-
The Inoperative Jay Carney
May 23, 2013 | 135 comments
-
IRS Union Chief Stonewalls
May 21, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?
May 20, 2013 | 70 comments
-
The Liberal Union Behind the IRS
May 16, 2013 | 146 comments
-
Cumulus Media: Suicide of a Company?
May 14, 2013 | 64 comments
Political Hay
The Passion of Rick Santorum
Will Iowa surge place principled Reagan conservative on GOP ticket?
“In every other issue that concerned the Union, the voice which spoke in most potent tones was that of Pennsylvania.” — Henry Adams, writing in his The History of the United States of America 1801-1817
Sunset.
Early November, 2006.
Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania United States Senator Rick Santorum, on the edge of what will be a seemingly career-ending election defeat (he would lose his re-election bid days later by a crushing 18 points) is refusing — yet again — to back down.
There are, as always in a U.S. Senate race, a clutch of concerns that have voters focused. From economics to the social issues, Santorum has decided opinions on them all. He is a thorough-going believer in free markets and as fervent a supporter of traditional marriage as he is an opponent of abortion. But the issue that has riveted the state in watching his imminent defeat is his repeated — passionate — refusal to back away from his staunch support of the war against Islamic fascism. He supported the U.S. war in Afghanistan — launched in response to the 9/11 attacks — and he voted defiantly in favor of the Iraq War.
Now, with the latter war becoming unpopular and President George W. Bush sinking like a stone in the polls and Santorum’s own re-election literally at stake, Santorum refuses to budge. Period. Absolutely, totally, without question he refuses to abandon that most Reaganesque of conservative principles — peace through strength.
As he speaks this night to a crowd standing a mere handful of miles from Carlisle’s renowned United States Army War College — the school whose graduates include American military legends Pershing, Patton, Eisenhower, Bradley, Schwarzkopf and Tommy Franks — no one is more aware than Santorum that at the other end of the state is the now sacred farm field in Shanksville. Shanksville. The site where the heroic passengers of United Flight 93 crashed to a horribly violent death. A knowing death as they valiantly fought off the fourth attack in a morning of attacks by violent American enemies determined to use yet another civilian airliner in one last 9/11 assault, this one on either the Capitol of the United States or the White House.
Introduced to the crowd of supporters by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Santorum’s voice is soft, weary but strong. I was present for the occasion, and wrote it up this way:
“I look around and I see these children and all of the kids here…” he says, his head shaking almost imperceptibly, “…we are faced with a great enemy and we have a burden before us…. Because the way the Democrats are talking, it’s pretty clear what their agenda will be.” He pauses. “Let me tell you what it means. It means whether we are going to be able to confront the evil that is in front of us… as opposed to giving Iran, North Korea and others…to give them the time to develop the weapons of mass destruction… and project devastation across the world. That’s what we have in store for us if we do not act now and stop them now.… The Democrats want to retreat, they want to play politics.”
Except for a child’s cry the room is completely still. “Look,” he says, “I voted for this war. There’s nothing that bothers me more, that… that…” — here Santorum stumbles, a tremor of emotion in his voice a moment before he plows on — “… that makes me suffer more than seeing the men and women in uniform dying… and civilians dying…But I remind you that while it’s a great price… a great price, it’s small in comparison to the price that would be wreaked on the civilian population of this country and around the world if terrorists are given the time to arm.…”
A shout goes up from the crowd, a man’s voice. “That’s right!” Murmurs of agreement and assent ripple through the room, heads nod, the mothers along with the mullets. Applause erupts.
“The fact that we have been safe for over five years is not an accident.” Santorum turns and gestures to former Attorney General John Ashcroft, the Missourian having taken time from Missouri’s own heated Senate race to pitch for the Pennsylvanian. “It is because great men like John Ashcroft put the Patriot Act together.… it’s because courageous people were willing to stand up and take on the enemy where they are instead of waiting for them to attack here. We have been on offense, and what the Democrats want us to do is go on defense.… That’s what this race is about. Ultimately it is about the security of your family….”
The drama is interrupted as Santorum’s five-year old son Patrick squiggles and distracts the audience as well as his father. “Including Pat,” Santorum says, the audience breaking out into laughter, the tension in the room released as the little boy grins. “This race,” Pat’s father resumes, “this race will make a difference to the future of our country.… This election cycle, John Ashcroft said, will be one that history will look back on and say we either made the right call, did the right thing, stood up and confronted evil before it became too late. Or… or we made a mistake that could cost our country dearly….. This decision is in the hands of a handful of people…the security of our country… the lives of your children and grandchildren, their safety and security, not just your children and grandchildren but your lives are on the line.… So I’m asking you to work as if your lives depended on it… because they very well may.”
