toldailytopic: Santorum shocks everyone and vaults to the front of the race. Thoughts

[Granite]

Santorum went from an also-ran to a front runner.

Not really. He doesn't have deep support outside of evangelicals and the party establishment doesn't want him. This is his fifteen minutes.

Yet when the Iowa cacaus rolls around Santorum vaults past both Gingrich and Paul and even past Romney for most of the vote count. For Santorum losing Iowa by just 8 votes is a massive victory. That clearly makes him a frontrunner.

He doesn't have the funding, appeal, or staying power to be considered a frontrunner. If he places second in SC or even wins there in an upset, it'll be different. Everyone in this thing has had their mirage--a surge of support that makes them a hot story, then fades.

 

[drbrumley]

Santorum is too conservative to be elected president. Remember, most people like Obama, even if they aren't happy with his economic policies. Romney will have to head the ticket, but they'll likely want to use Santorum to placate the Christian religious zealots who would not otherwise vote for a Mormon. And they will almost certainly vote for Romney in the end because they're essentially authoritarians who believe in following orders.

I might agree with that.

So it looks like we probably have the republican ticket. Romney/Santorum. And I predict they will lose, because no one likes Romney, Santorum is too conservative, and the republican platform is 'we all must serve the rich no matter what the cost'.

You were doing good till you had to lie. Sorry you had to stoop to that level.

 

[drbrumley]

It might interest you to know that Ron Paul is the only congressman that introduced legislation to nullify Roe v Wade and in a Republican house and a republican senate with a Republican president. Rick Santorum was a senator at the time and not one republican supported that bill. So much for Santorum's pro life position. He only supported restricting civil liberties big government style. He wasn't interested in solving the problem of abortion. What makes you think he is now? His rhetoric?

Well, he didn't support Paul's bill for the same reason ACW doesn't.

 

[drbrumley]

I wonder how much people's votes cost the Republican Party to make sure Paul didn't win? :think:

 

[elected4ever]

The topic isn't that Rick Santorum won Iowa. Read it carefully.... "Santorum shocks everyone and vaults to the front of the race. "

Santorum went from an also-ran to a front runner. When the campaign season started Santorum was always near the bottom in the polls. Often times receiving such low support his name was rarely mentioned. I remember thinking to myself... "why doesn't a guy like that drop out of the race and save himself the trouble?"

Then in recent weeks his numbers began to rise but even then he was a distant 4th behind Romney, Paul, and Gingrich.

Yet when the Iowa cacaus rolls around Santorum vaults past both Gingrich and Paul and even past Romney for most of the vote count. For Santorum losing Iowa by just 8 votes is a massive victory. That clearly makes him a frontrunner.

That is because the so called religious right preferred to believe a load of crap rather than the truth.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

That is because the so called religious right preferred to believe a load of crap rather than the truth.

Uh... okay. :kookoo:

 

[elected4ever]

Uh... okay. :kookoo:

Knight, don't you believe in the right to life and liberty? Don't you even know why you have religious freedom? Don't you know that when we protect the liberty of those we disagree with that we protect our on liberty? It is not that I condone homosexuality, abortion or drug use. It is because I wont to protect everyone's right to liberty because I cherish my own.

 

[zippy2006]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for January 4th, 2012 12:14 AM

toldailytopic: Santorum shocks everyone and vaults to the front of the race. Thoughts?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

This is very good news, to say the least

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, don't you believe in the right to life and liberty? Don't you even know why you have religious freedom? Don't you know that when we protect the liberty of those we disagree with that we protect our on liberty? It is not that I condone homosexuality, abortion or drug use. It is because I wont to protect everyone's right to liberty because I cherish my own.

When it comes to criminal justice and national defense, liberty has limits.

Ron Paul pushes the limits of liberty so far that we risk losing all liberty.

 

[drbrumley]

When it comes to criminal justice and national defense, liberty has limits.

Ron Paul pushes the limits of liberty so far that we risk losing all liberty.

"What moral system should government follow? The same one individuals follow. Do not steal. Do not murder. Do not bear false witness. Do not covet. Do not foster vice. If governments would merely follow the moral law we would live in a world of peace, prosperity, and freedom. The system is called classical liberalism. Liberty is not complicated." Liberty Defined.

How can one not agree to this is beyond me.

 

[Christ's Word]

Ron Paul pushes the limits of liberty so far that we risk losing all liberty.

Yes!

 

[shrek303]

As a non US citizen I am not sure about who's who, but I do know that the person you elect will influence the whole world. So that person needs to be someone who has a good global understanding, and when i say global i dont just mean the middle east.

It means that your vote is something powerful, and can shape the world we live in, use it wisely.

 

[elected4ever]

When it comes to criminal justice and national defense, liberty has limits.

Ron Paul pushes the limits of liberty so far that we risk losing all liberty.

When it comes to national defense I wont a strong national defense. Not an empire.

When it comes to criminal justice I wont equal protection under the law. I do not wont the government to use its inherent tyrannical power unchecked.

The constitution was written to restrain government and maximize liberty for all our citizens. It does not give the central government, state government or any citizen card blanch to be lawless.

Tyranny is a natural function of government and should never be left to its own devices to govern. It is not that I hate government but I do not wont government to be the instrument of the destruction of our life, liberty or our pursuit of happiness. I do not fear foreign governments as much as I fear the unchecked and unbridled power of our own.

 

[The Barbarian]

Rick Santorum:

""I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."

I don't see that as a bad thing. If Rick is willing to actually do something to remove some of the barriers still in place, I'd be willing to listen. The problem is, the remaining barriers against black people are difficult to legislate. For example, it's well-established that people with identical resumes are much less likely to be called for an interview if their names are identifiably "black." How do you fix that?

If he'd just cut back some of the existing government, without letting the powerful beat up more on the powerless, I'd be impressed enough to vote for him. Unlike Paul, who is unwilling to compromise at all, Santorum's support for a pro-abort politician to keep party unity, will be seen by the establishment as "reasonableness", and so they probably won't be so adamantly against him as they are against Paul.

 

[Sherman]

I predicted this; not here I don't think, but in another forum, before his surge, because Jupiter is in his sign. He is the only one among the candidates with lucky Jupiter now in their sun sign. But he will fade like all the others, after March if not before. He is the latest and probably the last "non-romney" Republican to emerge as the crazy right-wing's candidate. The GOP will settle for Romney, and Obama will defeat him.

Santorum is a reasonably honest and sincere candidate, with a sharp and reckless tongue, and consistently wrong on everything-- too conservative even for America. He is good at speaking to groups, but whether he has the skill to put together a good campaign we don't know yet. According to my crystal ball, he has no chance to win.

Jupiter being in his sign-- really? It gets SPOTD for being just about the dumbest thing I have read this year.

 

[elected4ever]

I don't see that as a bad thing. If Rick is willing to actually do something to remove some of the barriers still in place, I'd be willing to listen. The problem is, the remaining barriers against black people are difficult to legislate. For example, it's well-established that people with identical resumes are much less likely to be called for an interview if their names are identifiably "black." How do you fix that?

If he'd just cut back some of the existing government, without letting the powerful beat up more on the powerless, I'd be impressed enough to vote for him. Unlike Paul, who is unwilling to compromise at all, Santorum's support for a pro-abort politician to keep party unity, will be seen by the establishment as "reasonableness", and so they probably won't be so adamantly against him as they are against Paul.

So you believe that Paul is more of a pro-life candidate than Santorum?

 

[Ps82]

I have been pulling for Santorum for quite some time now. I'm glad that he did well in Iowa. I hope his campaign takes off and remains strong enough to win the nomination.

I think that it is time that our citizens had two distinct choices for president... not just a GOP middle of the road guy ... not just someone chosen with the hope that the luke-warm moderates will like him, but one who actually stands for something different from the liberals of all types and kinds.

It's time for our citizens to draw a well defined line and decide who they are as a people.

Are they seeking men who hopefully will demonstrate straight forward honesty ... Godly beliefs ... and freedom ...

OR seeking the same old guys who are experts in twisting truth to get power ... men who have sold their souls to minority groups of all sorts to collectively gain votes to give them personal power and wealth ... men who would redistribute the wealth of our nation until we are all equally poor and powerless - having all become citizens under the control of the government?

The latter description reminds me of some of governments among kingdoms in the middle-east from which their citizens are now trying to escape.

Poor masses ... indoctrinated ... and clueless when it comes to knowing truth and freedom.

 

[Sherman]

Ron Paul is just about as pro-life as the fox in the chicken coop. Ron Paul signed the personhood pledge but the signature got rejected. Here's why. He made this statement. "The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to cancel out the Tenth Amendment. This means that I can’t agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here, or otherwise we would end up with a "Federal Department of Abortion." It would leave baby killing states like California and New York free to go on killing babies. He's a states rights candidate when it comes to abortion. It's leaving the fox in the henhouse.

 

[elected4ever]

I have been pulling for Santorum for quite some time now. I'm glad that he did well in Iowa. I hope his campaign takes off and remains strong enough to win the nomination.

I've think that it is time that our citizens had two distinct choices for president... not just a GOP middle of the road guy ... not just someone chosen with the hope that the luke-warm moderates will like him, but one who actually stands for something different from the liberals of all types and kinds.

It's time for our citizens to draw a well defined line and decide who they are as a people.

Are they seeking men who hopefully will demonstrate straight forward honesty ... Godly beliefs ... and freedom ...

OR seeking the same old guys who are experts in twisting truth to get power ... men who have sold their souls to minority groups of all sorts to collectively gain votes to give them personal power and wealth ... men who would redistribute the wealth of our nation until we are all equally poor and powerless - having all become citizens under the control of the government?

The latter description reminds me of some of governments among kingdoms in the middle-east from which their citizens are now trying to escape.

Poor masses ... indoctrinated ... and clueless when it comes to knowing truth and freedom.

I am sorry you have a misplaced trust. The only candidate that shears your goals is Ron Paul. The rest are all big government people.

 

[Ps82]

Elected forever ... there are things of which I would agree and would trust Ron Paul ... but he sometimes just says scary things. He is so nationally hands off in so many areas ... that I am not sure he would do anything to keep American's safe. In fact, his foreign policies seem to match Obama's more than any one else I know.

Now, you tell me why and how I am wrong about his foreign policies. I'd like to read a good explanation.