Rick Santorum Must NOT Be Our Nominee – And Here’s Why…

The Red Side of Life ^ | 2-22-12 | RedInNewYork

[jmstein7]

If the GOP nominates Rick Santorum, we will lose. Rick is a social conservative, and I personally applaud that – as I’m sure most of you do as well. The issue is the fact that this election cannot be about social issues; this election must be about economic issues. Yes, Obama has failed miserably in the area of social policy, but the issues where he is most vulnerable are economic. If we nominate Rick Santorum, Obama will frame the debate around social issues – along with his msm cronies – and we will lose. This is already happening.

Our objective is to defeat Obama. We cannot win if we are stymied from discussing the issues that damage him most. Those issues are economic. Go “Google” Rick Santorum. How many stories pop up about his economic policy? Exactly. The fix is in. If Rick is the nominee, we will not get around to economic issues, and Obama will win.

There is an additional danger. Leftist cabals like PP, NARAL, Emily’s List type folk – you know the rest – social issues are their red meat. Start talking about jobs and tax rates, and they snooze. That’s exactly where we want them. Nominate Rick Santorum, and they will go into a frothy frenzy. That is exactly what we don’t want. Rick Santorum will activate, awaken, and enrage social radicals into action. I say, let sleeping dogs lie.

Rick has already demonstrated his inability to re-frame the debate and re-focus on economics. Ever since the contraception issue was manufactured by Obama – yes, it is an intentional distraction – Rick has been unable to talk about anything else. The moment George Stephanopoulos raised the issue, seemingly out of nowhere, Team Obama tipped its hand. They want to go there. We must not.

Team Obama does not want to talk about jobs (or lack thereof), unemployment, Green Energy Sector failures, crony capitalism, or any of its otherwise socialist economic policy. If we nominate Rick, they won’t have to. We’ll be talking about “women’s issues” all the way through November, until we’re cooked. The Church is doing a magnificent job taking it to Obama – and they don’t have to run against him. Let the Church and other religious institutions deal with those issues.

So, please consider what I have said. Rick may be a great guy, but 2012 is not the year of the Social Conservative. Think about what four more years of Obama would look like.

[Toespi]

“Santorum is all preacher, all the time.”

We’ll it has certainly kept him from having to answer those other questions on silly issues.

[Melas]

So you think the left like Gingrich better? (Or Romney for that matter)

I'm certain that they fear them much less than Santorum, yes. Santorum's rhetoric about criminalizing homosexuality and adultery, sicking the AG on the internet to stop pornography etc are exactly the kind of things to really energize the left. Last I knew, Newt Gingrich wasn't going down that road.

[fwdude]

You apparently haven’t seen some of the horrific stuff, and I’m talking absolutely criminally evil, on the internet, have you?

I suggest you go to zombietime.com sometime and try to hold down your lunch. Anyone seeing this would agree that this sewage HAS to be stopped. There is NO “constitutional right” to purvey this poison.

THIS is the stuff that Santorum is talking about, not your run-of-the-mill lingerie ads.

[FourPeas]

I’m tired of hearing that this is not the election cycle for social issues. There’s ALWAYS something more important. Always. The problem is all the other issues really do hinge on social issues.

[SkyDancer]

Didn’t Santorum say that you have no Constitutional right to privacy? That alone is scary.

[FlipWilson]

Quote: “What makes you think he will be zotted?”

I was in error. When I posted that, however, I considered the fact that the groups of which he speaks will be up in arms no matter who we nominate because they are drones who would vote for a dead cat as long as it had a “D” by its name. I just do not know why we would allow the fear of what our enemies are going to do anyway influence our choice of a nominee?

[skeeter]

Did you expect me to disagree?

The difference between you and I is I'm happy with either, because to me the most important thing is not which person gets in the WH, but that we change the direction this country is headed.

Unfortunately for Newt Rick has momentum. When & if that changes I'll go with Newt.

