Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Book of Santorum
Townhall.com ^ | April 14, 2012 | Bill O'Reilly

Posted on 04/14/2012 5:09:46 AM PDT by Kaslin

Mitt Romney would be wise to take a good hard look at what Rick Santorum did right and what he did wrong during his campaign. In his quest to unseat President Obama, Romney will face some of the same challenges Santorum faced.

Back in the summer of 2011, nobody thought Santorum had a shot at the Republican nomination. Nationally, he was polling at about 3 percent. But through sheer hard work and persistence, he won the Iowa caucus and was catapulted into the big time.

There are many lessons to be learned from Santorum's political journey, beginning with having a dream and fighting like hell to make it happen. The senator did that, and it makes him a noble figure to those of us who admire achievement.

But Santorum also made some vivid mistakes in underestimating the secular culture and the intent of the media. And this is where the Romney tutorial begins.

The national press is generally biased toward the left and has the long knives out for anyone spouting spiritual beliefs. Once Santorum began answering questions about his theology, it began to damage his political message. And when he criticized John F. Kennedy on the separation of church and state issue, the media went wild. You don't mess with JFK.

ABC's George Stephanopoulos defined the skeptical tone toward Santorum in January during the New Hampshire debate. He zeroed in on the senator's moral view of contraception, and foolishly, Santorum engaged. He should have simply said: "Hey, George, I have seven kids. I don't know much about it." End of exposition.

But no. Santorum rambled on about the downside of birth control, something most Americans simply don't want to hear about. Although most citizens are believers, the USA has become a largely secular country, and voters do not want politicians telling them how to conduct their private lives.

Soon, Santorum was besieged by questions about his faith-based belief system and, again, entered into the conversation, answering questions about the morality of homosexuality and the like. In doing so, he walked into a swamp he couldn't get out of and was marginalized as a religious zealot.

Memo to Romney: If the media ask you about Adam and Eve, simply say they didn't have jobs and it's Obama's fault. Keep the conversation on issues that matter to the voters. The media don't really care what you think about Cain and Abel or what you believe spiritually. They simply want to make you look like Elmer Gantry.

In the end, Santorum's spirited challenge to Romney actually better defined the governor for the voters, which could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your viewpoint. But going forward, Romney will face the same sand traps that bedeviled Santorum. Best to walk around them, Governor, because once you get in, you'll never get out.


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: authorondrugs; contraception; huckabeesantorum; romney; santorum; santorumhuckabee

1 posted on 04/14/2012 5:09:48 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Now that Mitt is the presumptive nominee, the media will be accusing him of being the right of Ghenghis Khan.


2 posted on 04/14/2012 5:15:18 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork
Rick Santorum is a 53 year old child in a sweater vest. He had no chance of beating Obama, and now has left us with Romney as our nominee. Thanks Rick, and all your clueless supporters.
3 posted on 04/14/2012 5:23:56 AM PDT by petercooper (The one difference between Obama & Romney: Obama is only half white.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Best to walk around them, Governor, because once you get in, you'll never get out.

And the lack of courage will damage him just as much as taking his liberal stance.
4 posted on 04/14/2012 5:24:12 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This is good advice from BO’R. Hope it’s heeded.


5 posted on 04/14/2012 5:26:02 AM PDT by luvbach1 (Stop the destruction in 2012 or continue the decline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

<<<<<<<< BILL O’REILLY — Santorum was besieged by questions about his faith-based belief system and, again, entered into the conversation, answering questions about the morality of homosexuality and the like. In doing so, he walked into a swamp he couldn’t get out of and was marginalized as a religious zealot >>>>>>>>>>>

Wrong, Bill-o! Apparently you lack any “faith-based belief system” whatsoever. If Santorum had not spoken up on social issues, he would have gotten nowhere in the polls. He came out the blue and won 11 primaries. Santorum had the courage to warn of the moral decay that is destroying our families and our future.

The collapse of civilization that is even more important than the next election.


6 posted on 04/14/2012 5:28:57 AM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: petercooper

Agree with your point in post #3. But we’re stuck with Romney who’s better than the Obamantion and must be elected.


