I’m curious…
…what you think of Santorum’s chances, now that he’s not only in double digits but in the 20s.
My preliminary opinion is that he could win the nomination if Perry and Gingrich were to drop out. I don’t see that happening though, especially on Gingrich’s part. He’s fighting mad.
But if Santorum does end up as the Republican Party’s nominee in 2012, I don’t think he could beat Obama. And that’s not because I’m some sort of Romneybot, or a member of that group you all love to hate, the “Republican elite.” It’s just what I observe, and it’s based on the relative extremism of his social conservatism. I don’t think that’s where the majority of Americans are these days, and I think they will find it frightening. Plus, he doesn’t have a particularly appealing personality. You may not want that to matter, but it does.
I have to agree with neo that Santorum would not beat Obama. His conservatism would be a problem for a general election, his personality comes across as whiney, and frankly, his record in the Senate is unimpressive to say the least. On top of all that, I don’t hear any forward-looking plan fro him that would turn America around. If we don’t turn around after the next election, we’re in a heap o’ hurt economically and socially. Rubio’s comment that Obama is turning America into a deadbeat nation is more than a challenge; it’s a prediction that if Obama is re-elected we will experience a national transformation of a frightening nature.
Santorum won’t get the nomination. He’s already being subjected to the “microscope up the @$$” treatment and he’s failing badly. His numbers will quickly plummet. I think you’re right, he couldn’t win in the general.
Neo:
Can’t remember if I said it here, so I apologize if I bore the troops…
Santorum at this point would NOT take Pennsylvania. I assert this as a resident of PA and an independent voter. The results would not even be close: my cloudy crystal ball give Obama a 55:45 margin – somewhere in that range.
So if the race becomes BHO vs. Santorum?
As for myself and my wife – we discussed this last night – we would stay home from the polls, have a stiff drink with dinner, and go to bed early. My son and his wife are of the same opinion…
And if Ron Paul is also a third party candidate, I just might investigate employment opportunities in Mainland China…
Neo said, “It’s just what I observe, and it’s based on the relative extremism of his social conservatism.”
I agree. His social positions do not necessarily scare me off, but they would a lot of moderates and many dems who might be considering not voting for Obama. The social issues are back ground issues now. Without an economic recovery we’re going to be much worse off. “It’s the economy, stupid!” That’s the mantra. IMO, Santorum really doesn’t have the chops on fiscal and monetary issues.
The Boston Globe endorsed Huntsman, rather than the former governor of their state.
Now we’ve got PA residents who would rather hand the election to Obama – a man committed to turning the country into a failed European socialist democracy – than vote for their native son who prays and believes abortion is wrong.
We are so screwed.
Does he have a personality at all? He commands no respect. He can’t make a proper moral argument for his moral convictions. His name is now a neologism referencing anal sex.
In any contest with the run-of-the-mill spambot – Santorum loses.
his rise and the game of the percentages should reveal to you the power of the left. when they think a person is not a candidate, they dont mobilize and so the population moves to that person, and they do better.
think of the evolutoin of the percentages based on who said they would be in the race, then who was opposed and slandered, and then who did it move to.
ie, they wanted romney over gingrich as he is easier to beat, and they know that they can… they destroyed ron paul (but he was only in because he was allowed participation through his career which they did not oppose as he is who they point to)
so if you look at the timeline and who was up and who then was seen as a potential they didnt pick… you will see that who they dont mobilize against, climbs fast when the only choice is who they choose and the unopposed person they think has no chance.
now that he is up, its a fait accompli to tell what will happen next… ie, they will mobilize and force romney to be it as they pick him to lose.
this is why there are no viable candidates to oppose. the candidates allowed into office over the years are the ones who they allowed over better picks when elected previously… so now when its time to pick, they have the dirt to remove any one of them they allowed in prior. in effect, our choice is no choice…
you can have any color model T you want….
Not. A. Chance!
Lookie here – They will make a BIG DEAL out of the PA residency requirement for schooling his children while they were in another state.
George Pal– I would say rather he can’t make a moral argument that resonates with today’s culture; he makes the old-fashioned arguments just fine. But he comes off as a nag to people– they just don’t want to hear it. They’d probably prefer four more years of Obama lectures.
Do people find social conservatism frightening? I doubt it. I think they find them annoying because social conservatives reprove behavior that alot of Americans think is okay.
For instance, does any rational person experience fear because abortion may become more restricted? Maybe so. Perhaps there are people out there who are worried they won’t be able to escape the consequences of their actions if Santorum becomes President. (Oh my, what if my gilfriend becomes pregnant and can’t have an abortion?) I doubt if such people would have voted for Romney. Obama suits them better.
