http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/ro ... torum.htmlAs happens every time a non-Romney Republican surges into the national lead, liberals are giddy over the possibility that the opposing party is once again contemplating electoral suicide. But is it really? Unlike previous Romney opponents of the past, Santorum is not a pure clown, and it’s far from clear that he’d have a harder time beating Obama.
Santorum has attracted a terrible reputation among the overclass. He is defined by his crude, bigoted social conservatism, which colors the broader perception of him as an extremist. This in turn leeches out into a sense, often reflected in news coverage, which likewise reflects the social biases of the overclass, that Santorum is a fringe candidate who would repel swing voters.
In fact, there are, very roughly speaking, two kinds of swing voters. One kind is economically conservative, socially liberal swing voters. This is the kind of voter you usually read about, because it’s the kind most familiar to political reporters – affluent and college educated. But there’s a second kind of voter at least as numerous – economically populist and socially conservative. Think of disaffected blue-collar workers, downscale white men who love guns, hate welfare, oppose free trade, and want higher taxes on the rich and corporations. Romney appeals to the former, but Santorum more to the latter.
As hard a time as Santorum would have closing the sale among certain moderate quarters, I don’t think it’s sunk in quite how poisoned Romney’s image has become among downscale voters. Coverage of Romney’s wealth, corporate history, and partially released tax situation coincided with, and almost certainly caused, a collapse in his support with white voters with income under $50,000. Republicans have enjoyed great success attracting downscale whites in recent years, but that success has hinged in part on things like not nominating standard-bearers who epitomize everything blue-collar whites distrust about their party.
Indeed, at the moment Romney and Santorum both fare about equally well against Obama. (Not very well at all, I’m afraid.) Now, we have to take the comparison with a grain of salt, as Obama has spent months tearing down Romney while leaving Santorum relatively untouched.
Some conservatives are pushing the notion that Santorum is more electable than Romney because he advocates a purer and more naturally articulated form of right-wing ideology. That seems like obvious hokum – can there be any doubt that conservative Republicans will crawl to the polls to defeat President Obama if their nominee is Romney or anybody else? They attract different kinds of swing voters, and the question is who can attract more of them. If I were a Republican, I’d still bet on Romney. But unlike previous matchups — Romney versus Rick Perry, the dumber, crazier George W. Bush, Romney versus Newt Gingrich, the loathsome wildly adulterous bore — the relative electability of Romney versus Santorum is hardly obvious.
Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
Came across this piece by Jonathan Chait , (not generally known as a great supporter of Republicans) that I thought made a lot of interesting points:
Re: Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
Rick has many assets that can be exploited in a general election campaign. He is good looking, articulate, comes from humble beginnings, knows his stuff, and his voting record in the House and Senate was actually rather moderate.
For some reason, however, his "recent" political career has been plagued by attackers in the media and the Democrat party who have been able to characterize selected statements and actions as those of an extremist, and he hasn't been able to defend himself effectively.
He once told an audience of college students in PA that they should not expect their Social Security benefits when they retire to be as generous as those that are currently being provided to their grandparents. His opponents were able to successfully characterize this as Santorum threatening Social Security for current retirees. This one episode cost him at least 10 points, and almost lost him an election.
When he was defeated for his third term in the Senate, the main attack on him was that he was living in Virginia, yet his children were enrolled in a Pennsylvania Cyber-school, at significant cost to the local PA school district. Think about it. He owned a home in the PA school district, paid PA income and sales taxes, paid local school taxes, was licensed and registered to vote in PA, but lived primarily in Virginia with his wife and many young children. Just like EVERY OTHER SENATOR, and this total non-story brought about his electoral downfall.
He pointed out that the "right of privacy" that the Supreme Court invented in Griswold did not exist, and he was characterized as wanting to make birth control unavailable for everyone. Total nonsense. He pointed out that if homosexual sodomy was protected by the "right of privacy," then other kinds of legally-prohibited activities (incest, polygamy, bestiality) could also be protected under the Constitution. He was excoriated for "gay love" with bestiality. Total bullshit.
Most recently, he has been confronted with a section of his Book that criticizes the "Women's Liberation" movement for promoting the false idea that a woman can only be fulfilled in a career that is outside the home. It is a perfectly legitimate point and arguably true (and his "defense" was incredibly inept). And yet he is being flogged with it daily. Our Right Wing paper here in Pittsburgh (the Tribune Review) printed an Op-Ed piece yesterday in which the point was characterized as "telling women how they ought to live." Unbelievable.
