« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Should Romney appeal to Santorum voters or copy Ford 1976 strategy vs Reagan?

I knew Ronald Reagan, as much as any fan can.  And Rick Santorum, you are no Ronald Reagan.  But you sure are the best we could hope for this year and I thank you for doing for me and for many conservatives, exactly what Reagan did for us in 1976 – as your email to me and supporters today so accurately said, your campaign offered “a way for you to fight for your convictions.”

No, you may not be Ronald Reagan, but Rick Santorum, you said the same thing he did, and as persuasively as he did at that GOP convention after his loss (Reagan convention speech at my “notes” section on Facebook HERE), when he spoke for and to “all of those millions of Democrats and Independents who I know are looking for a cause around which to rally and which I believe we can give them.”

Yes, I knew Ronald Reagan, and although you are no Ronald Reagan you sure sounded like him yesterday when you withdrew as an active candidate for the GOP nomination for President.  Thank you and God bless you Rick Santorum.

Oh I know, those who hate Santorum – who are the same voices raised against Reagan in 1976 – will tell us your guy lost, he was defeated, and its over.

But you know they said that about our guy 2000 years ago too and this past Friday we remember the defeat before the victory.  And Ronald Reagan’s 1976 loss did not elicit any suggestions from any quarters that he would be President just 4 years later.

The cause goes on, said Reagan in defeat.  So did Santorum yesterday.

The issues he raised, still need advocates, today in 2012 just as in 1976 with Reagan.

The defeat is but one battle in a long war, in 1976 just as today.

The 1976 campaign saw many good and popular conservatives whose names we knew very well, out there advocating the choice of the “regular” Republicans, just as today.

The 1976 campaign saw but a very few conservative Republicans in public life endorsing the long shot challenger to the establishment, just as we saw this year for Rick Santorum.

The 1976 campaign saw the declaration by the establishment GOP of the political obituary of Ronald Reagan, just as we no doubt will see done to Rick Santorum today.

The 1976 campaign “proved” that we conservatives cannot win primary elections, just as we will no doubt hear today said about conservatives with Rick Santorum.

They said of us in the 1976 campaign that we weren’t professional enough to win elections, that our candidate wasn’t polished enough, not yet ready for prime time.  And they said it about us again this year.

They had an enormous fundraising advantage and endorsements advantage in 1976 and they had it again against Rick Santorum this year.

They didn’t realize what you could do with 170,000 newly identified, conservative cause donors to Ronald Reagan in 1976 and they don’t realize what a nearly identical list of supporters – 160,000 to be exact – can do for Santorum and for our cause in the next four years.

They forgot in 1976 that issues and what you propose to do about what people are concerned about, is what motivates people to make phone calls, work hard as volunteers and donate money.

They forgot but in 1976 on the floor of the convention Ronald Reagan reminded us in a most memorable speech (click HERE) that the cause goes on, and that the shining city on a hill must be preserved, that America is special, and that we are the last best hope for freedom on earth.

Reagan said it and yesterday, Rick Santorum said it.

It isn’t up to Rick Santorum, you or me or any of us who supported him, to “reach out” to Mitt Romney.  If Romney wants to talk about “the centrality of faith” in his life and about the old fashioned values he can go ahead and it will be lighting a fire to motivate and enlist the Santorum conservative base to jump into the battle and help him.

In 1976 the Gerald Ford establishment Republicans ignored Reagan after they had beaten him.

Perhaps Mitt Romney’s regulars will do that to Santorum and his supporters but, I caution you folks, you might want to check your history and see how that worked out.

To this day, they blame Reagan for making them lose the election, just as you may if you wish.  But it will not diminish the influence of Rick Santorum and his followers nor change what is going to happen to you if you emulate what Ford did in 1976.

The truth is that even in defeat Ronald Reagan remained very popular.

The continuing efforts of Reagan and his supporters to defend the American dream, to preserve the shining city on a hill, grew and prospered, even as the Ford forces created their narrative that Reagan did not “cooperate” and that is why they lost.

The truth is that the still very popular Reagan traveled the country campaigning for conservatives running for Congress, Senate and for Governor.  Many of those he helped won that year and in the next 2 years.

The Ford campaign realized they were in trouble and were not motivating Reaganites and at the last minute started asking him to do campaign speaking engagements for them.  But Reagan refused to cancel the commitments he made to help his supporters running for office and squeezed in the Ford requests where he could.

Reagan and his Reaganites were shut out and Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter.

Reagan and the conservatives continued the fight and it was Ford and the “regulars” who went silent after their defeat.

Four years later, bolstered by their continued fight against the liberals and with larger numbers than before, the conservatives won the nomination battle and the Presidency.

Is that the future for the forces of Rick Santorum after yesterday’s ending of the quest for the GOP nomination for President this year?

It is far too soon to be able to predict the future but I can say this.

I appreciate Rick Santorum’s giving voice to my views on many of the issues of concern to me as a conservative and especially as a values voter.  I’ll continue on exactly as he said right now, as Reagan asked in 1976.

Oh yes I know – despite his actually leading in the polls at one point, despite his emerging as the final, leading alternative to Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum didn’t come as close as Ronald Reagan did in 1976.

But you ‘ll notice the people who will say that to attempt to diminish the future role of Rick Santorum and those of us who supported him, ignores the truth: Reagan first ran for the GOP nomination not in 1976 but earlier in 1968.  And no, he didn’t even come close that time.

Santorum did FAR better in his first try for the Presidency, than Ronald Reagan did in his first try in 1976, despite being an incumbent Governor of the very sizeable state of California.

Remember the guy the liberals hated more than anyone else was Ronald Reagan in 1976 and without a doubt, it is Rick Santorum today.

Whether you are old enough to have experienced the Reagan campaign of 1976 firsthand or you are smart enough today to learn the lessons of that campaign, there’s no such thing as another Ronald Reagan but Rick Santorum can certainly follow the success story, and Mitt Romney can avoid the disaster of Gerald Ford.  All of us can learn from history, and not repeat the mistakes.

But for the future of our conservative cause, it doesn’t matter what Mitt Romney does.  One way or the other we have to defeat Barack Obama.

One way or the other we who rallied to the Rick Santorum banner must be involved in leadership roles in our cause, for our candidates, on the ramparts facing and defeating those who would “transform” this country with a wrecking ball.

Since when did we allow the liberal left and their water carriers within our ranks to dictate to us who our leaders will be in the battles of the future?  If Rick Santorum will lead as he did in the past few months I’ll be one of the many who will rally to his banner in the days, weeks, months and years ahead.

If Rick Santorum decides to use his name recognition and his following across America to campaign for Mitt Romney, for U.S. Senate and House candidates and for Governor candidates he will truly be following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan and who knows, he may have the same outcome four years from now as Reagan did in 1980.

No other candidate has spoken as eloquently for the faith of the values voters, from American exceptionalism to the centrality of faith in our lives.

One Fox news commentator said that of course Mitt Romney’s “favorable” ratings will now increase since he no longer has a serious primary opponent.  Wrong.

Mitt’s troubles are only now beginning, and will get worse unless he enlists the Santorum supporters to his cause by having Rick Santorum out in front for him.

Or he may choose the Gerald Ford strategy of freezing him out thinking to destroy his former rival.  Won’t work Mitt, didn’t work against Reagan and won’t against Santorum, but will only keep your “favorable” ratings low, contrary to that Fox News commentator.

They said of Reagan in 1968 and again in 1976 “he isn’t ready for prime time.”  But he was ready in 1977 through 1979 as he continued to lead our cause in many battles we fought, and he was ready in 1980.

Rick Santorum may not have been “ready for prime time” but the war goes on and it is entirely possible that we will see and hear a lot more from him in the future.

One of the liberal commentators on Fox said that now at last, with Santorum out, Mitt Romney can “appeal” to women and independents, ie. “swing to the left” with Santorum out.

Won’t work Mitt – you’ll be on your own if you don’t bring in the conservatives.

The conservative path of the light, is the way to appeal to women and independents, as Reagan did and as Santorum could have done.

Appealing to women and independents by copying the language, rhetoric and proposals of the left has never been a good strategy for Republicans but has been offered again and again anway.

