The reporter asks Santorum if he, like Mitch Daniels, believes Republicans have to tone down the social issues in order to win. Santorum, I think, hits this one out of the park. To tone down the social issues is to ignore the basic problems facing this country.
And if you’re interested in seeing a little Herman Cain, I think a clip at Cubachi shows why some people are very intrigued by him, especially conservatives.
May 6, 2011 at 7:38 pm
These GOP in the House/Senate talks the talk but buckles down, folds and bails when things get tough e.g. during the 2011 budget showdown, they compromised because they did not want to be blamed for shutting down the government for "ideological issues". They do not have the courage of their convictions once their political lives are on the line. They only go so far, but not far enough. The GOP governors on the other hand stand on these principles.
May 6, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Fantastic, Santorum. Stupendous answer.
May 6, 2011 at 8:06 pm
I am continually finding myself defending Daniels, not because I necessarily believe he is the best candidate for the GOP nomination, but because his position on this "truce" is, in my estimation, so often misunderstood.
For one, a "truce" does not automatically negate Sen. Santorum's great comments on the importance of the social issues in society. Most thoughtful Christians would recognize a strong relationship between the values of a society and the "health" of that society, measured in almost innumerable ways.
What Daniels seems to be emphasizing, however, is that we are reaching a critical point in our nation when tough decisions have to be made to keep our society functioning. Not disregarding that other organizations will be making remarkable strides towards abolishing abortion and promoting wholesome values throughout the nation under his leadership nor planning on undermining their efforts so that he might "keep the truce alive," Daniels is focusing, not solely and to the exclusion of social issues, but primarily and more importantly, on the fiscal issues that our country is rocked with now and the issues that our country will soon face if something is not done soon.
Just to see how this might look like in practice, see this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/18/mitch_daniels_genial_jeremiah_106006.html
We are a long ways away from any meaningful exploration of this "truce," as it may happen during a debate. Until then, probably best just to let Daniels speak, or not speak, for himself.
May 6, 2011 at 9:47 pm
If Mitch Daniels thinks social issues are fiscal issues, then okay. Santorum clearly thinks the two are related, as does Cain. Maybe Ron Paul does. Johnson doesn't, at least not in the way I do. Pawlenty seemed truly prepared and 'presidential' in the debate, but I get the feeling he would bring business as usual. I still don't think we know who the candidate will be next year, but I truly hope it isn't one of the men and women who didn't come last night. Gengrich, Palin, Romney,Bachmann, and Huckabee all have place, but the presidency is not it.
Ultimately what I saw in the debate: Johnson was a clear loser. Winners may be Santorum, Cain and Paul. It's hard to tell. It's the difference between personal preference and punditry. A Cain/Santorum ticket in any order makes me proud to be American!!!
May 6, 2011 at 11:44 pm
I, too, agree a Cain/Santorum or Santorum/Cain ticket would be a dream one. But Ron Paul and his libertarian worldview can be dumped along with Gary Johnson.
May 7, 2011 at 12:28 am
I agree, Ron Paul is not the candidate we want. I feel like doing a Jedi mind trick: Paul is not the man you are looking for…
May 7, 2011 at 1:19 am
Fiscal issues are some of the biggest social issues. Unless you think that a 5% unemployment rate and a 15% are equivalent.
I often wonder if my five male children will do better than I have in life and will grow up to be better people. I hope they will be much better people than there father is. When I look at Rand Paul, who I believe to be a great man and a great Senator, my hope for my boys is strengthened.
May 7, 2011 at 2:13 am
Santorum can be dumped along with Specter – or, on second thought, maybe they would make the dream ticket for the Empire crowd.
May 7, 2011 at 12:53 pm
My vote is for Ron Paul. Many people are frightened by his libertarian positions, but they shouldn't be. What is important to understand is that his view is for the federal gov't to get out of people's lives. The US Constitution outlines what the federal gov't can do, and the rest belongs to the states. We have become programmed to look to Washington to solve most problems, and we forget that our local and state governments should be handling things instead.
Ron Paul is for life but believes the life issue is a state issue. Not federal. He wants to see Roe overturned and the issue battled at the state level. There is nothing wrong with this. When our country reaches a point where a US Constitutional amendment for life can succeed, then and only then should it be a federal issue.
Ron Paul is the best candidate to save our country from financial ruin. He is also the only candidate who truly understands fiscal issues and the devastating fiscal policies of the Federal Reserve.
I admire Rick Santorum as a good man and a good Catholic, but I believe he will be pro-war and an interventionist. Sadly, many socially-conservative candidates are also pro-war, interventionist neo-cons. I cannot vote for a candidate who holds to interventionist views.
May 7, 2011 at 3:46 pm
What would Ron Paul do if the abortion decision was left up to the states and the states all voted to keep it legal? Would he be happy with that? Abortion was legal at the state level before Roe v Wade. I do not understand his position at all. It would do nothing to stop the killing of babies or protect women.
May 9, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Santorum has got my vote. Cain was awesome too, but I've been waiting for Santorum to throw his hat in the ring for years. He not only pays lip-service to prolife issues. He lives them in his own personal life. I don't think anyone is pro-war. I get the impression that he's pro-defense, and that is very different. I'll vote for that over an attritionista any day.
May 9, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Ron Paul is extremely ill-informed. That is the nicest way I can put it.
He would be a complete disaster and his "non-intervensionism" (same exact thing as ISOLATIONISM) would guarantee MORE and much WORSE global wars, and terrorist attacks on the homeland – not fewer wars/attacks. It takes a breadth of understanding about world economics and history to grasp how it works (and doesn't work) which he seems un-interested in learning.
Ron Paul is a complete non-starter on MANY grounds. It is almost unfortunate that many things he says actually make sense, otherwise I could just call him an idiot. He clearly is not an idiot, just VERY ignorant about the world, and – like many of my libertarian friends – hyper-focused on minutiae and a strict adherence to a flawed way of thinking while ignoring other key facts. Forest for trees stuff….Nuff said.
Herman Cain, needs to come up with some actual policy positions – but I would take him in a heartbeat over the current POTUS!
ALLEN WEST is my guy I just wish he would run.
I could even put up with Christie, but have my suspicions.
Santorum has no chance. People don't like him and he now comes across as cocky and arrogant. He is, and seems like, a legislator, not an executive type. Besides the fact that he is also a real foreign policy noob. In a time of gross economic and security crises, I wouldn't want him in that chair.
Aside from Michelle Bachman's ridiculous comment in Concorde, NH, I actually have no problem with her. People won't vote for her because of her eyes though. (Crazy, no? But true I think)
Jindal – as inspiring as my oatmeal this morning.
I still like Sarah Palin too. I wish she would have a couple more years of for. pol schooling under her belt though.
Allen West, PLEASE RUN!