Why is the media ignoring Rick Santorum?

[janas19]

As far as I can tell, Mr. Santorum is a fine conservative candidate, and he seems a much better option than either Bachmann, Paul, or Gingrich, so why does it seem like he is always relegated to the least amount of airtime?

I just hate when the mainstream media makes the decisions on who grabs the headlines or not based on some ridiculous prejudice and not on the platform they run on.

 

[Newbian]

Because he has been the low runner thus less interest.

Plus when people google him to see who he is they don't like what they get.

 

[janas19]

Because he has been the low runner thus less interest.

Plus when people google him to see who he is they don't like what they get.

Lol. What do they get, exactly?

I haven't a clue why he would be a low runner. I saw him in the Iowa debate and doing some stumping, and he is much more reasonable than either Bachmann or Gingrich.

Perry is basically a Texas hick who is cut from the same low-IQ cloth as George W. Bush.

 

[IGBT]

agenda and the obama's willing accomplices in the media. Consider cnn/msnbs(c) and nearly all the others including npr State operatives in the media conspiracy to get the obama re-elected..no matter how incompetent he is.

 

[Jetster...]

He's just not presidential. The media are morons anyway. Ron Paul sounds more reasonable than any of them. But he doesn't look like a Hollywood actor so he will not be the one.

 

[woolfe9999]

The media isn't paying much attention to Huntsman either, and he's purportedly the most liberal candidate.

 

[JSt0rm]

agenda and the obama's willing accomplices in the media. Consider cnn/msnbs(c) and nearly all the others including npr State operatives in the media conspiracy to get the obama re-elected..no matter how incompetent he is.

Look how crazy.

 

[Siddhartha]

Who do you want the media to pay attention to? And why should they not pay attention to the leaders in the polls?

 

[dawp]

simple reason, he ain't worth a fuck.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Lol. What do they get, exactly?

Google him and see.

I have been surprised to see Santorum get no traction at all, given that he does seem smarter and better qualified than, say, Bachmann, Perry or Cain. I don't think you can blame the media, exactly - he has not performed at all in the polls. I can only conclude that a) he must have the interpersonal charm of a sea cucumber; and b) there is a (probably correct) feeling in the GOP that, given the state of the economy, this is not the year to be pursuing a social conservative agenda - the focus should be on employment and sparking the economy.

 

[MotF Bane]

Pretty sure Santorum had some really nutty statement a while back.

And I'd be right! "Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual."

 

[ichy]

Santorum is a moron. His whole platform basically consists of appealing to the most extremist social conservatives.

 

[airdata]

Perhaps he's waiting in the wings.

If you've been watching all year you'd see a trend. The media hypes up a certain candidate w\ questionable polling, etc.

Then that candidate is found out to be crazy or a fraud or both.... then they hype up another candidate. Look at how Herman Cain came out of nowhere, and quickly crashed and burned.

And right now it seems Gingriches 15 minutes in the spotlight are up. All I'm seeing is negative press about him since he has so much baggage and is completely unelectable.

So, unless they move right on to Romney, idk... I wouldn't be surprised to see a Santorum get a bump here in the next week or 2 so that there's a buffer at the top w\ the caucuses coming up.

The establishment would hate to see Ron Paul win w\ a large margin.

 

[cybrsage]

Pretty sure Santorum had some really nutty statement a while back.

And I'd be right! "Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual."

Why are you against polygamy? Do you think love is so weak it cannot encompass more than two consenting adults?

 

[cybrsage]

Santorum is simply too extreme for most people. One thing is for sure with him, you know he is not lying to you about things...he is certainly not pulling an Obama on you with false hope and lies about change.

Not saying that would make him a great President, but it is a good characteristic to have.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Perhaps he's waiting in the wings.

The establishment would hate to see Ron Paul win w\ a large margin.

Certainly the Iowa GOP establishment would hate that, because it would just reaffirm Iowa's irrelevance, despite its having the first caucus or primary. Paul is a kook, appeals to kooks, and will never be nominated by a major party.

 

[xj0hnx]

Santorum is a moron. His whole platform basically consists of appealing to the most extremist social conservatives.

This. He's the picture of right wing Christian conservative, and no matter how much the loony left thinks those people are running America, the masses don't want it.

 

[Thump553]

Santorum is a johnny one-note, and his one-note is a decade out of political fashion (thank god). His anti-gay vehemence is tiring, to say the least.

Why do supporters of also rans always blame the media for their lack of success? Santorum has been in all the GOP debates and has just as much free exposure as the front runners. People no longer buy into his message is the reason for his failure, not some Obama-libural media cabal.

 

[airdata]

Certainly the Iowa GOP establishment would hate that, because it would just reaffirm Iowa's irrelevance, despite its having the first caucus or primary. Paul is a kook, appeals to kooks, and will never be nominated by a major party.

Ron Paul appeals to people with sense. If you're voting for anybody else, you're voting for the continuation of corruption. Business as usual.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Ron Paul appeals to people with sense. If you're voting for anybody else, you're voting for the continuation of corruption. Business as usual.

To my way of thinking he principally appeals to kooks, particularly bigoted kooks, though his drug-law ideas also sell well to young potheads.

 

[SilthDraeth]

Why are you against polygamy? Do you think love is so weak it cannot encompass more than two consenting adults?

Is that a troll question? Pretty sure it was Santorum being quoted, not the poster you quoted...

 

[cybrsage]

I assume the poster agrees with Santorum that decriminalization of child molestation, incest, and bestiality would threaten society and the family. I am also assuming he thinks polygamy should remain illegal and those who practice it should be jailed, since most people who support gay marriage and the like also think polygamy should remain illegal.

So I asked why he thinks that way.

 

[cybrsage]

To my way of thinking he principally appeals to kooks, particularly bigoted kooks, though his drug-law ideas also sell well to young potheads.

Foreign powers love his desire to no longer attempt to shape world events to benefit us, which will allow them to shape world events to their benefit instead.

 

[werepossum]

To my way of thinking he principally appeals to kooks, particularly bigoted kooks, though his drug-law ideas also sell well to young potheads.

There aren't a lot of young potheads who think homosexuality should be outlawed; hence Santorum's lack of appeal. Also, when he was a Senator he was always making deals with the Dems to spend more at a time when the Republicans were idealistic about balancing the budget and at least slowing the growth of government. He also has some wacky ideas about animal rights. That's a very odd combination which means his only real constituency are the people who know little about him. The anti-gay animal rights big government pro-drug wing of the Republican Party is about the same size as the anti-gay animal rights big government pro-drug wing of the Democrat Party and, indeed, the anti-gay animal rights big government pro-drug independent movement.

This country is big enough that virtually any kind of crazy can get you some support, but when you start randomly combining unrelated crazy . . . Not so much.

 

[MotF Bane]

Pretty sure Santorum had some really nutty statement a while back.

And I'd be right! "Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, sodomy, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual."

Why are you against polygamy? Do you think love is so weak it cannot encompass more than two consenting adults?

Well, I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, especially with a line like "love is so weak". Actually, IIRC, you had a stupid comment about love being strong enough to encompass or not being strong enough to encompass polygamy.

I assume the poster agrees with Santorum that decriminalization of child molestation, incest, and bestiality would threaten society and the family. I am also assuming he thinks polygamy should remain illegal and those who practice it should be jailed, since most people who support gay marriage and the like also think polygamy should remain illegal.

So I asked why he thinks that way.

So maybe you're not trolling, maybe reading just really challenges you. I'm betting on trolling, and the 50 PPD encourages that thinking.

But, in case I've misinterpreted that, and you really just have difficulty with reading comprehension, let's refer to the first quote in this post. Or, more aptly, the only parts of it that are NOT a quote from Santorum...

Pretty sure Santorum had some really nutty statement a while back.

And I'd be right!

Let's read that carefully. I write out a first sentence, expressing a vague recollection of Santorum making a nutty proclamation. Nutty will serve as a synonym for insane, crazy, deranged, or any of a number of similar words.

Then in my second, shorter sentence, I declare that I am correct in my recollection - Santorum did indeed make a batshit crazy statement, which I then placed into quotation marks, as evidence for everyone else to see that he is, indeed, a lunatic.

Or, in other words, mutually consenting adults DO have a right to privacy in the bedroom, DO have a right to do whatever they damn well please with any and all consenting partners, and the government, at all levels, needs to stay the fuck out of everyone's bedrooms. Caveat: the word "consenting" is chosen with deliberate purpose.