• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

santorum should drop-out

nota bene said:
No, if you were married in the Church, divorce, and remarry, you cannot receive unless your first marriage was annulled. This is not Gingrich's circumstance, and if you read the Washington Post article I linked, you will understand what his circumstance was and is.
Click to expand...

thanks for clarifying. I wasn't that up on that sort of silliness. I remember a friend who had been married in an Episcopal church and divorced. He was going to marry a catholic girl but she was told they couldn't get married in her church since he was divorced from his first wife even though it wasn't a catholic church. Rather than argue, he was married in the congregationalist church of a friend of his who was in his class at Harvard. but it seemed silly to prevent them from getting married in her church if that church didn't recognize his first marriage

(disclaimer-that is what he told me-this might not be an accurate reflection of official Papal doctrine)
 
Josie said:
But he isn't one.
Click to expand...

But he appeals to conservatives. The fact he has progressive and moderate positions as well, has taken a stand on things like illegal immigration, that's a good thing. It shows he isn't just a GOP parrot, which Romney is.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I think Rick Santorum is a great conservative, but it's time for him to drop out so that the Republicans don't elect a moderate. We need to make sure that we have a true conservative running against Obama.
Click to expand...

There's a true conservative in this race? WHERE?:whothere:
 
Santorum is getting desperate and is increasingly running an anti-Mormon campaign. In Florida he was introduced by a preacher who is well known to being openly anti-Mormon and anti-Mormon signs were present. I think Florida will be the end of the road for Santorum.
 
Josie said:
But he isn't one.
Click to expand...

Neither is Santorum going by the type of definition you seem to be using to determine if someone is or isn't a Conservative in a strictly binary "Yes or No" sense....in which case, the Conservative vote has to go SOMEWHERE.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is actually some of the best sense I've seen from the conservative side in regards to the 2012 election. My question for conservatives would be this: what's would you perfer, having someone who matches your positions perfectly, but who will lose to Obama, or someone who is a bit more moderate, but could beat Obama? Someone like Santorum has zero chance at beating Obama. Someone more moderate might.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't view things in a frame of "The next four years". To me our country isn't going to be demolished nor is it going to return to prosperity in a 4 year time frame regardless of who we vote in. My goal and my hope isn't to find some asprin to make the current headache subside, its to find something that will take the steps to remove the axe that's lodged in my head that's causing me the pain in the first place.

Right now there's not a candidate in this who matches my views perfectly. I recognize that Mitt Romney has the best chance to beat Obama. However, at the same time, Mitt Romney is Apsrin. If Mitt won I don't think we'll be significantly better off in 4 years then we were under Obama. More than that, I don't think he'd help lead us to a point where 20 years from now we're significantly better off then we are today. To me Mitt would just perpetuate the same standard stagnant thinking that has been the norm for years now that leads to more spending, more removal of freedoms, more running up of debt, more grwoth of government, etc.

I would rather lose with someone like Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich who, even if all their individualized views don't match up perfectly with mine, will fight for the idea and belief of Conservatism in a way that may actually push the dial in a degree that makes a candidate with a truly conservative message possible to win and not just win but have the mandate to act. Newt in particular, for all of his issues, has been very good during this primary season in doing just that...aggressively but eloquently espousing conservatism.

To me, winning with Mitt Romney is continuing a cycle that is largely to blame for where we're at as a country. To me, losing due to a candidates faults but having conservatism championed during the campaign could potentially do more for the long term health of this country. As much as politics typically is played like a professional sports where the current game is all that matters....it's also far bigger than that.

I'm tired of just taking some asprin.
 
Zyphlin said:
Personally, I don't view things in a frame of "The next four years". To me our country isn't going to be demolished nor is it going to return to prosperity in a 4 year time frame regardless of who we vote in. My goal and my hope isn't to find some asprin to make the current headache subside, its to find something that will take the steps to remove the axe that's lodged in my head that's causing me the pain in the first place.

