« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Three Reasons Santorum Will Lose Against Obama

I wanted to turn this comment in RealQuiet’s diary about the underestimation of Rick Santorum into it’s own diary and expand on it because it’s very important GOP primary voters see this, because Newt and Mitt won’t attack Santorum from this end because they have their own problems with questions about their conservatism. The fact of the matter is, on many issues Rick Santorum is “far right” in a way that will legitimately scare some moderate and more importantly libertarian voters and on many issues, he’s moderate or even liberal, which conservatives will regret later.

I am sorry as much as it pains me to say this, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin are wrong, Rick Santorum is not a desirable candidate in anyway shape or form. Here’s three reasons he will lose against President Obama.

First, His views on libertarians: Rick Santorum has said he hates the “radical individualism” of libertarianism and will do anything to keep it out of the conservative movement. Ron Paul voters and some tea party folks are going to be hard pressed to hear that. They’ll probably support likely libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, a popular two term former New Mexico governor over a one term senator who lost his re-election bid by 18 points. Libertarians have to become part of our coalition or we start losing elections. We don’t have to embrace everything they stand for, just like the mainstream conservative movement doesn’t accept all of neoconservatism or any other strain of conservatism, but we’ve got to recognize, in some ways, they’re right and we’ve got enough commonalities that building a coalition at this point is actually an incredibly positive thing, especially as more younger voters with right-leaning views will probably subscribe to aspects of libertarianism, as it allows for more liberal social views even though younger voters tend to be more pro-life. 

Next is his “big government conservatism”. It’s not just his past views, Santorum thinks the progressive income tax system is “just fine” and said he is “proud” of his earmarks. No bueno. I also haven’t heard any compelling reforms from him regarding Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I don’t think Santorum has a good grasp of how dire our fiscal situation is. If he did, he would want to save wherever he could. Saying “earmarks are just fine” and the “real problem is entitlements” without offering any meaningful entitlement reform proposals is like an irresponsible family in the midst of a fiscal crisis coming together and saying “spending money on fast food isn’t the problem, it’s that we buy a flat screen TV every month that’s the problem.” Santorum is clearly out of his depth here, people like him because of his social views.

Finally, speaking of His social views, they are extreme and way out of the mainstream. I say that as a pretty socially conservative person myself. People thought Stephanopolus was nuts for asking about contraception, but if you look at what Santorum said as late as last year, you will see why. He believes states should be able to ban contraception and that he thinks contraception is bad because it leads to people doing “immoral” things sexually. See this is where I think Santorum takes it too far: unless a person is being harmed or an animal is being treated inhumanely (you’ll see why I had to say that in a second), it’s none of the government’s business what one does in the privacy of their own bedroom. Santorum’s rhetoric on gays is also way over the top. Comparing gays to pedophiles and people who have sex with animals is WAY out of line, and it will turn off a lot of people. Look, it’s not bad to have a moral objection to homosexual behavior. For some it is a matter of deep faith. But last I checked, Jesus didn’t attach any conditions to “love thy neighbor”. I am not saying that we should condone anything, but it’s not our place to condemn anything either. Santorum seems to believe it’s his job to “pastor” the nation. That is not his job, his job should he be elected is to be the president of everyone.

But it’s not only what Santorum says, it’s how he says it. When discussing social issues it’s good for those of us who are socially conservative to speak with an ounce or two of humility. A perfect example of this in my mind is former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Palin doesn’t have to go around touting her social conservatism, she lives it. But she is absolutely graceful when discussing theses very sensitive issues. She’s also willing to meet in the middle. When the Alaska state legislature tried to ban partners of gay employees receiving benefits, she vetoed the bill saying it went against Alaska’s constitution. She also back handily came out in favor of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, retweeting openly gay conservative talk radio host Tammy Bruce’s tweet in support of the repeal. But Palin is in support of traditional marriage. Santorum’s posture when talking about social issues is the complete opposite, everything about him screams, “Are you STUPID!? How could you NOT think the way I think!?” He is completely sanctimonious when talking about these things and let me tell you, it’s a huge turn off for people who disagree with him. Especially as Santorum has made this a cornerstone of his campaign.

President Obama will hit Santorum hard for all of the above. He’ll invite libertarians to come and vote for him again (which is crazy to me, but whatever) He’ll ask voters why they should trust him if the people of PA obviously did not? He’ll run the 2006 campaign against Santorum all over again, telling people how we wouldn’t have gotten into this mess if it wasn’t for Bush and people like Santorum and the exorbitant amounts of spending that occurred during the Bush years (even though Obama would be a HUGE hypocrite for that seeing how his spending is even more out of control.) As a member of the senate, Obama will play every clip of Santorum supporting unpopular Bush-era spending policy calling Santorum “Bush’s right hand man in the senate” He would also hit Santorum hard for his extreme social views, calling him way out of the mainstream. Santorum will be blasted as “anti-gay” and “homophobic” and just like that Salon article I linked to above, the left will accuse him of wanting to “take away your birth control.” In debates, President Obama will press Santorum on social issues. The main stream media will be all but happy to oblige keeping the debate away from ObamaCare, away from run away spending and making it all about Santorum’s extreme social views. They will do whatever they can to scare voters away from him. Meanwhile Tea Party and libertarian support will crumble once they find out about Santorum’s record and what he actually stands for fiscally.

Is all of that true? No. But it doesn’t matter, President Obama will have close to a billion dollars and the mainstream media at his side. Santorum has all the right weaknesses for an Obama victory in 2012. Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and other bloggers, commentators, and radio hosts I admire greatly can support Santorum all they want, but I am afraid they’ll be in for a big surprise come November. Santorum will lose if he is the nominee in 2012.

COMMENTS

  • APA Guy

    I seem to recall the MSM using that same language about, well, ALL conservatives for as long as I can remember.

    I’m also very, very wary about someone who writes a diary telling us how our emerging party candidate is going to lose the general to a radical, leftist Democrat who has bankrupted the country and has some pretty “out of mainstream” social views as well.

    • Finrod

      We need someone with fiscal credibility to take on Obama, and Santorum just ain’t the guy. Nominating Santorum to run against Obama would be like putting a 100m dash Olympian into a tug-of-war.

      • APA Guy

        First, we have NO potential candidate who doesn’t have more fiscal credibility than Barack Obama. The guy has rolled up 5 trillion in new debt in one term.

        Second, Santorum was voting in the senate as a majority party member the last time we passed balanced budgets…pretty sure he voted for them, too.

        Third, to imply that Romney is the best tool for the job when he single-handedly takes Obamacare off the table as an election issue is terribly misguided. You are drinking the MSM kool aid…as is the diarist.

        • Flagstaff

          How does Romney “single-handedly take() Obamacare off the table as an election issue”?

          • APA Guy

            …should Mitt decide to make it an issue. Only a fool would rail about a negative issue that he shares with his opponent.

          • Flagstaff

            like you who don’t like him and/or don’t accept his responses to the issue.

            I don’t like the original answers, either, but he has made them and he hasn’t flipped or flopped away from his original answers.