I’m against Obama, will vote for the Republican nominee against him but I’ve been enough of a student of history to know that how much money and how many volunteers the GOP candidate will have in this battle against a better funded and better organized Barack Obama, is strictly a matter of whether he listens and learns from history – realizes that shutting out conservatives didn’t for Gerald Ford.

Will Romney copy the losing strategy being suggested to him by those who hate conservatives and either don’t want him to win or simply overlook reality and history’s lessons?

In any event, and no matter what Mitt Romney decides, I do believe we will see and hear a lot more about Rick Santorum in the future, who is much younger at this stage of his career than Ronald Reagan was when he lost in 1976 and who just like Reagan, gives voice to people who will otherwise have none.

America is exceptional, the values voters are still here, and we still look for leadership on the national level.  Thank you Rick Santorum, we are grateful for your giving voice to our views, hope you will take a brief rest and then pick up that sword once again, hold up the light, to banish the dark.

HanoverHenry of RED STATE is Pat Henry on Facebook, and I’m on the lookout for new friends there. You can also communicate via private mail at Facebook, and I welcome new sources for my articles focusing on the conservative-Christian viewpoint in Pennsylvania.  I appreciate your sharing this article elsewhere and only ask that you include this “disclaimer” in any reprints or sharing you do.  And I thank those whose information have helped me with some of my reports, including those who do not wish to be quoted by name.

Links to articles I wrote at RED STATE at my Facebook Notes section. 

COMMENTS

  • wennejunk

    One quibble -

    “Remember the guy the liberals hated more than anyone else was Ronald Reagan in 1976 and without a doubt, it is Rick Santorum today.”

    Disagree – except maybe in the present moment while he’s in the news.

    However, in the larger arena, Rick Perry carried far more hate than Santorum does or did simply because he had a record of actual, Conservative (and Pro-life) accomplishments.

    The far more liberal Santorum and crazy/desperate Bachmann helped torpedo Perry (along with a poorly run Perry Campaign).

    Not attacking your guy, just disagreeing with the one comment.

  • JSobieski

    If you want to list all of the comparable attributes, we could also make a list of the all the material differences.
    (1) Executive experience vs. none
    (2) Wide ranging private sector experience vs. media/government “public sector” experience (Newt and Santorum both suffer in this category)
    (3) Happy Warrior image vs. NOT a happy warrior
    (4) Lifetime of leadership positions vs. career of votes

    Rick should truly enter the private sector for a while or run for goververnor somehwere.

    Any comparisons to Reagan should be limited to specific attributes. Otherwise, you simply invite an unproductive exercise of pointing out how different Reagan is from X.

    • JSobieski

      (5) Reagan almost took out an incumbant President, Santorum lost to a guy who has only one election in his lifetime

      (6) Reagan led a union vs. Santorum merely compromised his conservatism on behalf of unions

      Others will undoubtedly add to this list.

      • garfieldjl

        A guild is made up of skill professionals that specialize in a particular trade.

        The Free Masons started off as a Guild if you look at history.

        You make it sound like Reagan ran the SEIU, for goodness sakes.

        Reagan was President of the Screen Actor’s Guild back when it was composed of actors that happened to be sane.

        Believe it or not acting is a skilled profession, not many people can pull off acting in movies or on television.

        • JSobieski

          The point is that Reagan RAN something—and he had demonstrable accomplishments during that time (both in terms of dealing with the studios as well as dealing with communism).

          If the only point you have to make to my comment is the difference between a guild and a union, I am glad the larger point is unchallenged.

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            and your minor points are simple strawman constructs which you then attack. I wrote nothing about labor unions, but I see you really want to go off on that track, and welcome you are to it because….the light shines on. The Rick Santorum values voters will either be engaged and attracted to the Romney campaign, or they will not, and it is his and the country’s loss if they are not, but they are here to stay because… yes… the light shines on.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          you don’t know squat about SAG.

          If you can read, your time would be better spent learning about what the SAG was all about when Reagan took over leadership and what he did while President.

          Hint: your estimation that it was just a bunch of actors is tantamount to saying that the brownshirts in Germany in the early 30s were a bunch of beer hall drunks.

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        and don’t complain so much for goodness sake… you do not dispute ;my facts for the simple reason that they are facts. So, you say that my 1,745 word essay wasn’t complete enough? Oh my. It seems the complaint would be my 36 essays over the past 7 weeks, 5x a week and averaging 2,213 words each, are either very thorough and complete or overdone depending on whether you approve of what I am writing or not… but yours is the first “complaint” that sounds like I should have added another few hundred words.

        I made the comparisons which were apt. The ones you raise, are correct. But then, unfairly I believe, you are comparing the Reagan we all knew and loved of the 1980′s with the Reagan who I spoke of from 1968 and 1976, who was considered an old fellow, an actor, past his prime by his critics.

        But in the main I would agree with your points – except you simply do not note that I did not ANYWHERE say, “this is the new Ronald Reagan.” I don’t believe Rick Santorum is. But each of the comparisons vs Reagan which I did make, are perfectly accurate. The good that he and his followers can do if they emulate what Reagan did, is perfectly valid. The temptation of Mitt Romney and/or his consultants to marginalize the “values voters” and especially the Santorum supporters, as I reported, can be likened to what in fact, the Ford campaign did to Reagan and his supporters – to their detriment.

        The comparisons I made are valid, accurate and on point to my message:

        Mitt Romney in 2012 had better not make the mistake that Gerald Ford did in 1976.

        My goodness that is twice now that I have tended to agree so much with my “critics” in here, even if with some reservations… but then, I did start the article off with the observation I think you missed: “Rick Santorum, you are no Ronald Reagan.”

        If that was your point I don’t “concede” it because I originally DID write that, and am with you on that score, most emphatically. In fact, with what I know about both Reagan and Santorum I am probably better equipped than many here to ADD to your list of “Santorum is not Reagan because.” But wait… that wasn’t the point of that article and you appear to have missed it completely… surely your purpose is not to see if you can make over the conservative cause so that the adherents of the “values voter” philosophy are then so dispirited that they leave our camp completely and our “stool” then becomes “two legged” (although Santorum did suggest in his exit remarks a 4th leg, those who advocate for the Constitution).

        My article was a warning to the Romneyites and the “regulars” and also, a reminder to those disappointed by the outcome, that Rick Santorum and his followers just had a wonderful experience which can be turned to enormous advantage for our cause and our country in the years ahead, and NOBODY and NOTHING can stop them from using this experience for good.

        When someone dies if you believe in Jesus and his message and take this message to heart you will most certainly understand that we ought to pause a moment to give thanks for the Life of the one who passed on, remember that we will meet again, and continue to do our best to serve His purpose for the days we have left.

        I pray that those who put their time, money or loyalty to the cause of Rick Santorum will remember that their efforts did have a purpose, and that our cause does in fact go on, and we need each and every one of you with us to have any chance to win important fights ahead. God bless you all, and God bless America.

        • JSobieski

          I could write a diary identifying all sorts of similarities between Hitler and Reagan, but that diary would be just as annoying, misleading, and lacking in insight as this diary.

          In terms of your last two paragraphs:

          Rick Santorum has not died.
          Jesus died to save us from death . . . not the end of political campaigns. Extrapolating what Jesus did for us to the banality of a political campaign is disappointing.

          Are you trying to imply that Santorum is politically dead? I thought the point of the diary was the direct opposite?

          • garfieldjl

            Talk about being petty.

          • acat

            Words have meanings, garfield. Learn them.

            Mew

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            now now now… lets be polite. Garfield made a valid point and there is no call for such name-calling and insult. Further, not a single, solitary “factual error” has been identified in my original essay. Creating a strawman and then attacking THAT is not a criticism of anything that I wrote, as I keep saying here. I said clearly: Rick Santorum is no Ronald Reagan. I wrote that in the first few words. The words have meanings. No means not. Catty or snarky it may be to tell Garfield he isn’t understanding the meaning of words but, it would appear the pot is calling the kettle black, when you say of my essay, that I made an error which clearly, doesn’t exist.

            It is one thing to disagree with my conclusion that there’s similarities to the defeated Reagan and the defeated Santorum, and in both cases, the winner ignores the loser at their peril. Perhaps you are right and we should go on as several of you are doing in this thread to attempt to demoralize those who supported Rick Santorum. But my advise is: ignore the liberal left and those carrying their water within the conservative movement because Reagan and his Reaganites did that, and it worked out fine.

