Karen Santorum: "God Wants" My Crazy Bigot Husband to Run for President

Comments

1
What? They're taking the candidates to Afghanistan?
2
Do you think she ever wishes she'd kept her maiden name?
4
Another psst, Karen...

http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/

Hit it people!
5
I just got a fax from God. Yeah, it turns out he wants me to have everything I want, all the time, at your expense. Isn't He wild? I love that guy.
6
Duh, Goldy already took care of it. Loser! (me, well and Santorum, too)
7
God wants him to be humiliated? Because humility is to the Divine what hamburgers are to McDonald's.
8
As someone who lacks style and feels that it is inappropriate to remark on someone's looks...

What is wrong with her hair?!?
9
Literally on a battlefield, eh? I guess I wouldn't be too surprised to see the GOP debates erupt in gunfire, but....
10
"Literally?" No, Karen.
11
So, Depeche Mode was right all along: God really DOES have a sick sense of humor...
12
@1 :

Uncle Steve's Paintball Battlefield™ in back-water Cracka County.

And if you really want details, you should see what Uncle Steve loads his paintballs with.
13
Methinks Karen is confusing God with Loki.
14
I threw up in my mouth within 7 seconds of watching this, so I stopped it, looked one post down, and watched the puppies for 5 minutes. Feeling better now.
15
By predestination logic, anybody who runs for President does so because God wants him/her to.
16
Keep Your MuthaFuckin Religion OUT Of My Political Landscape, you frothy holy warrior, you!

Geez! Did all these cretins skip their US Gov't classes in high school, or WHAT?
17
For the record: I also want Santorum to run. I want Santorum to run down my man's legs when I'm through with him.
18
@9 We can only hope for extensive collateral damage.
19
@11: Heeeee! I love that song!
20
So my question is: is she really violently psycho, or is she one of those vapid assholes who doesn't actually know what "literally" means?
21
@20 Oh it's GONNA be literal. They just keep the Left Behind books in the fiction section for now because they haven't happened yet.
22
I think she meant 'literarily'. As in fiction.
23
Mrs. Santorum says it's a battlefield, but Mr. Santorum uses football analogies. Are they talking about the same thing? Is Jesus the General or is He the quarteback? Anyway, them Christians sure are Santorum hungry.
24
Oh, c'mon, what's she going to say? "God is a benevolent being that desires the best for all of creation. Whether my husband runs for president or not, I know that God lives in my heart, every day of my life."

People don't give money to that kind of shit! They give money out of fear & self-pity.
25
hey anybody notice the progress bar on that video GLOWS? that must count for something.
26
You know, God wants a lot of things: He wants certain sports teams to win, others to lose, certain nations to win wars, others to lose, certain war criminals to be punished, others to skip off into the Texas sunset. I don't think Mr. and Mrs. Santorum should take every whim of God so seriously and personally. They're liable to be disappointed with the outcome.
27
"God" has no place in Government.
28
God, Conservatives are drama queens. When it comes to calm, even-handed, informed statements, I would take the messiest, sketchiest, most hypersensitive no-talent drag queen over a Republican any day. Somebody needs to slap that woman upside the head with a handbag and ask "What is WRONG with you?"
29
I really get offended, as much as I try to not give a fuck, when people claim to know what God's will is. It's one thing to attribute something to God's will, or to pray that it may be God's will that some event come about. It's entirely another to claim knowledge of God's will in advance, an act that comes off as arrogant at the best and blasphemous at the worst.
30
Fuck it. He thinks it's a battle? It's on Santorum. Your feces/lube ideology versus sanity. I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.
31
8 I'm with you. Her hair and the way she speaks is out of sync with the rest of her. I watch her and I feel like she should have orange lipstick all over her lips, teeth and parts of her face. And a bloody mary with a big, leafy celery stalk wilting out of it.
32
Well this is great news! If god wants Santorum to be president then we will learn 1 of 2 things when he loses.
1) god does not exist.
2) god doesn't even have the power to influence an election.

If, on the other hand, he wins we will learn that God thinks there should be a lot more gays in Canada.
33
Also, if it's God's will then why will it be hard? I thought he was omnipotent.
34
@16 and 27

The Establishment clause doesn't prohibit public expression of a persons faith. It doesn't prohibit a politician from that expression either. It prohibits a state sponsered faith, as a response to the Church of England with the King as head of the state and the church. The goal was the freedom of citizens to espouse a faith or not as their tastes and beliefs dictated, not as the majority or the state did.

We've interpreted this to mean, for instance, that mandatory prayer in school is effectively sponsering a faith. We've interpreted it to mean that a person can't be refused a job or apartment because they are atheist or Wiccan.

No court has ever said that a politician expressing his or her faith publicly violates the separation of church and state.

And if you think about it, laws are the expression of the dominant ethical and moral worldviews in a democracy. In the US those are Christian. Our laws can't be the 10 commandments Constitutionally, but they can be in part the philosophical outgrowth of them.
35
@29

When reading comments from rational young liberals like yourself, I almost feel optimistic about the future of this country. I happen to disagree with most of your politics, but at least you appear to have given them some thought.

Then I remember the vast majority of the base of the dems and start worrying again.
36
#34 - thank god this asshole is here to explain things to us dumb liberals and atheists.

It's "sponsored" and "sponsoring", dipshit. Go back to molesting your daughter.
37
@17 get that on a bumpersticker and start selling it on Pine.
38
@34 Seattleblues, you are living in a dream world if you think Santorum does not dream of a Christian, theocratic America. The man isn't exactly splitting hairs.
39
@38

So don't vote for him. I think Obama a poor president whose ideology is wrong for this country, but I confine my comments about him to his politics. In most respects he seems an intelligent and decent man trying his best to be a good husband and father and do his job as president in some unusually trying times.

At any rate, I don't attack Mr. Obamas wife or kids (though I will mention his wife's politics as they demonstrate his), or launch a vicious and malicious public campaign in an attempt to humiliate him, as Savage did with Santorum.

Both on the left and the right the level of political discourse has degenerated to a depressingly low and vulgar level. (For reference, see the interesting comment at 36, where a person disagreeing with me feels the need for personal insults entirely unrelated to the topic at hand.) I fail to see how this benefits the country or governing of it.

40
@8 She was teasing her hair and it got mad.

But much more importantly--dude totally got a nose job! I'm embarrassed that I even noticed a difference, but it's obvious in this video: the hump on the bridge is much reduced, and it's been bobbed.
41
Honey, I don't think you know what literally means.

I hope you're not homeschooling your kids.
42
@39: Here's a quote from you, a few days ago:
"I didn't have sex with your wife/girlfriend/cheap slut. I don't want to pay to enable that sex as a taxpayer. You buy your own birth control or murder babies when you decide birth control is too inconvenient, and I'll treasure the children that resulted from my marriage on my dime. "

Here's a quote from you today:
"Both on the left and the right the level of political discourse has degenerated to a depressingly low and vulgar level."

You deserve all the rude insults you so desperately troll for.
43
@39 I think ridicule is a very appropriate and acceptable response to the kind of statements Santorum makes. I think Savage's attempt at redefining "Santorum" is cunning, highly successful, and totally deserved by the man who thinks some forms of consensual sex are condemnable, and should be illegal, because of incomprehensible scribblings from two thousand years ago. If he blunders into the public square spewing regressive bullshit, resentment and ridicule should be the least of what he gets. Since his wife has publicly joined him in his divine "battle" she is complicit. I feel sorry for his kids.
44
@ 39: I see. Sooooo is that why you said that an invitation to the Obama White House would be an insult a while back when we discussing your boiling jealousy of Dan and all that he has accomplished?
We can talk about that (and Alan Greenspan!) When you come to Slog Happy.
45
@44

Alan Greenspan? Where did that come from, out of curiousity?

And fair enough. I occasionally get a bit peppery, but strangely I don't recall suggesting anyone molests their children on the basis of political disagreement. I don't try to destroy every aspect of their lives because I don't like their ideology. Those tricks I'll leave to things like Savage and others on the left.

