Posted on 02/20/2012 10:49:10 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
On Monday, America Live host Megyn Kelly invited a panel made up of radio host David Webb and Gotham Ghostwriters president / Democratic strategist Dan Gerstein onto the show to discuss candidate Rick Santorum‘s recent comments concerning Barack Obama‘s values and faith. You may recall that, while speaking at a Christian conference on Saturday, Santorum criticized Obama’s moral compass and suggested the President’s agenda was based on a “phony theology” not based on the Bible.
The next say, Santorum appeared on Face the Nation, where he clarified that he hadn’t been talking about the President’s faith, nor about religion convictions at all.
Webb, for one, believes that, in context, Santorum had been referring to the President’s “belief system” rather than his religion. But “what he doesn’t do well,” Webb pointed out, “is stop writing ads for the Obama campaign.” Santorum was merely playing to the Christian crowd, he continued explaining, “and that’s dumb, Megyn. You’ve got to focus on the Obama administration’s jobs record, on its economy record. Focus on those things and stop playing to the crowd.”
Gerstein, meanwhile, feels Santorum’s “phony theology” comment amounts to a personal attack because — whether or not it was meant in a religious context — it sought to question the President’s motivations. Both panelists agreed that Santorum and the rest of the GOP field would do well to avoid attacking the President personally because it’ll result in alienating Independent voters come the general election. The key strategy? Again: going after Obama’s record, particularly where jobs are concerned.
Kelly then pointed out that Santorum seemed to be characterizing Obama’s “belief system” as one based on big government. Gerstein, who has worked with Santorum staffers and praises the candidate as a “man of conviction,” agreed with Kelly’s assessment, adding that this line of thinking will ultimately cost Santorum the election.
Kelly and Gerstein disagreed, however, when it comes to holding Santorum accountable for comments made by his supporters and/financial backers — namely, of course, Foster Friess. Kelly didn’t think it fair to compare Friess’ relationship to Santorum to that of Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. “He sat in the pew for twenty years!” she said of Obama. “Foster Friess is just giving [Santorum] dough!”
Have a look at the discussion, via Fox News:
(VIDEO AT LINK)
Because the narratives unleashed about Newt via Romney have undermined opinion of Newt in the eyes of the public. Likewise, these tactics backfired on Romney and he’s considered mean/nasty now. So, regressive dorks like Santorum are basically the leftovers.
So many Democrats, so much advice to IGNORE.
I wonder the same myself.
Romney and his Romneycare had him off my list from the start. The more I learn, the more I dislike the man.
I never liked Santorum from the start and I didn’t know much about him, it was just a strange cat/dog sort of deal. No real reason, I didn’t even like the way he looked.
The more I hear from Santorum and especially! his comment about unions recently—I can’t STAND Santorum.
I have gotten to where I can’t decide who I dislike more— Santorum or Romney.
Voters are mostly platitude loving, soundbite cheering lemmings by now. They are all in FOR whoever is “up”, while they’re “up”, but even then the support is a mile wild, temporary, and an inch thick.
Lemmings have no real use for brains, unmatched skill & accomplishment, national political experience, fluency, nor high order thinking. If some candidate delivers a one liner or a zinger that causes an oxygen surge to their brain, then they are “all in” for that one.
Newt delivers one liners too, but they are not cheap or manufactured by some consultant, and more important there are layers and layers of wisdom, depth and decades of practical knowledge behind those single soaring statements. He’s a brilliant, personable man. No one competes in those two catagories.
The American voter is not very brilliant, in the classical sense any more, and they are certainly not feeling very personable. :)
I sort of agree with Webb, and I do like David a lot! I listen to his show on Saturday mornings on Sirius whenever possible. He’s very good. But I also believe that Rick is merely speaking out loud what millions of Americans — and not just Republicans — have been thinking for the better part of four years (me, longer)! I don’t see how that is a negative for Santorum!
Santorum is entirely out of step on unions in 2011, and that story remains to be told to his supporters! Can he not know by now that between public schools and unions, they have together delivered us a nation now half full of Marxists?
Newt will rise at the point Rick’s conservative social schlick runs head long into his union record, and it gets exposed.
The more I hear from Santorum and especially! his comment about unions recently—I can’t STAND Santorum.
Mind sharing what Santorum said about unions which you found so offensive?
Cheers,
OLA
...regressive dorks like Santorum...
Frankly, all the MSM soundbite regurgating group-think types parroted Ronald Reagan was "senile;" so I prefer MSM defined "dorks" over MSM defined "mavericks."
But what I find most interesting: how does "regressive" get worked into a description of Rick Santorum?
Cheers,
OLA
public schools and unions, they have together delivered us a nation now half full of Marxists?
I feel your pain.
Despite educators already holding the extraordinary protection of "tenure," by Executive order Kennedy forced public sector teacher unions upon the USA. Making matters worse, Dhimmi Carter gave us the Department of Education.
President Reagan couldn't overturn the newly created Department of Education; so you mind sharing a realistic plan for reversing the half-century prescident of public sector teacher's unions?
Cheers,
OLA
The only answer I have off hand, leans on Right to Work and no forced dues legislation, and reversing the present attempt to shrink the election time to vote to go union, before the opposition/management/workers can even respond in kind and inform other workers.
There was a time, before Obama, where the unions were hardly a factor, down to 15%. Where are they getting their money? Union members dues can’t be enough to underwrite union efforts to create such havoc as they have been in Obama’s three years.
Now there is even a global effort to unionize underway, so this tells me there is a global web of communist inspired financiers (like Soros) that are banking them and count unions as a foundation for building a Marxist society, here for sure and everywhere else as soon as possible.
I sure don’t know why unions can not be corraled.
“I have no problem with private-sector unions,” Santorum said in his remarks on Thursday. “I think they play a role in society.”
***********************
I am anti-union through and through.
Mark Levin completely covered this issue of the purposeful misquoting of Santorum last evening
Because Snitt Romney has used the old tried and true tactic of suppressing the turnout rather than actually attracting supporters.The Vichy Republicans will make sure a number of those who want to just be the handmaidens of the Fascist democrats turn out and make it look like a, "moderate" is what will win Independents. For that reason, Snitt knows that if he can just get Conservatives and Independents to say, "a pox on both their houses" he wins without convincing anyone that he's the best candidate. It's a well worn strategy among those who cannot run on their record, so well worn that it's now easier than ever to get people to just drop out and ignore the whole primary process in spite of all the additional information available these days.
Just look at the turnout numbers in some of the places that Santorum or Romney call a "a victory". How many people actually had to show up and vote for Snitt or Santorum to make it look like Newt is way behind? How many votes did it actually take to swing the election toward one candidate or another and in which cases do you honestly think the Vichy Republican machinery couldn't pony up that many votes for the establishment critter of the hour? Do the States where Newt looks the worst have strong or weak State Vichy Republican parties, open primaries where anyone can vote, and so on.
Santorum wants to be VP so he'll keep on pounding along as long as it takes to get Romney nominated. Having him seem to do well provides the Vichy Republicans with both a stick to whip Snitt with when he goes off message and an additional way to split the vote and muddy up the fact that the majority will never vote for Snitt Romney.
Newt, on the other hand, has seen all these games before and knows that when someone wins by a few hundred votes out of only a few thousand cast it's the result of negative advertising suppressing the vote and not an indication of what people want. Crowds at rallies and speeches are an indication of what people want, not Vichy Republican bought and paid for straw polls and celebrations of who the Vichy have anointed. Newt will stay in the race no matter what because Newt knows that the Reagan Revolution has to be revived, expanded, and victorious, because any other result signs the death warrant for this country and Newt loves this country.
Newt or neutered, that's the real decision.
JMHO
Greetings Irenic:
Thank you for your candor.
From the way I read the quotes, Rick Santorum expresses a constitutional conservative-libertarian stand concerning private contracts among men. Government remains neutral with the exception of contract enforcement ajudication. In the case of public sector unions, government can not remain neutral. Guessing Newt Gingrich’s stand would be identical.
From my frame of reference, government setting a minimum wage undermines the private sector organized labor movement more than any right-to-work legislation. Up until government set a minimum wage, Grange Halls hosting every imaginable guild of free men had sprung up across the USA.
Cheers,
OLA
Greetings RitaOK:
Private sector unions should have the right to finance their favorite candidate; just as any private business should. My issue is the public sector unions purchasing the politician they collectively bargain with for access to the public’s checkbook.
Doubtful Rick or Newt would support RTW on the federal level. Right-to-work ought to remain a 10th amendment issue.
Cheers,
OLA
Greeetings Happy Rain:
Candidates ought to tell us why we should vote for them, and refrain from telling us why we should vote against their opponent.
Up until this point Rick Santorum has been doing that quite well. This week we’ll see how Rick performs with the circular firing squad’s guns upon him.
Praying for our future leaders,
OLA
Didn't you know this election is about who is in charge of paying for birth control, and how 'bain capital' is just like Obama's auto bail out. Both 'issues' certainly have debt reduction and job creation potentials. (partial sarcasm)
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.