Watch Your Back!
Is Rick Santorum in trouble with his Republican base?
Personally, I think not. In the August Quinnipiac poll, Santorum got a
66% favorable rating among Republicans, with only 20% listing their opinion of his performance as unfavorable. Other polls I have seen show the incumbent getting 75% of the vote of Republicans.
Yet, there is a school of thought advanced that Santorum has let down the conservative wing of his party and no longer deserves their vote. The root of the problem? Santorum's support of Arlen Specter's re-election in 2004 when Specter faced conservative/libertarian Pat Toomey.
Now, someone has come along to outline conservative doubts about the incumbent.
This piece, by Jim Panyard, appeared in the Evening Bulletin.
It's an interesting primer on the whys and wherefors of unhappiness among Republicans, at least among a slice of GOP voters.
Conflict of interest note: I worked with Jim years ago in Harrisburg when he was a reporter for the old Philadelphia Bulletin. After that, he became an exec. with the Pennsylvania Manufaturers Association and briefly flirted with the idea of running for governor this year. He is a conservative/libertarian.
posted by Tom Ferrick Jr. at 10:14 AM
5 Comments:
The sector of Republicans with whom Santorum SHOULD be in trouble ought to include gays, women, and those religious conservatives who value all life, from cradle to grave. Those Republicans who cloak themselves in the pro-life banner, yet support the death penalty, wars to protect American business interests, and stealing from schools and the elderly to enrich the already obscenely wealthy undoubtedly love little Ricky. He's cut from the same cloth.
I think there is a large and disillusioned swath of the GOP with libertarian tendencies that is cringing at having to decide between misguided economics and theocracy. Count me in this group.
I think there's also a segment of folks more or less diametrically opposed to me that are war hawks but economic protectionists. Call this group the "Joe Lieberman" voters.
If the dems could manage to win over even a portion of either of these groups, I think they could easily regain control of the legislative branch.
Watched the Barry Goldwater documentary on HBO last night. Walter Cronkite laughingly said that nowadays Goldwater would be a liberal. The doc, produced by Goldwater's grandaughter, showed several instances where he would differ from today's "conservatives."
He said abortion was a woman's choice (in fact, his daughter had one in the '50's and he supported her decision). He said he wasn't against gays in the military (one of his favorite gransons is gay and said he never got any grief from barry). He believed everyone had a right to speak out against a government that they felt was wrong. He felt there was getting to be too much religion in politics.
While Cronkite said Goldwater would be turning over in his grave at being called liberal, how do you think someone with his views would be accepted in his party now?
Keep us posted on how you're thinking now and if that changes and why.
While Cronkite said Goldwater would be turning over in his grave at being called liberal, how do you think someone with his views would be accepted in his party now?
I would say my old party the Democrats have changed more than the Republicans since Goldwater. The antiwar progressive McGovern faction took over in 1972 to the point where it now dominates the party. Someone with even Joe Lieberman's moderate views are no longer accepted in the party.
And most Reagan Democrats never came back. Who would have dreamed that Lieberman would be called too conservative and a traitor even 10 years ago?
Post a Comment
<< Home