Getting to know Santorum
Rick Santorum’s surge doesn’t puzzle me. It’s his turn at being the non-Romney frontrunner. By saying that I don’t mean to put him down, but it’s hard to avoid the pattern that’s been emerging: Romney is the supposed “annointed one” by the “Republican establishment,” with each other candidate taking his (or her; remember Bachmann?) turn in the limelight as his foil, only to be replaced after a while by the next in line.
One of them may end up having staying power, because Romney doesn’t seem to be catching on. Or, Romney will manage to remain as the last man standing. None of this bodes well for November of 2012. But it also remains true that a lot more will be happening before then that we cannot foresee, and which is bound to affect the outcome.
But back to Santorum. I prefer him to Gingrich, but Santorum’s own problem in the general is obvious: he is an extreme social conservative. Santorum actually has said things that indicate he does want to get into your bedroom: for example, it’s hard to see how this sort of thing would be well-received by most American voters.
Santorum tries to make it clear in the following interview that his anti-contraception stand is a personal choice, and that he would not try to impose it on the country. But he goes on and on at such length about how contraception is bad for people (not just himself) that it’s difficult to believe views like this wouldn’t alarm most listeners:
There are other problems with Santorum that I described in this post. But if I’m looking at him and evaluating him as an ABO candidate (which I am), it’s the extremity of his social conservatism that really raises the alarm for his chances of winning a general election against Obama. He’s provided the opposition with a field day of sound bites to be used against him.
Neoneocon,
You and I do not agree on Romney/Gingrich, but we do wholeheartedly agree on Santorum. Santorum reminds me of the fears back in 1960 (when JFK was running as the first Catholic presidential contender) that if JFK was elected, this country would be controlled by the pope.
In Santorum’s case, I’m know that’s still an exaggeration, but he strikes me as precisely the opposite of what I seek. I seek a fiscal conservative, essentially a social libertarian and preferably a small govt candidate (I’ve given up on the last with any of the three running). Still, if Santorum were the nominee, I would still gladly vote ABO.
As I’ve said on your site before, the worst failings of any of the Republican candidates are still orders of magnitude superior to the putrid “best” that the Obama administration has to offer. When considering federal judicial appointments (among other issues), I think it’s crucial that we all remember that.
Neoneocon,
And one additional issue, if I may. I think it’s also important to keep in mind that Santorum’s more extreme version of social conservatism will be tempered by a congress that does not share such views even if both houses are Republican majorities.
Do not play not to lose. Play to win. You already believe Repubs are hugely at risk of losing. How does playing not to lose help a competitor who is already trailing in the game? Here is what helps: play to win.
Repubs are going to win, and they should still play to win. Shift the national conversation towards small government. Create that mandate. Play to win.
Certainly a social conservative faces obstacles but he may take heart that recently a conservative socialist broke the barrier. It may be that with an electorate the vast middle of which is muddled and without criteria, doctrinaires may slip through — we have the precedent.
The social conservative “problem” may be one that doesn’t actually swing that many votes. Progressives and other libertines aren’t going to vote for Santorum anyway. I suspect the squishy middle actually prefers some social conservatism, even if the popular culture doesn’t let them say so out loud.
What I want to know, listening to his CPAC speech, is when Santorum discovered this luv for the TEA people? I find his attempt to pick up that mantle a little silly (and a little shrewd).
Santorum might motivate the Dem/Prog enthusiasts to campaign harder. But he could do the same for down-ballot conservatives who share some of his social views. Rick v. Barry could be highly energized, since the social stuff gets peoples’ blood up much better than the boring old problem of the FedGov being bankrupt.
First my disclaimer: I’ve stated in past posts that although I tend to think Romney is the better option, I’ve been willing to support either Romney or Gingrich. See here , here , and here . I now extend the same view to Santorum. My hope has been, and continues to be, that we get rid of Obama, and replace him with someone who can rescind Obamacare, and restore this country to a rational course.