Jealousy? Hardly. Complete contempt would be more apt. Savage is engaged in an attempt to destroy my culture out of an immature reaction to his own chosen status as an outsider. Mrs. Santorum spoke badly perhaps, but there is a very real culture war going on, with centuries of proven social mechanisms in the balance. On one side are those who support decency and honor and integrity and responsibilitiy. On the other are those who choose bestial immediate gratification of whatever whim strikes them and to hell with anyone else. Barbarians like Dan Savage, and many others on the far left fringes hate our society and want to destroy it. Jealousy doesn't come into it. I'd sooner be dead than be anything like that animal.
46
45 It is entirely possible that Alan Greenspan was regularly pegged by Ayn Rand which throws a monkey wrench into your whole, "The claim that conservatives take Rand seriously is a liberal conspiracy of the left leaning media and I know this because neither I nor my one friend could finish the Fountainhead," thing.
47
@45

"Savage is engaged in an attempt to destroy my culture out of an immature reaction to his own chosen status as an outsider"

Details. What is your culture, how is Savage trying to destroy it, what is his "chosen outsider" status?
48
@46

What I actually wrote is that no conservative I know thinks much of Rand.

This may shock you, but Alan Greenspan isn't someone I know. He's someone of whom I know. And I could point to people with unorthodox ideas on the left without defining the left. The obvious fact that no-one is perfect may best be shown by Reagans admiration of that anti-American, Franklin Roosevelt. You do understand that one representative of a group doesn't define the group, right?

I could have finished the Fountainhead. I chose not to. In their way the principles of Objectivism are as immoral as those of Socialism. Life's too short to read badly written books espousing bad ideas.
49
God, seconds before Santorum announces his candidacy:

"Don't do it! I was just testing your faith! Jesus, you're as gullible as Abraham."
50
@48:
>drags America out of the Great Depression
>mobilized the country to fight off the Axis
>regarded by a great majority of historians as a great American president
>called an anti-American by Joe Schmo because he played dirty in politics
Damn, SLOG, I can't tackle this inane morass properly without my greentext.
51
@46 But evidently long enough to write long tedious posts that make absurd claims and spend three hours hovering over blog posts in a desperate attempt to get attention from people you know disagree with you.
52
So god wants us all to have a good laugh. That's awful nice.
53
It must have been God's will that he lost the 2006 senate race.
54
48 You only said you didn't know anybody who liked Rand AFTER you were called out on your pathetic lie that Rand isn't important to conservatives.

Then you realized that your lie would only stand if you rephrased it in a way that can't be challenged by anybody who doesn't know you personally.

You do realize that nobody gives a fuck what you claim these conservatives you know think, right? You know that telling us what your buddies think isn't evidence for anything you say being true, right? It's the sort of argument you'd expect to hear from an eight grader.

So, Lissa gave a known, famous conservative who is on record as being a Randian. Even if that's insufficient evidence, it's better evidence than what you've given and, since you made the original claim, burden's on you.

That's all LIssa is saying. If you would like to make some attempt to support the lie you told about conservatives and Rand, she's still waiting.
55
@54

I stated an opinion. An opinion can be poorly or well thought out. It can be difficult or easy to support with objective fact. It can be unpopular or the phrase on everyones lips. But by definition it can't be a lie.

I leave the outright lies to Goldy or Savage or former Representative Grayson or Bernie Sanders. Even if I wanted to compete with them they have too much practice for me to do so effectively. And the malicious personal attacks in lieu of reasoned political debate? Hell, these guys are masters of pettiness and malice, I wouldn't even want to enter the field with them.

Here's how it stands. Lissa says that one conservative, famous or not, happens to think Rand relevant. Of all the conservatives I know none of them do. So, her anecdote is fact, and mine is anecdotal, is that it?

If it pleases you, or Dan Savage or Goldy or Paul Constant, to invent errant nonsense about what conservatives believe, that's your perogative. If you choose to use that errant nonsense as rhetorical ammunition, that too is your affair. Just don't be surprised when, outside your own chosen echo chambers, you look foolish for doing so.
56
@55 You didn't offer it as an opinion but I am enjoying seeing you backpeddle.

Stay with me here. This isn't rocket science.

Her evidence is verifiable. Yours isn't.

Her evidence is also believable. Yours isn't.

If you know what every conservative you've met thinks about Rand? You think she's irrelevant but you get everybody's opinion on her?

