Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Numbers Suggest Santorum Could Be Romney's Worst Nightmare
Townhall.com ^ | February 17, 2012 | Scott Rassmussen

Posted on 02/17/2012 5:48:02 AM PST by Kaslin

In a campaign defined by Republican reluctance to embrace Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum has emerged as the latest not-Romney candidate to surge ahead. While it's impossible to predict what will happen in this volatile election season, the data suggests that Santorum might be more of a challenge for Romney than earlier flavors of the month.

The latest Rasmussen Reports poll of the GOP race shows that Rick Santorum leads Mitt Romney by 12 points, 39 percent to 27 percent. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are far behind. In and of itself, that's nothing new. The man from Massachusetts has at times trailed Michele Bachmann, Donald Trump, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich in the polls.

What is new are the numbers from a head-to-head matchup with no other candidates in the race. Santorum leads Romney 55 percent to 34 percent. None of the earlier Romney alternatives could manage better than a toss-up in such a contest.

Those numbers show that Santorum picks up 16 points when other candidates drop out. Romney adds just 7 to his column. Santorum makes huge gains among conservative voters when others drop out of the race. Among non-conservatives, Santorum and Romney gain roughly equal amounts. For the first time, the numbers show that if one of Romney's challengers drops out, the other challenger will overwhelmingly benefit. Gingrich supporters, by a three-to-one margin, would vote for Santorum over Romney if that was the final choice.

Both Romney and Santorum are well-liked by Republican Primary voters, but Santorum has a slight advantage on this pointm as well. Seventy-five percent offer a favorable opinion of Santorum, while 66 percent say the same of Romney.

There is a huge passion gap favoring Santorum, though. Forty percent of Republican primary voters have a very favorable opinion of Santorum. Just 18 percent are that enthusiastic about Romney.

The one thing keeping Romney afloat is that he is still perceived as the strongest general election candidate. For some Republicans, that's enough. But to survive the Santorum challenge, Romney needs to give primary voters something more, something positive. GOP voters want a reason to vote for him beyond the fact that he has the most money and the best organization.

Team Romney needs to acknowledge that Republican voters are not only strongly opposed to President Obama's agenda but that they don't think much of Washington Republicans, either. They want a president who would shake up the good old boys network in Washington rather than join it. To date, Romney's attitude signals that he'd be more comfortable leading the club than challenging it.

Santorum has a very different challenge. First, he must survive the onslaught of ads coming from the Romney campaign. Then, he must convince Republican voters that he can win the general election in November. Electability is still the most important factor for Republican voters. If Santorum can neutralize the electability argument, he could become Romney's worst nightmare.

The next primary competitions are slated for Feb. 28 in Arizona and Michigan. If Romney wins both states, the race will probably be over. However, if Santorum can pull off a victory that day, he will be far more than the latest flavor of the month.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012polls; freeperheadsexplode; prolifelikebush; prolifesantorum; rassmussen; santorum; santorumbush3; santorumprolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-144 last
To: caww; P-Marlowe; wmfights
“hair trigger volatility”,... “cruel”,... “extremely arrogant”, ...“dismissive”,... “massive ego”,.... lack of character,... poor temperament, ...“unfit”, ...“He treats people really badly with arrogance and contempt”, ...multiple personas,.. vindictive,... nasty,... “a disaster”,... “abrasive”, ...“absurd”,... “phony”,... “rigid”,... “divisive”,.... “a sure victory for Obama”.

Every bit of your info is Romney Slime Machine opposition research that is totally unable to be verified.

Think about it: "arrogant"? I've met the man, and I disagree. Not even close.

How do you defend yourself against that kind of slime?

Earmarks I simply don't care about. I want as much of my tax money as possible back in my own district.

You have him being both "compliant" and "bucking the leadership". He backs Specter for the team, because Bush asks him to, and he's bad for that. He backs an increased debt limit because Bush asks it, and he's bad for that. He backs the Bush medicare prescription stuff, and he's bad because he does that.