Days later the people of Pennsylvania went to the polls and voted to return Rick Santorum to private life. Many observers thought he was finished.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (126) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/03/the-passion-of-rick-santorum
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Great Train Robbery
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Nuts to Nutter
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
talkradio200| 1.3.12 @ 12:22AM
Bravo, Mr. Lord! You can make the case for conservatism like so few can in the modern era. Santorum is exactly what the doctor ordered. He wasn't my first choice, not for a lack of conservatism, but he is right up there. He is the only candidate who makes the case for social conservatism and shows how it is linked to fiscal conservatism. He makes the moral arguments for limited government and he does not apologize for it. If Santorum can defeat Romney and the media and win the nomination, he is certainly one who I will run to vote for on November 6th.
Jack in Wi.| 1.3.12 @ 7:17AM
There is no passion for Santorum even here. He is just another bum of the month pushed, by the neocon media and talk radio. He is another Bush, not a Reagan. He has zero chance of being nominated or elected. He will soon join Bachman, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich on the ash heap. It has always been between the elite's candidate Romney and Ron Paul, who would actually change things in Washington. For more of the same vote for Romney. for Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty, vote for Ron Paul.
TrueBlue | 1.3.12 @ 3:18PM
You compare him to Bush but give no proof. Facts please, or cease with the accusations.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 4:06PM
TB:
Clint lives in wolkenkuckkucksheim.
Jack in Wi.| 1.3.12 @ 4:49PM
Just look at the picture above the article true blue, Bush and Santorum. Liars and warmongers of a feather hang together. Santorum's nephew has just endorsed Ron Paul. Ron and Rand for Life, Peace, Properity. and Liberty.
TrueBlue | 1.3.12 @ 7:19PM
Yes, because people in the same political party are never anywhere near each other on a regular basis...
Clint| 1.3.12 @ 6:44AM
We Pennsylvanian Conservatives Helped Hand Little Ricky His Ass In 2006.
Santorum Got Paid Back, with 41% of the vote to Casey's 59%,the largest margin of defeat ever for an incumbent Republican Senator in Pennsylvania.
That's What Ricky Got For Proppin' Up The RINO-CINO Poster Boy, Arlen Specter In Our 2004 Senate Primary Against Our Guy,Pat Toomey.
Now, Pat Toomey Is Our Tea Party Senator And Specter & Santorum Are Out.
If He Runs Again In Pennsylvania He'll Get Tossed Again.
Jeffrey Lord | 1.3.12 @ 8:27AM
Santorum supported Specter in return for support for conservatives on the Supreme Court. This resulted in John Roberts and Sam Alito.
So you are opposed, evidently.
Which brings us back to the point: Ron Paul is getting his support from the left.
Kade| 1.3.12 @ 8:50AM
Did Rick support Bush’s first choice, pro-abort Harriet Myers? We got lucky with Roberts and Alito only because the base was outraged.
Why did Rick campaign relentlessly for militant pro-abort, super liberal Specter anyway in a close Republican primary, especially when pro-life conservative Toomey was running? Rick stabbed every pro-life Pa. voter in the back, many who were volunteering for Toomey.
The picture with Bush says it all. Voting for Rick is like voting for Bush II--another Rockefeller Republican posing as a conservative at election time. Check Rick’s record under Bush and you will see that he is another big government liberal Republican who is soft on immigration.
I am definitely not for Ron Paul.
KennesawJack| 1.3.12 @ 9:47AM
Read Mr. Lord's previous comment. Santorum's endorsement of Spector guaranteed the ascendancy of Roberts and Alito to the the Supreme Court. As a native Pennsylvanian I still believe, as I believed at the time, that Toomey couldn't win in the state during that election. One more very important item, if Santorum is our nominee it practically guarantees Pennsylvania's electoral votes for him, sweeping a large number of votes from Obamarx to Santorum. A vote for Santorum is simply good politics.
W| 1.3.12 @ 1:40PM
I agree Pa is in play this year. Reagan carried Pa twice, and Bush carried it in 88. Even the Dems who run in Pa are cultural conservatives (Bob Casey Sr.) or pretend to be (Bob Casey Jr).
Where in Pa are you?
KennesawJack| 1.3.12 @ 2:39PM
I'm not. Born and raised in Lancaster County but moved to the Atlanta area 30 years ago. Have lots of family still there and pay attention to PA politics.
