Skip to comments.Rick Santorum Chides Daniels on Abortion-Social Issues Truce
Posted on 02/04/2011 8:20:07 AM PST by julieee
Rick Santorum Chides Daniels on Abortion-Social Issues Truce
Washington, DC -- In an interview with conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, potential Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum slammed Mitch Daniels, also a potential GOP hopeful, on his abortion-social issues truce.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
Santorum is a nice guy, but Daniels has a point. America needs to focus on things like the economy, Obamacare, jobs, foreign affairs and the War in Afghanistan. Despite the fact that they are important, the electorate is not going to decide the next election on issues such as abortion and frankly I get bored by the preoccupation with it from people like Santorum and Ingraham.
He’s right about this, and has zero chance of winning the nomination. Santorum is right on the issues, but is stammering and inarticulate, and comes across with the personality of a baked potato with no butter. Instant turn-off when he hosts for Bennett.
Santorum is right.
No GOP candidate who is not pro life can win anything much.
PRO LIFE is part of our platform.
And Daniels is also two feet tall. He will never be POTUS
Santorum was a decent Senator for my state but all he has to talk about are the social issues. I agree with him there but Daniels is a lot better.
“Santorum is a nice guy, but Daniels has a point.”
Sorry, but Santorum is RIGHT! If you can’t guarantee the basic, fundamental right to life, your whole social issue truce is garbage. Tell that to the unborn and newly born who are slaughtered that their cause is not quite in line with what we should be focusing on.
Abortion is “The issue that dare not speak its name. Too controversial. Maybe later. But not now.”
I am so fed up with our country that we continue to murder the unborn at a rate of over 1.5 million each year, and we’re told to not push the issue.
That's quite a list. No reason one more thing can't be added to the mix. After all, we are talking about 1.2 million innocent human lives being ended each year.
Yeah Rick, we know you are Pro-Life. Now tell us why we need to ramp up Ethanol to be used in every car produced? You have to spend more time letting us know you are not a Newt Gingrich RINO before you get to start trashing everyone else. So far your non- Life issues are falling far short of what this country needs.
It may be the case... but compare these (or whatever other key moral dilemma)substituted-and-tackled societal ills to the sanctioned, funded extermination of innocent life and it says s#itloads about this culture's plunge toward an indifference that screams out for judgement.
Santorum is correct here and Daniels is proving to be tone deaf very early in this process. The opponents of social conservativism are not going to truce, so a truce by one side is certain defeat on a host of critical issues.
I have given Daniels time to reorganize his thoughts on this, and he still sounds silly. You don’t win an election, much less a nomination by alienating one of the largest segments of your voters. Many candidates have been strong on social issues without making it central to their campaign. The 2012 campaign should not focus on these issues, it should have a strong, concise focus on the size and role of government. That does not mean abandoning other issues. This is like saying the WOT is not important because we are in a recession. Idiotic.
Daniels is already charisma deficient, but could have proven to be a good candidate despite that. He would really have to impress me in the debates to even consider his candidacy.
Santorum has been stumbling about, and hasn’t much of a chance at POTUS. But he is absolutely right about this.
First, none of our freedoms means anything if it’s OK to abandon the “right to life,” first of the inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. The other rights are not much good if you’re dead.
Second, if you abandon moral values, then protesting against taxation is nothing more than a selfish claim, “IT’s my money.” It’s another matter if it is seen as a matter of justice, and of having the money to support family, friends, and charitable works.
Third, it’s a political loser. That’s what that jerk Rove did in the 2006 election: abandoned values and abandoned principles. So the Christian right stayed home and decided not to vote. What was the point of voting for a gang of selfish, power-drunk RINOs?
In other words, Mitch Daniels is morally wrong and politically stupid. You don’t win elections by saying, OK, I’m for lower taxes, but I think we should forget about the basic American values of life and family!
That doesn’t go over very big, and rightly so.
No, no, no, no, no.
If he can say something so completely lacking in moral principles, then he simply cannot be trusted. Do we really want to vote for someone who has revealed that he has no principles? Who says, in effect, "I don't care if they murder millions more babies and destroy marriage and families, as long as they vote for me"?
No, I think not. The guy has no more real values than Mitt Romney, and will flip to whatever position he foolishly imagines he will be more popular. And he's wrong about that, too. The voters prefer someone with principles.
Well, he's won at least two, including winning in a landslide in a state that went for Obama. Daniels is a sharp guy, and assuming that he wants to run for President, it seems like he's taking a calculated risk that he'll be able to get through a primary. I think that he would have a very good chance to beat Obama in a general election.
Mitt Romney won an election in a liberal state. Does that mean he makes a good presidential candidate? Not only that, but he was responsible for imposing gay marriage on the state, and subsidized abortions in Romneycare. The usual Democrat governor might not have done that.
Did you know that Mitt Romney and Mitch Daniels are actually two different people? Here, we’re talking about Mitch Daniels, but I see that you bring up Mitt just so you’ll have a whipping boy.
Indiana isn’t a liberal state. Daniels has been the governor for almost six years. He has an ample record on which he can be judged.
Mitch Daniels has time to grovel before his "truce" blunder destroys him but he better get his act in gear sooner rather than later. Another thing that might restore his reputation as a bona fide conservative would be to support the Tea Party challenge to spineless Lugar, the disarmament stooge.
The only way for "moderate" (read liberal) Republicans to avoid their social issue pain (what will Muffy think when she finds out her dad and mom support pro-life candidates??? What will her buddies at the polo club and Junior League think???) is by seeing to it that Roe vs. Wade and its progeny are absolutely overturned and destroyed once and for all. Then, similar victory on marriage (one man, one woman, no space aliens and no rump rangers). Total victory on guns. Rebuild and re-moralize the military.
Then we can address perennial issues less critical to societal survival, like money.