No one can win against the Romney Slime Machine, and Romney is far more liberal. But, he knows all he has to do is introduce to conservatives a bit of "impurity" in perceived conservatism, and the conservatives will eat their own guy on Romney's behalf.

It's amazing how gullible conservatives are.

101 posted on 02/17/2012 8:35:12 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: CainConservative

I’ve supported Santorum since before Iowa.

I feel compelled to say it...he looks like Jerry Seinfeld.

Oh well, maybe Kramer would make a good Secretary of Interior or something.


102 posted on 02/17/2012 9:20:03 PM PST by Kevmo (If you can define a man by the depravity of his enemies, Rick Santorum must be a noble soul indeed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: xzins
LOL...Never thought I'd see a Freeper playing the "Blame Bush Game" for Santorums decisions. That is just too funny...really. Doesn't warrent even going there as I don't play the "Blame Bush" game. Every bit of your info is Romney Slime Machine opposition research that is totally unable to be verified.

First, it's definately NOT a Romeny link. Pennsylvanian's don't need Romney to show what we've known for sometime concerning Rickie...Here again is the link....shall I post other links as well just so you know? How many will satisfy you? Understand I live in Pa. Rick is no stranger to us....nor can he pull the wool over our eyes.

Read more http://hillbuzz.org/why-rick-santorums-pennsylvania-residency-scam-and-school-tuition-fraud-still-matters-and-why-he-cant-be-the-nominee-because-of-it-95754

Additionallly Santorum loves to sponser "spending" bills, in fact he won the prize for doing just that as follows:

In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending,... and failed to sponsor or co-sponsor even one spending cut proposal.

In his last Congress (2005-2006), he had one of the biggest spending agendas of any Republican -- sponsoring more spending increases than Republicans Lisa Murkowski, Lincoln Chafee and Thad Cochran or Democrats Herb Kohl, Evan Bayh and Ron Wyden.

Santorum also supported raising congressional pay at least three times, in 2001, 2002, and 2003.

In the years that followed his controversial support of Specter, Santorum has offered a series of revisionist explanations. Those explanations have changed several times, and none of them are consistent with what he said during the 2004 campaign.

..... The only explanation that is consistent is political expediency. .... Santorum was willing to jettison conservative principles when it suited him in 2004, and he wants to try to explain it away when it no longer suits him on the 2012 presidential campaign trail.

103 posted on 02/17/2012 10:28:35 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

that would be me.


104 posted on 02/17/2012 11:20:33 PM PST by Segovia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: bassmaner
“With that said, the ‘issues’ link at his campaign site is a little troubling ... the first issue listed is not Obamacare, not energy independence, not even abortion, but ... pornography? Really?”

I thought you were kidding. Not the economy, not gas prices, not the violations of our civil liberties, but... pornography causes brain damage. Anyone who thinks the libs won't make hash out of idiocy like that is crazy. People are already mad at Obama for wanting to tell people what to read and download. That crazy crap will make Santorum look like the Ayatollah, and it's right there on his website.

105 posted on 02/17/2012 11:59:33 PM PST by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Luke21

How many people are really going to get their back all arched over porn? People that weren’t already bent on voting for a second term of Obama no matter what?


106 posted on 02/18/2012 12:00:47 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Luke21

Maybe porn damages brains and maybe it doesn’t, but its usage can damage minds, hearts, souls, and families. Something need not be banned to be warned about.


107 posted on 02/18/2012 12:02:32 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

That’s his priority. It is the very stereotype of conservatives, a bunch of meddlers in people’s private business. We have lost election after election because of it. I couldn’t believe that’s his top priority with the whole country a craven mess.


108 posted on 02/18/2012 12:03:25 AM PST by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
That statement by Santorum’s campaign is idiotic. His campaign said it damages brains. That's flat goofy. I'm sure there's plenty more where that came from. The poster who pointed it out said it is disturbing for a crusade against porn to be the issue leading the campaign page. I concur. Your gas pump price tomorrow is far more important. Santorum is a minor leaguer and he will be an easy parody for Obama.

