Santorum is the end of civilization or something
Santorum is unelectable. His stances on social issues ranging from women in the military to women in the workplace to gay rights make American voters who are not part of the right wing of the Republican Party uncomfortable.
The GOP would do well to wake up from its Ricksanity and remember that its way to victory in the presidential, House, Senate, and local elections are to have a big tent. The way to that big tent is to focus on economic issues, which are at the center of political discourse in homes all across the country, and on national security. As I have written before, if the GOP sticks to six little words—small government, low taxes, and national security, the party has a real shot at not only keeping the House of Representatives, but also taking the Senate and seriously challenging Barack Obama.
Therefore, the GOP has a choice—it can either ride the Ricksanity train into November and face stunning losses both in the presidential and “down ticket” elections or it can nominate Mitt Romney who not only presents a strong alternative to Barack Obama but will also help other Republicans running for office in 2012.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Boomerang internet justice is cruel but fair.
rogerb on February 18, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Since you appears you are stuck on an idea that logic must prevail. I suggest you study Quantum mechanics you are in fro a world of disappointment. Quantum Mechanics gets to the very nature of reality and is a mass of contradictions in the world of logic.
Using emotions as a guiding principle for judgment is not new and has been used for ages (let your heart be your guide ring a bell?). Why do you find it unlikely therefor when a group predisposed to give emotions more weight in the choices they make in life would do so over a logical argument?
Skwor on February 18, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Well said.
darwin on February 18, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Hmmn, what is your recommendation for promoting freedom if a large portion of the 1/3rd of federal workers that are laid off following a balanced budget amendment join the “99%” to burn every public building and bank that can access? Do you think that our police would be up to stopping that? What about after they block transportation and destroy utilities? I’m confident that Newt and Romney would ignore any such Constitutional Amendment and reinstate their jobs with back pay (after the infinitesimally small chance that they’d let it get that far.) Such cuts will be necessary if freedom is to survive. What would you suggest the president to do in such a case?
elfman on February 18, 2012 at 12:53 PM
That’s the crummy part. We can choose that route, or we can go with Romney and shift the idea of (R) pretty far over to the left. Past center IMHO.
And we’ll never get it back. Small-gov conservatives will officially be a fringe group, and, assuming Romney wins, (R)s from 2012 on out will be ideologically similar to many current (D)s and most from our recent past.
We’re at a tipping point. Which do you prefer?
rogerb on February 18, 2012 at 12:56 PM
If Republicans let the media pick their candidates as suggested, what’s the value of Republicans?
elfman on February 18, 2012 at 12:57 PM
Do you have children, JohnGalt23?
rogerb on February 18, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Well… We should nominate Megan McCain… or Romney… or Megan McCain… or Romney… Same difference…
Y314K on February 18, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Once again, I’m pretty sure I’m imagining things, but it is still sounding like you are supporting Frothy because you believe he would be willing to impose martial law.
Got to be imagining that though. Nobody would actually base their support for a Republican nominee on their willingness to impose martial law.
Would they?
JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Not that I know of.
JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 12:59 PM
Romney/Scott Brown 2012
Y314K on February 18, 2012 at 12:59 PM
Anybody notice Romney wants to run against congress… where did I hear that before…. Way to lead Mitt..
Y314K on February 18, 2012 at 1:01 PM
His stances or the spin on his stances?
What are some of these stances that make you “very uncomfortable”?
Mimzey on February 18, 2012 at 1:03 PM
This must make Mitt’s supporters very uncomfortable…
The group is announcing Friday it will back the former Pennsylvania senator over Mitt Romney and the other Republican hopefuls. It’s the first time the group has endorsed in a presidential primary.
Jane Abraham, an anti-abortion activist in Michigan and chairman of the group’s board, says none of the other candidates has the “record of consistent leadership” Santorum has shown on abortion.
Romney has struggled to win over social conservatives nervous about his previous support for abortion rights. Last year, Romney refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony List’s anti-abortion pledge, saying it was too broad.
The group plans to organize activists, particularly in Michigan, before the state’s Feb. 28 primary.
Y314K on February 18, 2012 at 1:05 PM
Parents get to explain things, and also get to worry about what their children are exposed to online. It’s wonderful and harrowing all at once, and one day I hope you’ll appreciate why I’d ask you to stop being clever with Santorum.
Just be decent, please. Your arguments can stand without that filth.
rogerb on February 18, 2012 at 1:07 PM
I disagree with the premise that Romney is exceptionally to the “left” compared to typical Republican presidential candidates. He’s a pragmatist. If his candidacy pushes Republicans toward being more pragmatic, I’m all for it.
RightOFLeft on February 18, 2012 at 1:08 PM
Grammar.
