Most of you should remember that Rick Santorum has been so hateful to gay people that the gay community gave his name a special meaning. His positions have not changed one iota, but he’s so desperate to gain recognition that he actually appeared on Rachel Maddow’s show. He tried to hide his frothiness.
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on Wednesday night sat down with former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) for an interview on same-sex marriage, which led to a heated debate over the Supreme Court's recent ruling that gay couples have the right to marry.
Santorum told Maddow that the Supreme Court "is not a superior branch of government" and argued that Congress can still pass a law regarding same-sex marriage.
Yet Maddow insisted that Congress could only pass a constitutional amendment that directly contradicts a Supreme Court ruling. Santorum disagreed and said that all three branches of government can determine what is constitutional…
Inserted from <TPM>
First, let me note that virtually everything he says about his past is a lie. Rachel actually had two frothy segments. Here's the first.
Because his policies are so horrific, I never realized he can come off as more affable than he is. Here's the second.
It will be interesting to see if this segment gets him enough attention to get him a top ten seat at the Faux Noise Festival of Lies.
Speaking about reversing the Supreme Court decision guaranteeing LGBT people the right to marry, he dis say one thing that is true. "If you have a new group of Justices, you might get an entirely different decision." What better warning could we have. If Frothy, or any other Republican, gets to make the next round of Supreme Court appointments, the decisions that Court makes will spell the end of America. It MUST be prevented.
11 Responses to “Rachel and the The Froth”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Good point on the influence of the composition and quality of SCOTUS based on who is elected. I'm amazed he got this kind of air time since he didn't make the GOP cut for Iowa Aug. debate.
Rick Santorum comes across as a rather pathetic, very narrow minded man, who besides running for governor or president doesn't know what to do with his life, but can't do without the attention. And it's from this mindset that he'll say anything to draw that attention; even negative attention is enough to keep him going. It would have been unthinkable that anyone with such under-developed, nay complete lack of self knowledge could get very far in a race for any governmental office, were it not that Donald Trump proves that wrong day after day.
Rick Santorum is a man that just doesn't know when or how to quit and perhaps people like that should be protected from themselves for their own sake and that of their families. Rachel hasn't really helped this man accept that he hasn't got a chance in hell to get any further, not even into the debate, by giving him so much air time. Perhaps she had hoped for some juicy lies or statements about gays, but he didn't deliver on that either. Our Rick is really drowning, but he's the only one who fails to notice it.
There are two things I ALWAYS keep in mind: the composition of the Supreme Court during Presidential elections, and the makeup of State electees who will be in office in years soon after a census (which requires keeping in mind BEFORE a census). Of course if we could get a law requiring independent commissions to do residtricting, that might help with the latter, and I believe one is being worked on. But then, it might not help, even if passed, which is not exactly likely.
"I never realized he can come off as more affable than he is." Typical of sociopaths to appear affable. Usually the term used is "charming." Something like "Southern charm." I realize he is not from the South, but he sems to have it. There are a whole lot of Southerners who are the nicest people you could ever meet, as long as you are white.
Yes, he was affable, but I don't trust a word he says. He is AGAINST things, never FOR things. Puritanism comes to mind when I listen to him. Yes, there could be a different outcome with different justices, one of the main reasons we need to elect a Democrat for president next term. The SCOTUS we have now have made some horrific decisions, Citizens United for one.
Sorry TC, I don't have the necessary anti-nausea tablets to watch him – even with Rachel Maddow.
I think he's right about all candidates being allowed on the debate stage. What gives FAUX the right to limit the stage to the top 10 pollers?
Does he know anything about the three branches of our government? Did he actually pass Civics in High School? The Supreme Court doesn't decide the constitutionality of laws? WOW!
Just a quick note here. I hust returned home. I will be posting, but will be very late. I need to eat and take a cat nap, before even start to write. So please don't worry. Hugs!
Joanne got it right, he may be affable but when you look closely what he would do to everyone else, not willing to just govern their own behavior, he is a sociopath. He has no concern for what others want to do with their lives, he wants to tell all of us how to do that. And he makes no bones about it and has no moral qualms about it. His policy points are horrific and so is he. He IS a personal attack on us, all of us. Behind the smile lies a right wing extremist assassin of civil liberties. Should bring a shiver to everyone's spine.
What a jerk! He thinks his views are the only ones that should matter, in his mind! He is a bona fide a$$hole!
Thanks to all. Kudos to JD. I'm hurrying BIG time.
Sorry I didn't post on this article yesterday. I was wiped out after the Open Thread and I did another face plant on the keyboard courtesy of 2 blood sugar lows yesterday morning, the first being 2.1 (37 on the US scale) and the 2nd 2.4 (43 on the US scale).
I really wonder if Mr Sanctimonious knows and understands US civics. In saying that the POTUS and Congress can make any law they want, he ignores the constitution completely. Rachel was correct to point out that laws have to be within the realm of the constitution and that SCOTUS has the job to ensure that laws do follow the constitution. Sanctimonious Santorum likely knows that getting the 75% of states to ratify an amendment is nigh on impossible especially with such a conservative, even ultra conservative bent. I never liked Santorum for his ultra conservative social policy views and his willingness to impose those views on others. He may have tried to remove the taint of froth, but it is still there in living colour.