I'm pretty ambivalent here. I detest Romney, think Santorum is a loser, and reluctantly support Gingrich because that's all there is.

109 posted on 02/18/2012 12:09:06 AM PST by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster

And your spamming is to promote a LIAR who is against a conservative with PRO AMERICAN accomplishments. Rick is a play tool of mitt, the one he campaigned for in 08. ONLY the dumbest of the dumb would fall for the liar/deceiver - slick Rick.

Slick lawyer politicians fooling voters - how novel. And voters falling for it - how novel. Nothing is new under the sun.


110 posted on 02/18/2012 1:17:57 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan

That’s a compliment coming from one who embraces evil - in fact, it’s to be expected for they HATE the TRUTH to be spoken. And it shows why you are drawn to the liar lawyer slick rick.


111 posted on 02/18/2012 1:23:04 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Luke21

Santorum is green and could stand to focus-group better.

That said I’m not sure he’s got bad advice on how to list issues. People who read a list of issues (or of anything) actually remember the last things on that list the best, the first things next best, and the things in the middle the least well. Of course it defeats that purpose if people go to his website, say eww this guy has an obsession with porn (even though not true) and read nothing more on the list.


112 posted on 02/18/2012 1:44:47 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

>> Santorum is green and could stand to focus-group better.

He is indeed green. Maybe in 2020.

He’s gotta ditch the look of disbelief, or at least utter a WTF here and there. Sarah’s got that all figured out.


113 posted on 02/18/2012 2:02:30 AM PST by Gene Eric (Save a pretzel for the gas jet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Before you make that choice, study up on Santorum.


114 posted on 02/18/2012 3:23:09 AM PST by newzjunkey (Santorum has baggage too! Demand an inspection!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

Rick is mitt’s little side kick, both liars because they have no accomplishments. And will betray anyone when it’s for their agenda. He betrayed PA and they gave him the boot!
And now he’s betraying the country.


115 posted on 02/18/2012 8:29:32 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

Rick is mitt’s little side kick, both liars because they have no accomplishments. And will betray anyone when it’s for their agenda. He betrayed PA and they gave him the boot!
Leopards and liars don’t change.


116 posted on 02/18/2012 8:31:15 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

Newt is very Romney-esque when he claims that the “contract with America” was anything but cover for government to grow exponentially...which it did under his “leadership”. He even admitted it was a failure. Keep it up...the more people learn about Nootered Noot’s REAL record the better.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2813320/posts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=FlFxh2JychU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=eyeB36ctO5I&NR=1


117 posted on 02/18/2012 9:13:48 AM PST by RasterMaster ("Towering genius disdains a beaten path." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: caww

I was one of the Bush-bots on FR during his entire 2 terms. He did ask for support in those things, and he did get it.

Except for Dubai Ports, whasername for the Scotus appointment, amnesty, and his unfathomable decision never to defend his war on substance rather than excuse, Bush got what he wanted from his compatriots in terms of budget and spending.

That’s why every bit of this navel-inspecting is simply Romney going after “conservative purity” because he knows it will have conservatives fight each other and give him a leg up. He’s used it throughout this campaign, and apparently, it’s still working.

You’re not going to find a “Romney Link” as you say to Time Magazine, but it’s no accident they suddenly came up with an out-of-context “dangers of contraception” quote from Santorum.

The coffee is on and the fragrace wafts through the house. The alarm clock is now ringing.


118 posted on 02/18/2012 9:47:34 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

Santorum is not perfect, but there is no doubt in my mind he was a strong Reagan supporter in his youth and if elected he’d probably govern very closely to the way RR did. As an aside, I believe he is the only candidate who would make positive steps to reverse the homosexualization and feminization of the military, which I would strongly support.


