First time visitor? Learn more.

Rick Santorum open to 2016

by Rodan ( 17 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2016, Headlines, Republican Party, Theocratic Progressives at November 27th, 2012 - 9:32 am

The damage Rick Santorum did to the Republican Party in 2012 was devastating. He scolding attitude was used as club to hit the GOP over the head with. Santorum was even open to the idea of banning contraceptives. This fed the war on women narrative the Media and their Democrat lackeys were pushing. Now Rick is contemplating running in 2016.

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum says he is “open” to another run for president in 2016. Santorum was asked about a possible presidential campaign Monday at THE WEEKLY STANDARD. 

In 2012, Santorum won nearly 4 million votes and 11 GOP primary contests—the same number of states, he pointed out, Ronald Reagan won in his failed 1976 presidential bid. The nomination eventually went to Mitt Romney, whom Santorum argued did not focus on what he considered the “main issue” of the race: The role of government in the lives of Americans.

Santorum envisions some State-Family partnership. He openly advocates redistribution of wealth in the name of the family. Rick Santorum also hates Individualism and envisions a conformist society. He is not a Conservative , but a Progressive. He is a Statitist who believes the Federal Governmnet’s role is to control people’s lives.

With the possibility of Jeb Bush and now Rick Santorum, 2016 is looking like a joke on the Republican side. The Democrats are smiling at this.

Tags:

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

17 Responses to “Rick Santorum open to 2016”
( jump to bottom )

  1. EBL
    1 | November 27, 2012 10:23 am

    Rick Santorum was pillared by the press, but unfortunately he did not have the political skills to see it coming. Santorum is no Akin--So blaming him for the misfortunes of the GOP is not entirely justified. But where Rick really went off the rails was in his stupid feud with libertarians. If you want to be a social conservative, that is fine, but make sure you are a federalist too.

    A lot of people I respect think had Santorum been the nominee he would have won. They are profoundly wrong. I would love a real conservative be nominated (and go on to win). But Santorum is not that guy. Because Rick is not terribly fiscally conservative. And if you are a social conservative you better have communication skills comparable to Ronald Reagan to reassure people you are not going prying into their private lives.


  2. 2 | November 27, 2012 10:35 am

    @ EBL:

    I would not have voted for Santorum.


  3. Speranza
    3 | November 27, 2012 10:35 am

    Any one who thinks Rick Santorum would have won in 2012 (or won any elected office for that matter) is seriously delusional.


  4. Speranza
    4 | November 27, 2012 10:36 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ EBL:
    I would not have voted for Santorum.

    Neither would I. I loathe him and his perpetual smirk.


  5. 5 | November 27, 2012 10:51 am

    @ Speranza:

    He did a lot of damage.


  6. Speranza
    6 | November 27, 2012 10:59 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    He did a lot of damage.

    He’s a self righteous doofus.


  7. 7 | November 27, 2012 1:45 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    Neither would I. I loathe him and his perpetual smirk.

    Then you really have no place to blame those who refused to vote for Romney because he wasn’t pure enough, either. You are real good about asking SoCons to take on efor the team, but if theirs’ is the team that’s playing you want no part of it. It is no wonder we lost.


  8. 8 | November 27, 2012 2:34 pm

    @ EBL:

    I addressed the concept of conservative purity tests in part four of my series on winning back the culture. Santorum comes from that Huckabee wing of the GOP, Socially Conservative and Virtual Democrats on all things economic, what many of us consider to be the worst of both worlds. People in general tend to view what is and isn’t truly conservative through their very own very thinly defined prism. The Santorums, Huckabees, and Aikens are the thinnest prisms of all, and you can see the results that they gleaned from an electorate in those cases that were by definition right of center to begin with.

    Rick Santorum failed to get traction for his religiously right message in an audience that was as right of center as exists in this country, there is no way he would have won a general election by shifting to the left economically while clinging to the religious right socially. He would have lost in Goldwater fashion.


  9. 9 | November 27, 2012 2:41 pm

    To those who say Santorum did damage, I say nonsense. Once his campaign ran out of money, and once Romney secured the nomination, Santorum bowed out gracefully, and he did not stomp his feet and refuse to support the nominee as did Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. He stumped for Romney in Pennsylvania, as well helping to raise money for the Romney campaign.

    While I was never in the Santorum camp, Romney’s defeat is his own and the property of those who ran the Romney campaign. The GOP apparatus bears much of the responsibility as well.

    There is a real danger to be had with placing the party at constant odds with the voting base. It is not just the Social Cons, who are mad, but we free marketeers as well, as well as the Second Amendment crowd, and let’s not forget the libertarians.


  10. 10 | November 27, 2012 3:13 pm

    @ Flyovercountry:

    Romney never called out Santorum’s BS. Santorum was used as club to hit the GOP over the head with.


  11. buzzsawmonkey
    11 | November 27, 2012 3:14 pm

    Maybe if people start referring to him as “Little Ricky” now it will undermine his credibility enough in a year or so to remove him from being a serious contender.


  12. 12 | November 27, 2012 3:15 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    You are real good about asking SoCons to take on efor the team

    Santorum is not a Social Conservative. He’s Religious Progressive.


  13. Speranza
    13 | November 27, 2012 3:21 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Then you really have no place to blame those who refused to vote for Romney because he wasn’t pure enough, either. You are real good about asking SoCons to take on efor the team, but if theirs’ is the team that’s playing you want no part of it. It is no wonder we lost.

    Excuse me but I enthusiastically supported and contributed to Romney so I don’t know what you are referring to. If we had a chance to win it was with Romney. People who sat it out on grounds of “purity” can go fuck themselves sideways. I also voted for shit head Bush (father and son) a total of four times so don’t give me any crap about not being a team player.


  14. coldwarrior
    14 | November 27, 2012 11:44 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    Santorum is not a Social Conservative. He’s Religious Progressive.

    this PA voter who knows that clown agrees.

    santorum is not what he seems.


  15. darkwords
    15 | November 28, 2012 2:59 am

    I was fine with all the candidates. Santorum just seemed to be the poor man’s Richard Nixon to me. I didn’t think he would be able to step up to the plate. Nor did I think Obama would. Bachmann good on finances, very poor on faith. Ron Paul good on liberty, sucked on foreign policy. So in the end Romney was a fine choice for me. A little bit too corporate I think. I never got a sense that he was a common man. You look at what makes a person think the way they did. Ron Paul seems very much constructed by some irrational fears created by a stop short intellect. Michelle Bachmann lacked a wise religion and dallied in illusions on a national stage. does not make a good leader. Her lesson to learn. But I wouldn’t call her insane or unelectable. One never knows. Truthfully most people running for high office are capable in some manner. But some have a poor balance for their eccentricities and how crooked their public image makes them smile.

    Santoroum in 2016? I don’t think so unless he finds God and is able to communicate that to people. One would think why does he even want to run again? What is his deal? Ego? Refusal to admit failure? More likely he has an unseasoned faith. His religion tells him faith is all there is, and reason is not an attribute of God. If that is his thinking only a miracle would let him win. Such a miracle would best be done outside of a political election cycle. We’ll know it when we see it. And I would think someone under the influence of such a miracle would have a very persuasive communication. Santorum doesn’t. The people he persuades “deeply” are a very small slice of America. Not enough to win an election in his own state. Not enough to give people faith in him. He like Bachmann has a lot of faith legwork to do before they are competent enough to service the country well in a high office. My feeling is that their cauldron of change is a lessor political office.


  16. waldensianspirit
    16 | November 28, 2012 7:23 am

    @ darkwords:
    Fiarly good analysis. But I notice you stay away from dissecting Romney’s faith :-)


  17. darkwords
    17 | November 28, 2012 11:28 pm

    @ 16 waldensianspirit: I think he used his faith ok. I would have liked to have seen his charity compared to Obama’s. But a person of true faith is going to see that as a negative I think. It’s not something to boast about or make comparisons about. That defeats the purpose. My sense of Romney was that he wielded his faith through his campaign better than most and in accord with his own principles. I was comfortable with how he did it, I wasn’t comfortable with Bachmanns or Santorums presentation.

    For me faith is always questioned. Always brings recognition of personal failure. Always brings humility. Always points out love does conquer all. Money doesn’t.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David