But let me suggest the following:
There is, among others, one very good reason to believe that Romney is the best choice to beat Obama. In the midst a the campaign season that has taken so many twists and turns, Romney has remained the one constant factor. By which I mean, he has come back again and again. Others have had their moments: Bachman, Perry, Gingrich, now Santorum. They came, shone brightly for a moment, and for a moment appeared to overtake Romney, before falling away and disappearing. Romney, despite setbacks, has come back every time and overcome each upstart, and remained in the race.
I’m sure some will say that this has to do with Romney’s advantage of having money, or of his support from some supposed GOP “insiders.” And certainly his money is important, as is the support of certain important people. But surely, it also has to do with Romney’s own personal attributes as well. I mean, the man is like Energizer bunny which appeared in commercials so many years ago: he just keeps on going and going. He keeps on being competitive even when briefly overcome, and comes back to overtake his rivals.
If you are looking to win in 2012, I would suggest that this competitiveness is exactly what will win against Obama.
Obama-Bachman 2012
Arrgggg….
I meant Romney-Bachman.
Read Peter Suderman’s article ( http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/08/consultant-in-chief) on Mitt’s experience as a high level management consultant. He can’t escape this and it shows on the platform. He will always come across as an emotionless accommodater.
Santorum is a TBC (True Believing Catholic) but Mitt is a TBM (True Believing Mormon). The Mormon Church officially discourages members from debating the Mormon teachings in non-missionary venues. So Mitt will try to deflect the coming barrage of Anti-Mormon questions from the MSM and WH. At least the Catholic stuff has been beaten to death over the years.
On the other hand why not have someone who is a strong believer talk about that? We’ve let the left set the agenda on social issues and what have the results been? The MSM convinces us that a religious conservative is always a threat. I voted for Joe Lieberman in the last elections (First Democrat I ever voted for due to his position on Terrorism and the War). He’s a conservative Jew, so What?
Santorum will never withstand the onslaught of the left. His social conservative views will see him chewed to pieces by the lame stream media, including the late night comedians. He was targeted by the Democrats in 2006 and lost big-time, partly due to inept campaigning. I’d support him, but the Democrats will be salivating at the prospect of Obama running against Santorum.
So is he going to ban birth-control devices and outlaw unmarried sex? If not, I don’t really care what stupid, superstitious ideas he has, if he defeats “Il Dufe” in November.
foxmarks: the “squishy middle” doesn’t want anybody in its bedroom, and being against contraception (even though Santorum says he wouldn’t impose this) sounds way too close for comfort, even for that middle group.
Pingback:» Can you say … - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
The idea that Santorum now thinks he is a Tea Partier is ludicrous coming from a man who mocked the Tea Party. If you want another Blamer-in-Chief, elect Santorum. If you want someone who talks your conservative talk, elect Santorum. If you want someone who walks the walk, elect Romney. If you want someone who says: ““We’re not looking for a chief executive officer. We’re looking for a commander in chief,” elect Santorum. If you think what this country needs is someone with a vast knowledge and experience in an executive role, who has the skillset needed to get the country back on track, elect Romney.
And if you are wondering why Romney was the first to be outfront on the contraception mandate issue, remember that the LDS church has self-insured since the ’80s and has covered everyone (and their dependents to age 26 since 1994) who works for any company owned by the church, whether the employee is Mormon or not. Obamacare/Federal law overrides self-insuring, which is one reason the Catholic church is not jumping at any so-called “compromise.” If you question whether Romney has very good reasons to get Obamacare repealed on financial grounds, you can bet he has grounds on church ones.
neo-neocon: exactly.
Santorum is going to scare people. or seem to focused on issues we prefer to remain personal.
If he’s the nominee I think a lot of voters will prefer the devil they know.
As an educated, conservative woman, I can tell you I would have hard time supporting Santorum. I would vote for him over Obama, but I know he would lose. Most women I know would NOT vote for him. His Socon stuff is too over the top, and he is no fiscal con. I don’t think most women would vote for Newt either, but would vote for Romney. I think Romney is our only chance at beating Obama, but I’m not sure he can do it either. Depressing!
It’s getting really hard for me to avoid full-blown despondency over this election.
Rick will be rolled.
Put a fork in him.
