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.
The general election in November is going to be about Obama. Obama was elected as "anti-bush" however ridiculous that seems. Reagan was elected as "anti-Carter".
It is crucial that whoever ends up the candidate, the campaigns be focused on Obama.
Santorum and Newt will expose Obama, his record and his incompetence. Newt is the political hawk with a nac for finding or creating opportunities to accomplish his agenda. But Newt has demonstrated either 1) A tendancy to chase popular sentiments and polls or 2) A tendency to take a position based on political winds and opportunity.
A newt supporter should explain Newt's support of National Healthcare (before he was against it). They should also explain his MMGW and carbon credit support (albeit briefly). I don't care about his marriage woes. I'm more concerned with his softening and his potential for having fallen out of touch with us commoners. He would make a good president but I think he would fumble and parse on health care repeal. By the time he gets there, it will be unpopular.
Santorum is absolutely conservative (unabashedly). He is still down to earth and manages by his values. He is not the strategist that is Gingrich.
I'm supporting Santorum for now. But I would be ok with voting for Newt in November. I will begrudgingly vote for Romney if I have to in the same way I voted for McCain.
Absolutely nothing. I’m saying that all the VAST majority of voters will hear is what can be condensed into a TV ad or the top of the hour radio news. They’ll hear that Santorum is against pre-natal care. It’s very unfair, I know. But Santorum is learning the ropes way too late, which is why I agree with Rush that we may see a third Newt surge.
An 18% spread in income tax rates? 10% and 28%, it is not a conservative solution, and that is just what Santorum has on his campaign site. He has to learn what conservative economic solutions are, or tell me, is the 28% for millionaires and billionaires? Or is it for $200k and above? This progressive tax plan is only right of the Democrats, it is not fiscally conservative.
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com
The Effrontery of Rick Santorum
By Rich Lowry
February 21, 2012 12:00 A.M.
The media has unleashed the hounds on Rick Santorum.
He was last seen a step ahead of the braying pack, trying to explain that he hadn’t accused President Barack Obama of being a crypto-Muslim. The former Pennsylvania senator criticized the president’s environmentalism as representative of a “phony theology.” The press snipped the remark out of the context and played it as Santorum donning his finest Grand Inquisitor garb and reading the president of the United States out of the Christian faith.
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/291518
I’m watching. Hope he knocks it out of the park in tomorrow’s debate.
I imagine he's eating his lunch alone at NRO these days.
You make some valid points. Young people are frequently idealistic and open to new ideas. Sadly, over time most of us get that beaten out of us by the sordid realities of life, politics and the baser aspects of human nature.
I am also perplexed by the many who strongly profess their support for Christian values; yet seem to have almost no capacity for forgiveness or belief in the capacity of religion to change Newt; despite his enthusiastic conversion to Catholicism. Perhaps they have less faith in their own religion than they profess; or, perhaps their hatred for the old Newt overrides their normally Christian values.
Of course, I am, and will remain, a Newt supporter; however, I will vote for Rick if he wins the nomination; as long as Romney or some other Mid-Atlantic/New England liberal is not Rick's Veep choice (i.e: Christie, Sununu etc).
Well, there are other versions of that history, to be sure.
One thing, that support of Specter was not as vital as Santorum likes to portray it. Next in line for the judiciary, had Specter been defeated, would have been Hatch, who was leaving the committee, then Cornyn, and after him, Kyl. In fact, there was a conservative effort to get the committee to nominate Kyl, after the election. Later, none of the GOP would admit their support for Specter, including Santorum (HE link)... iow, they were both duplicitous, and were more interested in preserving their good standing in the gentleman’s club...
Newt once walked out of the rose garden ceremony, held for the signing of HW’s tax increases, telling the President, “this is the hardest thing I’ve ever done.” There’s courage, and then there’s santorum’s version of courage... Be fair and open your eyes.
Newt will tear DC up, DC will eat Santorum alive.
http://www.wnd.com/2004/11/27476/
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=5724
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1274088/posts
I can appreciate being pragmatic, but I would offer up two things to think about.
A: has anything about this election cycle fit normal pragmatism so far?
B: Practically speaking, is Santorum really more conservative OVER ALL than Romney? Research this before you answer. You might be surprised.
Newt’s still my favorite, but I’d proudly vote for Santorum if Newt is forced out.
As I will vote for Newt should he win. Anyone but Willard or Obama.
This is all that needs to be said - I support X, but will vote for Y should he win the nomination.
The incessant trashing of Santorum in favor of Newt, or vice versa, is juvenile and needs to stop NOW.
“The incessant trashing of Santorum in favor of Newt, or vice versa, is juvenile and needs to stop NOW.”
______________________
A very reasonable post. I posted a similar point way back when Gov Perry was still in the race; however, it didn’t change things here in the “trenches” of FR.
I agree it would be better if posters could “accentuate the positive;” however, there are some posters who are “serial flame posters” who skip from thread to thread using the same inflammatory tactics; then, move on w/o defending their “hit and run” posts. Who knows who these posters really support. Maybe they just like attention.
I don’t mind a Rick or a Newt supporter intelligently countering an argument or point made against their candidate or defending against something that is provably untrue. It’s posters that make unsupported allegations, counter reasoned arguments w/ad hominem attacks; make vague allegations; use “strawman” arguments or employ “guilt by association” methods whom I take issue with.
So, while we can at least agree on these terms; of course, we should also expect that others will play the political game according to their own rules ...such is life, love, war and politics!
‘Take care,
-Geoff
I have no problem with Newt and, if he were in the top two with Romney, I would certainly support him. As it is, Newt is nowhere near the top two and Santorum gets my vote. As icing on the cake, I would prefer Santorum over the others (based on the fact of his issue stances and his outstanding qualities as husband and father) if my vote decided the issue. I defy you or anyone else to cite a single instance when I have criticized Newt much less smeared him.
Likewise, pgkdan's #40 contains no criticism of Newt, much less any smear of him, much less any pathological smear of him, etc. Your apology is in order. Not because this post is exalted, not because this post is somehow specially justified, certainly not because this post is ordained by God, but because your post is factually erroneous and essentially libelous, grossly exaggerated and simultaneously baseless and because justice demands your apology to pgkdan. Hopefully that satisfies your curiosity.
You are free to vote for the person not a saint of your choice.
I see Rick Santorum as best reflecting my views and intentions for proper governance of a wayward and possibly lost Nation. His sainthood is not part of that intention. That said, I take it as a compliment to him. We should emulate the saints, you know.
You apparently forgot the Republicans held a slime majority in the Senate (51-48-1) in 2004. There was the possibility the Republicans would lose the Senate and thus the Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. The new Chairman would probably have been Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy or Patrick Leheay.
Thanx for your POST #19, rightwingintelligentsia, and we need to save our information for future attacks!
And here’s more:
“Mr. Santorum was asked to defend his use of Penn Hills funds for the charter school.
He replied, “I defend it as I’m a taxpayer in Penn Hills, Pennsylvania. That’s where I pay my income tax, that’s where I pay my real estate tax, that’s where I pay wage taxes, state taxes, I pay taxes like any other state taxpayer. And most people who pay taxes to the school district, who claim that place as their only residence in Pennsylvania, which it is, usually have the right to be able to send their kids to school.”
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06245/718462-85.stm#ixzz1gGnwgkQs
Time to send Rick more campaign money, folks, to counteract this garbage:
Be that as it may, I was referring to Spincter's primary race against Toomey, not his position as head of the judiciary. If memory serves the GOP had only a razor thin majority in the Senate in 2004, was it 51 to 49 or something similar?
If Toomey loses the general, a definite possiblity, then the Senate is up for grabs and bye bye USSC nominees.
BTW, just reading Spector's slimy quotes in your links makes me want to take a shower. You'll notice he promises W and Santorum that he'll do the right thing and then turns around and tells the media the exact opposite. What a squid that SOB was!
I don't get the thing about Newt walking out of the Rose Garden. Did he vote against the tax increases and then go to the signing or did he vote for the tax increases and show-up at the signing so he could walk out?
In either case what the hell kind of courage is that? What did it cost him?
Santorum stood shoulder to shoulder w/ W when he was taking significant incoming, including flak on the war and on SS reform. You can accuse Santorum for many faults but a lack of courage isn't one of them.
I don't agree w/ all of Santorum's positions, I believe his economic plan needs serious refinement, but when it comes down to it; character counts.
Rick has it and I don't think Newt does.
“Santorum, at the urging of W, supported Arlen Spincter”
Yeah sure.
Santorum mimicking Obama’s “It’s Bush’s fault!”
Pathetic.
are you following along w/ any of this discussion dear?
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.