Santorum: It was dumb to make Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comment the theme for the GOP convention

posted at 4:01 pm on June 14, 2013 by Allahpundit

This deserves wider attention, especially at a moment when the stupid, stupid Republican leadership has convinced itself that its real problem with the electorate is being insufficiently pro-amnesty.

“One after another, [business owners who were invited to speak] talked about the business they had built. But not a single—not a single —factory worker went out there,” Santorum told a few hundred conservative activists at an “after-hours session” of the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference in Washington. “Not a single janitor, waitress or person who worked in that company! We didn’t care about them. You know what? They built that company too! And we should have had them on that stage.”…

“When all you do is talk to people who are owners, talk to folks who are ‘Type As’ who want to succeed economically, we’re talking to a very small group of people,” he said. “No wonder they don’t think we care about them. No wonder they don’t think we understand them. Folks, if we’re going to win, you just need to think about who you talk to in your life.”…

“Our leaders don’t accurately reflect who we are,” he said. “They reflect the interest groups around here who are lobbying for an advantage. Everyone who is up here is wanting an edge for their company or their industry. We’ve got to get away from that.”

“This makes so much sense to me,” writes Mollie Hemingway, “that I am confused as to how the GOP and Romney messed it up so badly last year.” I think I can explain that. The reason it caught on with the GOP, at least in part, is because it caught on first with grassroots ideologues like me. I thought, and do think, that O’s “you didn’t build that” line was a window onto his essential statism, an unusually blunt expression of contempt for private initiative. It’s one thing to demand higher taxes for the rich, it’s another to deny entrepreneurs, even rhetorically, the credit they deserve for having taken great risk to build wealth-generating enterprises. If you’re a true-believing libertarian-leaning capitalist, it’s Obama at his sneering liberal worst. But here’s the thing, and it’s something I’m reminded of constantly: Most voters aren’t ideologues. One of the lessons of last year’s campaign was that 99 percent of the daily “gaffes” and kerfuffles that political media, left and right, regularly wets its pants over mean next to nothing to the average joe. If you’re going to devote an entire convention to the other guy’s allegedly damning gaffe, you’d best be sure that gaffe is really, really damning in the eyes of most voters. It is to an ideologue like me and to America’s proud entrepreneurs. What about the other 80 percent of the electorate?

Santorum’s making a point here that should be prosaic among prominent Republicans by now but which, apart from occasional gestures from Eric Cantor and speeches by Bobby Jindal, remains mostly overlooked: You need to win America’s wage-earners too. Gun rights are great and border security is excellent, but expecting the masses who are earning 15 bucks an hour to rally behind a message that Obama’s too hard on their bosses is expecting a lot. It’s hard for an ideologue like me who works in political media to keep his eye on that particular ball in the middle of a campaign, when he’s at virtual war with the ideologues on the other side every day. The question is, why was it hard for Team Romney? Mitt is many things but an ideologue isn’t one of them. His guys were paid, very handsomely, to come up with a message that would win, ideological or not. Romney’s whole selling point with conservatives, in fact, was his alleged electability; the party nominated him in the full expectation that he’d move to the center for the general election, so he had nothing to fear by ignoring one of their ideological hobbyhorses. And yet somehow he and his advisors decided that going all in against “you didn’t build that” at the convention was the way to go. Why? Romney’s core political identity was that he’d say anything to win. Why did he think that making a stink about that would help him do it?

One footnote to all this. As much as I hate what Rubio’s doing with the immigration reform, I’m paradoxically reassured by the fact that he seems to realize it won’t much hurt him in 2016. Ideologues like me will hold it against him, but if your goal is getting elected president, who cares what ideologues think? We couldn’t stop either Romney or John McCain(!) from being nominated in the last two cycles and we’ll be the first ones at the polls on election day 2016 to pull the lever for the nominee, even if it’s Marco “Legalization First” Rubio. He doesn’t need to impress us, he needs to impress the non-ideological middle class. How he plans to do that by effectively amnestizing a huge new labor supply is … unclear to me, but voters do seem to think that immigration reform is pretty nifty. If he figures out a way to talk to blue-collar voters, he’ll be very viable. Amnesty or no.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

As for Texas, they may be having job growth, but it’s also in large measure fairly low-wage jobs. Again, we’re trying to maximize employment and the standard of living, not compete directly with the third world. Try to keep up.

PROVE it, show that that median COMPENSATION for workers has fallen….the Obama economy has been that way, but has Texas’ recovery been that?
Demonstrate that they are “low-wage” and please FIRST tell me what your definition of “low wage” is.

JFKY on June 15, 2013 at 5:20 PM

So you’re thinking is, a la Obama’s that the business owner is stealing from the Workers, right? That they are naturally oppositional actors, better for one means WORSE for the other?

Not that when the economy is BOOMING, workers make more…or did you miss the 1990′s? Or the 1980′s?

Again, you’re economically illiterate…and proud of it. For you, apparently, there’s “US” and “Them.” And if they is doing better, it’s ‘cuz they stole it from us….

Say Stoic, just how many millionaires does Bill Gates have to make before he’s done enough? (To quote Rush Limbaugh.)

JFKY on June 15, 2013 at 5:18 PM

The business owner isn’t explicitly “stealing.” But to not increase compensation despite increased profits and productivity certainly means that he’s freezing workers out from sharing in expanding economic prosperity.

And again, check out the graphs from the article. Those “great times” in the 80s and 90s weren’t so great. Vis-a-vis the 70s, it was basically more-of-the-same.

Stoic Patriot on June 15, 2013 at 5:22 PM

PROVE it, show that that median COMPENSATION for workers has fallen….the Obama economy has been that way, but has Texas’ recovery been that?
Demonstrate that they are “low-wage” and please FIRST tell me what your definition of “low wage” is.

JFKY on June 15, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Texas has basically remained stagnant as well. See: http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/texas-low-wage-status-is-clearly-not-a-good-thing/nRg89/

In the midst of this gloomy news, one statistic is particularly troublesome: Texas is tied with Mississippi for the highest proportion of low-wage jobs in the country, the share of hourly workers who make minimum wage or less. Nearly 10 percent of our workforce — more than half a million Texas workers — makes $7.25 an hour, the current minimum wage, or less.

Stoic Patriot on June 15, 2013 at 5:25 PM

And the ARMs that explicitly allow for adjustable rates naturally couldn’t be adjusted by the banks. Pardon me as I roll my eyes.

So you’re saying a LEGALLY-BINDING CONTRACT, which both parties entered into should be set aside?

I bought my house on an ARM…and when the rate went to 10% the Life Partner and I refinanced at a lower rate….

It’s called being economically literate…when someone tells you that in X months the rate will increase, you might want to believe them and think, “What will I do when the rate increases?”

I’ll roll my eyes right back at your “victim” attitude…that anyone was “exploited” by a “predatory” lender…they got greedy, or didn’t think it thru.

Here’s a tip…in the 1970′s interest rates hit 13-16%, and that is a HISTORIC HI, but if you get an ARM then, you can anticipate that the rate will fall, because the rate is very hi…now in the 2000′s rates were HISTORICALLY LOW, meaning that when you get an RM then, well you can expect the rate to INCREASE…because the rate is very low. Just a note for you Stoic.

JFKY on June 15, 2013 at 5:25 PM

So you’re saying a LEGALLY-BINDING CONTRACT, which both parties entered into should be set aside?

I bought my house on an ARM…and when the rate went to 10% the Life Partner and I refinanced at a lower rate….

It’s called being economically literate…when someone tells you that in X months the rate will increase, you might want to believe them and think, “What will I do when the rate increases?”

I’ll roll my eyes right back at your “victim” attitude…that anyone was “exploited” by a “predatory” lender…they got greedy, or didn’t think it thru.

Here’s a tip…in the 1970′s interest rates hit 13-16%, and that is a HISTORIC HI, but if you get an ARM then, you can anticipate that the rate will fall, because the rate is very hi…now in the 2000′s rates were HISTORICALLY LOW, meaning that when you get an RM then, well you can expect the rate to INCREASE…because the rate is very low. Just a note for you Stoic.

JFKY on June 15, 2013 at 5:25 PM

What I’m saying is that if the ARM allows for adjustable rates, then perhaps the banks should avail themselves of that option, and lower rates so they continue to receive mortgage payments, albeit reduced, and remain profitable, rather than foreclose on the occupants and then be overburdened with properties for which they receive no money and can’t get rid of.

Stoic Patriot on June 15, 2013 at 5:28 PM

The business owner isn’t explicitly “stealing.” But to not increase compensation despite increased profits and productivity certainly means that he’s freezing workers out from sharing in expanding economic prosperity.

Well then switch jobs…see that’s the beauty of boom times, you can do that, and so employers are forced to increase compensation…

And as to Tx. so LESS THAN 10% make minimum wage..uh I’d say that’s GREAT! 26 million people live in Tx, fewer than 500,000 make $7.25…1.9% of the populace makes minimum wage…crushing.

JFKY on June 15, 2013 at 5:29 PM

What I’m saying is that if the ARM allows for adjustable rates, then perhaps the banks should avail themselves of that option, and lower rates so they continue to receive mortgage payments, albeit reduced, and remain profitable, rather than foreclose on the occupants and then be overburdened with properties for which they receive no money and can’t get rid of.

That is ONE argument…but note it doesn’t involve GOVERNMENT, either…you seem determined to COMPEL that solution….

JFKY on June 15, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Well then switch jobs…see that’s the beauty of boom times, you can do that, and so employers are forced to increase compensation…

And as to Tx. so LESS THAN 10% make minimum wage..uh I’d say that’s GREAT! 26 million people live in Tx, fewer than 500,000 make $7.25…1.9% of the populace makes minimum wage…crushing.

JFKY on June 15, 2013 at 5:29 PM

And boom times with the current economic policies we’ve had in place haven’t ever really manifested themselves.

And I wouldn’t get too excited about the minimum wage in Texas. Again, from the article:

In fact, low Texas wages are mostly bad news. Although Texas does have a slightly younger labor force than the country, our high ranking in low wages isn’t attributable to a lot of teenagers earning minimum wage. Our state’s labor force is younger only because we have a higher share of workers between 24 and 54 and a smaller share over 55, not because we have a greater share of teenagers. Nearly two-thirds of Texas’ minimum-wage workers are over 24 years old. These breadwinners aren’t settling for low wages — $7.25 an hour or less — because they are kids.

And they aren’t settling for $7.25 an hour or less because Texas has such a low cost of living. A single parent working full time at the minimum wage — if she could get full-time work — would make just over $15,000 a year, before taxes or any other expense. Her children would be dependent upon public health insurance and free school lunch. Family meals would come from food stamps. In short, the family would be living in poverty. (One of every six Texans lives in poverty, eighth worst among the states.)

Our own research at the Center for Public Policy Priorities shows that low wages leave families unable to meet basic needs. Our Family Budgets Project, for example, shows that a single-parent, two-child family would need nearly $39,000 (adjusted for inflation) to meet basic needs in Austin. That is $24,000 more than what a single parent could earn at minimum wage. And our research assumptions are austere: We assume subsidized housing, bulk food with little meat, and employer-paid health insurance for mom.

Stoic Patriot on June 15, 2013 at 5:31 PM

And of that 500,000 how many are teenagers working at Wendy’s or Publix, part-time?

JFKY on June 15, 2013 at 5:31 PM

That is ONE argument…but note it doesn’t involve GOVERNMENT, either…you seem determined to COMPEL that solution….

JFKY on June 15, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Precisely, it doesn’t involve government. Yet banks were too short-sighted to see it available to them. That’s what happens when each individual transaction is by itself profitable, since you assume you can sell off the home to some other buyer. But when there’s an economic movement at which point everyone starts going out of work, then it simply becomes suicidal to foreclose.

As for teenagers working at Wendy’s, again, read the article passage I cited above.

Stoic Patriot on June 15, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Your article focusses on SINGLE PARENTS, a group you have agreed previously, have NOTHING to do with the economics of the situation…IF you have a GED or less and IF you are a single parent, THEN you will be poor…QED.

No argument, but now you are turning your previous agreements, that broken home and single parents are a problem into a JUSTIFICATION for government interference…so what is the difference between you and Obama? Except you oppose Gay Marriage?

JFKY on June 15, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Yet banks were too short-sighted to see it available to them. That’s what happens when each individual transaction is by itself profitable, since you assume you can sell off the home to some other buyer. But when there’s an economic movement at which point everyone starts going out of work, then it simply becomes suicidal to foreclose.

And when we get to a clearing price, the houses will move…but until we do, they won’t.

BTW< the Housing Bubble affected EIGHT counties in the US, IIRC. Never manifested itself here….but then we bought our houses not as investments to suck the "Equity" from, to go to Europe but as a place to live in….

JFKY on June 15, 2013 at 5:37 PM

In my state the MEDIAN two-income household makes about $48,000…$9,000 ABOVE that level set by the Tx article…so yes, again, IF you have a $7.25/hour job and 1-2 kids you have problems…but those problems are not the result of a rapacious business owner expropriating the surplus value of the single parent’s labour, Herr Karl Stoic.

JFKY on June 15, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Your article focusses on SINGLE PARENTS, a group you have agreed previously, have NOTHING to do with the economics of the situation…IF you have a GED or less and IF you are a single parent, THEN you will be poor…QED.

No argument, but now you are turning your previous agreements, that broken home and single parents are a problem into a JUSTIFICATION for government interference…so what is the difference between you and Obama? Except you oppose Gay Marriage?

JFKY on June 15, 2013 at 5:34 PM

While it’s true that the article does focus on single parents, the one-in-six Texans living in poverty bit is an aggregate statistic, not a statistic pertaining to just single parents (although many of those 1 in 6 certainly will fit that mold). And I certainly agree that the broken family is something that needs to be addressed as a cultural matter.

The way in which to handle it is not to subsidize single parenting, but to instead work to change the cultural ethos, reintroducing a sentiment of shame for sex out of wedlock, and to remove supports in place as it pertains to specifically parenting alone.

