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 ...
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
The same old lies, told in the same old way.
This is the most disgusting anti-conservative thread I’ve ever seen on FR.
And I’m not even a Santorum supporter.
So I guess you support taking government out of marriage completely then. It's the only way out of your logic.
If government had no role in marriage, except maybe registration forms and ID, this would not be an issue.
It's only because of SPECIAL STATUS we grant marriage in the laws, particularly tax/family/estate laws, that creates the controversies.
I didn't say nobody.
I think there's about 2 million of you who will vote socon 100% or stay home.
The GOP doesn't need that vote this time.
Get onboard or lose all chance of influence.
Like what? Protecting the unalienable right to life? The founders said that's why we have government.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
Protecting the institution of one man-one woman marriage and the natural family? The Republican Party was explicitly founded to do exactly that.
I'm amazed by this thread, I really am.
The Republicans are feeling their oats. “Social conservatives” are being publicly told here tonight that they’re not needed or wanted.
In other words, they think they’ve accomplished their task of making sure moral issues are yet again submerged in this election cycle and so in their arrogance, for a little while, they’re telling you what they really think.
That's not accurate.
Most were referring to the political calculation, as was I.
It's clear the GOP has calculated that socons are not needed to win this cycle.
As for wanted? Are you kidding?
All socons are wanted in the GOP, except the commies.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness bump! It’s a package deal.
That’s just baloney. Gingrich represents all three legs of the conservative stool, including social issues. So does Santorum, but he shouldn’t attack Gingrich for not being saintly enough. Santorum had no traction before Cain or before Gingrich and these attacks won’t buy him any now. He’d best try a different tack. He’s almost out of time.
By the way, the “Republicans” aren’t pushing Gingrich. It’s conservatives and the tea party pushing Gingrich. The establishment Republicans are pushing RINO Romney. Now there’s our real enemy within in respect to social issues. Not to mention his big government “solutions,” ie, socialist RomneyCare.
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.