Bottom line: the MSM and the extreme Left have a hard-on for Santorum that is greater even than the one they have for Newt. It is probably because he is Catholic, and actually lives his faith, rather than giving it lip-service as so many other politicians do.
In spite of his good qualities, it is difficult to imagine any politician overcoming this kind of blind, irrational, unanimous hate on the part of what Ann Coulter has termed, "The Non-Fox Media."
He is not my personal fave, but it pisses me off how he is treated in the Media.
For some reason, however, his "recent" political career has been plagued by attackers in the media and the Democrat party who have been able to characterize selected statements and actions as those of an extremist, and he hasn't been able to defend himself effectively.
He once told an audience of college students in PA that they should not expect their Social Security benefits when they retire to be as generous as those that are currently being provided to their grandparents. His opponents were able to successfully characterize this as Santorum threatening Social Security for current retirees. This one episode cost him at least 10 points, and almost lost him an election.
When he was defeated for his third term in the Senate, the main attack on him was that he was living in Virginia, yet his children were enrolled in a Pennsylvania Cyber-school, at significant cost to the local PA school district. Think about it. He owned a home in the PA school district, paid PA income and sales taxes, paid local school taxes, was licensed and registered to vote in PA, but lived primarily in Virginia with his wife and many young children. Just like EVERY OTHER SENATOR, and this total non-story brought about his electoral downfall.
He pointed out that the "right of privacy" that the Supreme Court invented in Griswold did not exist, and he was characterized as wanting to make birth control unavailable for everyone. Total nonsense. He pointed out that if homosexual sodomy was protected by the "right of privacy," then other kinds of legally-prohibited activities (incest, polygamy, bestiality) could also be protected under the Constitution. He was excoriated for "gay love" with bestiality. Total bullshit.
Most recently, he has been confronted with a section of his Book that criticizes the "Women's Liberation" movement for promoting the false idea that a woman can only be fulfilled in a career that is outside the home. It is a perfectly legitimate point and arguably true (and his "defense" was incredibly inept). And yet he is being flogged with it daily. Our Right Wing paper here in Pittsburgh (the Tribune Review) printed an Op-Ed piece yesterday in which the point was characterized as "telling women how they ought to live." Unbelievable.
Bottom line: the MSM and the extreme Left have a hard-on for Santorum that is greater even than the one they have for Newt. It is probably because he is Catholic, and actually lives his faith, rather than giving it lip-service as so many other politicians do.
In spite of his good qualities, it is difficult to imagine any politician overcoming this kind of blind, irrational, unanimous hate on the part of what Ann Coulter has termed, "The Non-Fox Media."
He is not my personal fave, but it pisses me off how he is treated in the Media.
Re: Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
Dave, if his performance on Meet The Press last Sunday is any indication, Rick is starting to get much better at dealing with these "social issues" attack. To give just one example, when Gregory came at him on this:
Gregory then made himself look silly by following up with a strange question about whether or not Santorum would only hire women without young children to work in his administration, which made it look like he hadn't heard the answer Santorum had given to his previous question. Rick also responded to that effectively. (And also with easy going good humor)
Santorum essentially took control of that interview and rolled Gregory every time he attempted to get him to go off into some social issues polemic. (And he did it without coming across as defensive or combative) I don't think Gregory was ready for the way Santorum was prepared, and it totally threw him off his game.
If Santorum can continue to operate at that level, he will be very formidable.
He handled it superbly; he pointed out about his wife being both an attorney and a nurse, and made very clear he wasn't condemning women who made the choice to have children and continue to work, just that he believed that both choices should be respected.Most recently, he has been confronted with a section of his Book that criticizes the "Women's Liberation" movement for promoting the false idea that a woman can only be fulfilled in a career that is outside the home.
Gregory then made himself look silly by following up with a strange question about whether or not Santorum would only hire women without young children to work in his administration, which made it look like he hadn't heard the answer Santorum had given to his previous question. Rick also responded to that effectively. (And also with easy going good humor)
Santorum essentially took control of that interview and rolled Gregory every time he attempted to get him to go off into some social issues polemic. (And he did it without coming across as defensive or combative) I don't think Gregory was ready for the way Santorum was prepared, and it totally threw him off his game.
If Santorum can continue to operate at that level, he will be very formidable.
