Skip to comments.Rick Santorum Must NOT Be Our Nominee – And Here’s Why…
Posted on 02/22/2012 2:58:17 PM PST by jmstein7
If the GOP nominates Rick Santorum, we will lose. Rick is a social conservative, and I personally applaud that as Im 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, Emilys List type folk you know the rest social issues are their red meat. Start talking about jobs and tax rates, and they snooze. Thats exactly where we want them. Nominate Rick Santorum, and they will go into a frothy frenzy. That is exactly what we dont 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 wont have to. Well be talking about womens issues all the way through November, until were cooked. The Church is doing a magnificent job taking it to Obama and they dont 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.
Geez, you must be young to not remember that the year 2000 was all about the ‘Compassionate Conservative’... aka: Bush the Younger.
If we can’t win this election with a social conservative, we as a nation deserve what’s coming.
Bush the spender?
Voted AGAINST increasing the number of immigration investigators:
VOTED AGAINST HIRING AN ADDITIONAL 1,000 BORDER PATROL AGENTS, paid for by reductions in state grants.
VOTED TO GIVE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
Voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive the earned income credit before becoming citizens.
SANTORUM: Trim Social Security now- even if painful.
VOTED AGAINST FOOD STAMP REFORM
VOTED AGAINST MEDICAID REFORM
Voted to increase the social services block grant from $1 BILLION to $2 BILLION
VOTED TO RAID SOCIAL SECURITY instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.
Voted to impose a uniform federal tax mandate on states to force them to allow convicted , rapists, arsonists drug kingpins and all other ex-convicts to vote in federal elections.
Santorum; Big government spender:
Pop quiz: Which Republican presidential candidate supported the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor?
Hint: Its the same one who endorsed a pro-abortion-rights presidential candidate in an earlier campaign.
Give up? The answer is Rick Santorum.
Santorum not only supported Specter. He ran an ad for him.
Arlen is with us on the votes that matter, Santorum said in an ad for Specter. Im proud to endorse Arlen Specter.
This is only part of it. Santorum has not been properly vetted.
Even before this RINO voting record above came out,
he stuck me as a petty, egotistical little weasel
He needs to put his ego aside, put his country before himself and drop out.
If a candidate isn’t a social conservative, they aren’t a fiscal conservative. If they are not a social conservative, that means they are willing to fund HUGE social initiatives that takes money from taxpayers & economy.
Since I believe that Newt cannot beat Obama, we are in a pickle. If Newt or Rick win the nomination, they have my support. I happen to believe that Rick has the better chance in November, so he has my vote in Tennessee.
Please site your source for this. Last, albeit local, poll for TN I saw showed Rich and Newt head to head.
Then unless you like Romney get your crying towel out.
Or get behind whichever of the two look like they have the best chance - right now that would be Rick.
WHY is that so hard to understand?
No, the author proposes to attack where the enemy is weak...
...not as you, and Santorum, want. Which is to attack where the enemy would gather the most strength.
But to a single-issue type voter, it would look like what you say.
No, we are not. The states are the sole determiners of voting rights, with the fed being solely limited to enforcing constitutional provisions. There is no such thing as a federal vote that is not cast via the metaphorical auspices of a state.
You are not helping Mitt and then Obama win like they are.
I suggest people follow those links and investigate what those measures were attached to. One of the bills was SCHIP. Others were voted down in favor of better amendments. And a couple, the headline doesn’t match the content at all. I suppose I should save the comments where I researched them somewhere, since the list keeps being posted. However, no one should believe me and should research it.
My point has been missed by most of Santorum’s blind supporters. And if they do know it, they don’t care about fiscal/economic issues. They only care about his narrow social agenda.
What are *YOU* doing on zombietime.com if it’s so horrific? I’ve never even heard of the site, yet I’m probably a lot less ‘holier than thou’ than you.
I agree our primary process is broken. Not sure you will agree with my reasons for thinking so. But I think we, the American voter discourage folks w/ flaws to enter into the race. By flaws I mean, say you had an affair in 1985. You and your spouse worked thru it and stayed married. Or say you didn’t work thru it and got a divorce. Could you withstand the scrutiny? Would you want to put your family thru opening up their entire personal history to appease the MSM and the American public? What DOES the public have a right to know?
I do think character matters. It’s very important to me. But I also think people can learn from their mistakes and move on to become ‘better’ and more responsible. That is why I CAN support Newt. He does have the courage to run, even with all his flaws...many do not have the courage or do not have the stomach. Or maybe it’s just about protecting your family.
And here’s where I risk the ZOT. I do not like the idea of one man ‘buying’ a politician. This does concern me, even w/ Newt’s supporter. If someone gives you a million dollars...what do they expect in return? I’m not comfortable with how these ‘support’ committees operate. We don’t always know who gives and how much. I don’t have an answer...and I know it’s currently legal. I’m just a bit bothered that so much money is going into these campaigns by a few rich dudes. Does the person who gives $500,000 have the same access as the person who sends $50?
I’m not accusing anyone...as I said, it’s currently legal and I’m glad that Newt’s been given a life line to continue his campaign. But between the money and the MSM digging into all aspects of a person life and with some voters expecting perfection...who do we get to run? Romney with the perfect hair? :::sigh:::
That is my impression as well. Although, I do need to look at this contraception issue, because I honestly haven't read his take on it, how he's defining etc. All I know is that it's being spun as though he wants to deny Americans access to birth control. I doubt that's truly the case, but if it is, it's a deal breaker for a huge swath of a potential voters.
BS. Santorum isn't pushing the social issues. The SRM is. The moment you start playing the game by their rules, you have lost.
Stop being flippant!
I checked it out after he mentioned it. I’d never heard of it either. I didn’t see anything horrible. Mostly old naked Berkeley hippies. Not much to look at, but when all is said and done just naked seniors.
Now some of the signage was offensive, but more of an offense to intelligent life than anything vulgar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.