119 posted on 02/18/2012 12:02:28 PM PST by MSF BU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

Santorum is not perfect, but there is no doubt in my mind he was a strong Reagan supporter in his youth and if elected he’d probably govern very closely to the way RR did. As an aside, I believe he is the only candidate who would make positive steps to reverse the homosexualization and feminization of the military, which I would strongly support.


120 posted on 02/18/2012 12:02:46 PM PST by MSF BU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon

My point was that if Southerners and Scots-Irish in all rural areas sit on their hands, Romney would not win some of the Southern states, like Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia. Gingrich got the vote out in South Carolina and would do so in all Southern and in the border and some Western States. I cannot speak for the Northeast.


121 posted on 02/18/2012 2:08:23 PM PST by 22cal (Forgiven, not perfected)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: 22cal

You do have a point with regard to states like Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida.


122 posted on 02/18/2012 2:16:01 PM PST by WPaCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: MSF BU

Santorum is no Reagan. In fact, he is in innumerable clips saying inflammatory and off-color remarks about Protestantism, blacks, gays, women etc. Reagan was warm, strong and uplifting. He had relentless, boundless optimism combined with strong executive leadership that restored confidence in America. He wasn’t a hater.

Newt has written whole books about Reagan and his optimism.


123 posted on 02/18/2012 3:55:11 PM PST by erlayman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: KansasGirl

The nomination process is announced as “over” any time the left most candidate wins a primary.


124 posted on 02/18/2012 6:08:35 PM PST by Personal Responsibility (Obama 2012: Dozens of MSNBC viewers can't be wrong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP; All
29 posted on Friday, February 17, 2012 9:38:13 AM by PSYCHO-FREEP: “Right, and only a month ago, Santorum was “Deadman Walking”. Only a million votes have been cast to date and barely 100 out of over 1,100 have been awarded to any one candidate. But “It's ALL OVER NOW!” “President” Santorum won, Newt is “Dead-Man-walking”.......... (Keep repeating that to yourself in the mirror.)”

I've been saying for a long time that it's too early for either of the two main “anti-Romney” candidates to pull out.

I haven't checked posting history. A month ago, when even fewer votes had been cast for either candidate, did you think Santorum should pull out?

If not, you're consistent. I respect that.

On the other hand, if you did say a month ago that Santorum should pull out, I think an explanation of your change, now that your candidate is behind, would be helpful.

125 posted on 02/18/2012 7:09:16 PM PST by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MSF BU

“Santorum is not perfect, but there is no doubt in my mind he was a strong Reagan supporter in his youth and if elected he’d probably govern very closely to the way RR did. As an aside, I believe he is the only candidate who would make positive steps to reverse the homosexualization and feminization of the military, which I would strongly support.”

Just wanted to say I strongly agree with everything you said, especially the last part. America has had the best military in world history for decades, we shouldn’t be messing with a winning formula.


126 posted on 02/18/2012 9:03:32 PM PST by PreciousLiberty (Real Hope - Santorum '12!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Santorum has become the ‘not’ candidate.

May help him in the primaries. Will evaporate in the general. Nobody outside the gop club gives a whit about who he is "Not."

127 posted on 02/18/2012 10:23:54 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
Let's be honest. If Santorum gets the carpet bombing that Newt got, Little Rickey will be wetting his pants and crying for his mommy.
128 posted on 02/18/2012 10:34:25 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet
You are right about the 'rat tactics with Newt. All the crap people here mindlessly repeat as "baggage" is stuff that the rest of the country would not even notice. It just illustrates the tunnel vision of the purist right.

EG: Out in the real world, how many people will care about his PSA with Nancy Pelosi? None. But among the zombie faction here it is earth shaking.

129 posted on 02/18/2012 11:02:31 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: erlayman

I agree with you, Santorum is no Reagan. My point was that if elected, he’d likely govern very closely to him. I know Romney would be a huge disappointment for conservatives, as he was in Massachusetts. As regards Newt, I’ve decided the criticism regarding his narcism and perhaps even stability has some merit. Of the three, I’d be most comfortable with Santorum making an appointment to the USSC, choosing a SecDef or making military policy.


