Posted on 02/21/2012 7:12:42 AM PST by Marguerite
HERE'S A THOUGHT for Presidents Day: President Santorum.
Did you just shiver?
How in the name of all that's holy is Rick Santorum atop national polls for the Republican nomination?
Get it? All that's holy? Maybe that's the answer. You know, the Tebow factor; the Jeremy Lin effect? Well, I have another theory.
I wrote Rick off after his strong showing in Iowa, a state that - in an example of what a wacky year this is - he officially won weeks later by one-tenth of 1 percent.
I predicted that after Iowa, members of the national media would find what Pennsylvanians found in 2006 - namely, that Santorum's core beliefs and personal traits are untenable in a general election.
They did not.
Instead, they continued to ignore him as he finished third or fourth in subsequent contests in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida and Nevada.
Then came three wins on Feb. 7: two in low-turnout caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota; one in a nonbinding primary in the "show-me state" of Missouri.
(His combined vote total in these three wins, by the way, was 35,296 votes fewer than he got in his third-place finish in Florida.)
Still, national media did not "show me" the roiling Rick whom many Pennsylvanians came to know and loathe.
To the contrary, they helped elevate him (as it did Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Newt) to the level of an alternative to the mushy Mitt Romney.
How did we get here? And how does this prove that GOP voters are nuts?
We got here via media overhype, Mitt's underdeveloped political skills, finance laws allowing rich guys to keep any campaign afloat and the fact that stuff Rick says plays well in primaries, which forces candidates to appeal to base voters.
Yes, polls change, as we've seen. But some things do not change.
For example, everybody knows that Santorum doesn't like gays in relationships and doesn't like gays in the military.
But he also doesn't like women in the workplace, doesn't like women in combat, doesn't like women (or men) using contraceptives.
He says that contraception is "harmful to women" and society, and that "radical feminism" ruined society by encouraging women to work outside the home, which is one reason an Inky reviewer of his 2005 book, It Takes a Family, called Rick "one of the finest minds of the 13th Century."
(This is an asset in many GOP primaries.)
The problem is that women vote in national elections. They vote more than men. They've done so in every presidential race, by proportion since 1980 and by raw numbers since 1964, says the Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics.
Santorum's beliefs energize women's fundraising and turnout.
As to his personal traits, think preachy arrogance and doctrinaire judgmentalism.
Over the weekend, he slammed government-supported public education as "anachronistic" (he home-schools his kids), and said that President Obama's agenda is based on "some phony theology . . . not a theology based on the Bible."
If you're shaking your head thinking, "Here we go again," believe me, I feel your pain.
But, he perhaps said it best in a recent Fox interview: "He believes he's the smartest guy in the room and he should tell people what to believe and how to run their lives."
He was talking about Obama. But his words are a perfect self-assessment.
don’t throw me into that brier patch!
I ain’t no liberal, at least not in the current sense of the word.
Like Santorum, I also pay taxes in two states.
Like him, as a taxpayer, I am entitled to services and tax refunds in both.
Santorum did nothing even remotely approaching unethical in this instance.
His only offense was not paying lip service to public education.
Social liberals like you and Baer can't fool me.
He's got my vote.
...namely, that Santorum's core beliefs and personal traits are untenable in a general election.
Maybe conservatives (and Republicans in general) are finally fed up with the mainstream media telling them what kind of candidate they HAVE to nominate to win and have finally decided to say, screw the main stream media, screw the so called "moderates" and "independent women", we're going to pick the most conservative candidate and the one that closest reflects our values, then let the chips fall where they may. After all, we allowed the media to pick our, so called "perfect" candidate in 2008, who was "moderate" and appealed to women and independents and checked all the right boxes that the media wanted checked...and of course he got creamed in November.
For that matter, why do I never really hearing all these stories that Obama was too liberal to attract women and independents, he certainly wasn't a wishy-washy middle of the road candidate.
You present a false choice. As Rush said yesterday, the guy to watch now for the bigtime comeback is Newt.
These idiots like the author would slime the very founding fathers themselves if they were resurrected and campaigning today.
So .... you’re not voting for him I take it? /sarcasm
Whenever you do.....please don't throw me in that briar patch!
“Oh, no! The Christians are coming to get me!”
Newt has a better record at getting things done in the face of Democrat opposition, and is not bothered by being widely hated by the Left.
That said, I prefer either of them over Romney or Obama.
Why are you posting smear articles written by Philly liberal creeps to attack a decent conservative? Do you think that we should take the word of creeps like this author over our own experience and knowledge of Rick Santorum's character, conviction and record?
Batting practice?
Ooh . .Ooh. . Ooh Those big bad Christians are going to ruin my little liberal lifestyle. They preach those dangerous doctrines of fidelity, truth, repentance, humility, etc. If I can’t have 18 yr. old interns in my swimming pool or another one under my desk, what the use of being President?
Sorry...ain't gonna happen. Newt's time in the spotlight reminded Republican's why he's no longer Speaker and why we don't like or trust him. He'll never stage a comeback.
i can easily support newt or rick.....either over
Obamney
Because I want to.
Next question?
If we are against Saint Rick, we have to be for Myth or Zero? We are pointing out that Rick will certainly lose and cost us Congress, too.
We could argue that by supporting Saint Rick, you are supporting Obama.
We need someone other than Saint Rick.
“President Santorum”
That thought made my whole day. Especially when compared to the words “President Obama.”
Gingrich, Santorum. I’d be happier with either of ‘em vs. Romney or Obama.
Really? I would be ashamed to. Usually articles by liberal scum are only posted for counterpoit arguments...not to support our own views. It looks to me like a desperate move to smear a good man. Shameful.
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.