            Now cat lady, be nice to Garfield and you two cat people stop clawing away, especially yu, mu.

          • acat

            Think Chicago alley tom who lived to tell the tale.

            If the purpose of your diary was to attract Romney’s attention, I’d chalk it up as the wrong approach.

            Sadly, I don’t believe that was your purpose, else why is so much of your diary – as J. Sobieski has pointed out – spent on the false comparisons to Reagan (and Jesus) rather than on the true comparison to Ford?

            I will note, by the way, that Ford is regarded as the first evangelical president .. Santorum or Gingrich would have been the second Catholic, and Romney will be the first Mormon. Not that it matters to me, but it seems to be of note to others.

            Had you intended to discuss Romney and how to bring him around on Values issues, you would have done so. Instead, you spent paragraph after paragraph discussing Reagan and Santorum, linking the two, drawing a false parallel, and you’ve been called out.

            The polite, adult thing to do, hanoverhenry, is to admit that you, perhaps, overstepped, and move on. It is not to accuse those who disagree with you of working for Soros, or of being of the forces of darkness.

            You go ahead and keep it up, though.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            Talk about being pathetic.

            I would like nothing more to stop mentioning the ways Santorum is several tiers below Reagan as a public official.

            I cannot however stand idly by as gibberish is passed as wisdom.

          • garfieldjl

            Stop being so petty!!!

            While I don’t think Santorum and Reagan are all that much alike, other people have the right to have their own opinions.

            The man left the race because his daughter is sick, potentially fighting for her life.

            Enough already.

          • lapert

            Did you not listen to his interview yesterday with Tony Perkins? He left the race because he is out of money, time and votes. He lost. It is unfortunate his daughter is sick, but you shouldn’t use it as an excuse – he isn’t.

          • garfieldjl

            Enough already!!!

            You may not agree with the analogy that he is Reagan, fine, but kicking the man when his daughter is in the hospital.

            Accusing him of this that and the other, of being a quitter, etc. Is extremely petty.

            Enough!

            I’m not a Santorum supporter, but the man deserves some respect, and his family should be in our prayers that his daughter gets better.

            There is no grounds on going after him, cause he’s not in the race anymore.

          • lapert

            You are really losing it here and hiding behind his sick daughter – you should be ashamed of yourself.

            His fundraising shortfalls were not because of his daughter – he doesn’t pretend they are so I don’t know why you are other than as an attempt to cut off conversation because you are uncomfortable with the truth here.

            He isn’t a quitter, he is a loser – he lost the nomination along with everyone other than Romney who was running. That isn’t petty, it is the reality you haven’t yet come to accept.

          • garfieldjl

            I am not a Santorum supporter, Scope can attest to that. My candidate of choice is Gingrich.

            What I’m seeing here is you and others bashing someone that is no longer in the race, whose Daughter is in the hospital.

            I’m saying that is over the line, these kind of attacks are way out of bounds, because the man has a daughter in the hospital.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            is an ignorant jackass who doesn’t touch reality, EVER.

            You’re trolling.

            Santorum’s departure had absolutely nothing to do with his daughter.

          • aesthete

            if the statements made by those on this thread were attacking Santorum on a personal level — but what I see is people attacking hanoverhenry’s painfully deficient diary, not Santorum himself, and certainly not his family or his commitment to same.

            As with JSob, I do wish that people would stop making these hagiographies — one will note that kipling’s diary has not received the same response as this one.

          • acat

            Just a minor point.

            Carry on.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            that kipling has over hanover, here.

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            … no one actually, has “attacked” my diary so far. They have attacked the strawman of their own creation, attacked me personally, attacked Santorum but not a thing I’ve written has been criticized thus far. What can you do – it is a fact that Santorum has 160,000 donors on his house list and Reagan had 170,000. It is fact that at the time – in 1976 – no one knew how that list could be used to build many different conservative cause organizations and even help kick off many different U.S. Senate races. They (and it appears you) simply didn’t know it then, and many don’t understand today, what you can do with a house donor list of 170,000 COHESIVE and united donors who believe in a cause that will fight on. You can’t drive these people away from politics because we don’t buy the argument that people of faith should be silent in the public policy process about their core values. You can only keep them from helping Romney win, nothing more, nothing less. And you know why? Because the light shines on.

          • acat

            Timestamps don’t lie.

            Mew

          • lapert

            The only one injecting his daughter into this conversation is you. No one is bashing him, pointing out that he lost is not bashing it is acknowledging the reality that he has already acknowledged.

            Mbecker is probably right and you are nothing but a troll – which is even sadder than if you actually were as much as an idiot as you seem, you would think you would have something better to keep you entertained than that.

          • acat

            I was told, back when I objected that Santorum had moved her away from her home and peers and medical support familiar with her case so he could stay in Iowa for the benefit of his campaign, that she didn’t….

            Thank you for enlightening me.

            Mew

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            You just keep getting stupider and stupider.

            He couldn’t continue to raise money because the handwriting was on the wall. The momentum in PA had shifted over the last month and he lost a 25 point lead BEFORE Romney ran one ad. His major backers shut him off.

            This isn’t rocket science, but then again, you are typing with one hand.

            His dropping out had nothing to do with his daughter, that is a patent lie. And that’s exactly what we’ve come to expect from you.

          • acat

            seem to be taking hanoverhenry to task for the bogus comparisons.

            Mew

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            well whichever it is, let me help you with the counting there… you’ve got a couple people (3? 4?) who appear very determined to create the illusion that everybody hates what I wrote, and they keep posting and posting away with straw man arguments and insults of me personally… and then you have 59 people who recommended this very article to their Facebook friends, 4 who used twitter to do the same, and 4 more who used the in-house system to refer this page…. plus the editors chose this article to place “above the fold” as an editor’s choice or recommended diary.

            The more you bash away the larger the readership of the ARTICLE I wrote (not necessarily your frustrated attacks and attempts to diminish and insult this writer) gets. And you know why? Because:

            the light shines on… and the dark is pushed back… God bless you all for writing, I am praying that you don’t hurt yourselves with all that strain.

          • aesthete

            Liar.

          • JSobieski

            Santorum is not Ronald Reagan.

            You could have made your broader point without asserting that Santorum was Ronald Reagan 2.0.

            The application of discerning judgment is to treat similarly things are similar and to treat differently things that are different.

            Cloaking yourself in holiness in response to a political assessment is a weak response to an analytical argument.

          • acat

            is usually comedy gold.

            This is no exception. They’re not laughing with you, hanoverhenry.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            Santorum is a good man and a good father.

            However, if someone is going to talk about how Santorum is so much like Reagan, I am going to point out that he isn’t.

            For gosh sakes, the man has a daughter in the hospital. Why are people still bringing him up incesantly in an unrealistic manner?

            I have never brought up the topic of Rick Santorum in ANY forum.

            However, if people want to compare him to Reagan or his political campaign to the New Testament, I will share my thoughts on the matter.

            The rule of a public forum is: don’t bring something up unless you are prepared to hear the contrary position argued.

            Nothing I have said has been disrespectful of Rick Santorum. I hold the man in high regard as a man, father, husband, and fellow Catholic.

            If someone wants to argue that he flies, and comes from the planet Krypton—-I will chime in with the contrary position.

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            Sobi you are continuously posting repeat messages to rebut only your own strawman. I must therefore keep repeating: go the first two sentences of the article you keep attacking, and notice where it says that Rick Santorum is no Ronald Reagan. So for you to keep insisting that Santorum is no Ronald Reagan makes you look rather silly – it is a strawman argument. Then you say it proves I didn’t write factually, or logically, or whatever insult you can think of to repeat over and over… are you aware that the number of comments on this thread, simply add to the impression that this is a MUST READ article? You are elevating the importance of an article that I honestly had no idea if anyone but a few Santorum supporters would read, good people who I hoped would not feel so depressed that they might leave the political process when they are needed so much in the days, weeks, months and years ahead. So I compared what the Gerald Ford forces did to what you are doing here – and the result it got them. And you know why? Because:

            The light shines on.

          • JSobieski

            Good to know where you stand on the issue of public debate!

