Posted on 04/13/2012 10:18:18 AM PDT by Josh Painter
Rick Santorum dropped out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination on Tuesday. Almost to a column, editorial and news account, the analysis centered on Santorum’s somewhat successful capture of conservative voters.
And there lies the mystery. How could a man seemingly so opposite of conservative have entranced so many voters who label themselves just that?
The easy answer is that as someone who made his religion such a prominent part of his campaign strategy... religious types who tend toward conservatism perhaps felt they’d found their man.
[...]
Indeed, if we ignore for a moment how very anti-conservative it is for any candidate to coddle certain commercial sectors, the simple truth is that to the extent that manufacturing jobs were ever glorious (a big reach on its own considering the proud history of sons and daughters of factory workers moving away from manufacturing locales), the very investors whose capital creates those jobs feel it’s yesterday’s news. That investors no longer value factory work explains why they migrated to China, and why a rising China has begun to similarly shed those jobs. For Santorum to then say he’ll bring them back not only smacks of a controlling, central planning gene, but it also speaks to a candidate divorced from reality in the economic sense. If Santorum were to actually succeed in reducing the manufacturing tax rate to zero, this wouldn’t alter the all-important investor perception of work that is no longer valued from a labor-intensive point of view.
Happily Santorum’s candidacy is in the rear-view mirror. Not so happy, however, is what his candidacy said about the beliefs of conservatives. If Santorum was truly their guy, it seems a movement once animated by the sunny, economically advanced dynamism of Ronald Reagan has taken a giant, impoverishing leap backwards.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Santorum’s success only illustrates what an unelectable candidate Mitt truly was.
The establishment loves mitt, hates newt.
Are you old enough to know what he did while in Congress?
Santorum was just one of Mitt’s stalking horses. He stayed in just long enough to keep Gingrich, a Reagan conservatives, from stopping Romney.
Absolutely, he was. He owns the downfall in our country because of this. His 'taking one for the team' will affect him and his family. He will truly reap what he has sown. That stain will forever taint him and when his children get older they will know. And his supporters now has that same taint on them. I don't even overlook their clueless in seeing him as the stalking horse because of their high and mighty attitude they wouldn't listen. They were being duped and it was painful to watch.
I'm just thankful the warrior candidate, Newt, stayed in. I'll support him to the end.
What you are saying is a joke. Santorum and I LIVED through much better times, and you have swallowed the leftist meme that it was never so. I KNOW it was. Bob
Because if a candidate says “GOD” or “JESUS” at anytime during their campaign, the truly gullible will only hear those two words, not look at what they did while in office nor listen to what they are saying. Just those two words uttered from a slick politican put about 30% of those that call themselves conservatives into a deep sleep... kinda like hypnosis...
2016 sound about right. Our continuous slouching towards Gomorrah should be in full swing around then.
THOSE “conservatives” believe that a society can thrive divorced from any shred of ultimate morality. They now wonder why they are thought of as the enemy by a people who never learned, “Thou shalt not steal!” Bob
Are you always this dippy? Rick LIES and his LIES against Newt is unforgivable. He only got votes because of his lies against Newt because he has NO record of his own.
Consider this - you were duped - so you already showed you are unteachable and stuck on stupid.
You are absolutely correct.
Mitt will never drop out, never. EVIL never does the right thing, it’s incapable of doing it.
No, it doesn't. A government war on manufacturing explains it. You may not like Santorum trying to pick winners and losers, but someone needs to take a hard look at the government imposed policies that drive manufacturing out and start clearing out the regultory weeds that has made this a hostile place to try and do anything.
Given the choice to build your factory in California, say, a place where they don't want you, and country "x" where they do want you, you can't be blamed for considering the move. Santorum wanted to solve that problem.
And whoever is the next president, we'd better solve it. When you ship your manufacturing abroad, jobs and technological competence goes with it.
sorry, but I cannot understand your intent. Please elaborate... :)
I too was angry at Newt for the DeDe fiasco. However the fault lies with the shenanigans of the New York GOP’ers native to that district. They knew she was no real GOP’er other then by registration but she was married to a local yokel (Union organizer!) who was pals with the right people. Newt was given bad information on that one. Doug Hoffman has explained this and is in no way angry at Newt.
Newt has always had a soft spot (which has sometimes led to a soft thinking !) on environmental issues. He has argued for sometime that conservatives can't just cede this political battlefield to liberals. If we do then we make the liberal cant that conservatives are pro polluted air and polluted water. Sitting on the couch with Peolosi was a stupid but well meaning attempt to demonstrate that. Newt has acknowledged that it was a dumb decision. Newt also testified in Congress against AlGore’s “Cap and Trade” schemes. Now Newt did hang on far to long with the idea of anthropogenic global warming. However he has changed his tune on that. Hey he admits he made a mistake and changes his mind with new information comes on hand. How many politicians do that publicly?
The House impeached Clinton! How was it botched?
The Senate didn't convict. If you have a beef with the result blame the right legislative body.
As far as his divorces go, his first wife divorced him and it had nothing to do with affairs. Read his daughters explanation. His second wife some people say she was a nut and a crook. They were separated for quite a few years and he met someone else. Ultimately I really don't know the bottom line there. If you are going to be anti-Gingrich then ok but does so factually not by relying on misconceptions.
Originally I was disdainful of Newt (read my past posts!) but listening to the debates. It was clear he was the only one that a) actually the understood nation's problems and b) Had viable detailed thought out solutions all within the context of our history and traditions. Everyone else with the exception of Ron Paul had variations of same-old GOP talking points we have heard for years. Economically I think we are on the brink and all you have to do is look at the Middle East and realize the explosion that's coming there. (Europe may even be on the edge!) Ron Paul's stick one’s head in the sand and saying “la la la” isn't going to changes, his policies would be ignore it all, unfortunately its not going to ignore us! Newt articulated a vision and had a plan that could not only help us ride this out, but make the necessary changes to finally shake off the remaining FDR New Deal shackles. The only other candidate who came close with that complete package was Perry but he imploded early.
It took you 48 seconds to answer the question.
What the heck is wrong with Journalists?
To make matters worse Santorum supporters didn’t realize that the POTUS has very little power to make the world that only ever existed in Santorum’s imagination a reality :)
The fact that the attacks on Santorum still continue show that he was and is still seen as a threat to the GOPe.
That doesn’t leave any candidates, does it?
BTW, I didn’t like the comment about Zimmerman either, but no candidate came out and said what should have been said.
Social conservatives will reject any fiscal conservative who is not socially conservative enough for them. Ditto for fiscal conservatives. In the end, both camps cancel each other out and hand victory to the RINO.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don’t see that.
I’m a Socon. I was for Rick Perry, then Newt, then Santorum.
Where would a Socon ever have had an option to reject a fiscal conservative? Or vice-versa.
Face it. This campaign process was rigged from the get-go for Romney.
There’s no such thing as a fiscal conservative/social moderate or vice versa. Its a lie to drive us to the left.
A social moderate will forever find ways to spend taxpayer dollars on the objects of his compassion. Faith based initiatives and public/private partnerships are the babies of these so called fiscal conservative/social moderates.
THAT answer will take considerably longer than 48 seconds to formulate.
But how are taxes and compassion reconciled in a country that considers itself a Christian country with a growing 'needy' in a Darwinian economy world?
Joe, I’m talking about those purely “economic” conservatives. No society disconnected from God ultimately will respect the private property of wealthier citizens. People (such as the Punk) think that those who thrive can only do so at the expense of others. Bob
Good question.
The growing numbers of needy are a direct result of taxation and welfare state. Taxation kills the ability to give charity and the money used for welfare promotes reliance on itself.
There was an old timer in my little town who arrived here during a cold winter night during the depression. He went to the parsonage and asked the pastor for a place to sleep and maybe a meal. The pastor’s wife fixed a modest dinner for the guy and let him sleep in a small heated shed behind the church. The next morning the pastor told the guy that he could wait out the cold weather if he was willing to work for his meals and a place to sleep.
That drifter spent the rest of his life living in this town. He picked up more and more work from the church parishioners as they got to know him. He built that little shed into a respectable house, bought a car, found a regular cash paying job, got married etc.
The same people demanding more taxes to pay for compassionate government are the same people who are wrecking the economy thus creating “darwinist” conditions.
Its a trick question. Turn the economy around and there will be plenty of money for government largesse. Even the ineffective kind. Keep driving the economy into the dirt and there won’t be any money for anything.
In any case, the problem isn’t just taxes; people have a bad habit of using the tax issue as shorthand for the real issue which is government intervention in the economy, government intervention in private lives, and regulatory agencies that have become predatory. The government wrecks an industry and then wrings its hands over the poor who used to have jobs. And demands to fix the problem by means of further intervention.
You can argue that it's the wrong policy, but not that it's somehow not conservative.
Whether it's the right policy or the wrong one in any given case, I wouldn't want someone who automatically excluded all protectionist measures or all "tax credits for procreation" because of ideological fervor.
We can certainly argue about policy, but I'd hope that Wall Street and libertarian think tanks weren't the only ones with a voice in the debate.
Also, Tamney seems obsessed by this "a future president could undo that" argument.
Well, d-uh, a future president or Congress could undo just about everything a president or Congress does.
That's the nature of the political system, and it's not an argument for voting against someone you agree with about the issues.
I get your point. But I'm old enough to remember a successful electronic manufacturing industry, also automobiles and computers which were highly successful both for profit and jobs that they are no more. I think blaming government [of both parties] is an overreach. I know the other pinata is unions but they were stronger during the hay days. IBM was not unionized nor did GE pay a lot of taxes.
The USA needs a way for its citizens to exist without government support in the emerging world-wide Darwinian economy.
“Because he’s not Mitt Romney.”
Because Rick Santorum was a CONSERVATIVE! Mark Levin said he was one of the most conservative senators in the past 50 years.
And he received an A+ rating from the NRA, and here’s one of the many reasons why:
‘“He [Rick Santorum] was the most effective advocate of bringing it [legislation to protect gun companies from frivolous lawsuits] to the floor and getting a vote scheduled. He used his influence to get it to the floor. Without that, we would have lost every American gun company.”
– Wayne LaPierre, CEO – National Rifle Association, October 25, 2006’
excerpt http://www.ricksantorum.com/defending-2nd-amendment-rights
Each one of the Republican had their 10 minutes of fame. RS just happened to be the latest in the bunch. He was lucky only that his turn was during the primaries. Mitt Romney will be our candidate and it is beginning to be the time to rally behind him
Rick Perry was my first choice Newt was my second choice but, it is not going to happen. We need to get rid of obama, that needs to be our objective.
Each one of the Republican had their 10 minutes of fame. RS just happened to be the latest in the bunch. He was lucky only that his turn was during the primaries. Mitt Romney will be our candidate and it is beginning to be the time to rally behind him
Rick Perry was my first choice Newt was my second choice but, it is not going to happen. We need to get rid of obama, that needs to be our objective.
People, like Rush, who actually did their research, KNEW how conservative Rick is:
“Rush: Santorum is last real conservative still standing
Rush contends that Santorum is winning now because he is the last real conservative still standing and that if the establishment were right, Romney would be winning everything and the race would already be over.
To the question of whether Santorum has ‘broad appeal’, Rush reframes it to “Does conservatism, properly explained, cheerfully proclaimed, have broad appeal?” He says it does every time it’s tried, it’s just that it doesn’t get tried enough. But it is essential to paint the stark contrast to Obama’s policies and Santorum can do it”
http://www.therightscoop.com/rush-santorum-is-last-real-conservative-still-standing/
Too bad Rick didn’t have more money.
Yesterday, Rick Santorum spoke at the NRA and received a STANDLING OVATION, right in the middle of his speech!
Rick is conservative, and exciting. Too bad winning the presidential nomination has become a rich candidate’s game.
You have to give a specific citation for anything you think Sarah said.
In the absence of a primary she was chosen by the 11 Republican county chairmen in that district to run as the Republican nominee.
The rest follows, but it didn't involve a primary, or Republican party officials taking sides, or any of the facts you cite.
Forbes is not a real Conservative.
You probably missed that part.
No doubt the locals up there were confused, but at the time she was "right" on the topics of the day ~ although she was certainly wrong about killing babies and that sort of stuff.
10 years earlier she might have got away with it. Reminds me a lot of the character who was Tony's wife in the Sopranos, and not terribly like his ever so leftwingtard sister!
Life imitates art.
Just like in Virginia, if you operate your primary in a way that no one can run in it you will forever and a day be accused of cheating. The ol'boys in New York sat down together and chose a party hack ~ apparently without finding out what her party was!
Joke's on them.
No, I didn't. It was botched because both Newt and Bob Livingston had affairs of their own they didn't want outed so they lacked zeal in leading the impeachment through the Senate. Livingston fessed up and resigned while Newt kept his secret but was oddly silent about Clinton's crimes toward the middle and latter parts of the impeachment saga. You probably missed that part.
He is not Mitt, he is not Newt, and he has better character.
Easy
Exactly. You nailed it. I never bought into trying to make Newt something he isn’t. If you go back some years, his recored is awful. That is because he is a big government republican acting conservative now to try and get voters.
He tagged him out as far as I was concerned. But Democrats have an endless tolerance for utter trash so we didn't have the votes to convict there.
House had nothing to do with that.
Bingo!
Some of us are not just considering but supporting Newt Gingrich now that our preferred candidate is out.
Bleah, stop spewing your lies. Where is this mythical talk of a show on FOX? RINO Roger Ailes just said Newt will never be back on FOX, that’s how much of a GOP establishment a**hole he is. Newt’s out on the campaign trail, still updating his stump speech and just delivered it in North Carolina 2 days ago.
Rick’s FIGHT?! LOL! When the going got tough, he dropped out! Some of the evangelical leaders who backed him now say they made a mistake and wish they had backed Newt. Newt is still going all the way to Tampa and has been campaigning in Delaware, North Carolina at at the NRA in Missouri. He said he’s gotten 6,000 new donations since Rick tucked his tail between his legs and scurried home, afraid he would lose Pennsylvania.
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.