Skip to comments.Santorum: Gingrich Puts Social Issues 'in the Back of the Bus'
Posted on 12/05/2011 6:27:36 PM PST by Fred
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Sunday compared his war against reproductive rights and gay rights to the Civil Rights Movement, and attacked Newt Gingrich for putting social issues "in the back of the bus."
"In terms of social issues [Gingrich] has been married three times, he has two divorces, he's admitted to infidelity," ABC's Christiane Amanpour noted during an interview with Santorum. "Should voters hold that against him?"
"I think character is definitely an issue," Santorum opined. "I've been married 21 years, I have seven children. That's a factor that people are going to look at and should look at when it comes to the person you are going to have lead the country."
"Is he a real conservative with the social values?" Amanpour asked.
"I think that Newt has consistently put those, let's say, in the back of the bus," Santorum replied. "He's never really been an advocate of pushing those issues."
(Excerpt) Read more at videocafe.crooksandliars.com ...
Thoe who are attacking the other candidates are not getting any traction. They may wish to focus on Obama and stand on their own merits.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Obama has only married one woman too. Newt is not running for cannonization into the Catholic Church. Don’t go there Santorum...
He should be ashamed!
Newt has no standards aside from Newt first.
Santorum just threw out the support of the divorced, and they are many. He just can’t get traction though I personally like him and don’t see him as stringent or irritating as so many others do. I’m pretty sure I won’t get to vote for him in the March 6 TX primary.
Gingrich reverses his position that life begins at ‘implantation’
I like Santorum’s conservatism, but his complaints about Newt are little more than noise from the back of the bus.
This is an indication of how these people think. Santorum evidently thinks his enemy is Gingrich. We know the real enemy is sitting in the White House and I don’t know anyone who is thinking “I’ll vote for one guy in the Primary and then switch and vote for another in the General”.
You’re not running against other Republicans, Rick. And that’s why you’ll never get closer then the public tour to the WH.
Hopefully thats just his opinion because social issues are HUGELY important to many conservatives.
>> Santorum evidently thinks his enemy is Gingrich. We know the real enemy is sitting in the White House >>
Yep, RS is running a cynical niche “look at me, I’m the MOSTEST PROEST LIFEST” campaign for Iowa’s hard core social conservatives. He hasn’t figured out it ain’t workin’ and won’t work.
MB hasn’t figured it out either. Maybe that’s why they have like 5% between them. And FTR, Reagan sort of pushed them to the back of the bus too because at the time, the enemies were Jimmy Carter and the Soviet Union. One has to know what battle one is fighting to have any chance to win.
What a moron. The economy is the only issue people. Give a damn about right now.
Yes he is. That's what primaries are for.
In a way, I guess Newt running might not be a bad thing because Newt isn’t going to focus on this stuff.
I think the GOP has a winning coalition for 2012 if we can focus entirely on economic freedom issues and freeing up the economy.
I’ve been talking to my independent friends. They get all riled up when Bachman or Santorum start up on social issues. But when we focus on cutting spending and regulations to start the economy they start thinking they can vote GOP.
I speak to tons of people. The social issues are a pure loser.
>> Yes he is. That’s what primaries are for. >>
Wow, you’re a little light on political history aren’t you? For the most part, the successful runs are made by those who most effecitvely run against the other party during the primary process.
Moreover, we’ve seen Bachmann, Santorum and Perry snipe the most against other Republicans and what are they, like 11% combined now?
What this primary is for is to A: show a vision for beating Obama and B: show a vision for governing the country after you do. No one is responding to negative snipes against other Republicans. It can be shown to be a total fail this cycle.
>> I speak to tons of people. The social issues are a pure loser. >>
I somewhat agree with you. I would slightly adjust to “over emphasizing the social issues - especially in this cycle - is a sure loser.”
But I get your point.
>> If Newt is to be a serious candidate, it is time for him to attack Obama 24/7! >>
Um, well, er, what do you think has been going on? I would say that he already is a “serious candidate” and I would say he has already attacked not only Obama, but all liberals and the media, a ton already. If fact, I would say that is precisely WHY he is a “serious candidate.”
What are you looking for?
“I think character is definitely an issue,” Santorum opined. “I’ve been married 21 years, I have seven children. That’s a factor that people are going to look at and should look at when it comes to the person you are going to have lead the country.”
Can you remember where your house is, Mr. senator from Penn Hills?
Most people want to be left alone. People like Santorum come across as creepy as he’ll.
That's what I am hungry for. Someone that can launch broadsides on the stinking rotten pirate ship manned by Obama and his crew of death spawned maggots.
Hey Santy-torum...got any lumps of coal in your bag for Obama. Be a good Grinch and steal Obama’s Christmas. Leave the Repuby bashing to demrats...they are masters at it.
That's what happens when a politician chooses to use euphemisms and double talk and stick to the the politically correct lexicon.
What did he say?
Is he for or against perversion and baby murder?
>> Most people want to be left alone. People like Santorum come across as creepy as hell. >>
Agreed. As a Christian, I just want to be left alone by government indeed. Some folks seem to be obsessed with what I coined as a “Christian voyeurism” thing.
Conservatism is a three legged stool.
Economic issues, social issues and national security issues all matter. whatever candidate supports all three the best, I will support.