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            … as you continue to offer only rebutal to strawman arguments of your own creation, and insults of my writing, now you claim that somebody is trying to silence you?

            In your attempting to demean and diminish my offering by these tactics, you have only drawn more attention to what I have written. By your expressing yourself in the way that you have, more people are coming here to read the article that drew so many comments.

            That was of course, my central point: those who despite Santorum and his followers, can only defeat themselves. They cannot stop us, and the more they do of this negative, the more of a victory they will help us achieve. Thank you. The light shines on.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            From the National Journal

            Two days after leaving the Republican presidential-nomination race, Rick Santorum said on Thursday that the main reason he dropped out was that the campaign simply ran out of money.

          • garfieldjl

            There is no point for Romney supporters to continue to snipe at Santorum and/or pick fights with Santorum supporters other than to be petty.

            I don’t really care why he left the race at this point, he’s not in the running, so attacking him like this actually helps Obama.

            I would say the same to Newt Gingrich supporters if they were pulling this, enough already!!!

          • aesthete

            “attacking him like this actually helps Obama”

            So, pointing out that Santorum’s campaign is not like anything in the New Testament helps Obama? You’re gonna have to walk me through that one.

            BTW, no one commenting on here is a Romney supporter.

          • garfieldjl

            That’s a simple fact, to make matters worse for you, Santorum’s daughter is in the hospital, it generates sympathy for Santorum and outrage directed towards Romney.

            This widens the rift even further, which makes it that much harder when we finally have to unify at the Convention.

            So, enough already, if Santorum supporters think Santorum is similar to Reagan, fine that is their opinion. Since Santorum stepped out of the race, there is no legitimate reason to challenge that.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            when if it gets back into the sunshine.

          • acat

            They’re not about Santorum, they’re about the invalid comparisons the diarist made between Santorum and Reagan (and Jesus).

            Again, go read Kipling’s defense and see if you can tell the difference.

            One glaring difference, Kipling hasn’t posted a link in this thread, but hanoverhenry posted a link over there.

            Mew

          • garfieldjl

            If they think Reagan and Santorum are similar, that’s their business. Santorum is no longer in the primary so it doesn’t really affect anything by letting them post how wonderful they think Santorum is. If they are upset about the fact he’s out of the race let them work through it on their own, the absolute worst thing you can do is start attacking Santorum and picking a fight with his supporters. It only leads to even more bad blood between Romney and Social Conservatives.

            That’s why I’m saying people need to knock it off.

          • acat

            even when they’re much more comfortable misstated.

            If you want to see this play out, go quote Mark 10:21 at people coming out of a church in a prosperous neighborhood.

            Mew

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            As posted elsewhere here, both the Susan B Anthony List and the National RTL PAC have strongly endorsed Romney.

          • gekster

            homer would have to have the incentive to first read it without the “speedread” thing, and then he would have to comprehend exactly what was said.
            Unfortunately he can do niether.

            Tribbles are like that.

          • garfieldjl

            Due to my Autism, yet I know better that to start bad-mouthing someone that people are grieving over.

            Talking trash about someone that you are grieving over losing let’s say your best friend got killed by a drunk driver (random example), and someone walks up and starts trash talking your friend at the funeral. It wouldn’t surprise me if you would get extremely angry at that person.

            While nobody had died or anything, they are grieving over Santorum being out of the race, and you guys are running in and trash talking Santorum. All you’re doing is ticking people off.

          • gekster

            You don’t seam to have any reading comprehension skills at all.

            Take my advice, go play Hello Kitty.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            You outlived your uselessness here a long time ago.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            by insisting he can be stopped from winning the nomination. Your entire posting history consists of that and you’re not only only frightfully wrong, you’re just plain stupid about it.

            In this thread, the comments have not been at Santorum, they’ve been at the OP for a totally off base comparison that is just stupid. And then there’s your string of stupidity throughout.

            If you and your acolytes would simply STFU and get on with the general election, Santorum would attract no attention and nobody would say a thing.

          • JSobieski

            Like you I too supported Newt in the primaries. Your lack of logic however causes me to doubt my prior conclusions.

          • garfieldjl

            Since Santorum is not in the primary, there is no point for Romney supporters to still be criticizing him. Nor any point for Newt supporters to seriously go after Santorum either.

          • gekster

            he is long past that point.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            .

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            you guys don’t stop with this strawman thing. I wrote nothing on this topic and you are therefore, rebutting something that has nothing to do with me or with my writing. Perhaps you should get back over to the Daily Kos website or wherever you are getting your material, it has nothing to do with me or with RED STATE. Over here, the light shines on.

          • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

            you’ve been very helpful so no one will accuse you of being idle I do not think. You’ve helped prove my point entirely … those who were motivated by Rick Santorum should stick around as did the Reaganites of 1976. If those who despise them are successful, it will just result in your candidate losing exactly as Gerald Ford lost in 1976. Thus far, all you have done is prove that Santorum is not Reagan, which I said in the first line of this essay, “Rick Santorum, you are no Ronald Reagan.” So you’ve helped jump the number of comments off the charts here, bringing more and more attention to a column whose conclusion you apparently do not share- that the people who supported Rick Santorum should not be disheartened but stick around. And you’ve belabored the obvious as if you are rebutting what I wrote. But I said it in the first two sentences. Folks, this was my point: we will win no matter what happens. The light always pushes back the dark, and the dark can only be snarky and mad, and throw insult and curse the light but we should not be disheartened. They can only make Mitt Romney lose this year, they cannot stop good people – like Rick Santorum and his followers – from seeing their influence increased. And that makes them pretty mad, as you can see here in this continuing thread. Thanks for those who have made this a record breaking readership for any column I’ve written in this, out of the 36 essays I’ve contributed to RED STATE in the past 7 weeks. Notice how the attacks get personal, insulting and keep repeating “we have the facts”? Sure you do. Why not actually comment on something I wrote instead of all this straw man stuff you keep attacking? Not one single fact I reported has been rebutted so far, not a one.

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    …and yes we who are Christian, do apply the lessons from His death and His resurrection, to events which occur in our lives, such as Reagan’s supposed “ending” when he lost first in 1968 and then again in 1976.

    Yes, yes. We Christians do tend to do that, and highly recommend this we do, for you as well. You do not have to share our vision if you don’t wish, but that is what we believe, and your denigrating those with whom you do not agree is fine, but also was done to Jesus as well, as I remind my friends.

    I wrote to give heart and strengthen hope for those who may feel that was the ending when in fact, it was and can be for all of us, but the beginning. As I wrote, we now have enormous assets that we did not have before this quest began.

    I wrote to remind that it really does not matter what you, or Romney, or those on the far left who hate us and whose ideas we sometimes see in these pages, do next.

    For Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory. When Rick Santorum spoke of the Centrality of his faith in his life and his work, he earned our appreciation even as he earned the enmity of those who think we Christians should be silent or if we refuse, then we should be admonished, denigrated.

    Such attacks on us will not work of course, if we refuse to allow it but instead keep faith. It is what being Christian is all about – to apply the gift we have been given, as best we can, to situations we face in our daily life.

    And yes, you could write and compare Reagan or Santorum to Hitler or perhaps even write about how the life and examples of Jesus were irrelevant or don’t apply. Those on the left do that all the time – and the “Big Lie” technique does work, with some of the people, some of the time, or else they wouldn’t keep using that Alinsky tool. Sure, you can convince some people that Santorum is Hitler, and others have been at work convincing some that Obama is God.

    Your prerogative and theirs, to write that. Mine, to explain why it won’t work, and why the run for President by Rick Santorum, strengthened his and our and HIS cause enormously, and to explain how and why that is true.

    But coming in here with that sort of attack, proves the point I wished to make. Those who hate what we stand for, cannot stop us in the long run and those who followed Santorum for the reasons that I did – that he articulated in the political process values which we hold dear, will continue on, they should continue on, and they – we – should continue to speak for the transcendental values.

    And yes, just as Reagan, and Jesus and Rick Santorum were defeated, the latter can follow the former in using this as but a milestone along the path to ultimate victory. My prayer is that those who supported Santorum for the reasons that I did, will see that, even as those who hate us for that very reason, continue their attacks on us.

    • JSobieski

      If some democrat out there compared the beginning and end of a political campaign to birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus—I think most people on this site would either laugh or be quite disgusted.

      Elevating any political campaign to the level of using theological salvation language is a huge mistake.

      Let me put it more simply:

      Santorum is an honest and God fearing man.

      Santorum is a man. He is not Jesus, he is not the Son, he is not the Word.

      I criticize the diarist for comparing Santorum to Reagan, only to bump into language elevating Santorum’s campaign to something Christ-like.

      Does the phrase self-parody mean anything to you?

      • aesthete

        because, much as Jesus died to give us new life, many revolutionaries died to give Cuba new life.

        /MoreHorribleAnalogies

        • JSobieski

          nt

          • JSobieski

            Lessons to be learned on Red State: Overzealous support actually hurts the candidate being supported

          • acat
          • westcoastpatriette

            Puleeze…let’s not go there.

          • acat

            I’m happy to discuss either, but the blend is nothing I want anywhere near me.

            Yes, Reagan used religious imagery in his speeches, and yes most of the founding fathers were Christians of one sort or another, but it’s quite clear that much of their thought was based on the ideas that the “Estates” were and should be kept separate and semi-antagonistic toward one another.

            Mew

          • westcoastpatriette

            hanover’ in this diary and his comments starts to give me that dizzy feeling that I get when people seem to go off the deep end when mixing the two or really stretching to find biblical comparisons to their political reasoning.

            And I am not trying to pretend that I have arrived in terms of becoming better at articulating all of my positions as a Christian. For that, I am fully aware that I need much more study and practice.. But some Christians do a terrible job and only make things worse. The Christian Communism bit really gets to me, though, as that is the direction most of the liberals try to take to justify big nanny-state gov.

            It nauseates me as well as offending me.

          • aesthete

            I’m pretty sure that quite a few Santo supporters would have no problem with that, so long as they could get rid of the icky libertarians and reinstitute sodomy laws.

          • acat

            and they’d all likely make fantastic neighbors.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            is that the vast majority wouldn’t treat individual libertarians and gays badly — they certainly wouldn’t assault them en masse.

            Something about government and the social acceptability of government-initiated violence makes people a little crazy, IMO.

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        …there’s not a sentence anywhere under my name in which I suggested that Santorum is Jesus yet, you erect another Strawman in order to then attack that and “get the facts right”. It is a bit silly and I keep thinking, oh my, I have made a mistake and wandered into the Daily Kos, where they too, attack conservatives using straw man arguments all the time.

        Salvation history is critically important to mankind and of course, those of us who are Christians, who believe in the message of our Lord, can take solace in knowing that there is no victory without a struggle, and that our Savior’s crucifixion on a Friday was followed by his victory on Sunday.

        And yes, it outrages the liberal-secular left when we ever speak of our faith – as they all went nuts when Rick Santorum spoke of the “centrality of faith” in his own life.

        Again: you prove my point. The liberal-left attacks us conservatives with strawman arguments because they don’t have facts and they always do make it personal. Nothing you have written so far has anything to do with my essay, and rebuts nothing. God bless you son, but you are only helping the very party you want to tear down, and that too, was my point: the only power the enemies of Rick Santorum have right now, is the power to lose the 2012 election by pushing Rick Santorum and his followers away. If they do that, it will have NO EFFECT on the values voters because we today have a bigger list, better organization, more experience and are going to continue to grow in the future. Thank you very much for your help Sobi, tis much appreciated, and do carry on.

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        …and once again, you have your strawman… as if I’d said he is more than a man… as if I’d said he is Jesus. Silly Sobi. Very transparent, very obvious, and won’t work. And do you know why? Because:

        The light shines on.

    • JSobieski

      and I care about truth.

      Leftists are very quick to characterize those who disagree with them as being “hateful”.

      Something to think about before you throw out such language with little thought.

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        …when the left demonizes us as individuals, when they attack our style, when they keep claiming we aren’t rational and aren’t factual, when they attack and attack rather than hold up what they stand for, oh yes, that is indeed hateful, that is negative and that is what is happening here again and again. My book says we can know a tree by its fruits. These are your fruits Sobi. They are also on display over at Media Matters, Daily Kos, Huffington Post and all the bloggers that carp and criticize and tear away at conservatives, using the same strawman and demonizing tactics we see on display here. And I know you are doing it with “little thought” because it is right out of our opponent’s playbook so, how much thought can be required to say: “you are bad, you don’t have facts, you are awful, you will lose, you are stupid, you will lose” and so on?

        One more comparison with Santorum and Reagan: this too, they did to Ronald Reagan. All of it. All of what I just wrote. They demonized him too, said he is stupid, said he could never win, said he was finished, said he was awful. On and on. What’s new? Nothing at all. Thanks again. Pour it on!!! The light still shines.

    • 10ab

      I think the last thing Jesus would want would be for his name to be connected to this contentious “earthly” presidential campaign. Seriously he has better things to do. We mortals will get the outcome we deserve.

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        but some of us who are Christian, are… and we do know that light banishes dark, and insults are all that our foes have. And like John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech which I wrote about after Santorum’s reference to it, you and your liberal friends prefer those who are Christians to be silenced and not ever refer to our faith. But the light shines on. the dark, and its advocates, have the problem. We have the faith.

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    not sure the people using that word realize this. If in fact I am a hagiographer who is hagiographing away as they accuse, when I speak of the factual comparisons between the end of the Reagan 1976 and Santorum 2012 campaigns and the choice facing Ford back then, and how similar it is to Romney’s choice today…

    …but in the way they have attacked here, over and over, the same handful of people, even as the number of people who praise this article by recommending it goes up and up…

    they are with all of this negative, acting in a way that strikes me as demonagraphic.

    Thanks for the boost folks, carry on! You know why that helps? Because:

    the light shines on.

    • aesthete

      of how illuminated the landfill from whence you post truly is.

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        so cleverly done too. I see you didn’t yet notice the “be respectful, or be banned” thingie at the bottom there? Oh… I have to remember what website you must have just come over from… sorry… but I do appreciate your hard work to drive my numbers up here… one of my friends suggested to me earlier, seeing all your work to help me, that if you didn’t exist I should have created you so that I could get this wonderful effect. Does your trashing away at conservatives like this usually have this great an effect on them? Thanks again, and God bless you.

        • acat

          Do let me know, hanoverhenry, when you’re prepared to apologize for calling me:
          1) a Soros lackey (or did you mean stooge?)
          2) a dark person
          3) someone the left would invent if I didn’t exist

          I find that rather disrespectful, y’see. If you want to play this out, use the contacts link at the top of the page to tell the moderators that others are being mean to you.

          Run along now.

          Mew

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    The entire point of my article is missed by a few people who are very anxious to drive the Santorum loyalists out, make them feel dispirited. That helps Obama. If they stay and speak out for Mitt Romney, that hurts Obama. So, if the winners of the primary process today copy Gerald Ford of 1976 and ignore the Reaganites as was done then, they will get the same result. I suggest that you missed the entire point of the article and the factual comparisons between the 1976 Reagan and the 2012 Santorum, or put another way, the comparison between the Gerald Ford of 1976 and the Mitt Romney of 2012. Those whose dislike of Santorum, whether for political, philosophical or whatever grounds, has colored their responses to my original essay, skip right past this point. Glad you gave me this opportunity to walk you thru it.

    Here, I’ll make it simpler: be nice to Rick Santorum and his people, speak to their issues. Or run the risk of losing in 2012 for the very same reasons that Ford lost in 1976. Every comparison that I used was based on fact. The liberals ALWAYS “advise” us conservatives to “moderate our message” to appeal to the center. Never fails. There’s ALWAYS some liberals saying “I’m a conservative but…” never fails… and there’s always a handful of our own people who get confused by all this.

    Hope that helps. And perhaps, reread the article because many of the points being made here have little or nothing to do with what I wrote. If you do read, it will help banish the darkness and the light will prevail.

    • acat

      As it is, you went on – despite that very good beginning – to insist that Santorum’s somehow going to come back from this.

      It’s not impossible, but .. given the crop of young conservative GOP governors, the negative media construct that Santorum feeds into every time someone shoves a microphone in his face, and the two losses he’s now suffered .. it’s pretty darn unlikely.