KennesawJack| 1.3.12 @ 3:45PM
As did another Dutchman named Gingrich...
chuck| 1.3.12 @ 7:22PM
KJ,
I was born and raised in Lancaster as well. Living in Acworth now. I still have aunts,uncles, and cousins living there. I surely hope PA can get some sanity to it, and NOT vote for Obummer this time around. Lancaster was always a very conservative area, but Philly and Pittsburgh always seem to deliver PA to the Dems. Must be the graveyard votes.
KennesawJack| 1.3.12 @ 10:04PM
Welcome to God's country.
russel| 1.3.12 @ 11:26AM
Heard RS explain that on Hannity yest . Wow , who'd a thot . We really DO have to thank him for that . PS , I read Snarlin is doing a nasty stand-up comic routine now . There's another who'd a thot .
Occam's Tool| 1.3.12 @ 12:38PM
Jeffrey, Good on 'ya, mate. I like Rick. Of course, I will vote for the most Conservative non-Paul Candidate still in the race by the time it reaches Minnesota. I like Santorum.
Vlady| 1.3.12 @ 9:52AM
Pat Toomey, who stated that if he had been in the U.S. Senate in December 2010, would have voted for gays in the military. Toomey is not perfect either.
Moe Blotz| 1.3.12 @ 10:07AM
By vindictively bouncing Rick Santorum from the Senate, the ersatz conservatives enabled the kook progressives to take over all branches of government that led to BHO.
KennesawJack| 1.3.12 @ 10:11AM
True, that.
Kade| 1.3.12 @ 10:11AM
Yeah, Toomey is another phony conservative and that is why you can not trust any of the establishment Republicans candidates at election time.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 10:15AM
Clint old man,
What are the odds of PA delivering its electoral votes to the GOP nominee this time? Unlikely I should think. Ergo, why should we care what PA might think of who should be the nominee?
KennesawJack| 1.3.12 @ 12:35PM
Al, not necessarily. Santorum and Gingrich are both native sons and Pennsylvania has sent only one citizen to the White House , James Buchanan, who, prior to the advent of Carter and Obama, was considered to be the worst President in history . Perhaps redemption is at hand for the Keystone State. And don't forget, the good folks of PA kicked Spector out and put Toomey in last go 'round, as well as a Republican Governor. Things bode well for the Republican candidate in PA this year.
W| 1.3.12 @ 1:16PM
Al Adab
We are not smart enought to understand the logic of replacing Rick Santorum, a true conservative, with Bob Casey, a true liberal who votes the Obama line. Snarlen Arlen Specter is much better than Casey.
Happy New Year.
KennesawJack| 1.3.12 @ 1:34PM
Al, there is no logic to it. I'm simply saying that the 2006 Senatorial election is not necessarily prologue to the 2012 Presidential election in Pennsylvania if Santorum or Gingrich is the nominee.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 1:54PM
W:
While I, and the nation, rely on your best efforts to win all cloudless glory by delivering PA electoral votes to the GOP, I doubt it would be wise to place all our hopes and dreams for the future on that proposition. Nonetheless I defer to you all on the matters of PA politics as I am certainly unfamiliar with same.
KennesawJack| 1.3.12 @ 2:54PM
Al, when you get outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburg it's hard to find a liberal. The Dems couldn't even hold the congressional seat from the Scranton area (arguably the most pro-union area in the state - think coal miners) and Santorum is from Pittsburg so he locks that up. Granted, Philadelphia will produce at least 20% more Democratic voters than there are people in the city, but I truly believe Obamarx loses the Keystone State. Remember, Hillary the Red demolished him in the primary. In any event, no need to defer to anyone on anything. You are obviously well read and thoughtful in forming your opinions.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 3:15PM
Thanks Jack for the explanation and kind words. Nonetheless, I recall how Harry Reid again won (stole) Nevada in his re-election. These people will stop at nothing.
KennesawJack| 1.3.12 @ 3:43PM
The difference in PA is that the Republican Party swept the Executive Branch and both houses of the legislature in 2010 so, outside of Philadelphia, there won't be many opportunities for the Democrats to steal this one and Philly, by itself, isn't enough. Everyone knows they'll try but I think they're just too far removed from power to pull it off.
nova9047| 1.5.12 @ 2:02PM
Its Pittsburgh with an H.
Mike Hawk| 1.3.12 @ 10:58AM
You are not a PA Conservative. You speak for yourself. Clods like you gave us Bob (with one '0') Casey, the Fast Eddy Spendell empty suit. Rick was fully behind Pat Toomey last time around. I suppose in your book George Allen and Jim Talent were RINOs too.
KennesawJack| 1.3.12 @ 12:39PM
The good news is that Casey is gone after his election. He road his father's reputation to the Senate and has been proven to be every bit as vacuous as those of us who were familiar with him thought him to be.