Same old argument; same old rationalisation. Social conservatives are required to vote for the moderate candidate; but if a social conservative were to become the nominee? Will we talk about party loyalty, or say he doesn’t have a chance? Like Reagan when everyone was saying he didn’t have a chance. Unlike McCain.
What you and others seem to be saying is that you don’t want anyone who might “frighten” the voters by proposing or standing for anything that might be the least bit “controversial” or “unusual” or can be portrayed as such i.e. the poor little sheep will just get frightened and scamper away/hide behind the nearest rock, and won’t come out to vote on election day.
I find this very puzzling. Somehow Obama and his crew and supporters on the Left can propose the most outrageous things, pull the most outrageous crap, and justify it–if they even bother–by spouting the most obvious nonsense and the thinnest of boldfaced lies– and that is just “ho-hum” and OK and–to judge by the polls– apparently has plenty of popular support, but let those on the conservative side propose or stand for something that can be perceived–or more likely characterized– as the least bit ”unusual,” and its run for the hills time.
As I see it, Central Casting Mitt is the blandest of the bland, and so “moderate” that he is by far the closest of the Republican candidates to Obama–he is not exactly “Mr. Excitement,” and I think that bold, “transformative,” even radical ideas and a “Mr. Excitement “ are just what we need right about now, as opposed to the timid, half-dead McCain we had last time.
I am not for ‘settling” for a candidate that neither I, nor apparently about 75% of other Republicans, like or are excited about, or for a band aid applied to a gut wound from a .44, when I think the only way to stop the bleeding, and to have any chance at all of saving the patient’s life is to slap a big, military grade “Quick Clot” bandage on the gaping wound–even though an untutored observer might consider my action as an overreaction, scary, and extreme–and then get ready for some major surgery.
Now we’re facing the reality.
It will be hard for anyone to beat Obummer.
Santorum will lose the votes of the folks with tattoos on their necks and pierced noses.
Does that tell us anything?
If I remember correctly, the Senate seat that Santorum won had belonged to John Heinz, the ketchup scion, who died in a plane accident. Teresa Heinz, the current Mrs. John Kerry and then a Republican, remarked that it was a sad day for the country when somebody like Rick Santorum could be elected to the Senate. Hope Rick keeps that working-class mojo going!
I made the point over on Legal Insurrection that Santorum would be regarded as an uninspired pick for VICE President. There’s very little to recommend him as the GOP nominee in this crucial election year.
As for his social conservativism, I’m probably much more in agreement than disagreement with the substance of those views. However, it’s totally out of step for a Republican candidate to be fighting the culture wars while Obama is busy destroying the economy, burning the Constitution, and weakening the military (and that’s just since he got back from vacation!).
Santorum practically defines the problem of a politician getting “off-message.” He wouldn’t be able to go 2 days in a row without some media tempest whipping up over something he said about homosexuality or pornography or God-knows-what. I’m not saying the GOP or conservatives should declare a “truce” or anything, but why make this a focus in a campaign that presents so many other issues that are more urgent and fruitful grounds on which to contest this election?
I don’t think he can win the nomination, let alone beat Obama. I heard him on a radio interview many months ago and he just seemed to drone on and on, he definitely projected an uninteresting personality through the radio at least.
Conrad said it well.
I’m not religious, and lean towards the libertarian/classical liberal wing of the Republican party. However, I often find it odd how put off some are by Christian conservatives, and I think the fear of the “Christian Taliban” isn’t real fear, but an attempt at a smear.
That said, this is a time for a focus of the economy and reducing government, and securing property rights and the rule of law. I’ll be happy to discuss abortion and gay rights as much as you want after we take care of core issues.
Rick has been making the argument in Iowa that there is more poverty today because there are so many vulnerable single-parent households. I tend to agree, but it won’t make much of an election slogan: “The economy will improve when you all stop fornicating!”
I’m from southwestern PA (Santorum country) and I’ve never been a huge fan. Perhaps that’s because I was a Dem during the years he served in public office in this area. I agree that he doesn’t have a charismatic personality, and that costs him plenty.
However, I mostly share his socially conservative views, which are only “extreme” if you think that what the Catholic Church teaches is “extreme” (meaning such issues as abortion, same-sex “marriage,” contraception, etc.)
Although I don’t think he can beat Obama, I applaud his courage in speaking out with the courage of his convictions.
And I think the venom that has long been directed at him is appalling. The latest example are the comments of Alan Colmes, Eugene Robinson, the photo that was posted on HuffPo today, etc. Disgusting:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/05/partisan-politics-santorum-stillborn-baby/
Santorum is getting the Palin treatment and it is sure to get worse. Like her, he is a good person and deserves better (regardless of whether either is the best choice for the presidency).
Is there any lesson about allowing fears of electibility influencing your vote from Palin. I think most can agree, now, after seeing what has happened to Bachman, Perry, Cain, Newt, and now Santorum, that Palin would have been a strong candidate. But noooooo. She was unelectable.