Re: Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
The big difference between running for president and the Senate is that he will get his chances to show he is a reasonable person (voters pay attention to presidential races far more than bids for the Senate). One of the better examples of a characterized politician quickly turning perceptions around was Reagan. He was portrayed as a shallow-thinking, loose cannon in the MSM, but when the average voter saw him in the debates and in his speeches, they realized he was a person they could trust (and like) and they instantly understood the bias in the previous media coverage.* If Santorum has the skills, he will get his chance to flip the previous "extremism" label, at least for the moderate voters who will decide this election.
*This works pretty much the same when the RWM (right wing media) demonizes someone like Obama or Clinton. At some point, the moderates in the viewership see the actual person and realize they've been hearing true believer group think. Life tends to be a lot more interesting than painting someone as all good or all bad.
*This works pretty much the same when the RWM (right wing media) demonizes someone like Obama or Clinton. At some point, the moderates in the viewership see the actual person and realize they've been hearing true believer group think. Life tends to be a lot more interesting than painting someone as all good or all bad.
Re: Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
The RCP (Real Clear Politics) average for the past six polls taken since Santorum's Trifecta Tuesday has him up over Romney by about six points nationally...
In Michigan, (a state Romney absolutely can not afford to lose, given his family ties...the primary is Feb. 28th) the RCP post Trifecta Tuesday poll average has Santorum up by over 8 per cent....
Some observations....
The Romney attack machine is certain (it's already started ) to unleash an avalanche of attack ads on Santorum, and they certainly have enough time to take their toll, as they did on Gingrich in Iowa and Florida.
However, as I've pointed out, The Great Eye Of Mittdor now bearing down on Santorum has a problem; Rick just doesn't present the target rich environment that Leroy did...
I saw one of Romney's ads on Morning Joe. He goes after Santorum for voting to raise the debt ceiling, (a phony issue) voting for earmarks, and voting to allow convicted felons to get their right to vote back, (another phony issue that Santorum bitch slapped Romney with in one of the recent debates when Mitt brought it up)
Pretty slim pickin's as far as lines of attack go, especially when compared to the all-day-buffet of issues that Gingrich provided...
In anticipation of the Romney onslaught, the Santorum people have what is probably the cleverest commericail of this campaign season running:
The brilliance of that ad, is that unlike the way Gingrich responded to Romney's attacks with whining and complaining, that spot uses humor and ridicule to diffuse the significance of the attack ads...
And ridicule is one of the most difficult things for a politician to overcome...
In Michigan, (a state Romney absolutely can not afford to lose, given his family ties...the primary is Feb. 28th) the RCP post Trifecta Tuesday poll average has Santorum up by over 8 per cent....
Some observations....
The Romney attack machine is certain (it's already started ) to unleash an avalanche of attack ads on Santorum, and they certainly have enough time to take their toll, as they did on Gingrich in Iowa and Florida.
However, as I've pointed out, The Great Eye Of Mittdor now bearing down on Santorum has a problem; Rick just doesn't present the target rich environment that Leroy did...
I saw one of Romney's ads on Morning Joe. He goes after Santorum for voting to raise the debt ceiling, (a phony issue) voting for earmarks, and voting to allow convicted felons to get their right to vote back, (another phony issue that Santorum bitch slapped Romney with in one of the recent debates when Mitt brought it up)
Pretty slim pickin's as far as lines of attack go, especially when compared to the all-day-buffet of issues that Gingrich provided...
In anticipation of the Romney onslaught, the Santorum people have what is probably the cleverest commericail of this campaign season running:
The brilliance of that ad, is that unlike the way Gingrich responded to Romney's attacks with whining and complaining, that spot uses humor and ridicule to diffuse the significance of the attack ads...
And ridicule is one of the most difficult things for a politician to overcome...
Re: Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
What do you expect? the Moron Came out against the UAW. the Same UAW that in addition to giving huge give backs also put alot of Money into keeping Chrysler afloat (I'm not sure if they took on a chunk of GM as well)
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
IMO Snyder should have withheld an endorsement.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
No question about it, Romney's got big systemic problems in Michigan...
Starting with the fact that the GOP electorate in Michigan (like the rest of the electorate in the state) tilts strongly towards blue collar working class types, who are much more likely to find things to identify with in Rick Santorum than they are in Richie Rich....
Starting with the fact that the GOP electorate in Michigan (like the rest of the electorate in the state) tilts strongly towards blue collar working class types, who are much more likely to find things to identify with in Rick Santorum than they are in Richie Rich....
