The people who worry about Mr. O’s ‘Constitutional overreach’ with regard to contraceptives didn’t seem to mind it at all when he and his predecessors stepped on the Constitution to start wars all over the map, or enhance the powers of the secret police.  Pardon me if I do not get very interested in these guys.  They look like more of the same to me.

Anarcissie, seems we agree that Santorum is being labled by the MSM and that’s where you’re getting most of your info on him. 
Just like most other folk do.

My larger point is that politics has become personal in the MSM. 
And the bias is as palpable against the GOP in the MSM as it is against liberal/progressives on Fox. 

No matter which Repub gets the nod, he (or she, had it been Bachmann or Palin) will be branded according to which personal attacks will gain the most traction. 
The MSM needn’t levy the attacks themselves, just set the framing.

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.”
—Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals.

It took 40 years for Conservatives to read Alinsky, but now that they have, the Republican strategy has been to keep their opponents from “picking” and “freezing” a target. 

But come August, they will have to choose.

So, to review:

Romney: greedy, rich 1%er who likes firing people and torturing dogs. (Obamacare a non-issue if it’s Romney vs. Obama, just as Immigration was in 2008.)

Paul: senile, crazy old man with crackpot ideas from the 1700s because he was probably in the room when the Declaration was signed.  (or, more often in the MSM, Paul is invisible)

Gingrich: Hyprocritical philanderer (traits acceptable only in Bill Clinton or a Kennedy), bully, racist, egotist.

Santorum: Sexist, homophobic, war-mongering religious zealot.

This is not to suggest that the cheap shots and mud won’t be flying at Obama & they already are.
This fake photo from 2009 is making the rounds again on the internet. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/photos/lefthand.asp
But you won’t see personal branding from the MSM. 
One of Obama’s big advantages come November is media bias in his favor. 
The MSM has Obama’s back.  They love him.

This brings us all the way back to Dionne’s article, which shifts focus away from Obama’s attempted Constitutional overreach and diverts it to culture, the merits of Catholocism and women’s rights. 
It’s by design. 
Dionne has been providing this kind of cover for Obama for the past year now.

oddsox—I can only go by what is said about him in the media, and how he’s quoted.  For instance, he’s portrayed as promoting a very aggressive stance against Iran, including possible warfare.  I consider this to be an example of ‘warmongering’ although of course for all I know it’s just some sort of fable. 

If you feel Santorum is being lied about and is seriously misportrayed in the mainstream media, maybe you should write one of those ‘here is what they say, here’s the truth’ articles and post in somewhere on the Net.  I’d really rather not wade through a lot of depressing right-wing stuff myself, and in any case my opinions are not important.  It’s the general public perception and mainstream media treatment you need to concern yourself with.

Anarcissie, back atcha—if we take Santorumm at his word, what’s he said that causes you to think of him as a:
war monger?
sexist?
religious zealot?
...and may we add homophobe to the list, as he’s been called that, too.

Not what the MSM writes about him—what he’s said.

oddsox, February 15 at 8:48 am:

‘... PS:  BTW, also predictable was the branding of Rick Santorum (by you and others) as a sexist, religious zealot and war monger now that he’s emerged from the GOP incubator.
Right out of Alinsky’s Rules (#13).’

Also seems to be true, going by what little I read about him in the media.  In fact, warmongering, religious zealotry and sexism seem to be his principle stock in trade.  Do you really disagree with that, and on what basis?

I don’t think we need Alinsky to tell us to take people at their word.

Peggy Luhrs, February 15 at 2:33 pm:

‘What is EJ Dionne’s BS doing on Truthdig? ...’

Part of Truthdig’s modus operandi is to feature articles by WaPo shills and flacks for its readers to abuse.  It seems to attract attention, so I guess you’d have to say it works.  After all, we’re here.

Lafayette, you write:
“Nope, it’s about the inalienable right of a woman to decide all matters physical that concern her body.”

Nope back atcha, Mon Ami—the premise of this entire discussion is the Constitution.
Not Catholicism, Contraception, Culture Wars, Compromise—not Control either.

What you bring up here is just part of the predictable smokescreen and damage control spin from Dionne and others in the mainstream media. 

Quicky Quiz:
Under the Constitution, the President has powers as:
Commander in Chief?  (Yes.)
Pope?  (No.)
Santa Claus?  (Not so much.)