And Palin had established an end run around exactly the problem Conrad identifies: the media. It still has the power to influence the flabberistic, uninformed, waddling to their destruction, duckapoos.
My biggest issue with Santorum is that, like McCain in 2008, his lack of executive level experience in either government or business nuetralizes that avenue of attack on Obama. And Obama being the incumbent makes it even more difficult for a non-executive to clear that barrier.
I do wish Perry had been able to come out of Iowa in second place though.
The whole issue of electibility is undemocratic. In the primary’s you vote for your man, not your “electible” man. Who is electible is so problematic anyway. It’s less chances than a crap shoot.
Vote your conscience, vote your man, and vote. Then, the power of the wisdom of the people decides. Bullshit on this giving up your vote in the primary because your man can’t win. That whole idea is non sequitur at this stage .
Conrad, I think a Romney/Santorum ticket would be an easy winner. I supported Santorum for President because he is the only candidate that I know of who adequately described the threat of an Iranian bomb in print. Everything else is secondary to stopping that. But if he can’t win on his own then Vice Presidency may enough for him to have military initiated against Iran.
Of course Santorum would get the Palin treatment, that’s the new standard in MSM journalism, but it can be fought.
Santorum lost his last senate race by 18 points. He’s not a very inspiring candidate and his Christian conservatism frightens many independents and Democrats. His record in the Senate was one of big government and big spending. That undercuts the Republican message. Obama would crush him.
Romney has many of the same problems, but his business and executive experience are big pluses and he is not seen as socially conservative.
@ Bob from Va.: Just to be clear, I’m not sure that Santorum would necessarily lose to Obama even if he were at the top of the ticket. I’m just saying he’s very lackluster and not a good choice for a party that’s otherwise well poised to win back the WH. I suspect GOP voters eventually are going to take notice of Santorum’s weaknesses as a candidate and Rick’s surge will be over.
Santorum’s senate loss is ancient history. It belongs in that time warp when people actually believed in their hope that Obama was something different.
Santorum, Gingrich, Bachman, Perry, Cain . . . They are different.
Romney? Not so much, but still acceptable if he’s the best we can do against numnuts. Why do people give numnuts power? Electibility? Not Obama. We, yes we, WE WE WE WE will win.
Paul? Too simple and too isolated. Anyone who aligns against the Jews will, utlimately, be nullified. I was going to say destroyed, but God is merciful and loves all his children: red, yellow, black, and white.
Curtis, I don’t see how giving consideration to electability is undemocratic. It doesn’t matter how wonderful the nominee is if he loses to Obama. Of course, if you don’t think you can judge a candidate’s electability, then it doesn’t make much sense to use that as a criterion. But for voters who truly think candidate “X” would flop in the general election, it would be foolish to ignore that.
Also, I don’t understand why it’s wrong to focus on electability “at this stage.” This is the time when we are selecting our nominee. If we wait until the general election to think about electability, it will be too late, won’t it?
Don says, “That said, this is a time for a focus of the economy and reducing government, and securing property rights and the rule of law. I’ll be happy to discuss abortion and gay rights as much as you want after we take care of core issues.”
Ditto. The election will (or should be) primarily be about the economy and what has been done by BHO to harm the private sector. I also agree that BHO is dangerous to the very concept of the rule of law. But the debt & deficit spending trump all else. We can argue about guns, god, abortion, and gays once BHO is back in Chicago.
However, I think Santorum will go the way of Huckabee and this discussion will soon be moot.
It’s undemocratic because it’s an influence outside of you and your beliefs and your wants and your desires. Don’t you see that? Requiring electibility to be a factor is allowing what others think to influence your vote. It strips away your judgment, your experience, your value.
If you were running for President, how would you feel if your kids voted for another candidate because they believed you were unelectible. Given their inside information as to your character and competence, should they negate their correct vote for you?
Staying home if your choice isn’t the candidate = letting a vote for Obama go unchallenged/un-cancelled.
Like some petulant spoiled brat who doesn’t get his or her way.
As if there is no distinction between Obama or Romney, particularly with a Republican Congress/Senate.
It’s relentless, that anyone who doesn’t use their vote the way they’re “supposed to” is a vote for the enemy, playing into the heart of evil with infantile naivete.
If y’all think your fellow voters (and more so those paying attention this early) are so worthless, we do not have a country. There is no respectful disagreement, no acknowledged of opposing effort and intention.
And y’all think I am crazy when I say a Brief Period of Violent Upheaval is inevitable. Even factions notionally on the same side hate each other viscerally.
Those who say Santorum cannot win–which is different from saying he faces long odds–must explain how he won in a Democrat district. Was he not spouting all that scary conservative stuff? Was his opponent under indictment at election time?
