Politics

Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch: ‘Santorum is Nuts’

Ed Koch: Santorum is Nuts

Former New York City Democratic Mayor Ed Koch has a reputation for occasional independent opinions from his party, endorsing successful Republican candidates like Rudy Giuliani for Mayor, Peter T. King for the House, George Patacki for Governor, George W. Bush for President in 2004, and most recently, Bob Turner to for Anthony Weiner’s seat in Congress. Koch was extremely critical of President Obama‘s relationship with Israel during his first three years in the White House but after a personal meeting with the President at New York City’s 42nd street library, Koch changed his mind and is now “back on the bus” with Obama, endorsing his reelection. In a recent interview on local WABC radio, the former Mayor said that the President is more equipped to handle the nation’s domestic issues and work with the state of Israel than anyone in the current field of Republican primary candidates. Koch slammed Rick Santorum specifically, making the allegation that if President, the former Pennsylvania senator would impose his religious beliefs on others.

“Santorum is nuts,” Koch told host Aaron Klein. “And I say that in a loving way. He is someone who is of the belief that religious obligations that he has can be imposed on other people. Now I don’t mind his imposing on himself the business of no pre-natal care, no abortion. That’s okay from his point of view. But in my judgement it’s nuts to try to impose that on other people of other religions who don’t agree with you.”

Koch added, “I admire him as someone who is a true believer from his point of view, but when he takes it to the point where he wants to impose it on other people, like eliminate contraception, if that ain’t crazy. You know, it used to be we did eliminate the right to sell condoms in Connecticut. The Supreme Court said that was wrong. Now what Santorum has said in affect is he would like to see states go back to criminalizing the sale of contraception. I think that’s crazy.”

POLITICO  notes that Santorum has said on the campaign trail that he is not interested in banning contraception.

 

Comments (117)

1 2 3
  • GodsPlan
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:29am

    Koch, the Mighty GOP Establishment Guy!!!! He sees Santorum getting a decent headway and must start name-calling him as “crazy” to keep the moderate in the race. Flashback to McCain who was moderate left with the establishment backing.
    I expect a slew of GOP establishment denunciations of Santorum, who IS the True Conservative in this race.

    Report Post »  
    • Kevin The Elder
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 5:49am

      Koch declared Santorum crazy because Santorum “is of the belief that religious obligations that he has can be imposed on other people.” Has the ex-mayor not heard all of the Catholics complaints about President Obama these past few weeks or do they not count? Koch further acts the part of the weasel when he knowingly lies about Santorum wanting to “eliminate contraception.” Reading this story I was reminded of my grandmother warning me to watch out for certain people who would willingly sell their soul to the Devil for a dollar.

      Report Post »  
    • midwesthippie
      Posted on February 28, 2012 at 1:55am

      …if ricky doesn’t run hard on religion…his wife will whip his a$$. poor ricky

      Report Post » midwesthippie  
  • kevin
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:14am

    read divinecosmos.com the end of financial tyranny you will soon understand soon very soon the arrests will come

    Report Post »  
    • TXPilot
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:23am

      Hmm….and he seemed like such a friendly little gnome in those those Travelocity commercials….

      Report Post » TXPilot  
  • kevin
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:13am

    you have to read the end of financial tyranny explains why all the worlds bankers are resigning. the investigation is a long read but well worth it arrests are coming find it at divinecosmos.com.

    Report Post »  
  • Santorum_is_a_douchebag
    Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:07am

    He‘s not nuts he’s indoctrinated into a neo-Catholic cult.

    Report Post » Santorum_is_a_douchebag  
    • Santorum_is_a_douchebag
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:09am

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98xtGY7twAg

      Report Post » Santorum_is_a_douchebag  
    • UBETHECHANGE
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:10am

      Dont’ feed the troll. Pray for him.

      Report Post »  
    • Bronco Guy
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:26am

      Oops, I think YOU’RE the douche bag. God forbid someone should stand up for truth, see “right” in black and white terms and defend life. Anyone who sides with the lazy murder of unborn children for the convenience or “red herring” “right” of the woman, is truly depraved and truly a douche bag!