Re: Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
It's not looking good for the guy who as major plank of his electability claim said that he could put Michigan in play.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
Obama's new burst of optimism
In Los Angeles, US President Barack Obama has told a roomful of supporters with $35,800 to spare for dinner - among them George Clooney - that they must help people "channel optimism".
The president himself has reasons to feel a little more chipper at the moment. There have been a slew of opinion polls full of good news for his chances of re-election.
A CNN poll has his approval rating back at 50% for the first time in eight months, as does one from ABC and the Washington Post.
Rasmussen puts him on 49%, but the 34% who believe the US is heading in the right direction is up 10 points on last month.
It also suggests he would beat either Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum (by 47-43 and 47-41 respectively).
Voter incentive
There are yet more reasons for the president to be cheerful. No, not the return of Obama girl. It's the news from the Republican race.
A series of polls indicate Mr Santorum is beating Mr Romney by 12% in a national poll and by an average of 8% in Michigan, where there is a primary at the end of this month.
If Mr Romney can't win the state where he was born and where his father was a very popular governor, it would be a body blow. Many would seriously start to question whether he can win the nomination.
Why is that good news for President Obama? For a start, the longer the Republicans are undecided, the more diluted their message.
Most reporting will concentrate on the internal spats and the ups and downs of state-by-state elections, rather than policy differences with the president.
More importantly, Mr Santorum should be easier to beat than Mr Romney.
His social conservatism will do two things. First, he annoys the Democratic base in a way that Mr Romney doesn't.
If he is the candidate, Democrats will have a real incentive to campaign and vote.
Then, my hunch is that it will play badly with independent voters, particularly his opposition to contraception.
He may convince voters that he wouldn't campaign against it as president, but he would have to spend valuable time doing so.
European danger
But President Obama's real advantage at the moment is the data that shows the economy improving.
For a couple of years the recovery seemed to be stalled, there on paper but not on Main Street.
Then, just before last summer, things seemed to go backwards. Gloom spread and the president's ratings fell. Now the figures are much better, from unemployment to manufacturing.
But take a look at General Motors' record profits. They actually fell in the last quarter because of poor sales outside the US.
These good figures may not survive in a world that is not doing as well as America.
Capitalism in one country won't work for the USA. If the economic optimism doesn't last, President Obama's recovery will be short-lived as well.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17067307
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
My sister, a longtime Michigander, points out that the people in Michigan who do not derive their living from the Auto Industry are quite resentful of those who do. They are not only not in lockstep with those who shun politicians who opposed the bailout, they cheer them.
To believe that "Michigan" feels one way or another about the bailouts or politicians who opposed them is a misapprehension of the facts.
LATEST PHONY ATTACK ON RICK: Rick has said openly and often that, (1) he believes that artificial birth control is immoral (consistent with Catholic teaching), and (2) he has no intention of imposing this particular moral view on anyone else by force of law, either as President, or otherwise.
This is being portrayed as "Rick wants to outlaw contraceptives!" There is videotape being shown all over the place of Rick telling someone in an interview that birth control is "not acceptable." In context, he is articulating his personal, moral position, and not a legal, political stance. Nevertheless, it will be presented out of context to prove Rick's strident opposition to birth control (for everyone).
Bullshit.
Parenthetically, I have been told in the Confessional by my parish priest - obviously many years ago - that although the Church believes that artificial birth control is immoral, if it is used as a means of family planning (i.e., keeping kids a certain number of years apart), rather than as a means of NOT HAVING CHILDREN, then it is not a significant moral issue. Of course, this does not address the use of artificial birth control at the point when the couple says, "That's enough," and doesn't want to have any more children. I suppose that would be seriously sinful. These were not issues in my life, as infertility determined my family size.
To believe that "Michigan" feels one way or another about the bailouts or politicians who opposed them is a misapprehension of the facts.
LATEST PHONY ATTACK ON RICK: Rick has said openly and often that, (1) he believes that artificial birth control is immoral (consistent with Catholic teaching), and (2) he has no intention of imposing this particular moral view on anyone else by force of law, either as President, or otherwise.
This is being portrayed as "Rick wants to outlaw contraceptives!" There is videotape being shown all over the place of Rick telling someone in an interview that birth control is "not acceptable." In context, he is articulating his personal, moral position, and not a legal, political stance. Nevertheless, it will be presented out of context to prove Rick's strident opposition to birth control (for everyone).
Bullshit.
Parenthetically, I have been told in the Confessional by my parish priest - obviously many years ago - that although the Church believes that artificial birth control is immoral, if it is used as a means of family planning (i.e., keeping kids a certain number of years apart), rather than as a means of NOT HAVING CHILDREN, then it is not a significant moral issue. Of course, this does not address the use of artificial birth control at the point when the couple says, "That's enough," and doesn't want to have any more children. I suppose that would be seriously sinful. These were not issues in my life, as infertility determined my family size.
Re: Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
Before anyone responds to that, (and before Dave follows up on it), I'd like to make a request....Parenthetically, I have been told in the Confessional by my parish priest - obviously many years ago - that although the Church believes that artificial birth control is immoral, if it is used as a means of family planning (i.e., keeping kids a certain number of years apart), rather than as a means of NOT HAVING CHILDREN, then it is not a significant moral issue. Of course, this does not address the use of artificial birth control at the point when the couple says, "That's enough," and doesn't want to have any more children. I suppose that would be seriously sinful. These were not issues in my life, as infertility determined my family size.
Is it possible to have one thread...
Just one...
Where we can focus on the dynamics of the unfolding Presidential race, (which seems like a pretty interesting topic to me, given the importance of it, and the real-time ongoing shifts and changes) that doesn't wander off into a (repetitive) discussion focused on the differing religious and/or moral views of the members here?
Is this possible?
This is my third attempt to create such a thread...( I gave up on "Santorum Surge" and "Then There Were Four" )
Maybe it's not possible...
Maybe every time I want to make a point or observation about the direction or dynamics of the race, I'll just have to start a new thread....
And then hope I get at least a few responses from folks interested in talking about it the current state of the race before we start talking again about how everybody here feels about the Catholic Church, gay marriage, magical underwear, or posthumous baptisms....
I'm not normally a Thread Nazi...
I realize that in a lot of cases a thread is started about a topic that has naturally limiting points of view to be expressed, and it drifts off into something else...(If I start a thread about court case or a football game, you won't find me whining when we wind up discussing something entirely different)
But this topic; the unfolding US Presidential race... is one that really has legs, since on a nearly daily basis new factors come into the mix...and it shouldn't run out of new points to make, or fresh perspectives to be expressed, any time soon...
Last edited by Lord Jim on Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
Separation of church and state eh?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
It is obviously perfectly fair game in any discussion about this race, to talk about the views the candidates express on religion, the ways these views are portrayed or mis-portrayed in the press, and the way one believes these views will impact the race...
What I'm bitching about, is the way that the raising of those legitimate and relevant points seem to keep degenerating into yet another discussion about how we personally differ on those topics, rather than how they relate to the election, or the affect they have on the prospects of the candidates....
Take the quote of Dave's that I started this rant with....
What do you think the more likely response will be ?
Something related to the candidates, their views, and the election?
Or something related to Dave's views about contraception?
What I'm bitching about, is the way that the raising of those legitimate and relevant points seem to keep degenerating into yet another discussion about how we personally differ on those topics, rather than how they relate to the election, or the affect they have on the prospects of the candidates....
Take the quote of Dave's that I started this rant with....
What do you think the more likely response will be ?
Something related to the candidates, their views, and the election?
Or something related to Dave's views about contraception?
Re: Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
Santorum is so stupid he wants to get rid of the National Weather Service and PRIVATIZE it! What a maroooooon. (if being for the state's right to outlaw contraception was not enough)
yrs,
rubato
yrs,
rubato
Re: Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
If he loses in the Michigan primary, it will undermine his electability argument period. And since the vast majority of the support for his candidacy is based on that single argument, his campaign could go into free fall if that perception evaporates....It's not looking good for the guy who as major plank of his electability claim said that he could put Michigan in play.
If Romney isn't the most electable candidate, what other reason is there to support him for the nomination?
I've been a Romney supporter since the summer, and I'm hard put to think of one....
Given the way Santorum has been handling himself on the issues that he could be attacked on in a general election, versus the way Romney has been doing the same with his vulnerability issues, at this point I'm open to being persuaded that Santorum could in fact be the more electable candidate.
Of course if the economy is perceived by the independent swing voters who will decide this election as getting out of the weeds, then as I said before, it's not going to matter much who we nominate; Obama will be the odds on favorite, as any incumbent President would be under those circumstances...
Re: Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
Per that Rasmussen fellow (the pollster):
Quote...What is new are the numbers from a head-to-head matchup with no other candidates in the race. Santorum leads Romney 55 percent to 34 percent. None of the earlier Romney alternatives could manage better than a toss-up in such a contest.
Those numbers show that Santorum picks up 16 points when other candidates drop out. Romney adds just 7 to his column. Santorum makes huge gains among conservative voters when others drop out of the race. Among non-conservatives, Santorum and Romney gain roughly equal amounts. For the first time, the numbers show that if one of Romney's challengers drops out, the other challenger will overwhelmingly benefit. Gingrich supporters, by a three-to-one margin, would vote for Santorum over Romney if that was the final choice.
Both Romney and Santorum are well-liked by Republican Primary voters, but Santorum has a slight advantage on this pointm as well. Seventy-five percent offer a favorable opinion of Santorum, while 66 percent say the same of Romney.
There is a huge passion gap favoring Santorum, though. Forty percent of Republican primary voters have a very favorable opinion of Santorum. Just 18 percent are that enthusiastic about Romney. End quote.
Sorry if I diverted this thread, Jimmy, but it seems to me that the entire case against Santorum focuses on his religious views, and the attempt by the Media to convince potential voters that Santorum wants to superimpose his personal morals and the views of the Catholic Church on the U.S. Government.
I'll stop.
Quote...What is new are the numbers from a head-to-head matchup with no other candidates in the race. Santorum leads Romney 55 percent to 34 percent. None of the earlier Romney alternatives could manage better than a toss-up in such a contest.
Those numbers show that Santorum picks up 16 points when other candidates drop out. Romney adds just 7 to his column. Santorum makes huge gains among conservative voters when others drop out of the race. Among non-conservatives, Santorum and Romney gain roughly equal amounts. For the first time, the numbers show that if one of Romney's challengers drops out, the other challenger will overwhelmingly benefit. Gingrich supporters, by a three-to-one margin, would vote for Santorum over Romney if that was the final choice.
Both Romney and Santorum are well-liked by Republican Primary voters, but Santorum has a slight advantage on this pointm as well. Seventy-five percent offer a favorable opinion of Santorum, while 66 percent say the same of Romney.
There is a huge passion gap favoring Santorum, though. Forty percent of Republican primary voters have a very favorable opinion of Santorum. Just 18 percent are that enthusiastic about Romney. End quote.
Sorry if I diverted this thread, Jimmy, but it seems to me that the entire case against Santorum focuses on his religious views, and the attempt by the Media to convince potential voters that Santorum wants to superimpose his personal morals and the views of the Catholic Church on the U.S. Government.
I'll stop.
Re: Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
Oh dear, I can hear it now, in every country from Albania to Zaire; "Hey guys, do you know what President "Santorum" is slang for?"
Exunt omes in gales of Laughter....
Exunt omes in gales of Laughter....
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Romney Vs. Santorum Vs. Obama
What's been going on today is a perfect case in point. Santorum's biggest Super Pac backer, Foster Friess (a fairly charming old guy, who's inexperienced at dealing with the press and seems recently to have fallen a little too much in love with the camera) yesterday repeated the old Ann Landers line about the best form of birth control being "an aspirin held tightly between the knees"...the attempt by the Media to convince potential voters that Santorum wants to superimpose his personal morals and the views of the Catholic Church on the U.S. Government.
Never mind that Santorum didn't say it, and that no one from his campaign said it. Never mind that it's nothing more than a weak joke no matter who said it...
The media, (and not just the DNC television auxiliary, MSNBC) has completely shown their asses by flying into an apoplectic frenzy over this this non event, attempting to treat it like some sort of huge controversy, (I believe they're getting quite terrified by the skillful way Santorum is maneuvering out of the "social issues" straight jacket they planned for him, and they are grasping at anything, no matter how silly or weak, to try and shove him back in it....this manufactured controversy is really a sign of just how desperate they are on this score)
But Rick has out-manuvered them once again. In addition to making themselves look silly and their motives transparent for all to see by trying to treat this as though the candidate himself had said it, they provided him with a free media platform this morning on every single morning news show to condemn the remark, distance himself from Friess, and to explain in a calm good natured way about how he voted for funding for contraception, and as President would do nothing to attempt to interfere with it.
The average person watching this on the news this morning must have been scratching their head and wondering, "what the hell is all the fuss about?"
As Long Run pointed out, if Santorum is the nominee, he'll have the opportunity to be judged on how he comes across personally to the American people, not on the caricature that Team Obama and their allies in the liberal media try to construct for him. All the indications are that he'll come out quite well if it comes to that, and I believe that has some in the media scared shitless...
The last thing they want to see is another Conservative pull a Reagan-like end-around on the role of scary ogre that they have assigned to them.