“Santorum can’t shut up about this stuff because these are the issues that he really cares about. The man is a social values crusader, it’s all he has ever really been known for. It is what he is passionate about, what he is most animated over, what he speaks of with absolute conviction.”
I have supported Newt because I believe he is very intelligent and a balanced conservative and has become more socially conservative since leaving office. However, it troubles me greatly that anyone would consider Santorum’s social values to be a “negative” thing. Granted he must be more than just a social crusader - not just for being elected - but for functioning as a POTUS. However, having solid social conservative values first is a PLUS NOT A NEGATIVE. If I didn’t think Newt was socially conservative, he would not have my support.
Now IF the bulk of Newt’s supporters have the same disdain for bonafide social conservatives as you, et. Al. have expressed. Then maybe I shouldn’t be a Newt supporter?
Folks....Social Conservatives make up a substantial part of the Republican Base. IF you drive us off with libertarian nonsense....you just set yourself up to lose again and again. You need us....bottom line. Rick’s stated desire to regulate and possibly diminish internet pornography is not an issue you should be dissing him on. This is NOT “messing with your sex lives.” That is an incredible ignorant thing to say.
I don’t see Newt attacking Rick over his social conservatism. Maybe you should follow his example?
For now, I stick with Newt. However, some of you supporting him should shut up before you drive folks like me away. IF libertarian views are your thing then vote for Ron Paul. True Republicans support all three legs of conservatism. Obviously, candidates each have a leg that is more near and dear to them. Rick is a social and national defense conservative. Newt is more balanced...unless I am reading him incorrectly. Whatever, stop dissing social conservatism....THAT IS A TURN OFF!
If you read what I said you know that my point is that Santorum speaks MOST passionately on social issues. That's his thing. It's why he is known for it. Everyone is not equally animated and interested in ALL issues. Newt is actually one of those rare people who seem to be equally excited to talk about almost anything. With Bush it was 9-11 that he spoke about with the most conviction. Get him on certain topics and you could see he was just going through the motions. That's just how it is.
The problem with Santorum is he will not be able to resist taking the bait over and over and over again and expanding on his reasons for believing contraception is "not okay", why the federal government needs to crack down on internet porn, etc. He can't resist speaking to this stuff because it is what he seems to have the most conviction about. And some of the issues Rick is focused on (opposition to birth control in general for example) are gigantic election losers - especially in an environment where Obama is desperate to avoid talking about the economy, debt, failed stimulus, etc.
I think Ron Paul is a kook and am certainly not a libertarian, so there is no reason for you to claim that people who don't think we need a national conversation about why contraception is "not okay" are libertarians. Some social issues almost all conservatives agree on (at least here on FR) such as opposition to abortion, opposition to gay marriage, opposition to forcing religious organizations to pay for insurance that covers things they don't believe in (contraception), etc. If those were the social issues Rick was most focused on most of us with reservations about Santorum would feel much better about him. Unfortunately Santorum goes just way too far and holds views that would make him a fringe general election candidate. Sorry, I have no trouble with contraception and know virtually no one that thinks we need a national discussion on why it is "not okay". I don't want a president that thinks that is part of his job. Internet porn? Seriously? Sorry, Santorum isn't going to be able to do anything about it and the very idea he thinks he should is just disturbing.
Santorum is a good family man with decent values who would make a terrible presidential general election candidate. He is known almost exclusively for social values positions (including some that are controversial even to many conservatives and downright fringe in the overall population) rather than economic ones - and that is precisely the fight Obama would want.
Debating the relative advantages and disadvantages - vetting - of the candidates is a good thing, but thats not whats happening on most of these threads. Whats happening now is not healthy.
And what the social conservative forget, a la Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee... is that if you run solely as a socially conservative candidate, you will not get any other portion of the Republican party outside of social conservatives. Which means you won't even secure the Republican candidancy.
So, if social conservatives want a candidate, they have to back a candidate that *ISN'T SOLELY A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE*.
And, unfortunately, Santorum is a rehash of Mike Huckabee. IE: only conservative on the social front and not in any other aspect.
As a Club for Growth type of Republican, what I suspect from Social Conservatives is that on the economic issues they would feel comfortable with the Democrat Party of the New Deal. What I fear the most, is a Leftist who sees the social issues in the same light as Santorum. This Democrat would be impossible to beat in today’s climate.