Why didn't y'all re-elect Rick Santorum? (Pittsburgh, Washington: house, school district, university)

[mancat100]

Easy. PA, taken as a whole, is a moderate state. Santorum is very, very conservative. He never was a good fit for our state and the voters finally realized that.

[LibraGirl123]

I guess you didn't happen to run across this recent thread:

//www.city-data.com/forum/penns...-santorum.html

[MachoKing]

Originally Posted by Mr Yuk

I agree. It seems that some of the biggest homophobes who dwell on homosexuality so much are really just trying to supress their own homosexuality. And Santorum does look like he could be gay...

What exactly does a gay person look like? Not exactly helping your "argument" here...

[ki0eh]

Originally Posted by Boompa

Perhaps where you live

As proof, I point to the continued existence of this institution, since 1933: Fine Wine & Good Spirits: Shop Online for Wine and Spirits in Pennsylvania

[CHIP72]

Originally Posted by nativetexasgal

I hope y'all can tell this is written in good fun, but most Texans don't think...Rick (Santorum) is Presidential material.

Based on Santorum's 60-40 loss in the 2006 U.S. Senate to Bob Casey, most Pennsylvanians don't think he is either. (For what it's worth, I was part of the 60% in 2006.)

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by mancat100

Easy. PA, taken as a whole, is a moderate state. Santorum is very, very conservative. He never was a good fit for our state and the voters finally realized that.

Recalling some of the Editorials Father Santorum wrote in the Inquirer, he couldn't even keep a job there spouting his dogma

[NYisontop]

This New Yorker is happy to have him on the national stage.

Not that I'm voting for him, or any conservative, but much of his argument (at least on birth-control, planned parenting, and the exclusion of marriage rights from homosexual couples) should get national attention, and then quickly relegated to the 'Wasn't THAT different?' historical footnote/rubbish bin. Such ideologues have no business on the national stage where they cannot win even a plurality of the votes. Too often though they can quietly win a district, bring home local projects and pork to continue holding said district, and contribute quietly towards a larger agenda issue such as the 'defense of marriage', creationism taught in schools, or this anti-birth control debate. Only when such issues are under the spotlight on the national stage, rather than in the shadows championed by isolated congressmen, do we see more local politicians who will stand up to them at the local level and advocate against their ideologies.

The longer Santorum lasts and wins primaries, the more we see Mitt actively campaign and expose himself. Maybe he wins, but it's still a longer shot. Remember how quiet Romney was until he saw he could actually win Iowa? Suddenly he began holding public speeches on the stump, and his unfavorability rating shot up. If Americans have to go to the polls this year and choose between Obama and Romney/Santorum/Gingrich/Paul, at least give them enough vetting that they actually have a clear picture of what the opposing candidate stood for, argued for/against, and voted for in the past.

I would add that while I would abhor a Santorum presidency (or candidacy), at least he's bringing the message of traditional blue collar manufacturing support back to the Republican radar. They've been sooooo 'job creators need predictability, stability, tax cuts help job creators, deregulate as its crushing job creators' for so long, you'd think they forget that about 9 in 10 Americans are a consumer of jobs, not a creator of them. His message of supporting US manufacturing has been one-sided, on the Democrat's side, since Reagan. Reagan. It's about time there was a conversation on the right about the crippling effects of off-shoring.

[CHIP72]

If people want to have a conversation about the crippling effects of off-shoring, it would help if there was also a conversation about how to best address the effects of off-shoring. Addressing those effects in the best, long-term manner does NOT, IMO, involve whining about companies relocating their manufacturing to China, or looking for simple-minded answers like very high tariffs on imported goods to promote the sales of higher-priced U.S. goods. (In reality, manufacturing is doing well in general in the U.S., but many goods that are manufactured are done so using a lot more automation and do not require nearly as much labor as it did a few decades ago.) It DOES involve understanding the dynamics of why it has been happening (really, it has a lot to do with companies doing a better job of managing costs, better communications technologies, and the Chinese government making a strong push to improve their infrastructure) and how the U.S. can "win" this battle (which is through product innovation, supply chain operations innovation, and adding real value to the goods and services that the burgeoning global middle-class will want to purchase). U.S. citizens need to be educated that the supply chain/distribution center jobs ARE the new blue-collar manufacturing jobs (well, not all of them, but many of them). The U.S. also needs to understand what our high-demand, sustainable exports are (food, or more specifically grain products, is one major example).

Having said all of the above, it should be noted that the vast majority of goods consumed in the U.S. are also produced in the U.S. That won't change anytime in the near (or likely, distant) future.

Incidentally, with fuel prices continuing to go up in the longer-term, in an ironic twist some of those low-cost manufacturing jobs in China, in particular the ones where the transportation costs are a high percentage of the overall product costs, are starting to come back to North America (some cases Mexico, but in some the U.S. too). High fuel costs make some companies, especially those whose goods are very price-sensitive, locate their manufacturing/distribution closer to the destination markets.

[PeeAye Native]

> Why didn't y'all re-elect Rick Santorum?
One of the many applicable answers is we realized we are not living in the 15th century, link to other thread.

[nativetexasgal]

Rick Santorum isn't from Pennsylvania, which I didn't realize until I read his biography. He's a native of Virginia. He may have "some" roots in PA (he moved to PA and became a resident), but he does not have deep roots in the state.

He apparently loves Virginia, his native state, as that is where he has his main residence, is that correct?

All I can say is that I'm suspicious of anyone, no matter who she or he is, who wants to meddle in the private, sexual conduct between consenting adults. Why are the sexual practices of a married couple (heterosexual or homosexual) any of Santorum's business? Why does he care so much about the birth control OTHER people choose to use? Does he not understand boundaries, as in the fact that other people's sexual practices are NONE of HIS business?