7 posted on 04/14/2012 5:31:30 AM PDT by luvbach1 (Stop the destruction in 2012 or continue the decline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn
Santorum had the courage to warn of the moral decay that is destroying our families and our future.

Exactly. The last line of the article encourages Romney to choose cowardice over courage.
8 posted on 04/14/2012 5:32:23 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn

Remember this is coming from a guy who cheated on his wife and kids.


9 posted on 04/14/2012 5:35:23 AM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn
If Santorum had not spoken up on social issues, he would have gotten nowhere in the polls. He came out the blue and won 11 primaries.

But polls among likely voters in the general election showed him to be much weaker against Obama than Romney.

10 posted on 04/14/2012 5:35:53 AM PDT by luvbach1 (Stop the destruction in 2012 or continue the decline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: luvbach1

Yet actual voters weren’t voting for Gingrich.


11 posted on 04/14/2012 5:41:40 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: petercooper
Rick Santorum is a 53 year old child in a sweater vest. He had no chance of beating Obama, and now has left us with Romney as our nominee. Thanks Rick, and all your clueless supporters.
That's true to a point and I do have a certain amount of disappointment in the Huckabee Voters who I think this time around jumped on the Santorum bandwagon.

But you are leaving something out, something very important:

A week before the Florida primary Newt was in the lead and in the driver's seat and really was in position to transform his recent surge into a political version of Sherman's March to the Sea.

But then Romney, in the first pre-Florida debate, very cooly, and with great calculation, branded Newt as an "influence peddler". It was a public act of political assassination conducted with great skill and extreme heartlessness.

And Newt was absolutely unable to defend himself. As if he had no idea that any of that stuff was going to come up. The Great Debater (who at that point really only had his debating skill as his main qualification before the R voters) spluttered and stared into the camera like a deer caught in headlights.

On that night it was over for Newt.

Romney did it to him, that's for sure. And the Huckabee Voters fell for it, that's for sure.

But the fact remains, the Great Debater Newt Gingrich stumbled that night, and in the next debate too, and it was Game Over for Newt Gingrich.

I'm NOT saying "rightfully so". I continued to be -- and continue to be -- a Newt Gingrich supporter.

But the fact is, Newt blew it. He knew he was the target and he knew Romney's skill at political assassination. And yet, he failed. The Great Debater failed. And the Huckabee Voter stepped in and raised up Rick Santorum.

That's what happened.

12 posted on 04/14/2012 5:45:17 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
He zeroed in on the senator's moral view of contraception, and foolishly, Santorum engaged. He should have simply said: "Hey, George, I have seven kids. I don't know much about it." End of exposition.

But no. Santorum rambled on about the downside of birth control, something most Americans simply don't want to hear about.

Foolish indeed, but that was the problem with Santorum - he simply couldn't resist talking about these things.

Most Americans do not think contraception is "not okay". In fact, it is an alien concept to most folks - even probably half or more of Catholics don't take their church seriously when it comes to this issue.

Whether contraception is "not okay" should have never been a part of the campaign. Were Santorum disciplined he would have avoided the issue like the plague and simply said something along the lines of "I'm a Catholic, I personally accept the church's teaching on the issue, but it is not part of my campaign and not a matter for the government to involve itself in". Had he said that from minute one he'd have never given the media the opportunity to savage him over it and he would have avoided raising so many doubts in the minds of conservatives looking for a viable non-Romney.

13 posted on 04/14/2012 5:45:26 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: luvbach1

I agree with you on the Romney polls. But the first and foremost challenge for Santorum was to get noticed. He was a total ZERO. He barely had a dime to his name.

His supposedly incendiary comments made him the right enemies — liberals! He proved himself a bona fide conservative. Now, for the next campaign, he can use his abundant speaking talent and political experience to expand his horizon and into economic and defense issues.


14 posted on 04/14/2012 5:55:01 AM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn
Santorum had the courage to warn of the moral decay that is destroying our families and our future.

He could have talked about moral decay without giving interviews announcing that as President he would do what no President has done before and have a national conversation on why contraception is "not okay". I'm sorry, but that was just stupid. Most people not only don't accept that view, they recoil from politicians who think they need to lecture us about it. Rick Santorum may have won over the Robertson/Huckabee voters on social issues like that, but there are simply not enough GOP primary voters out there to nominate a candidate who says this kind of stuff. It's why even when he was doing reasonable well political analysts largely wrote him off.

15 posted on 04/14/2012 5:55:06 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
Were Santorum disciplined he would have avoided the issue like the plague and simply said something along the lines of "I'm a Catholic, I personally accept the church's teaching on the issue, but it is not part of my campaign and not a matter for the government to involve itself in".

I love the way you clowns encourage cowardice but it isn't surprising coming from people who manipulate the facts to make your point. After all, it became an issue because Obama mandates that we and people who oppose it on religious grounds pay for it.

People like you are even more destructive to the nation than the democrats because at the first sign of trouble, your brand of conservatism starts clutching at the ankles of those with the courage to fight..
16 posted on 04/14/2012 6:02:55 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
After all, it became an issue because Obama mandates that we and people who oppose it on religious grounds pay for it.

No, it did not. You are attempting to rewrite history. Santorum made his statements about contraception being "not okay" long before the contraception mandate was announced. The only reason it did not get a lot of media coverage at the time was because no one cared about Rick Santorum because he was an afterthought candidate. As the other candidates faded and Rick emerged, people then went back and paid attention to what he said.

Rick Santorum explained why as President he'd feel the need to lecture us on why contraception is "not okay" in October of last year - LONG before the insurance mandate issue.

"One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, 'Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.' It’s not okay...."

Now that is a direct quote from Rick Santorum in October of 2011 and it is ON VIDEO.

The contraception insurance mandate was not announced till later in January 2012.

I love the way you clowns encourage cowardice but it isn't surprising coming from people who manipulate the facts to make your point.

No, you simply don't know your facts. Further, MOST of us "clowns" as you put it, aren't against contraception and do NOT want our president to be lecturing the American people on why contraception is "not okay". We ARE against the contraception mandate, but Santorum, having made those previous statements BEFORE the mandate was announced, screwed that message up because the GOP suddenly had a competitive candidate who flat out opposed contraception entirely.

17 posted on 04/14/2012 6:24:15 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

Sigh, you may go now.

Some of us will continue to fight for America despite your lack of morals or courage.


18 posted on 04/14/2012 6:36:42 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

It’s not stupid to mention contraception. You may think it’s OK to shack up with a chick in your dorm room using the pill. But the advent of the pill led directly to our promiscuous culture, rampant disease, abortion and a huge surge of unwed motherhood.

Santorum is not campaigning on making contraceptives illegal. Liberals may recall from his cold hard facts. But he’s just an honest man, telling the whole truth.

Contrary to what you think, more than just the Huckabee and Robertson crowd care about social issues. And a lot more SHOULD be concerned.


19 posted on 04/14/2012 6:48:50 AM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: petercooper

What you talking bout Willis? If Santorum didn’t run Romney would have sowed it up months ago. (and polling indicated he COULD have beaten Osama in November)


20 posted on 04/14/2012 6:49:58 AM PDT by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

I agree, that was the cardinal moment, when Romney smeared Gingrich. The phrase “resigned in disgrace” was repeated several times, to Newt’s face, and he hardly even addressed the point never mind refuted it. Nolo contendere does not sit well with the average person. Newt’s candidacy was demolished by his omission of a forceful defense.
As for Santorum, I’m holding my fire until such time as he endorses Mitt Romney.


21 posted on 04/14/2012 7:01:47 AM PDT by Lady Lucky (Retro Sark...because you just never know when you'll have needed a sark tag.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn
You may think it’s OK to shack up with a chick in your dorm room using the pill.

Perhaps you don't realize that millions of MARRIED couples that have children use contraception because 1,2,3,etc, kids make for a plenty big enough family for them. And by the way, millions of Christian families use contraception - including an awful lot of Catholics (majorities of whom didn't vote for Santorum by the way).

You make it sounds like contraception is just rubbers and pill popping for a bunch of college kids. If you actually believe that your understanding of who uses contraception is woefully lacking.

