Posted on 02/22/2012 2:58:17 PM PST by jmstein7
If the GOP nominates Rick Santorum, we will lose. Rick is a social conservative, and I personally applaud that – as 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.
Shove your "points" up your arse.
And learn how to debate without being an asshole.
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.
>> 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?
This is the kind of stuff you’d find in Daily Kos and Move-On.Org websites
I see your love for Santorum is allergic to facts.
No, you idiot. He means someone who can do both, and can shift gears. Rick is a one-trick pony.
Perhaps its the facts that are allergic to you?
I agree. See my post #86.
In comparison, your mean-spirited opinion of him needs to rise some just to reach insignificance.
Yes, the Tea Party won massively on social issues. Oh, wait...
Everyone knows Levin is a Newt guy.
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.
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?
I should hope so. Thems some awful stinky facts, so I’d prefer to keep them at a distance.
Debates don't win delegates, primaries do. And there Rick seems ready to do very well.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.