It’s worth noting however that lefties-libs-dems would LOVE to recast this election as about “women’s reproductive rights,” contraception in general, etc. instead of about economics, national security, etc. Republicans who get suckered into this will do so not only at their own peril but at the peril of the nation.
A big “social conservative” push will play into the Democratic narrative, and alienate swing voters in droves, which is exactly what the dems want. There’s a possibility this is part of the dem 2012 strategy: do something to enrage social conservative and then stand aside while they rush to the mic and self destruct.
One of Santorum’s problems as a candidate (or for that matter, as President in the unlikely chance that he would actually be elected) is that he is inept in these matters and almost invariably gets himself cast as extreme. He pretty much can’t open his mouth on any of these subjects without sounding parochial and out of touch with about 60+% of America. There are more adroit ways of putting things, but that’s beyond him. The conservative base largely misses this because what he says is close enough to what they want to hear; so they miss how it will sound to moderates, swing voters, etc. without whom this election will be lost…. and that’s Santorum BEFORE a hostile press and political opponents even start on what he’s given them.
And frankly, I’m not sure but what he is extreme. For example, I don’t object to a Catholic in the White House (why should I?), what I object to is that this particular Catholic does not seem to understand that there is a difference between his doctrines and a public policy for everyone.
Also things like “no constitutional right to personal privacy,” outlawing contraception (which he seems to favor while struggling inelegantly to avoid getting nailed down on it part of the time), ridiculous remarks about homosexuals that will horrify swings, moderates, and some of the rest of us…. should I go on?
The press and his opponents haven’t even gotten started on him. I bet that right now, they are actually hoping that his primary campaign has legs. Money that could have been spent campaigning against Obama is getting wasted tearing apart any chance of a viable Republican candidate.
By the way, it’s off subject, but do you know that some swing voters have told me that they voted for Obama in 2008 because they saw him as not running a negative campaign? They are naive, of course, he had surrogates do it for him, but the voters who matter don’t understand this. What they say now is that they are sick of negative campaigns and plan on voting for a positive candidate. Woops! Guess how they are reacting to the 2012 Republican primary? This election may be lost before the Repubs can even decide who their candidate is.
A final though on how Santorum campaigns (and presumably how he’d govern): today I heard someone say something like “He’d rather be right and loose than win.” I know you can misconstrue this — there is some point at which principles matter regardless of outcome, but not on every single thing. We don’t need a candidate who goes down to glorious, righteous defeat. We need to win, and having won, keep on winning.
Okay, much more to say, but my essay is already too long. So just chopping it off here.
Comment by Ironic in Denver — February 15, 2012 @ 2:36 pm
Well, Patrick – Let’s adopt a liberal perspective and consider it a disease. If it is a disease, it is one most people recover from in the space of about 9 months. Therefore it is self-resolving and doesn’t require intervention. :)
Here’s my question to all of you—why do you think this subject was brought up at this time? (every election it comes up) — and the same thing happens– just what’s happening now– is anyone talking about anything else? You know like how this president is ruining our country with his massive debt and taking away our freedoms? We are all fighting with each other– while he/they sit back and watch– than when the time is right and it gets boring again he/they will start another one until the election and after he gets voted back in the subject will be forgotten until the next election— keep getting suckered in —not me– I’m on hold and waiting ’till Nov. — you guys can run around like chickens with your heads cut off —
Comment by geezerette — February 15, 2012 @ 3:13 pm
Kristophr ^^ sounds about right.
Geezerette ^ yeah, I think that’s the point, assuming I’m understanding you. It’s like the perennial red herring. I really, really wish conservatives would not fall for this for a change.
Comment by Ironic in Denver — February 15, 2012 @ 3:20 pm
Abortion has become a negative for Democrats over the last several years, so they adjusted their message to “contraceptives.” It’s a rope-a-dope, only possible because they have the jackass chorus of a media in their pocket. People hear “Republicans are trying to ban contraceptives, not “if it isn’t free it’s like a ban to Democrats.” It’s working because most people see TV, not blogs.
Your posts and responses have taught me much over the last six years.
ps: I miss the moonbatologist.
Comment by logdogsmith — February 15, 2012 @ 3:57 pm
Viewing all the comments here for some time, I think we are fucking frustrated the the Stoopid Party is allowing candidates to run that NONE of us like; period, end of story!
What we WANT is to ensure that OBoBo getS beat and beaten badly!!!!!
ALL of us endured this in the last presidential election and it is insufferable to watch it all happening FUCKING AGAIN!!!!!!!
It just reenforces the TEA PARTY contention that WE have to clean out the whole of government and get back to when government was LIMITED!
Comment by Colonel Jerry USMC — February 15, 2012 @ 5:42 pm
Yes I n D you can assume.
Comment by geezerette — February 15, 2012 @ 6:00 pm
[pushes bottle across table to Claire]
I don’t think about it much; ’cause, like you, I don’t consider it a gov’t responsibility.
I think it’s odd that the Progs seem to apply their right of personal privacy only to birth control and crime, then apply some kind of right of gov’t privacy to their abuse of the Constitution.
Ironically, they claim that this right of personal privacy means that StateGovs cannot make medical decisions; but it doesn’t seem to apply to FedGov making medical decisions.
Maybe I’m missing something.
You know, like a Lib gene or brain damage or somethin’.
[the bottle stands by you, Claire, if you would kindly ... ah! thank you]
Comment by DougM (jackassophobe) — February 15, 2012 @ 6:08 pm
Gun control, privacy, abortion, healthcare are specifics and lead to single issue politics, divide and conquer.
The single issue must be, as Col. Jerry said, is smaller Fed govt., and it follows, less spending. We are on our way to first, financial ruin, to be followed shortly by cultural ruin.
The way to that goal is back to the Constitution as written. Whenever a libtard mass media type tries to pin a candidate down on, say, abortion, there need be no discussion. Just “All presidents take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I don’t see that issue anywhere in the Constitution. It’s no business of the Federal government. Next question, please.”
Comment by dick, not quite dead white guy — February 15, 2012 @ 9:23 pm
ColJ (11): I think you have nailed it dead center. It does not help that the “grass roots” Republicans appear to gullibly embrace one deeply flawed candidate after another; it’s not just the Republican “they” at the top of the heap, it goes all the way to the stinking bottom of the pile.
It wasn’t two months ago some guy was butting into a private conversation between a friend and I to emote endlessly about what an “amazing genius” Herman Cain was. Cain may or may not have gotten shafted. He certainly had some good points and some not so good points. But let’s face it: an “amazing genius” he’s not — nor was he, with no experience in elected office, ready for the candidacy, much less the presidency of the United States. (I’d hoped that he could barter a good showing early in the primary process into some smaller post that would give him a chance at further seasoning and future opportunities. Guess that’s over now.)
Doug (13): that’s a fine observation. Progs are quite selective in their application of almost everything, including privacy. For example they can open up a child’s lunch sack, fondle the contents, and then decide he/she must eat something else; but just try to look at the college records of a sitting president — or the email of an Attorney General who probably ought to be under indictment this very moment.
I don’t exactly think its just birth control & crime though: it’s more like they want to decide what is worthy of snooping and what isn’t. Bottom line: any part of their business is private; any part of your business isn’t. It’s all about them having control and others not having it. You know, it’s the un-american way.
As a supporting side note, I’d day the current administration is the most “progressive” and the least “transparent” in history.
Comment by Ironic in Denver — February 15, 2012 @ 9:44 pm
rickn8or, I miss SRV.
Comment by Ironic in Denver — February 15, 2012 @ 9:45 pm
@1 Paladin – I would speculate that Stephanopolis absolutely knew about it in advance. Obama’s approval rating among women slipped in 2011. As has been noted in previous posts here, the confrontation with the Catholic Church was most likely a calculated political move to shore up Obama’s poll numbers among one of his most important demographic groups. Unfortunately, it puts socially-conservative Republicans on the defensive, and someone like Santorum just does not have the chops to turn it around to his advantage. I hope hs proves that to be wrong, but I wouldn’t hold out too much hope. The Stupid Party always leads with its chin.
Comment by snap-e-tom — February 16, 2012 @ 6:48 am
Patrick – I dunno…. I heard something on Rush t’other day from some HHS woman-geek saying that pregnancy is dangerous and a risk to families….
Comment by Claire: barbarian, etc — February 16, 2012 @ 7:33 am
I know I keep harping on it, so I think this will be my last on this subject.
It isn’t just Santorum who’s being inept. The entire social conservative movement ought to shut up until after the election (at least). “The Base” may love this, but it is as sure a way to loose the moderates and swings as I can think of. It’s like the dems have invented a whole new “third rail in American politics,” and invited Republicans to step on it…. And certain more or less well intended conservatives are trampling each other in the rush to get there first.
So what it comes down to is: do Republicans / conservatives (I know, not exactly the same thing) want to air their personal beliefs and social theories, or do they want to stick to issues that matter to the voters they need and win?
Caveat: I’m not discussing the merit of said personal beliefs and social theories. I’m talking about which issues will win this election and which will loose it. Imagine a shoe salesman who has all kind of shoes to sell, but he’s in front of some oil field roughnecks. Which shoes is he going to whip out and sell them: the work boots or the ballet slippers? Time, place and audience matters.
Comment by Ironic in Denver — February 16, 2012 @ 11:02 am
ID – Agreed. The left is playing us like a fiddle in throwing these issues out there as distractions. We ought to be focusing on the economy and Obama’s abysmal record.