PS:  BTW, also predictable was the branding of Rick Santorum (by you and others) as a sexist, religious zealot and war monger now that he’s emerged from the GOP incubator.
Right out of Alinsky’s Rules (#13).

read thru gritted teeth
the self-proclaimed hypocrisy
of a self-proclaimed liberal
who is not a liberal
but is indeed
a Catholic
hypocrite

go my friend
study Mexico
study Latin America
speak with the poor
the brutalized

speak with the woman
living in Mexico City
who has twelve kids
who must have more
because
it is
the will of God

no Mr. Dionne
as polite as you may be
as concerned and as conciliatory
as you sound
you are wrong on this one

the malignant malevolence
of the Catholic Church
has been destroying cultures
for thousands of years

for you
comfortable in America
it’s an abstraction
a policy debate
smoothed over by groups helping the poor

but look:
the world is overpopulated
and your religion
leads the charge

you serve as an honorary colonel

D.R. Zing

Public money means public will - so woman have the right to practice contraception - regardless of Catholic irrationality on the topic. Truth be known - most Catholics don’t listen to the Pope. The only way to stay Catholic.

OS: it’s about the Constitution.

Nope, it’s about the inalienable right of a woman to decide all matters physical that concern her body.

Something you take for granted perhaps as a male, but cannot as a female - especially with a Catho-fundamentalist like Rick Santorum’s running for PotUS who thinks he knows better than you.

The GOP wants to convince the public, and especially
Catholic swing voters, that Obama is waging a war on
religion.  By doing this they hope to split voters away
from Obama and other Dems in order to win the White
House, win the Senate and keep the House.

Meanwhile, the Catholic Bishops and the most radical of
the anti-reproductive healthcare Evangelicals have
joined forces to convince the country that THEY ALONE
represent Christianity and therefor should decide what
the laws of a Christian nation should be.

INALIENABLE RIGHTS

EJD: That is why the battle over whether religious institutions should be required to cover contraception under the new health care law was so painful

In the US, this battle is due to the hodge-podge of religiosity since colonial times.

One can be thoughtful of the historical fact that the US originated from a desire for religious freedom. But we know see, in this question, how religion is interfering with personal liberties.

Many countries in Europe make contraception a part of the numerous surgeries that are covered by a National Health System. Why?

Because “birth” was defined as to exist from the moment that the baby exited from the uterus and was life self-sustaining. This is from time immemorial, so why some should think it goes back to the event of the sperm fertilizing the egg is beyond comprehension.

Note also, that such was church belief for the longest time over centuries.

The law (in those countries allowing abortion) tinkers with this notion a bit by defining that the “life” inside the mother is actually self-sustaining at a period of about 9 weeks after conception. So, rules on abortion can differ.

But the right of the woman to decide what happens with and to her body is her fundamental and inalienable right.

And no religious gibberish should be allowed to change it. Except, of course, apparently in a backward country like the US of A where religion can, indeed, forbid a pregnant woman her inalienable right.

it’s not about Catholicism.
it’s not about Contraception.
it’s not about Culture Wars.
it’s not about Compromise.

it’s about the Constitution.

Obama is still on the wrong side of this issue, even after backpeddling into a proposed insurance-paid “free lunch.”

As ever, E.J. Dionne has his back with this week’s smoke screen.

Question - does health insurance provided by Catholic
hospitals to its employees cover ‘contraceptives’ for
men? Of course, they’re a lot cheaper (and a lot safer)
but no mention is ever made of them.  Wonder why.

let real god study priests for a change—instead of the godologists
studying ‘god’. btw, how long have they been studying a god or gods or
‘gods’ [BS]? for millennia, eh! and things never worse, eh!?
it would be nice also if a scientist would be allowed to study politicians
and priests; instead of a politician and/or priest/believer like dionne,
pope, studying other politicians and/or priests and their mental slaves.
not gonna happen for centuries yet??!!!? but since a second nuclear war
is an ergodic event, that’ll solve EVERYTHING.
oh, how i wish i would witness that! it couldn’t happen to a more
deserving specie of life than US, the ogrish us! thanks

Good to see people not taken in by EJ’s muddled thinking.

The day the Roman Catholic Church begins to face the fact that human beings are sexual animals is the day they 1) stop trying to control women’s bodies, 2) stop denying homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, and, most importantly, 3) recognize the grotesque numbers of Homo sapiens sapiens inhabiting this planet and that there can never be any of the social justice some Catholics desire without a decrease in the human population.

You have the right to believe what you like, what you do not possess is the right to force your beliefs on others. No one is forcing Catholic bishops to use contraception, but they would certainly like to continue to exert total control over the bodies of women and children. I cannot believe anyone takes seriously the opinions of child molesters and enablers of child molesters regarding human sexuality, but liberals think all opinions are equally valid, no matter what their historical consequences have been.

I appreciate E.J., too, but his Catholic skirt is showing.  He ignores the sad fact that his church is doing all it can to unite itself with the state.

You remain in the Church despite its hatred of women—hmm, so what do you think about its abuse of children?  That OK, too?