In the National Spotlight, Santorum Doesn’t Shy Away from Social Issues


Rick Santorum’s victories on Feb. 7 kicked off a month-long trial period, which will be capped by Super Tuesday on March 6, to convince Republican voters that he is not only the best conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, but also a viable general-election candidate. Midway through Santorum’s moment, it’s tough to tell if he’s thriving or blowing it.

Ignore for a moment the polls, which have been a lagging indicator throughout the volatile nominating fight. To position himself as a credible threat to Barack Obama, Santorum had use the spotlight afforded by his three-state sweep on two weeks ago to demonstrate the breadth of his appeal. “He’s been so visible on social issues that sometimes it overshadows the fiscal conservative record that he has,” Santorum strategist John Brabender told me last week. Santorum likes to describe himself as a “full-spectrum conservative,” and aides suggested now was the time for Santorum to showcase his fluency on issues beyond gay marriage and abortion. He would spend time talking about his plan to spark the Rust Belt’s industrial engines by eliminating taxes on manufacturing; his hawkish foreign policy, an area where Romney has little experience; and the perils of nominating a governor who backed TARP and crafted the antecedent to Obama’s health-care overhaul.

Most importantly, he would stack his carefully cultivated everyman persona against Romney’s executive mien. “We need someone who understands, who comes from the coal fields, who comes from the steel mills, who understands what average working people in America need to be able to provide for themselves and their families,” Santorum said Monday in eastern Ohio. Never mind that Santorum is a trained lawyer who spent 16 years in Congress before become a high-flying consultant, and has never worked a day in either blue-collar idyll. The truth of the statement was less important than the empathy it was meant to convey.




Post Continues on swampland.time.com





Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in 2012 Election, Culture, Ethics, Politics
59 comments on “In the National Spotlight, Santorum Doesn’t Shy Away from Social Issues
  1. Santorum had indicated he was going to stay away from social issues in Michigan.

    But now he's falling into the Democrat's trap and taking the bate on the abortion topic.

    And so: he's blowing it. Mitt Romney is breathing a sigh of relief!

    • Jonathan Gartner says:

      That would say the people in Michigan do not consider that all things come from God and the morals and ethics take a back seat to politics. Wrong and I dont think Romney Obama Lite will win here. We need a difference between the two parties and Romney certainly is not it.

      • myrtlelinder says:

        I think you are right. People all over the country think that all things good '"o not come from GOD." If and when we get rid that irrational idea, we cannot go forward.

    • MartinRidens says:

      Rick Santorum is going to fall for that trap every time. I give him credit for his strong beliefs and I agree with most of them but his big government mindset will have him proclaiming those beliefs and proposing the force of government to implement them everytime. The problem isn't his beliefs, it's his big government mindset.

    • Jason says:

      Rick Santorum is a fake conservative anyway.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdTfvLFlz-c

      • Jason says:

        During his time in the Senate, Santorum voted to:

        *** Give millions of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood;

        *** Raise the debt ceiling five times;

        *** DOUBLE the size of the Department of Education through the budget-busting and unconstitutional "No Child Left Behind" bill;

        *** Start a brand new, unfunded entitlement, Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of entitlement spending since President Lyndon Johnson – creating $16 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities;

        *** Stand with senators like Barbara Boxer and Frank Lautenberg to pass massive new federal gun control schemes and regulations;

        *** Keep workers under Big Labor's thumb by voting against a National Right to Work law;

        *** Send $25 million in taxpayer dollars to North Korea;

        *** Pass Sarbanes-Oxley, which imposed dramatic new job-killing accounting regulations on businesses.

      • Jason,
        It depends on how whether you mean fiscal or social conservative. Social conservatives generally don't have a problem with Government meddling in folks' business.

    • John says:

      Look , the democrappy's AREN'T going to let anyone that they don't want in , to get away without being slammed in the face with social issues … PERIOD !!! So if we're wimpy enough NOT to tell them enough is enough then we're just going to have to live with the format !!!

  2. Tiredof Stupidity says:

    The Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot with In-Saintorum leading the way.

  3. Eddie B says:

    Santorum is not afraid of TRUTH and Goodness and I'm not afraid TO SUPPORT HIM!