            MassCare isn’t the same thing as Obamacare by any stretch of the imagination. Even ignoring the fact that it is a state program, not a federal one (which seems to make no difference to you, but makes a big difference to me–I don’t live in Massachusetts), it seems to be a program the people of MA approve of. What ever happened to states’ rights?

            But more important, how can they be the “same thing” when Obamacare is 2700 pages long and MassCare is only 70? Are our national Democrats that much more wordy than the state-level ones?

            I know it assumes a level of intelligence and work not typical of a Republican politician, countering the issue could be a huge plus for Romney. I’m pretty sure that Obama won’t expect a comeback of any kind. Further, after a bit of back-and-forth on the issue, Romney’s response should become, “I’m not campaigning to become president of Massachusetts, this is about the Presidency of the United States, and your performance there has been awful. The Affordable Health Care Act is anything but affordable, and it will drive us further and further into debt as it destroys our base of medical expertise for years to come.” Etc.

            It is far from an issue he “shares with” Obama.

          • APA Guy

            It’s the same in principle…and Obama’s billion won’t let the voting public forget Romney’s ties to Obamacare for as long as he is our candidate if he decides to criticize it.

            Look, I may not like the guy, but I will vote for him in the general. But by point stands…Romney will not make Obamacare an issue if he is our candidate. He has too much to lose, and that weakens us and our chances of taking back the White House because unlike MA, nearly all of the rest of the country doesn’t want Obamacare.

          • Flagstaff

            Romney came out campaigning against Obama with the primary attack point being everything that’s wrong with Obamacare? It ruins Medicare, it ruins our health delivery system, it increases the horrendous deficit, it destroys public confidence in the economy, it tramples on the Constitution, it was passed dishonestly, it did nothing that he claimed it would do as it was being forced down our throats–I could go on and I have before.

            I don’t know if he’d do that, but it’s what I’d do if I were in his place. Of course, I’d be more detailed and I’d pick my audiences, and I wouldn’t be shy about making some promises of my own. I’d ignore the other three Republicans and go directly to my Presidential campaign.

            How does that strike you?

          • APA Guy

            Certainly being in attack mode would work better for Romney than curled up in a corner. I would add that the first thing he should say if he does attack Obamacare would be to immediately tell the public that he regrets having put Romneycare into motion. That will, to some extent, distance him from Obama…who will have no choice but to defend and reinforce his own plan.

            Could work…you might be convincing me here, Flagstaff…

          • Flagstaff

            “he regrets having put Romneycare into motion” at this point. He’s already defended it on its merits for Massachusetts. Then again, of course I do.

            “At the time we passed it, we thought MassCare would be good for the citizens of Massachusetts. They seem to still like it, but it hasn’t succeeded like we thought it would. If I could do it over again, seeing how events have developed, how it has been used as an excuse to metastasize it into the cancer called Obamacare, I would veto it. Even though it may marginally help some of the citizens of Massachusetts, the end result has been a huge assault on the remainder of America, and yes, on Massachusetts, too.”

            Yes, if he could, he should. Too bad they listen to “experts” instead of us.

          • Flagstaff

            Sally Pipes, author of The Pipes Plan: The Top Ten Ways to Dismantle Obamacare, said much the same thing about a strategy for Romney.

          • Flagstaff

            “how can they be the ?same thing? when Obamacare is 2700 pages long and MassCare is only 70?”

            He used those figures, but said, “There is a lot I don’t like in those 2700 pages.”

            And we don’t think they read our stuff! (^:^)

          • sensiblethinking

            The people of Mass did NOT approve Romney-Care.

            It was a typical liberal media railroad job— with Romney as the Engineer of the Train…all the while
            claiming he was just the Conductor!

            Which is why he is now “former” Gov. Romney.

            All he has to say is that socialized medicine is not something
            that should be pushed on the American people at the Federal
            level. That would answer for a lot to most voters. However, he
            won’t say it. Thus, we are all left wondering WHY he won’t.

          • Flagstaff

            The law was passed by the Massachusetts legislature. Did they throw them all out? Any of them?

            I didn’t think so.

            In the years since, has there been a clamor to reverse it in MA?

            I didn’t think so.

          • sensiblethinking

            I have many family and friends who live in Mass, and they have friends and family–and neighbors and co-workers. Every time I go back there,there are heated discussions about how to reverse Romney-Care. Those who did not want Romney care were just
            a few (percentage points in numbers) less than those who did.
            They fought it at every level—including in the legislature.

            However, as we all know, [point A]: Mass is a very liberal state (re: Kennedy family !!!),which is why it was so surprising that Scott Brown won.

            The media is 200% in the pocket of the liberals, and anyone in the
            legislature that is not liberal has learned to keep their head (s).
            As for voting out those who voted it in—see point (A)

          • Flagstaff

            They voted for Scott Brown. They could also vote for an improvement in their legislature. They’d rather keep the devil they know and partake in the spoils of the trough than throw them out and try depending on themselves rather than the state government. They (the majority) have chosen to keep it. Ergo, they approve.

          • earhartam

            RomneyCare is ObamaCare. It’s a poor argument against ObamaCare when the basis of ObamaCare is Romney’s Mass. healthcare law. It’s like saying to someone, “I really hate your shoes” when you’re wearing the same shoes.

          • sensiblethinking

            And as far as Flagstaff(Diary)’s comment—the only reason that Scott Brown won was that the Tea Party got into Mass. and got those who had given up—to find their back bone!

            While you are right that there are plenty in that state who are too LAZY to do anything put head for the public trough, rather than try depending on themselves.

            However, it is still a ‘rough row to hoe’ being up against the liberal political machine that has run Mass. for far too long….

        • Finrod

          I’m not for Mitt Romney either.

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      Leftwing Democrats call conservative views “out of mainstream”.

      What this REALLY means is “Views that cannot be found in the New York Times editorial page”.

      Lets be clear: Santorum’s political positions on social issues are pretty much THE SAME as what Newt Gingrich espouses. They oppose gay marriage, Govt funding of abortions, want to put conservatives on SCOTUS. Even Romney has said he wants Roe v Wade overturned and … THE ONLY REAL PRECEIVED DIFFERENCE IS THAT WE KNOW SANTORUM IS SERIOUS AND WE THINK ROMNEY IS NOT!

      So how come Newt isnt called a “theocrat” for pointing out the anti-Christian bias in the media? Or Romney called “outside the mainstream” for opposing gay marriage?

      “When discussing social issues it?s good for those of us who are socially conservative to speak with an ounce or two of humility. ”

      Oh, I see… Translation: SHUT UP.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFoKOm1-qyY

      PS. Santorums’ fiscal credibility – opposed TARP, supports cut/cap and balance, voted for balanced budget amendment and WROTE the Welfare Reform bill. And has been for the conservative alternative to obamacare – aaka health savings accounts – for 15 years.

      • Finrod

        Rick Santorum, on the other hand, does, which will get him eviscerated in a general election.

        • bzip

          Santorum has loads of problems that will cause him to lose in a landslide in the general;

          But lets try to get a few things cleared up:
          Santorum on TARP
          http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08293/921163-176.stm
          ?..from a man who also spent a long part of the visit explaining the intricacies of the financial bailout bill; the reason the added ?sweeteners? could benefit the economy; his worries that not enough private sector money went into the package.??

          Santorum on Abortion and Progressive Conservative. In a 1990 paper article Santorum called himself a “progressive conservative with NO firm position of abortion”:
          http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_t4cAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3GMEAAAAIBAJ&dq=rick%20santorum&pg=6015%2C5485825

          Not to mention all the well documented articles and his own voting record that points to a big gov’t conservative (Erick has published those right here);
          http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/

          Now for the general elections and hurdles he will have in addition to many other things will be his statements concerning women and contraception. These will be deal breakers for most people in the general:

          Santorum Blames Wife for Anti-Working Woman Book Passage
          http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-blames-wife-anti-working-woman-book-passage-144227076.html
          ?2005 book ? ?The radical feminists succeeded in undermining the traditional family and convincing women that professional accomplishments are the key to happiness? ? Santorum?

          Rick Santorum Wants to Fight ?The Dangers Of Contraception?
          http://swampland.time.com/2012/02/14/rick-santorum-wants-to-fight-the-dangers-of-contraception/
          ?One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, ?Well, that?s okay. Contraception?s okay.?
          It?s not okay because it?s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.?
          You Tube Interview: http://youtu.be/KN7WfIZh690

          Santorum: Birth control ?harmful to women?
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/santorum-birth-control-harms-women/2012/02/15/gIQASRukFR_blog.html
          Yes, that is what Santorum said, ?Birth control ?harmful to women?
          You Tube Clip: http://youtu.be/9MBO9tNNejo

          Santorum says ?other types of emotions? could preclude women in combat
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/santorum-says-other-types-of-emotions-could-preclude-women-in-combat/2012/02/09/gIQAkiya2Q_blog.html
          http://youtu.be/CWAR7FeY4pA

          I have a large collection of Santorum’s goodies;
          http://teaandfedup.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/the-santorum-file/

          The bottom line: Even Romney as bad has he is is better than Santorum but all the candidates plainly suck big time.

          • aesthete

            but in conjunction, present a very unappealing picture of Rick Santorum.

            Santorum is just a very unlikeable person — he goes out of his way to alienate people in his own party, and has no concept of when to keep his trap shut (the “contraceptives” running commentary being a prime example). He is exactly the wrong guy to advance the religious freedom angle, because he seems to care about no one’s religious freedom by his own, and seems to have no desire of (or ability to) persuade others of the rightness, or at least acceptability, of his viewpoint.

          • bzip

            I totally agree with you, each one of these issues wouldn’t be a deal breaker by itself but when you put them together it paints a very ugly picture. A narrative will be and has been created of Santorum and it isn’t pretty,

            But I still think putting these issues aside, the guy is a big gov’t candidate looking for gov’t solution’s he can’t and won’t advance fiscal conservatism at all.

          • JSobieski

            In a less disappointing year, Newt, Romney, and Santorum would each be clearly last place picks for 90% of the Republican electorate. Unfortunately, this year we call them the surviving candidates.

            If we are going to electability issues, I probably lean a bit to Santorum over Romney just because the base of the party will be so incredibly lethargic with Romney, well at least the pro-life volunteers will be pumped due to Santorum.

            Can’t believe I will soon be voting for Newt (I live in Michigan), but I will be doing so unequivically.

  • westcoastpatriette

    diary–because I have the same feeling of alarm about Santorum’s manner of expressing his views as you are so eloquently trying to point out.

    From his attacks on libertarians, his overt disdain for homosexuals and pious defense of his big government record, Santorum is a disaster not just because Obama could easily (and accurately) portray him as a stereotypical tyrannical homophobe, but because all of these flaws really are frightening in terms of how he would ply the power invested in the office of the presidency.

    Furthermore, that Santorum seems incapable of recognizing how offensive he is in his approach to these topics reveals a person with a shallow understanding of how to interact with people of all backgrounds and beliefs and, as a result, he would create even more division in the country than we see now. He is precisely the type of social conservative that turns people off–myself included.

    While I am just as committed as any social conservative to bringing about change in the decline of civility and morality in America, I do not want to see those changes imposed upon the nation in a tyrannical way by a self-righteous know-it-all which is the impression one gets when listening to Santorum. IMO, he will do more damage to our cause as social conservatives because of his inability to be humble in his approach–and the liberals will use their recognition of this as a club to destroy him. Cannot believe more people do not see this.

    • burke

      n/t

      • jdw4america

        He was never a small government conservative, and I don’t see him standing up for it once the beltway insiders (Rs and Ds both) start giving him “it’s for the children” on everything.

        As for his pious attitude, I’m a Catholic, and his lack of humility concerns me. If you want to convince people of the rightness of your position, do it with love; firmly, clearly, apologetically, but with love. He seems incapable articulating humility, and it comes off as condescending. I’m sure he’s a good man, I just don’t think he knows how to express that. He’s coming off as proud and intractable.

        If he’s the nominee, I’ll move as much of Heaven and Earth as it is within my power to do so to get him elected, but I hope we do better…and I don’t mean Mittens.

    • runner12

      Howeve, I do not particularly care for the diarist characterizing Santorum’s social views as “extreme” and “radical.” This is the language of the Left, and it is distasteful to see a conservative using it.

      I am a staunch social conservative myself ( opposed to gay marriage, pro-life) and I dislike it when I am told that I have “radical” beliefs. That being said, I have real concerns with regards to Santorum.

      1.) The way he states his social conservatism is not geared towars winning others to our positions. I am as angry as anyone at the assaults on religion and morality in this country. But when you have a large platform such as he does, you need to be able to communicate your view in a non-angry, aggressive manner. I Peter 3:15 says “Always be prepared to give an answer for everyone that asks you to give the reason for your hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” At times, Santorum forgets the “gentleness and respect” part.

      Not that I am saying he should not be a fighter, he should. But use wit, wisdom, and intellect to inspire people when you speak.

      2). His small government/fiscal record is not good. While I think he would be okay on fiscal respoonsibility out of necessity, I do not have confidence that he will shrink the size and scope of government. This is a real issue for me.

      All that being said, it is between Santorum or Gingrich for me. Neither are truly small government conservatives, but they are better than Obama. I will most likely vote for Gingrich to help promote a brokered convention.

      • westcoastpatriette

        terminology myself (extreme and radical) for the same reasons that you cite. It is how Santorum comes off that is a turn-off and will repel many who agree with our views but also feel compassion for people struggling with these issues.

        Particularly homosexuals. The left has been working overtime to endear certain ones (Ellen DeGeneres, for example) to the public to increase sympathy for their cause and Santorum’s obvious disdain when speaking about this issue will be perceived in a harsh light and set our goals as social conservatives back if he becomes our nominee. So, I think we are mostly in agreement here.

