Posted on 03/20/2012 3:16:39 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Fix's Chris Cillizza marvels at Rick Santorum's increasing polling strength among Republican women, as measured by a new Washington Post/ABC News poll:
Judging from the coverage of Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign over the last few weeks, you might think that the former Pennsylvania Senator’s numbers would be cratering among women.
But you would be wrong. Way wrong.
In a new Washington Post-ABC poll, Santorum’s numbers among Republican and Republican-leaning women have soared over the past month. He now has the highest favorability rating among that group of any of the top-tier Republican presidential candidates. ...
The poll numbers reinforce findings from recent exit polls that suggest Santorum is holding steady — if not strengthening — among Republican women. In Alabama, Santorum beat former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney by eight points among women; in Mississippi, Santorum took 35 percent among women to 32 percent for Romney.
Cillizza cites three theories for why Santorum has proved so popular with the fairer sex. One theory suggests his increased favorability rating among females is just the result of growing recognition of Santorum’s name, in general. Another suggests women find him a sympathetic figure because he has endured a relentless onslaught of attacks for his social views from the media. A third suggests that he’s successfully framed the key “women’s issue” of this election — the contraception mandate — as more about government encroachment on personal beliefs than about contraception itself.
None of these theories go far enough. Increased name recognition, for example, doesn’t explain why women like Santorum more than men do. The media theory discounts the truth that all the GOP candidates have been relentlessly vetted by the MSM. The third theory ignores that Santorum hasn’t always done a good job framing the contraception issue in terms of freedom.
So what is it? As a Republican woman who has liked Rick Santorum ever since I first read of his pro-life work as a senator (in an e-mail from a pro-life list-serv to which I was subscribed), I can at least speak for myself. I appreciate that Rick Santorum speaks up for the many women in this country who do have radically different views from the mainstream about what women are uniquely able to offer to society. For too long, feminists have pretended to speak for all of us — as though we are all eager to neuter ourselves, to obliterate gender difference, to deny our own fertility. When Santorum speaks about social issues, I hear in his voice a kind of awe at the mystery of womanhood that is sadly lacking among liberals. His awareness that women only can be mothers — and that mothering, whether physical or spiritual, is something every society needs — permeates his views about, for example, contraception and stay-at-home motherhood as one of the most important careers a woman can choose. Plenty of women never articulate their views about what it means to be a woman, but most of us sense innately that we are different from men and that, in that difference, there is also a complementarity. When we pretend to be like men to prove our equality, that complementarity is lost. When we embrace what makes us women — namely, our unique ability to give birth to the next generation (again, both physically and spiritually) — that complementarity is restored. Santorum encourages us to do just that — to embrace our womanhood.
It’s crazy, isn’t it? That a man has, in a way, become the first in a long time to speak up for the right of women to be women. While the rest of society tells us our fertility is a disease, Santorum tells us (and shows us by his own family) it’s our glory and our strength, our greatest source of influence. What woman wouldn’t like to hear that? We’re not just our fertility, of course, and not all women are able to physically have children, but I fail to see how the denial of a woman’s potential for physical and spiritual motherhood is at all empowering or uplifting.
Again, I speak only for myself here, but I’d be very surprised if many women, even if only subconsciously, aren’t drawn to Santorum as a candidate for the same reasons I am.
If Santorum was half as bad as you claim I wouldn't support him at all, but I think my appraisal of him as a candidate is much closer to the truth than is your's. See his ACU lifetime rating.
You would vote for Santorum in the General or are you an Obama person but just would like to replace him?
Hi Sarah-
Everything you have posted so far on this thread seems cogent and principled except for the above quote. Did you mean “Socialists” or “Conservatieves” ...or is there a typo in there somewhere that changed the meaning of your sentence from what you had intended???
Pls explain your comment if that wording is correct as I just don't “get” it as worded.
Thx!
Regards,
-Geoff
Carter was faithful to his wife and liberalism. So he made a bad president.
Romney is faithful to his wife but not conservatism.
Neither Rick nor Newt have been executives, but will either be faithfully conservative? I don’t know, but infidelity makes me skeptical.
No he is not....link for his 'official' voting record..you would do well to read.
Further Santorum goes in the history books as 'the record holder for losing' by the greatest landslide of any incumbent in the entire history of Pennsylvania....if he gets the Primary then the General Election will follow suite.
Additionally....Red State, has described Santorum as a 'big spender' in the Senate, saying 'his record' proved him to be a "big government conservative."... That opposes conservatism.
Santorum backed 'pro-abortion' candidates ( ex.Christine) in key political moves that benefited 'his own career'. This too opposes conservatisim.
Woman need to see his actual voting record This is NOT conservative Guenevere....unless your wearing blinders or just voting for him because you like his looks:
http://libertycounselaction.org/content/home/32905/rick_santorum_s_voting_record
Oh really ....here's the owner's take...I support his reasoning as do most Newt supporters. You are one nasty freeper for even suggesting that of those who support Newt are Romney supporters....give it up and name them or cease making such accusations against those here on FR.
p> Newt is a pro-life Reagan Revolution conservative who led the Republican Revolution of the 90’s, taking the majority away from the democrats who had held it for 40 years. ......And as Speaker, cut the taxes, cut the government, cut the spending, cut the deficit, cut regulations, cut unemployment, brought the federal budget under control for four years running.
And unlike Romney, actually blocked a socialist healthcare system from becoming law. And created a pro-growth, pro-free market, pro-jobs environment and extended the Reagan economy throughout the 90’s!!
Newt is the ideal candidate to lead the Tea Party Revolution!! Newt plans to go to a 15% personal flat tax after deductions and a 12.5% corporate tax and eliminate the capital gains taxes altogether. ...He wants to privatize social security and medicare and eliminate the payroll tax. ...And he wants to neuter the EPA and the Fed. Repeal ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley.....
.... Fire all of the czars, dismantle the Marxist state and fire if not jail Bernanke. And send 185 federal socialist welfare programs back to the states and the people, and return education back to local control.
Newt will directly challenge the liberal activist judiciary and end the unconstitutional power grabs of our usurping black robed rulers. He wants to restore the constitutional balance of powers between the three branches and restore states rights and individual rights.
He wants to turn government control back to the states and local people as the founders set it up. These are the kind of dramatic reductions in government that the tea party is demanding.
Jim Robinson official supporting Newt Gingrich...Jan. 19, 2012
“Santorum, there's a core there that's undeniable, and it scares liberals. It scares ‘em to death!
Because, Dave (the caller), most liberals don't have a core and don't want one. Not having a moral core is their definition of freedom.”
We have a lot of “coreless” here who fear and hate good Christian Conservatives like Rick Santorum—people who support someone who cheats on his wife...oops,no wives...Newt lost because he lacks character and his mean-spirited attacks on Santorum in order to help Romney continues his legacy of shame.
Back it up or shut up.
I figuree some self righteous pompus a$$ would say something like that. It is the Santorum way I guess, question other people’s dedication to Christ. You are lower than scum. I think Jesus called folks like you vipers. There is a reason for that.
Don’t feel sorry for me. I am very proud of my daughters, they are awesome in every way. And they do not feel respected by Mr. Santorum. But they are respected by me.
I think the world would be better if I listened to her more actually. :) And NO, I am not going to tell her that. LOL
There’s no way a real social conservative who’s paying attention could vote for Barry. You must mean something else by losing them to “the other side.”
> question other people’s dedication to Christ.
Yes, of course, we know that committed Christians would gladly vote for a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Marxist before voting for someone as evyl as Rick Santorum.
You were the one who said your “born-again” Christian children would vote for the “other side”. Doesn’t sound very Christian to me.
> You are lower than scum.
You are in violation of the rules of this forum. Not that it will matter much to you.
Look, if Newt is the nominee, I will gladly vote for him.
If Santorum is the nominee, I will gladly vote for him.
If Romney is the nominee, I will vote for him only because of my commitment to the greater good, because I think that Romney is more likely to appoint anti-abortion, anti-homo judges than is 0bama.
Would you rather have four more years of 0bama and his fellow travelers?
You indicated that your children would.
Santorum recognizes this, and speaks to uphold the value women play in society.
That’s certainly part of it. Another is that women tend to feel rather than think. Appealing to feelings is part of the liberal ploy. Feelings can be manipulated.
Well, I know this: I an not nearly as convinced as you seem to be about what God wants. Good for you. But when you question someone else’s commitment to Christ you are in violation of a spiritual law that is quite a bit more important that any rules in this forum. I apologize to you for letting my temper get the best of me.
I don’t expect it but you owe me an apology as well. Of course you will be able to excuse yourself because you are more knowlegable than me about the things of God.
I could, but I will not, make the same argument about your commitment to vote for Mr. Romney. Look closely at the judges he nominated in Mass. But then I am not nearly as sure as you are that God’s purposes my indeed be worked through people I don’t necessary agree with.
Be careful my friend, you are closer to the edge than you think. Yes, you and Rick will do fine together. Good luck and God bless.
I would say the same about my husband. He’s a keeper. :)
Well, my wife says she is stuck with me. But then she keeps everything. And I do mean everything.
Some of us old sinners will never be able to get too exicited about Mr. Santorum. And of course all those who understand God and Jesus better will know that we just either stupid or heathens.
It is interesting to me there are some who even know the heart of our current President. I will respect the office of President, and pray for him every day.
And for the record, no I don’t think either of my daughters will vote for Mr. Obama. Nor do I think they will support Mr. Santorum. If that is the choice they may not vote at all. Of course for many of you that proves they are unspiritual and they have little regard for the cause of Jesus Christ. But those that can pass such judgements would be terribly mistaken.
First, let me say that if you were offended by anything I said, I am sorry, and I will purpose to be more careful in the future.
> Well, I know this: I an not nearly as convinced as you seem
> to be about what God wants.
It is certain that God does not want babies to be murdered in their mothers’ wombs. It is certain that God does not want men to marry men and women to marry women. It is certain that God does not approve of adultery or homosexual behavior. Read Romans 1:26-27, which is in the NEW Testament, by the way.
And later in that passage is this, from Romans 1:31 ...
“Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
You really don’t have to study the Bible hard, nor to be any kind of theologian, to determine what God’s heart is in such matters. The language is very plain.
If your children are professing Christians and are inclined to vote for people who would advance such agendas, then you need to talk with them and inform them.
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.