Posted on 02/12/2012 10:13:02 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
On today's Meet The Press, "moderator" David Gregory gave a good preview of how the MSM/Obama industrial complex will try to cariacture and demonize Rick Santorum should he become the Republican presidential candidate.
Gregory asked Santorum whether, if elected president, he would only permit single women without children to work in his administration. That's right: Gregory was actually wondering whether Santorum would prohibit mothers from serving. Santorum didn't rise to Gregory's absurd bait, giving a smiling and good-natured response to the effect all women would be welcome in a Santorum administration.
View the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
The response for every socially conservative candidate should be as follows:
1. I am a Constitutionalist. This means whatever you do in your private life is your business. It is NOT the Government’s Business. Period.
2. Whatever you do in your private life is your responsibility so DO NOT make your fellow citizens pay for your actions.
Enough Said.
Sorry about the triple posts. : (
They will do the same sort of thing to whatever candidate we put up - they even did it to McCain.
All Republicans are opposed to abortion, with the possible exception of Romney who would likely fold under political pressure.
My references were to what themes a candidate should lead with if they want to win a general election.
If you believe a candidate can lead with the Social Conservative mainstays and get elected in a national election, you're entitled to your opinion on that.
I just happen to disagree. And yes, I am pro life, pro marriage too...contrary to somebody who accused me of working for Obama on this thread.
Remember, Santorum lost PA...a Catholic rust-belt state...by over 18% on virtually the same platform he espouses today.
Do you think there's a majority of voters nationwide that will see otherwise?
Yes...it's difficult to get any more extreme than Obama just with that vote in his history alone, and should be brought up and argued as such anytime someone in the media or the left calls Santorum or anyone else and extremist by comparison.
Each candidate has their weakness. Some of the weaknesses can turn an election, some not.
Romney is toast in a general election even if every member of the GOP votes for him (extremely unlikely). They will go after Romney on Bain/1% AND the tenets of Mormonism. There will be specials on NBC/ABC/CBS talking about magic underwear and how little girls are forced to become wives. Truth or reason will have nothing to do with this...only focus-tested emotional responses. By the time they are done Romney will be a space alien from Wall Street who advocates the enslavement and rape of little girls, his own included.
I have already opined on Santorum's weaknesses.
Paul will do well until it comes to Foreign Policy. For the first time in our lifetimes the Democrat Party will be able to run to the right of a GOP POTUS candidate on Foreign Policy and Defense. Disastrous.
Newt has issues too: Moon Colony. 3 Wives. The Pelosi couch/Global Warming.
But Gingrich could also do what none of these other candidates has demonstrated the ability to do: CHANGE THE ARGUMENT to the Size and Scope of the Federal Government and the systemic corruption of the Wall Street/DC Cabal.
Non sequitor.
I think you're a bit high with those numbers, but you're on the right track. If it's Obama vs. Santorum, Obama will win handily. And yes, I'd bet on that. I wonder if Vegas accepts those kind of bets.
The problem is that if it's not Santorum as nominee, then must it be Mittens? Ugh.
By the way, I'm afraid you're going to be a victim of a kill-the-messenger routine.
Well its going to be he or Romney so you better choose.
Santorum is a lot smarter than the media gives him credit for and attempting to beat up on a perceived nice guy will be disastrous for them.
The question ranks right up there with Chris Wallace asking Michele Bachmann whether she would be subservient to her husband if she were elected president.
I’ve seen him debate democrats and he’s no pushover.
Rick Santorum opposed TARP and did not follow the GOP bail-out crowd. He opposed the healthcare individual mandate as far back as 1994. He is big on border/national security and defense. He did not use socialist rhetoric against Romney for his behavior at Bain nor did he goose and tickle Nancy Pelosi in a love seat while making horny eyes at each other over the global warming hoax. Rick voted against Cap and Trade and for drilling in ANWR PLUS his Christian Conservative bona fides are the very best.
I voted for him here in South Carolina because he is the most consistant conservative, warts and all, with the least baggage and the best chance at beating Obama.
Others may disagree but that’s ok because even if we leave out the arguments, just disagreeing with me makes you wrong and if you continue to do so, stupid;)
Santorum is a far better general election candidate then you think unlike Mitt who is going to get railed he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and Newt who is an automatic 20 point gender gap and that is being intellectually honest Santorum actually appeals to the blue dog Reagan democrats of the midwest with his working class backround and love he has of his original wife kinda need a few of those to win the swing states
I'm used to it.
One of the things I like about FR is that I have an opportunity to engage my SoCon brethren in lively debate. I have learned over the years I often get a vicious emotional response, not by advocating against the positions that I myself hold, but by espousing my opinion that they don't win national elections.
I believe if the GOP is not talking about the Size and Scope of the Federal Government, Rule of Law, National Security and the corrupt Beltway/Wall Street cabal...with every spoken breath...we lose and we lose big.
I accept that others hold a different opinion than me.
I just don't think we have a majority mindshare on Social Issues and I think we've crossed the POLITICAL threshold of acquiring that mindshare.
Only if the culture itself changes will our views prevail.
It's either that, or replacing the existing government with a classic monarchy, or Federal Empire not unlike the Holy Roman Empire of old.
That bears consideration.
Santorum lost PA, similar to what you describe above, by over 18% in his last state-wide election. It's close to one of the worst defeats suffered by a sitting Senator in the history of the US.
Think about it.
There are reasons for it.
Yes, Senator!!!
That is the way to do it!!!
LAUGH AT THEIR STUPID QUESTIONS!!!!
Alinsky their butts right back!!! Excellent job!! Their idiot gotcha questions deserve the quiet polite mocking at that you gave them!
FINALLY someone on our side gets it right!
Yes, Senator!!!
That is the way to do it!!!
LAUGH AT THEIR STUPID QUESTIONS!!!!
Alinsky their butts right back!!! Excellent job!! Their idiot gotcha questions deserve the quiet polite mocking at that you gave them!
FINALLY someone on our side gets it right!
Yes, Senator!!!
That is the way to do it!!!
LAUGH AT THEIR STUPID QUESTIONS!!!!
Alinsky their butts right back!!! Excellent job!! Their idiot gotcha questions deserve the quiet polite mocking at that you gave them!
FINALLY someone on our side gets it right!
I would apologize for multiple posts but I keep getting the service temporarily unavailable screen so there’s nothing I can do.
What Santorum should answer back: in HIS government, women who have children will not be forced to desert them and HAVE to work, because government will allow them to do what their conscience tells them to do and will allow a “choice”.
With the tax code and all the govt. restrictions on businesses and and intrusion into healthcare and insurance co., it forces women out of the home at a time when they are shaping the worldview and emotional security of their children. Many women don’t want to go back to work after having a baby but with “government” health care rules and regulations they are forced back, and many who feel bad about leaving young children to strangers—have to.
Children’s IQ was a lot higher and there was a lot less abuse of children, prior to government interference in the two family house and women staying home in the formative years of the lives of children-—forming the trust in young children which is needed for cohesive societies.
It is about time parents learn a little child psychology-—Santorum should develop a lot of one-liners on the destruction of the family by a Marxist pushed government which loathes the natural family——because of the individualism and emotionally healthy and high IQ this system creates-—The natural family with the mother being the nurturer-—leads to a type of child whose can never be a “useful idiots”. They run on intellectual reasons rather than emotionalism—which all the stupid Marxist people run on because they can’t reason after years of stranger indoctrination into a worldview foreign to their parents.
Remember four years ago when Gregory asked Obama “Will you only appoint communists and other fellow-travelers to your administration?”
Nope. Neither do I. And this would have been a far, far more important question to ask.
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.