Your obvious lies are obvious. Or you're a psychotic retard who runs around getting everybody's opinion on some shit he thinks it irrelevant.
57
@55

I'd bet in gathering with like minded friends at reading parties of Das Kapital or mass protests against sweatshops run by Nike, or putting on a nice warm jacket this May to march about blocking traffic and shouting about global warming you get a pretty good feel for what's important to them. You likely talk about the 'right' to murder innocent babies, or the 'right' to the contents of other citizens wallets, or the 'right' to medical care or housing or food you don't wish to pay for. You presumably talk about President Obama or Johnson or that anti-American Roosevelt. You presumably discuss the philosphical underpinnings of your chosen political beliefs.

I've never yet had a conversation with conservative friends about Rand. Not once. She simply isn't a relevant part of the conservative discourse with anyone I know. Most haven't read her poorly written books, as Mr. Constant seems to have repeatedly.

And I could give a flying... what you believe in your haze of delusional partisan hatred.
58
57
You've never discussed Rand with any of the conservatives you know. So, what you told us about what every conservative you know thinks of Rand was a lie.

You didn't need to explain that to me. I already knew that.

And, since you keep trying to convince me of shit, I'll assume your claim about not giving a flying...what I believe is yet another lie from your lying lie-head.

I could talk about the right to medical care with President Obama while killing babies on a statue of Roosevelt and it STILL wouldn't change the fact that you're a pathetic liar.
59
@58: "I could talk about the right to medical care with President Obama while killing babies on a statue of Roosevelt."

Pics, or it didn't happen.
60
Poor Seattleblues. That's quite the tight little corner you've backed yourself into isn't it? Look at you having a tantrum!

Like I said before, the only way you could embarrass yourself more would be if you peed your pants in the middle of the grocery store.

@shw3nn: xoxo
61
@60

Yeah. That was me having the temper tantrum, with the whole lying lie head-thing. Um hmm.
62
@61: I know, sweet pea, I know. You're a great big conservative! Yes you are! Yes you are!
Come to Slog Happy. I'll buy you a chocolate milk.
63
Ummm...guys...I know I'm kinda new here, but it seems that ad hominem attacks on SeattleBlues are not having the effect of making him go away. My guess is that he kinda enjoys him because he then gets to play the victim. Tempting as it is to (figuratively) let him have it with both barrels, wouldn't it be more effective to just tear apart his viewpoints?

Or, as I like to think of it, WWKiPD?
64
@57 Sorry. You don't get to be an authority on hatred when you repeatedly call Savage a "thing","deviant", or impugn your fellow Americans for even questioning the warmongering, jingoistic policies of their country (e.g. hates America).

Once you care to remove these mischaracterizations and insults from your vocabulary when discussing matters, maybe we can start a real conversation about hatred and, yes, on both "sides."
65
And just how did God manifest itself, a burning Bush (couldn't resist the pun)? She really needs medical help if she's hearing voices. Another self appointed messenger of God.
66
45/Seattleblues: On one side are those who support decency and honor and integrity and responsibilitiy. On the other are those who choose bestial immediate gratification of whatever whim strikes them and to hell with anyone else.

Bestial immediate gratification? Oh my. Seattleblues, if it were up to you, what would you do about the millions of single straight people like me who have chosen bestial gratification immediately (or, if not immediately, at least after a few dates) instead of waiting until marriage for it? In the same way that you're in favor of a ban on same-sex marriage, would you ban premarital sex for single straight people?
67
Just read all the comments and gotta say, I love seeing Seattleblues wade into a conversation with his "opinions," lies and generalizations stated as "facts," and get a royal bitch-slapping (not once, but multiple times) by the good people, here on SLOG.

I humbly bow to you good people :)
68
Sounds like he's a Ron Paul fan. But he needs to drop the neo-con pro-torture stand... That's NOT God's will.
69
The Catholic church has done many bigoted things in its history including killing "witches", torturing protestants to death, supporting slavery, blocking civil rights for blacks, and murdering innocent Muslim civilians living in Jerusalem at the time of the Crusades. To this day it indirectly encourages its followers to beat up and kill gay people by spreading lies about gays. Just because a church advocates something does not exclude it from being bigotry. Just because the church harboured, aided and abetted pedophiles does not make it right. Santorum was never big on logic.