[conservaKate]

Exactly right. Newt can take it to BO about conservative social and economic values. IMHO...Rick could be seen as a one trick pony. I’m not saying he is...but I’m fairly certain the left could make it appear that Rick is too focused on social issues and not enough focus on the economy.

That said...if Rick’s the nominee...he has my vote. I’m just not excited about the prospect.

[jmstein7]

don’t shoot the messenger - I’m with Newt.

Santorum, as another said, cannot BALANCE the social and economic like Reagan. He’s 95% focused on social issues, and he is to rigid to shift when needed.

[nickcarraway]

Santorum never said anything about criminalizing homosexuality.

[nickcarraway]

I agree with you that Gingrich is very liberal. I disagree with you that the media knows that.

[Utmost Certainty]

Ricky "SOPA" Santorum the collectivist big government nanny-statist.

"This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone." [source]

"What was my vision? I came to the uncomfortable realization that conservatives were not only reluctant to spend government dollars on the poor, they hadn’t even thought much about what might work better. I often describe my conservative colleagues during this time as simply ‘cheap liberals.’ My own economically modest personal background and my faith had taught me to care for those who are less fortunate, but I too had not yet given much thought to the proper role of government in this mission." –Rick Santorum, p. IX It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good (2005)

"I suspect some will dismiss my ideas as just an extended version of ‘compassionate conservatism.’ Some will reject what I have said as a kind of ‘Big Government Conservatism.’ Some will say that what I’ve tried to argue isn’t conservatism at all. But I believe what I’ve been presenting is the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned. One that fosters the opportunity for all Americans to live as we are called to live, in selfless families that contribute to the general welfare, the common good." –Rick Santorum, p. 421 It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good (2005)

"If you're a conservative, there really is only one place to go right now. I would even argue farther than that. If you're a Republican, if you're a Republican in the broadest sense, there is only one place to go right now and that's Mitt Romney." –Rick Santorum, 02/1/2008 [source]

Check out his brochure, 50 Things You Didn't Know About Rick Santorum, where he proudly defends food stamps, increasing minimum wage, stem cell harvesting, college tuition subsidies, bloated school funding, working with Bono to fight world poverty, etc.

Also see his disturbing voting record for more doozies.

[pallis]

Social conservatives aren’t one dimensional anymore than social chameleons like Romney. Santorum’s brain doesn’t go blank after the subject of abortion is over, anymore than Romney shuts up after talking about his idiotic tax scheme. Santorum will do fine with other policy issues. The fact that he is a social conservative, understanding the right to life, speech, private property, and to be an individual in personal life, business and public, only serves to make him smarter than Romney. Newt and Rick are capable of making this nation great again. Romney is capable of keeping it on the status quo.

[Ingtar]

Since the negative ads started, Santorum has maintained a lead in Michigan, jumped to the lead in Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Washington, and moved within the margin of error in Arizona and Georgia. It sure sounds as if what he is peddling is unpopular to me. /s

[jmstein7]

I hate Romney.

[Cicero]

In fact, in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.” (Club for Growth, 2012 Presidential White Paper #4, Rick Santorum)

Well, Sarah killed the Bridge to Nowhere. But are you saying that the Gubbermint didn't spend enough money on NOLA after Katrina? Good grief.

And I'm not sure why ex-felons shouldn't have their voting rights restored, after they've done their time and satisfied their probation. Are you saying that there's no such thing as repentance and forgiveness? We're talking about federal voting rights. The states can decide on state voting rights.

[jmstein7]

That’s because we’re the choir! This is not the general.

[skeeter]

Santorum, as another said, cannot BALANCE the social and economic like Reagan. He’s 95% focused on social issues, and he is to rigid to shift when needed.

Or thats the narrative the mainstream media is constructing.

Prove it, or admit you are carrying their water.

[Katarina]

The person that wrote the article is right. Santorum will never beat Obama.

[Melas]

Bradlee Dean radio show, October 22nd, 2011.