Family Leadership Summit: Rick Santorum calls for broadening GOP appeal


#1

desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/08/09/family-leadership-summit-rick-santorum/13812781/

**Family Leadership Summit: Rick Santorum calls for broadening GOP appeal **

Final Electoral College Count: Obama 332 Romney 206

Ames, Ia. – Rick Santorum challenged the Republican Party to “realign” itself to attract working class voters in a speech to Iowa social conservatives here on Saturday.

Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania and the 2012 Iowa caucuses winner, said the party erred in the 2012 presidential race by focusing too much on entrepreneurs and business owners rather than workers. If the party does so again in 2016, he said, the results will be disastrous.

“If you look at the map for president, if we don’t see a realignment of the Republican Party, if we don’t see this party reaching out and bringing in new people, then the demographics don’t look very good for us,” Santorum said.

The answer, he said, is to create new manufacturing jobs in the United States by reducing taxes and regulatory requirements and to build stronger families by encouraging marriage. Republicans can win over working-class voters by proving a commitment to jobs and support for families.

It’s nice to see and hear a leader speak (like here - per video) and judge for oneself what has been said and why - rather than run through the filter of the print medium.

Santorum - who is sometimes branded ultraconservative and staunch (probably for his positions on life and the sanctity of marriage IMO) - calling for changes in whom should be appealed to in “broadening the GOP”, will probably still not be called a moderate.

He is calling for a “bigger GOP tent” but yet not in the direction of abandoning a pro-life platform or echoing the Democrats’ lately found advocacy for “same sex marriage”. It’s the “pro-business” side of the tent he proposes expanding … in the direction of working people, and not just the entrepenuers and business owners.

His recent book “Blue Collar Conservatives” outlines his ideas on that score - and calls for a new appeal to the people once called “Reagan Democrats …” people ranging from independents to Democrats who occasionally cross over to vote for Republicans when the latter represent their convictions better.

nationalreview.com/article/378236/santorum-conundrum-quin-hillyer

In 2012 Santorum challenged Mitt Romney as being too close to Obama in the area of expansive government management of healthcare - saying " … we (Republicans) can’t afford to lose that issue (in 2012)." Romney instituted a supposedly similar plan while he was Governor of Massachusetts (called Romneycare by some) - yet he didn’t win the state
versus Obama.

Santorum has won elections where paper Democrats in his state crossed over to vote for him and electing him to the Congress and the Senate when the Democratic alternative held opposite views on the social issues … notably abortion. Present Pennsylvania Senator Robert Casey Jr. who defeated Santorum in 2006 was a rarity … a prominent pro-life Democrat; which may have been a major factor in some of the so-called blue collar values voters “staying home” and voting Democrat with Casey.

Rand Paul rather calls for the GOP to be broadened in a different way.

Chris Christie yet another.

And lineup of “Conservative Possibles” being mentioned as GOP Candidates for President in 2016 each seem to have their own priorities as to how moving the GOP into the White House might best be accomplished as well.

As this event was the “Family Leadership Conference,” Santorum attacked some of the ways the Federal Government “punishes families,” including “marriage penalties” that are assessed when low-income people receiving government assistance marry or attempt to marry one another. < This last critique affects a disabled member of my family and his disabled partner … who would otherwise would have married in a more public and religious way than just exchanging semi-private vows. They barely scrimp by on what they receive. Being a married couple - or trying to supplement their incomes by working - could jeopardize what little they have.

I do like the idea of including everyone … rather than trying to pander to one group at the expense of another. Setting priorities is one thing … choosing sides in a class war that is defined by the political party itself (unto sometimes being a creature of its own making) sets off alarm bells in my head.

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations. – ABRAHAM LINCOLN, FROM HIS SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS bartleby.com/124/pres32.html


#2

It would be nice. Call me jaded, but I don’t believe a word out of any politicians’ mouths.

I will not be led down the same old tired path thinking a Republican who is Catholic will be any different than any Democrat who just happens to be Catholic.

We know the hypocrisy of the Dems, but its the same for the GOP.

It saddens me to admit that I saw a little truth in a bumpersticker saying, “There are only 2 types of Republicans. Millionaires and suckers…Which type are you?”

No, one side is as bad as the other, and I don’t have the patience or the ambition to figure which is lessor and which is greater, so I will accept the will of the (other) people who feel they have it figured out.

For those holding hope for a Catholic Republican like him to come onto the scene, don’t count on it…as bad as the Dem Party is, the GOP never seems able to nominate a viable candidate, even if one happens to be dropped in their lap.


#3

Advocacy for the working class is something that I’ve always liked about Rick Santorum.

Sadly though the Republican party has more and more become the party of business interests. “Small business” is the sacred mantra now for most of the GOP (including Tea Party)


#4

And small businesses can be great. Many “workers” aspire to have a business of their own, just as many renters aspire to have homes of their own one day.