  • steve962

    In fact, the second and third points are the main reasons he lost his 2006 re-election bid in Pennsylvania. And are why he’s got no chance whatsoever of winning PA if he gets the nomination here.

    From a personal standpoint, your first point is also right on the mark, and if Santorum gets the nod, that is indeed quite likely to be the direction I’ll be going. For all the talk by the social conservatives about the “three leg” strategy (IMHO, no longer viable, but they keep bringing it up…) and how the fiscal conservatives and libertarians are trying to go it without support from their leg, Santorum is a classic example of the social conservatives trying to go it without support from *our* leg. Good luck with that.

  • deVere

    Extreme opposition to abortion is a vote-losing issue for Santorum, but opposition to gay marriage is a vote-winning issue. No need to guess about this. Even in GOP states like Mississippi and South Dakota pro-life referendums have lost, while in Democratic California an anti-gay-marriage referendum won.

    As for him being weak on fiscal issues, it’s true but I don’t think it will hurt that much at the polls. Compared to Obama everyone else is a saint.

    I agree about his libertarian slurs. Santorum should read what the Gipper had to say:
    http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan/singlepage
    “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism..” … “The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

    • J. Leg

      In fact, it may be beginning to be a losing issue:

      http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/03/news/la-pn-pew-same-sex-marriage-20111103

      I live in the state of California, and with the recent overturning of Prop 8, even amongst conservatives the reaction seems to be, “meh”.

      It’s not as important as it was in 2008. And should Santorum become president, in 8 years, it’s likely that support for gay marriage will be on the rise and Santorum’s type of conservative will be more and more pass?.

      That’s just reality.

      • deVere

        In 2012 being identified as the “anti-gay-marriage” candidate is a plus.

        • acat

          How do you think Florida would vote on the issue?
          Which way will Minnesota go?

          Head over to unlikelyvoter, set it to 2008, and toggle the States you think being the anti-gay-marriage candidate will let Santorum take from the Dems.

          Mew

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            who hate you for agreeing with 55% of the voters.

            Every glitter bomb of Santorum is more votes for him. Every time feminists attack his prolife and profamily stands, he will get sympathy and support from flyover Americans. you know the ones who cling to God and guns and stuff.

            Santorum can win on these issues by NOT making it an issue at all, but letting the hatred of the left show their extremism as opposed to his.

            Santorum will win on whether rust belt America trusts Santorum to fix the economy. The social issues will help him if he doesnt let the left overfocus on it and/or make him defensive.

          • aesthete

            provided that Santorum can make it seem like he is the one being put under the microscope for his personal views, which are held by the majority of Americans — rather than raring for a fight with gays.

            Given his many and varied statements in the past which make clear that he holds a special priority and emphasis for the issue, I don’t think he’ll be able to do that effectively — though in politics, all things are possible.

          • acat

            shared by yourself and deVere, that somehow the “flyover Americans…who cling to God and guns and stuff” *didn’t* turn out for McCain.

            Thus, you are building your expectation for a Santorum win on a media lie, that it was the “christian right” who betrayed McCain and stayed home.

            This is part of why I asked deVere, and will now ask you to go over to Unlikely Voter and *tell me* which States you see Santorum flipping away from Obama.

            Mew

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            I never said anything about who did or didnt vote for McCain.

            I will say McCain was a horrible candidate, and indeed oftentimes the RINOs who take issues off the table are, because the fail – as McCain did – to expose who wrong the Democrat candidates are.

            McCain never exposed Obama’s pro-infanticide positions, his racist pastor, his palestinian terrorist friends. etc.

            I think likewise that while santorum may not be the perfect candidate, of the top 3 candidates he is the only with a record of actually winning multiple tough blue-state races. Romney cant close the sale despite all his advantages, that alone should tell us something about ‘electability’ that the standard RINO claims (“moderate = electable”) cant account for.

          • acat

            you imply that those same values voters sat on their hands in 2008.

            This was the media narrative following McCain’s loss – it was the social conservatives who stayed home because McCain had said nasty things about their guy Jerry Falwell back in 2000.

            As this is a provably false narrative, I am concerned by your reliance on it.

            Mew

      • sensiblethinking

        You are right. Folks may not get out on the street corners and hold up ugly signs, or get in your face at a rally—as those who support so-called gay ‘marriage’ have often done—but in the privacy of the
        voting booth:
        it is STILL a winning issue among most voters, including many liberal
        Democrats.

        • aesthete

          Very few voters, or people in general, put emphasis on their beliefs regarding gay marriage. It is bizarre to voters when politicians focus over-much on the issue. Santorum is not only against gay marriage — he is for anti-sodomy laws, and his arguments and intensity on the issue turn people off, even those who agree with him.

          • jgelling

            Santorum really needs to drop his campaign against contraceptives if he ultimately gets the nod.

            I feel like Obama deliberately baited this fight over contraceptives to: (a) help out Santorum in the primaries; and (b) allow the GOP a chance to alienate independent women. I mean, it’s fine if Santorum can use this argument to rally some voters, but it would be a disaster if it was a key issue in the campaign.

            Really, what are the odds the Obama administration picks a fight over contraceptives right now, 3 years after the passage of the health care law and 2 years ahead of its final implementation? I don’t know… just strange timing on this.

          • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

            You know just MAYBE Obama and his administration did this ‘you must pay for contraception’ rule because they are arrogant socialist Nanny-statist weenies who think the Federal Govt has a right to tell each and every one of us what to do!!!

            Just a wild guess.

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      I mean if you are going to toss over abortion – LIFE AND DEATH – because it’s not popular enough, why stop with any issue?
      Just pander to the max!

      Here’s why: We have a party platform and we have conservative principles. If we care about those principles, we advocate them, not run away from them.

      And btw, there is nothing ‘extreme’ in defending life.

  • Flagstaff

    that he’ll capture many more conservatives than will Romney. Newt implies the same argument. The counter is that Romney will deliver a lot more independents than will either of them.

    Will he (Romney)? If not, which one of Santorum and Newt is better than the other?

    • APA Guy

      But our party doesn’t seem to be willing to look forward or consider Newt’s record as Speaker, opting instead to hang on his negatives (as though none of the others have them). I personally think Obama craps his drawers thinking about running against Gingrich. Newt has balanced a budget….solved problems…and working with a Democrat president. Obama can’t counter Newt’s record on the prevailing issue of the day…the economy.

      • WillWong

        and it is high time the grass root conservatives tell the party’s establishment to shove it! Let’s contribute to Newt and join his American Campaign! I just did!

      • Flagstaff

        “I personally think Obama craps his drawers thinking about running against Gingrich.”

        Gingrich is the kind of opponent Obama loves to contend with. He has very high negatives already, and it won’t take a lot of effort to find “believable” mud to throw at him. Gingrich’s positive in this respect is that all of his skeletons may already be exposed, which would mean they’d have to manufacture one to have something new. Also, Gingrich is probably less likely than anybody to be hurt by returning nasty fire at Obama.