Nowhere even remotely close to a majority of Americans want a candidate who believes as President it is his job to lecture the nation on why contraception is "not okay".

22 posted on 04/14/2012 7:05:15 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

“Now that Mitt is the presumptive nominee, the media will be accusing him of being the right of Ghenghis Khan.”

Which of course is a lie. His record as governor is to the left of Bill Clinton’s and Jimmy Carter’s.


23 posted on 04/14/2012 7:07:44 AM PDT by Psalm 144 ("I'm not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support. I am who I am." - Willard M Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Click

24 posted on 04/14/2012 7:46:43 AM PDT by RedMDer (https://support.woundedwarriorproject.org/default.aspx?tsid=93)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Daveinyork

>>the media will be accusing him of being the right of Ghenghis Khan.

Here in MA they’ve been doing that for years. But again it’s Mass. land of Kennedy and Frank.

Keep in mind many in the country may be fiscally conservative but socially moderate (a talk show host once declared “We
want the Democrats out of our wallets, the Republicans out of our bedrooms, and both AWAY from our First and Second
Amendment rights!”) I’m more concerned with fiscal issues,
terrorism, immigration, taxes, etc.

As usual the GOP nominee is expected to veer off a bit to the Left for the final election but hopefully keep things
on the Right for fiscal affairs, taxes, etc. It’s tough to please everyone.

And I know in my own case, sorry Rick, I’m voting for a President, not a preacher. I know there are many religious folks who want a leader they can agree with but many (not all, but quite a few) voters are secular—and even some
who are religious are a bit more concerned with the debt,
Islamofascism, runaway taxation, etc. Ultimately I want someone who can deal mostly with those issues, though I do know faith issues are important to many, as well.


25 posted on 04/14/2012 7:47:15 AM PDT by raccoonradio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn

The Leprechaun has plenty of faith-based system. He believes firmly and unalterably
in
himself.

Worships himself.

What’s not to like about this Man of Principle, Billy O’Riledly???


26 posted on 04/14/2012 7:50:26 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

But supposedly the reasons he only ran for one term were

1) wanted to run for Pres.
2) knew he couldn’t defeat the Dem candidate in ‘06 (Deval
Patrick, who turned out to be the first black gov in history of the Commonwealth)

If his record were truly to the left maybe he could have run
for a second term and then run for Pres. while keeping his
office (as Kerry did). He knew he would have gotten trounced.
(btw he got elected in the first place because “Acting Gov.” Jane Swift was a disaster, polls horribly low.
I think his opponent was Dem. Shannon O’Brien, who was
kinda weak. MA occasionally elects moderate Republicans
such as Romney (lefty to the rest of the country,
“Moderate” here). But he knew he couldn’t win re-election.
They were itching to put a Dem back in.


27 posted on 04/14/2012 7:51:42 AM PDT by raccoonradio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn

also to widespread divorce, which in turn creates widespread fatherlessness which in turn is the single most important factor predicting criminality.

Separating sex from procreation was the biggest change-factor in the sexual revolution and it’s destroyed our culture.


28 posted on 04/14/2012 7:52:16 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

Contraception actually affects married sex too. Destabilizes married relationships. You’ll refuse even to consider this possibility, I’m sure.

But it’s true.


29 posted on 04/14/2012 7:54:33 AM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

Santorum is NOT campaigning on abolishing contraceptives. No one is advocating that. Only liberals think he’s for making contraceptives illegal.

Instead, he simply tells the truth about how the pill transformed our culture into free-sex decadence.

You seem to be unaware that small families are destroying our country — leading directly to our crushing entitlement crisis and our borders being overrun by large-family illegal aliens.

That may be “lecturing” in your rather juvenile way of putting it, but it’s still the truth. Politicians should tell the truth.


30 posted on 04/14/2012 7:55:52 AM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio

“If his [Romney’s] record were truly to the left . . .”

His record is truly to the left, and it is truly to the left of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Because of that fact, he has less chance than a Massachussetts fetus come November.


31 posted on 04/14/2012 8:02:24 AM PDT by Psalm 144 ("I'm not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support. I am who I am." - Willard M Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

“The last line of the article encourages Romney to choose cowardice over courage.”