——
Mitt is far from my favorite…
But he’s the last RINO standing.
Rick isn’t even a fiscal conservative — at all.
Making him even more un-electable than Mitt.
neo: Nobody wants the law to apply to themselves. 🙂 Contraception is not one of the issues Santorum is famous for. I have trouble imaging many will think it matters, compared to defining marriage and criminalizing abortion.
Those two topics will consume all the “social conservative” oxygen and ink. If Santorum gets the nomination…
Hi neo-neocon —
I left a long, very personal comment at your post Newt: a trip back in time.” When I clicked “submit comment,” it disappeared, apparently forever. I sent you an email asking about it, which apparently astray also. In all honesty, the comment was probably too long anyway. And of course, it was pro-Newt, and perhaps you didn’t want to publish it. And it is your blog. ANYway….
I read your discussion of Santorum today. The concerns about whether Santorum is conservative, how conservative, et cetera, are not the thing that to me seems most important. The situation, it seems to me, is much more urgently coming to a crisis than those questions take into account.
To me, the key is that for — what 50 years? 80 years? 95 years? the Left has been infiltrating our institutions — the Courts, the schools, the universities, the federal agencies, the media, the book reviewers; I mean, you name it, the Left has been infiltrating it.
You have discussed this phenomenon here at neo-neocon. This is part of what is so dangerous about the Left’s assault on America and American liberties and prosperity. It’s a constant listing, like a ship that has lost its buoyancy. Always, Left, Left, Left. Always under the readar. Always denied when confronted directly. Add political correctness, so people are afraid to say things, even true things. A constant drift. A change in one law, then another. A lowering of the standard for lawful behavior on the part of the White House, then another. An undermining here, then there.
I met a man who had, after years of struggle and waiting and living by his wits, gotten permission to leave the old Soviet Union with his immediate family. When he first applied to leave, the Soviets had him fired from his job. For the ten ensuing years, he worked at any small job he could find and continued to try to get permission to leave. He finally did. I don’t know how.
I was involved at that time with the EACH ONE TEACH ONE literacy campaign. This has to be 1980 or thereabouts. They assigned me to tutor this man’s mother, so that she could learn English. She spoke only Russian. The truth is, I’m not sure she was all that eager to learn English. And my tutoring skills were not strong enough to help her very much, I’m afraid. I had been trained to help and illiterate person who already spoke English.
But one day, after her lesson, the son took me into the kitchen and made me a cup of tea. And he was pretty worked up. I did not understand his level of upset. He said that American do not understand our peril. He said to watch what the Soviets do. He kept saying that they do it the same way every time. They do it the same way every time. I didn’t understand, but I perceived his energy and concern. I thought I had better educate myself.
I began to research what this man might have meant. I read books. It becasme an ongoing interest. I saw what he meant.
After the internet began, I came across the now well-known video of ex-KGB defector. Yuri Bezmenov: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=bezmenov&aq=f
I found material about Communist goals in America: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1561529/posts. I’m sure that by now, this material is probably well-known to you and to readers here at neo-neocon.
I’m writing all this to say that the depredations of the Left, especially in this most recent iteration of the Obama administration, have pulled out Republic badly off its foundations.
To elect someone, even someone like Mitch Daniels, for example, who is considered , apparently , by many, as a really excellent candidate for president if only we could get him, would, IMO, simply provide the setting for more disaster. The Left is ALREADY running too much of our government. The EPA is ALREADY staffed with people who are eager to tell the American People everything we can and cannot do. The Courts ALREADY hire you clerks from the Ivy schools who write drafts of opinions for the non-conservative Justices that lean Left and Left and Left.
The only candidate with a plan that addresses this issue in Newt. In Newt’s speech at 2012 CPAC, it is all there. The plan through which the American People will restore our country to the foundations of our Constitutional Republic. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/newt-gingrich-full-speech-cpac-2012-15558504
I realize you don’t like Newt. I can respect that. I think possibly I can even understand it. There was a time (although I liked Newt very much in the 90’s) in the earlier 2000’s that I didn’t like Newt either and I had totally, with repugnance, written Newt off. But after MUCH research, I now support Newt whole heartedly.
I also respect that we each have our right to choose, and we each must do our best with the question of which candidate to support.
All I am asking is that you give Newt a chance to explain to you the (IMO AWESOME AND WORKABLE PLAN) plan, the proposals NEwt is making so that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE can restore our country. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/newt-gingrich-full-speech-cpac-2012-15558504
If we team up behind this plan, The American People will have a FIGHTING CHANCE to get back our prosperity, strength and freedoms.
The Left, especially this administration is trying to set the stage for permanent decay of the United States. If we team up, we are stronger than the Establishment and the Left (but I repeat myself). If we are smart, we can restore our country.
It’s not about Newt. It’s about the American People and the future. Please at least find out for yourself.
Thanks for letting me participate in your forum.
It posted ! thank you !
btw , a lot of the original, lost post, was how much I love neo-necon and why — the dance, the music posts.
If you can find that post, I would love to see it if you would feel like publishing it.
I wish I had copied it before I clicked “submit comment”!
all the best, neo-neocon, and thank you for your blog, that has enriched my life so much.
foxmarks: Santorum’s not famous for it now.
But mark my words, if he’s the nominee: he will be famous for it.
And not in a good way.
neo: If so, the national debate would be even more vigorous/hysterical than I expect. It would shuffle the factions and their alliances. Great for bloggers and commenters, at least.
Right on the money, Neoneocon. That interview that you linked to was absolutely incredible. His views were so extreme that the reporter admitted that he was “freaked out.” If a veteran reporter (even one who is probably a liberal, just based on who he works for) had that reaction, a lot of other people will too. If Santorum is the nominee, we’ll hear nothing but contraception, women in the military (or anywhere else that is not in the home), homosexuality (and things like polygamy and bestiality that Santorum has compared it to), etc. I think Obama would win in a landslide. Maybe not as big a landslide as he would defeat Gingrich, but a landslide nonetheless. Frankly, Santorum’s views on a lot of social issues are Neanderthalic. And a lot of Republicans don’t seem to understand that even if they aren’t that concerned about it, a lot of independents will be. I’m not saying Romney is a great candidate either, but he has the best chance to win. I know his numbers have been falling lately, but I don’t think it’s irreversible. If he wins, attention will go back to Obama’s terrible record. And a big part of the reasons that his numbers have fallen is because of these “conservatives” who apparently think that winning an election isn’t important. I am so disgusted with the Republican party right now.
Frankly, Santorum’s views on a lot of social issues are Neanderthalic.
Right back to the 1980’s.
Are we really progressing?
Sarah is getting better. Her delivery and substance is almost without equal.
http://news.investors.com/Article/600932/201202130822/sarah-palin-cpac.htm
His views were so exteme that JFK and LBJ thought they were AOK.
Santorum is not a classical liberal (aka conservative). IMO to be a conservative means one supports the concept that government intrusion into the affairs of society/individuals must be kept to an absolute minimum. The bottom line is Santorum as the nominee would assure a BHO landslide.
Santorum is not a classical liberal, that’s true in his economic values, but, realistically, how many Obama socialists of today would find that any other thing than appealing.
Santorum does not appeal to those who reject biblical and traditional norms. He actually has an ironic broad appeal to social conservatives and “less than ‘liberal’ (in the Parker sense) liberals.
“Santorum is not a classical liberal, that’s true in his economic values, but, realistically, how many Obama socialists of today would find that any other thing than appealing.
Santorum does not appeal to those who reject biblical and traditional norms. He actually has an ironic broad appeal to social conservatives and “less than ‘liberal’ (in the Parker sense) liberals.”
Curtis,
Santorum is definitely not a fiscal conservative, this is verified by his record as a senator, and makes me automatically disfavor him as a candidate. However, the battle is not won or lost by those who are ideologically dem or repub come hell or high water. The battle is decided by how the majority of the ‘independents’ vote.
This demographic decides who wins and who loses. And I can guarantee you that this group is extremely leery of anyone like Santorum. If someone like Santorum is at the head of the ticket the independents will vote BHO or stay home. Either way, America loses.