        Romney’s situation is almost exactly the opposite. As far as we know, there are no skeletons in his closet. But if Obama could find or manufacture a credible one, it would be devastating to Mitt.

        Obama can’t match anybody’s record on the economy. Ron Paul is better than the One. The problem is getting somebody to listen to our alternative. Who has the best chance of doing that?

        • J. Leg

          Newt knows how to direct the media away from the salacious and into the serious, Santorum can’t himself.

          Newt won’t let the media bring up his baggage. Santorum will do a song and dance about his ideas on the virtues of anti-sodomy laws.

          Newt is the best candidate still in the race. Santorum could be the worst.

          • texasref

            …but Santorum isn’t the worst.

            I am leery of his anti-sodomy kick, though.

        • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

          Exactly so.

          If Gingrich had better personal discipline, was on wife #1, and didnt have a fannie – freddie consulting gig, maybe he’d be formidable.

          • dajeeps

            “If Gingrich had better personal discipline, was on wife #1, and didnt have a fannie ? freddie consulting gig, maybe he?d be formidable.”

            Santorum’s speech to the SC GOP Leadership Conference last month is one worth watching because it spells out the mentality of putting the economic cart before the horse, albeit in a different form than increasing home ownership in any way other than having it be a natural consequence of generally improved economic conditions so people can actually afford them, but still lacks coherence with the principles of economic freedom, and failure to recognize that treating the symptoms of economic decline do not actually solve the problem of economic decline. Our economy is not a mess because of the decay of the family. Our families are a mess because of economic decline, because it is impossible to rely solely on one breadwinner or keep our heads above the water line on one income. He is just one more elite who has no clue, who thinks government is the solution to the problem because the people are bad and need some sort of paternal entity to intervene. In this current crisis, government is not the solution; government IS the problem.

            So, being unable to differentiate the difference between a personal relationship and a job interview, thumb your nose at Newt, and we get more of that has been causing the problem in the first place. That’s nice. I hope you can explain that to your kids when they can’t find a job.

          • Flagstaff

            That’s a good illustration of the competing priorities we have at play now.

            As you appear to think, I too believe that the economic disaster we face should be our top priority, and that Newt Gingrich probably understands it best. I’m not as sure that he is actually the best person to put the fixes in place, but he can explain it better than the others.

            Romney has the skill set (apparently) needed to do the fixing. I still think he’s more likely to attract the independents necessary to get elected than is Newt, and we can’t change much at all if we don’t own the White House. He needs to start addressing the uncertainties conservatives have about him in order to solidify and energize them. IMHO, to do that he needs to start his anti-Obama campaign, emphasizing complete repeal of Obamacare and big reductions in spending (and why that is not only necessary but will actually help in every way with our terrible financial situation), and fuggedabout the other Repubs.

          • Flagstaff

            I guess I understand the current love affair with Rick Santorum, but I don’t understand why it would be lasting or would carry over into the independents in the general election. And his negative history in the area of fiscal policy, when it becomes more well known, will hurt him with fiscal conservatives. He does have the best set of expectations regarding Obamacare.

  • David123

    Kennedy may not have commented publicly much on social issues, but as president, the buck stopped with him. Kennedy was certainly free to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to speak out in favor of abortion “rights” and gay rights. And he didn’t.

    Let’s look at abortion “rights” first. When Kennedy was president, abortion “rights” didn’t even extend to pregnancies with severe medical problems. For example Sherri Finkbine could not have an abortion legally in America while Kennedy was president, even though she had a severely deformed fetus. She traveled to Sweden and got a legal abortion there and was fired from her job when she returned. JKF did not help her, nor did he speak out against the laws that prohibited abortion in every state.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/26/newsid_3039000/3039322.stm

    While JFK was president, most states even prohibited abortions for rape victims. If that is an injustice, there is no indication that JFK spent much political capital fighting it.

    When JFK was president, and Commander-in-Chief, it was forbidden to be gay and in the military. If a soldier was found to be gay he was dishonorably discharged. Gay people also could not work for the government as civilians while Kennedy was president if they required security clearances, and they might well lose their jobs even if they didn’t need security clearances for them. As president, JFK could have used the bully pulpit and/or executive orders to ease these restrictions against gay people … and he didn’t. So don’t tell me Rick Santorum is an “extremist” because he merely wants to re-introduce “Don’t-ask, Don’t tell” which was fine with Clinton and Bush, and keep marriage as one man and one woman.

    • avgjo

      The only reason ‘gay rights’ has gone as far as it has is because the right quit standing up to the militant homosexual movement.

      APA moved on homosexuality purely for political reasons. The connection between pedophilia and homosexuality has conveniently been marked false (with no supporting evidence) and we’ve just ‘moved on’.

      I know there are already ‘people’ out there trying to normalize pedophilia and zoophilia. I have this waking nightmare that one day, I will be on a relatively conservative site and called a bigot for denouncing such people as perverts. Just a few short years ago, I could express my disdain for the ‘gay lifestyle’ without being lumped in with David Duke. Now, with some people… sheesh. Extremist at best, bigot at worst.

      • mikeymike143

        after all, that was the election of change.

        the answer was ZERO!!!

        ok, we will grade on the curve. out of the over 500 seats that were availible, how many did the losertarian party…i mean the libertarian party win? again, the answer is zero.

        as long as the conservative base turns out for santorum it doesnt matter what the losertarians do.

        • J. Leg

          The libertarian party has no future, it would be much better of joining the GOP, but that means we’ve got to attract them into it by taking a serious look at their platform and adopting stances we can agree on.

          What it doesn’t mean is hurling stupid insults at them.

          • Scope

            for the libertarian party, and I will add those Ron Paul supporters who consider themselves, not Republicans at all, and only conservatives on the fiscal issues, but libertarians as to social and national security issues, in saying that they “have no future.” Ask yourself why they “have no future” including Paul becoming the next president. Could you even consider that it is possible that some of the positions adopted by what you believe to be the mainstream not acceptable to the majority of the electorate? You talk about your views of the “social issues” as though you are in the mainstream, and anyone who may oppose the gay issue for example, as being too far right radical, and out of the mainstream.

            You talk about being from CA, and you said that even conservatives there are saying “meh” with the court turning over the voters desire to ban gay marriages. Did you ever consider the fact that a liberal judiciary ruled against the will of the majority of the people in the state? I don’t know if you even addressed that, or even thought of it. Does that mean that the gay rights activists now have the opportunity to challenge the desire of the voters that have voted to ban gay marriage in 26 other states, until they get the judiciary to overturn the will of the voters in those states? Haven’t I heard before, as goes CA, so goes the nation?

            The contraception debate flaming across the country right now is much more about the federal government usurping powers never given to them in demanding that a particular religion not be given any latitude in upholding their religious doctrines? Have you looked at the contraception issue in a manner that every libertarian should be against, not because the individual won’t have access to contraception if they so desire, but that the federal government has demanded that every insurance company provide it to all participants for “free”?

