvantage to the smaller retailer, but one disadvantage many small retailers could handle and still remain competitive.

                  You stated…”Retailers also have the option of what price to sell at. What the price is one day is not what it is another.” Margin decisions are acceptable and again still would allow smaller retailers to compete. Sales occur and prices change, but the opportunity stays the same for the customer. Because of volume discounts, this is why for example as you mentioned Walmart, was able to buy products from the same manufacturer as smaller businesses did at such a lower price due to volume discounts and the size of Walmart’s pocketbook that they could sell the products even cheaper than what smaller businesses could even buy them for. Walmart was able to became a distributor / retailer and force many retailers out of business with such a competitive advantage. If a large business can survive on smaller margins so can a smaller business and still competition remains as long as the product sold by each the large and small business was obtained at the same base price. Volume discounts destroyed this because margins did not originate any longer at the same level. In a sence, new business model brackets were then created and because those brackets were allowed to compete against each other, the higher cost bracket players (small businesses) lost out.

                  You stated…”Questionable practices on both men’s part, but they did start from nothing.” Yes, they did start from nothing and became very successful, that’s great. Is that same dream available for people now? Not in the retail industry unless it’s very niche market. Not in the farming industry. Is BIG really BETTER? There are virtually fewer players in nearly every industry today. Yes, fewer competitors. And because we live in that complex, interdependent world, the American middle class worker can’t “compete” with all the cheap labor available around the world for those fewer competitors. The questionable business practices of the oil industry was one of the reasons for the anti-trust laws. Vertical and horizontal integration made easier.

                  “Citizen” said the rich are winning the war. The war is probably already over. The larger businesses have so much power and they contol the rules of the playing field. They don’t want any more competitors. The standard of living for the middle class will most likely continue to drop to those of the workers they currently can’t compete with around the world. Then it will start to rise again. Who knows how long that will take. American businesses have profited greatly off the backs of American workers they now seem to easily discard.

                  I’ve enjoyed this exchange and want to say thanks to “frozenrunner” and “Citizen” for your participation.

  3. Frankie says:

    In the delegate count it really does not matter what the draw poll results were. The Iowa straw poll, like straw in a barn was meant to catch excrement.The big piles roll off for another campaign, the small ones are sent of as compost.. In regards to Citizen’s comment on Santourum I better be brief. Santourum is telling the base what they want to hear. The words to the base are like a bell to one of Pavlov’s dogs. They hear the same words as utter edby Pawlenty, Cain, Bachmann, and Perry. The salivate, they think they are getting a treat, but unlike Pavlov’s dogs, there is no meat to the substance to reward the GOP. Unlike Pavlov’s dog, there is no way extinguish the unrewarded behavior.

  4. Swamp Rat says:

    Who cares? This Iowa caucus doesn’t change anything but show the GOP’s stupidity in letting their political dissensions out in the open. Also, don’t forget the Republicans are still not united in fielding a truly viable GOP candidate that is truly of the traditional Republican school of conservatism.

    Maybe the GOP should Donald Trump! That would be interesting and truly lively.

    1. Swamp Rat says:

      TYPO NOTICE:

      p.s.: Maybe the GOP should field Donald Trump! That would be interesting and truly lively!

      Can’t wait to see what the’ Donald’ would say. He would shake up the GOP and the country. LOL!

  5. politics 101 says:

    These caususes are a joke anyway. Anyone that tells you otherwise is either lieing or trying to lead you down a path. Did any of you watch the news over the weekend? The Democrats were al;l encouraged to vote because they already had a choosen candidate and so they wanted to force the republicans to put forward a weaker candidate. this is politics 101 and politics at it’s worst. The republicans did the same in the years where they had in incombant in office.

    1. politics 101 says:

      it is this sort of behavour that guarantees that we get the worst possible candiadtes from bothe the democrats and the republicans and always will.

      1. politics 600 says:

        With that line of thinking, these malicious democrats should have come out in droves and voted Michele Bachmann since she would have been the least prepared match for Obama. This practice may occur, I have no doubt, but with miniscule influence or effect.