    • MartinRidens says:

      “We need someone who understands, who comes from the coal fields, who comes from the steel mills, who understands what average working people in America need to be able to provide for themselves and their families,” Santorum said Monday in eastern Ohio. Never mind that Santorum is a trained lawyer who spent 16 years in Congress before become a high-flying consultant, and has never worked a day in either blue-collar idyll. The truth of the statement was less important than the empathy it was meant to convey.

      Pay special attention to that last sentence.

    • Apache6 says:

      I WILL be voting for SANTORUM in Michigan Primary on FEB.28th !!

  4. Jonathan Gartner says:

    The Republican Party in order to win must show the difference between them and Obama. Santorum and Newt both have shown the differences they have morals and ethics a true change and a hope against Obama.

    • patriotrenegade says:

      CFR knewtlizard is the worst choice, globalist, Mitt and Rick are clean. First clean ticket in 40 years. Attacking on social issues should be paramount. Expose all moral inadequacies.

      • Jonathan Gartner says:

        Then Mitt the willard would lose. He has supported both homosexual and abortion agendas. Newt has accomplished more for the United States in a postive manner than any of the other canidates if you wish to look at the record.

    • Dusty1 says:

      I'm with you. The starker the difference between the Republican candidate and Obama, the better. And Santorum is much starker than Romney, who I view as "Obama lite."

      • awakenow says:

        Dusty1 … the reality is that Santorum is trying to divert the discussion toward religion and social issues. He may win with the more far-right political base but his rhetoric is not a winner with the all important Independent, swing, voters.

        Why? It's about the economy and the debt. These are the two things that most Americans care about. No Republican can win in November by pushing religion and social issues. It's just that simple.

        • Jonathan Gartner says:

          Actually the independents did not vote Republican because there was no clear cut stand on morals and ethics until Palin. The nation wants a good and true direction and that comes with a base of morals and ethics and you build on from there. The Republicans lost last time because McCain was not different enough from Obama and Santorum is with his social conservativism. Of course since you are a Paulite and the only conservative thing about him is his fiscal polices you ignore like Paul the fundamentals of ethics and morals of the founding fathers and that is were you lose. And its just that simple.

  5. MartinRidens says:

    We need someone who does not believe government is the answer to our problems.

    • awakenow says:

      Martin … yes, this is the reason we are in such trouble. Yet, the discussion continues to be only about how the next president will create jobs.

      My reaction to that is this. The federal government's job is not to create jobs. According to our Constitution, the power of the federal government was intended to be very limited to those few, less than twenty, enumerated powers … such as to coin and control the issuance of money, to provide for the common defense, etc.

      The problem is two-fold.

      We have a massive federal government that feeds on our tax dollars to continue to grow itself and its authority over us.
      We also have a form of governance that serves its masters in the corporate/banking/military industrial complex. Instead of allowing a TRUE free market economy, where businesses/banks fail or succeed solely on their own merits or lack thereof, what we really have in Washington is a "corporatocracy" … the heavy-handed control of the government by the elites, who create political policy that serves their interests.

      We have a federal government that allows the elites to privatize their profits but also to socialize their losses on the backs of the hard-working taxpayers..

      This is the definition of fascism.

  6. patriotrenegade says:

    Attacking bama is the way to go now. Always attack with "where's the birth cert?, are your parents BOTH American born?, and are you muslim"? Keep forcing him to answer, knock him off balance, take him off HIS game. Every candidate should be doing this now.

  7. Jason says:

    If you think Rick Santorum won Iowa, Minnesota, and Colorado, you’re wrong.

    Let me explain: Santorum did win the caucus votes in all those states. But because none of those states have bound delegates, that means the state’s delegates to the national convention could theoretically vote for someone besides Santorum for the nomination, someone like say, Ron Paul, whose campaign is aggressively working to control as many state delegates as possible.

    In Minnesota, where Paul nabbed 27 percent of the caucus vote, the Paul campaign estimates that 75 percent of the current delegates are Paul supporters. In Colorado, where Paul got 12 percent of the vote, 50 percent of the delegates are Paul supporters. Now delegates face elimination rounds, so it’s unclear if the Paul campaign will be successful or not in maintaining these percentages. But the campaign is hoping to pull it off.

    Continue reading here:
    http://r3voluti0n.com/2012/our-secret-is-out-ron-

    • Jonathan Gartner says:

      And if you think Paul will win anything you are wrong. Try using other figures than what Paul gives you. Paul does not have 75% here and 50% there other wise it would have shown up in national figures that has him at 7% do your own research and not rely upon Liberal Paul the porkers "facts"

      • awakenow says:

        Please provide us evidence of where the national figures are at 7%?

        • Jonathan Gartner says:

          Look up Gallup. Location in Princeton NJ, George Gallup was still in charge last time I looked one of three honest polls the other being Pew and Rassmussen.

    • easyme says:

      Jason lets all hope RP gets out soon, We are in some real bad times, We need a leader not an old Hippie,more drugs,sex and talking to the enemy will not cut it.

  8. Dolores Tamoria says:

    We are not voting for "States Rights" we are voting for our "Constitutional Rights". Right now I am only interested in WHAT and HOW these Candidates PLAN TO DO THE THINGS THEY TELL US THEY ARE GOING TO DO. Listen for these things in the debate tonight. Talk is cheap, Actions speak louder than Words. I want Plans of Action. No More and No Less!

  9. Dolores Tamoria says:

    Paul is brokering a deal with Romney. Wait and see.

  10. C.Davis says:

    Sorry, Dolores, If you will only carefully examine who finances our fine slate of candidates you will see that all three of Dr. Paul's opponents are financed by the big banksters, though at times through third party shells. These figures are all available online. In fact, Romney's contributors are nearly identical to Obama's.
    The fact is that the three amigos have a primary objective, and that is to keep Ron Paul out of the white house, and they will follow orders from their New World Order masters in whatever way it is nescessary to accomplish their objective.
    Dr. Paul would upset their apple cart by auditing the federal reserve, and when the public becomes aware at the level of which they have been robbed, they will demand that their charter not be renewed in 2013.
    Also, he would return the onus for waging war back on the shoulders of congress, where the constitution unambiguously placed it, so that the people's representatives would be responsible for their bellicosity.
    This would prevent the military-industrial complex arm of the debt slavery system from soaking the taxpayers for a lot of the swag they are accustomed to reaping from their herd(us) due to the string of loopholes presidents have illegally employed in waging wars since the early 50s.
    If your intention is to continue down the proverbial road paved with good intentions, then don't vote for Paul and you will be crying about your mistake when you're sitting in your FEMA camp waiting for your radiation sickness to bring an end to your suffering.
    This is no joke, and we've been given one long shot to extricate our world from the hell planned for it by the satanic forces running the show and that long shot is Ron Paul.

    • Dolores Tamoria says:

      I have no intention in casting my vote for Ron Paul, nor Romney, nor Santorum. I will support Newt Gingrich until the end.
      I will support whom ever ends up as the Candidate elect but until then Newt has my vote.

      • awakenow says:

        Dolores … Gingrich does not believe in the Constitution. In fact, he believes that the Constitution should be scrapped and totally rewritten to better reflect the 21st Century America.

        Back in the 70's, Gingrich wrote the forward to the book called "The Third Wave" by AlvinToffler. This book speaks about Toffler's view of "futuristic" America where our country accepts the decline of the family unit and the subservience of America to Globalism and one world governance. As Speaker of the House, Gingrich pushed this book and used his influence to promote this book to Congress and even the American people with it being on Gingrich's required reading list.

        Please watch this short C-span video of Gingrich interviewing his mentor, Alvin Toffler. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moFsABsJNL4&fe

    • Jonathan Gartner says:

      Ron Paul is a fruit cake from the nether regions of hell. His only conservative point is that of fiscal responsibiltiy. He would allow states to have legalized drugs. The drugs would be legal not free. And with that you would have theft, murder much higher than it already is. Lets not foreget the child abuse which is also linked with drug usage. Then we have his ignorant foreign policy which must have been thought up by donald duck while he was not busy voting for Obama. An example of this is blaming the US involvement in the middle east for 9/11. Surprise the muslims by their faith are commited to destroying us and our way of life have you not had enough of Obama to realize this?? Paul and his conspiracy theories have been around for thirty years along with his lunancy.

      • awakenow says:

        It is a fact that our government has been meddling in the affairs of the Middle East for decades. It is a fact that our deliberate and well documented take down of the last democratically elected leader of Iran, Mossadegh, and the installment of our and Britain's oil puppet, the Shah of Iran, opened the door to the theocratic rule of the radicals in control of the Iranian government.

        The Shah promised NOT to nationalize Iran's oil and as a reward, he was allowed to rule 1953 to 1979 until he was finally overthrown and forced to leave because he had murdered millions of his own citizenry. The Iran Hostage Crisis, was the idea of the religious cleric The Ayatollah Khomeini and carried out by a young Ahmadinejad, who would later become Iran's future president.
        http://www.thenation.com/article/blowback

        • Jonathan Gartner says:

          Now lets get some facts straight. During Mossadegh life he was related to the ruling Qajar dynasty. He was a honest person by all indications however, Iran's rulers were replaced by the Pahlavi at no time was Iran a democracy it was at best a parlimentry system. He tried with the communists (Tudeh) to nationalize the oil industry and that is what got him in real problems. Operation Ajax was put in play to stablize the region from more violence that was going to happen if action had not been taken by MI6 Woodhouse in charge. Mossadegh was not the last democratically elected person to serve and was never the head of the Iranian Government because it was a Monarchy. The Shah or King that we know actually was enacting reforms to bring his country to the 20th century. He did not rule any more or less cruelly than any other ruler in that time period. He did not wish to kill Khomeini while he was in Paris and that was a critical mistake. Your reporting of what happened is not factual please get an education before opening your mouth.

        • awakenow says:

          I would expect this response from someone who promotes the Neoconservative view that we must be involved militarily in any country in the world, whether we can afford it or not.

          Your version of "the facts" concerning Mossadegh's removal from office is the version put out by those who do not want the American people to know the truth of our involvement, all those years ago, in Iranian affairs.

          The late Chalmers Johnson worked for the CIA and had inside knowledge of what really happened and why.
          The facts are that Mossadegh was set up and made out to be a Communist with the intent to overthrow Mossadegh and replace him with someone willing to play ball.

          Perhaps it would do you well to learn the true facts, instead of pushing the neoconservative agenda of continued lying to the American people in order to keep this country fighting in endless, undeclared and unconstitutional wars that are killing and maiming our best and bravest … for the monetary interests of the elites who profit greatly from their war-machine.

          Operation Ajax was a covert operation involving the CIA and M16. It was not about thwarting the rise of Communism in the region. It was about oil and nothing else.
          http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/chalmers-jo

        • Jonathan Gartner says:

          Actually you are showing your ignorance again. The Soviets had been looking for a warm weather port and that was the driving motivation for the US to get involved. Mossadegh with the communists were going to give it to them. Oil while important even at that time was not the driving force. You are putting todays needs in history does not work that way. You Paul bots and neoconservative nonsense and conspiracy theories. Mossadegh may or may not have been a communist dupe. However the end result would have been the same. And nothing happens in a vacum. The communists were also in the same years active in areas all around Iran and else where. Paul refuses what has happen to make up his own history does not work that way.

        • Jonathan Gartner says:

          And one more thing I have fought in some of those wars. They were proper and important to the overall security of this nation. The liberals including the libertarians who are closely related want to neuter the United States into the position of not defending this country. Lets take a look at something that is happening now. In Syria we know were the artillery is that is raining down death on civilians targeting them would be very simple with one Aegis ship launch tomahawks to destroy them. Both Syria and Iran would get the message but, from you comments you and Paul would not.

        • awakenow says:

          Did I miss something? Has Syria attacked us? And, has Iran attacked us?

          The answer is NO. Neither of these countries have attacked us, yet we have warmongers like you who want to start new and equally bankrupting wars against the them. These wars will be fought to quell civil unrest as in Syria and to protect a country that is very capable of protecting itself as with Israel. Neither are our business. Neither, can we afford.

          We have become a nation that goes to war more than any nation on earth. Instead of being a nation that promotes peace, tolerance, and hope … we have become a lawless and warring nation where our military is deceived and used to invade, occupy and kill .. all, allegedly, in the name of national security …when nothing could be further from the truth.

          As Martin Luther King said in his opposition to the bloody Vietnam War in 1967:

          "And don't let anybody make you think that God has chosen America as His divine, Messianic, force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with a judgement. And it seems I can hear God saying to America … "You're too arrogant and if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name."

          God is watching us.

    • easyme says:

      C.Davis if that was all there was to it, dang we can not even remember a few years back.Remember John F Kennedy, yea he was assassinated for trying to do away with the federal reserve. what chance would RP have when he wants us all on drugs, no military, and whore houses.

  11. The nation hungers for a prez with morals, backbone, and true conservatism to get this country turned around. So, who is that? Romney? Hardly, he's the best RINO money can buy and the flip flop king. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=romne
    Newt has the ideas, Rick has the passion. How about a team effort as November comes up?

  12. Maryann says:

    Mr Santorum may have a voting past thatnis not perfect but at least he has moral values and that is the main item that this country is lacking.

  13. Myrtlelinder says:

    You still owe the record of Romney's voting!!!!

  14. awakenow says:

    Rick Santorum believes that being a Conservative means that one is a-okay with telling others what to do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Santorum also finds fault with any Conservative who believes in autonomy, the ability to self-govern, linking this essential freedom with radicalism.

    This is what he said during an NPR interview in 2006.

    "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world."

    "There is no such society that I am aware of, where we've had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."

    Note the linkage of the word "radical" with the word "individualism." In other words, Santorum does not support the freedom of the individual, personal liberty, against the authority of the government, which is the essential tenant of the Constitution. He believes in the idea of government control over the individual.

    He wants the government to regulate society.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTDAu6ENPVE

    • Jonathan Gartner says:

      Figures that a Paul bot would use National Public Radio as a source. And do your own research get the entirity of some thing it only gives snipets not the whole thing.

      • awakenow says:

        I don't listen to NPR but this is where Santorum made these statements. An audio clip of his statements were on the Judge Napolitano's former show on the Fox Business Channel … "Freedom Watch."

        Here is the entirety of the interview, which I found by doing a simple search for the actual NPR interview, which is the entirety of Santorum's remarks concerning his views on what being a "true Conservative" means … for people like you who are too lazy to do your own actual research.

        Btw, this is the entirety of his remarks, save these words: "and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can't go it alone" embedded in between his two quoted remarks written in my previous post.
        http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor

        • C.Davis says:

          awakenow, i am afraid that you're wasting your time responding to Mr. Gartner, his hatred for the rights of his fellow man has blinded him to what to most folks would be obvious.
          There are none so blind as those who will not see.
          The other pertinent quotation I recently saw was said to be a Navajo proverb: It is impossible to awaken a person who is pretending to be asleep.

        • Jonathan Gartner says:

          Hatred for rights of your fellow man . Boy are you Paul bots a hoot. I spent over 25 years in the military and the government. I did not do it for power but , self satisfaction of a job well done. Obviously you and awake now are both of the great unwashed. Keep being fooled by a piper like Paul some day you might wake up but, from your comments and the ignorance of your leader Paul I rather doubt it.

        • awakenow says:

          You are no defender of the Constitution and the individual freedoms of your fellow American citizens. You support the continued egregious violation of the Constitution which declares that a vote must be taken by Congress and a formal declaration of war must be declared BEFORE we go to war.

          Every single war we have fought, during your time in the military and the government, have been violations of the Constitution. The last time we fought a war that actually followed the Constitution, was WWII.

          Ron Paul believes that the Founders had it exactly correct with respect to the use of our military and waging wars. As President, he would defer to the Constitution and not rule by executive authority.

          Thousands of our best and bravest have died and been maimed in wars waged for the interests of the corporate/military industrial complex that runs our government. So, I guess you really can call your efforts a "job well done."

        • Jonathan Gartner says:

          The war powers act is a legal law having been voted on by congress. This allows for a fast response to problems by the executive branch. Has it been mis-usesd yes it certain areas it has but, having it as a law allows action with a explanation to congress and it is limited. If obeyed as intendend its is good however Obama has twisted this along with every thing else. And Iraq and Afghanistan were both voted on by congress there fore making them constitutionally lawful wars.

        • awakenow says:

          You are very wrong. The War Powers Act goes around the Constitution. Both Iraq and Afghanistan were and are unconstitutional wars.

  15. Dolores Tamoria says:

    We must regulate the Government and not the other way around. The Government is charged to serve the People and only assume the duties established in our Constitution.