That is a very false phrase: Rick Santorum never said that he was fighting a "war against reproductive rights and gay rights" in the first place.
Santorum is pro-life.
Rick Santorum is my #1 choice of those running (Palin is my true #1).
But he is being dishonest here. Newt was constantly getting panned for pushing Social Conservatism. “Back of the bus” my rear end. Remember how they accused him of wanting to run a Christian Theocracy for advocating for voluntary prayer in school and for pushing abortion restrictions?
I don’t mind the rough and tumble of campaigning, but I take issues like The Right-to-Life too seriously to keep having people who either want to advance themselves or take out a candidate try to make enemies out of friends. Newt never put Social Issues on the back-burner, never.
Rick, you’re a great family man and a great Conservative. But you’re not being truthful here, and you know it.
Then I presume that you want Roe vs. Wade overturned above all else, as it is the most destructive example of Big Government intrusion ever.
After all, it is Big Government empowering one half of the human race (women) to kill the children of the other half of the human race (men).
Social issues don’t resonate with many (if not most) voters and Gingrich is smart for doing this. He knows the Dems and the MSM will label him as a “fundamentalist” if he talks about social issues too much.
More so than another four years of Zero?
Rick Santorum walks the walk.
Newt does not.
Yup. Gingrich doesn’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to the sanctity of marriage issue.
The “sacnity of marriage” has not much to do with the issue of permitting amoral liberals who hate both children and families to socially engineer it out of existence by changing it’s very meaning.
I do want Roe V Wade over turned - for any number of reasons of morality and sanity and legality. But I don’t need Ricky Santorum trying to prove he’s “more socially conservative” than anyone else to know that.
For sure Newt believes in marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously. He’s been for it three times. That takes dedication. Government doesn’t need to be involved in social issues. Christian churches should be more involved in social issues. Back in the day it was their job to keep people on the straight and narrow. Now they are afraid of losing their tax status, and have allowed the courts to take over our moral issues.
That's funny, I know a lot of independents too, and most of them think that taking firm conservative stances on social issues is pretty important, right along with the economy.
Guess it just depends on the kind of independent (hint: they're not a monolithic group, no matter now much pollsters and commenters like to think they are).
I agree with that. The government AND THE COURTS should stay out of social engineering the public square. But, they won’t.
That right there is the dirty little secret that puts paid to the "social conservatives just want to run peoples' lives" argument that is implicit in most "libertarianesque" arguments. Let's face it, abortion and gay marriage - which make up about 90% of what people mean when they talk about "social issues" - do not involve "running somebody else's life."
Fighting abortion involves keeping women from killing somebody else. That's it. Opposing abortion is really no more "social engineering" than is preventing somebody from pushing somebody else in front of a speeding bus.
Opposing gay marriage is simply seeking to prevent the government from extending special rights to one particular group on their basis of their particular preferences. And make no mistake - gay marriage is a special right. Homosexuals already have the *exact same* marital rights as straights. Any gay can marry a woman, and any lesbian can marry a man - just like straight men can marry a woman, and straight women can marry a man. The fact that they "prefer" members of the same sex is immaterial - there are also people who "prefer" horses, dead people, and 4 year old children - but that doesn't mean we should let them marry them.
I nominate that one for the quote of the month.
I have no use for the fella either and think he detracts from the debate.
I wish he'd go form his own party.
I actually agree with all of that - but that doesn’t change the fact that little Ricky screaming about the back of the bus is something I don’t need and is something that is tone deaf with regards to the crises facing our country today and the mood of today’s electorate.
But you are totally right about social conservatives and running people’s lives as far as how liberals argue against them.
Well, I agree too that Santorum’s pretty much been tone deaf throughout this whole primary cycle (as has Bachmann, for that matter).
My view is this: nominate a candidate who talks the talk and walks the walk on economic issues, but who you know is good on the social issues. Let them run on the economy, and then implement social conservative policies whenever opportunity arises after they’re in office.
And UNIQUELY this year they'll ensure loss in the GOP primaries. the VAST MAJORITY of GOP primary voters this year just don't want to hear it.
I'm not making a value judgment, just a prediction based on my observations to date.
I fear enough social conservatives will stay home in the general, do to being "slighted" or even genuinely broken hearted, for the GOP nominee to barely eke out a win.
Still, we need social conservatives onboard and if not enthusiastic, at least on our side.
I would rather they stay home than vote Obama due to some fake morality appeal.
I got flamed the other day for calling RS a sanctimonious jerk and after the last quote I think that is an apt description.
Social issues should not be a major focus on the campaign because it turns many people off. Yes, once we get the power, we can appoint pro life judges and work on the social issues.
Personally, I'd rather we just had an all-around, three-legged-stool movement conservative who could bring all the different "strands" of conservatism out enthusiastically, instead of listening to sanctimonious libertarian jerkwads who want to lecture us all about how nobody cares about social issues (which is far from true anywise).
Maybe we should have a Bachmann/Santorum ticket after all. Her 23 foster children and his 7 would make a very full White House!
My grandmother had 12, so there!
Yeah, can't be bringing up those four thousand babies that will be butchered again tomorrow, can we. After all, it's "just win, baby!"
Of course, there is one other little consideration ...
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" -- Jesus Christ, Mark 8:36
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.