  6. Dale Gribble says:

    The criminal Democratic Party used illegal aliens and felons to deliberately vote against Santorum. This is yet another example of the way that the Democrats steal elections with voter fraud. The Democratic party must be outlawed and its leadership liquidated. Their offices must be closed and their property seized. Now is the time for patriotic Americans to stand up and destroy liberal, atheist, tyranny once and for all!!

    1. steve says:

      YOu are an idiot! Plain and simple.

    2. betty says:

      Where do you think we are Berlin 1933? Are you from the past? Your comment is exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews, Gays, and others who spoke against the Nazi Regime? Oh that’s right you are a Patriotic American. Never mind. LOL

      1. Dale Gribble says:

        This is the sort of response I’d expect from socialist traitors. When Rick Santorum is president, you’ll get what you have coming.

  7. Charles says:

    Dale
    A few words of advice…. Dig a big hole… DEEP. Build a large bunker. Cover that bunker with loads of dirt. Fill the bunker with food and water, lets say, enough to survive on for a 20 years. Open the door to the bunker, walk in, close the door, and enjoy!

  8. Bubba says:

    Santorum makes Bachmann look liberal. Hope he gets the Rep nod for Pres., then the Tea Baggers will go away. Total nut case.

  9. 1, 22 says:

    Counting to two is a real challenge for an Iowegian.

  10. Food For Thought says:

    A lot of people like to bash Fox News…but liberal media outlets have twisted a recent exchange between Santorum and a group of people at the New England College when asked on the topic of gay marriage. The Fox News video was 9:24 long and covered the exchange from the opening question to his belief on marriage. Instead of showing the full exchange, CNN video clip was 2:02 in length and most of the clip was a reporter telling you what Santorum had said because they didn’t want you to really know what he said. I also saw another video clip on ABC news that was also about 2 minutes long and you could clearly hear they cropped the video to place where the crowd did boo Santorum and it was not at the end of the gay marriage question exchange…but at the very end of the meeting.

    I am not a supporter of Santorum, however the 9:24 length of discussion was the best I’ve seen articulated by a politician on the gay marriage issue covered by a news organization. While FOX News does give the news a conservative slant, in this instance, at least they let us hear what Santorum really said.

    The liberal argument accuses the GOP of telling people what they can and can’t do in their bedroom. Just because some people believe that the gay lifestyle is wrong, has there been any attempt to make it illegal? However, the gay community has pushed to have their lifestyle taught in schools and pushed churches into performing gay marriages. Seems that the gay community has been doing a lot of telling those who believe the lifestyle is wrong that they can’t believe that way.

    This issue is not about one’s rights. Everyone has the right to be married. However, in this country, marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. This is about changing the definition of marriage in this country and thereby giving all couples under the new definition the same benefits given to those under the previous definition. Why does a gay couple deserve the same benefits given to a man and woman couple? When did a married man and woman couple obtain the benefits that gay couples now want? What were the reasons for giving the man and woman couple the benefits in the first place? If the definition of marriage changes, isn’t it possible that the reasons for giving benefits to all those under the new definition are no longer valid?

    1. Food For Thought says:

      I am suprised that nobody responded, so I will continue and possibly shock people who might have drawn an opinion of me based on the above post. Yes, I am probably considered by people to be one of those religious right wing conservative Christians. In the Fox News video clip, a female likely in favor of gay marriage, asked Santorum…How about the ideas that all men are created equal and the rights to happiness and liberty? Not a bad question, but here are additional questions that should have been asked. If you believe in God, Do you also then believe that God created man with “free will?” The answer should be…yes. Then why do you feel that since God allows you to have “free will,” that you have the right above that even given to man by God, to deny the “free will” of others?

  11. josie says:

    Voters better listen to exactly what Santorum is saying. He will cut Social Security, but he does not talk about cutting the entitlements of the Congress, which he was part of for 8 years and brought home many ear marks. It’s the way of the Government, cut from the “peons”, but do not touch the entitlements of the Government. No wonder America is in such a horrible place. GREED, GREED!

  12. Girly Boy says:

    Get used to Santorum avoiding conflict becasuse the first time anything doesn’t work out for him he’s going to cry like the spoiled little brat that he is. He will make Newt and Boehner look like tough guys.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

More From WCCO | CBS Minnesota

The Leaderboard
Good Question

Listen Live