      If you really want to get the Values issues addressed, this is not the right approach…. and neither is calling those who disagree with you Soros stooges or demonizers.

      Mew

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        …and about his supporters, puddycat. I did not predict anything. I simply reported history and suggested that, just like Reagan in 1976, Rick Santorum in 2012 has a large donor list (170,000 vs 160,000) and name ID and a cause. He and his followers can continue to exert a positive influence REGARDLESS of how much you might not like it, and regardless of whether Romney wishes to embrace the values voters or not. Makes no difference. All of your rebuttals have nothing to do with what I wrote. You have simply written AS IF I had said what you are rebutting. It did get rather boring so I stopped looking here and continued into my 10th week of writing at RED STATE and decided to come take a peek today. It just goes on and on. Get over it. Tain’t up to you puddycat. I hope to influence Santorum & his supporters to use their enormous assets to continue to exert a positive influence in America.

        • Stricia

          all things Pay For Play as it pertains to Santorum and Vander Plaats. It is one of those stories that makes you want gekster to say “link please, etc.” You would be waiting a while because there is no proof.

        • acat

          Replying today to a post I put up over 20 days back? Umm, sorry. You lose.

          Santorum, unlike Reagan, quit. He’s done. He’s a footnote.

          If he’s lucky, some cable outfit I’ve never heard of will hire him to do a Huckabee-like show that will get lousy ratings.

          You’re certainly welcome to try to influence things .. but if your approach to me is any example, I predict failure.

          Mew

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      And that’s why he’s getting strong endorsements from major pro-life groups.

      Here’s the real bottom line. Santorum is a moralist and every issue revolves around some mythical return to being a moral nation for him. Not only is that assumption and approach absolutely wrong, it fractures the electorate.

      The issue today is the economy and the overreach of government. A President can do something about both of those starting before his inauguration and can begin implementing fixes when he removes his hand from the Bible on inauguration day.

      With respect to Santorum’s constant whine about our morality, or lack thereof, no President – Santorum included if he could have gotten elected – can do much of anything unique about that, and certainly nothing that will impact the economy or the size of government.

      What Santorum’s Saints don’t want to face is that he would have been blown out in November. The overriding perception of him is that he’s a serious whiner and the thought of listening to him for four years is more than most can stand (kind of like listening to a President Al Gore), and, from a policy/political perspective, he’s never been anything but a big-government pro-lifer. He has exactly no record beyond social issues where he can be construed a conservative and he had no private sector, no executive and no leadership experience. Even his signature proposal – his “manufacturing tax plan” was a big-government ploy. He did nothing but tinker at the edges of current tax policy and it would have raised compliance cost while he does nothing that would really unleash the economy like downsize the EPA, etal, and roll back all of the Obama era regulations.

      Romney was far from my first choice, but he’s far better than Santorum and he will do everything on “social issues” that Santorum would have done and a thousand times more than Obama. That’s why the big pro-life groups are lining up to support him. That’s why Santorum’s big donors have already written checks to Romney. They live in the real world and understand the way politics works. I have some doubts about you and not doubt at all about garfield who is simply a raving idiot baying at the moon.

      • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

        …but it is nice writing anyway… even if a bit factually flawed. You are relying on the mainstream/liberal media for your information if you believe all that. Tis simply not true about Santorum’s “constantly” speaking that way. I wrote that in my article already, and it sounds like you did not read it, but are rebutting something you read somewhere else claiming what Santorum said. I wrote about how he spoke for a few WORDS AND SENTENCES about this idea of right and wrong and the centrality of faith, in 20 minutes speeches, but then your friends wrote about how he goes on and on about faith. It is false. He doesn’t do different from what Ronald Reagan and other great conservatives have done in the past. Simply reiterating the liberal line about Rick Santorum and his “Saints” to use your perjorative, is to argue that facts and truth are irrelevant to you. Those who hate Christians and anyone of faith in the political arena, have every reason not to like a candidate who speaks so strongly of “the centrality of faith.” If Romney appeals to the values voters – as I wrote – he will have their support. But in any event, and again, as Reagan said, the cause goes on.

    • PowerToThePeople

      in the most simple of terms is that in order for you to do the right thing, you require the rest of the nation to kiss your ass? So if all the rest of us do not wine and dine you, you will stay home or vote for the other side?

      Sorry, you will not get your ass kissed so do as you please. Hopefully you will do the right thing for the right reasons, but if not, have at it!

  • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

    Should Romney appeal to Santorum voters or copy Ford 1976 strategy vs Reagan?

    change that to

    Should Romney appeal to Santorum voters or copy Ford 1976 strategy vs Carter?

    Ford obviously lost to Carter with the strategy that he used, and everyone will agree that using a losing strategy is not a good idea.

    Becker has already supplied information that Romney has the support of a prominent pro-life group in one of his comments, I am one of the few posters here who did not have a big hate going on with Santorum, Romney, or Gingrich. They are all superior to Obama. The answer to the question I altered is NO, Romney should not copy the Ford strategy vs Carter.

    • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

      … and with that sentiment I heartily concur. Seems to piss some people off doesn’t it? I’m with you on that.

  • The_Gadfly

    I have to say Romney doesn’t need to reach out to just Santorum, he needs to reach out to ALL conservative voters.I stand by my preference for Perry over Santorum, but Santorum definitely made the better run of it.

    • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

      …except if you listen to the “wisdom” of the leftists who presume to advise us that the thing to do is run to the right in the primary and then swing left for the general election. Again, I concur – if you motivate values voters AND conservatives you will have a strong group helping you to victory. But the central point of my article was that no matter what Romney or those who hate conservatives say, it isn’t up to them as to how active we are. It is up to us.

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    and not much more to say but THANK YOU to you and those who wrote, as I revisit this thread a few weeks later.

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    …and I do agree with you – so perhaps I should have qualified that with the observation that, more recently, Rick Santorum is the Hate Target of the Week, perhaps of the past few months but they do rotate thru them depending on their perception of the threat posed by the Hate nominee… a few weeks ago for example, because of the one mistake he made (which some feel was actually an accurate portrayal of the “student” based upon her own behavior and statements) it was Rush Limbaugh. So much hate, so many targets, and sadly, so many among our own ranks who are dispirited, confused or even enlisted to those causes for varying reasons.

    I take exception to the statement about Bachmann but, it is a fact that just as four years ago, only the division in the ranks of conservatives enabled a more moderate candidate to capture the GOP nomination to run for President and reduce us to beggars hoping for a few crumbs, perhaps the VP nomination for someone who will “excite the base.” Ah well, we conservatives know that history does tend to repeat.

    And your second point I agree with is your good quote from C.S. Lewis. Thank you for writing.

  • acat

    Regardless of whether Romney wins or loses, we need to work on the 2014 and 2016 elections, starting Dec. 1 2012.

    I’m not proposing to primary Romney if he wins, but I would like to see some strong Conservative criticism of his administration, similar to what Reagan did to Nixon and Ford from 1968 to 1976, and then did to Carter from ’77 until his victor in 1980.

    Of the field we had this time around, I think Rick Perry is the best suited to chide Romney from the right; he’s good in interviews, telegenic, can work a room, and comes off – to J. Sobieski’s point below – as a “Happy Warrior”.

    What do you think of using your position to encourage Gov. Perry to keep the heat on?

    Mew

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    except why limit the critique of anything we do not approve of, to just Rick Perry? This is our proving grounds in the next four years, if as I expect we are all praying, we can first defeat Barack Obama. Which “conservative leaders” will just “me too” everything that comes out of a Romney White House and which will continue to champion only conservative ideals, and refuse to accept or approve liberal policies? Which will speak out against and condemn those policies which are making the liberal intelligentsia happy? We shall see. I do not prejudge. But I’m with you acat, and oh yes, on the day the election is over I will be unrestrained in any criticism that Mitt Romney as President elect, earns for himself by trying to appease the liberal left and abandoning the promises he made to win this primary election victory and the GOP nomination for President.

  • acat

    is when we’re united behind a single candidate before the Iowa caucuses. I’m starting to develop a bit of a cassander complex over it.

    That is why we need to pick and push *one* candidate starting Dec. 1 2012.

    Mew

  • avgjo

    What you say makes perfect sense.

    I am curious, assuming you had the resources and time you needed, how would you go about trying to foster this unity of which you write?

  • acat

    Palin was on the right track; compare her regular facebook takedowns of Obama to Reagan’s repeated op-ed columns and his intermittent TV and radio spots.

    Should Romney win, I fully expect Palin to work to pull him to the right, just as Reagan worked on Nixon and Ford.

    That said, I think Palin’s mistreatment by the McCain campaign has stunted her career. A new face is needed .. and Rick Perry has the qualifications and speaking skills to do so.

    Mew

  • avgjo

    it’s up to a candidate to make a strong enough case that the unity happens, as with the folks you mentioned?

    And BTW, I do recall correctly: you are a genuine Rick Perry supporter, n’est-ce pas? Sorry, I’ve gotten so used to sarcasm thrown that man’s way, I have to be sure. (I am a big fan of his.) My irony sensor needs to be replaced these last weeks.

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    and it proves my point of course, when Santorum bashing and attacks on those who appreciate what he stood for … sadly for they who do this, Rick Santorum has the assets described, as Reagan did before, and his use of those does not require permission from those who hate him and hate his followers.

  • acat

    Guessing who you’re replying to is tedious.

    Mew

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    sorry for the confusion… I’ll try to clear it up:

    Notice the third word, in the headline, “Good job Garfield.” Although no doubt the undersigned can be critiqued for not having used a “coma” after the second word, one can safely assume the remark is aimed to Garfield …

    … however, in the general spirit of this place, you may feel free to attack me, Garfield, or anyone posting anything and in any order you see fit, in what may safely be described as a free flowing “free for all” in here sometimes… must be good fun or else you wouldn’t be here, unless you are the on-duty monitor from one of the various places funded by Soros money?

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    Typically the liberal-left will accuse us of not being “factually correct” and then launch free new waves of attack that have little or nothing to do with what we conservatives originally said.

    In the case of what “mew” thinks were factual corrections there was no such thing, as I already wrote in my response. It was instead a criticism that my already rather lengthy treatment of the subject, should have been increased to include all the things that would DISPROVE my point. I suggest you might want to go ahead and write your own such essay because mine stands alone, and is correct – there weren’t ANY factual corrections at all.

    So, the one fact-correction is that there weren’t any. It was a claim that there is more than can be said, and I tend to agree with the point, as I said. I would hardly call it a “correction” to claim my essay should be longer than it is, so that your wish to rebut me, would be covered in my original. Nothing has been said so far which rebuts what I wrote, and especially no factual corrections have been made.

    If you think the coming of Santorum makes you think of the anti-Christ you are welcome to that view but you can hardly expect someone who dissents from the liberal-party-line on Rick Santorum, to accept such a silly “correction” as that. I accept that Santorum is no Reagan, and said so in the first few words of my article. To then “correct” me and tell me exactly what I wrote, is an exercise in silliness and certainly not scholarship nor “correcting” anything at all. Why are so many liberals so thin-skinned is beyond me but if you are carrying their water here in these pages why not just post your own attacks on Santorum instead of these make believe “factual” corrections?

  • acat

    I see how this works.

    At no point do you acknowledge the possibility of, let alone the existence of the mote you your own eye.

    Your continued hagiography of Santorum, who at this writing remains at the end of his remarkably successful shoestring/long-shot campaign, is over the top and offensive.

    As you said, Santorum is no Reagan. Reagan’s political career was his second act, what Santorum will do for him is up to him… but if he does want a political career, he should have dropped out after Iowa, kept the money, and kicked Casey Jr’s ass.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    I am particularly a fan of Rick’s time as a spokesperson for GE where he visited plants and talked to GE employees about America.

    My only criticism of Rick is when he made up a bunch of baseball play by play when he was broadcasting that Cubs game back before WWII. That was dishonest.

    Otherwise, Santorum is definitely another Reagan.

    I concede.

    P.S. Its a shame that Santorum’s first wife left him, but that of course was her fault, not Ricks.

    PPS. It is also a shame that Santorum’s son became a leftist hack with an MSNBC program. Obviously, not Rick’s fault, but it is a shame

  • acat

    Fact: Reagan stayed in until the convention, Santorum quit.

    Fact: Reagan’s political career came after a successful private sector career. Santorum has never been in any other career.

    Fact: Reagan deliberately kept slots in his campaign organization open so he could bring in aides and staffers from other campaigns. He recognized that we all need to come together. Santorum went out of his way to tell libertarian-conservatives to go to hell.

    Fact: If Santorum sticks around and starts stumping for other conservative candidates, I will praise him for doing so. I do not see, however, where he did jack nor squat from 2006 until now, and will be surprised if this changes.

    Fact: While Reagan’s Op-Ed pieces between 1968 and 1980 did use biblical imagery, city on a hill etc., they were also filled with pragmatic conservative insights. Santorum cannot seem to get off social conservatism…

    Fact: Hanoverhenry dislikes facts and calls those who disagree with his embellishments a Soros plant or worse.

    Keep going, Henry, you’re getting there.

    Mew

  • garfieldjl

    Is Romney going to reach out to social conservatives, or is he going to do the same thing that President Ford did and ignore them/shun them, etc. which made it so Jimmy Carter beat him?

    Which is it?

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    …actually you are sounding increasingly desperate Sobi. Perhaps too many energy drinks or coffee? Friends, if anyone reads this far, I hope you will notice the number of times that Sobi uses slurs and personal attacks as his “facts.” It is also straying further and further from reality as the increasing amounts of caffeine and perhaps sleep deprivation, take their toll. I will pray for you Sobi. Perhaps you might want to google “Reagan’s children” and see that the chosen one alone, is faithful to his dad’s philosophy, while the other two have repeatedly denounced it. So, you’ve actually in your lurching attacks which have nothing to do with anything that I wrote, made me smile as you have found yet another similarity between Reagan and Santorum that I’d not been aware of. But, tis irrelevant. I didn’t say – as you keep claiming – that Reagan and Santorum are exactly alike. I said – and you keep giving me the opportunity to repeat it – that all you and those who hate Santorum and his followers can do, is lose the 2012 election. You cannot stop the good people who rallied to his flag and who are needed to fight many more battles in the years ahead. The light shines on.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    <img src="http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/web02/2010/8/30/12/trolling-truly-is-a-art-3210-1283184414-47.jpg".

  • JSobieski

    Which is the point of of all my comments . . . that you conveniently miss.

  • garfieldjl

    The most recent situation, from a historical standpoint, where the Republican party gave social conservatives this big of a cold shoulder, was probably 1976.

    John McCain actually did try to reach out to social conservatives, it was part of why he chose Palin to be his VP. I think Social Conservatives should have rallied behind McCain in 08, we wouldn’t be in this mess if he would have been President (or at least not nearly as bad).

    Ford made the mistake of turning his back on Social Conservatives, so Ford pretty much cost himself the election.

    The question still stands will Romney reach out to social conservatives, or will he turn his back on them like Ford did in 1976.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    From Hotair

    Both the Susan B Anthony List and the National RTL PAC have endorsed Romney.

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    the most succinct, accurate and relevant comment so far… thank you Garfield you win!!! You appear to have been the only one in this thread so far, who actually read what was written and then commented on THAT which was written. Makes me think you already KNOW that:

    The light shines on.

  • aesthete

    is the false dichotomy it presents.

    There are options beyond replicating the Gerald Ford experience, and pandering hardcore to the Santorum “base”.

    To address your discussion with JSob above: even if you limit yourself to the ’76 election, your analogy is incredibly flawed. Reagan was, at the start of that election, the clear consensus choice of conservatives of all sorts, and had done much beforehand in terms of concrete action and rhetoric alike to acquire his support base. His base of support was consistent, active, and sufficient to take the primary to the convention. Santorum was a big-government has-been, and the last survivor in a long line of not-Romneys. His support was fungible and lightly-held; most of it came from the supporters of other candidates. Santorum’s sharp rise was mirrored by his decline, losing 20 points in his home state in two weeks, and leaking support all over the place in other races. The candidate, and the race, did not mirror 1976 in any way except in that a moderate won.

    The candidate who approaches this model most closely this time around, quite ironically, is Ron Paul — and even so, a comparison between him and Reagan would be highly flawed for reasons that I won’t expound on here.