      Report Post »  
    • TwistedOne
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 1:04am

      Santorum is a nut job.. Ehy is it that all the republican candidates want to impose social issues on the rest of us..

      Santorum is an idiot and a whack job!!

      Report Post »  
    • LolaB
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 2:29am

      Oh shut up ******!!!!

      Report Post »  
    • RedSoloCup
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 8:50am

      Another one of Encinom’s offspring rears its ugly head.

      Report Post » RedSoloCup  
  • UBETHECHANGE
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:48pm

    “Don’t worry Ed …Rick’s not coming after your Viagra..!”

    Lol, good one!

    Report Post »  
    • lovenfl3
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:07am

      That was hilarious. Ed Koch is the pot calling the kettle black in this instance.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1oDqfTl3KA

      Report Post » lovenfl3  
    • carbonyes
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:19am

      ED Koch is a dope, a moron, a imbecile, and senile. Him and former President Carter should both be involuntarily retired to the same Funny Farm to see which one would drive the other crazy first – not that they both already aren’t.

      Report Post »  
  • floridacockleburr
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:44pm

    The Blaze has a repudiation for sloppy writing.

    Report Post » floridacockleburr  
  • sawbuck
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:41pm

    With everything going on in the past three years ..This is what get’s you on a soap box.?

    Don’t worry Ed …Rick’s not coming after your Viagra..!

    Report Post » sawbuck  
  • UBETHECHANGE
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:38pm

    Don’t feed the troll. Pray for him.

    Report Post »  
  • The Third Archon
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:38pm

    “You know, it used to be we did eliminate the right to sell condoms in Connecticut. The Supreme Court said that was wrong. Now what Santorum has said in affect is he would like to see states go back to criminalizing the sale of contraception. I think that’s crazy.”
    That‘s because it’s crazy.

    Report Post » The Third Archon  
    • 13th Imam
      Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:44pm

      Rick Santorum never held office here in CT. And RS NEVER said he wanted to ban Contaception. Ed has gotten the word from Barry. They threatened him with the Vince Foster Memorial Cannon. Do DEMOCRATS ever tell the truth???

      Report Post » 13th Imam  
    • sawbuck
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:00am

      The worlds going to hell and people are worried about raincoats.?
      Give me a break.
      This country will be lucky to stop falling off the cliff…
      Yet alone…go back in time ,when we had any real rights..!

      Report Post » sawbuck  
    • The Third Archon
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:08am

      @13th
      Oh? So Santorum, HASN’T gone on record saying Griswold v. Connecticut is a Supreme Court decision that ought be overturned, and that states OUGHT to be able to ban contraceptives if they choose to?
      .
      Then what about this:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kjls0Ln7D4

      Report Post » The Third Archon  
    • getourcountryback
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 2:10am

      You know third buddy I think you should change your handle. I think third nipple would suit you better as you are about as useful as one.

      Report Post »  
  • Master_and_Commander
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:34pm

    omg for crying out loud, would people quit with the whole ”He wants to ban contraception! AHHHHHH!!!!!!!” Our media should not be allowed to get away with this monstrous lie…

    Report Post »  
    • Master_and_Commander
      Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:40pm

      they are doing this for no other reason than the fact that they can’t win the argument on abortion, they know that he has a winning argument here against Obama. And so the media does what they do best, they distract people from the real issue, Obama’s infringement upon religion, and they have created B.S. claim of how he wants to ban contraception, even though Rick Santorum has gone on record countless times saying that absolutely ridiculous.

      Report Post »  
    • The Third Archon
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:04am

      So, are you implying that is not, in fact, true that Santorum believes the Griswold v. Connecticut is a mistaken Supreme Court judgment and that states OUGHT to have the right to ban the sale of contraception if they choose to?

      Because I’m pretty sure Santorum would disagree with that assertion.

      Report Post » The Third Archon  
    • Bigolfascist
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:14am

      It’s all Alinsky. Deflect the real issues. Demonize and ignore the problem. Stephanopoulos set it up, and the media went with it, just as planned. A non-issue became an issue and destroyed a candidate. Four more years and our end.