There are 100 voters alone with their thoughts in a voting booth in November.
I have a hard time believing that 51 of them will reason thusly: Santorum is grating (or Romney not inspiring or Ginrich is arrogant), therefore I will take 4 more years of what we just went through with Obama instead of that, or because of that!
No way.
Unemployment goes below 8, he has a chance. Otherwise not. I don’t care how it will be spun by the MSM. The day after the election we will know the truth.
The guy who said Santorum would not take PA, would in fact lose it 55-45…..
I live in PA. We went all Red in 2010. Obama will lose PA to almost anyone, especially a favorite son in Santorum.
Santorum cannot beat Obama. He’s just come out with a statement that demeans both Libertarians and the Tea Party. Hillbuzz has a piece up about his “issues” in his prior race, and it is not going to play well at all, nor should it.
We lost Sarah and Herman Cain for THIS????!!!!???
(Expletive here)
If you haven’t read it – it’s worth your time.
Why Rick Santorum’s Pennsylvania Residency Scam and School Tuition Fraud Still Matters — And Why He Can’t Be the Nominee Because of It – Hillbuzz
The key sentence, in which he expresses and intention to “vocally, publicly oppose” the Tea Party, is ambiguous. Was he saying he would oppose the Tea Parties, or only those in the Tea Parties who in his view are distorting conservatism?
Regardless, I find the dialogue troubling. I would describe myself as a “conservative with a libertarian streak,” and I think that description probably would be used by a lot of Tea Party supporters. If Santorum plans on fighting the influence of libertarianism in the conservative movement, then I don’t see how he is a Tea Party choice. – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
I’ll still vote for him if he’s the nominee, but holy crap, let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.
Conrad @3:55 & Don @4:08:
I agree with your comments, pretty much all of them. Karl Denninger had a good post about “wedge issues” awhile back. I’ve probably linked it before.
To The Tea Party (And Related Organizations)
Rose, you need to get a life….
Curtis,
Sometimes you have a first, second, and third choice that you find pretty acceptable and a few other choices you can’t stand. I see nothing wrong with weighing the electability of one through three as a way to avoid the terrible options. I’ve never agreed with a candidate on every single issue.
Another way to look at electabilty is the ability of a candidate to persuade others that he has some good points. This can be an important attribute in actual governing.
The social message wasn’t the issue. It was his spending and apparently big government attitudes. Most people when presented with an unbiased framing of the issue of gay marriage or abortion will recoil at the notion of forcing a left wing set of values upon children and the very young.
foxmarks @6:49 & Rose @7:26:
As a libertarian with a conservative streak, it has recently become very apparent to me that there are a lot of conservatives who absolutely despise libertarians. Needless to say, they will not get my vote under any circumstances.
The other day, Sarah Palin said “The GOP had better not marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters.”
That’s damned good advice. Will the GOP listen?
rickl,
Thanks for the link. I also think that wedge issues need a wide discussion outside the political arena, where there is more room for persuasion. Some of these issues are in shades of gray, and politics makes them into black and white. I think one reason social conservatism has gained in recent years is that activists on the other side allow them no freedom to think about difficult topics. They just push on with their demands.
expat:
Right. The social issues only became political issues because of the ever-increasing reach of the government into our daily lives. With a government that stayed within its constitutional limits, and a free-market economy, those issues would be hashed out among individuals, families, churches, and charities.
Rickl: “The other day, Sarah Palin said “The GOP had better not marginalize Ron Paul and his supporters.””
Won’t the Paul voters stay home if the candidate is not Paul, anyway?
I’d bet a large number would.
rickl:
Libertarian ideals tempered by experience into conservative policy is what I remember as Robert J. Ringer’s self-description a few years back. The “Looking Out for #1” author seems to be on the same territory as you and I. Thanks for reminding me (unintentionally) that I should take a look at Ringer’s site.
I heard that Palin quote. Napolitano is on board with RP. I just heard radio blowhard Jason Lewis making some pro-Paul noises. The narrative that he‘s a fringe crackpot is falling apart.
Maybe the best thing about Paul is how he jumbles the categories and begins to force people to think for themselves.
Lest this thread go all-Paul and make Mike Mc apoplectic, I can tie back to Santorum.
I realize I want a candidate with at least some “extreme” views. Everybody is extreme about something. (everybody except Romney…) To maintain an unpopular view shows conviction and implies and understand of what it is like to be marginalized, demeaned, disempowered and dismissed.
Santorum’s conviction on social issues is heartfelt, and I think comes across better than lefties and even some righties would like to admit. When he talks about that stuff, like in his Iowa victory speech, the sincerity is overwhelming. Honesty still plays in Peoria.
Santorum’s ability to be real might open some ears tired of Obama’s long-winded obfuscations.
Ed: The RP faction will vote, at least down-ballot. They’re demeaned as zealots. Zealots do not stay home.
God, I thought you meant Janet for a second there. :O
I don’t dislike Santorum. He seems like a decent guy, and doesn’t strike me as corrupt or evil. I would have a much easier time voting for him than Romney. I don’t think he would stand a chance against Obama, and social conservatism is simply irrelevant to our present predicament. We need a candidate who will fight for a restoration of the Constitution, the rule of law, and free enterprise above all else. Every other issue is secondary.
rickl says, “The social issues only became political issues because of the ever-increasing reach of the government into our daily lives. With a government that stayed within its constitutional limits, and a free-market economy, those issues would be hashed out among individuals, families, churches, and charities.”
Damn straight! That is the essence of the 9th & 10th amendments. DC has no legal authority to intervene in our daily lives. Unless we are in a declared war, no one should care the least who is president simply because DC is a distant swamp having no authority over our daily affairs.
The federal government is not the foundation of society. We the people; in our neighborhoods, townships, villages, cities, metropolises, and states (in that order of priority) are what constitutes society. For far too long we have allowed DC to stick its syphilitic nose into our daily affairs and beggar our grandchildren to pay tomorrow after tomorrow for the deficits of yesterday. We have reached the end of the road for can kicking.
So as a society we have to step by step put DC back into the box defined by the Constitution (after repealing a few amendments) or there will be a civil war reprise. I strongly favor the gradual approach because to war upon one another is not something to be undertaken except in the most dire circumstance; but as long as I breathe the air and can still line up the sights I am ready to exercise the cartridge box option if push comes to shove. I don’t think we’re there yet…. but ask me again after 2 more years of BHO & Harry Reid.
Ed Bonderenka:
Lately it’s occurred to me that the Republican candidate who would win the most votes among independents and disaffected Democrats is none other than Ron Paul.
Of course, he would lose the election since Republicans would stay home in droves. We’d see just how serious the “Anyone But Obama” people are.
After Obama? You have to absolutely be kidding.
Whew! I’ve read all the above, and am mightily discouraged by the petty negativity of the anti-Santorums. You all are supposed to be well-informed, but you sound like children of the MSM. Pontificating about electability is a pointless exercise, but it seems George Clooney would be a shoo-in were he to run for anything, based on what I’m reading here.
We’re all in this together, and, it seems, not for the better, but for the worse. Get it straight, people, and shoot at the enemy.
“After Obama? You have to absolutely be kidding.”
Doom,
Assuming (correctly or not, that your comment is directed at my last post) I conclude you must be young (well under 50). Correct me if I’m wrong, but you were not of voting age under Carter. I’m guessing you did not directly experience, as an adult, the cultural destruction of the 1965-1980 period. So I will grant you a bit of slack….
It is a terrible thing to fire the first shot of a civil war. In a civil war one will inevitably find his or herself pointing a gun at a sister, brother, uncle or aunt, niece or nephew, first or second cousin, or a neighbor. That is a tragic situation should it come down to such extreme circumstances. It is not something to be treated lightly or viewed superficially through ideological glasses. It is the last resort.
While I would vote for Santorum he would face an uphill battle due to what many Christians no longer accept – no birth control, no abortion, etc. As a devout orthodox (lower case ‘o’) Catholic, I am comfortable with his views. However, many people would consider them too extreme.
I think we need a fiscal conservative who is pro-life, but Santorum doesn’t quite fit the bill.
This talk of civil war doesn’t account for geopolitical divides that presage civil war.
What political body will fire on Ft Sumpter?
It won’t be the two coasts against the middle.
Whoever fires the first shot will be hung for sedition.
As an example. Along with the man who encouraged him.
I can understand a collapse of society, but it won’t be a civil war. Where would the lines be drawn?
Ergo, we stand and fight now. At the ballot box.
Just my 2 cents here. I don’t always vote Republican, but I really want to vote against Obama.
Still, if Santorum is the Republican candidate I will sit it out. I’m libertarian at heart, and would be much more likely to vote for Romney, who weirdly even as a mormon seems less religious than Santorum.
Dan:
See my above. We agree about the voting.
Even though a Pillar of The Church (more like a Flying Buttress – see Pat Monyhan), I judge that too much religion is just as bad as no religion at all. We don’t need the period of The Religious Wars during The Reformation.
Social conservatism has, imo, two components. One is the moral component and arguing about that is probably fruitless. The other is the results argument…and arguing about that is probably fruitless because one side or the other will claim it’s about the moral component and you’re a hater/somekindofphobe.
Results are the kind of thing we see when we have so many single mothers raising kids in a disfunctional culture made more disfunctional by the kids raised by single mothers.
Welfare is infantilizing and turns people into dependents with short gratification delay.
SSM weakens the institution of marriage in general. Years ago, discussing this on another blog, I was challenged to come up with a cite that opponents of marriage thought SSM might help their cause.
That’s a bloggy tactic, because if you don’t come up with a cite, you’re a liar. I was wondering whether it was worth it, and somebody else did.
Six of the ten commandments are about organizing society–stealing is not only morally wrong, it makes a healthy, functioning society difficult, for example.
So I sympathize with social conservatism and in some cases think laws are appropriate. But I’m a realist and I know how the ratchet works.
As somebody said, the problem is not Obama. He’ll be gone in a year, more or less, or five years for certain.
What won’t be gone is that in the last election a majority of the population voted for him and they’ll still be here. Whether Obama wins or not, the motivation and the worldview of his voters are a permanent part of our nation and so…we’re screwed.
@Dan,
Sitting it out is the same as voting for Obama.
Is a 2nd term of Obama better than a President Santorum?
@ Richard Aubrey: Nailed it.
@ Good Ole Charlie: As for “too much religion”, I don’t think Santorum would insist we all go to mass. Your faith (or “religion”) informs your morals.
The left has a faith (a “religion”), they just don’t claim it out loud.
But it informs their morals. You betcha.
The whole religious standing, pro-life, highly moral thing is a dodge. When the people elect a majority in congress that wants abortion laws changed (as with prohibition, abolition, civil rights, etc.) it will happen. After the Supreme Court is brought in line.
Not because a president wants it.
The clincher is what he will sign.
@ rickl: And I would use three close pins and pull the lever for Paul over Obama.
Although I wouldn’t equate him with Obama in the sense some do Mitt (equally liberal), I think he might be as dangerous to the nation. But what could we lose that we’re not losing with Obama?
“the relative extremism of his social conservatism”
I know many who celebrate that we are liberated from Judaic and Christian morality, those nasty (in their opinion), totalizing religions. I certainly hope that all the children of Democrats are homosexual, adulterous, have blended “marriages” with multiple progenitors (once called “fathers” and “mothers” by those nasty sexist antifeminist religions), enjoy massive recreational drug use, etc. etc. Ah, the joys of the ’60s!
I think it comes down to this (for me): You don’t go into an election with the electorate you want; you go into it with the electorate you’ve got. If it’s clear that a crucial segment of the voters are firmly disinclined to vote for my own preferred candidate due to her personal attributes (e.g., Palin) or his stances on certain issues (e.g., Santorum), then I can’t realistically expect the candidate to educate and enlighten those turned-off voters on top of everything else s/he must do in running a successful campaign. Of course, this assumes that it’s a must-win election: If I’m content to lose this time around in the hope of building toward a gradual erosion of the electorate’s fears and prejudices, then that’s another matter.
Incidently, this is one of my problems with Sarah Palin after 2008. Clearly, she needed to use 2009-2011 to erase the public’s image of her as an intellectual lightweight who only rose to national prominence on account of her sex appeal. Well, she ignored my advice, evidently, choosing to do reality TV and focusing on ingratiating herself further with her existing supporters rather than creating new ones. If Sarah had done more of the difficult work involved in rehabilitating her public image after 2008, she may well have been in a position to be president of the United States, not just president of the Sarah Palin Fan Club.
I take your point, Expat, and use it to “de-extreme” my position. Yes, of course, a person also has the right to consider electibility. The problem arises when the first requirement becomes electibility. That gives us our current problem with only Republican establishment candidates carrying the blessing of electibility. And the people are damn well tired of it and have shown they hate the apparatus forcing their vote; and that matter then becomes the matter which decides the general election because as we sprial around kicking candidates, we lose the good ones or the good ones refuse to run. If the Republican apparatus, the Karl Rove and George Will and the other boys, had supported the people’s choices, like Angle and Palin, what would have happened?
It’s time for the Republican apparatus to respect what the Founder’s respected: that the free choice of the people is the best guard on the liberties and freedoms, both positive and negative, set forth in the Constitution. If that source no longer supplies representatives that defend the Constitution, then the queen of our Republic has been taken and its a defensive and almost impossible war to win against the Left. And so the Republican apparatus offends and belittles the very source, context and fund of their own power.
It may very well be a time for a new party.
I don’t mean to keep flogging the Ron Paul topic, but I just saw this article at American Thinker: Ron Paul Supporters Are Worth Talking to Amicably
The author says that the tension between conservatives and libertarians goes all the way back to the framing of the Constitution.
A few of the commenters vehemently disagree, which reinforces some of the things I said here last night. Evidently some conservatives are more interested in purging the GOP of libertarian influence than in defeating Obama.
@rickl: Conservatism is by degrees. So is Libertarian.
I can’t go with pro-homosexual, pro-drug, pro-prostitution, etc. And to not object to those positions is to agree to them.
Smaller government, constitutionalism, yeah.
No treaties with allies or military activity to protect our worldwide commercial interests? Not so much.
But in comparison to Obama? Three clothespins. Maybe four.
And Gingrich could win if Santorum and Perry dropped out. The real problem with the field is we don’t have a clear choice of someone who can reverse the harm Obama and years of bad policies have done to our democratic republic. Romney will probably be the candidate and if he is I hope he wins but I don’t expect him to do much good. I think on day one he will begin running for office in the vote four years later. I do not think he will work hard to reverse Obama care or dramatically reduce government budgets and the numbers of federal employees. Under Mitt the EPA will still be destroying our country and the unions will still be extorting employers. All of the Republicans are simply Obama “light” and a George Washington or Thomas Jefferson is no where in sight. We are doomed the only question is who will be in office when we collapse.
In other words, you anticipate disaster either way.
If you are right, nothing is gained by supporting Romney. Therefore, if you believe what you say, there is non reason for you to support Romney now.
If you are wrong, Obama, and disaster, win by default and without a fight.
I do not see the logic, or the virtue for that matter – in fact especially the virtue – in avoiding a possible good in favor of a certain evil.
Now that I think of it, Socrates made that same argument at his trial. He said he would never fear a possible good if the alternative was a certain evil.
He was right then (2400 years ago) and the same thinking is right now.
There are important distinctions between Romney as unknown and Obama as known. Indifference in the matter is the same thing a being Pro-Obama as I see it.
The post above is mine. I put @GoneWith… in the wrong line. Sorry.
I doesn’t matter who runs against Obama. Even Ronald Reagan would lose because George Soros, ACORN the SEIU and others who made billions stealing the equity of the American Home Owner and are the supporters of the Occupiers already have the mechanism in place to steal the election from the American People and ensure Obama’s re-election. They will then go to town dismantling the Constitution, Democracy and private ownership of anything; and if they think they can get away with it they may rescind the 2 term limit for the Presidency. At first they will use the media to control the masses (when Marx said Religion is the opiate of the masses, he hadn’t seen TV yet) making great declarations in the name of freedom while propagandizing through idiotic music (Lady Ga Ga) and sitcoms (chose one) . Freedom to them means a limit on children per family and the taking of those children by the State for educational purposes at the age of five where they will be taught “Two Legs Bad, Four Legs Good”. This new attitude will be forced on the public through a mutated form of Sharia Law that, although it punishes Christians and Jews it accepts the homosexual, feminist, environmentalist agenda and enforces it through the use of the new Defense Act recently signed by Obama whereby if you are deemed an “Enemy of the State” you can be arrested and held without charge or being tried (Rome under the Caesars put the Christians and Jews to death as “Enemies of the State”, “Radicals” and “Religious Zealots”). Now who will come forward to defend the Constitution and the Morals that it is based on? All through the history of Israel and Christianity it has been the “Zealots” who came forward to protect the morals and natural law that our freedom is based on. Moses, Gideon, Yesuha, Simon Bar Kochba, Saint Peter, Saint Paul, Saint Valentinius, Constantine, Charles Martel, El Cid, The Knights Templar, King Jan Kobieski, Martin Luther, Sir Thomas More, The Vendee of France, etc. All this led to the founding of this Republic and its Constitution based in the Natural Law draw from the Law of Moses. As an example of what may be coming you may want to read up on how King John tried to destroy the Magna Carta, the fore runner of English Common Law and our Constitution, after he was forced to sign it by the Barons with the backing of the Knights Templar in 1215. John needed Rochester Castle to control England’s coast but it belonged to Arch Bishop Langton who would not cede the castle to him. The castle was defended by 20 barons and a contingent of Knights Templar. John led a 1000 man army of pagan Danes and stormed the castle with trebuchet and siege towers but the castle held until the French arrived to chase John into hiding where he died of dysentery and the Magna Carta was preserved. We may be headed for just such a battle only it will be hopefully of words where a small contingent of “Zealots” will hold on to the core of our values until the left makes it so evident what their real intentions are that the people will again turn to those with a moral footing and restore the Natural Law to center of the Constitution.
My prediction is Perry’s fortunes will rise because of Ron Paul attacking Santorum and Newt attacking Romney.
“I can’t go with pro-homosexual, pro-drug, pro-prostitution, etc. And to not object to those positions is to agree to them.”
I disagree about tacit consent, but grant that point for the sake of argument.
There are many ways to object and obstruct behaviors one finds antisocial/antisociety. The Constitution removes the fight about social order from the FedGov to the people and the States, respectively. I suggest more progress will be made against societal threats if the pro-order (conservative) influence is local.