Just sayin’.
davidk on February 18, 2012 at 1:08 PM
I’m sure if JohnGault were president back in the world of Atlas Shrugged, you’d have used whatever force was constitutionally authorized to protect the Constitution and property being destroyed by the looters.
I’m as clear as day. Of course we need a president who will do the same, including martial law if required. Now, instead of evading my question, what do you want a president to do in the scenario I outlined earlier.
elfman on February 18, 2012 at 1:09 PM
All of those things which I’ve bolded should be opposed but if you think the majority is going to be persuaded to do so by a guy who thinks the only legitimate sex acts are those between married couples for the purpose of procreation, presumably in the missionary position, I am certain that you are wrong.
Basilsbest on February 18, 2012 at 1:11 PM
The media isn’t voting in the primary, although I suspect if they had a vote they’d pick Santorum. I think I know what you mean, though: that Republicans shouldn’t pick their candidate based on what the media is going to do. Fair enough, but it’s not just the media making up stories about Santorum, it’s who Santorum really, proudly is.
RightOFLeft on February 18, 2012 at 1:13 PM
Rough business, politics. And the Frothenator likes to play it rougher than most. He earned that tag by being a royal jerk. All he would have to do is say “I’m sorry. I was wrong.”, and I for one would be willing to dial it back.
Until then… the man dishes it out. He better be prepared to take it.
JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 1:13 PM
We agree here, and I’m not saying this to be snide or argumentative. I completely and absolutely think he’s similar to Bush and McCain.
I meant when comparing him to conservatives, though.
rogerb on February 18, 2012 at 1:13 PM
Sound familiar? It’s because the playbook hasn’t changed in decades…
In 2012, it’s Democrats saying they “hope Republicans nominate Santorum” and that “Santorum can’t win”.
For 12 years, Santorum was one of the most conservative Senators in the Senate, and he was known for standing his ground. He knows how radical Obama was as a Senator (they were both in the Senate at the same time for two years) and Santorum’s not afraid to make a strong stand against Marxism and Islamofascism. Santorum is the candidate that Democrats fear the most.
Democrats and establishment Republicans do not want you to have a clear choice in November 2012. They want you to have to pick between Obama and an “Echo”.
I want a choice, not an echo. And it appears that a lot of other Republican primary voters think the same way.
ITguy on February 18, 2012 at 1:14 PM
Ahhhh! The old argument about which is more important, spelling or grammar(or should that read speling or grammer?)tee hee! or is it tehee or te hee or teehee?)
jeanie on February 18, 2012 at 1:15 PM
Coming from U.S.News that’s a high compliment. You go, Rick!!
Christian Conservative on February 18, 2012 at 1:16 PM
Was it “Ricksanity” when George Washington said:
Religion and morality are indispensable supports to political prosperity.
President Harry Truman would say that the sooner that religion is taken out of our schools and our politics… the faster we end up with a totalitarian government.
ITguy on February 18, 2012 at 1:18 PM
I agree, it’s not “just” the media making things up. But I think it is the media blowing them out of proportion. Santorum can’t outlaw abortion or prohibit birth control use. He/we have larger problems than that. If we can’t convince the electorate of that, this election doesn’t matter.
elfman on February 18, 2012 at 1:19 PM
I want a POTUS skilled enough politically to avoid the type of social upheaval you are disingenuously peddling to the readers of this blog, and I want an electorate who doesn’t choose the leader of a government designed to guarantee their liberties, on the basis of how quickly they are willing to suspend the guarantee of those liberties.
Doesn’t seem like that much to ask, IMHO.
JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 1:21 PM
This is the Author of this garbage… Why didn’t Megan McCain write this article herself…
Y314K on February 18, 2012 at 1:21 PM
The Mittbot panic is growing by the minute….
Love it.
Norwegian on February 18, 2012 at 1:29 PM
I’m sure you realize it’s mostly just middle class, non-campaign folks reading these threads (especially ones that aren’t front-paged). I doubt your “dial” matters at all to him, but your cleverness is extremely offensive to your peers here.
Regardless, I hope you’ll think back on our discussion one day when your child asks you to explain some then-current filth that she doesn’t understand. I’m guessing you’re of an age that enjoyed this, so keep it up, then.
rogerb on February 18, 2012 at 1:32 PM
You like to read what you write on here…don’t you?
CycloneCDB on February 18, 2012 at 1:35 PM
PS- Thanks, btw. I halfway wondered if I was just misunderstanding you, but it was definitely the sexual filth you were aiming for.
rogerb on February 18, 2012 at 1:38 PM
So it’s open season with the sexual slurs on anyone you disagree with. Got it. You probably yucked it up at all the teabagger references a few years ago.