But an appeal to working people who do not yet own their own business - and are not all class warfare against their employers - but more in line with St. Paul’s advice to both those who employ and those employed to work with each other in mutual respect (ascending even unto love - since all are God’s servants that must give an accounting) - would be a nice option for voters to have.

Santorum (or another similarly inclined candidate) need not include the high theology of course … and I don’t think he does … unless perhaps pressed with religious questions as he sometimes is by the press.

http://i2.wp.com/ConservativeReport.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Blue-Collar-Conservatives-Rick-Santorum.png?resize=202%2C306

Some would term the subtitle of Santorum’s book a** reactionary** phrase. Reactionary is a term with a bit of a negative sentiment. Obama’s 2012 Campaign was titled “Forward” (as … into the future!). Of course if one has gone off course in the maze … going forward exacerbates the problem - and returning (going back) to the scene of the mistake and taking the right road is the correct thing to do. IMO.


#5

War on Christians Throughout the World

foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/index.html#/v/3731014902001 < yesterday’s intro of the news special.

foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/index.html#/v/3732711622001 < Tonight on Fox News Channel.

Santorum was interviewed on ISIS crisis in Iraq and the persecution of Christians there and elsewhere. Part of a 1-hour special titled “War on Christians Throughout the World.”

The former Pennsylvania Senator has been urging President Obama to use his influence on behalf of imprisoned Christian minister Saeed Abadini (held by Iran since 2012). Abadini’s wife was also interviewed on the program.

I toyed with making this a separate thread … but it could apply to this thread and another already going in World News.


#6

I think Rick Santorum may be on to something. Go after the working middle class, of all races. And independents. I still think Rand Paul has a shot. Even the left-wingers in my family don’t talk too disfavorably of him. And we are talking hard core left here. People like him and he reaches across the red/blue state mentality as well as any Republican out there. That said, I don’t really like his politics. :wink:


#7

Paul is an interesting guy (especially considering this “broadening GOP appeal” topic).
He may be more mainstream than his Dad, Ron – who – had quite a dedicated cadre of supporters in the 2012 primaries. Rand might begin by inheriting his Dad’s base, which surprisingly included a lot of young people (college age).

Paul’s appeal might have a low ceiling though. Isolationism is a comfortable thought … but it might be a bit TOO close to Obama’s hands off policies that don’t seem to be working out so well for America and her interests (such as avoiding World War or economic disasters engendered by troubles abroad).

Santorum lately has been appearing all over the place. As Obama kicks back and leads “from behind” until even his fans in the mainstream media hit him with WAZZUPs (?!) - Santorum is weighing in on the issues of the day on the media outlets and looking Presidential.

At this point GOP polls show candidates like Paul, and Christie among the leaders - but it remains to be seen if they could add to their bases. Santorum’s base is split a bit by similar candidates in Mike Huckabee (the values voters), Paul Ryan (young dynamic conservative), Jeb Bush (who has not yet decided to run … but would have a machine behind him), and novelty candidates like Dr. Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, and Mark Rubio - who’d theoretically bring “newness” and “diversity” to the ticket.

As candidates drop out due to lack of funding, organization, and low support in primaries - Santorum might be well positioned to be the beneficiary of their support versus candidates like Christie and Paul (particularly). Just like last time.

By 2016 SOME other surprising candidates may appear too. Lynne Cheney? Scott Brown? Mitt Romney again?

One thing I don’t want to see again in the primaries are the shenanigans. Some top candidates not on the ballots in some states; Democrats allowed to vote and mess up the GOP primaries. And turncoat Republicans that give aid and comfort to the competition.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Maine,_2012 < I’m still trying to figure out how Ron Paul was beaten in almost every caucus by Romney and got more delegates selected from that state! :shrug:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Maine,_2012 < What a labyrinthine chaos this was! Reminded me of a World Cup Soccer Game in extra time … only the officials know when it will end (and what the result will be). :mad:


#8

Thank you Capn Fun for the post. But how does Rick Santorum reconcile his criticism of Romney in 2012 focusing on business and taxes too much when Santorum’s own remedy for the working class is… “reducing taxation and regulatory requirements.” In short, by being pro-business ! Hello Rick, Mitt Romney also came to that conclusion. And that has largely been the philosophy and theme of the GOP since Reagan.

When I see Santorum I see a man grasping for some kind of image that he think will work to elect him to the White House. So he has taken on the mantra of “blue collar candidate.” Unfortunately, the Democrats have the blue collar types sewn up (those who aren’t too busy watching NFL football to vote). The Reagan Democrats that Santorum wants to resurrect are either Republicans now or dead (they first came on the scene in 1980 or possibly earlier).

I guess you could say that Santorum does not appeal to me much. He seems like a debater, rather than a leader. And I think he is yesterday’s candidate. The question is, who is today’s candidate?

Ishii


#9

The field is wide open. I could live with Rand Paul although I don’t think he’d be a strong candidate on foreign policy. I agree with you that Ted Cruz and Ben Carson would be “novelty candidates” (and sure losers). But I wouldn’t put Bobby Jindal or Rubio in that category. I would put them in a higher tier - especially Jindal as he is a successful minority governor who has produced results. Palin is so 2008 as to not really deserve mentioning. Jeb Bush is someone I wish would just go quietly. We broke away from England partly because we didn’t like King George.

I still believe that we need a successful governor ticket, such as Walker/Jindal (or vice versa). They could run against a Democrat senator. Their campaign could be based on getting things done, two governors who have accomplished important things while in office, etc. They could run as outsiders, against Washington DC politics as usual, etc. And against Hillary they could have a field day.

Ishii


#10

Santorum is too removed from the mainstream. Not saying that’s a good thing (I like him very much), just pointing it out as a fact. It has to be someone who can appeal to the base and to the moderates and to the independents. I am afraid it will be Rand Paul. I want somebody like Rubio. He’s a new face but he doesn’t alienate moderates and so far as I know he’s liked by the tea party people. We have to have a new face, new blood, new energy. It will be a compromise candidate, so to speak. As for isolationism, I hate it too. But a lot of people go in for it (ignorance I think). I have serious problems with both parties. A Catholic should. :wink:


#11

CapnFun responds in RED below. :slight_smile:


#12

Conventional wisdom … often wrong :wink: … is that the GOP needs to have the first Hispanic Candidate. Wherein Rubio and Cruz get a boost per speculation … but also another surprising candidate. Jeb (John Ellis) Bush!

[size=]The tall, lightly complected one is Jeb. :smiley: George Bush III is on the far left. From the left are daughter Noelle Bush, Columba Garnica Gallo Bush, and son John Ellis Bush Jr.

Jeb has been married to his Mexican born wife Columba for over 40 years. He converted to her Catholic faith years ago. Their three children were raised Catholic. He speaks Spanish fluently. Jeb’s son, George Bush III, does it better - having spoken Spanish since childhood. Columba has supported Jeb in his political career, but is considered shy regarding publicity and stating her views, preferring a quiet family life (they say).

I’ve preferred others, but I like Jeb … who might be the best Bush in the hedge. :smiley:
As far as I’ve ever heard Jeb is pro-life. Even unto fighting for Terri Schiavo’s life in what may have been a leftist power play to make him look “radical” at the time (IMO).

As an upset Hispanic pick on the ticket, Susanna Martinez, Governor of New Mexico, might be a Vice-Presidential pick in a “broadening GOP appeal” way … with the gender
aspect as a bonus.

Dr. Ben Carson is quite a substantial person. Whether he could pull much of the black vote back to the GOP side is a puzzle. Years ago a majority of blacks voted Republican … now between 5 and 10 % in national elections. The GOP got great results from appointing accomplished black candidates to high posts (Condoleeza Rice, Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas) … but not with the “black electorate” (so far).

In casting about for a woman candidate Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin have offered themselves. Some other accomplished GOP women have never tried (e.g. Elizabeth Dole, Lynne Cheney).

When it is not someone like Santorum suggesting the GOP broaden its base or make a bigger tent … a “softening” of the “tone” of pro-life messages are often suggested … and pro-choice candidates (from a little to a lot) are put forth as examples. But, as (the inevitable) Rudolph Giuliani found out in 2008 - the GOP will not nominate a pro-choice candidate for President. And if they did … most pro-choicers would still vote for the Democrat (IMO). Poor Rudy. He MIGHT have been President had he dumped the abortion ball and chain. :shrug:

http://www.lifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/rubio.jpghttp://texasgopvote.com/sites/default/files/ted-cruz-cpac.png
http://politicks.org/IMAGES/CANDIDATES/2016/PRESIDENT/Susana-Martinez.gif

Prominent GOP Hispanics: (Top) Senator Marco Rubio (Florida), Senator Ted Cruz (Texas), Governor Susanna Marinez (New Mexico)[/size]


#13

Hello Captfun. Than you for the response. I would vote for Santorum in a heartbeat if he got the nomination. Might even volunteer for his campaign.

That said, I do believe that unlike in 2012 we have a much stronger field of candidates. Cain, Bachmann, were novelty candidates who never had a chance. Rick Perry was a brief flavor of the month but stumbled. Are Democrats afraid of him? Is that why he was indicted? I would be very nervous watching him in a presidential debate. Newt had so much baggage. That left Santorum and Romney. Santorum, his virtues else, was pretty flawed and vulnerable to charges of extremism. Romney was also flawed and vulnerable to charges of indifference to the middle and lower classes. Both might run again but I hope we can come up with a new candidate. Santorum is correct to point out that the GOP must appeal to a wider group of voters. I just question whether he is the candidate that could pull it off considering that views of him as the “socially conservative” candidate are pretty entrenched. Would anyone listen to him or would his points about the working class be drowned out by the media focusing on his social conservatism?

I like the Bush family. They are decent and honorable. I have heard that Jeb is the most conservative of all of them. That said, I would consider him not a new candidate but yesterday’s candidate. I am not sure he is the guy that would undo (or attempt to undo) the mess that Obama has created.

Some are touting Ben Carson. I would put him in the same category as Bachmann and Cain, but a lot smarter. No thanks.

As I survey the landscape, I still keep coming back to the idea that if we nominated two governors who have accomplished things and helped their states we could appeal to enough voters. They could contrast well with a Hillary or an Elizabeth Warren - both part of Washington DC and part of the problem. So… Walker/Jindal. Or vice versa.

When I look at a potential candidate, I like to see how they perform during interviews. I recall seeing Susanna Martinez being interviewed and not being impressed much. Between the three - Martinez, Cruz and Rubio and I think Rubio might be the strongest. Followed by Martinez. If they picked Martinez for Vice president, the media will try unceasingly to paint her as Sarah Palin # 2. She had better be ready and on the ball. Anything short of complete command of all issues and foreign policy competence will work against the GOP nominee. Speaking of foreign policy, the worse the world gets, the more foreign policy becomes a campaign issue. Even though Hillary basically presided over Obama’s disasters, she can talk the talk and would have the media propping her up.

Ishii


#14

You can win in midterms when the electorate is smaller and more conservative and frankly more caucasian. But the map might never change for you in Presidential yrs unless you adapt to the changing racial and gender demographics in America and deal with issues important to many Latinos, Latinas, African Americans and women of all colors and people of all faiths and non faiths and orientations. Or if you are successful in supressing voter turnout. For full disclosure I speak as a caucasian male btw. And I’m not certain just window dressing your party’s nomination with a Latin candidate such as Rubio or Cruz or whomever you might name will be enough. In the case of President Obama yes many African Americans came out. But they had already tended to vote 90% in favor of Democrats. And just blaming everything on Obama doesn’t cut it when you’ve controlled the House for so many yrs and on the path for this yr’s House to be the most unproductive in American history. Sure it might in a 2014 midterm. You might even control both houses of Congress by next yr. But it will be shortlived when the next election draws more voters unless the GOP seriously gets in touch with more Americans. But without a change in your policies and emphasis I’m not certain the map will change no matter how much you run from big business. I’m not even sure you can run far enough by 2016. Big business and the wealthy’s interests and extreme far right wing social and religious conservatism have been at the heart of the GOP for so long now and is its lifeblood. But I’m not clear that’s where the majority of America stands in Presidential yrs.


#15

Gee, it’s clear you are speaking for Democrats since everyone is broken into groups, Caucasians, African Americans, gee, did you forget homosexuals and women too! :rolleyes:

That’s why I like a party that just sees all people as Americans, if the Democrats want to continue to use divisive politics, then maybe the country should likewise divide and the DNC can have all of the dilapidated cities, the rest of the country can have a country that actually leads the world instead of contributing to it’s turmoil and chaos.


#16

IF you want to stand for African Americans being slaughter 5 times to 1 in the womb of their mothers, different strokes for different folks. I am a Caucasian male saying this. One could make the assertions you do to justify slavery as well.


#17

No need to get all huffy. Different strokes for different folks indeed. That’s why we have elections and even different electorates between midterms and Presidential yrs. And voters weigh and consider a variety of issues and then vote if they are able. :shrug:


#18

Whites are going to vote in the interim elections but then, blacks and Mexicans will vote in the presidential election, Hispanics are window dressing?

Oh dear, the Republicans are trying to suppress the vote with voter ID but there is no problem with requiring ID to attend the Democrat convention or vote in Union elections!

At least all of this is new and we’ve never heard it before.

I guess we have to see lax border security because since voter fraud can’t always win or bogus indictments, we just have to somehow try to get new voters into the country.


#19

No I tried to mention and include pretty much all Americans in some form or another. I specifically mentioned women and orientation if you want to conclude by orientation homosexuals. No clue what cities vs country has to do with it. I lived for most of my life in rural small town America and my politics were no different.


#20

I don’t know if you are aware of voting trends in recent yrs or not. And the difference in turnout between midterms and Presidential yrs, And I’m just not convinced Latin voters will automatically vote for a candidate just because he or she is Latin Republican. But take it leave it. I don’t care. I was just giving my thoughts.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.