FReepmail “Antoninus” to be added or removed.
Posted on 02/25/2012 1:42:54 PM PST by WPaCon
A candidate’s strengths can also be his weaknesses. Take the case of Rick Santorum.
One of his strengths is perseverance. For more than a year, he made hundreds of appearances in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, with no visible result in the polls.
He persevered and ended up finishing first in the Iowa caucuses on January 3. Then, after poor showings in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada, he finished first in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado on February 7.
Now he’s leading Mitt Romney in most polls nationally and in Romney’s native state of Michigan.
Santorum’s other strengths include spontaneity and authenticity. His speeches are unscripted, and he answers, often at considerable length, every question at campaign events.
And those answers are sometimes not what any competent political consultant would recommend. Which is where Santorum’s strength becomes a weakness.
For example: In an interview last October with the evangelical blog Caffeinated Thoughts, Santorum said, “One of the things that I will talk about that no president has talked about before is, I think, the dangers of contraception in this country.” Contraception, he went on, is “not okay.”
“Maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things,” he added. And he has said later that he doesn’t seek a ban on contraceptives — a good thing, since that was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut 47 years ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
ping
The NRO hit squad is out in force destroying anything and everyone not Romney. I will be sticking it in their eye on Tuesday when I vote in the AZ primary. I will be voting for Santorum.
NRO is in the tank for Romney. Just ignore any posts with NRO as a source.
“It’s the economy, stupid!”
That should be the locus of all Republican campaigns. It is where BHO2 is weakest. It is also the argument that attracts fiscal conservatives.
Want to win this election in November? Talk about taxes, balanced budgets, and gasoline prices.
In 2010, tea partiers won in a nationwide tidal wave while talking like conservatives.
Sure it enraged the democrats and moderates but who cares? If they don’t like it they can vote for the marxist.
FReepmail “Antoninus” to be added or removed.
Baron says it is malpractice to bring up issues about Obummers Leftist environmentalist theology and Rick’s personal views on contraception, but this honesty and forthright talk is exactly why Rick does so well on the ground with voters where it counts. On the other hand you have Milt running around giving canned, focus grouped speeches in big venues. He is not gaining any support being milquetoast because everyone knows he is inauthentic.
Does this jackass realize that Griswold v. Connecticut was the forerunner of Roe V. Wade? Social engineering by the left?
Before Griswold v. Connecticut, people could get contraceptives if they really wanted to, but society didn’t approve of them. The idea was that people shouldn’t shack up with each other, but should wait and get married. Again, some people made mistakes, but society didn’t pat them on the back and say, “Good for you!”
In those days, most children had two parents, and there were few divorces. Yes, again, if you really wanted a divorce, you could get one. But society didn’t pat you on the back and say, “Go to it! You have a Constitutional Right to get Divorced, especially if you’re a woman!” You could do it, but people understood it wasn’t a good thing.
I’m getting sick of these pond slimes at NRO. They’ll say anything and do anything to see that their pro-abort, pro-gay, pro-socialist, serial liar Mitt Romney wins the nomination, even if they have to applaud the baby killers to do it.
So we can never pick open and honest politicians?
We have to pick secretive monsters who are hiding their evil plans . . . isn’t that how we got Obama?
Why doesn’t Michael Barone just write a column explaining that Rick’s views of contraceptives will never become law because the executive is only 1/3 of the government and laws are written in the Congress?
This article is by Michael Barone, not some random dude editorializing at NRO. Barone is pretty much one of the best in the business in terms of analyzing elections - and unlike Cook or Rothenberg, Barone actually leans to the right.
Further, how did some of this stuff Santorum is saying such as this become "conservative":
“One of the things that I will talk about that no president has talked about before is, I think, the dangers of contraception in this country.” Contraception, he went on, is “not okay.”
How did that become conservative? I am conservative and am surrounded by conservative/conservative leaning people and none of them think contraception is "not okay" - and they aren't going to vote for someone who thinks it is his job to lecture us about it. I do not want a president who thinks it is his job to tell us contraception is "not okay" That is a personal moral/religious opinion that the overwhelmingly vast majority of Americans do not agree with.
Santorum would be an utter disaster of a candidate. A incredibly bad nominee who would lose by 10-15 points in a general election again Hussein. The man simply wouldn't be able to keep his mouth shut about things like condoms, birth control pills, porn, etc, because being a social issue crusader is the only thing he is pretty much known for - never mind that the country has long ago settled most of this stuff. And he's known for talking about this stuff endlessly because Santorum, in his heart, WANTS to talk about these things. Nominate Santorum and we not only don't win the White House, we won't take the Senate, we will lose the House - and be damaged severely at the state and local level as well. Virtually no mushy middle moderate or young(er) person who conservative views on the economy but more libertine views on social issues will even consider Rick Santorum. He'd be general election poison and in his defeat would deliver Obama the kind of mandate that would be the stuff of nightmares.
If you want to go to war over that you will lose and lose badly. No military strategist I ever heard of thought Pickett's Charge was a good idea "in principle."
Weekly Standard, another RINO rag, is for some reason supporting Santorum. Odd.
I just found it odd that Michael Barone, a supposed conservative, is attacking Rick on the basis of Griswold, which was pushed through by the same activist Judges who gave us Roe v. Wade. You can argue that states should not ban or limit contraceptives, but there is nothing in the Constitution to say that there is an absolute right to contraceptives, and that they should be in the aisles of every drug store and supermarket.