            Do you agree that the federal government should be allowed to tell parents what they must feed their children, and what foods are acceptable on school lunch menus? Do you agree that young school children should be taught that it’s OK to have two mommies, or two daddies, or even two transgenders to raise them? Do you agree that some of our public schools have removed accurate history in some books, and have replaced it with liberal propaganda? If you are OK with all of that you are a liberal and not a libertarian, a conservative, or a Republican. If you don’t agree with those positions, then you should be making your case and argument on the overthrow and trampling of the constitution, our rich cultural history, and what has made us the greatest nation on earth. Rather you have installed yourself firmly in the underbrush, getting into the minutia, and consequently have missed seeing the forest from the trees.

        • deVere

          At present there are eleven libertarian Republicans in the House of Representatives, who form the “Liberty Caucus”:
          Roscoe Bartlett (MD-6)
          Jimmy Duncan (TN-2)
          Jeff Flake (AZ-6)
          Trent Franks (AZ-2)
          Scott Garrett (NJ-5)
          Walter B. Jones (NC-3)
          Jack Kingston (GA-1)
          Jeff Miller (FL-1)
          Ron Paul (TX-14), Chairman
          Bill Posey (FL-15)
          Denny Rehberg (MT-AL)
          A former member is Senator Pat Toomey, and of course Senator Rand Paul is also a libertarian Republican.

          Ronald Reagan once said:
          ?I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism..? ? ?The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.?
          http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan/singlepage

          I’d estimate that 20% of Republicans are libertarians, half of which now support Ron Paul for President. Since the Libertarian Party rarely gets as much as 1% of the vote, I infer that libertarians have overwhelmingly been voting Republican, just as socialists vote Democrat. Why throw away that libertaran vote with stupid and pointless insults? Ronald Reagan didn’t do that; he was a winner.

      • texasref

        Are you saying that homosexuals are pedophiles? Or that they are just usually pedophiles? Or that they tend to be pedophiles disproportionately to heterosexuals? As to the last question, if you answered “yes,” what is your supporting evidence, please?

        I have one more line of questioning, as well: Could you describe the difference(s) behaviorally between a typical member of the “militant homosexual movement” and a typical homosexual person? For example, what do they do differently, if anything? How do they believe differently, if at all? Or do you think the typical homosexual person is almost always part of the “militant homosexual movement?”

        I’m confused about your third paragraph, in which you change the subject from the “militant homosexual movement” to the people who are trying to normalize pedophilia and zoophilia. Do you think there is a substantial overlap among those two groups? And when you describe your “waking nightmare,” are you referring to a fear of standing alone someday on the principle that pedophiles are perverts? Then you bounce back to “gay lifestyle” in the same paragraph as “pedophilia and zoophilia,” much as Santorum did in interviews.

        I do not lump you in with David Duke, a white supremacist, just because you have disdain for the “gay lifestyle.” Whether you are an extremist or a bigot or just holding decent American values in your position depends on what laws you would like to see enacted or enforced to make sure that American society does not continue down what you feel is the wrong path. Only then could anyone properly judge you to be a bigot or extremist, and then only if you held beliefs in support of bigoted or extremist laws. For example, you would obviously be a bigoted extremist if you favored the death penalty for homosexual conduct (that is an extreme example to illustrate the point, not saying that you believe that necessarily).

        So in sum, I am looking forward to being educated and learning more about what you meant, particularly in your seeming conflation of homosexuality with pedophilia.

        Respectfully yours,
        A conservative Texan

        • avgjo

          Nowhere did I equate the two. HOWEVER, and it’s a big however, pedophiles tend to be disproportionately homosexual. (‘disproportionately’ —> proportion of homosexuals in general population to proportion of pedophiles who are homsexual.) A quick case in point in the Catholic Church tragedy. All of the offenders were male. The lion’s share of the victims were male.

          As a start,

          http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/catholic_churchs_issue_is_homosexuality_not_pedophilia.html

          They refer to Kinsey (who is, for better or for worse, considered an seminal expert in this field.). BTW, the guy who wrote this article actually favors letting ‘gay’ men in the clergy, so it’s hard to say he’s anti-homosexual.

          I especially love this UC Davis article, where they really stretch it intellectually to support the opposite position:

          http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

          The money line from this ‘study’:

          ‘Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles …’

          Re: ‘militant homosexuals’ . Simple. Those who threaten people who have an opposite point of view, those who interrupt church services in outlandish and even offensive dress, those who want to make illegal opposition to their ‘lifestyle’, those who want to use law to construct a protected class of people in a country which is supposed to have no classes.

          Examples:

          http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/Home/ADFContent?cid=4944

          http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/news-old/19444

          Re: zoophilia etc.

          It is known as the slippery slope. And no, that’s not always a logical fallacy. Whether it is depends on whether or not there is a connection between the event that is supposed to start the fall down the slope. In this case, it’s not the ‘gay’ people (as a group) who would cause this. Rather, the mechanism that allowed our society to move to acceptance of the ‘gay’ lifestyle might allow it to move to other forms of behavior once condemned by it. First decriminalizing homosexuality, classifying it as an illness, and then declassifying it from that merely predicated upon political pressure, is a process that might well play out in these other forms of behavior. The people i referred to above re: zoophilia and pedophilia are doing this. In the case of pedophilia, there are those trying to destigmatize it by lobbying the American Psychiatric Asociation…

          http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/08/24/mental-health-group-looks-to-remove-stigma-from-pedophilia/

          Huffpo writer Jacob Appel is a bioethicist at Mt. Sinai hospital and promotes bestiality on the grounds that laws against it are discriminatory.

          We’ve seen these tactics before. They’re being used again…

          I never said you lumped me in with David Duke. But think about it. Many who support ‘gay’ rights compare their agenda to the civil rights movement. They claim that people are born homosexual (despite the fact there is no CONCLUSIVE evidence of that), just as people are born a certain color. The use of the word ‘bigot’ against someone who disagrees with their lifestyle completes the analogy. So somebody who ardently disagrees with the lifestyle or even supports laws criminalizing it is bigoted, and they’re bigoted against someone because of (supposedly) non-dispositional characteristics, according to the line of reasoning; accepting these premises (which obviously I don’t), there is little practical difference between someone like myself or Santorum and a racist.

          As far as your definition of extremist or bigot, I suppose that goes in all directions. Those ‘gay’ folks who support hate crimes laws for homosexuals or who want to use law to force organizations to hire them could be labeled as bigoted or extremist, based on the laws they’d like to see enacted and enforced to make sure America doesn’t go down what they think is the wrong path.

          I don’t conflate the two. Unfortunately, there is lots of overlap. And the slippery slope has to do more with the threat of an apparatus consisting of political correctness, organized political pressure, the word of ‘experts’ and acceding to these than it does with folks who are homosexual.

          You are apparently pro-’gay’ rights. I appreciate your civility. In my own (admittedly anecdotal) experience, this is the exception, not the rule. You and one other fellow here have been the best I’ve dealt with on this subject. I gather from your wording and structure that you were probably upset with my comments, but you kept it rational and on point. Thank you.
          ______________________________________________________________

          BTW, the reason I put the word ‘gay’ in parentheses is I believe it be a contrivance; it makes no etymological sense, and it seems to me part of the entire PC, deform language movement. I won’t be a party to that.

