The American Spectator : Political Sanctum Santorum?

Text Size

Political Sanctum Santorum?

By Quin Hillyer on 7.15.10 @ 6:10AM

Can this conservative make a comeback?

It is folly, if not sheer madness, to think that a former U.S. senator who lost his last re-election campaign in a home-state landslide could possibly turn around and be elected president.

Or at least that’s what conventional wisdom would say. It’s a good thing for Rick Santorum that conventional wisdom, especially in politics, is usually preternaturally stupid. It’s also a good thing for Rick Santorum that he has a history of making absolute fools of the Washington chattering classes. Santorum, the courageously conservative former two-term U.S. House member and two-term senator from Pennsylvania, is openly considering a run for the White House. Conservative leaders and voters are preternaturally stupid if they don’t at least give him a serious hearing.

“The world has changed; America has changed,” said Santorum over coffee on June 29. Santorum was too polite to put it in quite the following terms, but I will: When Santorum lost in 2006, the Republican “brand” had been severely defaced by the Bush administration’s mangling of the Iraqi war effort (pre-surge) combined with the ham-handed response to Hurricane Katrina and with the horrendous Bush-Hastert big-government axis on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. But the Democrats had not yet had a chance to show their disdain for American traditions of individual liberty, or their disdain for the majority of American voters. That year, 2006, was the year Republicans lost the House and Senate in electoral slaughters nationwide. It was before the buyer’s remorse against Obamacare, before the Tea Parties, the town hall revolts, the Scott Brown election in Massachusetts, the sharp movement of independent voters away from the Democrats, and before cultural issues such as the Black Panthers and the NASA Muslim outreach enraged ordinary Americans against leftists alien to middle American mores. The country has moved a long way in Santorum’s direction in the past four years.

“In 2006, I was held as a stand-in for George W. Bush running for re-election in a state where George W. Bush’s favorable ratings were 31 or 32 percent… and in a state that has 1.2 million more Democrats that Republicans,” Santorum said. “Unlike many of my colleagues… who tried to run for the moderate hills, I did not. I ran to the right of Bush. I was talking about Iran’s threat when people were already tired of Iraq; I was calling for a commitment to something like what became the ‘surge’ when nobody else but McCain was doing so. I admit it: I was out of step for 2006. But I think voters in 2012 will look for someone who has the same commitments [to principle] in good times and bad.”

Is he whistling past the graveyard? Consider that when this lawyer/MBA first ran for Congress at age 32 in 1990, it was against a seven-term incumbent in a district so heavily Democratic that the National Republican Congressional Committee gave him almost no support because committee (un)wise men thought the race unwinnable. But Santorum won. When he ran for Senate in 1994, he again defeated an incumbent Democrat in a race for which the GOP Washington pooh-bahs gave little support. Again he won. And in 2000, he was expected to lose for re-election; but, running to the right of presidential nominee Bush, Santorum again won while Bush failed to carry Pennsylvania.

Rick Santorum is not a man daunted by long odds; he is a man who beats long odds. And he does it while speaking like a forthright conservative, not by trimming his sails.

Then again, many conservatives point to — or have conniption fits about — the one big example where they say Santorum didn’t just trim his sails, but let them luff. It was, his critics say, a major, major, absolutely unforgivable transgression in 2004 when Santorum endorsed Arlen Specter for re-election against conservative primary challenger Pat Toomey.

To which Barry Goldwater would again say to these conservatives: Grow up. Seriously, grow the bleep up. Perhaps no unwritten rule in politics is as unwaveringly observed, and deservedly so, as the rule that U.S. Senators of the same party in the same state endorse each other for re-election. They may even despise each other, but they endorse each other. It is part self-preservation and part necessity for the larger party and movement. Publicly open warfare between both senators in a state, if they are from the same party, can do more damage to the greater cause than just about anything imaginable. This is not a rule that applies to senators from different states, or to presidents deigning to interfere in local party primaries. It only applies to same-state, same-party senators, because the opportunities for mischief in those situations are just too great.

But when I asked Santorum about his support for Specter, he didn’t use this rule as an excuse. “In retrospect, it was a mistake,” he said. “I’ve admitted that. But you’ve gotta understand what my thinking was at the time. We had a 51-49 majority in the Senate. George W. Bush was up for a tough re-election fight. My sole focus was, how do we secure our majority, related most importantly to how could we confirm up to three Bush nominees to the Supreme Court. [Democrats were filibustering conservative nominees.] Conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans would be crucial to confirming Supreme Court nominees. Specter personally pledged to me he would support Bush’s Supreme Court nominees [absent an ethical issue].”

I pressed Santorum on this. Was this a firm pledge, akin to the no-tax pledge by Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform? Answer: “Specter agreed to support. Absolutely.” And, he added, that support indeed proved vital in getting Samuel Alito through the Senate.

“Look, when I was in the Senate, Arlen was with us on a lot of key, close votes when I asked him. Partial-birth abortion, for example.”

Maybe, he mused, he over-sold Specter’s helpfulness in his own mind. “Arlen caused me many more problems than [the times] he helped me.”

Hindsight isn’t just 20-20; it’s 20-15. Nobody is right ever time when in the middle of the fray. If in 14 years on Capitol Hill, the worst thing Rick Santorum ever did from a conservative standpoint was to support his own in-state colleague for re-election — and with a key pledge in hand, at that — then that surely is a failing well worth forgiving. Toomey himself seems to have forgiven Santorum; why should other conservatives hold that grudge?

Looking forward, Santorum sees a looming fight for president in which the only way both to beat Barack Obama and to do so in a way that sets the table for seriously rolling back his policies is for Obama’s opponent to be fully and deeply engaged in the broad wells of conservative thought and able, against all establishment media challenges, to explain the conservative approach in ways the public can fully grasp.

“We need a consistent conservative who can articulate for Americans the principles of the founding fathers… and apply them today. Last time we did not have a candidate who could articulate that in any persuasive way. I can.”

Editor’s Note: This was part one of a two-part column. This one focused on purely political questions. Tomorrow’s column will examine Santorum’s policy record and prescriptions.

About the Author

Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (238) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

jose goldfinger| 7.15.10 @ 7:36AM

Who cares what Barry Goldwater would say? What part of "unforgivable" don't you understand? "Everybody does it" is an excuse that kids give their parents, not a legitimate reason for supporting the devil. Tough luck, Rick - that "mistake" will come back to haunt you forever.

A. C. Santore| 7.15.10 @ 9:19AM

Specter wasn't "the devil" yet when Santorum supported him.

I became a staunch opponent of Specter, but Santorum did the right thing for the good of the country when he supported Specter then, as the article shows.

Kay J| 7.15.10 @ 11:34AM

I've been thinking about who I might be able to support in 2012. I really like Rick Santorum and I would support him. I like Sarah Palin very much also but I hope she does not run. She needs to wait to win. Go Rick Go.

SirJason | 7.15.10 @ 3:46PM

Getting Samuel Alito through the Judicial Committee and then the Senate to be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice...is worth the sacrifice former Senator Rick Santorum needed to make.

ds80| 7.15.10 @ 8:05AM

Sorry, Rick: your 16 years in the House/Senate is plenty long enough. Washington needs to be radically reset by new citizen legislators, not retreads, throwbacks, or "do-overs".

Scott| 7.15.10 @ 11:23AM

Agreed. We need a non-Washington running in 2012, not another career Washington insider.

John | 7.17.10 @ 2:46AM

Agreed no more Qwasi Social Conservatives! Take our country back to our constitution where she belongs. Do it now, don't wait till November!

Tim*| 7.15.10 @ 8:29AM

We Tea Party Rebels support The Real Conservative Pat Toomey.

Let The RINO Collaborator Santorum publicly ask for Pat Toomey's forgiveness and then publicly ask for Pennsylvania Conservatives' forgiveness.

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .

We Elect Pennsylvania's Next U.S. Senator Pat Tommey On November 2nd.

vtwin| 7.15.10 @ 3:38PM

There's only one candidate that worries most Democratic strategists: "Jeb [Bush] is married to a Latina, is fluent in Spanish, speaks on Univision as a commentator, his Spanish is that good”

Purpleguy| 7.15.10 @ 4:36PM

Yes, please, run another Bush, please.

Nick| 7.15.10 @ 5:53PM

Are you still commenting here, PurpleJackass?

You, who thinks John Marshall was the first chief justice of the Supreme Court?

You, who doesn't know the difference between the words "precedence" and "precedents?"

You, who is totally ignorant of U.S. history, the Constitution, and politics?

Are you some sort of sadist, PurpleJackass?

JmsA| 7.15.10 @ 8:52PM

Nick,

I love it. You'll never let the guy live it down. I just cracked up when I read your post.

Nick| 7.16.10 @ 12:41AM

JmsA,

I love using Alinsky against liberals.
It is as much fun as winning an argument with a bleeding heart.

JmsA| 7.15.10 @ 8:49PM

Yes, his Spanish is good, but he ain't got a chance.

JmsA| 7.18.10 @ 1:35PM

How original: you quoted Sam Stein from the Huffington Post.

vtwin| 7.18.10 @ 2:27PM

A conservative that reads something other than TAS I'm impressed.

Bilwick| 7.15.10 @ 8:37AM

As I recall Santorum was one of those Bush Era "statist conservatives" who liked to mock those of us of the pro-freedom persuasion. That's all we need in the Age of Il Dufe: Republicans who like the Mailed Fist, too.

Quin| 7.15.10 @ 11:33AM

I don't remember a single instance of Santorum mocking conservatives. Please provide one.

Bilwick| 7.15.10 @ 5:02PM

Can't cite chapter and verse, Quin, and I don't have my leather-bound copy of "The Wit and Wisdom of Rick Santorum" before me. Maybe "derided" is a better word than "mock" (he doesn't strike me as the satirical type) but I do recall reading something he had written (maybe that book that was published in his name) in which he dismissed the concerns of any libertarian or libertarianish conservative who questioned using the power of the State to promote social conservatism.

gypsy| 7.15.10 @ 8:56AM

we need a choice, not an echo

Mr. Santorum, for all his good qualities, is an echo from the past. So are Gingrich, Romney, Giuliani and McCain

We don't need re-treads: we need more Bachmans, Ryans, Jindals and Palins

Robert | 7.15.10 @ 9:47AM

Amen!

loulou| 7.15.10 @ 10:18AM

Amen! And Mike Pences, Sue Myricks, Marsha Blackburns, and especially: Jan Brewer!

And heads up--Ken Cuccinelli of VA is coming down the pike!

George True| 7.15.10 @ 1:35PM

Jan Brewer has a mixed record as far as I am concerned. She is the one who engineered a 12.5% increase in the state sales tax this year here in Arizona, in staunch opposition to her own conservative legislature. She did this to avoid having to cut the still-bloated state budget. She also presided over a new tax on groceries that went into effect this year. She is no real conservative in my opinion.

I do heartily applaud and approve of her decision to sign SB 1070 into law. However, even that was largely a political consideration. Prior to her signing it, polling in Arizona was showing that 75% of Arizonans supported the bill. By signing it, she clinched the Republican gubernatorial primary (against several much better conservatives who were running even with her, and who have now withdrawn), and is likewise a shoe-in to defeat the Dem candidate and former attorney general Terry Goddard. Signing SB 1070 locked up the election for her, and I am sure that was a primary consideration in her signing it.

Purpleguy| 7.15.10 @ 4:37PM

You don't have to be in Washington to be a Washington politician.

Scott| 7.15.10 @ 11:28AM

I'd agree if you took out the bimbo combo of Palin/Bachman.

We need intellectuals, not idiots.

Claudia | 7.15.10 @ 11:57AM

Oh, please! You sound like a male chauvinist pig!
Check these ladies resume'. How does yours compare?

Purpleguy| 7.15.10 @ 4:39PM

So you would vote for Sarah "I can see Russia from my House" Palin and Michelle "Congress is Un-American" Bachman for the ticket? Really?

Radegunda| 7.15.10 @ 6:40PM

Are you really stupid enough to confuse Tina Fey with Sarah Palin?

Purpleguy| 7.15.10 @ 8:24PM

Did you actually hear what Sarah Palin said in her own words when describing her claim to foreign policy knowledge vis a vis Russia? If you did, you're the stupid one. If not, you're just ignorant.

Bilwick1| 7.16.10 @ 9:39AM

Palin also claimed there were 57 states. Oh, wait--never mind. That was Obama. Never mind.

But let's be frank, Purpleguy. As someone who has erotic fantasies of being fisted by Michelle Obama while she's wearing her "Ilse She-Wolf of the IRS" outfit, don't you really dislike Palin because she's too pro-freedom for you?

Purpleguy| 7.16.10 @ 10:21PM

Actually, no, I dislike Palin because she's dumb. I want someone smarter and more able than any of us to be President, and Ms Palin, the witch doctor advocate and mama grizzly ain't it. She's entertaining, I'll give her that, but I suspect you guys out there want to give her something else, dontcha? You betcha! does it for ya, huh?

I'll ignore your stupid, disgusting, quite disturbing comment, since that's says more about what's in your mind than mine.

KerryEMT| 7.17.10 @ 10:46AM

He was actually claiming 59 states. He said, "we've been to 57 states.....still got 2 more to go." Obama is such a boob.

KerryEMT| 7.17.10 @ 10:39AM

Jeez your an idiot.

Nancy in NC| 7.15.10 @ 2:21PM

I personally like Sarah Palin, however I don't think she's ready for the presidency. We need someone who does more than just makes us feel good, and proud to me a patriot.

I like Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, Tim Pawlenty, and Bobby Jindal; as well as Michelle Bachman. I don't think she's an idiot at all.

Claudia| 7.15.10 @ 4:18PM

I'm with you on all counts.

Purpleguy| 7.15.10 @ 4:42PM

Come on now, let's have Palin Place - you know, like the old Peyton Place. We have Mama Grizzly, whatever that means. We have Porn Star Son-in-Law to be Levi. We have Bristol "bet she has another one in 8 months Palin. Oh and the ever popular Sledding King ... What a grand show for the Presidency, don't you think? Right up there with Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan, huh? Just think of the endless infotainment from the Rogue herself - you betcha!

Nick| 7.15.10 @ 5:58PM

Sorry, PurpleJackass, but it's the democrats that are the party of pornagraphy.

Michelle| 7.15.10 @ 6:46PM

I have to agree with the others on Palin. While I believe she's trustworthy and certainly patriotic, may I remind everyone that she ran already and LOST?

Palin had to go "rogue" just to speak her real mind? What does that say about her? It says she didn't speak when she was running for VP and the reason was because she didn't want to rock the boat for political reasons. If we're going to point fingers at Santorum for making the mistake of backing Spector, remember that it was Palin who backed wishy-washy RINO McCain even after she supposedly went rogue. Make no mistake that she never lost her ability to put politics above her personal convictions.

There's too many mistakes going on here with Palin and I have to agree, the Peyton Place soap opera going on in the background is a loser.

Sure, Palin is a good person. She means well. She does love the country. But I can say that of probably anyone writing in this thread. That does NOT make them presidential material. I'd be the first to admit I couldn't do that job.

If we're looking for a role model and echoing the Tea Party mantra of the Founders, then we need to find as close to a George Washington as possible. Just using his name doesn't cut it. The people WANT an honest, humble, servant of the people who put Americans and liberty first.

The qualities of George Washington have certainly not been articulated by any of the politicians so far. If Santorum and the Republicans intend to do so, they had best start now and then explain what the plan is to imitate those ideals in this century by emulating tried and true principles the people already know about, better than the politicians do.

Obama's mantra was that loser FDR that he set as the sneaky groundwork for in his socialist agenda. It was obviously a plan, albeit one that even FDR himself would have cringed at. The Republicans know the answer is in the Founders mantra, but they have yet to identify specifically why that is and the course they have in mind to produce the same results the Founders did that mean something to the people that they all can trust.

Reagan's strong point was that he was able to teach points of history in his speeches that resounded within himself and brought that to the people. They understood what he intended to do and where he obtained that philosophy. He was both teacher and a transparent President.

Obama uses historical figures and then pulls them so far left that the example is unrecognizable to his reference point.

The people have seen right through the games. There is no honesty to be found in manipulation. Obama's sincerity for the country first is non-existent and his poll numbers prove the people have gotten that message.

I'd be all for Santorum if and when he starts articulating what he admires about the Founders and how he intends on implementing the stronger fruits of their labor.

Whoever runs, we had best know upfront what their personal convictions are and not have to guess, as we did with Obama, only to find out our first clue should have been at Joe the Plumber's house.

Purpleguy| 7.15.10 @ 8:27PM

Unless you voted for Obama, why would you care what his personal convictions were? Oh, and regards FDR - he was the perfect blend of the Daddy Party and the Mommy Party. He took no shit, but had a heart. Sad to say most politicians are on one side or the other, but not both at the same time. The ones with heart are called weak, the ones that take no shit are called heartless, and we all are stuck in the middle.

Nick| 7.16.10 @ 12:37AM

FDR was a commie sympathizer, PurpleJackass.

He had polio of the brain.

Didn't you wish O'Bama was half the man that the Polio Prince was? This means you want President Dither to have one lame leg? Or, did want him to be paralyzed from the neck up?

KerryEMT| 7.17.10 @ 10:41AM

What is the statists Lincoln and FDR in that group of great presidents?

Purpleguy| 7.17.10 @ 5:52PM

Historical polling puts Lincoln, FDR, Washington, Jefferson, JFK in the top 5 all the time ... that's why. Reagan is not in the top 5, but I mentioned him to throw you a bone. But he's not as bad as Dubya who brings up the rear .... poor George, he can't help it... he's an idiot
http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....st_popular

JmsA| 7.15.10 @ 8:54PM

And while you're at it, replace the current republican leadership and don't reward Boehner and/or McConnell (should either chamber change hands).

Purpleguy| 7.16.10 @ 10:23PM

Come on now, don't me mad at Boner and Old Turtle Face. It's not their fault, they're corrupt.

Jeremiah| 7.15.10 @ 9:01AM

In 2006, scores of Republicans revealed their character. A brutally tough year, many GOP Congressional candidates started trying to sound like mini-liberals themselves - and they ran like scalded dogs from President Bush and the war effort in Iraq. It filled me with contempt for the many sunshine soldiers the GOP has.

I, too, was unhappy about the endorsement of Specter. But in 2006, Santorum had a real choice to make. He could start mumbling liberal inanities in hopes of surviving the coming electoral bloodbath or he could stand foursquare for freedom and tell the truth about the looming threats, knowing it would get him crushed on election day. I watched in awestruck wonder as he chose to stand foursquare for the truth about what we faced and how to deal with it. At the time, I directed colleagues to look at what Santorum was doing. Many (most of my colleagues are professional politicians) thought he was a chump. I thought he was an American Churchill.

After 2008 I told my friends that in 2012 I would unalterably support Sarah Palin for president - unless Rick Santorum decided to get in the race. The friends mostly chuckled that the 'loser' was done. He is the most admirable, experienced and gutsy man in the country right now (with apologies to Chris Christie - who is showing how to govern against the left and for the people). If we conservatives reject Santorum because of his mistaken endorsement of Specter in '04 in hopes of holding a Republican majority, than we are short-sighted fools who deserve the bloviating nonentities we often get on the GOP side and the socialist radicals our short-sightedness empowers on the left.

Kathryn Drake| 7.15.10 @ 12:52PM

Your points are excellently made. I purposely listen to Bennett's Friday shows in the early A.M. because Santorum is a fantastic guest host who is well grounded, as is Bill Bennett himself, in sound conservative principles. Both come across as compassionate, intelligent, common-sensical individuals and give meaning to the word "respectability."

A. Jurgensen| 7.15.10 @ 2:15PM

What's respectable about gambler, Bill Bennett?

JmsA| 7.15.10 @ 8:56PM

I guess you've never been to Vegas. I prefer Laughlin myself.

Dolores A. Narducci| 7.15.10 @ 6:40PM

Amen to all in above comment. Go Santorum. You have my vote.

Joel| 7.15.10 @ 1:39PM

A agree with you completely. Far too many are yelling that we put newbies into the next administration. That is exactly what we have now in the executive division. Rick Santorum is a decent and highly intelligent man. Perhaps, no coservative is available who would be better qualified than him. With the possible exception of Newt Gingrich...who is anathema to all the idiots. He is one smart dude and between the two, Santorum-Gingrich, this country would be turned around.

A. Jurgensen| 7.15.10 @ 2:18PM

Neither Santorum or Gingrich has a chance in Hell of ever being president.
They have each had their day. Only the oldsters are still enamored of these has-beens.

Nancy in NC| 7.15.10 @ 2:24PM

We need to stop electing people as if it were a popularity contest. How about experience and competence?

Too much time in Washington, however, is not a good thing, however we need to find someone that doesn't know George Soros and his ilk. How about a real American conservative for a change?

Dolores A. Narducci| 7.15.10 @ 6:44PM

Even a so called "has-been" would be better for our country than the current administration.

Sixtnpenny| 7.15.10 @ 11:52PM

Listen to Santorum on Fridays when he subs for Bennett in the morning. He is one of only four or five conservatives nationally who articulates the conservative view and values clearly. Moreover , he has a hands down understanding of the workings of both houses of Congress. A solid choice for President.

DanMingo| 7.16.10 @ 5:43AM

Elect Santorum to prevent man-on-dog sex!

Nickq| 7.16.10 @ 3:20PM

Then, whatever will you do on Saturday nights, DanMingo?

Purpleguy| 7.15.10 @ 4:44PM

"In 2006, scores of Republicans revealed their character. A brutally tough year, many GOP Congressional candidates started trying to sound like mini-liberals themselves - and they ran like scalded dogs from President Bush and the war effort in Iraq." - if you think that's why they lost, you weren't paying attention.

Michelle| 7.15.10 @ 6:59PM

That is why they lost. Voting for McCain/Palin was a vote for a mini-Obama, for those who saw the liberal agendas at work.

Or did you forget McCain's speech, "You don't want those people to lose their houses now do you?" And when those people still couldn't pay the mortgage under Obama, what did the dems recommend? "Just Squat".

Just an example that this is not what a common sense person would recommend. It's preying on the sympathies of the people after government has made the problem. The problem stemmed in ultra-liberalism. A true conservative would have never allowed a person to buy something they knew they couldn't afford. A true conservative would help create the job whereby they could afford it. The ultra-liberal is there to dole out money from taxpayer's coffer after there's a screw-up.

Purpleguy| 7.15.10 @ 8:33PM

Can you explain please why when Bill Clinton presided over the largest tax increase in history, in 1993, it was followed by 22 million new jobs created by 2000, while GW Bush presided over one of the largest tax cuts in history, 2001, where the country gained only 3 million jobs by 2008 - not even enough to absorb the population growth seeking jobs and resulted in a net loss of jobs by the time he left office?

Tax cuts are not the answer to job creation. period. Tax cuts are meant to "kill the beast" and starve the government of cash, so grandma can be thrown off of social security and medicare, the scourge of Republicanism, and end both.

Christopher Holland| 7.15.10 @ 10:49PM

Purpleguy, this is nonsense on stilts - stick to making smartarse comments about Sarah Palin because you know Jack about economics - or much else for that matter. You are a stupid loudmouth bore - a classic liberal. Taxes and government spending destroy investment and jobs like water puts out a fire. Just look at California, Michigan, New York, New Jersey - the list goes on. The states with economic growth and low unemployment are those where government spending and taxes are low - Texas is a good example. There is no evidence at all that your ideas work. The Soviet Union and African third world kleptocracies would be booming economies if you statements were true. They are not. Either stop wasting everybody's time with your ignorant liberal prejudices or grow up - preferably both.

DanMingo| 7.16.10 @ 5:48AM

The states with economic growth and low unemployment are those where government spending and taxes are low - Texas is a good example."
Yes, a good example of a State that takes more from the federal government than they pay in taxes.

Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed
http://taxprof.typepad.com/tax....._feed.html

Purpleguy| 7.16.10 @ 10:33PM

Guess I hit a little too close to home, huh? Facts are pesky little devils, ain't they. You never answered the questions, did you notice? We all did.

Calling names is the ultimate sign you've lost the argument. So, instead of calling names, why don't you go learn something outside the Fox-Rush echo chamber and then come back and play.

Oh, I do enjoy Sarah Palin Place, but your comments are completely wrong. As James Madison remarked in Federalist #51, paraphrasing here - If men were angels we wouldn't need a government.
The dismantling of the regulatory system since the Reagan years has shown us finally what that bargain has wrought. Scream about liberalism all you want, but it was Reaganomics and its aftermath in the Bush years and yes, part of the Clinton years, that brought us to the brink of ruin. And America will NOT go back to that!
11/02/2010 ...

Sixtnpenny| 7.15.10 @ 11:59PM

Purpleguy

Explain please the success of a free enterprise, capitalist based economy like West Germany (that cut taxes, increased revenues and was copied by John F. Kennedy in his tax cut) and the dismal economy of East Germany, the central planning, socialist government with high taxes and entitlements.

JFK| 7.16.10 @ 1:08PM

So, you favor a return to the JFK tax rates?
Bravo!

Purpleguy| 7.16.10 @ 10:39PM

I agree with you, with one exception - Germany doesn't support a huge military as we do. No one I know in liberal or progressive circles advocates socialism, that is just a made-up boogie man that Fox and Rush thrill you all with to gin up ratings.

America is not, and has never been socialist in thought or deed.

Interestingly, though, Germany has had Universal healthcare since the late 1800's (Bismarck's time) and through WWII and up to today, and they are a model of capitalism, as you say, just as we are.

Just spitballing here, but how do you explain the success and rise of the Chinese, with all their communist government policies and such? They are using a form of capitalism, right?

The story is not as black and white as you may want to make it, I'm afraid.

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.15.10 @ 9:02AM

Just look at who was endorsed by whom. Rehashed, recycled, retro RINO's need no further introduction.
NO!

Cris Worth| 7.15.10 @ 9:03AM

Santorum's crushing defeat in 2006 puts the political sword of Damocles over his head. He's damaged goods. Why nominate someone who will have a difficult time winning his home state? Also his Catholicism won't sit well with southern conservatives. Just what are his policy positions and presidential platform....conservative? My guess no, another wishy washy Bob Dole who today I still don't know what he stood for.

Michelle| 7.15.10 @ 7:02PM

Translation: Santorum's Catholicism just doesn't sit right with you.

Van Sharpley| 7.15.10 @ 9:13AM

Quin,
Santorum is a perfect primary candidate. No argument, here.
I have been tuned in, but not until this column, have I read that he said it was a mistake. Should he just "grow up" and act like it never happened?
Also, is it possible that the 2006 Penn. Republican primary voters were a "pre-TEA party" example of reaction against the "Senator's club" mentality?
One last question: will you inform us of his actions and attitudes that show his current "fight" against RINOs? (I am still a bit wounded by the Spector endorsement, but happy to re-evaluate. Just looking for strength!)

TURK| 7.15.10 @ 9:22AM

To all except Jerimiah, I say amen amen! More than the leftist d's the Rinos brought us to this dangerous point. Worse than a rino is a retread rino.

William R| 7.15.10 @ 9:43AM

Lets hope not. Santorum is part of the problem. Lockstep with Bush, Cheney, McCain, Lindsey Graham etc etc on foreign policy. Here he is in his own words.

"Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a potential Republican presidential candidate, warned Monday that conservatives should be wary of the libertarian strain of thought in the tea party movement."

But here is Ronald Reagan

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

Bottom line. Santorum is a big government hack.

Michelle| 7.15.10 @ 7:08PM

I'm unfamiliar with that quote Santorum made re: Libertarians. He didn't say what to be wary of, or you didn't expound further if he did say what it was.

The problem I have with Libertarians is that they have adopted this hefty disdain for Republicans when there really is no need for it. Both are supposed to be conservative at heart. Perhaps this is what Santorum was saying? Or perhaps he holds the same disdain? We need to know and get the rift resolved.

I agree that Reagan put it best.

Tim*| 7.15.10 @ 9:54AM

Ya got a point there !

Santorum is something of a frontman for the same faction , that gave us the serial traitor to conservatism McCain in the Republican Primaries last time.

Quin| 7.15.10 @ 11:36AM

This is just flat-out incorrect. Santorum openly and bravely criticized McCain and urged conservatives not to give up their fight against McCain even after most of the media had already pronounced McCain the sure nominee. That's a fact.

Tim*| 7.15.10 @ 12:07PM

Santorum endorsed Mitt Romney.

We're talkin' about the neoconservative faction that financed & supported The Serial Traitor To Conservatism McCain .

This same faction supports Santorum .

PCC| 7.15.10 @ 9:58AM

I suggest that Mr. Santorum get some experience in a real job before he asks anybody to vote for him again.

Joe D| 7.15.10 @ 10:19AM

As far as Santorum is concern, let's not forget Lincoln and others who lost races and rose to new heights. Also, Pennsyvania is a stupid state. Look at Specter. This is also during the anti-Bush period. I think he would be great.

Cris Worth| 7.15.10 @ 11:46AM

Some differences...Lincoln was not an incumbent senator and the choice was made by the Illinois state legislature. Santorum on the other hand was a two term incumbent and was routed receiving 41.28% of the popular vote. A close election maybe, but a defeat of this magnitude plus the assurance he would have difficulty winning his home state in a general election eliminates him.

Joan| 7.15.10 @ 10:21PM

I think Santorum would be a good choice. As for Pennsylvania being a stupid state, I'm from PA (a great state!) and I am not stupid by any means! I am seeing a lot of PA residents changing their tune about Obama. Many are realizing that he is not a man of his word and he is out to destroy the USA. I would love to see PA change from a Democratic to a Republican state, or better yet, an Independent state!

Joan| 7.15.10 @ 10:25PM

I don't believe PA is a stupid state, but I do believe it has a lousy governor!

DanMingo| 7.16.10 @ 5:53AM

Obama. Many are realizing that he is not a man of his word and he is out to destroy the USA."
I thought you wrote that you are not stupid.
Then you wrote that Obama wants to 'destroy ' the USA.
Yes, just like the 'terrists' he hates us for our freedoms.
Too much talk radio propaganda.

Dai Alanye | 7.15.10 @ 10:23AM

As a long-time right-wing extremist and Pennsylvania neighbor I would back Santorum for any high office. I felt our strongest ticket in 2008 would have been Thompson/Santorum both from the electability and governing standpoints.

So far as I can recall his only slip from solid conservatism has been the Specter backing. Like Sarah Palin's endorsement of McCain it can and should be overlooked as inapplicable to present conditions. As his talking head performances on Fox News demonstrate, and despite some unlearned opinions here, he's never been of the RINO breed.

Tim*| 7.15.10 @ 10:49AM

Santorum was a RINO Collaborator for Super RINO Specter , Not a RINO himself .

He should have stayed out of the Pat Toomey -Arlen Specter Showdown. But he didn't . He & Bush , at the last minute , backed Super Traitor RINO Specter & tilted the very close Republican Primary of 2004 against Our Real Conservative Pat Toomey .

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Pat Toomey Will Be Pennsylvania's Next U.S. Senator .

Scott| 7.15.10 @ 11:26AM

Sorry, Thompson was a joke. Never put in a full day of work in his life.

Cris Worth| 7.15.10 @ 11:51AM

Fred Thompson was another phony conservative. Voting to acquit Bill on one charge of impeachment eliminated him. Just like Santorum's support of Specter ended his senate career. One bad apple spoiled the whole bunch.

Oldefarte| 7.15.10 @ 10:27AM

Excellent and TRUE, especially the thought ["....Publicly open warfare between both senators in a state, if they are from the same party, can do more damage to the greater cause than just about anything imaginable..."] that competing members of the same organization can sometimes cuase DEFEAT THEIR PRIMARY/UNIVERSAL GOALS. IMO, Santorium is a good conservative guy, but he's too nice to run/be elected President, especially against this group of thugs now in control of this nation. Ginguich also. What's needed is a GOFORTHE JUGULAR conservative [ie Barbour, Palin, Bachmann, Ryan,etc]. 2012 will only be won by a Republican if same has the political gahoonaes to get down in the ditch and fight like Hades against the current office holder and the liberal, extremist Democrat policies that they are imploying at present. According to my wackjob mind, we need to seriously slach governmental spending, take over the Education Dept and retool it toward effective learning, get our military out of foreign countries and SERIOUSLY WARN THEM TO NEVER, EVER ATTEMPT A 9/11/01 EVENT AGAIN OR THEIR COUNTRIES FUTURES WILL BECOME IN PERIL, transfer government welfare into workfare, eliminate foreign aid and inform countries that if they want our money then they must work [show their political support for us] for same,etc. [and that's just for starters]. The PC, back-scratching political BS that's existed in this country for my entire lifetime must come to an abrupt end, if we are to survive and prosper as a nation. Otherwise, we will soon become the next Nigeria or Cuba!!!!!!

Doctor Right| 7.15.10 @ 10:40AM

I'm not comparing the two men at all, but the cries on this forum that Santorum is "yesterday's news" sound remarkably similar to conventional wisdom that Ronald Reagan was "too old" and "too right wing" to ever be nominated by the GOP, let alone actually win the Presidency.

Rick Santorum is an admirable, 100% reliable Conservative from a critical swing state.

He's the kind of guy that doesn't flinch from Democrat attacks (which will be furious), or from his core convictions.

I also have a hard time thinking that his Catholic faith will be an impediment to Southern Protestants. Are you kidding me???? It's not 1950, folks! And besides, the current occupant of the White House has highly questionable Christian "creds"...A bona-fide, devout Catholic would be a breath of fresh air!

Compared to the current crop of folks being considered for the White House by the GOP - Romney, Gingrich, even Sarah Palin - all have baggage, themselves.

I'd take Rick Santorum over any of them.

If Santorum runs, his candidacy will live or die based on what he proposes to the Party and the Country. Let's not do what the GOP usually does, and damage our candidates before the election even gets underway. The Democrats will be trying to do that - we don't need to help them.

Good Luck, Rick!

George Nasrallah| 7.15.10 @ 2:02PM

In South Carolina, birthplace of the confederacy, Republicans have nominated a woman of Indian (Asian) heritage for governor. So much for southern "bias"

Ralph Novy| 7.15.10 @ 3:30PM

Pig lipstick.

JmsA| 7.15.10 @ 9:12PM

Santorum is a good guy, but he ain't no Reagan.

CD| 7.15.10 @ 11:22AM

As a chair of my Republican party, I would roll up my sleeves and knock on doors AGAINST Santorum. BOOOOOO from PA!

Scott| 7.15.10 @ 11:25AM

No, no, NOOOOOO!!!!!!!! This is Bush redux....same exact policies both social and foreign policy. Why the hell would the GOP continue on that same mantra.

jmoore| 7.15.10 @ 11:30AM

"Perhaps no unwritten rule in politics is as unwaveringly observed, and deservedly so, as the rule that U.S. Senators of the same party in the same state endorse each other for re-election." In other words, back a neo con like Santorum even if he brings the same old statism and interventionism.

wally| 7.15.10 @ 11:32AM

"More Bachmans, Jindals, Ryans, Palins and Brewers"

As your part time resident liberal representative here, I heartily endorse your nomination of these people for national office. I strongly urge you to nominate these people. Lower levels of intelligence should NOT be a bar to electing Republican standard bearers! (It never has been, why start now).

While they are at it, why not have them come up with the Republican Party Platform.
* Balance the Budget but don't take taxes into account.
* Continue the endless wars of Bush Jr. and Obama.
*Return to Bush era fiscal and economic policies that were so successful
*Take away MORE of our citizens civil rights, e..g habeaus corpus and the right to not be tortured by our government
* Eliminate Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
*Eliminate the EPA, return the Dept of Interior to its cocain parties of the previous 8 years and let oil companies drill, baby, drill wherever they want

NavyBrat | 7.15.10 @ 12:47PM

"Lower levels of intelligence should NOT be a bar to electing Republican standard bearers! (It never has been, why start now)."

Right. And OhBummer using a teleprompter to talk to a room full of 6th graders is just another example of his breathtaking genius. Or the statement from this White House that Al Qaeda is a "racist" organization for killing African blacks & that they sould think about how to better accomplish their "long term goals" without killing these folks. LIKE WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT AL QAEDA WAS A RACIST ORGANIZATION TO BEGIN WITH?!!! And now that they've killed black folks in Africa, they're (insert gasp here) RACIST! Like they weren't racist when they were calling for & carrying out the killing of all non Muslims they can find? Like they didn't kill any black people on 9-11?

Spare us your sorry assed attempt to paint our potential candidates as "stupid." You lot are doing a good job of showing this country how well supposed "smart people" run things. Economy? In the crapper. Healthcare? Taken over against the will of the VAST majority of the country. Endless wars? Again, spare us your sophomoric hyperbole. Iraq? Winding down. And no thanks to Mr. "Date Certain for Withdrawl," when we leave, AQI & Iran will step in to fill the power vaccum. Afghanistan? Yeah, fighting a war with rules of engagement that are akin to having one hand tied behind your back is a SUPER way to win.

Oil drilling? Yes! Drill! Its because of eco pukes that we're even out that far, having to drill 5 miles down. And guess what, mental midget? If we were allowed to extract oil from the Bakken (not sure of the spelling on that) fields in the center of the country, or in ANWAR, there wouldn't BE any disasters of this magnitude. But that's too easy isn't it?

Finally, let's take it easy with tossing the phrase "cocaine parties" around. Your Dear Leader was a purveyor of the Peruvian Marching Powder while he was in college, along with ganja.

Face it Walleye, this country's in the crapper due to the governance of your Dear Leader & his acolytes. Bet you're proud of yourself. Now just sit back & wait for your taxpayer funded gub-ment check. After all, that's why you love these pukes so much, isn't it? You & your ilk are nothing more than societal leeches.

D Cheney| 7.16.10 @ 1:11PM

You have offered much to think about.
Like: "Finally, let's take it easy with tossing the phrase "cocaine parties" around. Your Dear Leader was a purveyor of the Peruvian Marching Powder while he was in college, along with ganja. "

Like GW Bush, you mean?
At least they weren't doing it on the job, like the MMS people you support.

Mac-101| 7.15.10 @ 11:40AM

Santorum is OK. Not great but OK. He did stick to his principles in 2006 and got wooped. I admire that. Most people I know admire that and had enough of Hope an Change. He bought an indulgance for supporting Spector. But what about his connection with McCain? I don't know, but McCain is a TRAITOR!

Tim*| 7.15.10 @ 11:44AM

Yeah , look at Obama !

Obama never made honors at Columbia or Occidental & look how he got Affirmative Actioned into Harvard Law.

It's Not The Content Of Your Character ,It's The Color Of Your Skin .

David| 7.15.10 @ 11:45AM

Pleeeeease people: To put Santorum in the same category as Specter, Gingrich, Romney, Guiliani, and McCain is absurd.

Other than the Specter endorsement, he has always been one of the very best spokesman for conservatism. He does not waver from it. He knows how to sell it to the voters. He is a sincerely principled man with tremendous integrity, and he is likeable. That is why he was elected and re-elected over and over in a state like PA.

I don't think his Catholicism will hurt him in the south because he actually allows what he personally believes to influence his political decisions. What would hurt is if he were a Catholic in the mold of Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, and so many of the other so-called believers.

He would not try to put a Harriet Meirs or Alberto Gonzales on the Supreme Court as Bush wanted.

The only drawback I see is that he has not been a governor, a business manager, or had some other executive experience.

I still like Mitch Daniels, governor of Indiana, IF he takes back his stupid comment that conservatives should put the social issues to the side for a while. If he doesn't sincerely admit he was wrong about that statement, then I don't want to see him on a presidential ticket in any capacity.

Cris Worth| 7.15.10 @ 12:01PM

Please explain his defeat in 2006 with 41.28% of the popular vote. Won't this defeat make him specifically the magnitude of it, politically unattractive for a GOP primary run?

darcy| 7.15.10 @ 3:32PM

I agree with you, David, about Mitch Daniels and his unwise "truce" statement. There can be no compromise with evil; to place "social" issues outside the bounds of political discussion is to succumb to liberal intimidation and fear.

A lot of people, unhappily, have the attitude that it doesn't matter that our society accepts the killing of unborn babies as a so-called right to privacy; it doesn't matter that homosexuals are demanding marriage, against the 50 centuries of human history and tradition that has recognized marriage as between one man and one woman; that it doesn't matter that the Left, through the department of education and the safe-schools czar (Orwellian tripe), is pushing the teaching of sex-ed for the mainstreaming of homosexuality onto the elementary school curriculum -- again, against tradition and in violation of parents' rights to religious freedom in transmitting their faith to their children.

All that matters is that we right this financially sinking ship of state. And then what? When prosperity returns and GDP outpaces debt by a 2 t0 1 margin, Then we can address our moral decline? I don't think Mitch Daniels understands the connection between the moral decline and the fiscal decline -- it's all of a piece, isn't it? You can't really have an entitlement mentality unless you've already chucked out morality.

Leo Rugiens | 7.15.10 @ 11:45AM

Sanctimonius Sanctorum committed the unforgiveable sin when he endorsed the Awful Spectre (Arlen Spector) over Pat Toomey in 2004. He is not qualified to hold any national office, much less the presidency of the United States.

Joan| 7.15.10 @ 10:32PM

Leo, have you never 'sinned'? Get real! I never liked Spector either, but Rick has at least admitted it was a mistake. The liars we now have in the White House will never admit they are wrong!

Bill| 7.15.10 @ 11:55AM

I like Rick Santorum, but I don't want anyone who runs for office as a "stand-in for George W. Bush."

farm kid| 7.15.10 @ 11:56AM

as a resident of penna,my thought is rick done himself in when moved to DC. he beat doug walgren by railing that doug lived in DC. then rick buys a home in a democract twp that is very active and they turned the tables. supporting arlen did not help rick. rick should not run.

Lester Gabriel | 7.15.10 @ 11:58AM

I have a lot of respect for Mr. Santorum, but making up for the Specter endorsement will take more than just words. He will have to show in 2010 that he understands that conservative voters will no longer allow their nominees to be determined by the RNC, RNSC, and RNCC and state-level establishment Party bosses. If he can do that, I would give him a serious look.

Greg Scandlen| 7.15.10 @ 11:59AM

I liked Santorum as a Senator, but that isn't saying much. Members of the Senate for the most part are a bunch of do-nothing blowhards. All they know how to do is ask prepackaged questions at mock hearings and pull a lever for Aye or Nay. A few of them have experience in administrative positions and they may be exceptions to the rule. But this notion in the mind of every member of the Senate that they deserve to be president is nothing but hubris.

Beth| 7.15.10 @ 12:05PM

We're holding Toomey up as a bastion of conservatism?

The same one that came out in support of Sotomayor for Supreme Court (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/pat-toomey-moderate.html) and used to say that abortion should be legal in the first trimester?

If we're willing to overlook these major flaws, I would expect to see the same for another.

Tim*| 7.15.10 @ 12:19PM

Pat Toomey :
" When John Roberts and Samuel Alito were nominated to the Supreme Court, Republicans argued that they should be confirmed based on their impeccable qualifications and mainstream jurisprudence. Now, Democrats are in power, and the same standard should apply. "

Read Toomey's Stand :
http://www.toomeyforsenate.com.....a-inquirer

Margie| 7.15.10 @ 8:26PM

Libertarians are not conservative. They are ok with abortion because they believe that "government should have no say.." as they are for legalizing just about everything for the same misplaced belief. Their claim is "fiscal responsibility" and social immorality and though they try and claim they are conservative, they actually despise conservatives and will only vote for those of their own ilk. This is why the vitriol for Santorum. Santorum is a Hawk, something the Libertarians also despise, as their platform is one of non-interventionism.

Ricky Santorum| 7.15.10 @ 11:14PM

Margie is an Apocalyptic Nutbag ,who badmouths Catholics like Me on other threads , but hypocritically promotes Me because she thinks I will cater to Her Bananas Apocalyptic Use Of Israel to fulfill her interpretation of the prophecies.

That about sum it up there , Crazed Broad ?

Christi| 7.16.10 @ 4:21AM

Out of line, ole Ricky wannabee. Don't see any anti-Catholicism in Margie's post - she's dead on about Libertarians. In some cases they are right about limited government. But, as Judge Andrew Napolitano (Catholic Libertarian) says, abortionists should be arrested and tried for murder.

DanMingo| 7.16.10 @ 6:01AM

"But, as Judge Andrew Napolitano (Catholic Libertarian) says, abortionists should be arrested and tried for murder. "

Hear, hear.
He also said warmongers and torturers should be brought to trial:
Fox Business Channel host of Freedom Watch Andrew Napolitano has renewed a call for the indictment of former President Bush and Vice President Cheney for attacks on the U.S. Constitution in a July 12 C-SPAN interview with leftist consumer advocate Ralph Nader. “It was blatantly unconstitutional and in some cases criminal,” the former New Jersey Superior Court judge told Nader. “They should have been indicted. They absolutely should have been indicted, for torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrant.”
http://www.thenewamerican.com/.....bushcheney

Margie| 7.16.10 @ 10:52AM

Correction: Arab population, not vote.

Christi| 7.16.10 @ 9:53PM

Thanks DanMingo. Wasn't aware of that. On the one hand, I defer to the judge because he knows the law and his books are quite good. On the other hand, I think he should set his sights on the current crisis - ousting Obama and repealing, rescinding or gaining judicial overturns of his harmful laws and orders.

Margie| 7.16.10 @ 10:51AM

Tim* (Ricky wannabe)~

You are a liar and a coward. Too much of a coward to take your real user name here. Tim* is a rabid anti-semite who says that thankfully the Arab vote will cancel out my "Israel-Firster, Neo-Con vote."

YOU are the lunatic hater.

Bill| 7.15.10 @ 12:07PM

Rick Santorum would make a great canidate, as well as Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Jim DeMint. I would be happy with any of these. Please no more Romney, Pawlente, Huckabee's. These folks are great people but we need someone who can actually win and turn back the tide of ill concieved policy that has been implemented by the Annointed One's regime.

Ralph Novy| 7.15.10 @ 3:24PM

Bill:

The ONLY potential candidate you mention with ANY brains and integrity is Paul Ryan. And, although basically honest, he's a cold-hearted bean-counter who can't count beans. Think a young Alan Greenspan.

Reason I comment: Think all your choices are moot. Have a sneaking suspicion that Jeb Bush is going to be pushed forward pretty soon and hard for the slot. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....7403.html.

As a "progressive" of Kucinich stripe, I'd fear the candidacy of Bush the most, current anti-Bush sentiment notwithstanding.

$.02

Ralph

RCV| 7.15.10 @ 7:07PM

Ralph - I basically agree with you, although not with the Jeb Bush fear. Bush-fatigue will last, I venture. Assuming he has no skeletons in closet, Paul Ryan could be a logical, effective candidate with an attractive platform, if he can run a campaign well. DeMint has no appeal beyond his narrow base and would be a Democrat's dream for an opponent, along with Sarah Palin. Michael Medved this afternoon had an interesting discussion of why the traditional political indicators point to an Obama win in 2012, especially given the present lack of an effective opponent and the GOP fratricide tendencies evident in these postings.

RCV| 7.15.10 @ 12:11PM

The way the right eats its own reminds me of the French Revolution, where the true believers would attack a group of their own as "not pure enough" until it culminated in the guillotining of Robespierre himself and the ultimate collapse of the Revolution.

Dai Alanye | 7.15.10 @ 2:14PM

I suspect many of the bloviators and super-purists who comment here are Johnny-come-latelies to real politics. By real politics I mean more than blathering and donating a few bucks to some candidate.

In my case I first went door-to-door for Goldwater. Just a wee lad at the time, of course, but the habit's never left me. I've primarily worked in primaries, trying to get the best candidate on the ballot. In almost every case some compromise has been necessary when selecting whom to back, and more than absolute ideological purity had to be considered.

As far as the Presidential sweepstakes, there is no Republican candidate who is absolutely perfect from my viewpoint, but hardly a one who would not be preferable to ANY Democrat. Perhaps we ought to keep that in mind.

Margie| 7.15.10 @ 3:57PM

Dai,

You make too much sense, dont'cha know? And Liberals like RCV know what they say is right. They see us turning our own guns on ourselves, instead of turning them on the Democrats. And these same bloviators and super-purists are the same ones that will blame us for the re-election of Obama because they'll stay home and pout, or write in their brother-in-law on the ballot, and the same idiots that accuse of being the stupid party, only they're too stupid to realize how stupid they are.

Ricky Santorum| 7.15.10 @ 4:57PM

Don't worry Margie , I'm goin' to Israel and run for The Knesset ,where they appreciate me .

Margie| 7.15.10 @ 8:11PM

By your stupid punctuation shall we know thee, Timmy.* Always . Make . sure . to . space . bar . once . after . each . word . Oh , and , comma , too .

Ricky Santorum| 7.15.10 @ 10:25PM

Come with me Margie .We can make Israel our own .
You can be a lecturing Old School Marm in a kibbutz.

Margie| 7.16.10 @ 12:19PM

God will take care of Israel, Tim*~ whether you like it or not. I would look out for myself if I were you.

Christi| 7.16.10 @ 3:34PM

Dai, you presume quite a bit. I've seen constitutional candidates lose because of liberals in local Republican parties. Consider the 2008 tragedy in VA, when weakling Jim Gilmore was selected over Bob Marshall by a very slim majority of liberal convention delegates. Have you missed the uprising of the people? Have you missed the regretful Obama voters at the Tea Parties? No more compromisers. Lord save us from the Jim Gilmores, John McCains and Charlie Crists.

darcy| 7.16.10 @ 6:09PM

It occurs to me -- and I'm sure you've thought of this, too, Christi, that the Left is more than capable of fielding fake Republican candidates.

Not saying she is one, but look at the deplorable record of Alaska's Murkowski?

Just having an R next to your name means nothing. But, what is your record? What have you done? Case in point: John McCain.

Christi| 7.16.10 @ 9:27PM

I don't doubt liberal infiltration Darcy. I'm pretty sure I saw it. That's why good people have to take over on the local level. A lot of Virginians woke up after Obama was elected. I was involved before 2009, but many others became RPV delegates and nominated Ken Cuccinelli, the public elected him, and now he's suing the fed for unconstitutionally imposed government 'health care.' Del. Marshall led the way on outlawing it in VA. These precedents might eventually save the likes of Dai from the mandate too.

SRE| 7.15.10 @ 12:31PM

While the choice of Specter over Toomey is the mistake that sticks, the biggest problem he had with independents at his last election was "Cybergate." He maintained a $106,000 house in his PA district while he and his family lived in a $750,000 house in Leesburg, VA. He kept his five children enrolled in the PA district as cyber-students. The district claimed he owed $100,000 because the children weren't residents of the district. The law was unclear on the issue and when the issue arose he immediately withdrew the kids to home school them - but guess how the papers played that in November? The fact is, he's one of the few real conservatives. The question is whether that disqualifies him from elected office these days. I hope not but fear so.

Red Phillips | 7.15.10 @ 12:37PM

Santorum has intentionally tried to distinguish himself from other mainstream conservatives by his hysterical fear mongering and uber hawkishness. As a result he has become a cartoonish caricature of the hawkish alarmist wing of the party. The masses are not sitting around hand-wringing about terrorism anymore. Those days are long gone. People today are much more worried about the threat of fiscal implosion than they are terrorist explosions, but Santorum acts as if it is still the day after 9/11. He may get Margie’s and OldTexican’s vote, but that is about it.

Margie| 7.15.10 @ 4:01PM

Red,

You and your non-interventionist friends would of course not want Rick Santorum to get elected. You scoff at the idea that we are at war with Islamic jihadists and so I am not surprised. I just pray that there are still enough of us who know what is at stake and take the future and safety of our country seriously to outnumber you guys at the polls.

HAWKS RULE!!!!!!!

DanMingo| 7.16.10 @ 6:08AM

Why do you hate America?
The 'terrists' plan was to bankrupt the US like they did to Russia in Afghanistan.
And the morons who started these wars, plus the morons who CONTINUE these wars, are doing just that.
Santorum wants to add Iran to the list of invaded countries.
All you chickenhawks need to enlist and go fight the 'terrists' over there, so we don't have to listen to your claptrap over here.

Margie| 7.16.10 @ 10:56AM

You also are in a very small minority~along with the rest of your pals.

John Riley| 7.16.10 @ 1:14PM

Which is why you cannot refute what he wrote, right?

DanMingo| 7.16.10 @ 1:25PM

You also are in a very small minority~along with the rest of your pals.

I am NOT in the Teabagger party!

Margie| 7.16.10 @ 1:44PM

Exibit A.

CalMark| 7.15.10 @ 12:38PM

The "beginning of the end" for the GOP can be traced to the Bush/Santorum endorsement of Specter. Specter was already (and had been for years) a destructive element for the GOP and conservatism. It's easy to forget how furious people were at the time--conservatives were vowing to stay home for the 2004 elections. If the Democrats had not mobilized the base with their vicious attacks on Bush, John Kerry would today be in his second term.

And as for Katrina--Hillyer, get off your soap box. It was the local Democrats' fault--they WOULDN'T ALLOW Bush to help them, and by law, he COULDN'T HELP UNTIL THEY ASKED. Re Quin & Katrina: Can you say "hobbyhorse?" Or maybe more accurately, can you say "obsession?"

David| 7.15.10 @ 12:47PM

Santorum lost in 2006 for the same reasons that many other repubs lost in 2006 and 2008: the electorate was sour on the Iraq war, on the enormous spending by the repubs, and in short, by acting like democrats when they are in power. Absent the mood and the feelings and the impressions of the electorate (much of it derived from inaccurate media coverage) a real conservative will almost always win against a liberal or a moderate.

Cris Worth| 7.15.10 @ 5:51PM

AH! There's the rub...real conservative/acting like Democrats. Santorum once said "bringing home the bacon", then lost. You made my case, Santorum has eliminated himself along with 41.28% of the popular vote in a key swing state.

Red Phillips | 7.15.10 @ 12:54PM

Here is an excellent article on Santorum's transition from culture warrior to alarmist uber hawkish global warrior.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2007/jul/30/00021/

Santorum is not just a buffoon, he is a dangerous buffoon.

William R| 7.15.10 @ 1:31PM

9/11 ruined the GOP and conservatism.

Ralph Novy| 7.15.10 @ 3:10PM

"Santorum is not just a buffoon, he is a dangerous buffoon. "

Hear, hear.

Adheeb| 7.15.10 @ 1:01PM

There is no one on the political scene today that I would be more willing to vote for.

David| 7.15.10 @ 1:03PM

I'm an NRA member, a gun nut, hunter, prospector, ATV'r etc. In other words I'm everything the Democrats hate and Rick Santorum should have been my man. However, I'm also the Legislative Liaison for my local kennel club. It was because of Santorums PAWS bill that I worked very hard to defeat him in his senate race. Even though I don't live in my state of birth anymore, I still have a very large extended family in Pa. and I also contacted each one of them to get them to vote against Sen. Santorum. I think he's missing why he lost the election when he evaluates his loss. A legislator on the right can't support an extremist leftist organization like the Humane Society of the United States without a cost -- and his cost was the election.

RCV| 7.15.10 @ 1:23PM

This posting is Exhibit A on why the GOP will not prevail in November.

NavyBrat | 7.15.10 @ 1:54PM

Who're you? Carnack the Not So Great? You sure as hell ain't no James Carville.

Harold Bing| 7.15.10 @ 1:05PM

I love all of these "conservative" retreads coming back for yet another shot. When Bush and his "genius" Rove sold their souls to vastly expanding government through huge expansions in Medicare, Medicaid, Dept of Education, ineptly fighting 2 wars, re-starting farm subsidies which were eliminated by the Contract for America, Rick went right along.

Remember, starting a war or two doesn't make one a conservative (or else FDR would be the conservative icon).

Look at who's running for President in the GOP (ALL OF THEM ACTIVE SUPPORTERS, ENABLERS, AND APOLOGISTS FOR THE VERY LIBERAL GEORGE W. BUSH): Romney, Huckabee, Palin (?), Pawlenty, Santorum. Every last one of them -- contrary to what the "media" says, has left their principles at the door when elected to office. Each increased the size and scope of government and spending.

They all have to go.

Martin W. Howser| 7.15.10 @ 1:10PM

Mr. Santorum lost the election because of a violation of principle. He said he was pro-life and went against it, supporting the pro-death, pro gay candidate and a future sell out to his party, Senator Spector. Mr.Santorum violated this teaching of His Church and rightfully paid the price. He needed to stay neutral in defense of life.

Unfortunately for him many bishops in his Church also sent out mixed messages on the life issue in this regards in spite of the Church’s teaching (No Catholic in good faith can support a candidate who supports abortion when an elect able alternative is available.) thus confusing the catholic voting public, but voters of Pennsylvania got it and voted him out of office by a 60% margin. He took a dive for his party and president and turning his back on his Church’s teaching on the life issue. Could we trust him again to the right thing when principle meets party?

Cris Worth| 7.15.10 @ 5:57PM

AH! There's the rub again. Backsliding on conservative Catholic doctrine. Thumbs down from southern conservatives...no pro -abortion Catholic need not apply.

Don H.| 7.15.10 @ 1:15PM

The only reason Santorum lost in '06 was beacause he ran against a pro-life democrat who happened to have the same name as his pro-life democrat former PA governor father.

Tex Expatriate| 7.15.10 @ 1:25PM

I certainly will support Santorum if I get the opportunity, but I won't forgive him for his endorsement of Specter. That's a practice no conservative should repeat. Either we are men or principle, or we are not men at all.

Tim*| 7.15.10 @ 1:31PM

" Republican strategists took as a bad omen Santorum's primary result in 2006, in which he ran unopposed for the Republican nomination. Republican gubernatorial nominee Lynn Swann, also unopposed, garnered 22,000 more votes statewide than Santorum in the primary, meaning thousands of Republican voters abstained from endorsing Santorum for another Senate term. This may have been partly due to Santorum's support for Arlen Specter, over Congressman Pat Toomey in the 2004 Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. Even though Santorum is only slightly less conservative than Toomey, he joined virtually all of the state and national Republican establishment in supporting the moderate Specter. This led many socially and fiscally conservative Republicans to consider Santorum's support of Specter to be a betrayal of their cause . "

rhurt| 7.15.10 @ 1:38PM

I see very few negatives regarding Mr. Santorium.
With that said, then, the idea of doing away with retreads is not totally the answer either. For example-if we talk about someone that has been endorsing more Conservative candidates, has been having seminars on job creation, solving America's problems, and presenting positive steps
on how to answer the today problems for the USA.
Also,to have someone who knows the ins and outs of Washington, and can handle the press blind folded-there is only one person that fits those shoes-and with the over abundance of credentials==Mr. Newt Gingrich. Put him in a debate and he will teach you, anger you, and befriend you. Mr. Gingrich for Pres.,and Palin for Vice Pres.

Mike H| 7.15.10 @ 2:27PM

It looks like the biggest support for Santorum comes from people outside of Pennsylvania. Not much support for him from Pennsylvanians.

Outside of a certain amount of name recognition, what has the guy ever actually accomplished?

Nancy in NC| 7.15.10 @ 2:31PM

Right now almost anyone mentioned would be preferable to the OBUMMER we have in the WH now.

With all the discussion, I hope that when it comes down the wire, we can put our petty differences apart, and vote for anyone that can defeat Obama.

wodiej| 7.15.10 @ 2:36PM

I will support someone who is not the status quo. That means a politician who hasn't been in congress for decades, has no ethics problems.

I want a rebel, a fighter, someone who has been vetted up, down, backwards and forward and NO DIRT FOUND ON THEM. Someone who has plain old common sense and doesn't pretend to know it all. Who would surround themselves with the best regardless of which side of the aisle they are on. Know who that person is? Yes, SARAH PALIN. She was a successful Mayor and a success as a Governor. Years of "experience" do not equal success. I know alot of people who spend years doing absolutely NOTHING.

I want a person who sparks energy, enthusiasm, is selfless and really wants what is best for this country not themselves. I know of no one else but Sarah Palin who fits the bill. Why do people set their expectations so low?

Jeremiah| 7.15.10 @ 2:40PM

I am stunned at a lot of the vituperation against Santorum here. It strikes me that most of the critics know nothing about Santorum except that he endorsed Specter, a sitting Republican Senator when control of the Senate was at stake. In hindsight, probably a mistake, but a political mistake, not a mistake of principle.

A principled conservative politician must make judgments about what action will best move the conservative agenda forward. I supported Toomey in that race, but I sure understand what Santorum had to consider: dump a lousy incumbent and lose control of the senate and you have hurt the conservative cause; create a huge personal grudge with a senator from the same state and the same party and you are likely to see a hold put on conservative appointees you recommend to federal posts from an enemy you did not have to make. That hurts the conservative cause. Even now, as much as I loathe Specter, I don't hold Santorum responsible for Specter's betrayal, any more than I hold George Washington responsible for Benedict Arbold's betrayal.

Just two quick facts about Santorum: When everyone was against the war in Iraq and everyone insisted we had already lost, Santorum sent out the clarion call about the existential threat we face, knowing that it would cost him any chance at retaining his senate seat.

When his wife developed life-threatening complications in a pregnancy and doctors were recommending abortion, the Santorums prayed and decided to live their pro-life principles. He was the greatest advocate for life we have had for decades in the senate - and he didn't just live his values on the floor of the senate; he and his wife lived and embodied them in their home.

There is no more principled man in American life today than Rick Santorum. If all you know about him is that he endorsed Specter, you really ought to do a little more research on the man. Let's let the Democrats keep the corner on voting from ignorance.

Ralph Novy| 7.15.10 @ 3:06PM

"When everyone was against the war in Iraq...."?

Poof.

You're credibility's gone.

Jeremiah| 7.15.10 @ 3:14PM

Mr. Novy, I was working full-time in a couple of Congressional campaigns that year. Most brutal year of my life. Supporting the war and maintaining that it was critical for our survival at that time took real guts. All the moderate Republicans were wanting to cut and run. When you spoke before a group of REPUBLICANS, almost half would tell you we needed to get out of Iraq because we couldn't win.

I don't know where you were in 2006, but I was in the trenches. And supporting victory in Iraq was a losing proposition politically that year. It is not my credibility that just went poof, but yours.

Ralph Novy| 7.15.10 @ 3:33PM

Noticed your shift from "everyone" to "half."

My point stands.

Jeremiah| 7.15.10 @ 4:07PM

I said half of REPUBLICANS. Democrats were united in their "Bush lied, people died" mantra.

When you're getting polling showing over 60% are pushing for something, politically that is 'everyone', because it means defeat in a heartbeat if you can't make the case. It takes huge guts to take the sort of stand Santorum did. Unlike Democrats, who are showing some guts in pushing their wrong agenda, Santorum was proved right.

You don't have to support Santorum. I'm not offended by that. But for you to malign a good, courageous man is aggravating.

I am staying away from politics right now - in a different non-political field. But one of the most frustrating things about it was watching fellow conservatives who were venomous, poisoning good people who were not their first choice. It almost always empowers 'moderates'. What I most used to love was when some loudmouth who was always calling telling me in insulting terms what we should be doing decided himself to run for some podunk office like county board or state legislature. The loudmouth always got his clock cleaned royally - and either left politics altogether or came back with a new humility, understanding it's a lot harder than it looks.

Keep chewing up good conservatives and see what it gets you. I admire Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin. But I would be tickled to see Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, or even Jim Demint at the top of our ticket - and I will not savage allies.

DanMingo| 7.16.10 @ 6:17AM

There is no more principled man in American life today than Rick Santorum

So principled he cheated to get free schooling for his kids:
U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum should reimburse $100,000 to the Penn Hills School District for taxpayer money used since 2001 to cover online charter school tuition for his children, four school board members said Thursday.
Questions over his residency prompted Santorum to announce Wednesday that he is withdrawing his five school-age children from Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School in Midland, Beaver County. The No. 3 Republican in the Senate, Santorum owns a $106,000 home next door to his wife Karen's parents in Penn Hills, but he and his family split time between there and a $757,000 house in Virginia. Santorum's annual Senate salary is $157,000

Steve A| 7.15.10 @ 2:41PM

Hey Mike H, Yeah, not everyone can have the stellar resume of a community shakedown agitator & autobiography author prior to stepping into the Oval Office like your man BO. These earth shattering accomplishments are now on full display as this jackass "fundamentally transforms the USA." I will take my chances with Santorum or even the CEO in those GEICO commercials over your pal BO any day.

darcy| 7.15.10 @ 2:46PM

"It is part self-preservation and part necessity for the larger party and movement."

Well, there you go, Mr. Hillyer. Principles be damned, Constitution be damned, forget the totallity of our Founding documents, we must consider the "larger party and movement,"
oh yes, and "self-preservation."

This is exactly what's wrong with conservatives when they get inside the Beltway. All of a sudden it's just not done to stand on principle against the tide of the party machine; and to assuage their consciences, they call it loyality.

I call it betrayal. If you claim the conservative mantel, then your loyality is to the Founding and the Constitution, Not To The Party or The Movement; it's to the Country.

This is where Santorum went astray; everything he says now I see through the lens of that betrayal. That's just the way it is.

Arlen Specter was a blight on the nation; he needed to be GONE a long time ago. If Republicans are going to continue to play the clique game, the country-club stick-together-at-all-costs game, then we can expect the country to accelerate its decline into despotism. But hey, they'll be OK; because they have power they'll be above it all, lording it over the rest of us.

I spit them out.

Steve A| 7.15.10 @ 2:53PM

Darcy, You are 100% correct. Either go down swinging on your principles or get out of the way. No other alternative will repair the damage we face. It's getting too late.

Quin| 7.15.10 @ 5:16PM

Calm down people. Specter WAS crucial in passing Sam Alito. Without him, the Dems may well have filibustered. It's complicated, but that's what the dynamic was in the Senate. Santorum's endorsement wasn't a horrendous judgment. If I were he, I would have stayed silent. But I can't fault him for his endorsement, in light of his 16 years of stalwart conservatism otherwise.

Margie| 7.15.10 @ 8:14PM

Forget it, Quin. They're not going to calm down. They are rabid Libertarians with an agenda. They despise Republicans generally, and unless their candidate is of like nature~ like darcy says, they'll "spit them out."

darcy| 7.15.10 @ 10:00PM

Margie: Now are you happy after venting your spleen? I hope so. Please go back and read my comments, most notably the one I directed to David at 3:32pm. If you can still label me a libertarian after reading that, then well, what can I say? Acutally, I think it's time you ate a heaping helping of humble pie.

Yes, however, I do not like RINOs, but since I am a registered Republican, I would be despising myself if I were to despise them "generally."

Now, you calm down. "Rabid." Really, you embarrass yourself.

Margie| 7.16.10 @ 11:05AM

Calm down, darcy~ just because you don't like what I said doesn't make it false. It is absolutely true.

And I couldn't care less what you are registered as. You behave the same way as a Libertarian in my opinion, and especially with condescending post just now.

darcy| 7.16.10 @ 2:58PM

A soft answer turns away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.

Or this, if you prefer the King James:
A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

I like this one too: The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly. ...

Margie| 7.16.10 @ 3:52PM

If you're going to quote the Bible, you ought to put the address as well.

Margie| 7.16.10 @ 4:09PM

p.s. darcy~ You ought to re read my post. It was to Quinn with regards to his comment to "people" and what I said was with regards to "they"~ not you in particular. What I said was, they would do as you said, "spit them out" and with regards Libertarians it is very true.

For pete's sake, Rick Santorum is a fabulous conservative, yet look at all the nit picking. It is because he's a Hawk, mostly. My generalization concerning the attitude of Libertarians toward Hawks is correct. I wasn't actually venting my spleen so much as making an observation.

What angers me is seeing this and that we, and by we I mean conservatives in general, fight amongst ourselves instead of fighting against the Democrats and that rather than vote for someone like Santorum if he becomes the nominee, some of us will stay home instead, thus handing the victory to the Left.

That is where I'm coming from. I hope you understand.
~Margie

Larry Cirignano | 7.15.10 @ 2:48PM

I'm excited about the possibilities. It gives me HOPE for Change all puns intended.

darcy| 7.15.10 @ 2:56PM

Sorry for the typos, esp. "loyality." Ugh.

Ralph Novy| 7.15.10 @ 3:01PM

Utterly, ironically apt that "preternaturally stupid" should be used in an article praising Rick Santorum. Both writer and subject...

Steve A| 7.15.10 @ 3:10PM

Darcy, We will let you slide. "Loyality": A blend of loyal & utility or defined as a faithful satisfaction. Kinda like it.

David| 7.15.10 @ 3:57PM

Mike H, what is current support for Bam Bam like in PA; and for the dem congress?

Those folks are a strange lot. Both sides of my family still live there and they have some funny opinions about politics, and they certainly aren't conservative. They even complained that Clinton was unfairly picked-on.

Darcy, I agree with most of what you said, but I don't think Santorum supported Specter for "the party or the movement". I think he explained fairly well that he did it because Specter was more likely to win against the dem in the general election, and we need the majority for votes on the appointments of federal judges, including Supreme Court nominees.

I think if we are fair, we can witness what is happening now with the wise Latina and Elena Kagan, and give Santorum a pass. I was as upset with him as anyone because I didn't understand how he could support Specter. Now I see his support in a different light. Hopefully other conservatives can, too.

darcy| 7.15.10 @ 5:10PM

Thank you for your considered reply, David. What you've described regarding Santorum's endorsement of the moderate Specter vs the conservative Toomey falls in the category of pragmatism. It's as if they have a crystal ball, these pragmatists, and they can see into the future; they can see that because Specter will cleave off independents from the dem in the general and that because Specter's been given the good-housekeeping seal of approval from a conservative, that naturally Specter has a solid chance of keeping that PA senate seat in Rep. hands; they can see that the more conservative candidate Toomey, even with and maybe because of a conservative's endorsement, will not have the same cleaving factor of a moderate.

What the pragmatist fails to understand, IMO, is that conservative principles are true and right and that a candidate who can articulate them well will not only fire up the base but bring along with them the independents and moderate dems who voted for Reagan, for example. The problem with the Rep. pragmatist is that his candidate is little different from the dem, and in pushing him on the voter, you're taking away the voter's right to choose sides, to actually think about the implications of his vote, his beliefs -- well. I'm getting far afield here.

Never compromise with evil. Don't fall into the trap that the end justifies the means; that's the territory of our mortal enemies. If pragmatists would get some stones and really believe in their conservative principles and know why they do, and be willing to stand or fall in defense of them, we wouldn't have gotten to where we are today. But alas; we are a nation of wimps.

We have believed the lies from the democrat-media complex and have peed in our pants at the thought of defeat -- so we continue to compromise, and our nation slides into history a sad spectacle of its former self.

Tim*| 7.15.10 @ 4:17PM

David writes ,
" I think if we are fair, we can witness what is happening now with the wise Latina and Elena Kagan, and give Santorum a pass."

Santorum Voted To Confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg .

And your point was what ?

joesixpack31| 7.15.10 @ 4:18PM

There was a time when Santorum headed my list of conservative candidates for the GOP presidential nomination. Imagine my dismay when Santorum teamed up with RINO Bush to get RINO Spector renominated in PA. There aint no way...including the bullshit of this Hillyer guy to rehab Santorum. He is a walking dead man because he has demonstrated himself to be a conservative "backstabber" like Newt and others who are "grooming" themselves for a run at the nomination. The Conservative GOP has no use for "BACKSTABBERS". These are the people that paved the way for the "FAKE", the "pied piper" that's in there now.

VanillaMan| 7.15.10 @ 4:27PM

What you seem to be missing here, and have allowed Santorum to get away with saying, is the fact that Santorum's loss really wasn't about the President's unpopularity, however it may have aggravated him at that point.

Santorum had overstayed his welcome by 2006. Rick always walked a tight-rope politically, and Pennsylvanians simply tired of him. Santorum didn't run a bad campaign. He was actually pretty good all through 2006. But voters stopped listening to him in 2001. There was really not much of a question by 2006 if he would be re-elected, since over the previous five years, the writing was on the wall.

I believe that Santorum would have lost if his term ended in 2004, instead of 2006. I do not believe he was the victim of a political wave. I believe Santorum wore out his welcome with Pennsylvanians.

Ralph Novy| 7.15.10 @ 8:42PM

Yes, I think that by around, say, 2002, Pennsylvanians had finally caught on to Santorum's spineless pandering, thoughtless war-mongering and general clueslessness. Any halfway decent candidate could have defeated him in 2004.

Austin | 7.15.10 @ 4:29PM

I'm curious no people's thoughts about Huckabee. From what I've seen and researched, he's a Christian conservative with some great ideas. I like him so far, with more searching to do. What do you think??

Quin| 7.15.10 @ 5:18PM

Huckabee is a total skunk. Scroll back through my writings on him in late 2007 and early 2008, which explain why. His ethics stink.

darcy| 7.15.10 @ 5:56PM

I'm totally with you on Huckabee, Quin. Peeuww.

Purpleguy| 7.15.10 @ 4:34PM

"We need a consistent conservative who can articulate for Americans the principles of the founding fathers... and apply them today. Last time we did not have a candidate who could articulate that in any persuasive way. I can." - Yep, let's live in 1789, that's a good idea. What a dope. The founders were not conservatives. They were men of the enlightenment who saw injustice and tried to right it (Injustice to them by a King - not lost on all of us is the fact they ignored slavery for the time being). But they were elites, men of property, and issued a Constitution whereby only the landed gentry could vote, and male only at that.

God help us if this turd in the punch bowl retread could be President. But it might be fun to watch him try. I suspect he'd open his mouth again and be Gone with the Wind that comes out.

I heard he was gay - like Mark Foley's desires - anyone here that?

Nick| 7.15.10 @ 6:21PM

Are you still commenting here, PurpleJackass?

You, who thinks John Marshall was the first chief justice of the Supreme Court?

You, who doesn't know the difference between the words "precedence" and "precedents?"

You, who is totally ignorant of U.S. history, the Constitution, and politics?

Are you some sort of sadist, PurpleJackass?

Christopher Holland| 7.15.10 @ 11:06PM

Purpleguy, the Constitution was written in the 18th century, not this one. Women did not have the vote anywhere - women did not get the vote in France until after WW2. And the reason why landed gentry got the vote and nobody else did was because the landed gentry paid the taxes - and representative democracy has always been about making sure the people who paid the taxes had a say in how they were raised and spent.

Incidentally, a far higher proportion of Americans were entitled to vote because Americans were, by and large, landholders and merchants and they owned enough property to qualify for the vote. In England only about 5% of the male population qualified for the vote at this time - voting was restricted to male property owners there as well. A much greater proportion of Americans had the vote compared to the English.

As usual, your comments are asinine. You can find these things out in a basic high school history text book. Try reading one before giving lectures on what is wrong with the world.

Purpleguy| 7.16.10 @ 10:51PM

Oh, my poor brilliant one. It's even easier than a high school book to know the REAL information. If you really care, the truth about when voting rights were given to whom is below.

Over time, voting policies have been "liberalized" (don't you love that word) so we all can vote now.

When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote. Over the past two centuries, though, the term "government by the people" has become a reality. During the early 1800s, states gradually dropped property requirements for voting. Later, groups that had been excluded previously gained the right to vote. Other reforms made the process fairer and easier.

1790 Only white male adult property-owners have the right to vote.

1810
1810 Last religious prerequisite for voting is eliminated.

1850 Property ownership and tax requirements eliminated by 1850. Almost all adult white males could vote.
1855 Connecticut adopts the nation's first literacy test for voting. Massachusetts follows suit in 1857. The tests were implemented to discriminate against Irish-Catholic immigrants.

1870 The 15th Amendment is passed. It gives former slaves the right to vote and protects the voting rights of adult male citizens of any race.

1889 Florida adopts a poll tax. Ten other southern states will implement poll taxes.
1890 Mississippi adopts a literacy test to keep African Americans from voting. Numerous other states—not just in the south—also establish literacy tests. However, the tests also exclude many whites from voting. To get around this, states add grandfather clauses that allow those who could vote before 1870, or their descendants, to vote regardless of literacy or tax qualifications.

1913 The 17th Amendment calls for members of the U.S. Senate to be elected directly by the people instead of State Legislatures.
1915 Oklahoma was the last state to append a grandfather clause to its literacy requirement (1910). In Guinn v. United States the Supreme Court rules that the clause is in conflict with the 15th Amendment, thereby outlawing literacy tests for federal elections.

1920 The 19th Amendment guarantees women's suffrage.
1924 Indian Citizenship Act grants all Native Americans the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote in federal elections.

1940
1944 The Supreme Court outlaws "white primaries" in Smith v. Allwright (Texas). In Texas, and other states, primaries were conducted by private associations, which, by definion, could exclude whomever they chose. The Court declares the nomination process to be a public process bound by the terms of 15th Amendment.
1950
1957 The first law to implement the 15th amendment, the Civil Rights Act, is passed. The Act set up the Civil Rights Commission—among its duties is to investigate voter discrimination.
1960
1960 In Gomillion v. Lightfoot (Alabama) the Court outlaws "gerrymandering."
1961 The 23rd Amendment allows voters of the District of Columbia to participate in presidential elections.
1964 The 24th Amendment bans the poll tax as a requirement for voting in federal elections.
1965 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., mounts a voter registration drive in Selma, Alabama, to draw national attention to African-American voting rights.
1965 The Voting Rights Act protects the rights of minority voters and eliminates voting barriers such as the literacy test. The Act is expanded and renewed in 1970, 1975, and 1982.
1966 The Supreme Court, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, eliminates the poll tax as a qualification for voting in any election. A poll tax was still in use in Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia.
1966 The Court upholds the Voting Rights Act in South Carolina v. Katzenbach.
1970
1970 Literacy requirements are banned for five years by the 1970 renewal of the Voting Rights Act. At the time, eighteen states still have a literacy requirement in place. In Oregon v. Mitchell, the Court upholds the ban on literacy tests, which is made permanent in 1975. Judge Hugo Black, writing the court's opinion, cited the "long history of the discriminatory use of literacy tests to disenfranchise voters on account of their race" as the reason for their decision.
1971 The 26th amendment sets the minimum voting age at 18.
1972 In Dunn v. Blumstein, the Supreme Court declares that lengthy residence requirements for voting in state and local elections is unconstitutional and suggests that 30 days is an ample period.
1980
1990
1995 The Federal "Motor Voter Law" takes effect, making it easier to register to vote.
2000
2003 Federal Voting Standards and Procedures Act requires states to streamline registration, voting, and other election procedures.

Nick| 7.17.10 @ 12:09AM

It took you a WHOLE DAY to copy and paste that stuff, PurpleJackass?

Man, you are a moron!

I wish we would go back to property requirements in order to vote. This would keep lots of liberals from voting, as they tend to be renters or on welfare.

Landowners tend to care more about real rights, seeing as they have an actual stake in their state, and the country. This is what most of the Founders believed.

David| 7.15.10 @ 4:53PM

That's an excellent point, Tim.

It is said that Huckabee ruined the repub party when governor of Arkansas. Quin Hilyer has written a lot about the Huck during the last primary campaign. Huck paroled or released more felons while governor than the states of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Missouri combined. Apparently, all one had to do is claim to have found Jesus Christ.

darcy| 7.15.10 @ 6:03PM

Yes, David, and the interesting thing about that rationale "f(inding) Jesus Christ," is that if true, the inmate has a target rich environment while in prison to evangelize. And a true disciple would welcome the opportunity and put the time to good use, as the Apostle Paul did while in chains to Nero.

No. Something weird was going on with Huckabee; and as I think about it, none of my speculations about it (which I'll keep to myself) conjure up a very praiseworthy image.

Tim*| 7.15.10 @ 5:08PM

Thanks And Back At Ya.

Huckabee can run but he's yesterday's news.

We,Tea Party Rebels are watching South Carolina's Senator Jim DeMint .

The Tea Party Rebellion Ramps Up For The Midterms Now.

We Can See November From Our Houses.

Purpleguy| 7.16.10 @ 10:54PM

Don't look now, but the oil spill has stopped, financial reform has passed, and WV has a new Democratic Senator to be. I wouldn't be a counting your chickens or should I say tea bags ahead of time.

David| 7.15.10 @ 5:13PM

Tim, I would like to point out that when Ginsburg was confirmed 17 years ago, the republicans had the attitude that it was a president's prerogative to appoint who he wanted. In fact I believe received 93 "yes" votes for confirmation. Even Orrin Hatch voted for her. The repubs expected the dems to reciprocate, which of course they didn't.

I believe repubs now have a completely different attitude about nominees to the sup ct. Look at the uproar over Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers. I believe because we conservatives now demand rock solid appointments, our senators have a new and improved attitude about the confirmation process. I wish they would adopt the same critical attitude for all nominees at all level of the federal courts.

That said, 17 years ago it was common for repubs to support the dems prez's picks. I seriously doubt if Santorum were presented with Ginsburg today that he would support her, or that he would have supported the wise Latina or Kagan.

DanMingo| 7.16.10 @ 6:25AM

Look at the uproar over Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers.

Everybody, conservative, Libertarian, Liberal, independent; anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex, opposed her nomination as she was exquisitely unqualified.

Tim*| 7.15.10 @ 5:43PM

By David Weigel 6/23/09 :
" I just spoke with former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who’s now a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and asked him whether the party should keep open the option of filibustering Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

“I’ve never been for a filibuster,” said Santorum. “You can’t go out and argue, as we did, during the Roberts and Alito confirmations and during the circuit court process, that filibusters are illegitimate when it comes to judges, and then come back and use them now. And if you’re looking at this from the realpolitik perspective, I don’t believe that we could ever sustain a filibuster. The other side can. They are much more power-driven and politically motivated than our side could ever be.”

“We need to be pure on this one.”

Rick Santorum : "...... I had voted for the circuit court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
Obama officials should know better, because they understand, as evidenced by the vice president, that the nomination of a district or circuit court judge is far different from that of a Supreme Court justice.

Biden himself voted for Justices Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito when they came before the Senate as circuit court nominees, but he turned around and voted against their Supreme Court nominations. "

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.15.10 @ 5:48PM

The Senate just passed the Finance Bill which will do the same for the economy as the Health Care Bill will do for your choice of health coverage. Those who continually recycle the same compromising, the, same spending, the same politically insider” swap honor for power” enablers never seem to learn. These people, Sanotorum is the classical example, will play the same games, trading everything that is sacred, Constitutional, and honorable to place their hands once again on the reins of power. Gingrich, Romney, McCain and their ilk are as responsible for the demise of America as your regular daily roll call of “rounding up the usual suspects.” Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results normally is just a temporary political discomfort; this time we are at the stage where the very underpinning of democracy, freedom and hope for the oppressed in the world (an oppressed you are about to join) is at stake. Those who chose this route are criminally insane.

darcy| 7.15.10 @ 6:18PM

Yes, Michael, I too am following the news. This bespeaks an intrusion into the free market (esp. with the diktat for union representatives on corporate boards) that boggles the mind. The statists' noose will strangle us all, but not the oligarchs at the top who will make out like the bandits they are: stealers of liberty, destoyers of capitalism.

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.15.10 @ 7:28PM

Sanatorum's enabled Specter just said he would vote for Kagan, is offered job by Obama.

Tim*| 7.15.10 @ 8:09PM

Michael , we're you a Black Scarf Regular In Nam ?

Purpleguy| 7.16.10 @ 10:56PM

the people at the top, private or public, will always get what they want... it is the nature of a human. Those that work for it, get it. Those who complain about others, don't.

bob grant| 7.15.10 @ 5:58PM

He should run! I would match his resume against anyone currently in the field: 2 term U.S. congressman; 2 term U.S. Senator; earned MBA; solid fiscal and social conservative record; and co-author to one of the most bi-partisan, popular, landmark bills in history - WELFARE REFORM ACT!. Also, he's capable of articulating his message in any setting, unlike Sarah Palin who I like individually but not as potential presidential candidate.

Nick| 7.15.10 @ 6:36PM

Rick Santorum is assuredly a man of character and principle. His fidelity to cause of life is unquestionable.

But, he messed-up, big-time, by supporting S-P-E-C-T-E-R. He ticked-off many supporters and voters, and this is the reason he lost re-election.

He will have to atone for that mistake.

Instead of running for president, he would be better off running for governor of PA. Then he could redeem himself by governing the state with conservative principles.

darcy| 7.15.10 @ 8:35PM

That would be interesting, Nick, to see how in a competition with the inestimable Gov. of nearby New Jersey, Chris Christie, Santorum would measure up.

What needs to be taking place within the Republican Party is not a race to win the bipartisan of the year award (and win CNN et al accolades), but a real, hard fought battle to see who can attain the rank of conservative of the year and the "most despised" among the democrat-media complex.

Then we'll know we're moving in the right direction (pun most certainly intended).

Nick| 7.16.10 @ 12:18AM

Darcy,

I agree completely. Excellent post.

I am very impressed with Governor Christie. I haven't seen him back down an inch.

This is what the GOP needs: a spine.

Joan| 7.15.10 @ 10:47PM

OK, here's an idea. Santorum should run for governor and Gingrich/Palin for President/Vice President in the 2012 election.

Nick| 7.16.10 @ 12:15AM

Joan,

Sorry, Newt is just not a leader. He's never run anything, except the House of Representatives. And he only did that for less than four years, before getting the boot by the conservative Republicans.

I lean toward Southern/Mid-western/Western GOVERNORS. They have a record that can be examined. And, the country elected governors in 7 of the 11 elections after John Kennedy won in 1960. They were all Southern, except Ronald Reagan.

The four elections that were not won by governors, were won by vice-presidents: LBJ, Nixon, and G.H.W. Bush. Kennedy was the last sitting senator to win the presidency, until O'Bama. The GOP needs to go back to nominating governors.

And, as George S states below, the primary system needs to be closed to only card-carrying members of the Republican Party. President Dither, most likely, will face no primary challenge in 2012.

That leaves lots of nasty, little democrats free to do do....the voodoo....that they do so well.

bob grant| 7.15.10 @ 7:44PM

As mentioned in the article, the real Arlen Specter of 2009 was not so apparent in 2005. He did smooth the path for confirmations of both Alito and Roberts. He admits it was a mistake to support a RINO in lieu of a real conservative. I think he deserves a break for that transgression. My main concern is for finding an effective opposition candidate to Barak Hussein Obama. Right now, unfortunately, I don't see one. I say let him throw his hat into the real and see if he can redeem himself during the primary. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Tim*| 7.15.10 @ 7:51PM

" Republican Sen. Jim DeMint’s political action committee is often described as a kingmaker of conservative candidates, spending roughly $2.6 million so far this cycle on a handful of Tea Party-types endorsed by the South Carolina senator.

His Senate Conservatives Fund PAC backed Marco Rubio’s campaign in Florida, for example, when national Republicans were behind then-Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, and supported Rand Paul’s campaign in Kentucky even though Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell endorsed another candidate in the race.
The Senate Conservatives Fund, which claims to have over 250,000 members, says they’ve given Rubio $392,092.78, Sharron Angle in Nevada $257,872.12, Mike Lee in Utah $200,724.92, Ken Buck in Colorado $179,849.08, Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania $105,030.48 and Rand Paul in Kentucky $40,324.29, as of July 1st."

Purpleguy| 7.16.10 @ 10:59PM

So, since he's paying off people, what is he paying them off for? That's as corrupt as it gets. Is that what the Boston Tea Party was all about? I think not little timmy...

George S| 7.15.10 @ 8:09PM

All of this is academic until the RNC fixes a serious problem: the open New Hampshire primaries. This all but assures a RINO getting the nomination as Democrats and Independents may go for the John McCain of the 2012 field. Whoever wins NH gets critical momentum in terms of fund raising -- not even a Ronald Reagan can win without money. This is what got us McCain; Huckabee and Romney took the Iowa caucus and McCain barely edged out Ron Paul. But when the media (NYT, WaPo) gave the NH non-Republicans the preferred candidate, McCain edged out Romney.

Don't think the same can't happen in 2012. This is a serious flaw that can throw everything on its ear.

bob grant| 7.15.10 @ 8:17PM

I think the state of the country in 2012 will throw everything on its ear. One thing I am quit certain of is the country will not look to the likes of Sarah Palin to get us out of the mess.

darcy| 7.15.10 @ 8:43PM

Then let's make a pact then that whomever the open primary voters select is ipso facto persona non grata, and we'll send our money to another candidate. New Hampshire will become irrelevant. Maybe then "they" will change their ways.

bob grant| 7.15.10 @ 8:55PM

Lets face it fellow conservatives. Can anyone on this post really say there is to-date a strong, effective opposition candidate to Obama? By throwing Santorum's name out there in this article shows how desperate all of us are to find one. As if we are throwing names against the wall to see if one sticks. Last month Daniels, this week Santorum (again), next week - or month - another name. The window to find one is fast closing. Let's keep searching so we don't have to fall back on Palin or Romney, both sure losers in my book.

Christopher Holland| 7.16.10 @ 12:25AM

British Prime Minister Harold Wilson was famous for saying that a week is a long time in politics. The next Presidential election is more than 2 years away. Going into a panic and saying that the sky is falling in is not going to help anybody. Anything can happen by November 2012 and probably will.

darcy| 7.15.10 @ 10:43PM

I call them "fishing" articles, bob grant, fishing for who will take the bait. (No offense intended, Quin -- the fishing being a necessary exercise, I'm sure). Or does the period go inside the parenthesis? I can't remember.

Nathan Benefield | 7.15.10 @ 11:16PM

I fail to see why the the "Bush-Hastert big-government axis" isn't the "Bush-Santorum big-government axis". Santorum championed every major Bush era expansion of government through 2008 - including Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and the like. Santorum was Bush's go-to guy in the Senate, and his involvement in the K-Street project was solely to promote the Bush agenda. Pretending Santorum had nothing to do with Bush's big government expansion is like suggesting Nancy Pelosi can't be blamed for Obamacare.

The article goes on to state that Santorum's only mistake was endorsing Arlen Specter - the key vote in passing the stimulus bill and the health care takeover - but that's no big deal.

Is this the same Rick Santorum who abused the earmark system as much as anyone, and continues to this day to defend earmarks (at least when Republicans give earmarks)?

Is this the same Rick Santorum who told a group of Pennsylvania conservatives that he's learned to love deficit spending?

Is this the same Rick Santorum who thinks the big problem with the Republican party is Libertarianism? The same Rick Santorum who attacks individual liberty and denounces the pursuit of happiness?

Is this the same Rick Santorum who fought ceaselessly for the federal government use taxpayer dollars to start giving dating advice!

Rick Santorum is as much to blame for the growing federal government spending and power as anyone in America.

Jeremiah| 7.15.10 @ 11:39PM

Hey Nathan, do you think ahead about what you are going to write or do you just make it up as you go along?

Proud Mormon| 7.16.10 @ 12:39AM

Santorum's eliminated as a presidential contender because of his poor poll showing in '06. On the other hand frontrunner Mitt Romney leads in all GOP preference polls and is the clear favorite to win the Republican nomination and the general election. Why? Mitt has the economic solutions this country needs desperately. Americans vote their pocketbook therefore vote Romney for President in 2012.

Mormon Girl| 7.16.10 @ 12:44AM

Second the motion. Romney anytime over that baked Alaskan Sarah Palin.

saltlakeken| 7.16.10 @ 12:52AM

Romney wins Iowa and NH Palin and Gingrich will fold up then victories in Florida, Michigan and California will clinch the nomination for Romney.

Nick| 7.16.10 @ 1:19AM

Proud Mormon,

Ever heard of RomneyCare?

As Micheal Corleone would put it, "Your out, Mitt."

RCV| 7.16.10 @ 1:06AM

Romney failed to capture Iowa in 2008 - why will 2012 be any different?

Christi| 7.16.10 @ 3:39AM

“Conservative leaders and voters are preternaturally stupid if they don't at least give him a serious hearing.” Come on, did it take over 2 weeks to come up with that pretentious and condescending crack? And who cares what Barry Goldwater would say? Sorry Mr. Hillyer, my whole family and just about every Catholic I know consider Sen. Santorum’s endorsement of Specter as a fatal “mistake.” When we say fatal, we mean he sold innocent lives for absolutely nothing. His explanations are relativism to the max. We forgive him, but we won’t vote for him. Next…

the friendly grizzly| 7.16.10 @ 5:48AM

Santorum would be just another Obama. He'll talk a good campaign to get elected. Once there, he'll do what Obama is doing: pay back the contributors who own him. He will also do the blame game, but instead of blaming everything on Gorge Bush, he will blame everything from deficits to the heartbreak of psoriasis on "the homosexual agenda" rather than looking down the street to the houses of Congress, or for that matter, in the closest mirror.

I am not sure who I would vote for in a primary, but it would not be Santorum.

bob grant| 7.16.10 @ 10:05AM

Who then, folks, will it be?

This post continues to mention the "top 3": Romney, Palin, and Gingrich. The first 2 will not be able to expand their bases.

Because of Romney's religion and previous support a state-wide health care bill, it will be difficult to find support from other demographic groups. His credibility is shot among too many on the right.

Without a complete change in strategy, Sarah will find it difficult to find new support. She's way too insulated giving softball interviews with Hannity, blog postings, and red-meat speeches among her grass root supporters. She seems to be on a certain trajectory and is hell bent on doing it her way. To expand her support, she MUST gain legitimacy among her detractors, which are many. This means targeted, serious policy interviews with the likes of Jake Tapper and Charlie Rose. Ones who MIGHT give her a fair shake. She has the perfect template to follow: the Hillary 2000 campaign in which she made that huge jump from first lady to serious politician. I get the feeling the "barracuda" will be doing things her way, everything else be damned.

Gingrich is a non-starter.

Back to my initial question. Who will it be?

David| 7.16.10 @ 12:57PM

I may be starting to go a "little sour" on Santorum IF some of things said about him are accurate characterizations of what he has done and not simply exaggerations. I trust that most posters on this site would never intentionally misrepresent something or someone as those on the left do. Again, it would be better if we could see him as a governor before crowning him with the prez nomination; however, I still don't think the lack of executive experience is a disqualifier.

Palin, Gingrich, Huckabee, and Romney all have a lot to the offer to help get conservatives elected. There is much they can do to help the repub party and candidates, but that does not mean they deserve the prez or VP spot. They have all had their days in elected offices and it is time they drop any dreams of other ones. How can anyone think Romney will be a good candidate when the Obamacare plan is very closely modeled on Romneycare. The only thing we can than Romney for is that we can point to his plan and tell the voters this is what will happen on the national level if we don't repeal Obamacare. His nomination would be a huge mistake. Likewise for the other three mentioned.

It is time to insist that our senators stop confirming liberals to any federal courts. The Supreme Court is important only when one of the tiniest (is that a word?) minority of cases land there. The vast majority of cases never make it past the district court level to the appellate courts, and a tiny number from there ever make it to the Supreme Court. The repub senators need to start considering every nominee to any federal bench extremely important and vote no when it is warranted. Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and a multitude of others should never have made it to appellate courts. Do what the dems did to Miguel Estrada and other very well-qualified nominess.

Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, and Rick Santorum are a few that are on my radar because they can hang with Obama and not let him get away with mischaracterizing theirs' or conservatives' views. They can hang with Obama in the verbal war. That guy loves to hear himself talk. I think they have the guts to call him on his lies and do it with a smile, and have the guts to risk being called racists when they do call him on them. I think the charge of "racism" is beginning to fall on deaf ears - for everyone but blacks, that is.

bob grant| 7.16.10 @ 4:13PM

I like Santorum because of his verbal skills. He never seems to be at a loss for words and his "cringe-worthy" moments are rare, as opposed to Sarah which are excessive to be considered a serious candidate - I like her personally and for what she stands for but, IMHO, is not electable.

Haley Barbour without the southern accent would with a doubt at the top of my list. He's a very popular, effective, competent multi-term conservative governor with few additional negatives. The only one - other than the accent - is his past as a lobbyist and perception as being part of the good-ole-boys network. His pluses would have overcome them if not for his southern accent which makes him a non-starter.

Jeb Bush: Like Barbour, if not for one issue - his last name being Bush - he would also at the top of my short list because of the same reasons as Barbour. That one issue makes it a non-starter.

Mitch Daniels - A possibility. Worth taking a look at.

In conclusion, I say the more the merrier. Let Santorum, Daniels, and if we must, Barbour and Jeb throw their hats in the ring because if our choices are limited to the current crop, we are doomed to fail!

darcy| 7.16.10 @ 7:12PM

Right now the field looks fairly anemic. As I said above, Daniels's truce comments tells me he's a compromiser, and not the good sort. I would never vote for Jeb -- he's open borders and believes the fed education superstructure needs to be improved, rather than returned to the states and localities to run. Jeb = never. Santorum, no.

I'll look into Barbour. I'd like to know more about DeMint. No to Sarah; she's great, just not as prez. I love Chris Christie, but as of now he's out of the contest. I'd like Brewer to replace that other AZ gov., Napolitano, as DHS sec.

Frank| 7.17.10 @ 11:42AM

This is the same Santorum that thinks all homosexuals should be jailed? Does he still equate homosexuality with polygamy & bestiality? Does he still want to see the Supreme Court reverse Lawrence v. Texas? The sad truth is that whenever "Santorum" is googled, the alternative definition of his name will be the top result...that's the price you pay for ignorant stupidity. He sure is entitled to those views, but I think the Democrats would welcome those conservative values come 2012...

Eli| 7.17.10 @ 3:29PM

Jindal, Ryan, Daniels, Petraeus. Hell, even Mitt. We need to win back the presidency in 2012 but please not this guy...and no Palin.

Santorum was a good, reliable conservative vote in the Senate and helped the country and party. And if I lived in PA and he ran for state election I wouldn't hesitate to vote for him. But he has the personality of a door knob and seems a little queer. As for Palin, she too is great in her role but at least half of the voters will never consider voting for her and she does not have the intellectual capcity to be taken seriously (not that Biden does either but never fight the MSM double standard). Who thinks that Palin really understands the complicated intricacies of the Middle East?

JMC| 7.17.10 @ 7:22PM

Eli,

You're right about the 'queer' thing. This guy is too rabidly anti-gay not to be a closet case. He's just like Roy Ashburn in California. Santorum lost his last race because the focus of his campaign was all about the 'evil gays'. Nobody fucking cares. And I don't vote for Catholics. They've proven how much they'll do what's best for the Church before they follow their oaths of office and obey the law.
Palin? The only presidency she'll ever win is that of her trailer parks homeowners association. White trash all the way! I think all of the prospective GOPers suck. I like Mitch Daniels; he's a grown up; he doesn't worry about the New York Times or spend his time preening himself on tv like the others. But he's a non-starter. He had the gall to put bread and butter issues before the all-important issue of...ABORTION...so the Jesus freaks won't have him. No, that group of mindless twits loves Huckabee. Yes, he with the one hand on the Bible and the other in the collection plate - not to mention all those clemency orders for killers...

JMC| 7.17.10 @ 7:13PM

Santorum. For President. Are you !@#$%^& kidding me? This guy is a class a dumbass. I once saw him on tv taking questons from voters during his last foray. This guy stands up and asks him an overall question about economics: how can I afford to send my kid to college; own a home; pay taxes, etc. Santorum thanks him for the question, then launches into one of his "Well, you know about the evils of homosexuality, right?" THAT'S why he lost. He's another clueless, glzed eyed Catholic dumbass who thinks he'll get into heaven blowing the Pope.

bob grant| 7.17.10 @ 9:55PM

Based on my non-scientific observations of the posts here, the two best candidates have 1 glaring negative each that trumps their many positives:

Jeb - Bush Dynasty
Haley - Deep Southern Drawl

Is there a wild card out there that no one's discussing? I'm getting desperate here.

JMC| 7.17.10 @ 11:25PM

There's something we all need to remember: for all it's pontificating about being "conservative", the GOP is, first and foremost, an ESTABLISHMENT party. It wanted Bush Sr. over Reagain in '80. It opposed Prop. 13 in the 70s. It is NO DIFFERENT from the Democrats in this way. It is as corrupt as they are. And any Republican who wants the nod will be the party's whore; whether it be for Wall Street or Israel. There is a great article at amconmag.com about ruling elites versus the "country party" (which is us). Highly recommended.

Tom Ulrich| 7.20.10 @ 4:54PM

I am not inclined to vote for any more Eastern Seaboard types and that includes any Bush. Let's look somewhere else. All the "Old Families" are chums and give each other too much deference politically. Why not look for fresh faces or, really, give Palin a chance. or Jindahl.

The American Spectator

Streetcar Line