      Report Post » Bigolfascist  
    • The Third Archon
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:17am

      “they are doing this for no other reason than the fact that they can’t win the argument on abortion, ”
      No, I’m reasonably confident in my beliefs about abortion, otherwise I wouldn’t hold them. The rights of people who might potentially exist (even if they can be said to have rights) are not as important as the rights of people who actually DO exist, right now. Just because a woman consents to sex does not mean she consents to be a mother. Historically, it was not until recently that women actually HAD a choice otherwise–unlike men, women can become pregnant, and therefore become a parent, when they never had any intention, desire, or capacity to do so. Thus, this debate was never an issue–but now that it is POSSIBLE for women to make alternative choices, and enjoy life the way a man does in a state of nature, tell me why they SHOULDN’T be allowed to. What BENEFIT is served in society by making parents out of people who wouldn’t otherwise choose, and COULD choose not to be if we DON’T choose to limit their use of things like contraception and/or abortion, to be parents?

      Report Post » The Third Archon  
    • TwistedOne
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 1:02am

      He does want to ban contraception.. Among anything else that Pope Santorum wants to impose upon everyone else.

      This guy is an idiot!!

      Report Post »  
    • sawbuck
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 1:32am

      THIRD ARCHON.

      The very argument that you use …Because of science ..
      The woman is able to enjoy all the same benefits as a man .
      To be …COMPLETELY …..“EQUAL”…THEN…!

      The “man” should have the “only” say on weather he wants to contribute
      at all , to the rearing of said child .
      if a child is not “a child”… until birth..
      Then the woman is dictating IE playing God ,on deciding who lives and
      who doesn’t .If she choose to have the child, by our laws ,
      SHE is forcing the male donor’s to contribute to the raising of said child ,
      which makes it NOW un-equal..
      Thus giving woman POWER over man and therefore NOT equal ..!
      And now that man is no longer equal to woman that means
      a “man’s rights” are being infringed upon by ’woman’s rights” .
      Which means RIGHTS are no longer EQUAL
      between a man and a woman..!

      See where this is going..?

      If a woman has the final say on having a baby

      Then a man should be able to have the final say ,
      on if he wants to support…………… the baby.

      All things….. being equal ………rights and all .

      Except the …………………….unborn fetus…!

      BTW This ..Is what we have in the U.S. now …!
      Unequal rights on this issue ..!
      Between man and a woman ..!
      And hardly none for the unborn….!

      Report Post » sawbuck  
  • Steelhead
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:34pm

    can Santorum come from behind.?

    Report Post » Steelhead  
  • drago
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:34pm

    Wonder if Koch did too much “coke’……

    Report Post »  
  • chameleonx
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:31pm

    I can agree with Ed **** on Santorum. Rick is just too Christian for my taste. I do not want to see my country become a Christian theocracy.

    Report Post »  
    • chameleonx
      Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:38pm

      Is the word “Koch” a bad word on the Blaze? lol.

      Report Post »  
    • UBETHECHANGE
      Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:44pm

      First, to have a theocracy in America, the Constitution must be replaced with a totalitarian dictator who speaks on God’s behalf. I challenge you, or anyone else to identify which part of the “Religious Right” is calling for such a government.

      Second, the “Religious Right” leaders (Jerry Falwell, James Robison, Pat Robertson, Jim Dobson, et. al) are calling for an increased respect for the Constitution and its actual wording, urging citizens to exercise their constitutional right to vote. The real “crime” of these leaders is not that they want a theocracy (which they don’t) but that they rightfully want legislators to make national policy instead of liberal marxist judges.

      Report Post »  
    • UBETHECHANGE
      Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:44pm

      The rabid opposition to public religious expressions is often irrational, In fact, a New Jersey bill proposing that students begin each day by reciting the first 56 words from the Declaration of Independence was loudly denounced as “a thinly-veiled attempt to put prayer in schools” – the first step on the road to a – you guessed it – “theocracy!” Reading the actual wording of the Declaration of Independence leads to a theocracy??? It is time for that term to become anathema in public discourse.

      During the Civil Rights Era, we gradually learned that if certain pejoratives were invoked, the individual doing so was a racist. Similarly, today we need to learn that when the emotive and pejorative term “theocracy!” is invoked, it is usually by an intolerant secularist who wants all public religious expressions expunged from society.

      Report Post »  
    • chameleonx
      Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:57pm

      I would have to respectfully disagree with your comments. The reason because is because of the the ridiculous comments by Republican politicians about their Christian faith. If you look throughout the internet you will see word by word of quotes by Republican politicians.
      “I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, ‘Are you going to start listening to me here?”–Michelle Bechmann.

      “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.”
      ~Rick Santorum, opposing contraception and frighteningly suggesting that he would love to make pre-marital sex illegal.
      I do not see what Republican party you’re following but the one I see wants a Christian government or Christianity influenced in public life.

      Report Post »  
    • UBETHECHANGE
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:06am

      ~Rick Santorum, opposing contraception and frighteningly suggesting that he would love to make pre-marital sex illegal.

      Find me a video or actual quote of him saying he opposes contraception or wants to make pre-marital sex illegal.

      Rick is for abstinence per his religious belief, not banning contraception, big difference.

      Report Post »  
    • chameleonx
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:10am

      The quotes I used are to help you and countless others understand how much Republican politicians use their faith to influence voters. Here is one by John Stewart.

      “I have to say, as someone who is not Christian, it’s hard for me to believe Christians are a persecuted people in America. God-willing maybe one of you one day can become President of this country– or maybe forty–two in a row. But that’s my point, is they’ve taken this of no establishment as persecution, because they feel entitled, not to equal status, but to greater status.”

      This is how people see Republican politicians who always complain about their Christian beliefs being persecuted. We want you to know you have the freedom to be a Christian; not control over the country through Christianity.

      Report Post »  
    • ModerationIsBest
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:16am

      “”our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God’s law.”" – Rick Santorum

      What laws are God’s law, and whose interpretation of those laws do we follow?

      Report Post »  
    • chameleonx
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:24am

      @MODERATIONISBEST: Even though I’m not religious. No one should have the right to be the voice of their religion. Here is a quote to think about by Ted Alexandro.

      “Some people say homosexuality is a sin. It’s not, God is perfectly cool with it, and he feels the same way he feels about homosexual as he does heterosexuals. Now you might say woo, woo, slow down you move to fast. How could you have the audacity, the temerity to speak on the behalf of God. Exactly, that’s an excellent point and I pray you remember it.

      Report Post »  
    • UBETHECHANGE
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:27am

      Wallbuilders.com

      Educate yourself.

      Report Post »  
    • chameleonx
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 12:36am

      @ Ubethechange: I have been linked to the website before. I will continue to look into the history of the Christian religion in the United States. But I would be skeptical of the information in the linked website. Because of the links to creationist websites. Creationism is a fake science.

      Report Post »  
    • getourcountryback
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 2:15am

      So you would rather it become a socialist maxist regime? Just wait until the muslims start handing out freedoms. Oh, that is right, you wouldn’t get any. USA is a Christian nation founded on Christian principals. If you don’t like it, you are free to leave.

      Report Post »  
    • PaineSense
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:12am

      Belief in scientific theories lacking a Creator is a faith; synonymous with scientific theories including a creator requires faith. The Hebrew word meaning “Faith” is a verb not a noun. You do not possess faith, you perform it. Yes the Hebrew word and meaning is important for non-creationists as it gives a historical context of where this word comes from (being a scientific thinker you appreciate historicity no doubt), and for Christians given that Jesus/Yeshua/The Torah in Flesh, a Rabbi, was teaching us from the Torah, or, the first give books of the God Christians follow, the Hebrew God). I was agnostic and had put together quite a bit of information that I BELIEVED proved that there was no Creator. Yet, now I know that no such evidence exists. I have no THEORY of the existence of the Creator, I have PROOF. But my proof only exists for me, and I can only share my own wisdom that is my proof with you. You can gain knowledge from my wisdom, but never your own wisdom from it for wisdom requires experience, and you dont have my experience. But you may find one day that all of the wisdom you have proving to you that there is no Creator, actually proves to you that there is a Creator thus changing the direction of your faith as I did. The more faith I give to the Creator, the more proof I have that He exists. Unfortunately, non-Creationist science will never obtain proof, only theories, viewasyour faith has no means of demonstrating its reality, only an agreement with your