          • J. Leg

            I wont respond to your comment in length, but any sentence with “church” and “offense” or “offended” in it is an oxymoron in my view.

            The Church and Christians don’t have any right to be offended by anything. We’re called to be a light to the world, that means actually going into the dark places. I also think an attitude of offense ruins church culture, people leave churches because they’re offended — that’s wrong. It’s especially wrong to be offended by people who need Jesus, including those who wear “offensive” dress. I’ll tell you a true story:

            There’s a pastor I know of in England who’s got a mega church of 2,000 people (that is considered HUGE in England) and he was told by his elders that a group of cross dressers was coming into church this morning off a transvestite beauty pageant that was happening in their city The elders wanted to know what to do, he asked that they seat them close to the front. So this group of transvestites was sitting close to the front of this Church. When he asked if there were any visitors he looked around and said in a very light hearted joking way “It’s nice to have you ladies with us this morning. Except, we need some of the ladies in the church to come help you with your make up.” they started laughing, he started laughing and the church started laughing he then said, “look guys, you can come to church dressed however you’d like, all I ask is that you use the gents and not the ladies.” they agreed. He said that six months later most of those guys found Jesus, began wearing men’s clothing, and began serving in the church in different capacities. A few souls found their way back to God because someone was willing to accept them.

            Now imagine if he had done a “Rick Santorum” and blasted those guys for their “deep immorality” and so on. They would have walked right out the door and continued to be lost.

            The church was not meant to be an exclusive country club for comfortable good Christian people, the church is mean to be a hospital and a home for the oppressed, the downtrodden, and the broken to find Hope in Jesus Christ. I would invite ANY person to “interrupt” my church with their “offensive dress” hopefully they’d find Jesus.

          • avgjo

            I don’t know, neither does it matter how many people are/were offended. (I don’t think it’s wrong to be indignant about it, which I was. Great men in the Bible, and the Son of God Himself got indignant over matters offensive to the holiness of God, as when Jesus drove the moneychangers from the Temple.) The point is that it was done to offend. By people who claim to be offended. People doing wrong for wrong. Texasref asked what I meant by ‘militant’, and I told him/her what I meant.

            That is truly a cool story about the British pastor. I don’t know about your hypothetical, though. Letting someone know they’re wrong and that they will go to hell if they persist in their behavior is an act of compassion and friendship, and indeed is a Biblical imperative (2 Chron 19:10, Ezekiel 3:17 -19, for example). (It is possible many would have left, wrestled with their conscience and returned. I have seen that in the church, too.) Although I concede that the way you go about it matters. Look at Jesus. He NEVER minced words with people. But he was never cruel or even unkind, either.

          • texasref

            In your reply, you said: “So somebody who ardently disagrees with the lifestyle or even supports laws criminalizing it is bigoted, and they?re bigoted against someone because of (supposedly) non-dispositional characteristics, according to the line of reasoning; accepting these premises (which obviously I don?t), there is little practical difference between someone like myself or Santorum and a racist.”

            Think of a spectrum, which I will list below in order from one end to the other. It concerns me where you fall on this spectrum, avgjo.
            –lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders (LGBT)
            –straights who support LGBT folks, including marriage rights
            –straights who don’t support LGBT folks, but who also don’t support government involvement in or prohibitions on that issue (e.g., Texas statute on the class C misdemeanor crime of “homosexual conduct,” overturned by Lawrence v. Texas in 2003) or on the right of LGBT folks to marry.
            –straights who don’t support LGBT folks and who are against the right of LGBT folks to marry, but who would not support governmental prohibitions on LGBT folks (such as the example of the unconstitutional Texas statute above)
            –straights who are against LGBT folks, against their right to marry, and in favor of statutes like the one above that the Supreme Court found unconstitutional
            –straights who believe like the above category, but also want to permit discrimination in hiring (for example, no LGBT may be hired at the local public elementary school)

            You and I occupy opposite extremes along the spectrum I outlined above. That concerns me that you would assume that someone such as myself, with no criminal record, could be discriminated against in hiring for any job, public or private, simply because I identify as LGBT. It concerns me that you would find me more likely to be a pedophile because I am gay than if I were straight.

            One more point about pedophilia, since you brought it up in relation to the Catholic church. Based on my professional expertise in the field of criminal justice, I can tell you that pedophilia is not about heterosexuality or homosexuality; it is about attraction and perverted love for PRE-pubescent children. Attraction to adolescent children is not disordered; it is normal to be attracted to them to the extent they have secondary sexual characteristics (the broad-shouldered high school sophomore boy, the endowed high school freshman girl, etc). It is not normal or acceptable to engage in felony violence by acting on those POST-pubescent attractions with children who are not of legal age to consent to sexual relationships (16, 17, or 18, depending on which state). The treatment of sex offenders who are true pedophiles is different than the treatment of the 20-something guy who victimized the 14-year old who wanted to engage in the sex with the 20-something guy but could not legally give consent to do so.

            In conclusion, I am not going to call you a bigot for having the beliefs you have. I would ask that you please stop favoring a law such as the kind that the Supreme Court has found unconstitutional, which basically outlaws gay people. In your religious view, God may have outlawed it, but from human law perspective, we can agree to disagree about gay marriage and the government’s role in it, but outlawing being gay itself, that’s a bridge too far, sir.

            I look forward to reading your reply, if you choose to make one, but this is my last word on this subject. I won’t reply in this thread any further, so you get the first AND the last word. :-) I have too many other issues to focus on which we’d probably be in nearly 100% agreement on.

            If you haven’t already viewed the video in my signature, please take 3 minutes to do so. Newt’s the man! :-)

          • aesthete

            that avgjo desires or accepts laws like Texas’ — merely that he does not consider them un-Constitutional. I strenuously oppose such laws — but the Supreme Court did act out of turn; this foolish and freedom-depriving legislation was certainly not prohibited by the Constitution.

            @ my fellow Christians and my not-quite-fellow social conservatives: we may talk about how Christianity is being marginalized in the public sphere (and in many cases, that is the case), but homosexuals were essentially outlawed and made criminals for engaging in behaviors which harm no one but themselves. It is a farce to be in favor of recriminalization of these behaviors, while harping about our own freedoms being taken away piecemeal: not only are we alienating a potential ally who can strongly sympathize with government discrimination and marginalization, we are also making a travesty of freedoms by insisting upon them for ourselves, and locking out the same sort of freedom for other people that we disagree with or whose behaviors we find immoral. Freedom requires that one be at peace with the fact that there is the possibility that one will do what is wrong, with the hope that a person will voluntarily choose what is right — for what is the point of acting morally if it is forced onto you? If that is the case, then the only person acting morally is you — unless the force used to prohibit the immoral act is itself immoral!

