• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

A surge of Santorum

He's coming from behind right now. He should begin trickling down any moment now.
 
I blame Mitt Romney for Santorum still being around. After all, you simply don't get Santorum if you have a big enough douche.
 
Santorum has better favorability ratings, seems to be an actual live person and not an automaton, and he doesn't say afwul **** like 'I regularly enjoy choking poor people with my massive amounts of money." I'd rather see Romney, seeing as how much damage his opponents have done to him (and he has done to himself).
 
Santorum: Satan Is Systematically Destroying America

:dl:

ETA:
I wonder if this little comment will cost him:

. . . we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.
Click to expand...

A Catholic slamming "mainline Protestantism"? I don't know. No personal dog in that fight, but did you guys hear what he said about you?
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
I think Santorum would be better able to unite the party than Romney.
Click to expand...

I think Santorum tends to turn off independents more than Romney does. I suspect independent votes will be more important than uniting a base that will already come out and vote for the Republican if for no other reason than because they hate Obama.

-Bri
 
Bri said:
I think Santorum tends to turn off independents more than Romney does. I suspect independent votes will be more important than uniting a base that will already come out and vote for the Republican if for no other reason than because they hate Obama.

-Bri
Click to expand...

The libertarian wing of the party doesn't like Santorum.

A recent Time magazine symposium asked leading thinkers on the Right, "What Is Conservatism?" Anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist offered this answer: "Conservatives ask only one thing of the government. They wish to be left alone."

Tell that to Santorum, whose agenda rests on meddling with other people, sometimes with laws, sometimes with aircraft carrier groups.

"This idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do," Santorum complained to NPR in 2006, "that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues ... that is not how traditional conservatives view the world."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bri said:
I think Santorum tends to turn off independents more than Romney does. I suspect independent votes will be more important than uniting a base that will already come out and vote for the Republican if for no other reason than because they hate Obama.
Click to expand...

But Romney turns off at least a substantial chunk of that base. (The fact that the Massachusetts health care law really was at least in part the model for "Obamacare" is a tough nut for many of them to swallow.)

Anyway, the polls support your analysis. I'm just going by what seems to me to be the case--and I'm someone who never thought Dubya would win the Presidency much less twice, so what do I know?!

I still think I'd rather have a general election between Obama and Romney than Obama and Santorum.

And this primary is certainly proving to be no cakewalk for Romney!
 
Peephole said:
Santorum has better favorability ratings, seems to be an actual live person and not an automaton, and he doesn't say afwul **** like 'I regularly enjoy choking poor people with my massive amounts of money."
Click to expand...

He his tax returns show a much smaller income than Romney's and that he paid a considerably higher net tax rate.

I'd rather see Romney, seeing as how much damage his opponents have done to him (and he has done to himself).
Click to expand...
I'd just rather have Romney and Obama debate the economy than a guy like Santorum steer all the debates to topics like whether or not gay sex is unnatural and arguments about reproductive rights that seem to imagine we live in pre-Roe v. Wade times, and so on.

No matter what, the GOP nominee will not have a well-united party behind him.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
But Romney turns off at least a substantial chunk of that base. (The fact that the Massachusetts health care law really was at least in part the model for "Obamacare" is a tough nut for many of them to swallow.)
Click to expand...

Sure, but do you think they're going to stay home rather than vote for Romney considering the alternative? No, I think their hatred for Obama will be plenty of incentive for them to swallow the bitter Romney pill.

I still think I'd rather have a general election between Obama and Romney than Obama and Santorum.
Click to expand...

If you mean from the point of view of having robust debates about the economy, maybe. If you mean because Santorum has a better chance of beating Obama, I'm not so sure. Independents who are fiscally conservative or who lean libertarian but are not necessarily socially conservative are very likely to be turned off by Santorum (who is socially conservative but not particularly fiscally conservative and the poster boy for government intrusion). I think Santorum's views on contraception alone are probably a deal-breaker for a lot of independents.

Besides, I think Obama would clean the floor with Santorum in a debate, even one about social issues. So far Santorum has only had college students to practice with, and they couldn't even come up with an answer to Santorum's favorite argument concerning gay marriage (that if we allow gay marriage we also have to allow polygamy). I suspect Obama would do far better.

-Bri
 
Last edited:
Bri said:
Sure, but do you think they're going to stay home rather than vote for Romney considering the alternative? No, I think their hatred for Obama will be plenty of incentive for them to swallow the bitter Romney pill.
Click to expand...

Again, the polls support you, but I'm still not so sure. I have a hard time seeing Romney mobilizing the rural vote in my state (Missouri). Santorum could well do just that. Granted, the election isn't likely to turn on the outcome in Missouri.




If you mean from the point of view of having robust debates about the economy, maybe. If you mean because Santorum has a better chance of beating Obama, I'm not so sure. Independents who are fiscally conservative or who lean libertarian but are not necessarily socially conservative are very likely to be turned off by Santorum (who is socially conservative but not particularly fiscally conservative and the poster boy for government intrusion). I think Santorum's views on contraception alone are probably a deal-breaker for a lot of independents.

Besides, I think Obama would clean the floor with Santorum in a debate, even one about social issues. So far Santorum has only had college students to practice with, and they couldn't even come up with an answer to Santorum's favorite argument concerning gay marriage (that if we allow gay marriage we also have to allow polygamy). I suspect Obama would do far better.
Click to expand...

I think it is about the robustness of the debate itself for me. I'd really rather Obama debate Romney than Santorum--not because I fear Santorum would in any way win such a debate, but I think he would bring the tenor of political discussion downward (more so than Romney, that is).

Something about the wisdom of wrestling a pig comes to mind. . . .
 
Brainster said:
It may be time to resurrect some of those "Is this the end of the Republican Party" threads from 2008.
Click to expand...

If the GOP keeps on painting themselves as the party against birth control, they might as well hang it up. Continuing to take such insane stances on social issues when all of the demographics are moving the opposite direction is pure idiocy, and exactly why Santorum beating Romney is the nightmare scenario for the Republicans.

Or do you seriously think that is a good political strategy?
 
Travis said:
Obama has done nothing I haven't agreed with yet.

And there are some scary things a President Santorum could do with his power.
Click to expand...

If our government was suppose to operate based on your personal preferences you'd have a point ... but in the real world - not so much. You like it when YOUR preferred emporer is in power, and you FEAR when some opposing emperor is in power. Do yo urealize hw ridiculous your attitude is ? Of course people who don't know much are always filled with ridiculous superstitious fears.

You obviously missed the point that the founders intended for the executive to be a fairly weak office. The ability of the executive do things like stop all gulf oil drilling, control pipelines, impose specific healthcare terms in private employment contracts, by decree force insurers to offer services for free - is a shocking state of affairs. It's unclear how much of this would even be valid for the legislature to impose. Making such decisions by the executive micromanaging agencies means we live under the rule of a czar, not law.

The solution of course is to remove more powers from the executive - then we wouldn't need to fear an Obama nor a Santorum.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom