Self-fulfilling conservative prophecy

Who can beat Obama? Rick Santorum, the man with staying power
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As the battle for the Republican presidential nomination continues, two of the most conservative and trustworthy candidates are often overlooked by conservatives. Why? Because many have bought into the hype that these two can’t beat Obama.

Conservative – real or imagined

Michele Bachmann, an example of a real conservative

Michele Bachmann poses before an American flag. Photo: United States House of Representatives

Although Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum represent the epitome of conservative principles, finding conservatives who support them is becoming harder and harder as the campaigns continue. Arguably, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy when conservatives don’t support conservative candidates because they have bought into the hype that a true conservative can’t win.

It’s common to hear conservatives say that they would love to hear a debate between Newt and Obama – fully believing that Newt will wipe the proverbial floor with their nemesis. I admittedly have to plead guilty to this fantasy as well. However, it is this very logic that has catapulted the Gingrich campaign into the lead. If you are a conservative, this begs the question: what would you rather see? A lively debate or a conservative president?

Ideally, the best qualified and properly vetted candidate should lead in the polls. However, the endless debates have accomplished just the opposite. They have not been a vetting tool but a popularity mechanism that prefers sharp quips and “gotcha” phrases to principled ideology. Buying into the hype that Bachmann or Santorum can’t win is really nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. It is just this type of mindset that prevents Bachmann and Santorum from rising to the top based on their ideas and principles.

What makes a President?

What is it exactly that we are looking for in a president? Is it charisma, or a sharp wit? Is it someone who can read from a teleprompter? It’s even been suggested that a good hairstyle can have an impact. By these standards Abe Lincoln wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell. We may intellectually prefer men and women of substance, but we tend to support those who look and sound more like Hollywood’s version of Mr. Rightstuff.

Do you want a conservative president? If so, then perhaps you had better figure out just who that is and get behind them instead of accepting the notion that they can’t win. True enough – if enough people think like that, the best candidate will not win and American is certain to continue its downward spiral. The only way to stop the self-fulfilling prophecy is by hard work and determination. It’s time to put aside the silly rhetoric and start thinking like a real conservative. Stop accepting conservative lightweights and make sure the best conservative wins the nomination and wins the election. It will take discipline and it might even take a good set of blinders, but it will also save this country from the liberal slide that is dooming us all.

Website | + posts

RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.

41 Responses to Self-fulfilling conservative prophecy

  1. I’ve always contended that the best GOP nominee to whip Obama in the 2012 election would be a true blue Conservative who would stand most opposite the lib extremist (unconstitutional non natural born citizen) putative “president.” I have to agree that Bachmann and Santorum fit the bill. Too bad that most of the voting public still bend their ears towards the mainstream propagandist media……..

    • Geno says:

      I contend the best chance to beat Obama is not a “true blue conservative” but a middle-of-the-road candidate.

      What concerns me about the “anybody but Romney” group is that the real question is “Who can beat Obama” not “Who is the most conservative?” Choosing an ultra-conservative who has no chance of beating Obama is self-defeating.

      Which is more important… a candidate who can defeat Obama or one who has no chance to win but is a “true blue conservative?”

      • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

        What concerns me about Romney is that he might be a con artist and turn right around and implement “Marxism Lite.” I’ve seen enough of that in my own lifetime, to last two lifetimes. I don’t care to see any more of it. Better to have Obama get back in for four more years, so that more and more people will understand both the issues and the true nature of the enemies of human liberty.

        • Geno says:

          I guess that’s a bit of “The devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know.” I’m not so sure. My attitude is more like “anybody but Obama” (within some limits).

          My preference is for someone who can beat Obama over someone who (likely) can’t.

  2. If you ask people “who would you vote for, Obama or Bachmann” even after you correct for higher conservative turnouts Obama beats Bachmann in a landslide. People say that a super conservative cannot beat Obama (who believe it or not lost most of his support for being too moderate) and they are right. Obama didn’t lose voters to the middle, he lost them to the left, but no one from the left is stupid enough to challenge him this primary season, so he is going to ride that median voter all the way back to the white house unless he get’s a challenger who isn’t off putting to us moderate Republicans.

    Also to the good pastor, you need to give it up on the birther thing. Polls have shown that mentioning the birther argument drives support towards Obama, because they recognize that he is being unfairly attacked for being black.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Sir, I take exception to that last. The only arguments that I have seen anyone advance to show that Mr. Obama is not a natural-born citizen are (1) that his birth certificate is not valid, and (2) that his father was a British colonial subject, and therefore he did not meet the strict criterion of “natural born citizen.” I have never once seen any court filing, or any serious argument, to the effect that his race alone keeps him out of the natural-born-citizen category, or that members of certain races have inherently suspect birth certificates, et cetera. More to the point, Nathan Bickel has never mentioned Obama’s race in this comment space.

      I don’t permit libel on my comment space. You will either substantiate your accusation or withdraw it.

      • How about this. They percieve him as being unfairly attacked because he is black.

        If the reality is that he is being unfairly attacked because he is black a) no one would be stupid enough to say that was why they were irrationally running arguments based on not having a document that they clearly have that has been certified by everyone from the bottom of the government on up to the top or an argument based on totally not having read the 14th amendment of the constitution and b)few are brave enough to admit to themselves that that is the reason.

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          They “perceive him as being unfairly attacked.” How convenient—for him and for them.

          That birth certificate is an amateurish forgery. It is so bad a forgery that I conclude that Obama is playing games with people by offering it.

          • It’s not that it’s convenient for him that should matter, it’s that it’s inconvenient for us because of people like you and the pastor. About as much help as the WBC. When you harp on the issue you spend conservative political capital but you never make any gain for your expense.

            The Birth Certificate is not a forgery, it’s exactly what you’d expect if it were legitimate, and it has been verified by the people who keep the records and the people whose signatures are on it (that are still alive).

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            I’ve never seen a PDF file having more than one level before.

      • Also, if being born of a foreign subject is a disqualifying characteristic than Buchanan, Arthur, Wilson, and Hoover were all unconstitutional, and no one has ever been rejected candidacy or office for that reason (which establishes a legal precident which changes the law) When more than 10% of presidents don’t meet the “requirement” I think it’s fair to say that the “requirement” is not in force.

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          I’d like to see your proofs regarding Buchanan, Wilson, and Hoover. Chester A. Arthur just got away with it, that’s all. He kept his foreign parentage a deep, dark secret from everyone until the day he died.

          • I think that you are confused. Arthur was challanged (unsuccessfully) when he ran for VP, When he ran for POTUS it was well behind him.

            James Buchanan, Sr. was born in Ireland

            Jessie Janet Woodrow was born in England

            Hulda Randall (Minthorn) Hoover was born in Canada

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            Buchanan might have a never-before-acknowledged problem on account of his father’s history. But as to Wilson and Hoover, citizenship follows the father, not the mother. Check out Vattel for details.

          • Geno says:

            Doesn’t the native born requirement apply to the president, not his/her parents?

            I’m far more concerned that Obama applied for student aid as a foreign student. That implies no US citizenship in a document he presented as an adult.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            What I’m getting at is the condition that the parents be citizens at the time that the person involved is born. Perhaps James Buchanan, Senior, had already become naturalized when James Buchanan, Junior, was born. In Chester A. Arthur’s case, that was not true.

            Now as it happens, you have correctly identified another issue: Obama went to Indonesian State-sponsored schools. And if he then applied for foreign aid as a foreign student, and did do as an adult, that would be proof that he had renounced such citizenship as he had. Under that circumstance, even if he was a natural-born citizen, then he was not such a person anymore.

          • Bill says:

            “citizenship follows the father, not the mother”

            But that’s not really the argument against Obama. The argument is that *both* parents have to be natural born. Not just the father. Your ideas of birthright citizenship have no basis in the jurisprudence, and you just keep going further and further into your own with statements like that.

            Terry, it’s like you decide what you want reality to be, for that moment, and then just repeat it over and over as if that makes it true. I will however look forward to your blog posts arguing against Marco Rubio for President on the same grounds.

    • Carmelo Junior says:

      Michelle Bachmann: our first female president

  3. They’re unelectable.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      You mean that you would never vote for them. Well, you would never vote for a Republican, anyway. You voted for Barack H. Obama because he might as well have said, “Workers of all countries, unite!” So I infer from the tone you have consistently taken in this comment space.

      Well, the Gallup Poll now suggests that the American people are beginning to reject the Obamist Manifesto. And if the Gallup Poll now admits that, then you know that this monumental discontent has already built to a fever pitch at least going back to last springtime.

      • Bill says:

        “monumental discontent has already built to a fever pitch”

        That may describe your feelings, and those of the people you surround yourself with, but you don’t have any evidence to back up that statement outside of your circle of friends.

        You’re sort of like the liberals in 2004 who just couldn’t believe anyone would ever vote to have Bush/Cheney in for another four years.

      • No, I don’t mean merely that I wouldn’t voted for them. I refer to their polling in the single digits nationally among registered Republican voters in the primaries. Even in her birth state, the Representative from the Sixth District of Minnesota is only scraping a disappointing 10% or so, and in New Hampshire both are around 3%.

        NATIONAL (Gallup): Gingrich 31, Romney 22, Paul 8, Perry 7, Bachmann 6, Santorum 4, Huntsman 2
        NATIONAL (NBC/WSJ): Gingrich 40, Romney 23, Paul 9, Bachmann 8, Perry 6, Huntsman 5, Santorum 3

        NATIONAL (Pew): Gingrich 33, Romney 21, Paul 8, Bachmann 6, Perry 4, Huntsman 3, Santorum 3

        IOWA (Insider Advantage): Gingrich 27, Paul 17, Perry 13, Romney 12, Bachmann 10, Santorum 7, Huntsman 4

        IOWA (PPP): Gingrich 22, Paul 21, Romney 16, Bachmann 11, Perry 9, Santorum 8, Huntsman 5

        NEW HAMPSHIRE (Insider Advantage): Romney 29, Gingrich 24, Paul 21, Huntsman 11, Bachmann 4, Santorum 2, Perry 1

        NEW HAMPSHIRE (Rasmussen): Romney 33, Gingrich 22, Paul 18, Huntsman 10, Bachmann 3, Perry 3, Santorum 3

        VIRGINIA (PPP): Gingrich 41, Romney 15, Bachmann 8, Perry 8, Paul 6, Santorum 6, Huntsman 3

        The Republican voters don’t want them.

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          Because they start with the belief that “they can’t win” and then fulfill that very prophecy. Which was the point that the author made.

          • In the particular cases of Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, I think other factors are at work. Their extreme views and their ignorance of the world frighten many intelligent and educated voters off, irrespective of political persuasion.

            Both are also strongly associated with opposition to marriage equality, which now divides Republican voters in a way it hasn’t done in past electoral cycles. Not only that, they both hold that homosexuality is dysfunctional behaviour, a view with which a majority of Republicans now disagree. While most of the other candidates have expressed similar sentiments, these are points that Bachmann and Santorum have both gone out of their way to promote on multiple occasions.

            Now as a counter-example to the “self-fulfilling prophecy” thesis, look at Ron Paul. Most Republicans probably agree that he could not beat Obama in a general election, but his support is still very high and it’s even possible that he could win the Iowa Caucus.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            The views you describe are extreme only to you. Because I see you going to the opposite extreme. “Marriage equality,” for example, means treating same-sex roommates the same as a pair, for income-tax and other purposes. That’s why I could never take in a roommate anymore, because People Would Talk, and if I ever refused a potential roommate because he tried to pull something fresh with me, he’s sue on the basis of “housing discrimination.”

            Now about Ron Paul: He badly needs to explain, and more effectively repudiate, several anti-Israel pronouncements that appeared under his by-line twenty-two-odd years ago. Otherwise, I like most of what he says.

          • Geno says:

            Terry wrote:
            Because they start with the belief that “they can’t win” and then fulfill that very prophecy. Which was the point that the author made.

            Geno answers:
            In the case of Bachmann, I can say my objection is less that she can’t win, and more that she’s a twit.

            Terry had mentioned the Rasmussen Poll. On 12/13 Rasmussen released the following numbers for Iowa:
            Romney 23
            Gingrich 20
            Paul 18
            Perry 10
            Bachmann 9
            Santorum 6
            Huntsman 5

            Link:http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/iowa_romney_23_gingrich_20_paul_18

            Now, you may call this “hype” or a “self-fulfilling prophecy” but all the indicators are that neither Bachmann nor Santorum has a significant level of support among Republicans. You can be assured they’ll find even less among Democrats.

            As I see it, it’s simply foolish for the Republicans to present a candidate that even they don’t seem to like very much. Unless they simply want to hand Obama another 4 years in order to have an ideologically “true conservative” candidate.

            In my view, one of the problems of our present selection system is it favors the extremes of both parties and, for the most part, excludes the broad center.

            Keep in mind, politics is the art of the possible. Speaking for myself, I’d much rather see Obama face the toughest opponent available than simply hand him another four years to continue driving the nation to ruin.

  4. Citizenship passes through the father? Our citizenship laws have been gender neutral since the 1870’s. A facet of English common law doesn’t bind us any more, we are allowed to change laws.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Not the Constitution. At least, not so easily. “The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,…” and “when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States….”

      • The constitution also lacks any gendered pronouns regarding citizenship. Clearly (like super clearly if you’ve read anything about the drafting) the founding fathers intended for some details to be covered in easily changable laws, that is why our constitution is so short and flexible.

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          Actually, their use of exclusively masculine pronouns to describe the President shows that they never imagined such gender neutrality.

          • You’re getting off track, those are for president, I said citizenship. Obama meets the pronoun standard for president too, but the pronouns used for president have nothing to do with the question of citizenship.

            So please provide some American Jurisprudence to support your claim that citizenship follows from the father.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            My series on this case has at least one link to an earlier article I wrote in which I discovered several cases that would fit this bill.

          • Geno says:

            Terry wrote:
            Actually, their use of exclusively masculine pronouns to describe the President shows that they never imagined such gender neutrality

            Geno points out:
            At the time of the foundation of the nation, having women vote was unthinkable …. let alone them holding political office. However, it is worth note that the English language lacks a gender neutral pronoun that could be applied to such a document.

  5. It’s not only I who find Rick Santorum’s and Michele Bachmann’s expressed views extreme. Even among weekly churchgoers, Gallup found opinions on permitting gays to serve openly in the military rising from about 50% in favour in 2004 to about 60% in 2009/10. A similar trend, with almost identical numbers, happened in Republican voters. The Republicans’ constituency is changing its views, slowly, moving towards acceptance. Michele and Rick are just moving in the wrong direction.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      “Not in my foxhole!” That I heard from a real veteran.

      I think your polls suffer from sampling bias and self-selection bias. I think you can measure the history of your poll with a number of emergency telephone handset replacements, for handsets with big pieces broken off them. “#)(*%&)(! You got me up from my dinnertable to ask me such a $(&*^*&^ stupid question! Get out of here!” [Whambo!]

  6. Here you reject the consistent results of a series of polls by a reputable polling organization. Your anecdote is amusing but the fact remains that America has integrated openly homosexual troops into all branches of the services this summer past, and that this achievement prompted so little incident that it went almost unnoticed by the media.

    Homosexuality is no longer a controversial matter even among the traditionally conservative US military.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      How reputable? They never talked to me. Nor to any of my fellow church members, nor to any Tea Party activist whom I have ever been able to reach.

      I simply do not accept your evaluation of the US military. It is not the military with which I am familiar.

  7. This is, I must say, a quite extraordinary performance. You reject Gallup results with nothing more than a series of flippant anecdotes and baffling non sequiturs. You reject the facts concerning the recent integration of the military in your country by shruggingly disowning them.

    I am being reluctantly led to the conclusion that you simply cannot accept facts that are inconvenient.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      The Gallup Poll is notorious for slanting left. This is the first time you even named the Gallup Poll. Conservatives haven’t trusted that poll for years.

      If you want to build a case, try a Rasmussen Poll.

  8. […] Self-fulfilling conservative prophecy […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.