          • avgjo

            If you read this, texasref, I’ll not respond at length. It is clear that, as you said, we are at opposite extremes on this issue. It is not me who thinks that you or any other LGBT person is more likely to be a pedophile. Statistics are clear, texasref. We live in an age where facts are ugly things to many people and many people will not let them get in the way. In your case, you have law enforcement experience, so I presume you’re an honorable person. Problem is, statistically speaking, we cannot find out who’s good and who’s bad until it’s too late. Sort of analogous to the peaceful Muslim/radical Muslim problem.

            ‘My perspective’ doesn’t tell me God’s law is against it. God Himself called it an abomination. And if one considers that allegorical, I would appreciate two things from them; (1) educate me on how one arrives at such a conclusion and (b) by what objective standard one determines which parts of the Bible are literal and which are allegorical?

            Finally,to texasref in particular, I am particularly concerned by the efforts of many LGBT ( I will not assume that you yourself are one of them) seem to be bigoted against people with traditional views on this issue, such as myself, and want to legislate that bigotry into laws that force people to hire ‘gays’, laws that make LGBT a protected class (when they already should and do enjoy equal protection under the same laws everyone else does) and laws that publicly affirm the ‘gay’ lifestyle (as in the case of the California law requiring school children to learn about ‘gay’ contributions to history. Why differentiate? If someone was great, talk about them. Not their sexual orientation.).

            P,S. I’m with you, texasref. Newt’s the one this time around.

    • clintonformccain

      I really don’t think his positions on gay issues are terribly relevant to the political landscape in 2012, one way or the other.

      • David123

        I mean, JFK was a liberal’s liberal, right? So since Santorum is more liberal than JFK, Santorum can’t very well be a rightwing extremist.

        Whether it was 50 years ago or 50 seconds ago shouldn’t matter either. If something was right 50 years ago, it is right now, and if something was wrong 50 years ago, it’s wrong now. The Bible hasn’t been rewritten in the last 50 years has it? No Constitutional Amendment in the last 50 years relates to any issue that Rick Santorum is being criticized for either.

  • earhartam

    And, there isn’t enough real estate on this website to list reasons why Romney will lose against Obama. Or reason’s Gingrich or Paul will lose against Obama. Santorum is hands down the best chance for a Republican President.

    If you don’t believe me, look at the numbers and votes. Not votes for Santorum, et al, but votes against Romney. No way in Hades will Romney win against the Obama machine and his surrogates.

    A Romney nomination is a guarantor of an Obama win. A Santorum nomination gives the Republicans at least a fighting chance.

  • snook

    When he critizes “radical individualism”. That is a major flaw in his thinking. Rights are granted to individuals from GOD NOT groups

  • snook

    He believes sex should only be used for procreating. So under a Santorum administration would masturbation be a crime?

  • Viet71

    to watch television. Going to get to the point…

    What? You say. That’s right. Don’t listen to what the candidates say or watch how they thrash around. They’re trying to find their mojo or whatever. You can’t rationally believe them or rely on what they say.

    By not watching television but watching and reading about what’s going on one gets a FEEL for the candidates. My feelings:

    GINGRICH – intelligent, angry, frustrated; like a mid-range boxer, it all depends on his discipline and staying power.

    ROMNEY – intelligent, talcum powder

    SANTORUM – passionate, sincere – he’s got nothing else, but that’s a lot because it radiates as being genuine and really wanting the job

    The problem for Santorum, I gather, is his mouth. That’s easily fixable. He gets a good coach or two. For balance, I might choose J. Leg and avgjo to be coaches.

  • J. Leg

    …Gambling.

    Yes, Really. Gambling:

    http://www.lasvegassun.com/videos/2012/jan/31/6265/

    But here’s the money bit:

    —-Freedom?s not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations. ——You might want to say the same thing about a whole variety of other things that are on the Internet ? ?let everybody have it, let everybody do it.? No. There are certain things that actually do cost people a lot of money, cost them their lives, cost them their fortunes that we shouldn?t have and make available, to make it that easy to do. That?s why we regulate gambling. You have a big commission here that regulates gambling, for a reason.

    Of course, this argument taken to it’s conclusion could be applied to all of our freedoms, including our religious freedom: “Prohibiting gay marriage is discriminatory, to hell with your ‘religious freedom’ or your freedom of conscience, no freedom is absolute!”

    I don’t like where that argument leads.

    • znjs

      If Santorum had been born in the middle east he’d be a member of all the worst Muslim groups. And he’s one of the final four candidates, and possibly the new front runner, in the GOP primary. What a sad process this has become.

  • 6t9boss

    of slaming any conservative candidate. So you think Romney is our savior…yes he is…for the Democrates! and folks like you are doing your best to give it to them. Afterall between Rove, Coulter, Beck,Booortz, the GOP, and the media every single Conservative candidate has been eaten alive! With friends like you guys WHO NEEDS ENEMIES!!!!!
    You want to know why Santorum is surging..it’s because you guys have ravaged Newt( and everyone else) and Santorum is the last man standing.
    You ding-a-lings right along with crazy RINO Carl Rove think the “Independents” are the key to this election. If that were true then why didn’t John McCain win…HE’S AS BIG A INDEPENDENT AS EVER!!!!!
    John only TURNS CONSERVATIVE every SIX years!
    Conservatives “with Principles” are not going to vote for the Letter ” R ” and the GOP and you need to wake up.

  • Seedyrom

    because Romney has lied to much and can’t even make an intelligent argument why he’s a conservative. Its like he’s scared of his own shadow while wanting everyone to believe him. CPAC speech plus last night on Hannity………..he tried to convince fox viewers he knows conservatism……..that’s like Obama trying to explain taxes to Grover Norquist. ROFL!!!

  • Pingback: Salvatore Capek

  • Pingback: Errol Christensen

  • Pingback: Errol Christensen

  • Pingback: Carina Allmond

  • Pingback: Automobile Forum

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Reverse Number Lookup

  • Pingback: liquor

  • Pingback: strona z randkami

  • Pingback: Investment House

  • Pingback: αυτοκινητο

  • Pingback: najlepsza randka

  • Pingback: randki

  • Pingback: darmowa strona randki

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: randki

  • Pingback: distilling definition

  • Pingback: martial arts blog

  • Pingback: Browse Around These Guys

  • Pingback: Navigate To These Guys

  • Pingback: You Can Look Here

  • Pingback: You Can Look Here

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: breastactives

  • Pingback: property in india

  • Pingback: madamlux

  • Pingback: work from home uk

  • Pingback: desain interior rumah

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Keneth Serrata

  • Pingback: Wilmer Ammirati

  • Pingback: Store Fixture Installers

  • Pingback: www.loansandbadcredit.org

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: aloe vera juice for hair

  • Pingback: growing aloe vera

  • Pingback: wzór cv

  • Pingback: curriculum vitae

  • Pingback: Claudie Strange

  • Pingback: Jesse Trigueiro

  • Pingback: Weston Divers

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: แทงบอล

  • Pingback: lookup reverse

  • Pingback: F1 shirt

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: Teichfolie

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: Investment House

  • Pingback: top payday loans available

  • Pingback: kids bikes

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: serwis randkowy