• 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.

Who is Santorum?

The Tea Party really missed an opportunity in this election. Bachmann is not the best we have and Paul is in his own universe. They are the only people who represent SOME of what we believe in. Honestly, I like Santorum more than Romney. I like everyone but Gingrich more than Romney.

The Tea Party used to be about fiscal conservatism, when did that give way to social conservatism? And honestly in the end which is more important for this country, that we reduce debt or stop gays from marrying? That we cut government spending and regulations, or work to argue abortions till the end of time?
 
The reason the Tea Party was successful in 2010 was in part because it was a congressional election. That allowed Tea Party candidates in areas that aren't heavily socially conservative to run primarily on just Tea Party ideals and pull out a win while allowing other Tea Partiers to mix the Tea Party message with their Social Conservative views in places where the religious right was strong. Being a movement focused on only a Portion of the Republican parties platform and that can attract a wide range of Consevatives...libertarians, paleoconservatives, evangelical conservatives, etc...the ability for candidates to be tailored to a specific audience is helpful.

That's not the case on a national election unfortunately. A Tea Partier neutral on social issues could be as likely to go Ron Paul or Huntsman as he may be Santorum or Bachmann. A Tea Partier who is also a social conservaitve however would likely not touch Huntsman due to his view on civil unions despite his record on ACTUAL tea party issues being very good. A Tea Partier who is also rather hawkish likely wouldn't touch Ron Paul. A Tea Partier who actually is moderate on social issues or simply doesn't want wedge issues focused on may not want to touch Bachmann and Santorum. The reason for this is that, in a nation wide Republican contest, there are likely to be MANY candidates that fit the Fiscal bill to an acceptable level...which means people then look at secondary things to determine their choice.

So to find a candidate the Tea Party, as a whole, would actually significantly support during the primary would be extremely difficult because there’s too many secondary factors that would lead them to one candidate or another. That’s why it’s successful on a localized level where it can be targeted to constituency, but the Tea Party will have little STRONG effect during the primary season and will have a weakened effect in the general election comparative to its effect on 2010.
 
The reason the Tea Party was successful in 2010 was in part because it was a congressional election. That allowed Tea Party candidates in areas that aren't heavily socially conservative to run primarily on just Tea Party ideals and pull out a win while allowing other Tea Partiers to mix the Tea Party message with their Social Conservative views in places where the religious right was strong. Being a movement focused on only a Portion of the Republican parties platform and that can attract a wide range of Consevatives...libertarians, paleoconservatives, evangelical conservatives, etc...the ability for candidates to be tailored to a specific audience is helpful.

That's not the case on a national election unfortunately. A Tea Partier neutral on social issues could be as likely to go Ron Paul or Huntsman as he may be Santorum or Bachmann. A Tea Partier who is also a social conservaitve however would likely not touch Huntsman due to his view on civil unions despite his record on ACTUAL tea party issues being very good. A Tea Partier who is also rather hawkish likely wouldn't touch Ron Paul. A Tea Partier who actually is moderate on social issues or simply doesn't want wedge issues focused on may not want to touch Bachmann and Santorum. The reason for this is that, in a nation wide Republican contest, there are likely to be MANY candidates that fit the Fiscal bill to an acceptable level...which means people then look at secondary things to determine their choice.

So to find a candidate the Tea Party, as a whole, would actually significantly support during the primary would be extremely difficult because there’s too many secondary factors that would lead them to one candidate or another. That’s why it’s successful on a localized level where it can be targeted to constituency, but the Tea Party will have little STRONG effect during the primary season and will have a weakened effect in the general election comparative to its effect on 2010.
Very good observation. One of the best I've read on here IMO. I really believe Marco Rubio should have ran. I think he could have brought fire and passion into a field that needed it. He encompasses all things Tea Party yet would have mainstream appeal. Your opinion?
 
Rick Santorum is a non Mormon who lost the Iowa caucus by a mere 8 votes. lol. He and Newt Gingrich promise to give Willard "Mitt" Romney fits in the south and across the Bible Belt.
 
The Tea Party used to be about fiscal conservatism, when did that give way to social conservatism?

The Tea Party movement is still about fiscal conservatism. Individuals within the movement however aren't ONLY fiscal conservatives. And the Tea Party movement was NEVER about "being fiscally and ONLY fiscally conservative". As a movement it was neutral on social conservatism and to a point neutral regarding military policy as well. If you wanted to be socially conservative...cool. If you didn't...cool. The MOVEMENT didn't have any real stance on that.

However, individuals can. Its not uncommon for fiscal conservatives to ALSO be social conservatives to some degree. And when those people are faced with two candidates they find acceptable fiscally, then they're likely to go to their other view points to decide which to choose from.

Lets look at an analogy.

You like Pizza. More than that, you like Pizza with Pepperoni on it. That's your biggest concern about a pizza, its GOTTA have pepperoni.

However, you ALSO like Sausage, but you'd not be happy with a pizza JUST with sausage.

If you're faced with a Pizza with pepperoni and one without, its obvious...you choose pepperoni.

But if you have TWO with pepperoni, but one of those two ALSO has sausage...you likely go with the sausage one.

Does that mean Sausage is ALSO your favorite topping? Nope. Its still pepperoni. But when faced with two pizza's that are both acceptable with pepperoni, one with sausage will win out over one without.

That's the case here. Tea Partiers see acceptability in regards to their fiscal views in a number of candidates...so it trickles down to secondary issues for them. Those issues will vary person to person, and area to area.

People may dislike Santorum, I know I am no fan. But when you look at the Contract From America and look at his rhetoric and record...he has a decent claim to being in line with the fiscal views of Tea Partiers. His rhetoric and record is enough to say he's "acceptable" as a Tea Party candidate based on issues alone, not electability or other non-tea party related views, etc. So he passes that first test and moves onto "so what else about him makes me like him more/less than the others who reach an 'acceptable' level for me".
 
Very good observation. One of the best I've read on here IMO. I really believe Marco Rubio should have ran. I think he could have brought fire and passion into a field that needed it. He encompasses all things Tea Party yet would have mainstream appeal. Your opinion?

Little bit green regarding politics and experience, with no real business experience or executive experience in government. Definitely has some appeal though. I think if he focused on Tea Party type issues, held his social beliefs but didn't make them the main or equal focus of the campaign (ala Santorum), and ran a good campaign he could be successful. But you'd still have some fragmentation from some social tea partiers who would want full on pushing of social issues and from some more moderate ones who aren't happy with him even pushing said social views at all.
 
The Tea Party movement is still about fiscal conservatism. Individuals within the movement however aren't ONLY fiscal conservatives. And the Tea Party movement was NEVER about "being fiscally and ONLY fiscally conservative". As a movement it was neutral on social conservatism and to a point neutral regarding military policy as well. If you wanted to be socially conservative...cool. If you didn't...cool. The MOVEMENT didn't have any real stance on that.

At the end of the day the Tea Party is just the old religious right core of the Republican Party wearing different (red, white and blue) clothes. If it was truly about fiscal conservatism they would be all over Ron Paul like white on rice.
 
this is going to help him:
"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."
so what that the majority of welfare dollars goes to white people
Rick Santorum Talks Welfare & Black People (VIDEO)
this bigoted ignorance from someone who served as chairman of the republican party task force on welfare reform

and this:
... Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual. ...
Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and this:
“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statues they have.”
Santorum has long opposed the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling “that invalidated a Connecticut law banning contraception” and has also pledged to completely defund federal funding for contraception if elected president.
Santorum: States Should Have The Right To Outlaw Birth Control | ThinkProgress
but notice also that his wife aborted:
In 1996, a son, Gabriel, was born prematurely and lived for only two hours. While pregnant, Karen Santorum developed a life-threatening intrauterine infection and a fever that reached nearly 105 degrees. She went into labor when she was 20 weeks pregnant and allowed doctors to give her Oxytocin to speed the birth.
Rick Santorum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and this:
... QUESTION via YouTube from Stephen Hill, a soldier who's currently serving in Iraq: In 2010, when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was, because I'm a gay soldier and I didn't want to lose my job.

My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?

SANTORUM: Yeah, I — I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. And the fact that they're making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to -- to -- and removing "don't ask/don’t tell" I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military's job is to do one thing, and that is to defend our country.