Well, it is certainly addressed to the correct candidate and the correct party.


32 posted on 04/14/2012 8:06:42 AM PDT by Psalm 144 ("I'm not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support. I am who I am." - Willard M Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

With Romney we don’t have to worry about any of those pesky confrontational politics. No confrontation with the UN. No Confrontation with the EPA. No confrontation with the department of education. No confrontation over border control.

I doubt Romney would even consider overturning anything Obama has done because it would lead to confrontation.


33 posted on 04/14/2012 8:20:29 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969; cripplecreek; All
Longbow, I can agree with you on only one point: O’Reilly was right to say that Santorum could have said with seven children he didn't know much about contraception. Sometimes humor is a good way to defuse trick questions.

I have several large homeschooling families in my church who oppose contraception on principle, and have made huge economic sacrifices to have a half-dozen to a dozen kids while the wife stays home to do homeschooling. (In other words, this isn't just a Catholic issue — lots of the most conservative Protestant evangelicals in the homeschooling movement oppose contraception as a matter of principle.) Not one of those families ever, even one time, criticized me for disagreeing with them, even though one of those men is an elder. They understand that the sphere of the family involves personal choices into which the institutional church should enter only rarely — the elders don't run my home, I do, and God will hold me directly accountable for how I run it.

Rick Santorum never said he wanted to ban birth control. He said he didn't choose to use birth control, and believed it enabled wildly promiscuous sex.

Nobody can deny the obvious truth that birth control enabled the “sexual revolution.” Go read Time Magazine's cover story on the Pill if you won't listen to a conservative saying that. As for the first point, it's none of my business how many children somebody else’s family chooses to have, and Rick Santorum never said he wanted to restrict access to birth control.

The same bravery and willingness to stand up for his moral convictions that attracted conservative Christian voters are what attracted liberal fire from the left.

Romans 13:3-4 says civil rulers are supposed to be a terror to evildoers: “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

You can know a lot about somebody by who their enemies are. Santorum attracted (mostly) the right enemies. That's not a problem in my book.

34 posted on 04/14/2012 8:36:42 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

A very eloquent and persuasive post.


35 posted on 04/14/2012 8:43:09 AM PDT by Psalm 144 ("I'm not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support. I am who I am." - Willard M Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
Riiiiiiight. It all hinged on that debate rather than the tens of millions of dollars in carpet bombed attack ads from Romney and his Super PAC against which Newt lacked the immediate resources to counter.

Romney should thank Newt for making him hire a new debate coach.

The mocking reception Newt's space speech--filled with mainstream thinking of those who still care about space--will be a mile marker in America's fall from greatness and its apathetic acceptance of coming irrelevancy to humanity's advancement.

Culturally American exceptionalism is dead; our influence continues to diminish; the American era is all but over. We are in a transitory period with China most likely to dominate through the second half of the century.

36 posted on 04/14/2012 8:47:11 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Newt says, "A nominee that depresses turnout won't beat Barack Obama.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

I watched the debates. Romney didn’t cause Newt to fail. He attacked Newt, like he attacks everyone, all the time (Newt even mentioned that in the debate).

The fact is, Newt could have won those two debates, as he had won all previous debates. He didn’t. He lost. And then went on to lose the primary.

And now you’re saying the debates didn’t matter. Oh well, I guess we can go round and round with the postmortems ad infinitum.

Neither one of us is going to change the other’s mind. We have to agree to disagree on this. Or not. I don’t really care that much.

But what I think is what I still think despite your suggestion that it was the money, not the debate, that mattered.


37 posted on 04/14/2012 9:02:14 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

“The mocking reception Newt’s space speech—filled with mainstream thinking of those who still care about space—will be a mile marker in America’s fall from greatness and its apathetic acceptance of coming irrelevancy to humanity’s advancement.”

I too think that was a landmark on our road of decline.


38 posted on 04/14/2012 9:02:52 AM PDT by Psalm 144 ("I'm not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support. I am who I am." - Willard M Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio

“Keep in mind many in the country may be fiscally conservative but socially moderate”

WTF does that mean? Conservative is conservative. One cannot want less expensive government without taking some personal responsibility.

“the Republicans out of our bedrooms”

How are Republcans in anyone’s bedrooms? The Kennedys and Clintons are Dems.


39 posted on 04/14/2012 9:33:37 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

Thank you, Psalm 144.


40 posted on 04/14/2012 9:54:44 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina
Rick Santorum never said he wanted to ban birth control. He said he didn't choose to use birth control, and believed it enabled wildly promiscuous sex.

You are avoiding discussing the problem statement. Rick Santorum said that as President he was going to do what no other President before him has done, and that is to talk about why contraception is "not okay". THAT is the problem. Had he just said he's Catholic and personally agrees with the church there would not have been much of an issue. Had he joked about it like O'Reilly and you suggest and said "hey, Ive got 7 kids so I don't know much about it", there wouldn't have been much of a problem. Where Santorum screwed up is by outright saying one of the things he would do as President is talk about why contraception is "not okay"

Here is the quote which is the one that was on video and got him in so much trouble:

One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, 'Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.' It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.

Santorum never walked that back. No, he wasn't ever talking about banning contraception, but he did want to talk about, as President, why it was "not okay". I'm sorry, but that isn't the President's job. The public is never going to elect a candidate who says these sorts of things at this time. Who knows what the future holds, maybe some virus will kill half the public and society will find a pressing need to have many more babies. If that happens, Santorum's views might make him electable. But right now, no, not a chance. He should never have said that.

41 posted on 04/14/2012 10:12:46 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
To some extent this is a moot point now because Rick Santorum has withdrawn.

However, I can't blame Santorum for saying something that is consistent with his conservative Roman Catholic position. It was going to come out no matter what — unpopular faith-based positions always get trotted out for attention in campaigns if the candidate is a devout believer, and it's going to be happening soon with Romney's Mormonism. What Santorum did was link contraception with rampant sexual immorality, and that's an issue on which most conservative Christians will agree with him no matter whether they agree on contraception or not.

That linkage can be defended easily by pointing out that the liberals love sexual freedom based on the widespread availability of contraception, with abortion as a backup if it doesn't work.

As an evangelical Protestant who is not convinced birth control is sin, I'm not going to say what Santorum said. But I have equally unpopular religious views which I would not back down from if the issues were to be raised in a political campaign.

Being honest and being willing to offend people in a campaign is not something that annoys me in a conservative politician. The same forthrightness that got Santorum into trouble is what got him a lot of votes, including from people who didn't agree with him on the contraception issue or his fundamental Roman Catholic beliefs.

I believe Santorum could have recovered from the contraception issue. Most people who strongly opposed him on that wouldn't have voted against him anyway in the primary, but would have voted for him in the general election on the grounds that Obama is far worse.

I can't say that about Mitt Romney.

42 posted on 04/14/2012 10:48:04 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

Ditto!


43 posted on 04/14/2012 10:52:01 AM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina
I believe Santorum could have recovered from the contraception issue. Most people who strongly opposed him on that wouldn't have voted against him anyway in the primary, but would have voted for him in the general election on the grounds that Obama is far worse.

True enough, I certainly would have.

I just want to be clear about my point since you've been willing to discuss the issue.

I personally like Rick Santorum. I personally have no issue or problem at all with those that believe contraception is "not okay". I also believe that declining birthrates in the West is a real, significant problem.

I do not have any problem with contraception, but I am not in anyway worried about voting for someone who does. So long as they don't want to ban it and take our choices away, it is NOT an issue that personally concerned me about Santorum.

My problem with Rick is purely political. I don't believe someone that discusses those sorts of things has even the slightest chance of winning a general election. Therefore I see it as pointless to support them. I write those kinds of candidates off because I know they can't win. Electability really does matter. If being right were enough in life, we wouldn't have 16 trillion in debt, 4 dollar gas, 8.2% unemployment, etc, etc. The problem is, to change anything you have to win and I believe Rick Santorum would have, however well intentioned, made the issue of the election social issues like contraception and porn - which is EXACTLY what Obama and his minions want because they do not want to talk about the economy.

Because I have been involved with electoral politics for a very long time at many different levels, I've learned that it is insane to ignore political realities. We can wish that the regular guy (perhaps a neighbor), non politician, devout Christian who is super smart, conservative and would make great decisions could be president - but human nature is what it is and they will almost always lose to a polished, charismatic politician. There is just no escaping this fact. So we first must find a candidate who has at least a reasonable chance to win a general election (which means all the people, not just GOP primary voters). Rick Santorum simply wasn't that guy. He did well as a social conservative, but don't forget that some of that vote was simply a protest vote against Willard the RINO. Santorum basically got the same demographic that voted for Huckabee (and Robertson before he dropped out). Those guys simply can't win national elections.

44 posted on 04/14/2012 11:11:34 AM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

You’re are TOTALLY wrong..

That debate wasn’t even remembered in the carpet bombing that went on in Florida - and I know, I was there.

Romney ran 17 million dollars of negative advertising against Newt. Jeb Bush and all of his florida toadies and minions were behind the scenes working for him. Marco Rubio came out and almost endorsed Romney, there were filthy lies all over the place.

Did you even hear of bloody thursday?

There were romney surrogates showing at every newt stop and holding cause with the press and blasting Newt and lying about him... Mitt romney, by some estimates, ran about 200,000 robocalls the last week, his mailings were about a 4-inch stack the last week of the campaign.

the state GOP was bussing in people to Mitt events, and Mitt’s ads were horrific, not just the usual slime, they were horrific and filled with lies. The washington post said one 30 sec ad had 4 lies in it... that’s one lie every 6 seconds in one spot... there were 120,000.

The last 3 days before the vote, if you watched tv anywhere in florida there were approximately 5 anti-newt ads per hour - that is how deep his ad buys were.

Romney hired telemarketers to make live voice calls for him, and the entire GOP conservative echelon was spewing on about Newt... from the a b and c teams. And there were a few counties borderline North that usually report fairly early, that reported very very late and showed with Romney with a razor thin, and you know what that means.

Let me tell you something, Newt could have have hit 3 grand slams in the debate, undisputed, unquestioned and he would have still lost florida. Because Romney would have just amped up his attack accordingly to meet newt’s threshold.

There was a conference call with Mitt and his staff before his campaigning began in earnest and the goal was to destroy Newt... destroy him.

And mitt signed off on it.

Santorum never received that kind of treatment up until the day he quite because he was never the threat Newt was...

Instead of badmouthing Newt re Florida understand this:

He won all of the counties in teh north...

He still made a decent showing and had Santorum done right by his country he could have came out and helped Newt before he ran home and asked his supporters to vote for Newt...

AND FINALLY, Newt survived. He wasn’t meant to survive. Romney intended for Newt to be carried off the battlefield after florida, forever dispensed with, and his path clear to the nomination.

NEWT IS STILL HERE. Battered, bloodied, healing and fighting on.

To be clear, I don’t disagree Newt lost that debate. All I am saying things would have turned out the same had he won it...

Newt is still fighting, if you truly do support him please help..

www.newt.org

www.newt.org/donate


45 posted on 04/14/2012 2:23:16 PM PDT by true believer forever (GO NEWT! On to Tampa - hang tight - we can do this!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

You’re are TOTALLY wrong..

That debate wasn’t even remembered in the carpet bombing that went on in Florida - and I know, I was there.

Romney ran 17 million dollars of negative advertising against Newt. Jeb Bush and all of his florida toadies and minions were behind the scenes working for him. Marco Rubio came out and almost endorsed Romney, there were filthy lies all over the place.

Did you even hear of bloody thursday?

There were romney surrogates showing at every newt stop and holding cause with the press and blasting Newt and lying about him... Mitt romney, by some estimates, ran about 200,000 robocalls the last week, his mailings were about a 4-inch stack the last week of the campaign.

the state GOP was bussing in people to Mitt events, and Mitt’s ads were horrific, not just the usual slime, they were horrific and filled with lies. The washington post said one 30 sec ad had 4 lies in it... that’s one lie every 6 seconds in one spot... there were 120,000.

The last 3 days before the vote, if you watched tv anywhere in florida there were approximately 5 anti-newt ads per hour - that is how deep his ad buys were.

Romney hired telemarketers to make live voice calls for him, and the entire GOP conservative echelon was spewing on about Newt... from the a b and c teams. And there were a few counties borderline North that usually report fairly early, that reported very very late and showed with Romney with a razor thin, and you know what that means.

Let me tell you something, Newt could have have hit 3 grand slams in the debate, undisputed, unquestioned and he would have still lost florida. Because Romney would have just amped up his attack accordingly to meet newt’s threshold.

There was a conference call with Mitt and his staff before his campaigning began in earnest and the goal was to destroy Newt... destroy him.

And mitt signed off on it.

Santorum never received that kind of treatment up until the day he quite because he was never the threat Newt was...

Instead of badmouthing Newt re Florida understand this:

He won all of the counties in teh north...

He still made a decent showing and had Santorum done right by his country he could have came out and helped Newt before he ran home and asked his supporters to vote for Newt...

AND FINALLY, Newt survived. He wasn’t meant to survive. Romney intended for Newt to be carried off the battlefield after florida, forever dispensed with, and his path clear to the nomination.

NEWT IS STILL HERE. Battered, bloodied, healing and fighting on.

To be clear, I don’t disagree Newt lost that debate. All I am saying things would have turned out the same had he won it...

Newt is still fighting, if you truly do support him please help..

www.newt.org

www.newt.org/donate


46 posted on 04/14/2012 2:33:40 PM PDT by true believer forever (GO NEWT! On to Tampa - hang tight - we can do this!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey; All

You’re are TOTALLY wrong..

That debate wasn’t even remembered in the carpet bombing that went on in Florida - and I know, I was there.

Romney ran 17 million dollars of negative advertising against Newt. Jeb Bush and all of his florida toadies and minions were behind the scenes working for him. Marco Rubio came out and almost endorsed Romney, there were filthy lies all over the place.

Did you even hear of bloody thursday?

There were romney surrogates showing at every newt stop and holding cause with the press and blasting Newt and lying about him... Mitt romney, by some estimates, ran about 200,000 robocalls the last week, his mailings were about a 4-inch stack the last week of the campaign.

the state GOP was bussing in people to Mitt events, and Mitt’s ads were horrific, not just the usual slime, they were horrific and filled with lies. The washington post said one 30 sec ad had 4 lies in it... that’s one lie every 6 seconds in one spot... there were 120,000.

The last 3 days before the vote, if you watched tv anywhere in florida there were approximately 5 anti-newt ads per hour - that is how deep his ad buys were.

Romney hired telemarketers to make live voice calls for him, and the entire GOP conservative echelon was spewing on about Newt... from the a b and c teams. And there were a few counties borderline North that usually report fairly early, that reported very very late and showed with Romney with a razor thin, and you know what that means.

Let me tell you something, Newt could have have hit 3 grand slams in the debate, undisputed, unquestioned and he would have still lost florida. Because Romney would have just amped up his attack accordingly to meet newt’s threshold.

There was a conference call with Mitt and his staff before his campaigning began in earnest and the goal was to destroy Newt... destroy him.

And mitt signed off on it.

Santorum never received that kind of treatment up until the day he quite because he was never the threat Newt was...

Instead of badmouthing Newt re Florida understand this:

He won all of the counties in teh north...

He still made a decent showing and had Santorum done right by his country he could have came out and helped Newt before he ran home and asked his supporters to vote for Newt...

AND FINALLY, Newt survived. He wasn’t meant to survive. Romney intended for Newt to be carried off the battlefield after florida, forever dispensed with, and his path clear to the nomination.

NEWT IS STILL HERE. Battered, bloodied, healing and fighting on.

To be clear, I don’t disagree Newt lost that debate. All I am saying things would have turned out the same had he won it...

Newt is still fighting, if you truly do support him please help..

www.newt.org

www.newt.org/donate


47 posted on 04/14/2012 2:35:26 PM PDT by true believer forever (GO NEWT! On to Tampa - hang tight - we can do this!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson