Skip to comments.Santorum wins the Church Lady vote, Gingrich can't offset
Posted on 03/06/2012 8:27:15 PM PST by mtrott
I'm a huge Newt supporter and will continue to support him, but it seems the home schooling Catholic has enraptured the Christian evangelical and "church lady" voters. This would seem to be corroborated by some of the exit polling data presented tonight.
For you younger members, there used to be a skit on Saturday Night Live which featured an ignorant, puritanical lady who saw Satan in everything in modern culture. Even though large numbers of evangelical Christians actually believe the Catholic church is apostate, for some reason, they are readily latching on to Santorum, apparently because of his overt incorporation of religious themes and controversies into his campaign.
What made me think of the Church Lady was an interview I saw tonight on CNN. They interviewed a white haired lady in, I believe, Ohio. Upon being asked about the fact that Santorum had failed to get delegate slates in three Ohio districts, she responded "well, if God wants Santorum to win, he will win, REGARDLESS OF THE DELEGATES"!
With supporters so divorced from reality, what effective argument can Newt make, and how can he compete?
aww crap. I have to say it again: FUMR!
Thank you for your reply.
The psychology still escapes me. But I’ll try to understand.
Santorum has a bizarre left-wing, pro-abortion past that people dont know about.
I have seen you mention that quite a few times. The problem with your hope that people will turn away from him if they find this out is that it won’t happen. He is completely believable as a pro-life person now. Everyone says he is the most pro-life candidate and if it is a conversion, so be it. The problem with Romney and why he gets so much crap for his pro-life conversion is that NOBODY believes him. If that is what you think will destroy Santorum then you need to go back to the drawing game. That would never work.
I’m a huge Newt supporter and will continue to support him, but
***I’m a huge Santorum supporter and will continue to support him, but... he is a lot like the church lady that Dana Carvey portrays.
This election is about America’s future, not somebody’s personal past. Mr. Clean Jeans and Sweater Boy are the last two I’d send into battle against these flaming communists from the Chicago Alynski School of Community Organizing. This is gonna be one nasty election, folks.
That might be your opinion, but all the states are voting for either Santorum or Romney....Santorum is getting the red states and Romney is getting the blue states. Newt got his home state and a state where he had a good debate. I understand what you are saying but Newt is having a problem getting people to vote for him. That has to change if you want him to win.
Exactly, no one believes Mitt became pro-life, because he has been the most aggressively pro-abortion Republican Presidential candidate we have ever seen, until his Presidential run started, aside from Specter himself, who actually campaigned on driving the Pro-life movement out of the GOP.
Both of those men have been the pro-abortion fanatics that Santorum has tried to make President.
Santorum says that he was pro-abortion until he decided to run for office, he has never stopped supporting aggressive, even fanatical pro-abortion candidates, he was even driven from the Senate in a massive, history making landslide, because he constantly tried to advance Specter.
You have some points, but I still don’t see that hurting him. I mean he won the conservative vote tonight by quite a bit. I mean even Ohio, he cleared the state but lost the cities. Most people don’t have any idea who Arlen is....I do because I am from Pennsylvania. I don’t see Obama using Arlen as an attack against Santorum. I heard the Democratic person tonight saying that they hope Santorum is not the candidate because Santorum relates so well to the “working man” (her words, not mine). Anyway, a long way to go before this is decided. We actually still have Alaska to wait on.
He’s kinda like a cross between the Church Lady and Jerry Seinfeld. But since he aligns with most of my viewpoints, I support him.
If you read his early politics when he was pro-abortion and anti-Reagan (he described Reagan supporters as the "right-wing fringe"), and purely focused on the very moderate parts of the GOP, working only for pro-choice moderates, exactly the kind that he has always continued to support in elections, he mentions his theories on carving out a niche and hanging on to it.
Santorum used to label himself in his campaign literature, a "Progressive Conservative".
The early Santorum is always described as not being interested in issues themselves, but in how to use them.
Before switching to pro-life for his first campaign, this is how he described himself, like Romney he was.
"I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress"
This is his first campaign position paper he wrote to grab pro-life voters, it is less than inspiring.
And, let’s not forget Newt’s cozy couch sitting with Pelosi, or his debate against Ted Kennedy on global warming, where he agreed with everything the Lion of the Senate said. Newt has as much, if not worse baggage than Rick. And, women don’t like the fact that he is an adulterer. Yes, God forgives, but, people don’t.
Gingrich is a history making revolutionary conservative who is already in the textbooks, Santorum has been creating a strange, liberal, pro-abortion history that is as yet unexamined , and seems to more resemble Mitt Romney's.
But you have no idea what a President can, and cannot, do. And yet we allow you to vote.
anyone who did not catch my sarcasm should not be on internet message boards. They are a danger to themselves.....and to intelligent discourse.
It is my understanding that Spector lost his seat when he turned from R to D. Rick had nothing to do with that. Geesh, how about a link to prove your statement?
Did you actually read that statement in #59? He wasn’t for abortion at all - in fact, he states he joins the President in opposition to abortion and government support of agencies which favor it.
Dear Lord, I marvel at the ignorance of some of my fellow human beings.
Please spare us your leaps of logic, profound insights, and deep knowledge of all things legal and political.
Apparently, the voters last night favored the “whiny guy”.
Whiney or windbag, take your pick. Truth is they are x’ing out each other and Romney is almost half way there. The winner take all states left will go Romney.
So all the time spent on dissing each other doesn’t seem to be working.
There are two extremes in the Republican Party that allow the marxist democrats to win elections, and you are poster boy exhibit A for one of those extremes.
Don your sweater vest and diaper and prepare to witness the end of our nation.
“What, so they are just going to throw out the rules, and delegates wont matter?”
Dude. If you start with an omnipotent God, then if He wants XYZ to win, XYZ wins. The logic is inexorable. He’s omnipotent. If he wants the Israelis out of Egypt, the Red Sea parts. Moving a few delegates around doesn’t seem like such a big deal.
I suspect that the reason this annoys you so much is a cultural thing. The lady’s statement says “lower class” to many R guts. It’s uncomfortable to be in the same club with her.
But if you want to win, you are. In fact, you ought to try to treat her with genuine respect. She may say awkward things in your presence that make you uncomfortable. But she’s a lot smarter than you give her credit for. And she knows when she’s being dissed or patronized.
If Romney or Gingrich want to win, they need her vote, her work, and her money.
While you are marveling at ignorance, read post 59 again, you didn’t understand it.
Santorum says that he was pro-abortion all of his life, until he decided to run for office (like Romney).
“I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress”
1990 was when he started running for office, he ran as a “Progressive Conservative”, that weak statement I posted was his “conversion” position paper for the campaign, as you can read in that 1990 position paper, he was still pretty soft on the issue.
In 1996 he was supporting removing abortion from the party platform, by endorsing Specter for president, who was running on that platform.
Your reading comprehension is incredibly bad.
Read post 56 again, it was about SANTORUM losing his Senate seat in a history making landslide defeat for always trying to advance Specter, not Specter’s defeat.
If you were more thoughtful, you would understand that the end of our nation has been baked into the culture for some time. It isn’t going to end well, but you won’t understand why.
The chances from pulling back from the abyss are very small. So-called “conservatives” who are really mainly concerned with their money make the plunge a virtual certainty.
Well, he could make light of religion and the American family. That seems to be attractive for some conservatives.
Your response was predictable and breathtakingly shallow. I really find it absurd and incredible that folks like you think there are only two kinds of issues - social and economic. Your type, and you know who you are, have such a shallow analysis and simply cannot find the brain cells in your body to understand that without PROPERTY there ARE NO RIGHTS.
That is not to weaken the right to life. NOPE. But anyone with an IQ of more than say, 45, understands that only an ADULT can FIGHT for the right to life, and only and ADULT who owns his own time - WHICH NO ADULT CAN DO WITHOUT OWNING HIS OWN PROPERTY - can fight that fight.
Yes, I fully understand the culture and the relevance of social issues. I also understand that without liberty and property - you nor I can fight that fight because we won’t own our selves, let alone have time to fight for the country.
Go go go go go away and take your naive self righteousness with you. It’s not about the MONEY. It’s about FREEDOM and FREEDOM MUST include property. That’s why PROPERTY is the sacred right.
Or perhaps you think the unborn can fight for themsleves while we are enslaved????????????????????????
What a reading comprehension problem you have. As for what you have to say about property, we almost agree. Without property, there are no effective rights...
Since money is the chief property folks have, I wonder how you reconcile that with your last post? Your last post was correct.
Note “mainly” and the incontrovertible fact that it is the underlying cultural values that provide protection to property. Those values involve a great deal more than property.
Well I do not agree that cultural values provide protection to property, and I sure would disagree that it is “incontrovertible” that such is the relationship.
Because you see, the way the world works, values do not protect themselves. People, people who are free, have to protect those values. There is a correlation between the cultural and the physical, but your connectivity is not in the right order.
Moreover, you are certainly way off base as to where the President fits into this equation. A moralizing President is not the way to reach your goals. Makes you feel good on election day - until the returns come in - but it is the wrong approach.
You are obfuscating the practical by trying to appear more moral. I am not buying.
Big government subsidizes and enables irresponsible and destructive behavior. A limited government forces people to take responsibility for themselves, and leads to a more moral people.
That’s my position.
You misunderstand the “practical”. “Values” determine the direction of individual and collective actions. It is property that can’t protect itself. Property is only safe if it exists in a culture in which the moral worldview protects property rights.
Values, in turn, depend on a culture’s worldview, and worldviews have a metaphysical core. If a culture does not embrace the right metaphysics there will be, in practice, no real protection of property or freedom, for that matter.
Values are defended by arguing for a worldview. That, ultimately, is a matter of apologetics.
And apologetics is often done in a very counter productive way.
Exhibit A: Rick Santorum. Not his job. He’s not good at it. He is not convincing, He is an apologetic nightmare, and btw, we are talking about PRESIDENT here....not pastor in chief.
And you are free to be completely and utterly wrong. I don't care what you or anyone else says, what a gay guy does in his bedroom has absolutely no effect on how big the government gets or how expensive gas is, or anything else, really. The only material effect they (gays) can possibly have is to not have children. To believe otherwise is sheer ignorance and folly.
Social issues are going to have to take a back seat until we get this country rolling again.
An utterly thoughtless effusion of words....and, of course, you are free to be completely and utterly wrong.
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.