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.

[Happy Rain]

You are doing it all wrong—you are supposed to smear Newt like his people do Santorum and NOT list Rick's good points.

You are not helping Mitt and then Obama win like they are.

[Ingtar]

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.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

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.

[gogogodzilla]

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.

[conservaKate]

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:::

[Melas]

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.

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.

[matt1234]

No, the author proposes to attack where the enemy is weak... ...not as you, and Santorum, want.

BS. Santorum isn't pushing the social issues. The SRM is. The moment you start playing the game by their rules, you have lost.

[Revolting cat!]

Stop being flippant!

[gogogodzilla]

Yep.

[Melas]

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.

[skeeter]

You are the one who is deluding himself believing that social and economic issues can somehow be compartmentalized.

John Adams said as much. If Americans will not react positively to an appeal to conservative social reforms then all is lost anyway.

Being an historian I think your man Newt would agree.

[Revolting cat!]

Me thinks that Ricky has lost that number!

[mel]

If you are implying that Romney is just like Obama, I would have to think you are joking, there is no one as bad as Obama. I would even take Bill Clinton gladly over Obama. Oh just for a few issues like bombing an aspiring factory or selling secrets to Chinese, nothing is as bad as obama.

[Ingtar]

ARG 2/14: The American Research Group Inc. poll, involving 600 “likely” Republican voters contacted by telephone Feb. 8-9, found Santorum favored by 34 percent, followed by Mitt Romney (27 percent), Gingrich (16 percent) and Ron Paul (13 percent).

600 is a smaller sample size, but this is the first poll published since January that I can find. Another, not picked up by the media, was Santorum winning a poll on the UT campus that included Santorum, Gingrich, Obama, Romney, and Paul. I believe Obama beat out Romney for second. (I don’t know who they polled. I cannot believe the student body as a whole would vote that way, even here in the South.)

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Santorum’s pathetic moderate record, far outweighs any of the light wheight accomplishments he so loudly proclaims about himself. Perhaps you can tell me what major economic legislation or accomplishment Santorum was authored or designed during his career?

[fwdude]

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.

Let me explain. Zombietime isn't a porn site, they expose the perversion and lies of the left. To do so, they attempt to really be provocative with the truth of how perverted the Left really is. Most decent people would never go to a homosexual street fair, so Zombietime rubs our noses in what goes on there to wake us up.

Apparently, you are still slumbering.

[Melas]

I think you’re spot on, but naive. All forms of government, all of them, are honestly plutarchies at their core. Never has a system of government existed that wasn’t controlled on some level by the rich and powerful. Our system minimizes that influence more than many others, but no system will ever be perfect.

[skeeter]

Rephrasing - John Adams asserted that our system of government was meant for a moral people, saying it was unfit for any other kind. If Americans will no longer respond to appeals for conservative social reforms then nothing else will matter in the long run.

[Right_in_Virginia]

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

With Newt as the nominee...I vote FOR a candidate. With Santorum as the nominee....I hold my nose and vote AGAINST the Dimm nominee.

Voting against an incumbent has not proven to be a winning strategy.

[Melas]

See #60

[BillyBoy]

Same old drumbeat, different drummer...

You So-Cons just don't get it!! A strong social conservative CANNOT win! You will scare away the MODERATE SUBURBAN MOMS we need to WIN! This election is all about FISCAL ISSUES! The MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE is the economy and only OUR candidate has the credentials to WIN on THAT issue! We must ALL unite behind the FISCAL CONSERVATIVE to SAVE America!

You So-Cons just don't get it!! A strong social conservative CANNOT win! You will scare away the MODERATE SUBURBAN MOMS we need to WIN! This election is all about NATIONAL SECURITY! The MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE is the WAR ON TERROR and only OUR candidate has the credentials to WIN on THAT issue! We must ALL unite behind the NATIONAL SECURITY CONSERVATIVE to SAVE America!

[gogogodzilla]

It looks like the average Santorum supporter has forgotten some incredibly important pieces of information from the last couple of years.

Mainly, what was it that managed to give us the greatest sweep of the House and Senate in living memory? What did that?

Was it the TEA parties?

And if it was, what was it again that the TEA parties and their candidates campaigned on? Was it gay marriage, abortion, and birth control... like Santorum?

Or was it a primal cry of “We’re TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!!!” Where we were fed up with the endless intrusion of the Federal government into our lives and our wallets?

And if it was the TEA parties and our frustration with the endless Federal intrusions into our lives and wallets... what sense does it make to abandon that and move to the issues that did *NOT* produce such a sweeping victory?

---

In less than two years, the Republican voter has completed forgotten what got us such an amazing victory. Just amazing that we’re trying so hard to piss it all away.

[gogogodzilla]

If they are not a social conservative, that means they are willing to fund HUGE social initiatives that takes money from taxpayers & economy.

That's a social liberal. A social conservative is just a mirror image. Both are willing to fund HUGE social initiatives that take money from taxpayers and the economy. It's just what *TYPE* of initiative it is.

Liberal: control over what goes into your body (foods)
Conservative: control over what goes into your body (drugs)

Liberal: forcing gay marriage onto all the states, willing or not
Conservative: prohibiting gay marriage on all the states, willing or not

Liberal: pushing abortions onto the public and spending the money to make it happen
Conservatives: prohibiting abortions onto the public and spending the money to lock up anyone that disagrees

Like I said, a mirror image. Both are big spending control freaks.

[SierraWasp]

Good one!!! And what a good tagline!!!

[gogogodzilla]

Santorum isn't pushing the social issues. The SRM is. The moment you start playing the game by their rules, you have lost.

And since Santorum is playing their game by focusing on these issues... he, by your definition, has lost.

[gogogodzilla]

No pr0n?

Darn! Ping me when it gets some.

:-P

[skeeter]

None of the conservative positions you've listed there would cost a frackin dime. No sale.

Social conservatives have been on the defensive now for decades, against a marauding liberal social agenda that IS costing billions and destroying the country. Its a shame you can't see that.

[gogogodzilla]

See post #72 to find out how off-base your post is.

[Drew68]

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.

For the record, of all the candidates remaining, Newt is my favorite. I just don't see it happening this year for Newt Gingrich though. His problems aren't his affairs or his marriages. Newt's problems are that outside of the conservative base, people just don't like him. Romney has the same problem. People just don't like him --except Romney loses the conservative base as well (though he picks up some moderates). He's garnered support because despite the fact that people just don't like him, many looked at him as the only guy with the money and campaign infrastructure to beat Obama. Now we have Santorum and while he's definitely not as "unlikable" as Gingrich or Romney, he just doesn't inspire people to get out and vote. Look at the post South Carolina turnout! Dismal!

I predict at this point that Obama squeaks by to re-election in possibly the lowest voter turnout in history.

If it is any consolation, my election predictions turned out to be dead wrong in 2008. Little over four years ago I was certain that Giuliani and Clinton would be neck-and-neck to the finish line. And when Obama got the nod, I was absolutely certain that this country would never vote a guy named "Hussein" to be President. Heck, half a year ago I was absolutely certain Rick Perry would steamroll his way though the primaries and be so far ahead in the polls right now that Democrat leaders would be begging Obama to pull an LBJ and let someone else run.

So, yeah, I've been wrong a lot lately.

[gogogodzilla]

None of the conservative positions you've listed there would cost a frackin dime. No sale.

Now, either you're an idiot or you're deliberately lying.

Let's look at the points.

Liberal: control over what goes into your body (foods)
Conservative: control over what goes into your body (drugs)

You are actually saying that our 'War on Drugs' is cost free? Really? Wow... you do need to get a drug test if you believe that.

Liberal: forcing gay marriage onto all the states, willing or not
Conservative: prohibiting gay marriage on all the states, willing or not

What you are saying is that it will cost nothing to prohibit gay marriage throughout America. So, when California ignores the Federal law, like it does with Federal immigration law, you are saying that there is no cost in forcing California to comply. No cost in manpower, no cost in prosecutions, and no cost in imprisoning all the violators.

Right! What *ARE* you smonking, as the Japanese would say.

Liberal: pushing abortions onto the public and spending the money to make it happen
Conservatives: prohibiting abortions onto the public and spending the money to lock up anyone that disagrees

Like before, when our liberal states disregard the Federal law prohibiting abortion (and you know they will), you are saying that there will be no cost in forcing compliance. Nothing spent to arrest the lawbreakers (like more FBI personnel to meet the increased workload), nothing spent to prosecute the lawbreakers (more judges, more courts, more baliffs, more lawyers, etc), and nothing spent to imprison them (like prisons, guards, the land needed to build them on top of, etc, etc, etc).

Like I said, you're either an idiot or a liar with your assertion. Just like a liberal with their 'green energy' thinking it comes from fairy dust and unicorn farts.

But you do prove my point, social conservatives are mirror images of social liberals. Both big-spending control freaks.

[skeeter]

Now, either you're an idiot or you're deliberately lying.

Shove your "points" up your arse.

And learn how to debate without being an asshole.

[Steelfish]

Obscenity and child pornography is not proteced free speech. There are criminal laws against both such forms of speech. Besides as they “It’s the culture, stupid.”

Santorum is our best shot against Obama. He is trailing Obama by just 2-points and with a shoestring budget has vaulted to the top beating Romney by 10-points in the recent Gallup. His blue-collar appeal may help bag MI, PA, and OH.

Who else do we have? Gingrich drags along with him the $1.6m FreedieMac albatross around his neck, and carries his park bench pic with Pelosi for cap-and-trade, touts his own version of “grandmother” amnesty, his negatives fall through the cellar, he is losing the female vote by over 20 points, he got thrashed by Romney in a major must-win state in FL and lost in every key demographic, appears to be losing his lead in his own home state of GA, is trailing Obama by some 15 points, and keeps everyone on tenterhooks as to when he will self-implode like his “moon bases” idea that became a SNL skit.

[dangus]

>> 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. <<

This entire article is the biggest, heaping pile of sh!t I’ve ever read on FR.

Yes, there’s a certain portion of the electorate who would vote or an economic conservative, but not a social one. They largely live in New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, and Illinois.

And I’ve never met an “fiscal conservative” who didn’t turn pinko the moment the cameras came on them. Mitt Romney, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Christine Todd Whitman... if they’re willing to sell out the lives of millions of babies, what makes you think they’ll discover a backbone when they become president?

[Steelfish]

This is the kind of stuff you’d find in Daily Kos and Move-On.Org websites

[Utmost Certainty]

I see your love for Santorum is allergic to facts.

[jmstein7]

No, you idiot. He means someone who can do both, and can shift gears. Rick is a one-trick pony.

[Steelfish]

Perhaps its the facts that are allergic to you?

[jmstein7]

I agree. See my post #86.

[Happy Rain]

You should have heard Rush Limbaugh bragging on Rick today and Mark Levin still says he would vote for Santorum.

In comparison, your mean-spirited opinion of him needs to rise some just to reach insignificance.

[jmstein7]

Yes, the Tea Party won massively on social issues. Oh, wait...

[jmstein7]

Everyone knows Levin is a Newt guy.

[maxwellsmart_agent]

Rick Santorum is the only candidate who can defeat Obama. Obama will pull a couple of what seem to be conservative tricks before November. Then Romney will stand against him. Romney is nothing but Obama with a Republican tag. He spoke loudly for abortion before he decided to run for president. Gay marriage and gays in the military and other liberal issues are things that I do not agree with him on, but Obama does.

So..., when people start to examine who to vote for, if Romney is our candidate, they will say they are roughly about the same, so why change? Romney will lose! Santorum is the only candidtate who is truly conservative and the only candidate who can stand against Obama. Romney, Gingrich or Paul are each liberal enough to lose, and they would.

[NavyCanDo]

I agree. Count me as an undecided delegate at this point. Been that way since the Cain train jumped the tracks. But Santorum has failed to inspire me. I find him dull. I find that he has a terrible case of foot in mouth. And like your posted op-ed said he cannot bring the focus back on issues that will get Republicans elected. Name one debate that he has even come close to winning. The number is zero. Obama will smoke him.

And whats with people Zotting you? Is it a crime if we are not acting like lemmings, falling for the latest non-Romney candidate to catch fire?

[Utmost Certainty]

I should hope so. Thems some awful stinky facts, so I’d prefer to keep them at a distance.

[skeeter]

Name one debate that he has even come close to winning. The number is zero.

Debates don't win delegates, primaries do. And there Rick seems ready to do very well.

[Happy Rain]

Did you forgot your “sarc” tag.

Levin said last week, “I guess since I said I would vote for Rick Santorum I guess I'm endorsing him too.”

If you can read “Newt” in that you should hire yourself out as an Ouija Board.

[Fledermaus]

Thanks. I misread the one I saw (can’t find it again - might have been this one). Newt was third also and Rick and Mitt were close.

I thought it was closer than 7 points. I too cannot find any other TN polls.

[BillyBoy]

>> See post #72 to find out how off-base your post is. <<

Well I just looked at post #72 and it looks like you're pretty far off-base because you claim that 2010 "managed to give us the greatest sweep of the House and Senate in living memory". This is certainly news to most of us on FR. Last time I checked, the Democrats still control the Senate and Harry Reid is still in power.

The Republicans didn't "sweep" the Senate at all in 2010 and many of the Tea Party backed candidates in Senate races fared poorly. The Tea Party backed candidates in the House did much better, but it certainly wasn't "the greatest sweep of the House in living memory". We reversed the Democrat tital waves of 2006 and 2008 to restore the House to GOP control, but it was nothing like the 1994 landslide (where plenty of those evil "So Cons" like Santorum were elected) that was a huge GOP sweep and not a single Republican incumbent was defeated.

Those of us in states like Illinois and California would certainly dispute that your "fiscal conservatives" had a "sweep" that year. Many of "fiscal conservatives" shoved down our throats as the "electable" choice, like Carly Fiorina in California and Linda McMahon in CT, got crushed when Republicans elsewhere where winning handily. On the flip side, many of the "unelectable social conservatives" that we were warned would doooooooooooom the party and "CANNOT WIN", like Pat Toomey in Santorum's home state of Pennsyvania, won handily.

Many of the TEA party backed Senate candidates elsewhere also were defeated in races they should have won in 2010, such as John Raese in WV, Christine O'Donnell in DE, Sharron Angle in NV, and Ken Buck in CO. Especially with the latter two, I could make a good case that the equally conservative candidates in the primary that the Tea Party opposed would have won the general election.

Many of the candidates we're told are soooooooooooo great on fiscal issues and touted as Presidential material turn out to be anything but. Witness John Thune and the strange love affair some freepers have him with on here solely because he "beat Tom Daschle" 8 years ago and has been a medoicre Senator ever since. Ditto Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, who as recently as 2008 was being defended by some freepers as a good "fiscal conservative" despite her pro-abortion views.

The fact is, any candidate who really is a "FISCAL CONSERVATIVE" doesn't need to beat their chest about it and sneer about how awful unapologetic social conservatives are. If they really have great "FISCAL" credentials, they don't need to advertise it and use liberal rhetoric to mock others for being successful at capitalism or resort to liberal sounding rhetoric about how social conservatives want to regulate what goes on "in the bedroom" and "want to turn America into a theocracy", and every single other talking point that they borrowed from the DailyKos crowd.

Actions speak louder than words. I've looked at where all the candidates stood on TARP, wall street bailouts, Fannie-Freddie bailouts, the failed "stimulus", handouts to illegals, health care mandate, reforming social security, tax cuts, and their scores from the Club for Growth and National Taxpayer's Union. The ones who loudly advertise themselves as having the best "FISCAL conservative" credentials show anything but. History repeats itself.

[nickcarraway]

Liberal: control over what goes into your body (foods) Conservative: control over what goes into your body (drugs)

Wow, what a lie. Can you show me one major Democrat who has ever lifted s finger for drug legalization? Because there are none. The only major politician who ever supported legalization is a Republican. Sorry, you were busted.

Furthermore, why do you want me to pay for your drugs, your rehab, your lifestyle. I don't care if you take drugs, but I strongly object to you taking so much as one cent of mine to pay for it. What you are advocating is pure theft and communism.

[nickcarraway]

Conservative: prohibiting gay marriage on all the states, willing or not

Another lie. Can you name one state that gay marriage had been forced on? A majority voted not allow gay marriage and it was still forced on them. A majority in a blue state. Yet you still blame the evil conservatives. A majority of states have voted against gay marriage and NO state has voted for gay marriage. Yet, in your view conservatives are imposing their will.