Is a Santorum Surprise About to Upset the 2012 Republican Primary?

Catholic Online ^ | 12/31/11 | Keith A Fournier

[tcg]

The day we stop fighting for the unborn child, or fighting to protect the sanctity of marriage, expel God from the public square, or decide we will no longer enforce the laws of our land, is the day we surrender all our founding fathers created. I believe what makes America exceptional is not just our economic potential or our remarkable innovation, but the fact that we are a moral enterprise. As President, I will protect America's moral foundation, empower American families and build America's economic freedom. And I won't compromise on my values to do it." (Rick Santorum)

(EXCERPTS)

....I have heard it before; it happens every four years. They say "Do not insist on the "social" issues, just trust the Republicans". Translated - trust the establishment Republicans. Another refrain is, "just elect them to office and they will be better than the Democrats".

These voices often promise that the establishment candidate will be more "Pro- life" than "those Democrats" and that they will defend marriage and protect religious freedom. They do it with a smile; a wink and a nod. I do not know about you..but I am not buying it.

...Here is some of what Santorum has said recently: "The day we stop fighting for the unborn child, or fighting to protect the sanctity of marriage, expel God from the public square, or decide we will no longer enforce the laws of our land, is the day we surrender all our founding fathers created."

"I believe what makes America exceptional is not just our economic potential or our remarkable innovation, but the fact that we are a moral enterprise. As President, I will protect America's moral foundation, empower American families and build America's economic freedom. And I won't compromise on my values to do it."

[tcg]

Here is how I see it. We have several good candidates in the Republican primary this year. My personal preference is one who is genuinely, consistently and unqualifiedly Pro-Life. He has shown extraordinary courage in defending our youngest neighbors in the womb against the slaughter unleashed by legal abortion. His name is Rick Santorum. I have written extensively about him.

I know that he has not lived in a faithful marriage and will honestly and passionately defend true marriage and the family and society founded upon it, without equivocation, in the face of a what amounts to a cultural revolution aimed at restructuring Western civilization.

This is a man who has been “savaged” by some on the fringe of the radical homosexual equivalency movement - in the most vile manner ,having his name intentionally defamed - but has not back down. He has not stopped insisting on the unchangeable truth about marriage and the family and society founded upon it– because he knows it is true and that the truth does not change.

[ClearCase_guy]

Santorum is the only one I’m watching at this point.

[charo]

I think you mean he HAS lived in a faithful marriage!

[Theodore R.]

I guess it’s too much to hope that Rick Santorum can defeat Romney, but who else can? When the establishment speaks, it means business, and our little Republican primary voters just fall in line like good soldiers. Santorum 2012

[david1313]

Support him if you will, he will get Romney nomiated, it is the best he can do. He splits the votes, I have seen this story before.

[Da Coyote]

Please, oh please.

I cannot believe that RINOmney and the Gingrich are the best “conservatives” out there.

[knarf]

Before Rick was a a Republican (endorsing the Sphincter party element), he was (and is) conservative.

I met Santorum for the first time when he spoke at an AMWAY gig (No I ain't, but I looked into it), back in ... I don't know .. '94?

His comments about free enterprize seemed as right on to me (a maybe aspiring entrepreneuer (sp?) as the libertarians' call for legal drugs.

I liked Santorum then and being a Pennsylvanian, (and I groaned deeply when he endorsed Arlen, but I knew why he did it), I've always liked him.

It was troubling that he was not getting much ink this election cycle.

Santorum/Palin wiould be a terrific! match, IMHO

[altura]

Well, according to Newt people (I am reluctantly among them if needs must), all the rest of the people should drop out and endorse Newt.

I think the really borderline candidates should drop out and endorse Perry.

Santorum is not viable. His record in congress is not that great and he doesn’t look like a fighter.

There are other pro-life candidates who fit the positives of Santorum (well, one) and have much more to offer as a leader.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

I have always liked Santorum but he will forever be tarnished now because of his association with The Family Leader and their endorsment where it was alleged Vander Plaats suggested to Santorum that he helped raise one million dollars for the Family Leader to use to promote Santorum.

Santorum ended up with the endorsement and I believe no money changed hands but the troubling part is that Santorum changed his stories. I believe it happened and also believe Santorum was less than honest about what happened.

I also believe Santorum will have difficulty with staying power because of the lack of the ability to raise money.

He is running on fumes now and it is likely his family needs him at home.

[silverleaf]

I could live with worse surprises

If so, would hope he could overcome his Mr Milquetoast demeanor to take on obama

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

No one is telling me whom to support at the caucus. I choose to support Perry because I believe he is our best bet to stop Romney.

[KeyLargo]

For Illinois freepers here is a petition link for Rick.

http://www.ricksantorum.com/index.php

http://homerlockportillinoisteaparty.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ricksantorum-petition.pdf

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2011/12/santorum-campaign-hunts-il-delegates-and-petition-sigs-.html

http://www.prairiestatereport.us/2011/12/21/rick-santorum-looking-for-illinois-delegates/

[kindred]

[They say “Do not insist on the “social” issues, just trust the Republicans”. Translated - trust the establishment Republicans. Another refrain is, “just elect them to office and they will be better than the Democrats”.]

Truth indeed. I will not waste my vote on a rino liberal anymore. If the rinos want to win, let them vote for a conservative like Santorium or let them eat cake.

[Dr. Sivana]

Santorum is not viable.

Right now he's more viable in Iowa than Perry, on one tenth the money.

How about if we wait for a caucus or primary or to before we tell people to drop out? If Santorum wins Iowa, and Perry or Newt win southern states, as candidates drop out, they can pledge delegates to the remainder.

The goal is to stop Romney. If that means that Paul wins VA, Santorum wins Iowa, Perry wins Texas, and Newt wins FL and SC, and we hash it out at the convention, that works for me.

Telling other people to drop their candidate works for nobody.

[VanDeKoik]

“It was troubling that he was not getting much ink this election cycle.”

That should tell you it takes more than saying nice things to get votes.

It takes presence, personality, and money.

He has none of those.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks tcg.

[isthisnickcool]

In the scheme of things Iowa means little.....

[wolfman23601]

Rick Perry is the only conservative in the race with staying power. Iowans, a vote for Santorum is a vote for Romney.

[VanDeKoik]

“Telling other people to drop their candidate works for nobody. “

Yes it does.

The longer this goes, the more money is blown, the more time spent with them fighting each other, the fewer delegates anyone of them has, the likely chance that the eventual winner will win with a minority of votes or a shaky coalition of former candidate X supporters, ticking off the ones that committed to someone else.

All the while Obama has to spend and do nothing.

This isnt the 19th century. Things move too fast to goof around with brokered conventions because it may sound cool to see a fight.

[Dr. Sivana]

You did not understand my post.

You aren’t even trying to persuade anybody. You are only hectoring them.

I can play that, too.

Perry isn’t viable because he can’t speak intelligently in debates.

Newt isn’t viable because he flip-flops, attacks Paul Ryan and supported Dede, sat on the couch with Pelosi, and has way to much other baggage.

And then you’ll respond, Santorum can’t even win his own state and he backed Specter over Toomey.

Then we split our votes and Romney wins primaries.

Right now, Santorum is on the way up and will likely win Iowa. Perry is more or less stagnant, Bachmann continues to drop, Newt took a huge hit. Santorum easily has the most upside potential in Iowa, and is the best bet, unless you simply want to go with Paul to deny Romney the win, which keeps a placeholder open for a true conservative in the south.

Regarding you comment about the 19th century. That is partly true because the is no 2/3rds requirement. But each election is different. There is a case to be made for Perry, Newt and Santorum. There is not a compelling case for any of them. The best we can do is deny Romney primary and caucus wins. Pushing Perry in Iowa and NH does not do that. Pushing Santorum in Iowa, Newt in NH, and Perry in the southwest does.