Right now there's not a candidate in this who matches my views perfectly. I recognize that Mitt Romney has the best chance to beat Obama. However, at the same time, Mitt Romney is Apsrin. If Mitt won I don't think we'll be significantly better off in 4 years then we were under Obama. More than that, I don't think he'd help lead us to a point where 20 years from now we're significantly better off then we are today. To me Mitt would just perpetuate the same standard stagnant thinking that has been the norm for years now that leads to more spending, more removal of freedoms, more running up of debt, more grwoth of government, etc.

I would rather lose with someone like Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich who, even if all their individualized views don't match up perfectly with mine, will fight for the idea and belief of Conservatism in a way that may actually push the dial in a degree that makes a candidate with a truly conservative message possible to win and not just win but have the mandate to act. Newt in particular, for all of his issues, has been very good during this primary season in doing just that...aggressively but eloquently espousing conservatism.

To me, winning with Mitt Romney is continuing a cycle that is largely to blame for where we're at as a country. To me, losing due to a candidates faults but having conservatism championed during the campaign could potentially do more for the long term health of this country. As much as politics typically is played like a professional sports where the current game is all that matters....it's also far bigger than that.

I'm tired of just taking some asprin.
Click to expand...
nail on the head.
 
Santorum need to drop out and endorse Gingrich before the Florida primary. Santorum doesn't have a shot at winning. Santorum dropping out and endorsing Newt could be the key to keeping Gingrich's momentum going.
 
joko104 said:
Santorum is getting desperate and is increasingly running an anti-Mormon campaign. In Florida he was introduced by a preacher who is well known to being openly anti-Mormon and anti-Mormon signs were present. I think Florida will be the end of the road for Santorum.
Click to expand...

The Mormon issue is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that nobody wants to address. I will admit that I was put off by Romney's Mormonism - until I talked to some Mormons, really looked in to it, and tried to understand what kind of moral system our future president might have.

The point is, I'm not unlike a lot of people. If they would dig deeper in to the Mornon thing and learn more about who Romney is as a person, they will accept him more and see that he is a good man.

I think this is going to continue to harm Romney unless he deals with it in some kind of upfront and open way. I think one of his problems is that he is very reserved, and he let's these side-issues fester instead of dealing with them candidly.

And that brings up my final point.

People's problem with Romney's Mormonism is nothing but a reflection of Romney's inability to connect and communicate.
 
Peter Grimm said:
The Mormon issue is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that nobody wants to address. I will admit that I was put off by Romney's Mormonism - until I talked to some Mormons, really looked in to it, and tried to understand what kind of moral system our future president might have.

The point is, I'm not unlike a lot of people. If they would dig deeper in to the Mornon thing and learn more about who Romney is as a person, they will accept him more and see that he is a good man.

I think this is going to continue to harm Romney unless he deals with it in some kind of upfront and open way. I think one of his problems is that he is very reserved, and he let's these side-issues fester instead of dealing with them candidly.

And that brings up my final point.

People's problem with Romney's Mormonism is nothing but a reflection of Romney's inability to connect and communicate.
Click to expand...

Wrong....it stems much more from evangelicals hatred of Mormons, which is why you saw what happened in South Carolina with its large evangelical population. I only hope that somehow Gingrich's momentum carries him in Florida and other states that don't have the same number of evangelical wackos
 
disneydude said:
Wrong....it stems much more from evangelicals hatred of Mormons, which is why you saw what happened in South Carolina with its large evangelical population. I only hope that somehow Gingrich's momentum carries him in Florida and other states that don't have the same number of evangelical wackos
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, Democrats are more likely not to vote for a Mormon than a Republican is....and the percentage of democrats with an issue with it is similar to the evangelical number (only there's more democrats then evangelical) and I believe, if my memory serves, is a larger percentage than just flat out christians. So for those on the left suggesting that his mormonism is going to be a big drag in the primary but are also turning around and suggesting Mitt has the best chance in the general while ignoring his mormonism there...I think it just does more to highlight their utter dishonesty and why their opinion shouldn't be considered one iota regarding the Republican candidate at all becuase they're complete and utter hyper partisan phonies then it does to suggest there's a real "mormon problem".
 
Zyphlin said:
The funny thing is, Democrats are more likely not to vote for a Mormon than a Republican is....and the percentage of democrats with an issue with it is similar to the evangelical number (only there's more democrats then evangelical) and I believe, if my memory serves, is a larger percentage than just flat out christians. So for those on the left suggesting that his mormonism is going to be a big drag in the primary but are also turning around and suggesting Mitt has the best chance in the general while ignoring his mormonism there...I think it just does more to highlight their utter dishonesty and why their opinion shouldn't be considered one iota regarding the Republican candidate at all becuase they're complete and utter hyper partisan phonies then it does to suggest there's a real "mormon problem".
Click to expand...

The point that you are missing Zyph is not that Romney won't attract Democrats....that is a given. What you are failing to address here is that Romney's Mormonism is not a major problem with moderates/independents, in the same way as it is with the hatred of Mormons by evangelicals. Gingrich on the otherhand will be lucky to get any substantial part of the moderate/independent vote. Which is why Newt's only chance in the GE is if moderates/independents stay home and he can energize the right-wing base. That's not likely. On the otherhand, Romeny will attract a large part of the independents and moderate and the only question is, will he turn off the base so much that THEY will stay home. I think there is a greater likelihood that the right-wing base will come out for Romney, then the moderates/independents will stay home in a Gingrich race. There are enough anti-gay and other social agenda items on many of the ballots to ensure that the wingers will come out to vote.
 
disneydude said:
Wrong....it stems much more from evangelicals hatred of Mormons, which is why you saw what happened in South Carolina with its large evangelical population. I only hope that somehow Gingrich's momentum carries him in Florida and other states that don't have the same number of evangelical wackos
Click to expand...

Romney was polling ahead of Gingrich as recently as a week ago. The turnaround coincided with the debate performances of the two candidates.

Mormonism is an issue for some. It would be less of an issue for many if Romney were able to communicate more effectively.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I think Rick Santorum is a great conservative, but it's time for him to drop out so that the Republicans don't elect a moderate. We need to make sure that we have a true conservative running against Obama.
Click to expand...

Yes, please nominate Gingrich! :lol:
 
Zyphlin said:
The funny thing is, Democrats are more likely not to vote for a Mormon than a Republican is....and the percentage of democrats with an issue with it is similar to the evangelical number (only there's more democrats then evangelical) and I believe, if my memory serves, is a larger percentage than just flat out christians. So for those on the left suggesting that his mormonism is going to be a big drag in the primary but are also turning around and suggesting Mitt has the best chance in the general while ignoring his mormonism there...I think it just does more to highlight their utter dishonesty and why their opinion shouldn't be considered one iota regarding the Republican candidate at all becuase they're complete and utter hyper partisan phonies then it does to suggest there's a real "mormon problem".
Click to expand...

Please show me where you got that Dems are more likely not to vote for a Mormon.
 
I find it kind of funny that the media keeps insisting that we run a moderate candidate. Obama is not moderate at all, from what I could tell he voted pretty much straight democrat side on every issue. McCain on the other hand was a moderate that frequently that sided with the Democrats, and Obama wiped the floor with him.


According to gallup:
"Americans' political ideology at the midyear point of 2011 looks similar to 2009 and 2010, with 41% self-identifying as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 21% as liberal"

The midterm elections supported that.

So I think we can all agree that when the media and liberals say we should run a moderate candidate they are really saying run one that will be easy for us to defeat. They know that the Republican base is going to have a low voter enthusiasm when we run a moderate.
 
Paratrooper said:
I find it kind of funny that the media keeps insisting that we run a moderate candidate. Obama is not moderate at all, from what I could tell he voted pretty much straight democrat side on every issue. McCain on the other hand was a moderate that frequently that sided with the Democrats, and Obama wiped the floor with him.
Click to expand...

Obama voted with his party 96% of the time. Barack Obama - U.S. Congress Votes Database - The Washington Post

McCain voted with his party 92% of the time. John McCain - U.S. Congress Votes Database - The Washington Post
 
Paratrooper said:
I find it kind of funny that the media keeps insisting that we run a moderate candidate. Obama is not moderate at all, from what I could tell he voted pretty much straight democrat side on every issue. McCain on the other hand was a moderate that frequently that sided with the Democrats, and Obama wiped the floor with him.


According to gallup:
"Americans' political ideology at the midyear point of 2011 looks similar to 2009 and 2010, with 41% self-identifying as conservative, 36% as moderate, and 21% as liberal"

The midterm elections supported that.

So I think we can all agree that when the media and liberals say we should run a moderate candidate they are really saying run one that will be easy for us to defeat. They know that the Republican base is going to have a low voter enthusiasm when we run a moderate.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely 100% correct. You guys should absolutely focus on the candidate that will bring out the base and forget about the moderates/independents. Gingrich is the man who best embodies the values and ethics of today's GOP. He should definitely be your candidate.
 
misterman said:
Please show me where you got that Dems are more likely not to vote for a Mormon.
Click to expand...

This has been the only polling I could find on the matter. When I first was commenting I actually was questioning people as to whether they had anything to back up their notion in regards to his mormonism being a potential drag, and then someone finally provided this link. I've not seen any other significant polling by a reputable company on the issue beyond this.

Gallup Poll

18% of republicans say they wouldn't vote for a Mormon president. That's similar to independents, with 19%. Democrats however come in at 27% who say they wouldn't vote for a mormon.

That is actually the second largest percentage found in this poll, topped only by people with no college coming in at 31% opposed. For some comparisons with other categories of people...23% of protestants wouldn't vote for a Mormon, 16% of Catholics wouldn't, 22% of non-christians wouldn't (so non-christians are on par with Protestants). Women are slightly less likely to vote for a Mormon than Men, 23% to 21%. The Midwest is the least likely location, at 26%, while the east is most likely at only 17%. The group that is most likely to not have an issue with it are college graduates, who come in with only 12% stating they wouldn't support a mormon.



Now as I pointed out in the original thread this was posted, the statement that his mormonism is a problem is in and of itself a bit misleading when you point to polls and its why I take people stating it in any way or form with a bit of a grain of salt. There could be other traits or views associated in an individuals mind when thinking of mormon's that could cause this response, which is why I don't think its as big of an issue all told as its made out to be. That said, IF someone is going to make an argument about it then they'd need some kind of hard facts to back it up...which these are the closest I've seen to hard facts.
 
misterman said:
Obama voted with his party 96% of the time. Barack Obama - U.S. Congress Votes Database - The Washington Post

McCain voted with his party 92% of the time. John McCain - U.S. Congress Votes Database - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

A bit misleading since you're taking a snap shot of McCain in the 112th congress and comparing that to Obama's time in by the looks of it.

Lets look at the times they were in together and compare...these would be the congresses actually leading up to the campaign, not votes made in the future that people would have no ability to know. McCain voted with the party 79% of the time in the 109th Congress LINK as compared to the 95% by Obama. McCain in the 110th congress voted with the party 88% of the time...Obama 96% Link.

Lets keep going back. 108th Congress? McCain was at 84% Link
107th Congress? 76% Link
106th? 83% Link
105th? 84% Link

Indeed, the 111th and 112th congresses were the first time since at least the 102nd that John McCain voted with his party more than 88% of the time. So for the 9 congressional sessions (from 102 to 110) leading up to the Presidential run, McCain averaged 83% voting in line with his party compared to Obama's average of 96%.

Looking at McCain's two congresses AFTER the election does nothing to prove that somehow he wasn't viewed, correctly, as a "moderate" candidate during the actual Presidential run.

It does speak a bit though to the nature of this administration and the Democrats in congress however when a guy who for 9 sessions of congress would on average hover around the low 80's in terms of supporting his party suddenly feels the need to vote with his party significantly more now.
 
Zyphlin said:
This has been the only polling I could find on the matter. When I first was commenting I actually was questioning people as to whether they had anything to back up their notion in regards to his mormonism being a potential drag, and then someone finally provided this link. I've not seen any other significant polling by a reputable company on the issue beyond this.

Gallup Poll

18% of republicans say they wouldn't vote for a Mormon president. That's similar to independents, with 19%. Democrats however come in at 27% who say they wouldn't vote for a mormon.

That is actually the second largest percentage found in this poll, topped only by people with no college coming in at 31% opposed. For some comparisons with other categories of people...23% of protestants wouldn't vote for a Mormon, 16% of Catholics wouldn't, 22% of non-christians wouldn't (so non-christians are on par with Protestants). Women are slightly less likely to vote for a Mormon than Men, 23% to 21%. The Midwest is the least likely location, at 26%, while the east is most likely at only 17%. The group that is most likely to not have an issue with it are college graduates, who come in with only 12% stating they wouldn't support a mormon.



Now as I pointed out in the original thread this was posted, the statement that his mormonism is a problem is in and of itself a bit misleading when you point to polls and its why I take people stating it in any way or form with a bit of a grain of salt. There could be other traits or views associated in an individuals mind when thinking of mormon's that could cause this response, which is why I don't think its as big of an issue all told as its made out to be. That said, IF someone is going to make an argument about it then they'd need some kind of hard facts to back it up...which these are the closest I've seen to hard facts.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Interesting stuff.
 
Zyphlin said:
A bit misleading since you're taking a snap shot of McCain in the 112th congress and comparing that to Obama's time in by the looks of it.

Lets look at the times they were in together and compare...these would be the congresses actually leading up to the campaign, not votes made in the future that people would have no ability to know. McCain voted with the party 79% of the time in the 109th Congress LINK as compared to the 95% by Obama. McCain in the 110th congress voted with the party 88% of the time...Obama 96% Link.

Lets keep going back. 108th Congress? McCain was at 84% Link
107th Congress? 76% Link
106th? 83% Link
105th? 84% Link

Indeed, the 111th and 112th congresses were the first time since at least the 102nd that John McCain voted with his party more than 88% of the time. So for the 9 congressional sessions (from 102 to 110) leading up to the Presidential run, McCain averaged 83% voting in line with his party compared to Obama's average of 96%.

Looking at McCain's two congresses AFTER the election does nothing to prove that somehow he wasn't viewed, correctly, as a "moderate" candidate during the actual Presidential run.

It does speak a bit though to the nature of this administration and the Democrats in congress however when a guy who for 9 sessions of congress would on average hover around the low 80's in terms of supporting his party suddenly feels the need to vote with his party significantly more now.
Click to expand...

So McCain used to be moderate.
 
misterman said:
So McCain used to be moderate.
Click to expand...

That largely depends, the issue of course being that its hard to judge just off voting records. IF I was to judge just off voting records there's a LOT of different conclussions that could be reached...

1. That McCain was a moderate, and then after the election suddenly became more conservative
2. That McCain is a moderate, and that 2 sessions of congress being more conservative doesn't indicate a definitive change from his past 9 sessions
3. That for 9 sessions of congress the congress/President were very conservative, and thus he was more apt to vote against them
4. That for 2 sessions of congress the congress/president have been very liberal, and thus he was more apt to vote in line with his party
5. That he acted moderately for his initial 9 sessions believing that would help him in a Presidential run, but upon losing his bid for the white house has abandoned that philosophy.
6. That he is bitter about losing the election and as such has given up many attempts to be moderate or work in a bipartisan manner.
7. That with a Democratic president in power now he feels he can more freely vote in line with his party konwing that there is veto power present to counter a possibly problematic bll.

That's just 7 possible explanations of what could account for the switch between the 9 sessions prior to the presidential run and the 2 since going primarily off the numbers that have been provided.

None of which changes that, going into the election, McCain's record in congress was distinctly that of a Moderate Republican.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
The funny thing is, Democrats are more likely not to vote for a Mormon than a Republican is....and the percentage of democrats with an issue with it is similar to the evangelical number (only there's more democrats then evangelical) and I believe, if my memory serves, is a larger percentage than just flat out christians. So for those on the left suggesting that his mormonism is going to be a big drag in the primary but are also turning around and suggesting Mitt has the best chance in the general while ignoring his mormonism there...I think it just does more to highlight their utter dishonesty and why their opinion shouldn't be considered one iota regarding the Republican candidate at all becuase they're complete and utter hyper partisan phonies then it does to suggest there's a real "mormon problem".
Click to expand...

This is very interesting. In general, it seems Democrats have more racists than Republicans. For example, only Democrats seem to equate "food stamps" with African Americans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom