Congrats, Phil: Santorum announces presidential candidacy

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well for starters, Romney governed as a pro-abortion, pro-socialist health care liberal, then flip flopped on those issues to win a primary. Then ignored the issues in the general - spending the entire time trying to appease pro-abortion/gay leftists and ignore everything and everyone else. Worked out really well. He also ignored the need to get Reagan Democrats/conservative independents in the Rust Belt and heartland to get to 270.

You don't harp on issues where the public is shifting against you, unless you have the ability to actually change minds on the issue and no politician alive has that ability. Otherwise, you are just asking to get clobbered and thus pave the way for the Great Society 2.0. You make the contrast on the key issues where you enjoy an upper hand. Job creation and the overal economy were just that. Romney's problem was not what he focused on, but his inability to keep the subject from being changed and his gaffe's made that worse. When it comes to gaffe's, Santorum is notorious for inserting his foot into his mouth.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well for starters, Romney governed as a pro-abortion, pro-socialist health care liberal, then flip flopped on those issues to win a primary. Then ignored the issues in the general - spending the entire time trying to appease pro-abortion/gay leftists and ignore everything and everyone else. Worked out really well. He also ignored the need to get Reagan Democrats/conservative independents in the Rust Belt and heartland to get to 270.

You don't harp on issues where the public is shifting against you, unless you have the ability to actually change minds on the issue and no politician alive has that ability. Otherwise, you are just asking to get clobbered and thus pave the way for the Great Society 2.0. You make the contrast on the key issues where you enjoy an upper hand. Job creation and the overal economy were just that. Romney's problem was not what he focused on, but his inability to keep the subject from being changed and his gaffe's made that worse. When it comes to gaffe's, Santorum is notorious for inserting his foot into his mouth.

The minorities and youth are more pro-life than the older generations.  The New Yorker reading latte set who's for abortion on demand will never consider voting Republican, ever, for any reason.  

I understand that the homosexual issue is more favorable to the left.  But again, the militants on this side of the issue are far-left urban liberals, they did not even vote for Romney, who essentially took a "Que sera sera" attitude on things.  The Gay vote also doesn't move an inch either way. It's rock solid leftism.   The Right is going after votes it will never obtain, while ignoring votes it needs to obtain.  

Romney spent the entire campaign essentially grand marshaling the gay pride parade.  It didn't do him any favors.  Didn't do Bob Dole any favors. Didn't do John McCain any favors to try to appease a crowd that will never support them under any circumstances. The West Village and the Castro ain't going Republican. Sorry.

Santorum brings back Conservadems who are put off by Romney types or plutocratic candidates.  Guess where they live? Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

I think I must have missed that. I seem to recall Mittens supporting a Federal Marriage Amendment. Perhaps you would have preferred he began every speech with that?

As far back as 2004, Romney was publically stating opposition to Gay Marriage.

I will never understand this masochistic desire on the part of some conservatives to not just harp on but throw in people's faces their most controversial and unpopular positions. We get it, you don't like Gay Marriage. There is no sense making the non-religious accountant in Hamilton county or the young libertarian in Coos county who would likely not prioritize the issue feel compelled to make it a priority and thus stay home or vote Democratic. This approach, is by far the most counterproductive and foolish approach not just to the issue itself but the broader movement and party as a whole.

Romney got the same percentage of Evangelicals as Bush did (78%) with them composing a larger proportion of the electorate (26% as opposed to 23%). Romney did just fine turning out traditional marriage supporters and pro-lifers for all the talk of his various problems both real and imagined. His problem was with more secularist fiscal conservatives and libertarians, as well as non-religious working class swing voters.  Using those very issues, Romney got out the ones who were highly religious, but slipped amongst those who were not.

You cannot be more against Gay Marriage then supporting the FMA and voters whose votes Romney lost in OH and PA and so forth were not going to be motivated by mentioning the issue more often.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Man this thread got militant rather quickly.

Because every time Romney talked about marriage he sounded like he was having a root canal.

We need clear cut positions. At least I do - to reverse cultural rot & stop the war on religious freedom. The only way we do this is with someone we know not only where they stand, but whether or not they will actively fight for the cause.

Can anyone honestly say Romney would fight for traditional marriage? Ever?

He says he supports FMA. He never once pushed it. He never once promoted it.

Do you really think stating where you are is going to change someone else's minds? Santorum is not going to convert people on this topic, but ironically, he did call for a another awakening and that is probably the only way to change minds on this. Having a Presidential candidate go around and make sure everyone knows exactly where he stands on this issue isn't going to make one on the opposing side take the same course. Such a position means you are basically saying you want to lose until the public comes around to your viewpoint, which could be decades or centuries. That is not how the political parties work.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Santorum's always been a Republican, always been pro-life, always been socially conservative, always been generally conservative, with some concessions to being from PA. 

Not everyone can be a "non-Philly" Pennsylvanian, so we keep the price of admission into the club pretty high. Concessions are mandatory. Having a hard on for steel, coal and rail is non-negotiable.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

To be honest, I actually thought it was a good speech. If he can stay on message and avoid the gaffes, he might get another chance.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

On C-span most of the callers who criticized were ones doubting his sincerity on his committment to workers, they mentioned trade deals, opposing the minimum wage, and bailing out the banks/corporate welfare in general. As far as I can recall Santorum voted against NAFTA, voted for raising them minimum and supports doing so again, and was opposed to the bailouts or at the very least criticized them.

That is why staying on message is critical and emphasizing his record on these issues. This is where Santorum's votes are and the votes he can gain in a general that Romney did not. I thought he had a strong line saying they need someone who was neither from big gov't or big money, veiled hit on Romney though it was it has a ring of truth about what cost Romney the election. Its a similar line to that of Rand Paul when he said, "not a dime from welfare until all the corporate welfare is cut".