  • JSobieski

    Make a plea that Romney reach out to social conservatives, but constant comparisons of Santorum to Reagan are silly and distracting.

    Frankly, if a political argument relies on X being like Reagan, the argument is weak.

  • garfieldjl

    It’s also the only example I can think of that would fit the current situation, there may be others, but it is the first one that comes to mind with any similarities.

    Santorum doesn’t equal Reagan.

    However, the situation is markedly similar to what happened in 1976.

  • JSobieski

    instead, I read way too much Reagan/Santorum for a diary that is actually directed at Romney to learn from the example of Ford, and do the opposite.

    Frankly, if that was the only purpose of the diary, neither Reagan nor Santorum would merit much of mention, since in both instances, they are not the party making the decision to either reach out to social conservatives or not.

    I think there is some validity to the topic being raised, but the number of unecessary Reagan/Santorum comparisons negate that purpose of the diary.

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    Once again, nothing to do with what I wrote. You continue to write as if I had written “Reagan and Santorum are the same.” My first several sentences made clear, Rick Santorum is no Reagan. So on and on you go, ignoring the facts that I laid out clearly, and never a once rebutting what I actually wrote, but only calling me names and insults.

    Truth: there are similarities to the defeated Reagan and the defeated Santorum. Fact: you and others can only do this year what it is that the Gerald Ford campaign did in 1976 – drive off the Santorum supporters with THIS sort of treatment – what we are reading here – and if you do:

    (a) it will have no effect on the growth in the future of our cause because your dark always recedes when the light advances, and,

    (b) you will only cause Mitt Romney to lose if you are successful in driving off enough of the values voters, who are here to stay, despite your serious upset about it.

    And you really oughta get another info source besides Rachel Maddow and those leftwing hate sites, perhaps read some of my earlier articles about Santorum for example. It isn’t that Santorum could not get off the topic. If he spoke for 2 minutes at the end of a 20 minute speech about the “centrality of faith” in his life, then your good buddy Rachel “madcow” and the rest of those folks you spend too much time reading, would then go on and on for a week about Rick Santorum’s “obsession.” It is silly, it isn’t true, and it is in fact absurd. You simply betray that you are not reading “fair and balanced” sources when you keep repeating the liberal-left mantra about Rick Santorum. If you keep sounding like a leftist in what you say in attacking conservatives, then it is a fair assumption for people reading this, to assume you are either very gullible, logic-challenged, fact-starved, a fellow traveler or useful idiot to the radical leftists who hate us conservatives. I do not claim to know which of these you might be but it is fair to judge a tree by its fruit. The light shines on and the darkness curses the light but is forced back.

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    oh my the Mew learned a big word!!! And you haven’t yet learned that Christians ALREADY KNOW we are sinners? See what happens when you spend so much time at those hate sites? The book that I and my friends read helps us to understand that there’s only ONE who walked this earth who was perfect. Yet the liberals ALWAYS use that “you Christians should shut up since you are hypocrites” argument. Like over and over they use it. If you spent a little less time in those other BAD places you’d already have known that when you say that, you give away where you came from. Oopsie. But the light shines on! Smile!

  • aesthete

    How very pious of you.

    “When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent.”

    Proverbs 10:19

  • JSobieski

    When called on it, you cite the one time you said “Santorum is no Reagon” while ignoring the NUMEROUS times that your clear words are either implicitly or even explicitly to the contrary.

    It is a childish passive aggressive technique.

    If you really cared about social issues, you would write a diary urging Romney not to do what Ford did in 1976.

    Instead, you use the pretext to drop in as many comparisons between Reagan and Santorum as possible.

    You are either insincere, or one of the worst advocacy writers I have ever seen.

  • gekster

    ;)

  • powertothepeople

    But it was close between the two of you.

    By the way, in the time it took you to plant your lips upon his ass, his jock cup became dirty due to it being removed from your tongue.

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    oh yes the candidate who “approaches this model” most closely this time around, quite ironically, is Ron Paul.” Sure.

    The guy who consistently pulls in 1/4 to 1/3 or less of the votes that Rick Santorum or any other mainstream conservative cause candidates, sure sure I see… hagiography anyone?

  • aesthete

    throwing a tantrum.

    Do you know how to converse with people without lying about them? Do you know what an error in logic is, and how that differs from a factual error? Do you care?

    People like you are what turned me off to Christianity so many years ago. Thank God for people like CS Lewis, because billions would be burning in hell if they were approached with the Evangel by such as you.

  • aesthete

    That is at least one point where it would be flawed.

  • https://www.facebook.com/HanoverHenry hanoverhenry

    there’s no logic here at all, I don’t even think you guys read what your earlier attacks said. All that you can do is keep posting and recycling the same tired old ad hominum attacks and insults against conservatives. I’m also a fan of CS Lewis, not an Evang, and notice that you and your allies use the same methods to criticize people of faith, over and over and over. Of course you are turned off by Christianity. That is what makes some who hate Christian conservatives, fly into such a rage. We who do not share your views “turn you off” if we express ours. So, you demonize, you attack, and you make it personal. There’s nothing in my article that warrants such hatred that you keep spewing out, and all of your and your allies claims that I wasn’t factual or logical, then “counter” what I never wrote. Yes, it reads just like the leftwing websites, just like listening to Rachel Maddow. Your attacks aren’t “conversing” with me. they are attempts to minimize and drive off those of us who supported Rick Santorum now, and earlier, Ronald Reagan. It will have the same effect – none. Why? You know why. The light always banishes the dark.

  • JSobieski

    “God bless” . . . . even though you are “demonic”?
    “Santorum is no Reagan” even though just about everything after the first sentence compares Reagan to Santorum.

    Using “God bless” in the passive agressive way that you do cheapens the entire phrase, which is supposed to express a genuine desire for God to bless the person you are speaking to.

    People who use “God bless” in such an empty way are not to be trusted.

    Rick Santorum would NEVER use the phrase like you have done.

  • acat

    I do think it’s up to the candidate to make a strong case, but .. more importantly, I think it’s up to the candidate to start *early* enough and make a *unifying* case so that the primaries are not, as Red State front-pagers described them, “a conservative demolition derby”.

    Perry stumbled, in part because of his health, in part because of overconfidence, and in part because Romney had the entire KBH opposition research file and dumped it, crushing Perry’s fundraising.

    A better prepared Perry, a Perry who had started in 2009 – sharing writing credit with Palin or stumping with Nikki Haley and Mike Lee etc. could have shown Romney the door despite the money advantage.

    I’ll put it another way – conservatives are very slow to change our minds about things .. that’s part of “conserving”, after all, and is not a criticism, just an objective fact. That means, however, we won’t win while playing by the Dem or Squish/Establishment rules. We have to play by *our* rules .. and that means coalescence has to happen before Iowa.

    Mew

  • acat

    I’ll just observe that you’ve constructed quite a twisted version of me rather than addressing what I’ve had to say, hanoverhenry.

    I’ve heard the “christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven” line before, I don’t see how it applies here .. this ain’t theology 101, and whether you’ve sinned by commission or omission isn’t germane.

    What does matter is that you’re acting indignant at the discussion of the truth about a man, one of your fellow humans, mortal and flawed, that you sought to deflect.

    I don’t much care if the light shines on, I’m much more interested in whether you’re going to suck it up and try to get our lousy nominee over the threshold of 1600 Pennsylvania, or whether you’re going to continue blathering on about an also-ran.

    Mew

  • samcoastie

    in ’76. In 2012 Santorum was just the last anyone but Romney to fall.

    I believe the vast majority of conservatives felt they were settling for the best available, no matter what camp they were in. The exception would be with those conservatives laser focussed on social issues that believe if the nation is morally correct, everything else will sort itself out.

    For me, Perry was the only pure conservative option, and he is likely getting too long in the tooth to make another run, particularly if we manage to get Romney across the finish line and beat Obama.

    With that said, I agree that it would be foolish for Romney to ignore Santorum supporters. Thankfully there has been no indication that he plans to ignore Santorum, or his supporters.

  • Stricia

    N.T!

  • civil truth

    That was the sort of comment that feeds the left’s fantasy of conservative conversation.