Social Issues and the Santorum Surge

[mlund]

Strongly-held moral convictions are to medio-crats what garlic is to a vampire. It's the kind of thing the spoon-up-your-nose Hollywood and Manhattan types reflexively disparage and make fun of because their own hollowness makes them nervous and intolerant. Unsurprisingly it has the same effect on teenagers and 20-something non-grownups.

People that work for a living and raise families are, by and large, way more comfortable with someone who wears their religion on their sleeve. They feel like even if they disagree with you at least you keep your cards above the table. If you don't constantly accuse them of being pagans, heathens, and agents of the devil you're in pretty safe territory.

The "imposing his moral values" tact is a media canard. There are places where we, as a society, impose our moral values. That's why thieves, murders, and rapists go to jail. That's why fraud, libel, and negligence are punishable offenses. The worry isn't with the imposition of moral values (that's part of democracy) so much as the worry of getting a candidate like Obama - one who puts his own values and vision (secular, religious, or otherwise) ahead of the limits the Constitution places on such actions.

Unlike Obama, Rick Santorum has actually come out in contrast and acknowledged that there is a right and just separation between what he believes people should not do and things that the government should be able to prohibit. Unlike Nancy Pelosi, Rick Santorum doesn't laugh in the face of people when they ask him where the Constitution says the government has the power to do something. (Yes, she literally publicly mocked someone for asking her that question.)

- Marty Lund

[qui est ce]

Originally Posted by Bubba Switzler

But I am enjoying the panic by the media and Democrat and Republican establishments with Santorum's rise.

(Of course, as one writer noted, nobody ever challenged Obama on his support for infanticide; we all know there is a double standard at work.)

Could you elaborate?

In the end, I'll support anyone against Obama, even Gingrich.

I don't think I could stand listening to Gingrich'es patronizing whine for 4 years. He won't make it anyway.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by qui est ce

Exactly what is Santorum going to force on American's?

Originally Posted by irishpatrick

What teachings would Santorum try to make others follow?

I do NOT agree with your analysis--I think people want someone with some sense of traditional morality.

The problem is that its not clear what he would do. He says in one speech that he would be the only president to tell Americans that birth control is wrong, that he would advocate overturning Griswold, and that he has voted against birth control at every opportunity. In another venue he says he supported Title X because he understands that he cannot force his beliefs on people. He says in one venue that he does not believe in personal autonomy, suggesting that the government has a role in regulating things like sexual behavior, etc. Then he tries to portray himself as a small government conservative. He can't have it both ways. He had a shot (a longshot, but a shot) at the nomination, but his failure to strongly and consistently explain his positions--especially on whether he would attempt to legislate morality--is killing his chances.

[qui est ce]

Originally Posted by TMC

The problem is that its not clear what he would do. He says in one speech that he would be the only president to tell Americans that birth control is wrong, that he would advocate overturning Griswold, and that he has voted against birth control at every opportunity. In another venue he says he supported Title X because he understands that he cannot force his beliefs on people. He says in one venue that he does not believe in personal autonomy, suggesting that the government has a role in regulating things like sexual behavior, etc. Then he tries to portray himself as a small government conservative. He can't have it both ways. He had a shot (a longshot, but a shot) at the nomination, but his failure to strongly and consistently explain his positions--especially on whether he would attempt to legislate morality--is killing his chances.

I haven't seen him do anything but rise in the polls as his views become better known. A month ago, he was a nobody.

[Personanongrata]

Originally Posted by yogicat

Honestly, I think the higher ups (whoever those are) want Obama to win reelection. Obama will win reelection. Every Republican nominee up there has no chance of winning - and we all know it. Ron Paul will probably run as an independent and make it even more difficult. I'm sorry, I don't disagree with Santorum's views, but this is America. Cultural melting pot. A president who would attempt to force non-religious individuals to follow religious teachings, is just not going to win here.

If the GOP gives Santorum the nomination, then OBAMA will coast into his second term. It will be so easy!!!

[TMC]

Originally Posted by qui est ce

I haven't seen him do anything but rise in the polls as his views become better known. A month ago, he was a nobody.

Yes, but two weeks ago he was leading in Michigan. Today he is not. I guess we will find out Tuesday whether more exposure to him makes MI voters like him more or less.

[_Abyssinia]

Originally Posted by Personanongrata

If the GOP gives Santorum the nomination, then OBAMA will coast into his second term. It will be so easy!!!

Gas prices are expected to be over $5 a gallon this year, already $4 dollars gallon average, so I would not be so arrogant.

[mlund]

Originally Posted by TMC

The problem is that its not clear what he would do.

That's really a result of the media purposefully obfuscating things and being deliberately obtuse than Sen. Santorum's own conduct.

He says in one speech that he would be the only president to tell Americans that birth control is wrong, that he would advocate overturning Griswold, and that he has voted against birth control at every opportunity.

See, that's how they get you. Santorum claims to have voted against federally funding the supply of contraceptives. That's not the same as "voting against birth control." The media uses imprecise paraphrases to attempt to imply that Rick Santorum is going to ban Birth Control Pills and send ATF out after you for it because he's a "crazy religious fanatic."

In another venue he says he supported Title X because he understands that he cannot force his beliefs on people.

Actually, he said that he wasn't some guy out to "destroy women's health" like Planned Parenthood and its surrogates in the media try to label him. Title X includes a lot more than contraceptives - including abstinence sex-ed, STD testing, cancer testing, and HIV/AIDS treatment. His point is that even though he disagrees with and has tried to remove contraception from the federal dole he's not going to vote down the whole of Title X just because he doesn't have the votes to amend it his own way - nor is he going to bypass the legislative process and impose such things by executive order like President Obama is wont to do.

He says in one venue that he does not believe in personal autonomy, suggesting that the government has a role in regulating things like sexual behavior, etc.

We all agree the government has a role in regulating sexual behavior. That's why we have laws against rape, incest, public lewdness, etc. That doesn't mean we don't believe in personal autonomy anymore than restricting the cry of "fire" in a crowded theater means we don't believe in Freedom of Speech.

The media (and Ron Paul) are also doing a great job confusing what Rick Santorum's offered as his private opinions on social conduct (like when he was an ex-Senator speaking at a religious event) with what he's put forth as public regulatory policy. One thing Rick Santorum has been explicit about (though no one wants to report on it) is that there's a difference between what we ought to do and what the government ought to be able to impose on us - and that's a lesson that completely flies over the heads of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama.

- Marty Lund

[irishpatrick]

Originally Posted by TMC

The problem is that its not clear what he would do. He says in one speech that he would be the only president to tell Americans that birth control is wrong, that he would advocate overturning Griswold, and that he has voted against birth control at every opportunity. In another venue he says he supported Title X because he understands that he cannot force his beliefs on people. He says in one venue that he does not believe in personal autonomy, suggesting that the government has a role in regulating things like sexual behavior, etc. Then he tries to portray himself as a small government conservative. He can't have it both ways. He had a shot (a longshot, but a shot) at the nomination, but his failure to strongly and consistently explain his positions--especially on whether he would attempt to legislate morality--is killing his chances.

Santorum feels it is important for the nation to have these conversations, and likely many others like them. He does NOT advocate for placing his beliefs into law (with the exception of banning abortion and protecting actual marriage).

I find there to be nothing wrong with a public leader entering into important conversations. As President, Santorum would not be writing laws--that is something people today forget, we have a branch of government assigned that task.

What's wrong with a canidate or President discussing contraception or any number of other issues?

[Personanongrata]

Originally Posted by _Abyssinia

Gas prices are expected to be over $5 a gallon this year, already $4 dollars gallon average, so I would not be so arrogant.

I filled up today and gas is already $4.65 per gallon in my neck of the woods.

In my opinion, you don't have to be arrogant to know that Santorum cannot beat Obama in a general election.

But we can re-visit that issue in November.

[irishpatrick]

Originally Posted by Personanongrata

I filled up today and gas is already $4.65 per gallon in my neck of the woods.

In my opinion, you don't have to be arrogant to know that Santorum cannot beat Obama in a general election.

But we can re-visit that issue in November.

A month ago very few people thought Santorum had any chance at beating Romney...and while he still has not beat Romney, Santorum sure looks a lot stronger.

I think Santorum is quite electable, especially since all the social issue laundry is being aired right now! It is not like he can have fresh attacks later, the nation already knows what he believes and thinks.

[Bubba Switzler]

Originally Posted by irishpatrick

Name one man that has held the office of the Presidency, who was not a flawed contender as a candidate.

No disagreement there. But I think there is an expectation that a candidate should improve with practice.

Originally Posted by qui est ce

Could you elaborate?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...ome-back-haun/

[sacredcello]

Originally Posted by irishpatrick

A month ago very few people thought Santorum had any chance at beating Romney...and while he still has not beat Romney, Santorum sure looks a lot stronger.

I think Santorum is quite electable, especially since all the social issue laundry is being aired right now! It is not like he can have fresh attacks later, the nation already knows what he believes and thinks.

I agree. As a pro-life progressive who has voted for Ralph Nader in the last 3 elections, I will definitely be crossing party lines to vote for Santorum in the primary and the general election. I think he has a very good chance at beating Obama in the general election. One Rasmussen poll showed that Santorum was the only GOP candidate who could do so.

[Bubba Switzler]

Rick Santorum's political good fortune in the Republican presidential primaries has come about in large part because of his appeal to evangelicals. A Roman Catholic, he is a beneficiary of more than two decades of cooperation between conservative Protestants and Catholics who set aside theological differences for the common cause of the culture war.

Doctrine - and anti-Catholic bias - once split Protestants and Catholics so bitterly that many evangelical leaders worked to defeat John F. Kennedy because of his religion. When Kennedy sought to confront suspicion about his Catholicism, he made his now-famous faith speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of evangelical Protestants in Texas. Five decades later, when some prominent evangelical leaders gathered at a Texas ranch to discuss backing a 2012 GOP candidate, Santorum was their choice.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...02-25-03-40-48

[qui est ce]

Originally Posted by Personanongrata

I filled up today and gas is already $4.65 per gallon in my neck of the woods.

In my opinion, you don't have to be arrogant to know that Santorum cannot beat Obama in a general election.

But we can re-visit that issue in November.

You don't "know" yet what will happen in November. You can have your opinion. That is what Abyssinia is talking about.