We need to give the military, which is all-volunteer, the ability to do so in a way that is most efficient at protecting our men and women in uniform.

And I believe this undermines that ability.

MEGYN KELLY of Fox News: So what -- what -- what would you do with soldiers like Stephen Hill? I mean, he's — now he's out. He's — you know, you saw his face on camera. When he first submitted this video to us, it was without his face on camera. Now he's out. So what would you do as president?

SANTORUM: I think it's -- it's -- it's -- look, what we're doing is playing social experimentation with -- with our military right now. And that's tragic.

I would -- I would just say that, going forward, we would -- we would reinstitute that policy, if Rick Santorum was president, period. ...
GOP debate: Rick Santorum's 'don't ask, don't tell' blunder - latimes.com)

yep, he wanted to add the requirement to teach intelligent design as part of the no child left behind education bill

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics listed rick santorum as one of its "most corrupt politicians"

santorum has said that global warming is "junk science"

Santorum said that the distinction between private religious conviction and public responsibility, espoused by President John F. Kennedy, had caused "great harm in America."
so much for separation of church and state

would this pretentious boy scout [apologies for the denigrating expression, scouts], someone with a law degree who was a member of the bar, would violate the rules if to do so was in his financial interest:
When news reports showed Sen. Santorum was renting his Penn Hills home, Santorum withdrew his five children from the cyber education program under criticism and calls for him to repay the tuition already paid for by the Penn Hills School District.[143] Although Santorum said he would make other arrangements for his children's education, he insisted that he did not owe the school board any back tuition. The children were then home-schooled.
yep, he's a crook [see wiki cite]

and yes, i realize colmes has been criticized for bringing this craziness up, but it's f'n crazy and needs to be exposed to show how out of sync santorum is:
... the couple brought the deceased infant home from the hospital and presented the dead child to their living children as "your brother Gabriel" and slept with the body overnight before returning it to the hospital.
maybe some of y'all actually do this (like barbara bush bringing home the dead fetus in a jar so the shrub could see it), but i don't see it happening around the average everyday citizens i know

republican party: PLEASE nominate this fellow as your 2012 standard bearer
 
The reason the Tea Party was successful in 2010 was in part because it was a congressional election. That allowed Tea Party candidates in areas that aren't heavily socially conservative to run primarily on just Tea Party ideals and pull out a win while allowing other Tea Partiers to mix the Tea Party message with their Social Conservative views in places where the religious right was strong. Being a movement focused on only a Portion of the Republican parties platform and that can attract a wide range of Consevatives...libertarians, paleoconservatives, evangelical conservatives, etc...the ability for candidates to be tailored to a specific audience is helpful.

That's not the case on a national election unfortunately. A Tea Partier neutral on social issues could be as likely to go Ron Paul or Huntsman as he may be Santorum or Bachmann. A Tea Partier who is also a social conservaitve however would likely not touch Huntsman due to his view on civil unions despite his record on ACTUAL tea party issues being very good. A Tea Partier who is also rather hawkish likely wouldn't touch Ron Paul. A Tea Partier who actually is moderate on social issues or simply doesn't want wedge issues focused on may not want to touch Bachmann and Santorum. The reason for this is that, in a nation wide Republican contest, there are likely to be MANY candidates that fit the Fiscal bill to an acceptable level...which means people then look at secondary things to determine their choice.

So to find a candidate the Tea Party, as a whole, would actually significantly support during the primary would be extremely difficult because there’s too many secondary factors that would lead them to one candidate or another. That’s why it’s successful on a localized level where it can be targeted to constituency, but the Tea Party will have little STRONG effect during the primary season and will have a weakened effect in the general election comparative to its effect on 2010.

The problem with this assessment is that the "Tea Party" won't be on the ballot come general election time. The Tea Party is merely a movement within a party (much like the Green Party is merely a wing of the Democratic party). It's vastly overstated as a single entity of voters because it's actually a very eclectic crowd of folks with varying views. It's not like there's a secret handshake.

Union workers are quite a bit different than the environmental folks in Oregonor the inner-city folks in Philly. Yet they are in the same party.