However, that does not change the need to also address the persistence of stagnant wages. Such policies should be viewed as complementary rather than in competition with one another, which Santorum I think gets right.

Stoic Patriot on June 15, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Yard work calls, because well I have a job, and a house…and I don’t feel like my boss “owes” me more, because s/he is making more than me…

See you my bitter, economically illiterate Stoic friend….

JFKY on June 15, 2013 at 5:40 PM

In my state the MEDIAN two-income household makes about $48,000…$9,000 ABOVE that level set by the Tx article…so yes, again, IF you have a $7.25/hour job and 1-2 kids you have problems…but those problems are not the result of a rapacious business owner expropriating the surplus value of the single parent’s labour, Herr Karl Stoic.

JFKY on June 15, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Out of curiosity, what state do you live and who’s your governor? (I’m in Virginia with Bob McDonnell as mine by the way).

Stoic Patriot on June 15, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Yard work calls, because well I have a job, and a house…and I don’t feel like my boss “owes” me more, because s/he is making more than me…

See you my bitter, economically illiterate Stoic friend….

JFKY on June 15, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Take care, my working-man-crushing acquaintance!

Stoic Patriot on June 15, 2013 at 5:41 PM

…and this is precisely why we should reform our trade policies, rather than aspire to being paid as poorly and treated as badly as workers in the third world. Santorum gets it. Sadly, the GOP economic bigwigs don’t.

Statist Parasite on June 15, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Rather than aspire to be paid significantly more than you’re worth for doing the easily replaceable job that you do, you should reform your personal ambitions and find a way to make your contribution to society much more valuable than it currently is. Maybe then you’ll actually earn what you think you’re worth.

It’s funny how you, who obviously have no clue how or why a job is created, can feel so comfortable lecturing businesses on how they should operate…and how government must act if said businesses don’t operate the way you (a non-stakeholder) believe that they should. The GOP is in a lot more trouble having to carry ignorant, self-righteous passengers like you.

fitzfong on June 15, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Disingenuous as hell, as usual. When you want money, you go to a bank.

When you want to create jobs, you talk to people that create jobs, not people that work in the jobs.

We should have had some water on stage, because all humans need water to live, too.

There you have it. Three sentences and I just ended Santorum’s career and obnoxiousness.

HopeHeFails on June 15, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Rather than aspire to be paid significantly more than you’re worth for doing the easily replaceable job that you do, you should reform your personal ambitions and find a way to make your contribution to society much more valuable than it currently is. Maybe then you’ll actually earn what you think you’re worth.

It’s funny how you, who obviously have no clue how or why a job is created, can feel so comfortable lecturing businesses on how they should operate…and how government must act if said businesses don’t operate the way you (a non-stakeholder) believe that they should. The GOP is in a lot more trouble having to carry ignorant, self-righteous passengers like you.

fitzfong on June 15, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Funny, but one’s worth would supposedly be tied to the value of the marginal revenue product of labor, which would mean that wages would increase with productivity. Productivity has risen, wages have not. The worth of what’s being created has not diminished, more has been created, yet people aren’t getting paid more. That’s a rip-off.

For those who have the start-up capital or have existing revenues to finance it, creating a job is quite simple. Pick a task, come up with a salary range you believe to be appropriate, and put out announcements, whether it be at a job fair, in the newspaper, on the internet, etc. Interview applicants and hire as appropriate. Tada, job created. The natural incentive is to keep the job if it produces more in value than is required to fund it. Not difficult stuff.

As for being a “stakeholder,” I’m a stakeholder (read: citizen) in the United States of America. I know that entire voting thing might seem a bit foreign to you, but it means that I get to have a say in how the country is run, including how businesses are regulated. I’m sorry if you can’t handle that.

But don’t worry about the GOP. They didn’t carry my vote last election. And as you can see, it worked out real well for them.

Stoic Patriot on June 15, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Funny, but one’s worth would supposedly be tied to the value of the marginal revenue product of labor, which would mean that wages would increase with productivity. Productivity has risen, wages have not. The worth of what’s being created has not diminished, more has been created, yet people aren’t getting paid more. That’s a rip-off.

For those who have the start-up capital or have existing revenues to finance it, creating a job is quite simple. Pick a task, come up with a salary range you believe to be appropriate, and put out announcements, whether it be at a job fair, in the newspaper, on the internet, etc. Interview applicants and hire as appropriate. Tada, job created. The natural incentive is to keep the job if it produces more in value than is required to fund it. Not difficult stuff.

As for being a “stakeholder,” I’m a stakeholder (read: citizen) in the United States of America. I know that entire voting thing might seem a bit foreign to you, but it means that I get to have a say in how the country is run, including how businesses are regulated. I’m sorry if you can’t handle that.

But don’t worry about the GOP. They didn’t carry my vote last election. And as you can see, it worked out real well for them.

Stoic Patriot on June 15, 2013 at 7:44 PM

In a nutshell, you think you’re entitled to an arbitrary share of revenue generated by an enterprise simply because you personally value your “contribution” and the enterprise must, as well. You’re understanding of how a business (you know, that thing that happens when someone senses that the public has a need or want that filled by what he or she produces)is created is so warped by your labor theory of value nonsense that you fail to realize you’re simply strengthening the very enterprises you despise at the expense of those who could reasonably compete with them.

As for your boast that your withdrawal of support cost the GOP the election in 2012, the nation is better off with Obama as President than with a “Republican” beholden to the likes of you.

fitzfong on June 15, 2013 at 8:14 PM

? Mitt is many things butand an idioteologue isn’t one of them.

fixed

cableguy615 on June 15, 2013 at 8:19 PM

In a nutshell, you think you’re entitled to an arbitrary share of revenue generated by an enterprise simply because you personally value your “contribution” and the enterprise must, as well. You’re understanding of how a business (you know, that thing that happens when someone senses that the public has a need or want that filled by what he or she produces)is created is so warped by your labor theory of value nonsense that you fail to realize you’re simply strengthening the very enterprises you despise at the expense of those who could reasonably compete with them.

As for your boast that your withdrawal of support cost the GOP the election in 2012, the nation is better off with Obama as President than with a “Republican” beholden to the likes of you.

fitzfong on June 15, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Oh, arbitrary isn’t in the cards. Value of marginal revenue product of labor, however, is. It’s a basic principle of labor economics. And no, I’m not making a judgment stemming from any labor theory of value, just a simple comprehension of neoclassical theory.

If you’re that much of a fan of Obama, then enjoy.

Stoic Patriot on June 15, 2013 at 8:31 PM

As much as I hate what Rubio’s doing with the immigration reform, I’m paradoxically reassured by the fact that he seems to realize it won’t much hurt him in 2016. Ideologues like me will hold it against him, but if your goal is getting elected president, who cares what ideologues think?

Rookie sensations Rubio, Paul or Cruz simply cannot, in my view, be the GOP nominees in 2016. None of them have the required degree of experience and demonstrated executive ability to qualify as POTUS. Not yet, not even close.

Rubio – private sector experience limited to law practice, short term as Florida statehouse leader, but mostly anonymous until he got the nod to run against Charlie Crist almost by default.

Paul – never held any elective office before 2011. never led or managed any organization public or private bigger than an eye doctor’s office.

Cruz – impressive resume but never held elective office of any kind before 2013.

all three are thoughtful, bright and likeable with very promising futures. But none of them has put in the time required to earn our trust and should not even be considered by GOP voters for the presidency in 2016.

Sacramento on June 15, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Oh, arbitrary isn’t in the cards. Value of marginal revenue product of labor, however, is. It’s a basic principle of labor economics. And no, I’m not making a judgment stemming from any labor theory of value, just a simple comprehension of neoclassical theory.

If you’re that much of a fan of Obama, then enjoy.
Statist Parasite on June 15, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Certainly not a fan of Obama. Outside of your obsession with gay marriage and your opposition to abortion, there’s really no tangible difference between him and you.

fitzfong on June 15, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Certainly not a fan of Obama. Outside of your obsession with gay marriage and your opposition to abortion, there’s really no tangible difference between him and you.

fitzfong on June 15, 2013 at 8:59 PM

You forgot about the opposition to amnesty, the opposition to cap-and-trade, the opposition to affirmative action, the opposition to gun control, the opposition to Kagan and Sotomayor, the lack of desire to see Israel return to its 1967 borders, the belief that we shouldn’t be screwing our Eastern European allies to play footsie with the Russians on missile defense, the opposition to intervening in Syria, the disgust with supporting Zelaya… but hey, evidently that’s nothing tangible!

Stoic Patriot on June 15, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Disingenuous as hell, as usual. When you want money, you go to a bank.

When you want to create jobs, you talk to people that create jobs, not people that work in the jobs.

We should have had some water on stage, because all humans need water to live, too.

There you have it. Three sentences and I just ended Santorum’s career and obnoxiousness.

HopeHeFails on June 15, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Santorum is a real Dick, isn’t he?

Anti-Control on June 15, 2013 at 9:20 PM

It was dumber than dumb to think Santorum should be the candidate.

Basilsbest on June 15, 2013 at 9:21 PM

Stoic Patriot on June 15, 2013 at 5:31 PM

1500 economic refugees from failed states are moving to Texas a day and the average time that most become employed is 60 days depending on the location.

workingclass artist on June 15, 2013 at 10:10 PM

It is difficult to make the case for conservatism if so much of the focus is on enterprise. Not everyone is an entrepreneur. The benefits of the free market system take too long to explain to the average low information voter. There has to be a better way to distill the message to consumers accustomed to instant gratification. Thank you AP for making that point.

Greek Fire on June 15, 2013 at 10:18 PM

Sacramento on June 15, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Agreed.

Needs to be a conservative governor with a solid record of results and good policies, who knows how to deal with a legislature.

Reagan had two terms in California.

As long as we go on a purity personality cult quest we are as vulnerable to bullsh*t as the liberals are…as both Christie & Rubio illustrate.

I like Walker and Perry.

Walker cause he’s turning his state around and he went up against the Unions.

Perry cause he has the longest and most successful tenure as a conservative Governor in a big state and he’s worked in legislative,administrative and executive.

We need someone who knows how and when to lead and govern on conservative principles.

workingclass artist on June 15, 2013 at 10:21 PM

It is difficult to make the case for conservatism if so much of the focus is on enterprise. Not everyone is an entrepreneur. The benefits of the free market system take too long to explain to the average low information voter.

Greek Fire on June 15, 2013 at 10:18 PM

Not to mention the average voter’s view of capitalism has been “go to college for a degree and wind up in whatever cr@p job you can get that can’t be robotized or outsourced yet.” It’s not going to get any better when the education bubble pops, either. And especially not since welfare has turned working into a sucker’s deal.

To be quite blunt capitalism as it stands right now is pretty darn unattractive and insulting people jaded by BS and bluster by corporatists won’t win you their votes.

MelonCollie on June 15, 2013 at 11:22 PM

I’m a traditional conservative Catholic…And I wouldn’t vote for him.

He’s a Big Gubmint Statist.

workingclass artist on June 15, 2013 at 3:06 PM

I was talking about personalities. Santorum not only wants to peek in people’s bedrooms; he also has an unpleasant way of going about it. CHuckles is at least sort of fun and funny. This sort of attitude is very typical among the “more Catholic than the Pope” set.

Illinidiva on June 16, 2013 at 2:51 AM

Everyone who is up here is wanting an edge for their company or their industry. We’ve got to get away from that.”

And the one true conservative leader who understood that and made that her rallying cry, Sarah Palin (croney capitalism,) was taken down by the establishment GOP whose very souls lives off of croney capitalism and fighting off the citizen base and any they fear like her who would dare to bring reform.

Don L on June 16, 2013 at 6:49 AM

Disingenuous as hell, as usual. When you want money, you go to a bank.

When you want to create jobs, you talk to people that create jobs, not people that work in the jobs.
We should have had some water on stage, because all humans need water to live, too.

There you have it. Three sentences and I just ended Santorum’s career and obnoxiousness.

HopeHeFails on June 15, 2013 at 7:34 PM
.

Santorum is a real Dick, isn’t he?

Anti-Control on June 15, 2013 at 9:20 PM

.
It was dumber than dumb to think Santorum should be the candidate.

Basilsbest on June 15, 2013 at 9:21 PM

.
Are you all in agreement that Rick Santorum should follow Arlen Spectre’s lead, and switch parties?

listens2glenn on June 16, 2013 at 9:49 AM

It is difficult to make the case for conservatism if so much of the focus is on enterprise. Not everyone is an entrepreneur. The benefits of the free market system take too long to explain to the average low information voter.

Greek Fire on June 15, 2013 at 10:18 PM

.
Not to mention the average voter’s view of capitalism has been “go to college for a degree and wind up in whatever cr@p job you can get that can’t be robotized or outsourced yet.” It’s not going to get any better when the education bubble pops, either. And especially not since welfare has turned working into a sucker’s deal.

To be quite blunt capitalism as it stands right now is pretty darn unattractive and insulting people jaded by BS and bluster by corporatists won’t win you their votes.

MelonCollie on June 15, 2013 at 11:22 PM

.
! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ? ! ?
.
With the exception of some mentally handicapped persons, ALL PEOPLE ARE ENTREPRENEURS ….. period.
Not everyone is gifted to build, own, and manage a ‘large corporation.’

Capitalism is NOT, nor has it ever been about being a hired employee/laborer for ANY company, then retiring with a great pension.

What we have right now is corruption, under the guise of capitalism. That’s what is “unattractive and insulting” to people.

listens2glenn on June 16, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Are you all in agreement that Rick Santorum should follow Arlen Spectre’s lead, and switch parties?

listens2glenn on June 16, 2013 at 9:49 AM

What would lead you to think to ask that question? I am curious…

Do you believe that Santorum is not a real Dick? How would you classify what he pulled in the MI GOP primary, where he tried recruiting Dumbocrats in order to defeat Mitt?

Do you believe he righteously did that out of the goodness of his heart? How many other GOPers do you believe would ever think to try the same stunt?

Anti-Control on June 16, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Are you all in agreement that Rick Santorum should follow Arlen Spectre’s lead, and switch parties?

listens2glenn on June 16, 2013 at 9:49 AM

.
What would lead you to think to ask that question? I am curious…

Do you believe that Santorum is not a real Dick? How would you classify what he pulled in the MI GOP primary, where he tried recruiting Dumbocrats in order to defeat Mitt?

Do you believe he righteously did that out of the goodness of his heart? How many other GOPers do you believe would ever think to try the same stunt?

Anti-Control on June 16, 2013 at 10:11 AM

.
What was said above by HopeHeFails (June 15, 2013 at 7:34 PM) appeared to have the agreement of yourself, and Basilsbest.
I concluded (possibly in error) that the three of you see Rick (“Dick”, to you) as a “big government statist”.

If that is in error, then I stand corrected.
.
As to what happened in Michigan, the Union leaders actively encouraged the Union “rank and file” to vote for Mitt during the primary. This would NEVER have happened without Michigan being an ‘open primary state’.

Rick tried (in vain) to counter the Union leaders.

Those Union leaders didn’t want Mitt Romney to win the White House.
They were sure that he was the easiest (of the top three Republican candidates most likely to win the Republican nomination) to be beaten by Barack Obama in November.
Mitt would not have won the primaries in the “rust belt” states, without the Democrat cross-overs.
.
ABOLISH OPEN PRIMARIES ! ! ! ! !

listens2glenn on June 16, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Not quite, Allahpundit. Rick Santorum isn’t talking about illegal aliens, why do you neo-cons and libertarians prefer to infer that illegals are the only workers in the US? Is it because you despise working US citizens and prefer the globalist plantation worldview?

Santorum is talking about the working US citizen, among them include white, black and yes brown citizens. The vast majority of us who do OPPOSE AMNESTY, and SUPPORT DEPORTATION of one kind or another. As was reported a few weeks ago, when the census revealed what the leftist mainstream media didn’t want us to know, that the hyped election polling, was a lie. It was a deliberate misrepresentation of what was only assumption at the time. Obama didn’t win because of increased Hispanic voter turnout, in fact in the 2012 election HISPANIC TURNOUT DECLINED. Obama won because of an increased number of ELDERLY BLACK LADIES and the fact that A LARGE NUMBER OF WORKING CLASS WHITE VOTERS CHOSE TO EITHER STAY HOME OR VOTE THIRD PARTY, AND DIDN’T VOTE FOR ROMNEY. Fact was, Obama didn’t need those white working class votes, and he didn’t get them, he just needed to get them to NOT VOTE FOR ROMNEY. So, Obama advised Romney to Hispander, and the media childed Romney for not Hispandering. Romney, the RNC’s new braintrust, chose to listen to those hostile to his candidacy, instead of listening to the working class white voters who were listening, wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt. They didn’t mind him being a friend of big business, as long as they thought he respected their concerns as well. They were attracted to his concept of self deportation as a way of dealing with illegal aliens. But then Romney did what turns off the majority of all US citizens, whether democrat, independent or republican, black, brown or white, he did Spanish language ads, promising to offer a path to citizenship, and the amnesty they were demanding. That was all it took.

The illegal alien contingent of Hispanics aren’t natural conservatives, they are naturally leftist oriented, they demand cradle to grave welfare, consider the fact that liberation theology, which is communist in origin, was created in Latin America. They aren’t hard working, if they were, they’d be working hard for better government in their home countries. They are criminally oriented, they don’t share family values, and they aren’t pro-life, as we know such things in the US. Family values and pro-life among illegal aliens means, welfare, Hispanic preferences, and big government.

BTW, another Hot Air contributor seems to be seeking to lie about Rubio’s poll numbers, suggesting Rubio has high polling numbers despite his amnesty push, they aren’t high. Perhaps among the gang of 8 & Obama contributors they’re high, but not among US citizens, or Floridian citizens for that matter.

Ceolas on June 16, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Santorum – National IDIOT!!!

williamg on June 16, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Rick Santorum wasn’t campaigning for typical democrats’ votes and you knuckleheads know he wasn’t. He was speaking to the Reagan democrat voters. The blue collar voters, who were socially conservative.. they weren’t union types. Some Reagan democrats were in unions of course, those union jobs are long gone. But they weren’t hardcore union types, and they couldn’t stand the unions any more than you do. The problems with some of you is, you think, but won’t openly admit, that it’s acceptable to give away the US’s economic independence, and national sovereignty. You are disconnected and disengaged from reality, you got comfortable thinking the US would always be big and powerful, the problem with your fallacy is, it isn’t any longer. Your co-option as globalist sheep has blinded you to the fact that, once the US is bankrupted, bled dry, as all this cheap foreign labor you didn’t mind, is busily working hard to do, with it’s massive use of welfare and other benefit programs, the foreign fascists whose plantation slavery states you’ve gotten comfortable with, who own this debt, won’t have to play nice. They’re going to start seizing a lot more than intellectual property, they’re going to start seizing these US “multinational” farces you’re invested in. They’re going to start demanding, & Obama will be glad to sell them, US resources, water, you name it. The fact is, you didn’t need to vote for Obama, to help Obama get elected, because the multinational behaviors you’ve supported, supported Obama’s theft of power. You need to be experiencing white knuckle time people, because it’s not you overly pampered corporate invester types who’ll be fighting to save your way of life if the merde hits the fan. It’s all those blue collar types whose measly salaries you felt were too generous, and you didn’t mind him becoming homeless and destitute. You even reveal how you aren’t so concerned with the troops, being sent into harms way, they are the sons and daughters of those blue collar workers you sneer at.

Ceolas on June 16, 2013 at 10:30 PM

But to not increase compensation despite increased profits and productivity certainly means that he’s freezing workers out from sharing in expanding economic prosperity.

Stoic Patriot on June 15, 2013 at 5:22 PM

No, it’s not. Increased profits/productivity are supposed to be invested back in the business to allow growth. Instead of workers getting bigger paychecks, there are more workers. Both are considered an economic benefit, even if the workers who didn’t get a raise don’t see it.

alwaysfiredup on June 16, 2013 at 10:39 PM

I would be surprised if Santorum ever wins another election, to be honest. He’s the new Ralph Reed, but with more ethics/less political savvy.

alwaysfiredup on June 16, 2013 at 10:40 PM

As for being a “stakeholder,” I’m a stakeholder (read: citizen) in the United States of America. I know that entire voting thing might seem a bit foreign to you, but it means that I get to have a say in how the country is run, including how businesses are regulated. I’m sorry if you can’t handle that.

Stoic Patriot on June 15, 2013 at 7:44 PM

So because you vote, it is your belief that you get to have the government force other people to behave in the way you desire, without respect for whether they are actually breaking the law or subverting the liberty of others?

The Schaef on June 17, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Are you all in agreement that Rick Santorum should follow Arlen Spectre’s lead, and switch parties?

listens2glenn on June 16, 2013 at 9:49 AM

Sure. He’s a self-proclaimed enemy of the Tea Party & Conservatism but since he is unemployed and doesn’t hold elected office what good does his switching parties do? The Big Gov creep probably voted for Obama anyway.
I just wish he’d stop being given a platform to feel relevent.

Buttercup on June 17, 2013 at 11:05 AM

we’ll be the first ones at the polls on election day 2016 to pull the lever for the nominee, even if it’s Marco “Legalization First” Rubio

I say that you’re wrong. When someone is deliberately trying to legalize 30+ million low-skilled, low wage workers and flood them into the marketplace, thereby creating an almost certain permanent underclass, the idea that I’ll vote for that person is absurd. Sure, I might be in a very small minority, but as this last presidential election showed, small numbers can have a huge impact electorally.

Physics Geek on June 17, 2013 at 11:13 AM

The consideration of Santorum as a “valid/reasonable” GOP candidate for POTUS hurt the GOP. He was a joke to me (middle-class, fiscal conservative, libertarian-ish, social converative-ish, mildly secular)

purpleslog on June 17, 2013 at 11:48 AM

So because you vote, it is your belief that you get to have the government force other people to behave in the way you desire, without respect for whether they are actually breaking the law or subverting the liberty of others?

The Schaef on June 17, 2013 at 9:34 AM

It’s because that I’m a citizen that yes, I can lobby for, and if I get sufficient support from like-minded people, enact policies that I believe are right and just. And when we change policies, we change laws, which restrict and regulate behavior.

Stoic Patriot on June 17, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Disingenuous as hell, as usual. When you want money, you go to a bank.

When you want to create jobs, you talk to people that create jobs, not people that work in the jobs.

We should have had some water on stage, because all humans need water to live, too.

There you have it. Three sentences and I just ended Santorum’s career and obnoxiousness.

HopeHeFails

Well, for what it’s worth, I think you’re wrong.

Our “You didn’t build that” message was too narrow. Yes, we need people who are willing to take risks to open / expand businesses, etc. because they create jobs. By our emphasis on them, however, we were open to the caricature that they’re the only folks we care about, that we want them to get rich but don’t give a rip about the people they hire.

IMO – and that’s all it is – your basic employee in this day & age doesn’t believe their employer really cares about them …

“I’m hired to do a job, period, and the boss will get as much work out of me as he can for as little pay as he can. if the company does well, he’ll give me a little more, if he must … and if, because of seniority or longevity, he gets to where he thinks he could get someone to do what I’m doing for less, he’ll fire me without thinking twice about it.”

There are a lot more employees than there are employers. We didn’t have much to say to employees last time around.

BD57 on June 17, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3