The obscenity issue is Rick’s opponents taking a policy position off his web site that’s been there for months and trying to make it sound like it’s something he’s bringing up now. Are you saying you want every candidate to remove anything related to cultural/moral issues off of their platforms and web sites, period? That’s what it would require to stop their opponents from trumping up stories that they’re “focusing” on these issues.
If the moderates in the GOP wanted to wage all out internal war to remove cultural/moral issues from the platform, the effort would look exactly like this primary. They’re handing us a moderate and trying to convince the voters that talking about cultural/moral issues makes our candidates unelectable.
How would they react if someone tried to do the same with a Republican candidate who was saying the U.S. needed to go communist, because talking about capitalism right now would make our candidate unelectable? Obama is more ready to make the argument against capitalism than anything else. He’s been doing it for most of his presidency.
Cultural/moral “wedge” issues could arguably be our best shot at winning the presidency. With economic issues, you’re also taking the risk that the economy is doing better or gas prices are lower by November, in which case Obama has all the credibility in the world to claim that his economic policies are the right ones. But what’s morally right doesn’t change.
“Cultural/moral “wedge” issues could arguably be our best shot at winning the presidency. With economic issues, you’re also taking the risk that the economy is doing better or gas prices are lower by November, in which case Obama has all the credibility in the world to claim that his economic policies are the right ones. But what’s morally right doesn’t change.”
But what’s “morally right” has a wide variety of definitions by people of all political stripes. I think “wedge” issues could arguably be seen as costing Santorum as many or more votes than he gains...particularly by those who are bothered, rightly or wrongly, by the perception that he wants to legislate his particular definition of morality.
Regardless of who pulled what issue off his website it’s HIS responsibility to direct the conversation. He had a national audience, free publicity...NATIONAL free publicity. He could have said something that acknowledged the importance of morality and enforcing the law, then added BUT right now the American people are hurting, etc. It’s not that I or anyone else thinks morality isn’t important but he had a chance to talk to the American people about what he’s going to do turn the economy around. Of course we expect him to enforce the laws on the books. The problem is, someone who wants to be president has to know how to control a conversation and talk about 1st priorities. How I feel or how you feel about porn is NOT the issue. Even if a majority of the country agrees with Santorum about pornography, the family whose house is underwater, struggling to buy gas to get back and forth to work isn’t going to think, “Whew! Glad he’s going to do that!” They’re thinking, “but what is he going to do about lowering gas prices?”. Yes, he was asked about it, but he’s got to be smart enough to not get sucked in. THAT’S the point. I understand it’s at the bottom of his website but most of America doesn’t know that and doesn’t know much about Santorum (remember we’re political junkies). He could have been that candidate “with the strong moral compass who has great ideas for turning the country around”. Instead he’s the guy that wants to ban porn. Either he frames the message or the press will do it for him. As long as he’s been in public life he should know this by now.
Cindie