Rick Santorum and more: How social issues intruded on 2012 campaign

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | February 18th, 2012 | Brad Knickerbocker

[Mariner]

In an election year that was supposed to be all about getting the country out of its economic doldrums, social values – mainly having to do with sex – have intruded big time. Largely, but not exclusively, it’s the realm of Rick Santorum.

In some cases (birth control vs. religious beliefs), they’ve taken firm root in the presidential election. In others (abortion and same-sex marriage), they lurk about the periphery – likely to inject themselves more deeply as the nominating process sorts itself out.

President Obama’s policy move requiring schools, hospitals, and other religious institutions to provide birth control to employees – even though it was adjusted to make insurance companies and not the institutions themselves responsible – continues to gain political traction left and right.

To conservatives, it’s all about government intrusion into religious beliefs and practices. To liberals, it’s about personal choice and women’s rights in the most private of issues.

Rick Santorum: Top 7 culture war moments

[Mariner]

"Because they are more liberal and have no problem with Romneycare."

I think both of those things are true.

To quote Rooster Cogburn: "God help us if we ever give 'em the vote"

j/k ladies:)

[vidbizz]

In the words of Carville: Its the economy, stupid.

The stimulus, cash for clunkers, bailouts, Obamacare & its mandates and waivers, decrease of the labor force, foreclosures with no end in sight, etc etc.

This election should be a NO BRAINER. It is about the total failure of the Obama admin in the realm of enabling people to pursue their goals and freedoms, in the form of realizing their happiness by being the best person they can be.

We can navel graze about social issues when people’s businesses aren’t being closed & homes foreclosed. If we loose sight of this, we will loose.

[American Constitutionalist]

" Look you should be concerned that Santorum lost by 18. "

That was 2008 news in a moderate state of Pennsylvanian in which turned Republican in 2010.
I guess Rick's 4 previous wins in that same state does not matter ?
Rick's major lost in the election year that did not bode to well for Republican over all in mooted by Rick's 3 victories in the past few weeks.. and over all Rick has won more states then all the others.

[RedMDer]

Tired of the disruptions? We need that new equipment!

[Sola Veritas]

“Those fights are at the state level, not the Federal level.”

As was slavery. Homosexual marraige has become a NATIONAL issue and cannot be left to states anymore. At a minimum, DOMA must be protected. Homosexual marraige is a vile corruption of society (as was slavery) and needs to be stomped out. I am convinced either Rick or Newt will do so.

Now should that be the primary focus at this time....probably not. However, it does need to be addressed.

A sorry lame duck congress forced open homosexuality on the military.....that should NEVER have happened. Santorum or Gingrich may help reverse it.

[Mariner]

"As was slavery. Homosexual marraige has become a NATIONAL issue and cannot be left to states anymore."

I agree. That's why a Constitutional Amendment is the correct route. I think DOMA is a 10th Amendment violation.

[napscoordinator]

Social issues are extremely important. Our country is going down because of lack of morals. Santorum is the best we have to get our country back to how great it was. Considering that Santorum has been getting non stop negative news stories and still on top shows that getting millions of dollars of negative things thrown at you does not mean poltiical death sentence. It is incredible that Santorum is handling the constant unstoppable vetting. He is handling himself outstanding. I can’t wait until January 2013 when Santorum is sworn in as President. His first job is to begin discussion of a congressional amendment abolishing abortion and then taking care of fag marriage which is about to pass in Maryland....UGH! You should really be more concerned with social issues.

[hinckley buzzard]

In 2006 15 republican senate incumbents ran for re-election. Nine republicans won and six lost. Santorum was one of the minority of GOP senators who lost his seat.

You're right, facile explanations of "it was a bad year" don't wash.

[napscoordinator]

Many incumbents won that year, and no setting senator took a loss like he did.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/senate/

That is totally 100 percent incorrect. Every Republican Senator lost that year except for Coker in TN and it was only by 3 points. Please glance at this listing before you unfairly attack a moral principled Christian with character.

[napscoordinator]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/senate/

I just posted this. Some acted like he was the only one who lost. Well they ALL lost except for Coker and he only won by 3 points. It was a disaster year for Republicans.

[ansel12]

Wow, looking at those narrow 1% and 3% percent losses like that, and then suddenly Santorum’s huge 18% wipeout really leaps out at you.

Incumbent, and destroyed by 18%, massive.

[American Constitutionalist]

If social issues were not important, how come some of the Newt supporters are having a field day and gloating over the gay scandal at the Romney campaign ?

Which is it Newt supporters ? are social issue important and should Rick Santorum raise those issues this fall ?
If they are not important then ? how come ? some of the Newt supporters are gloating over that gay scandal in the Romney campaign ? .

[Mariner]

"how come some of the Newt supporters are having a field day and gloating over the gay scandal at the Romney campaign ? "

I didn't know Gingrich supporters were. Isn't it at least even with Santorum supporters?

[darrellmaurina]

9 posted on Saturday, February 18, 2012 4:14:17 PM by dforest: “There is the truth an then there is the TRUTH. For the Democrats, social and fiscal issues are ONE. Take a look at Obamacare as an example. Until our side realizes the same, we are bound to lose. You cannot win the culture war and the fight for America until you realize this fact. Fiscal issues are not enough. Dems know it, why don’t we?Think about it.”

Amen!

25 posted on Saturday, February 18, 2012 4:35:38 PM by Lazlo in PA: “Rick has the highest rating of the candidates running from the NRA. A+.”

Thank you.

This kind of misinformation needs to get addressed quickly and clearly.

65 posted on Saturday, February 18, 2012 7:16:47 PM by Sola Veritas: “A sorry lame duck congress forced open homosexuality on the military.....that should NEVER have happened. Santorum or Gingrich may help reverse it.”

I truly hope you're right.

71 posted on Saturday, February 18, 2012 9:28:42 PM by ansel12: “Wow, looking at those narrow 1% and 3% percent losses like that, and then suddenly Santorum’s huge 18% wipeout really leaps out at you. Incumbent, and destroyed by 18%, massive.”

Ansel has a point. Question for Napscoordinator: were any of the other defeats caused by a conservative Democrat?

My read of the 2006 race is that the Democratic Party ran their equivalent of a Mitt Romney — a conservative Democratic son of a former governor who not only was pro-life and pro-gun but actually got national attention for battling the Democratic Party on those issues. Sort of like Mitt Romney, son of a liberal Republican pro-abortion governor who got national attention for battling conservative Republicans at the Republican National Convention?

Romney won in Massachusetts by neutralizing the liberal Democratic candidate with Boston Globe quotes saying there was no difference between him and the Democrat on abortion, so the race focused on other issues. Casey won in Pennsylvania by neutralizing the conservative Republican candidate by persuading voters that there was no difference between him and Santorum on abortion, so the race focused on other issues.

Napscoordinator, am I wrong?

41 posted on Saturday, February 18, 2012 5:00:49 PM by Mariner: “(Quoting Just mythoughts): ‘how many would support a Romney/Santorum or Santorum/Romney ticket’ I think that ticket would garner the support of most Social Conservatives.”

Four years ago, maybe, but not after the attacks that have been aggressively and successfully leveled against Mitt Romney on abortion. Abortion is a core issue for me. It's a core issue for most evangelicals and most conservative Roman Catholics.

In 2008, many of us in the evangelical world really did not understand how bad Romney's prior views on abortion were. The videos of Romney's debates when running for Massachusetts governor were a shocker to me. I thank Free Republic for waking me up.

I cannot imagine voting in the primary for a person who I did not believe was firmly committed to appointing pro-life Supreme Court justices unless every other candidate still in the race is worse. Romney has shown that he will change his politics based on polls. I cannot trust a man like that to appoint Supreme Court justices who believe the Constitution protects babies from babykillers.

We've already seen what happens when Republicans appoint Supreme Court justices who, after being confirmed by the Senate, go bad knowing they never again need to face a vote.

If Santorum were to drop out and join the Romney ticket as VP, I suppose I'd support Gingrich in the rest of the primary season, though I don't like predicting hypothetically. I don't want to think about the consequences of having to deal with a Romney vs. Obama matchup this fall. The Republicans can prevent that problem by not nominating Romney as president.

Regarding VP issues — I fail to see what Romney brings to the table as VP if Santorum is the presidential nominee. Why do that?

[ansel12]

You don’t grasp that it is social conservatives fighting to keep Romney out of the White House, if Santorum won, he would have to choose a conservative to balance the ticket, not someone more moderate than himself.

[ansel12]

Do you really think that Jim Robinson has endorsed Newt Gingrich because he is not a social conservative?

[PhilDragoo]

The right response is: thus it is demonstrated Hussein will control every aspect of your life--not your family, not your religion, not your conscience--this is his shoe in your face: forever.

[chrisnj]

No, the criminals and the crazies can get guns no matter what. The law-abidig people such as your employee can’t get the gun to protect herself under such gun-laws.
Strict gun laws turn law-abiding people defenseless while not effective in keeping guns from criminals/crazies.
You want to protect your employees? Remove the ‘laws’ that make it difficult to get guns for self-defense.
The constitution gives people the right to bear arms. The politicians are using anti-gun laws to strip people of their rights so they can control them.
Strip us of our rights to ‘protect’ us? No thank you.

[dt57]

“before you unfairly attack a moral principled Christian with character.”

So now we have decided to be silly. So, it is ok to attack anyone else? I am attacking no one. I am just trying to make an important point. And look at you link again, only 6 republican incumbants lost that year, and some where open seats. NO ONE lost by anywhere near the margin Rick did. Open you eyes. Rick Santorum is not the only moral principled Christina with character. Unless you mean he is is sinless. I suppose he has had to repent a few times and recieve forgiveness. The greatest family value for a Christian leader is to give and receive Grace. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Self Righteousness is what Jesus hated most. Look that up my friend. And I will vote for Rick, I just have more questions than you do. For what I see, he was an average Jr. Senator for PA. Not a hater, just trying to bring some realism to bare.