      Report Post »  
    • PaineSense
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 3:30am

      But back on topic, the founders stated openly and often that this country should always prefer Christians as its leaders, for the country was founded by Christians that came here for the specific purpose of escaping religious persecution.
      I do not support Santorum, but I do support religious morality in governance as the Declaration of Independence clearly states where our rights originate. For if rights originate from man/government, then man/government can freely revoke them. But man/government can only claim the illusion of having revoked rights endowed by Natures God.
      Tell me: from whom/what do your rights originate if not from God?

      Report Post »  
    • EchoHawk
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 6:16pm

      I found something to be suspicious about the first time you posted those comments UBETHECHANGE, posting them a second time only confirms my suspicions. First your assertion, if it is in fact yours, is false, there is nothing to me as terrifying as someone who claims “God told me to run”. I don’t have any problem with anyone who speaks with God but most rational people will agree that it is unlikely that God has spoken to anyone in at least two thousand years. If God is telling you things that specific that deserves immediate disqualification in my book and I have every confidence that’s not just me.
      Second, the real crime of religious zealotry is it’s attempt to permeate government. Your religious conviction isn‘t a characteristic that’s evaluated in your worthiness for public office, at least officially it isn’t. Piety in public life doesn’t transfer to wisdom, it should be a private matter between oneself and whatever God or Gods on chooses to worship.

      Report Post »  
  • kschmud
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:29pm

    I cannot understand the reality some people live in…God help us.

    Report Post »  
  • UBETHECHANGE
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:26pm

    Ed is a dope. Unite or die people! Abo 2012!

    Report Post »  
  • huntee
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:25pm

    He got rolled over when he had a meeting with Odrama, they probably have something on him!

    Report Post »  
  • Apple Bite
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:23pm

    More than likely…Ed Koch is senile.

    Report Post » Apple Bite  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 7:45am

      He’s gay. That’s pretty well known in New York and it explains why he hates a man who tries to obey God.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • RedSoloCup
      Posted on February 27, 2012 at 8:52am

      Eddie had a chance to be with Bawny Fwank.

      Report Post » RedSoloCup  
  • LeadNotFollow
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:22pm

    …
    Ed Koch is a MORON.

    Report Post »  
  • step5935
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:21pm

    you’re right Mr. Koch I would hate somebody to get in the oval office and try to push his religious beliefs on the entire nation and try to implement that through policy. You know stupid things like wealth redistribution. This President invokes the use of religion and God all the time to try and get his policy agenda of wealth redistribution passed.
    How ignorant, blind or complicit do you have to be to not see that this President is doing exactly what he claims he would hate if somebody like Santorum won.

    Report Post » step5935  
  • deathorliberty
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:21pm

    More of a reason for me to vote for Rick now! Thanks Ed, I really disvalue your opinion!!

    Report Post »  
  • Robert-CA
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:16pm

    & what else you’re gonna do Koch ? apologize to the muslim suicidal terrorist ? cause if you are , hurry up , Obama is beating you on that one .

    Report Post » Robert-CA  
  • dukeofpaducah
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:16pm

    If there ever was someone who IS nuts, it’s Koch.

    Report Post » dukeofpaducah  
  • CatB
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:16pm

    Another progressive heard from ..

    Report Post »  
  • BurntHills
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:16pm

    koch is a democrat. democrats stopped being Americans 3 years ago. they are all proud anti-American communists now. just ask any of them.

    Report Post » BurntHills  
  • BurntHills
    Posted on February 26, 2012 at 11:15pm

    never forget one thing, folks. to rescue America in November, we will be voting for the 100% American… meaning ””anyone BUT obama!!!!”… who can NEVER ever claim to be 100% American. and none of the GOP candidates would EVER seek to DESTROY America as obama deliberately has.. and already HAS DONE. America can only be SAVED if obama is GONE.

    rescue America,
    remove obama.

    Report Post » BurntHills  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love