Posted on 02/27/2012 5:01:19 AM PST by Kaslin
New Gallup polling shows the clearest picture yet of the great divide in the Republican Party that has been pushing Rick Santorum to the head of the class.
Behind Santorum’s eight point national lead over Romney is a yawing gap in ideological support for the two candidates.
Conservative support for Santorum stands at 42 percent, compared to 24 percent for Romney. Among those who attend church frequently, support for Santorum is at 44 percent and for Romney 22 percent.
In the nation’s heartland in the Midwest and South, Santorum leads by 19 and 8 points respectively. It is only on the more liberal East and West coasts where the two are running neck and neck.
The poll also challenges conventional wisdom that Santorum is too conservative for the tastes of independent voters. He is leading Romney among Republican leaning independents by 8 points.
With Santorum establishing himself as the candidate of choice among conservative and church going Republicans, Romney’s tactic, manifest in the debate in Arizona, is to try and discredit Santorum’s credentials that is drawing conservative voters to him.
Having served two full terms in the U.S. Senate, there are enough party line votes on Santorum’s part to expose him to the attacks he got in Arizona as being a business-as-usual party politician.
I don’t believe this approach will dissuade those generally attracted to Santorum’s traditional values conservatism.
Even in the case of the most ideologically disposed candidate, politics will always be the art of the possible. Particularly in a nation as big and complex as ours.
Consider, for instance, that the Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear a challenge to racial preferences in college admissions policies at the University of Texas. There is a good chance that the court decision will overturn the Grutter v Bollinger decision of 2003 in which racial preferences were upheld.
That decision, arguing that the nation needed to continue racial preferences in college admissions, was written by Sandra Day O’Connor, who was President Reagan’s first Supreme Court appointment.
Given Reagan’s legacy as conservative hero, it is hard to believe that his first Supreme Court appointment was a pro-choice moderate.
It is also worth recalling that shortly into his first term, Reagan convened a commission under the leadership of Alan Greenspan to fix Social Security. Rather than proposing bold changes in the structure of Social Security, the commission simply slapped temporary patches on a broken system, raising taxes and cutting benefits. By avoiding addressing the core structural problems of the system, the Greenspan commission allowed the problem to get worse, and bequeathed to us today an even more difficult challenge to confront.
Do the Sandra Day O’Connor appointment and the Greenspan Commission challenge Reagan’s legacy as a great conservative leader?
Certainly not. Leadership is art. Even the most principled leaders must set priorities and choose which battles to fight. It is impossible to do it all.
A leader must identify the biggest, most immediate challenges and where compromises are unthinkable.
In the case of Reagan, this was cutting taxes, shrinking government, and taking a hard stand internationally against communism and the Soviet Union.
The most immediate challenge for our nation today is understanding that our hobbled economy reflects erosion of the cultural pillars that make possible a free society.
When Reagan became president, 18 percent of American babies were born to unwed mothers. This has grown today to over 40 percent.
The way to stop runaway government today is to understand that it reflects the collapse of the core values which define personal responsibility and form the glue that keeps American families intact.
There is no candidate today clearer on this than Santorum. It’s why I think, despite the expected onslaught of attacks, he will not only not lose his attractiveness among conservative voters, but the attraction will strengthen.
Independent thinking people look at RomneyCare, his relationship with famed crony-capitalist Goldman Sachs and the scorched-earth strategy he's using in his campaign and saying they don't want this guy.
BTW, a lot of hard-core so-cons are for Romney -- Christine O'Donnell, Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter etc.
” It is only on the more liberal East and West coasts where the two are running neck and neck.”
And these are the states that vote Democrat in every election. Is the GOP so clueless as to let these socialist states choose its candidate again? If so, it deserves to go the way of the Whigs.
Newt is my pick. but I will have no trouble voting for Santorum if he wins the nomination.
Maybe now Ann Coulter et al will figure out that they’re pushing a lame horse.
Romney should withdraw, but he won’t. He’ll continue to crap in the sand box and ruin it for all. Some people have this opinion of Gingrich — but at least Gingrich contributes Ideas and Notions during his campaign. Newts a powerful speaker with a keen grasp of history and direction that the founders of our country had.
But alas, I don’t think Gingrich has the ability to keep his mouth shut when needed. Santorum has become viable and piqued my interest — but please oh please this Christian wants you to stop talking about religious specifics.
From an email.............
Have any of you seen or heard this message yet ?
Sounds like the sleeping giant has awoken. Could be the straw that broke the camel’s back for Big O’s administration. Do yourself a favor and listen to this.
Please take 10 minutes to listen to this homily given two weeks ago by Fr. Sam Maletta from St. John the Evangelist Parish in St. John, Indiana. It hits right at the core of what the HHS mandate means for the Catholic Church in our country. I pray that every Catholic in our nation will be able to hear his words.
Peace.
This I think is Gingrich's problem, and IMO, he didn't and hasn't done enough to convince the American people that he's no longer an adulterous womanizer and that he does stand for traditional family values. Standing his wife up next to him at the mic when he's speaking isn't enough. He has needed to level with the American people about his past, his repentance, and the fruits thereof.
People will say, "Well, he's already done that." First, it's not enough if he's addressed this years ago or once a few months ago. Not if he's going to CONVINCE the American people he's changed his ways and is, in fact, a changed man. This would be a difficult thing for Newt to do because the platform of his campaign is built on what he's done in the past. Nevertheless, he has needed to make clear the distinction between his successful political past and his failed moral past. I've watched him on and off throughout the debates and this campaign and I haven't heard this at all from him.
Secondly, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It appears the American people are not convinced and his strategy to avoid the subject has backfired. I’m sorry he didn’t level with us earlier and often but I have mixed feelings about the results of his not doing this. Yes, I think Gingrich is the best of the bunch (given he really IS a changed man and wouldn't pull that kind of stuff once he's in the WH). But it also says something to me about our country, that there's still a strong sense of morality, God, and Christian family values, which is the most important thing in the long run. It appears obvious to me this particular message, his failed moral past and why we should believe he is a changed man now, needed to and hasn't reached the ears AND hearts of the American people.
What it says to me is that there might still be a strong sense in a minority of the Republican party of wanting to burn other people at the stake in order to prove how much more "moral" they are by comparison. Judgmentalism against your fellow man goes against Christian principles but based on the people I've met, often seems to increase rapidly in proportion to how "Christian" someone professes to be.
There's a practical reason for most if not all of God's laws. In the case of forgiveness, the reason is that we will all suffer when we shun someone based on mistakes in their past because we will deny capable people the freedom and encouragement to use their talents to improve all of our lives. By denying God's teachings, we invite suffering on earth. And that is exactly what will happen if people judge Gingrich negatively based on past moral failings he's repented for and deny him the chance to run for the top leadership role in our government. I'm not convinced any other candidate in the race now can beat Obama and don't see either capable or willing enough to institute the necessary reforms to stop our government from driving off the cliff and dragging the country with it.
Newt still has my vote, but I'll gladly support Santorum if Newt isn't on the ballot come election day.
I wrote my post way too fast and without proofing:
The corrected version:
Romney's problem isn't "social conservatism". He's saying all the right words "pro life" "marriage between a man and a woman" etc.
Frankly, if he is the nominee -- God forbid -- I will vote for him just because he has done that. Well, and that he's not Obama. I think I would vote for Chaz Bono if he/she was the Pub's nominee
But, like Dubya, Romney's problem is fiscal conservatives
Independents look at RomneyCare, his relationship with famed crony-capitalist Goldman Sachs and the scorched-earth strategy he's using in his campaign and saying they don't want this guy. BTW, a lot of hard-core so-cons are for Romney -- Christine O'Donnell, Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter etc.
Just because they are for him doesn’t make him right.
Romney invented Romneycare and that alone should disqualify him.
Not to mention that he let gay marriage happen in Massachusetts without raising a hand to stop it.
Gingrich is my choice.I can vote for Santorum,but Romney an his buddy Ron Paul are out.
I don’t think Gingrich has the ability to keep his mouth shut when needed.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
OH PLEASE!!! At least when Newt does speak, it makes sense. I’ve said, for a long time, that Rick needs to know when to shut up. Latest Santorum gaffe: Yesterday Santorum said that every time he hears JFK’s speech on keeping his religion & politics separate, that he “wants to vomit”.
Real classy Rick; real friggin’ classy.
Santorum made it clear that those of faith and non faith both are welcomed to the debate in the public square. How anybody can disagree with that goes beyond supporting a certain candidate into the realm of insanity.
Voting is judging. Buying at the grocery store is judging. We need to judge. But not condemn others or pass sentence on others as we tend to do in the place of God and it is God who justifies us (Romans 8:33). We need to exercise our free right to choose our preferences, A over B. This includes judging whether we believe A and/or B is morally fit for the job. This is not a question of forgiveness but of fitness for service in the public arena. The issue is not whether Newt is forgiven. If he's received Jesus HE'S FORGIVEN. The question is, is he fit for office? Does he continue to have a problem is this area? We want leaders who influence and set the right example for others. The lifestyle of our leaders is a very powerful influence on others. We need to forgive all as God in Christ has, but we need also to meticulously judge and discern our candidates by our own moral standards (hopefully in harmony with God's Biblical standards) to see whether we believe they are fit for office. Nobody's perfect, but it's the best we can do.
There's also a sense I think where if my guy screws up, it's not the same as if their guy screws up. I don't know of too many Republicans that would cut Bill Clinton the same kind of slack some want to give Gingrich. I dare say the same ones who presume Gingrich's repentance may holler the loudest if Clinton tried to run for office again. I don't see how the outrage against Clinton's behavior is of a different character than that against Gingrich.
I do think, however, that that the American people are willing to forgive if they're treated with honesty and candor. Honestly, I really don't know why I presume Gingrich has "repented". He never talks about it. I have my misgivings but apparently have been willing to forgo them on the hope that he's the best man for the job and this problem wouldn't occur again. But his own words have not been the reason for my doing this and, really, it should be. Anyway, apparently there are enough other people who needed more from Gingrich along these lines and, again, I have mixed feeling about how this has played out.
dude, I think you responded to the wrong poster because you’ve echoed my sentiments exactly.
No; I was saying that Rick,not Newt, is the one who needs to know when to shut up. He is so gaffe prone.
No, you need to reread it a few times and let comprehension kick in.
That was no gaffe.
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.