That’s been my thinking, although I find it ironic that Santorum could be characterized as “someone” like Santorum.
Oh for those good ole days of ducking and thou-shalt-go-to-Church.
Isn’t it kind of ridiculous, that is, the fear the left has of the supposed puritan right? What exactly do they expect Santorum and us to do? Back to girdles and skirts down to the ankles? Exactly, how long ago, were the puritans available? Don’t most conservatives hail the Founders who were quite removed from puritans?
Girdles are probably more popular with men these days!
I’m just a crackpot voice in the wilderness, but Santorum’s worldview isn’t that weird. It is easier to believe that somebody thinks contraception is wrong, but legal, than to believe every child should have two daddies.
The difference is about what is “normal” and what is “permissible”. Flyover country can live with the coastal freakshows, as long as they aren’t compelled to follow the same path of depravity. We know those heathen Bostonians cannot be saved, but the law shouldn’t encourage sin in Nebraska Flats.
To each his own but Santorum’s main focus seems to be on social issues not fiscal ones. 75% or so of voters want someone who can get our economy back on track and Santorum is not even remotely close to being on the same par as Newt Gingrich. I think Santorum is sexist and arrogant but would support him anyway because that wouldn’t necessarily hinder the ability to have good ideas but he doesn’t seem to have any. Gingrich has the vision and the resume and that’s who I think is best to get our country out of this disastrous mess.
One thing that really concerns me is the perception of electability as I’ve read many posts. Thus far, in exit polls after primary voting, electability has been as important as the economy and jobs.
BUT, what so many seem to forget, or do not consider, is the question of electability must be electability in the voting population as a whole. At present we are seeing Republican primaries. Many have been caucauses which have turned out the strongly conservative usually. I believe New Hampshire is one state that allows an Independent to vote in either primary (i.e. if the incumbent is finishing his second term, both parties will run primaries) — but only one primary: Democrat or GOP. Most of the other primary contests will be decided by registered party members, so assessing who “is winnng” within the Party very likely will not reflect the same results were Independents casting votes in all the primaries as well.
Independents — a growing number as members of both parties become disenchanted with their own — are absolutely needed to win the Presidency. No Ifs, Ands, or Buts. And so we are walking a very thin line when we are deciding who our nominee will be. That is, if we really want to take back the White House.
I think Santorum has a “nice guy” image. Personally when he plays the “me too” attack game, I just don’t think it suits him. (Sorry, it makes me laugh sometimes (not in a mean way) but it’s just so obvious his handlers/coaches/managers have just reminded him he has to attack, too to be accepted as tough enough for the job.) To me, it just comes off looking silly. I could no more consider him seriously for the job of President, precisely because he is extreme on social issues and is not so in fiscal matters. The last thing this country needs right now is an extreme on either end of the Left-Right spectrum because we will just find ourselves (the country) in the same position: stymied, because neither side will give in to extreme positions on legislation. And we also don’t want a President who continues to do end-runarounds that which he cannot get Congress to legislate, and use executive orders to further his agenda, even when it’s wrong to do so — which is a whole other topic of discussion.
As I’ve said a no. of times before here, Newt’s history and impulsiveness and maybe his compulsiveness, too would repel many voters who are disenchanted with the current state of affairs with Obama, but don’t want a loose cannon in the White House. The guy lies outright about his rivals, and his mood and level of vitriol are not worth a coin toss on any given day. He also operates purely in keeping with the mantra of “Do as I say; not as I do.” These are many of the reasons Republicans withdrew support of him in the 90’s after which he was forced to resign. (How many of you believed that whopper of his when he said he left because “there were so many other things he want to do with his life?” (Yeah, like getting down to really important business of divorcing one wife and remarrying the next..)
My main point is that Newt can spout ideas like volcanoes spout lava. Some red hot; some ice cold. In either case, he cannot institute all of them. He has to assemble a group which he is supposed to lead and manage. That is where Newt consistently has problems: working with others. He does not play nicely. He would have a tough time just within the party. But this reputation of his is no secret, and there is no Newt — the curtain was pulled on that act some weeks ago and he is who he is. And he can mention those beloved grandchildren of his everyday all day long. It doesn’t change him or his ability to get things done — today, now where both parties must find some place where they will even just TALK to one another, let alone work with each other to accomplish the many things that need doing.
We don’t need a talker, a promiser, a rhetorical phenom. We got that last time — we may not have voted for him but a whole lot of people did and swallowed his Kool-Aid to the last drop. And how has that worked out? (That was my own rhetoric in the form of a question. I don’t need podiums and teleprompters, and the MSM to repeat it so it has legitimacy.) The answer is obvious, of course.
What we need is a DO-er. Someone who can get into the White House, assemble teams, allocate responsibilities, motivate, and get things chugging along ASAP! And then he will evaluate, re-assign, make changes as necessary in an ever-changing country and ever-changing world.
Someone above spoke of Romney as a “Consultant” and referenced an article — which didn’t impress me all that much because it was paragraphs and pages of saying the same thing over and over, but just briefly mentioning accomplishments like stepping in to save the Olympics in the midst of a scandal. A greater scandal by far would have been the U.S., having been awarded the Olympics and not being able to present them! He got it down. I don’t care if he keeps lists, if he has assistants who keep lists, if he has a photographic memory, whatever. I DO care that he gets things done.
Do I think he needs to start focusing on real ideas of how he is thinking of approaching different challenges? Sure. Let Newt and Santorum keep attacking with their holier-than-thou (maybe more-conservative-than-thou is better) criticisms. Maybe Newt is not the man he was in the early 90’s — some 2 decades ago. But he’s sure shown us in just a few months that is most definitely not the changed candidate who can do, who can accomplish. He’s shown us that he is so easily distracted from important business at hand when he is criticized, that he fall to pieces. Santorum hasn’t proved he can really do anything except stand back and let the others step over each other — hoping he’ll be last man standing. But his history in office indicates he was good at one thing: bringing home pork to his state. What else. How does one see his extreme conservatism for some things, and not for others represent him as a capable man able to do the job of President of the U.S.? I just don’t see it — in his temperament, in his breadth of knowledge, in hands-on managerial leadership…..It’s just not there. He’s not a bad guy. I’m still trying to understand how he’s running for President. And maybe it’s great irony, but I think many who have been voting for him have done so because of what they DO NOT know about him, i.e. he’s different from the other candidates. That was the heart and soul of Obama’s campaign — we didn’t know him…but we do now.
Whatever, you decide, please try to expand your perception of who is electable, not just within the parameters of the GOP, but in the BIG TIME — the final election for President. I think that has to be passed on to everyone we all know. Politics is all about strategy, and if we don’t think and perform strategically, we don’t have a chance.
ABO is a whole hell of a lot of motivation, and something to really get excited about, but we need to maximize our chances for success by coming together and thinking of which candidate is acceptible to each of our requirements (which can differ greatly) but who also will appeal to Independents…and maybe some liberals (like left of center liberals) who are quite disaffected at present with a man who made promises as he travelled thru all 57 states (just kidding) — promises that could never have been kept.
I cringe everytime I hear a candidate promise: “On my first day I will…” blah, blah, blah… No one knows what will be on their first day, or second or third. And, if elected, they will be privvy to much more knowledge, than on those days promises were made. So listen more for what each candidate proposes to do, and consider whether it is realistic or not based on what you learn of what they have been able to accomplish in past. Please.
Some great comments here, and excellent points made by all. I have been trying to step back and try to see this election as a somewhat more dispassionate observer – or an independent, if you will. From that perspective, it seems clear to me that neither Santorum or Gingrich could possible win. Santorum’s social conservatism is way too far out for most voters, I think. We would hear endlessly that he equated homosexuality with bestiality, which, even if you oppose gay marriage, is , I think a bridge too far for most Americans. And Gingrich, to be frank, is just too arrogant and obnoxious. His persona is very off-puttIng. Now, I would prefer that elections not be ” American Idol” contests, but that is what they have become. It is foolish to ignore this. Everything about Gingrich repels. I think that Romney is a technocrat, but right now that is a plus, and he won’t scare the middle.
This is a great site, by the way. I will bookmark, and visit often. I, too, am despondent.
goldby621,
You bring up very good arguments. I am discouraged that so many are concerned only with who could win, whether in the primaries or in the general. I am more interested in who is likely to govern most effectively, and I think that is Romney.
Aside from Santorum’s social conservatism, he also wants to further complicate our tax system by favoring manufacturing. I think Romney better understands how this kind of meddling hurts all businesses and distorts sound business decisions. Santorum seems to be motivated by emotion. I agree with many of his thoughts about the importance of family; I just don’t think attitudes can be changed by proposing legislation that probably won’t pass. I think he will be sidetracked by issues he cares about, and I don’t think he has developed a gut instinct as to the harmful effects of feel-good legislation.
As for Newt: I can just imagine him at his first G20. He would try to impress the world by proposing a few cockamamie schemes. I just don’t think quiet backroom diplomacy is in his genes.
Santorum was not only a two-term Senator– he was the Majority Whip for a good part of that time, if I remember. If there was any time he could have worked for banning birth control, it would have been then. He did work for reasonable defense of marriage proposals and always voted pro-life, but does that make him a Neanderthal? I think he showed he can compromise effectively. He endorsed Arlen Specter, just so Bush’s judicial appointments could get through the Senate. He took earmarks, but in the 90s that was an attempt at exerting some local control over fed spending. And, as Newt has said, Medicare Part D successfully used market principles.
I think he can appeal to those centrist Democrats and independents who went for Hilary.
As for bestiality, I’m sure there are people in Berkely and San Francisco who would marry their pets–excuse me–animal companions in a heartbeat.
Commenter formerly known as roc scssrs:
I agree that Santorum probably wouldn’t actually do anything about all this if he were president.
But that’s not really the point I was trying to make. The point is that a distinction like that may be irrelevant to most voters, whether that’s fair or not. Santorum seems very scary to most people in quotes and videos like this. The opposition will freely quote him and show the videos, and it will turn people off, who will suspect he has nefarious plans to get into their bedrooms.
Happened to hear Rush again as I was driving around today, and he very effectively connected the dots between the Left’s new meme that Santorum wants to prohibit birth control, and how the MSM has unmistakably revealed itself to be the propaganda arm of the Left and the DNC.
Beside the multitude of MSM hit pieces that have emerged on the Web over the last few days, asserting that Santorum wants to ban not only abortions but birth control, Rush’s key piece of evidence was the seemingly nonsensical, out of left field questions to Romney–which from their reactions, everyone, candidates and audience alike, thought were irrelevant and nonsensical at the time–by supposedly objective debate moderator George Stephanopoulos in a recent Republican debate, questions about whether States could ban contraception. Romney pointed out that he knew of no State that wanted to ban contraception and that if he were a governor he would fight such a move, but Stephanopoulos kept asking this basic question over and over again during the course of five minutes.
Now, in hindsight, it is glaringly obvious that Stephanopoulos was told days ahead of time that this was going to be the new line of Democrat’s attacks against Republican candidates, and that he should try to get the then current frontrunner Romney to say that States theoretically had the power to ban contraception. Now that Santorum has emerged as the current frontrunner the Left, Democrats, and Planned Parenthood are now pressing this line of attack by focusing on a past statement that Santorum did make, saying that, theoretically, the States did have the power to ban contraception, which those on the Left have morphed into, “ if Santorum becomes President he will ban birth control.”
Unfortunately I don’t have time to read all of the comments. However, I think it’s time to stop the Republican primary because Obama is getting the upper hand.
Either
1. both Romney and Santorum announce their VP which will help to accelerate a decision by the voters.
OR
2. Romney and Santorum buddy up. Romney as P and Santorum as VP.
Obviously, Obama’s attack on the Catholic Church these past two weeks was a preemptive strike by the O campaign. However, if the candidates would stop and breathe for a minute they will notice that O can’t strike against them when the focus is on the economy and O’s dismal record. O made an election issue appear out of thin air and his tools responded in sync. We’re playing defense when we should be playing offense.