The key is to keep from fielding a candidate that could slice off a critical 3 percent portion of votes, a la Ross Perot or Ralph Nader. The GOP will win so long as Ron Paul stays on the sideline come November.
 
Little bit green regarding politics and experience, with no real business experience or executive experience in government. Definitely has some appeal though. I think if he focused on Tea Party type issues, held his social beliefs but didn't make them the main or equal focus of the campaign (ala Santorum), and ran a good campaign he could be successful. But you'd still have some fragmentation from some social tea partiers who would want full on pushing of social issues and from some more moderate ones who aren't happy with him even pushing said social views at all.
His greeness (is that a word) is what would make him great. What are liberals going to say about him? For that matter, what are GOPers going to say? Besides the whole thing about his parents which I think is spin more than anything. He has just enough time in the Senate and has been through an election campaign as well so he has a little experience in terms of the nature of politics on Capital Hill. Thats the beauty of it. He knows a little about politics on that level, but not enough that he can't claim to be an outsider.
 
The problem with this assessment is that the "Tea Party" won't be on the ballot come general election time. The Tea Party is merely a movement within a party (much like the Green Party is merely a wing of the Democratic party). It's vastly overstated as a single entity of voters because it's actually a very eclectic crowd of folks with varying views. It's not like there's a secret handshake.

Union workers are quite a bit different than the environmental folks in Oregonor the inner-city folks in Philly. Yet they are in the same party.

The key is to keep from fielding a candidate that could slice off a critical 3 percent portion of votes, a la Ross Perot or Ralph Nader. The GOP will win so long as Ron Paul stays on the sideline come November.
Agreed, Paul can't Perot us. It would give victory to Obama. The Tea Party is a little more organized than you think as well bro.
 
Who is he?..... If everything I've been reading is true, probably the ONLY Republican candidate who could get me to vote for a Republican for POTUS in November.
 
Who is he?..... If everything I've been reading is true, probably the ONLY Republican candidate who could get me to vote for a Republican for POTUS in November.

Good enough reason not to vote for him.
 
Rick Santorum is a non Mormon who lost the Iowa caucus by a mere 8 votes. lol. He and Newt Gingrich promise to give Willard "Mitt" Romney fits in the south and across the Bible Belt.


He would also be a sure win for Obama.
 
The problem with this assessment is that the "Tea Party" won't be on the ballot come general election time.

Where did I suggest otherwise? My statement was in regards to support from the movement for particular candidates first during the Primary season and later during the regular election.

Due to the disparate differences in views regarding non-tea party issues held amongst members of the movement there is going to be two effects. First, during the primaries, there's not going to be a singular candidate able to galvinize a strong majority of Tea Party support across the entire nation (unless it gets down to like 2 candidates). Second, during the general, there's a chance that the full support of the movement won't come out for a candidate due to disagreements with their stance on some issues or on campaign style could cause members of the movement to vote 3rd party or stay home.

The Tea Party MOVEMENT, IE the movements ideology, is a rather singular entity of fiscal and governmental conservatism. The one common denominator amongst all Tea Partiers is generally some sort of firm to strong support on those things. The issue of course comes in that fiscal and governmental issues don't make up the whole of what our Government does, and as such its unlikely that Tea Partiers will have ONLY views that are part of the movement. Instead, as you said, they will have a wide range of secondary (or perhaps primary, with the tea party views being secondary) views that make up their political identity.

That’s actually my point. People expecting the “perfect Tea Party candidate” or expecting the Tea Party to have a similar effect on the presidential election as the movement has in 2010 are going to be disappointed. Presidential elections reduced the localized focus of fitting a candidate to constituents and require a person to perhaps reach for broader appeal at the sake of losing appeal from other groups. As such, I think the Tea Party movement is going to have a significantly smaller impact on the Presidential election this year then some may’ve expected after 2010 as the other positions a candidate may or may not take is likely not to sit well with a fair portion of tea partiers causing voter apathy or defection.
The problem with this assessment is that the "Tea Party" won't be on the ballot come general election time.

Where did I suggest otherwise? My statement was in regards to support from the movement for particular candidates first during the Primary season and later during the regular election.

Due to the disparate differences in views regarding non-tea party issues held amongst members of the movement there is going to be two effects. First, during the primaries, there's not going to be a singular candidate able to galvinize a strong majority of Tea Party support across the entire nation (unless it gets down to like 2 candidates). Second, during the general, there's a chance that the full support of the movement won't come out for a candidate due to disagreements with their stance on some issues or on campaign style could cause members of the movement to vote 3rd party or stay home.

The Tea Party MOVEMENT, IE the movements ideology, is a rather singular entity of fiscal and governmental conservatism. The one common denominator amongst all Tea Partiers is generally some sort of firm to strong support on those things. The issue of course comes in that fiscal and governmental issues don't make up the whole of what our Government does, and as such its unlikely that Tea Partiers will have ONLY views that are part of the movement. Instead, as you said, they will have a wide range of secondary (or perhaps primary, with the tea party views being secondary) views that make up their political identity.

The Tea Party is merely a movement within a party (much like the Green Party is merely a wing of the Democratic party). It's vastly overstated as a single entity of voters because it's actually a very eclectic crowd of folks with varying views. It's not like there's a secret handshake.

Union workers are quite a bit different than the environmental folks in Oregonor the inner-city folks in Philly. Yet they are in the same party.

The key is to keep from fielding a candidate that could slice off a critical 3 percent portion of votes, a la Ross Perot or Ralph Nader. The GOP will win so long as Ron Paul stays on the sideline come November.[/QUOTE]
 
Good enough reason not to vote for him.

Sorry, but the Obama results are bad enough so that I will vote for anyone other than Obama. This country cannot economically survive another 4 years of Obama
 
His greeness (is that a word) is what would make him great. What are liberals going to say about him? For that matter, what are GOPers going to say? Besides the whole thing about his parents which I think is spin more than anything. He has just enough time in the Senate and has been through an election campaign as well so he has a little experience in terms of the nature of politics on Capital Hill. Thats the beauty of it. He knows a little about politics on that level, but not enough that he can't claim to be an outsider.

His path and experience would be relatively similar to that of Barack Obama's, who Republicans blasted for just that very reason. I think his "outsider" status would likely play more poorly then positively for him and would also take away a possible Republican tactic of suggesting Obama's lack of experience has left him over his head and learning on the job, poorly, and that's why he needs to go.
 
Sorry, but the Obama results are bad enough so that I will vote for anyone other than Obama. This country cannot economically survive another 4 years of Obama

Hmmm I seem to remember with our last President GDP going to - 8.9%
 
His greeness (is that a word) is what would make him great. What are liberals going to say about him? For that matter, what are GOPers going to say? Besides the whole thing about his parents which I think is spin more than anything. He has just enough time in the Senate and has been through an election campaign as well so he has a little experience in terms of the nature of politics on Capital Hill. Thats the beauty of it. He knows a little about politics on that level, but not enough that he can't claim to be an outsider.

Is that what you said about Obama in '08?
 
Hmmm I seem to remember with our last President GDP going to - 8.9%

I remember it as well just like I remember who controlled the budget and legislative process. I know we don't elect a King. You do understand that Bush won't be on the ballot in 2012 and since you wouldn't vote for Bush because of those results, why would you vote for Obama with the results he has generated?
 
It usually refers to someone who insists on inserting his or her religious beliefs into legislation, which is generally accompanied by a large dose of holier-than-thou judgemntalism.

Touchy about religion aren't we.
 
I remember it as well just like I remember who controlled the budget and legislative process. I know we don't elect a King. You do understand that Bush won't be on the ballot in 2012 and since you wouldn't vote for Bush because of those results, why would you vote for Obama with the results he has generated?

Several reasons I would vote for Obama in 2012.

One being the GOP has nothing to offer. And it will be a repeat of Bush 41's "read my lips" comment from years ago.

Two a 11 point % change towards the positive in GDP is no small achievement.
 
Sorry, but the Obama results are bad enough so that I will vote for anyone other than Obama. This country cannot economically survive another 4 years of Obama

Not concerned about. But reasonable folks won't vote for Santorum. I'm quite sure of that.
 
Back
Top Bottom