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.

[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.