130 posted on 02/18/2012 11:33:33 PM PST by MSF BU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: MSF BU

“I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.” This is true. Santorum has fought against small government conservatism his entire career. I’m not a Romney supporter by any means but at least he did balance the budget and veto huge numbers of spending bills as governor.

Santorum can talk now about Reagan principles of strong national defense, limited government and individual liberty but the record his more like an George W. Bush Republican.


131 posted on 02/19/2012 5:59:42 AM PST by erlayman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: erlayman

He is likely referencing against the types of influences that favor homosexualizing the military, legalizing heroin, placing women into combat, opening our borders, etc. Again, I’m not a huge fan of any of them, but it is looking more and more as though it has to be one of the three, and Santorum is not bad. Of the three of them, he’d be the best at reversing the slide in the military, implementing immigration controls and a sensible immigration policy and reversing the myriad of social policies Obamaa is implementing. I also believe that he’d appoint the best judges of the three.


132 posted on 02/19/2012 6:31:41 AM PST by MSF BU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: MSF BU

Santorum is not a social or economic libertarian and therefore not a Reagan Republican. He believes all freedom should be regulated. He believes people shouldn’t be allowed to live their lives without heavy government regulation. He believes the federal government needs to enforce his “conservative” personal beliefs on everyone. Romney would also reverse the slide in the military and implement a sensible immigration policy. Gingrich is perhaps the most genuinely conservative but they are all basically bigger fans of more government than they are of more freedom,


133 posted on 02/19/2012 7:34:57 AM PST by erlayman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: erlayman

Reagan was a social libertiarian? You mean the guy who implemented the “we ask, don’t join” homosexual policy for the military, tried to put Robert Bork on the USSC and campaigned aggressively for the reelection of Jesse Helms? Sorry, that’s not what a social libertarian will do. Why don’t you go read “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation” and get back to us. Incidently, the social libertarians were by and large not backing Reagan in 1976 and 1980, and there were clear reasons for that. As for Romney implementing measures to reverse the slide in the miltary, he has already indicated he won’t reverse Obama’s homosexualization policy; enough said.


134 posted on 02/19/2012 8:26:55 AM PST by MSF BU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

Rick doesn’t have the draft avoidance and adultery problems.


135 posted on 02/19/2012 8:28:45 AM PST by MSF BU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: MSF BU

Well, Reagan tried to pull together a coalition of the religious right, social conservatives and libertarians so it was a mixed record. No on National Security and the war on drugs. But he was a lot of talk on abortion and I think the record in California shows an overtly non-discriminatory attitude towards gays in the workplace. Certainly he never got off on the way out of the mainstream social agenda kick that Santorum has made the cornerstone of his campaign.


136 posted on 02/19/2012 11:18:26 AM PST by erlayman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: erlayman

Really? I thought Governor Reagan threw Phil Battaglia off his staff when he found out he was a homosexual, and joked to the others to troll the guy up and down the hallway to see if they could flush out anymore of them. As President, he instituted a policy for the first time that asked military members and recruits if they were homosexuals. Says yes, and you were gone. That doesn’t sound moderate to me. The Libertarians like to rewrite history so as to make Ronald Reagan into William Weld. It’s not so.


137 posted on 02/19/2012 11:34:47 AM PST by MSF BU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: MSF BU

Reagan and Nancy were Hollywood folk, had a lot of gay friends and exposure to gays in the movie industry I think left him about as comfortable with homosexuals as a man of his times was likely to be. So probably somewhat more tolerant than Carter/Mondale, but not accepting or condoning by current standards. Like a lot of issues, he talked the talk of religious conservatism, but he did not often walk the walk.

And I thought the absolute ban on gays in the military was in place long before his tenure. ?


138 posted on 02/19/2012 12:52:37 PM PST by erlayman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: erlayman

Reagan instituted the specific policy directing service members be asked specifically. It was an excellent policy by the way.


139 posted on 02/20/2012 4:51:51 AM PST by MSF BU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
That’s a compliment coming from one who embraces evil - in fact, it’s to be expected for they HATE the TRUTH to be spoken. And it shows why you are drawn to the liar lawyer slick rick.

LOL @ you...sicko!

140 posted on 02/20/2012 6:00:16 AM PST by pgkdan (Rick Santorum 2012. Conservative's last, best chance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: erlayman; All
133 posted on Sunday, February 19, 2012 9:34:57 AM by erlayman: “Santorum is not a social or economic libertarian and therefore not a Reagan Republican. He believes all freedom should be regulated. He believes people shouldn’t be allowed to live their lives without heavy government regulation. He believes the federal government needs to enforce his “conservative” personal beliefs on everyone. Romney would also reverse the slide in the military and implement a sensible immigration policy. Gingrich is perhaps the most genuinely conservative but they are all basically bigger fans of more government than they are of more freedom.”

As others here have quite correctly pointed out, Reagan was not a libertarian, was not pro-gay, and strongly believed in the need for a moral foundation for society.

Was Reagan a member of the Christian conservative religious right movement as defined today? Probably not, though I've read the people who are able to make a credible case for Reagan's personal faith. He certainly wasn't bashing Christian conservatives, however, like some in the modern Republican Party.

It simply is not fair to assume that someone whose primary political activism ran from the 1950s to the 1980s will have views that fit nicely into the categories of 2012 politics.

What **IS** important to say is that it is not a violation of the Reagan legacy to say that being conservative is more than “get government off our backs.” Reagan believed in the need for a moral foundation for society.

Libertarianism simply does not work. If people aren't taught to run their own lives in a decent moral manner, the society falls apart. When people don't have a shared morality, government is forced to step in to prevent chaos, and that means government starts to regulate things people should be regulating for themselves.

On that point, I don't see Rick Santorum saying anything Ronald Reagan would not have said.

141 posted on 02/20/2012 6:33:47 AM PST by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

You can argue about definitions and what or what is not a misnomer in our modern political context but Reagan very famously quoted himself “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”


142 posted on 02/20/2012 6:42:07 AM PST by erlayman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan

Glad I can make you laugh because no one is capable of making you see what you refuse to see.

Deception/evil is that ugly and deceitful politicians NEED your type to survive so consider yourself a useful idiot to them as they are laughing at you while America weeps.


143 posted on 02/20/2012 8:06:54 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: erlayman; All
142 posted on Monday, February 20, 2012 8:42:07 AM by erlayman: “You can argue about definitions and what or what is not a misnomer in our modern political context but Reagan very famously quoted himself ‘I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.’”

I think we concur that he who defines, wins.

I believe a credible argument could be made that the libertarianism represented by Freedom Communications and the Orange County Register, an early backer of Ronald Reagan, is very different from the amoral or even anti-morality libertarianism we're seeing today. The older libertarianism taught that there is such a thing as social morality that's necessary to govern people's personal lives to have a functioning society, but taught that it's the role of the family and the church to teach morality, not the role of the government.

I might be able to concur with that point of view in the 1950s or earlier when we still had a common moral consensus, but today we're seeing liberals who, when they have taken over government, actively use it to go to war against traditional morality. In our current context today I believe we must fight against libertarianism as a steppingstone toward liberalism, but I'm not sure I would have said that a few decades ago.

I used to work for Freedom Communications, BTW, and I'm not unaware of the influence of people like that in the history of the Republican Party in California and more generally in the West. Freedom Communications was in many ways the last significant conservative media operation in the United States after the Pulliams sold their newspaper company centered in Indiana and Arizona, and I've been disappointed to see what's happened to the company as the newspaper industry has collapsed.

144 posted on 02/21/2012 1:17:20 AM PST by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-144 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson