Posted on 02/25/2012 1:20:13 PM PST by WPaCon
Wish I had a nickel for every conservative who confidently predicted that the Arizona debate would, of course, feature obnoxious questions about birth control and the devil aimed at Rick Santorum. As it turned out, CNN’s John King did not ask “gotcha” questions and, for the most part, conducted a fair and informative debate.
The debate moderated by King, along with other events of the past week, has resolved a question that has been swirling since the Missouri, Colorado, and Minnesota primaries: Why not Santorum?
There is much to like and admire about Rick Santorum. He did fine work enacting welfare reform in the 1990s. He was an eloquent and thoughtful advocate for the unborn. He has kept a weather eye on Iran for many years. He’s a dedicated family man. He was the first candidate to raise the issue of family structure in the context of discussions of poverty. And he had a solid, conservative voting record in Congress (with some exceptions — there are always exceptions).
But Santorum would make a poor Republican nominee.
Because he has phrased his socially conservative views in vivid terms, he is precisely the sort of candidate who will evoke a Pavlovian response from the press. Just as they were driven mad by Sarah Palin, they will be outraged by Rick Santorum. The campaign will be cluttered by the continual discovery of “controversial” Santorum quotes from the past three decades, and precious time will be lost as he explains, justifies, or withdraws his comments on women in the workforce, contraception, gay unions, Obama’s “theology” (by which he did not mean to question the president’s faith, something he’ll have to explain over and over), and so forth.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
No, like Barry M. Goldwater and so many others once firm in conservatism, Mr. Buckley had started drifting left by 2000 or sooner. Christopher Buckley endorsed Obama. The nephew, Brent Bozell, III, remained steadfast.
Then you are blind.
Well, Rick Santorum’s views on contraception are exactly what the propaganda media want you to focus on.
I saw his interview on Glenn Beck. Santorum is committed to repealing Obamacare, stopping the UN’s influence on US policies, and getting the Fed out of public education.
I’d much rather have President Santorum than President Gingrich, whose role model for US presidents is FDR.
I couldn’t agree with you more.
The devil can bring grievous natural circumstances, but can’t “make” anybody sin without that person’s permission.
It’s interesting where Bozell Jr. went politically.
CNN and fair are mutually exclusive.
“I’m seriously rethinking my support.”
Then you were never much of a supporter.
I’m getting real tired of the Santorum crowd telling everybody to vote for Rick instead of their candidate of choice so that Rick can beat Romney. If Rick can’t win on his own then he doesn’t deserve to win. I haven’t seen any of them say if you will vote for Rick in MI we will vote for Newt in GA. It is all one sided. No reciprocity offered. Let’s just let everyone vote their conscience and whoever wins wins.
I understand Newt's your guy, but I think your stretching to think that he is the only candidate with the courage and the knowledge to have made the charge. It happened that Newt was the first person tapped in the questioning, so he got the first cut at the ball. Santorum has been living this topic for some time, so I doubt he wouldn't have had the knowledge or courage to have responded forcefully as well.
..and as President, per his own words, talking about the evils of contraception. Seriously. The media didn't make that up, Santorum said it. In fact he said it is one of the things that would make him different as President, he would talk about how contraception is "not okay".
Sorry, but that is one of his issues and he will never be able to avoid it on the campaign trail. You know why? Because he WANTS to talk about it. No matter what his advisers tell him, Rick will always be baited into talking about this stuff because it is his passion. It's why he is really only known as a social conservative crusader. Opposing contraception, porn, etc, are what Santorum really cares deeply about and you can see it when the topic gets onto the social stuff. This is all great for a Priest to discuss, but not something Americans are going to vote for in a President. Santorum will lose most moderates/indies and the Republican party will be deserted by the younger libertine generation that is willing to give the GOP a look on fiscal issues but is not going to vote for someone who is babbling about contraception.
I’d much rather have President Santorum than President Gingrich, whose role model for US presidents is FDR.
I'd rather have my neighbor who I consider one of the best conservatives around, but he isn't going to win any elections. Our candidate has to at least be electable. We don't have the time to waste on candidates that are doomed to defeat from the outset.
Agree with you. NO to Santorum. He is a pious fraud or he has very poor judgement on his endorsements. One too many pro choice folks have been aided by Santorum.
Great idea. He could buy a station and have a gospel show.
Same here.
And I’m picking a President, not a preacher.
Oh, don’t worry, Mona. I’m not.
Doesn’t Mona understand that it doesn’t matter WHO the Republican nominee is, he will be maligned by the MSM from the minute his name is mentioned at the Republican convention. At least with Santorum or Gingrich you’ll be more apt to actually believe what they’re saying, than you can with Romney.
One of the problems with Rick is that he has not been consistent in his personal decisions on social issues. He is advocating a position now that insurance companies should not cover prenatal testing, which saved his wife’s life and which he certainly did not pay for out of pocket.
In 1996, his wife Karen, in the 6th month of her pregnancy was diagnosed by ultrasound with a life threatening infection. The Santorums made a painful decision knowing that the treatment to save her life would terminate her pregnancy, a technical abortion.
I respect their decision, but find it hypocritical, to say the least, that he would now deny coverage to other women for the same life saving prenatal testing, and also the same type of prenatal testing that saved my grandchild’s life.
Don’t think for a moment that this won’t be an issue if he is the nominee. As was demonstrated by his own words in the debate this week, Rick’s core principals dissolve when the chips are down and it is politically expediant for him to “take one for the team”.
He needs to tone down the preaching and playing God with other people’s lives by allowing them the same right to make their own decisions medically, just as he and his wife did.
Also you imply they knowingly chose a treatment that would lead to an an abortion. I think they chose a treatment that attempted to save the baby but led to forced labor and the baby died.
Besides no one is going to be making any personal decisions with their lives now that the government is already in control of everyone's benefit plans.
I’m ok with that. Vote for whom you want. But if you really want to stop Romney, then vote santo in MI. If you are a Gingrich man, you know that if he’s going anywhere, it won’t be MI, it will be super Tues. So you could stop any Rom-mentum in MI if you wanted. Then donate to your man and call for him in the other states.
I agree that I hated it when people told me I had to vote Gingrich for strategy. But if I had to I would.
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.