When I am thinking about having an abortion or trying PCP, what the FedGov says and what the laws is are distant and muted influences. What my parents, friends and social circle say are what will motivate my choice. The FedGov is the weakest agency to change minds on personal moral matters. You may have picked the right battle, but you’re in the wrong battlespace.
I have real personal experience seeing how Palin’s choice for life over convenience (with Trig) made someone reconsider about her own choices. Santorum is doing the same for others. They lead by example, not by law, and have an untold influence. Their acts follow their words and inspire virtue, where law would only generate rebellion.
@ Foxmarks: I can’t disagree with what you say, but when forces whose direction “I” consider wrong for America are fighting on the national front because they may not win locally (Roe v Wade), I want resistance on a national front.
So, the majority of people here seem to recommend ‘safe” Mitt–Paul is a nut job–at least most of you think so, and wisely, Santorum is too conservative and all religious, Newt is blobby, conceited, and mean, Perry just too much of an inarticulate hick, and many of you are saying that if your guy isn’t the nominee, then, you are taking your marbles and going home, and will not vote.
Just yesterday I saw a clip of Huckaby in which he totally, calmly and very matter of factly, destroyed Romney by describing Mitt as the “Denny’s” candidate, and described him this way: You don’t want to go to a fancy restaurant, don’t want to get dressed up or pay a lot of money, but you know if you go to Denny’s the food is half-way decent, you don’t have to dress up, and the cost will be cheap. Then Huckaby went on to say that Mitt has just been hanging around forever, and he is like the “bean dip” at Denny’s that you always know will be right there at the end of the table.
My question is this, what if lackluster Mitt–very similar in his lack of appeal to McCain last time– is so “safe” and so dull that he cannot generate enough interest and enthusiasm to win the general election.?
Seems to me, “electibility” is about discerning which republican can best withstand the s— storm from media. It’s a paramount issue precisely because the press is so corrupt. And the man most qualified to be President isn’t neccessarily the most qualified to brave the obstacle course to get there.
What I dread about Mitt’s candidacy is when a reporter finally asks him about whether he truly believes some Mormon Doctrine that the majority of American electorate is unaware of.
He will be forced to deny his religion, or look weird to those who don’t believe that doctrine.
Of course Obama was never held to his church’s (Jeremiah Wright’s) doctrine, but that’s something we have no control over.
Santorum taking his stillborn child home for mourning will look normal by comparison.
I wish Santorum looked better in a debate/interview format, but he looks stiff and defensive Perhaps that can be unlearned.
“”What I dread about Mitt’s candidacy is when a reporter finally asks him about whether he truly believes some Mormon Doctrine””
Ed
To which he should reply “I’ll accept and answer such questions when the candidate from the opposition party is similarly obliged”.
Ed B: Here’s some info on that.
I agree SteveH, and thanks Neo.
And I would not hold Mitt’s Mormonism against him.
Glenn Beck is a Mormon (although I’m not a Beckite).
When I hear Beck talk, he almost evangelical.
A George Barna survey a few years ago showed that there were more “self-described” born-again Mormons than Episcopalians (saved by faith in Christ’s atonement).
I’m an evangelical, and I’d vote for Romney.
But those questions would be there as in the article Neo referred.
I have no choice in who the candidate will be except by financial contribution and (mostly ignored) published support. If you call my blog, FB and comments “published”.
That relegates me to holding my nose and voting.
My husband manages a team of employees that happens to include a significant number of evangelical Christians.
He says that many of the evangelicals have expressed strong opposition to Mitt because of the Mormon factor.
FWIW.
Ed: Agreed. Defense of life is a Federal issue.
I was just doing my own research for what might happen when Big Media “discovers” Mormonism. LDS history begs for Romney to be painted as a racist, with a prejudice so deep he cannot see it. There are a several other weirdnesses that will distract from whatever Mitt’s message is.
Most startling to me was discovering that the Book of Mormon includes American exceptionalism. I wrote that Romney’s vision is not to bring America back to the Founders, but back to God.
The Book also purportedly favors a monarchy, which dovetails with my beef about Mitt being a 1% elitist ruling class guy. He has a faith suited for a king.
“”He says that many of the evangelicals have expressed strong opposition to Mitt because of the Mormon factor.””
CV
I believe you’d be hard pressed to find Christians of any sort who wouldn’t vote for Romney if it means ousting Obama.
The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.
Both liberals and social conservatives hold a common view which is that government has a large role to play. For the social conservative it’s setting the role for morality as their religion defines it, but it has a small role in regulating businesses. For the liberal, it’s for helping people achieve social goals and to protect them from the perceived excess of businesses. For this reason, since the liberal goals on the surface appears more gentle and altruistic, an independent would more easily approve of those goals than those of a social conservative. Hence Santorum loses to Obama.