For a candidate with virtually no staff and who tends to talk off the cuff, Rick Santorum has been nearly gaffe-free. However, this evening might have been his first, and it comes at a time when he is trying to convince voters he is more than “just” a social conservative. 
 
 When asked about the Pentagon’s plan to allow women to serve in some combat roles, Santorum told CNN’s John King: “I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country . . . but I do have concerns about women in front-line combat. 
 
 “I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat,” Santorum added. “And I think that’s not in the best interests of men, women or the mission.” 
 
 Such remarks may please some social conservatives who were never that keen on women serving in the military, but this may not sit well with women who work, sometimes in male-dominated jobs. 
 
 This is not the first time Santorum has ventured into this territory. In 2005 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported: 
 
 So not long after his first book, “It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good,” hit Washington bookstores over the Fourth of July weekend, his opponents were sifting through the 430 pages at warp speed -- culling controversial passages in which the Pennsylvania Republican criticizes public schools, America’s “divorce culture” and argues that more American families should consider whether both parents really need to work. . . . 
 
 Many women, he adds, have told him that it is more “socially affirming to work outside the home than to give up their careers to take care of their children.” 
 
 That ideology, he says, has been shaped by feminists who demean the work of women who stay at home as primary caregivers. 
 
 “What happened in America so that mothers and fathers who leave their children in the care of someone else -- or worse yet, home alone after school between three and six in the afternoon -- find themselves more affirmed by society? Here, we can thank the influence of radical feminism,” Santorum writes. 
 
 “Sadly the propaganda campaign launched in the 1960s has taken root,” said Santorum. “The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness.” 
 
 Yikes. Santorum might want to rethink that and figure out a way to walk back some of that. With women making up almost half the workforce (and now out-numbering men among workers with at least a bachelor’s degree), Santorum’s remarks sound badly off-key. Perhaps he’ll walk back his comments on CNN and explain he’s rethought what he wrote in his book. In such matters, the sooner he does that, the better. ||||| >> much. rick santorum is now joining us from capitol hill . senator, good morning. 
 
 >> good morning, ann. 
 
 >> there is a sense you're finally getting your due, gaining momentum after the three-state sweep and a new gallup poll released thursday shows you're tied with newt gingrich nationwide. what do you want to say about the excitement this is generating? we heard kelly talk about the money. does she have that right? how much more do you expect? 
 
 >> we'd love it to keep up at this pace. it's been about $1 million a day which is terrific. we're saying the same message we have been saying for months. this is the most important election in the history of our country, an election about whether we are going to with a country that believes in foundational freedom, that we'll build a great country from the bottom up or with an elite from the top down telling us what to do. 
 
 >> on thursday you said mitt romney 's campaign has been serially tearing down opponents without offering any kind of vision for what he wants to do for this country. i have to ask. if you look at what's happened so far for the republican nomination, it is clear that negative campaigning generates votes. the question is if history is a guide, aren't you going to now have to go negative? will you commit that you and your pacs will not or are you going to have to now? 
 
 >> i have talked about the issues. the speeches i give, i try to give a vision for america, what i believe is in the best interest of our country with limited government and reducing the size and scale of washington and promoting the basic values that i think of hard work, giving people opportunity -- 
 
 >> i'm sorry to interrupt, but i'm asking whether or not you will go negative. 
 
 >> as i said -- 
 
 >> have you decided you absolutely will not? can you commit to that now or will you have to? do you want the nomination enough to do that if you have to? 
 
 >> if you mean negative by personally questioning their personal or business or -- no. i'm going to talk about the issues. i'm going to talk about my record, my vision for the country. i will talk about governor romney's record and barack obama 's record and vision for the country. this should be about the issues, about what people care about at home. they don't care where you made money and how you made that money as long as you didn't do anything illegal, unethical. they are focused on how you will help them make money, provide for themselves and the family and build stronger communities in america. 
 
 >> you're clearly animated when you talk about this. are you prepared to commit to not going negative? can you answer that question yes or no? 
 
 >> if you mean going negative against someone in a personal way, absolutely not. we will talk about the issues. i think governor romney and barack obama 's record, which on a lot of issues are the same, are negative in what they have done to this country and the state of massachusetts . i will certainly point that out as i have throughout the course of the campaign. we'll talk about things americans care about that affect them, not this back and forth we have seen in the race so far. 
 
 >> one of the things you were asked last night on cnn as an issue americans care about is the pentagon's plan to allow women to serve in combat roles. you have concerns about aptd you said, quote, it could be a very compromising situation where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. what do you mean by that? do you want to take another crack at that? 
 
 >> well, no, exactly what i said. when you have men and women together in combat, i think men have emotions when you see a woman in harm's way. i think it's natural. it's very much in our culture to be protective. that was my concern. i think that's a concern with all of the militaries. the israeli military has women in a lot of roles but don't allow them in combat because of the natural inclination to not focus on the mission but be in a position to protect someone because that's something that's natural within our culture. 
 
 >> some people might listen to the quote and think you meant that you were concerned about women being emotional. 
 
 >> oh, no. that's not the issue. i have talked about this issue a lot. i have never raised that as a concern. no. the issue is certainly one that's been talked about for a long, long time is how men would react to seeing women in harm's way or potentially being in a vulnerable position and not be concerned about accomplishing the mission. 
 
 >> i see. right. i hope it's okay to ask how your 3-year-old daughter is doing. i know she was hospitalized with pneumonia. 
 
 >> well, she's doing great. i was with her last night. i hadn't been with her since i left her in the hospital. she was on the mend when i left. it was so great to be home last night and get a chance to spend a lot of time with her and the rest of the kids. this has been a wellspring of refreshment on the campaign for me. 
 
 >> we wish her well. 
 
 >> thank you.
– Rick Santorum isn't on board with the Pentagon's decision to formally open up some combat roles to women, he told CNN's John King last night—but it's not because he thinks women are too emotional, as it originally seemed. Putting women in the front lines "could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved," Santorum said in his original comments last night. "It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat." But he clarified this morning, when asked about the statement on Today, explaining that his actual concern has nothing to do with women's emotions. Rather, "I think men have the emotions when you see a woman in harm’s way," he said, and that "natural inclination to not focus on the mission but to try to be in a position where you might want to protect someone" could compromise the mission. Writing for the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin called yesterday's quote Santorum's first gaffe of the campaign. (Of course, it hasn't been all smooth sailing; yesterday Politico laid out the candidate's 10 biggest problems.)