BakerAllie on February 18, 2012 at 1:40 PM
Good to see we’re clear on that.
JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 1:42 PM
Have not had chance to listen carefully yet but ran across 2008 audio on Daily Caller where Santorum is apparently dissing main stream Protestant religions. Increasingly getting feeling that Santorum is somewhat to very imprudent writer and speaker. Also his supporters steer carefully away from his stands and legacy on fiscal policy, probably for similar reasons? Suspicious, what?
jeanie on February 18, 2012 at 1:42 PM
The man compared homosexuals to child rapists.
Who exactly first engaged in sexual slurs?
JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 1:44 PM
Like the 8th time you said that. Link please.
CycloneCDB on February 18, 2012 at 1:47 PM
I think it is way too much to ask John Galt. Because as you yourself should know, Objectivism’s political philosophy (capitalism) as well as all other parts of it are based on employing reason to understanding reality and deduce the correct environment and nature of man and his proper values and behavior. That requires rationally considering opinions regarding the nature of reality that you don’t like rather than reflexively calling their promoters “disingenuous peddlers”.
Now, if you don’t think the federal budget needs to be balance rapidly, how do you think that our republic survives continued trillion plus dollar deficit spending? Or if you agree that it does need rapid balancing, how do you think it can be done without laying off 1/3rd of federal workers? Or if you do think 1/3rd of federal workers need to be laid off soon, how do you think all but a very small percent are not going to join the 99% and riot without some Romney/Newt “compromise” that users in progressive ideals and control. Or if you think that’s not necessary to stop massive riots, what is this “political skill” that they have that Rick Doesn’t that’s going to come to the rescue and enable us to avoid massive civil disobedience. Do you have a reasonable vision how this ends well, or are is John Gault abandoning reason and courage and wishing for a fairy tale ending? Be specific John Galt. “Is that too much to ask?”
elfman on February 18, 2012 at 1:48 PM
Rick Santorum’s Anal Sex Problem compared homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia
All he has to do is say “I’m sorry. I was wrong.”
JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 1:55 PM
Just read the 2008 audio piece and can honestly say I am offended and probably cannot support Santorum.
jeanie on February 18, 2012 at 2:01 PM
I cannot link to the original article because it must require a subscription, but Robert Tracinski makes the case that Santorum is just as much of a statist as Obama.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2848345/posts
onlineanalyst on February 18, 2012 at 2:02 PM
Of course, maybe you should just say “I’m sorry. I was wrong.” He didn’t equate the two. He was running down a list, in descending order, of things marriage does not include. It also doesn’t include me and my vaccuum cleaner. Does that make me some sort of right wing extremist for saying that?
CycloneCDB on February 18, 2012 at 2:02 PM
To the comment who said there are no moderate Democrats: Joe Leiberman, Bill Clinton, Ron Wyden…
SuperBunny on February 18, 2012 at 2:04 PM
If you’re talking about this, that’s a distortion.
He apparently “described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states’ ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual.” If this account is correct, throwing child molestation of NON-ADULTS into that is ridiculously poor reasoning on top of an already poor reasoned argument IMO, but he wasn’t directly comparing homosexuals to child rapists in order to denigrate homosexuals.
elfman on February 18, 2012 at 2:07 PM
Clinton’s no moderate. The only thing about him that was moderate was that his need to be liked overrode his need to be liberal. He was managable. Managable =/= moderate.
gryphon202 on February 18, 2012 at 2:07 PM
Ahem.
http://www.edisonresearch.com/home/archives/2010/08/senator_blanche_lincoln_headed_for_a_historic_defeat.php
Worst defeat of an incumbent GOP senator from Pennsylvania specifically, yes. Worst defeat of an incumbent GOP senator, not even close.
Stoic Patriot on February 18, 2012 at 2:08 PM
That is dog-whistle politics of the worst sort, designed to inflame the prejudices of bigots within this party who are inclined to associate homosexuality with child rape. And it helps nobody outside those who have a stake in perpetuating such bigotry.
JohnGalt23 on February 18, 2012 at 2:13 PM
No where in this article does it say that Rick Santorum is the end of civilization. Nice try Hotair. It says he is unelectable.
Which he is. Not only is he radioactive to the middle, but many conservatives won’t even vote for him. Ergo, he can not get a plurality needed to win a two-party election. Santorum is a religious socialist in a time when America is looking for a secular small-government candidate. The timing couldn’t be more wrong.
keep the change on February 18, 2012 at 2:15 PM
Then why is he doing well in the primary?
If you want to know what the American people are looking for, let the candidates run their campaigns and then let the people vote.
Stoic Patriot on February 18, 2012 at 2:17 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »