Posted on 03/26/2012 2:26:03 PM PDT by parksstp
Au contraire, Rick is very much in control. I would’ve gotten mad too at the annoying, invasive questioning. Good for him for calling him out.
Rick went on to sign posters and take pics after that..graciously and calmly.
You weren’t there. I was. You don’t know anything about Rick Santorum. You are just making judgments without the facts.
We’re working hard in WI., stpio. Volunteers are streaming into our new campaign office to make phone calls..young, old, all ages.
Rick’s been here alot this week. He’ll be back for the whole weekend.
Romney isn’t here..is just doing robocalls, lying about Rick. I got ten yesterday. People are disgusted. Who would fall for that bullsh*t? :-) Mittens is outspending Rick by 55 to 1 here. Must be nice to try to buy an election.
What did you talk about Bellflower?
Well I have looked at the WI simulation, and to be honest, I don’t see how Rick DOESN’T win WI. There seems to clearly be enough conservative voters to offset Milwaukee/Madison.
In 2008, McCain got 55%, Huckabee 35%. Romney was out by the time of the Primary, so it’s hard to tell if what would normally be Romney voters ended up voting for the Huckster as a protest to McCain.
Like IL/LA, Rick got close to 85-90% of the Huckabee vote. The problem in IL was that there just wasn’t enough of them in Southern IL. Rick’s been getting anywhere from 25-30% of the McCain vote, while Romney’s been getting over 50%, with Newt picking up about 10% of Huck and 10% of McCain. This has been pretty stable from state to state.
If Rick gets 90% of the Huckabee voters from 2008 and just 15% of the McCain vote, that will be him around 40 alone. The one unknown, is how many 08 Primary voters voted for Huckabee as a protest over McCain once Romney dropped out. It could be a significant number (10% or more), which if accurate may explain why Romney has a 7 point lead at the moment.
Bottom line: For Rick to win WI, he needs 90% of the Huckabee voters and at least 15% of the McCain voters. Romney is banking on getting 90% of the McCain voters and at least 10% of the Huckabee voters that only voted Huckabee last time as a protest to McCain. Newt gets the remants between those two categories.
If I had to guess right now, based on polling information and demographical data, I’d say it’s shaping up for the winner to get 44-45%, 2nd Place 39-40%, Newt/Paul 14-15%
But apart from using words which (unfortunately) have now become common vocabulary, how does what Santorum said attacking a reporter differ from Newt Gingrich's prior attack on media during the South Carolina debate, and numerous other prior attacks on media?
The only difference I can see is that Gingrich supporters like his attacks and don't think they're “unpresidential” but don't like Santorum’s attack so they call it “unpresidential” as well as “un-Christian.”
Few if any of us on this board believe in pacifism. Lots of Gingrich supporters said Santorum wasn't tough enough. Being a nice milquetoast pansy “meek and mild” guy isn't required by Scripture in any way — I can show numerous passages of Scripture that make Santorum’s comment look mild — and I fail to see how Santorum isn't being criticized here for doing the same thing Gingrich has been doing for a long time.
Again, I don't defend gutter language. But let's be consistent. Gingrich supporters can't blame Santorum for doing pretty much the same thing they praised Gingrich for doing.
SPANKAGE!!
Mountain Mary,
I am tired of the lies about Santorum, your news from Wisconsin is so good to hear.
Why is it we all sing “God bless American” and do not understand electing a non-Christian President severely limits
God’s blessings?
I'm not disagreeing about the attention span of the modern media and its readers/viewers/listeners in the 24-hour news cycle.
However, I'm not (yet) convinced this line of complaint about use of “BS” language is over, and I have a feeling it's going to come back to bite later in the campaign. Look at the posts on this thread, especially #92 and #94 by Bramps, #96 by PsychoFreep, and #106 and #107 by JediJones.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2864772/posts?page=82#82
Christians, for better for for worse, get held to a high standard by their political opponents. That's not necessarily a bad thing — I would severely criticize a Christian candidate who brings his faith into disrepute by his conduct.
The problem here is that the bar is being moved. McCain could use that sort of language against fellow Senators and all he got was a reputation for being hard to get along with. Rick Santorum is being accused of being un-Christian, hypocritical, and un-Presidential for using gutter language, and that's likely to be a theme that gets repeated by people who are looking for things with which to attack him.
Those are three different types of accusations.
The un-Presidential accusation may have some merit, but it proves more than many of its advocates intend because it's well-known that numerous nationally known Republicans and Democrats have had pottymouths in the past. McCain (who was proud of his mouth) and Nixon (who wasn't once he got caught on tape) are only two of the better-known examples because for them swearing was standard practice.
The accusation of hypocrisy is probably bogus. I don't know of any history on Santorum’s part criticizing other candidates for using gutter language but now using it himself. The fact of the matter is that language which I would prefer not be used in public has now become common in many contexts, including on Free Republic. Much worse words have been said in threads here than what Santorum said there.
The third accusation of being un-Christian is related to but distinct from the hypocrisy allegation. Santorum used gutter language; he didn't blaspheme God. There is a difference. As bad as “F-this” or “S-that” may be, that's quite different, biblically speaking from taking God's name in vain. That may seem like a minor point to non-Christians, but it's an important point for people who take the Bible seriously. I'd rather see a construction worker shout excretory language all day long than see him use blasphemous language — and that includes, by the way, calmly and in a quiet voice taking an oath in God's name in court with no intent to actually tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
When Christians complain about gutter language, I'll grant their point. While it's not taking God's name in vain, there are other passages of Scripture that, at the very least, indicate it's not a good idea.
The problem is that some people are attacking Santorum for being hypocritical and un-Christian by using such language. I believe that comes in some and perhaps many cases from the wrong idea that Christians are supposed to be some sort of feminized weak-willed wimp. Severe terms of ridicule and rebuke are used in Scripture, and there's nothing wrong with condemning people in using strong language when that condemnation is warranted.
Santorum didn't use language I consider appropriate, but I'm afraid it's going to get used against him — not just by conservative Freepers who may have legitimate concerns but also by enemies who are liberals and are merely looking for something to attack.
In this case, the critics who call Santorum hypocritical and un-Christian are wrong and need to be challenged on that point, while simultaneously agreeing with the critics that Santorum’s language was unwise, unfortunate, and shows much about how civil discourse in our society has degenerated greatly during the last few decades.
Of course, I live outside a large Army installation where I hear profanity, blasphemous language, sexual innuendo, and gutter language fairly often in public, not only on the streets but also in stores and restaurants with young children around, and even out of the mouths of elected officials in government meetings with numerous reporters listening. “BS” is pretty mild compared to what certain elected officials I know say in public, and what they say in private is laced with far worse words.
Maybe it's just conservative former military people who talk that way? Maybe the standards of language are better in Greenwich Village or DC or San Francisco?
Nah, I didn't think so.
This type of language, for better or for worse, is quickly becoming the “new normal.” I don't like it, and I would be very unhappy if Santorum gets elected president and his choice of words starts to legitimize calling stuff “bullshit” in public, just like Clinton's activities made public discussion of oral sex acceptable. But that shift in language is already well under way and to criticize Santorum for being a “pottymouth” is ludicrous given the sort of language past presidential candidates have used.
For what it’s worth, I only used the term ‘pottymouth’ to tweek Napscoordinator, one of Santorum’s more vocal supporters who in the past self righteously condemned the very talented singer Adele for having a ‘pottymouth’. Childish, but I couldn’t resist.
I’d be a lot more impressed with Rick’s criticism of reporters, if he weren’t so quick to proclaim the “guilt” of the guy in Florida.
Rick’s really been disappointing about that.
And Glenn Beck siding with Rick’s irresponsible rush to judgement helps neither of the two.
Santorum really seems to have some sort of issue about the Florida frenzy.
Don’t know what it is, but it’s weird.
In my circles, we have a certain minister who was once informally known as the cussing Calvinist and regularly acts very “unministerial” in many ways that have nothing to do with his word choices. He's not doing anything that hasn't been done for a long time in revivalist circles, but it's not the way modern Calvinists, who have in the last century or so developed a reputation for being bookish and old-fashioned, typically act.
Fortunately that minister has toned down his language, but we need to distinguish between sinful language — lying, blasphemy and taking God's name in vain — and words which may be unwholesome gutter language, unwise, or unnecessarily offensive but not themselves sinful.
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.