Actually, I think Rick could make a pretty good case around contraception. Two points immediately spring to mind. One is that Obama is going to force abortificient contraceptives on Catholics and others who think they are wrong, whether they like it or not. That is a violation of religious freedom and the First Amendment. And since when did contraceptives become a “health” issue? If people want them, they can pay for them themselves.
The other is the way these guys have been pushing condoms in our public schools. Do we really want condom dispensing machines in our schools? If people want their kids to have free “protected” sex of all kinds, then they should buy their own condoms and give them to their kids. Why are the public schools encouraging sexual activity from the age of 6 on up? Should taxpayers be funding this sort of thing?
The GOP-e seems to think that these issues are losers. I don’t think so. Of course, the MSM will try to twist it, but they need to be careful or they will expose Obama for the extreme abortion lover that he is. I presume that’s why they didn’t attack Newt when he raised that issue.
It’s a liberal trick to say that social issues are “settled issues.” The promiscuous use of birth control, easy divorce, gay marriage — all are now normal. All right-minded Americans have reached a consensus.
So, how dare you bring them up again, you troglodyte conservatives!
The so-called settled issues are destroying our social fabric, as you point out. Slavery was considered a settled issue once. Until somebody did something about it.
Your “settled issues” are destroying the country — 50 percent divorce rate, 40 percent of babies born out of wedlock, 40 percent of Americans think marriage is obsolete. How can you create your libertarian utopia if families are crumbling and desperately seeking government aid? Santorum has the courage to speak about these issues.
Interesting, isn’t it that a media outlet founded by conservative, Wm. F. Buckley, should now fear one becoming President!
Oh stop it. Santorum isn't going to change anyone's mind about contraception, whether porn should be legal, or whether women should stay home and have more babies. That ship has sailed, the issues have been settled. He is just going to cast himself as a guy who wants to argue about things that the public has largely put behind them.
He may be right about all those issues, but you have to pick and choose your battles. 2012 is not the time to re-argue the case for or against rubbers and birth control pills.
I am not personally a huge fan of universal suffrage. I do not necessarily think every person should have a right to vote. For one thing, anyone collecting freebies from the government should not be able to march off to the polls and vote themselves even more cash from the people actually producing something. Unfortunately, I am not going to win that fight anytime soon. I am in a minority opinion on this (even though I am convinced I am right and our nation would be much better off implementing my idea) and it would be flat out stupid to run on it as a campaign issue. I'd be flat out unelectable. Just as Santorum would be unelectable yammering on about how terrible contraception is. Now is not the time for that fight - especially with a president currently in office who will do anything he can to avoid talking about the economy because his stewardship of it has been so bad.
It’s interesting Longbow, that you react so strongly against the idea of a conservative Presidential candidate even raising these issues. Santorum is not advocating outlawing of contraception; he’s asking for a debate on whether or not free and ready access to contraception is good policy, or bad policy.
Personally, the day a high school, or worse yet, grade school nurse, ever decided it was okay to provide a daughter of mine with birth control pills would have been the day I pulled my kids out of the public schools, or moved to a school district where they wouldn’t even consider such idiocy. (And, believe me, plenty of districts like that still exist, although I doubt they’ll still be allowed if we get four more years of Obama.)
The key point in all this is “coercion.” Obama is the coercer; just ask the Catholic Church. Santorum is simply willing, and able, to move the discussion of these issues back on a public policy burner. You, and others like you, think that’s a horrible idea. Well, I have a feeling we’re about to find out if you’re right or not, and I suspect you’ll be surprised at how willing the rest of us are to reconsider the direction this country has taken the past several decades.
It is not okay for most children of black mothers to be born out of wedlock, and it is not okay for so many children today to become the product of broken homes simply because the parents are too selfish to stay together until they are raised.
But saying these things are “not okay” is not the same as saying they should be be somehow banned by law. We need to have the discussion on how to turn things around, because the current direction on some of these matters is atrocious, and reasonable people should be more than willing to discuss them, as long as the intended outcome isn’t coercive.
Coercion does exist in this realm though; again ask the Catholic Church. For that matter, try to lobby against gay marriage as a business person and watch the resulting coercion. It’s all on the other side. Failing to be willing to have the discussion is simply giving in to the forces that are changing this culture for the worse, not the better. We need to have that discussion, before the time comes where we are afraid to have it, and that time is apparently drawing near, judging by your reaction.
The abortion debate is a good example; now that people have been actually fighting back, by raising and discussing the issue, abortion is becoming less frequent, and more and more people are telling pollsters they’re against the practice. Yet abortion remains legal. The abortion battle is being fought in the realm of ideas, drawing boundaries as to what should be legal, but only after enough people have been convinced that, for example, partial birth abortion should be outlawed (something our esteemed President, whom you think would win in a walk against Santorum, voted against, I believe.) It is an abhorrent practice that a solid majority of people are against, and it is hard to see how Obama’s past support for it helps him in a general election. But it won’t hurt him either, if people are afraid to even discuss the issue.
I’m betting you’re going to be surprised at the depth of Santorum’s support, not only in the GOP primaries, but also in the general election. Not as many people will be turned off by his views on morality as you think, once it’s clear that he’s not talking about banning practices, but about considering them fair game for discussing at the policy level. For example, Planned Parenthood probably does not want that discussion held, for they are highly likely to lose federal funding as a result.
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.