KennesawJack| 1.3.12 @ 2:48PM
I really meant to say "rode". I just hate when that happens.
Farmer| 1.3.12 @ 12:31PM
Clint,
Do you really take pride in helping defeat "Little Ricky" and giving the country another Democrat in the form of Casey? Shooting yourself in the foot in never as useful as beating someone now on Obama's team. Toomey and Santorum would have been better better than Toomey and Casey.
Occam's Tool| 1.3.12 @ 12:39PM
Yes he does. Clint is the type of guy who carefully ties the Rising Sun bandanna on his head before typing.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 3:19PM
Now there's an analogy. Whew.
Jeffrey Lord| 1.3.12 @ 6:40PM
Clint....
Outting yourself as a leftist at last. Nothing like electing a liberal Democrat like Bob Casey.
Do you belong to the SEIU or the PSEA?
senecasd| 1.3.12 @ 6:52AM
My problem with Mr. Romney is that he has never shown moral courage in the political theatre, when that would be a detriment to his political prospects. With Mr. Santorum, you know what you are getting, I will be pleased to vote for him when the Michigan primary date arrives.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 10:59AM
Romney and many others continue to play by the old rules. The rules have changed and the new remain as yet relativly undefined. As they emerge we will enter into a new type of political environment. Which candidate might best fit the new paradigm should be our concern.
Baloney Guy| 1.3.12 @ 7:12AM
Perhaps, someone should teach him to spell potatoe.
Brian Mc| 1.3.12 @ 7:45AM
Well done, Mr. Lord. But, what we've been hearing all weekend here, in Iowa, is nothing but 'earmarks'. Makes this conservative wonder about Mr. Santorum's mouth; both sides of it.
Jeffrey Lord| 1.3.12 @ 6:41PM
Brian Mc..
Rick is the real deal....so much so that if he is seen as straying its conservatives who rebel...but rest assured he is despised by libs here in PA. They are agog at the thought of him in the WH...
Edward Cropper | 1.3.12 @ 8:02AM
Rick Santorum, just doesn't have it. He speaks like a tape recording and has the same fire to convince and move his listeners.
Iowa voters are certainly not a representative voice of the American people. They live in their own little world. Republicans are a sorry lot if they can't make up their minds as to which candidate is best suited to defeat Obumbler
MikeN| 1.3.12 @ 8:06AM
Santorum is just too militant. Took a close loss and turned it into a blowout by running his gathering storm commercial. No wonder Paul is doing well when all the other candidates go up there and talk about what they would do to this country of 85 million people.
coal carrier| 1.3.12 @ 9:01AM
Did you see the headlines? “About 120,000 Iowans will gather Tuesday in hundreds of precincts across the state…”
120,000 voters out of 2.9million people. That’s 4% of the population. If the winner gets 50% of the votes, that means 60,000 people voted for the winner. More people show up on a Saturday afternoon for a University of Iowa football game. Based on these numbers, are there really enough people motivated across the nation to unseat Obama?
TrueBlue | 1.3.12 @ 3:23PM
Iowa hasn't voted R more than once since 1988 anyway, so who cares what that state thinks.
coal carrier| 1.3.12 @ 9:01AM
Did you see the headlines? “About 120,000 Iowans will gather Tuesday in hundreds of precincts across the state…”
120,000 voters out of 2.9million people. That’s 4% of the population. If the winner gets 50% of the votes, that means 60,000 people voted for the winner. More people show up on a Saturday afternoon for a University of Iowa football game. Based on these numbers, are there really enough people motivated across the nation to unseat Obama?
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 10:56AM
How many of those people get ethanol subsidies?
Ward Bond| 1.3.12 @ 9:07AM
Mr. Lord, great article as always. To you Paulbots-you ever hear of Neville Chamberlain? Maybe, just maybe, we've found our Churchill. We need somebody with true grit to defeat our Quisling. Only Santorum, not Romney, nor Paul,or any of the rest can do that.
Vern Crisler| 1.3.12 @ 9:50AM
Santorum as Churchill? Exaggerate much?
Joe R| 1.3.12 @ 11:04AM
Glenn Beck said Santorum was another George Washington. I kid you not.
Kade| 1.3.12 @ 9:49AM
Santorum is no Churchill for sure. I agree with his current pre-emption policy on Iran but my guess is that he too (like his twin W. did) will kick the ominous Iran and North Korea nuke can down the road.
Santorum was in the Senate leadership and never once did I hear him talk about pre-empting Iran’s nuclear sites and he also went along with the worthless and feckless six-party talks about stopping North Korea’s nuclear programs. Now at primary time the chicken hawk is suddenly hawkish on foreign policy.
Nevertheless, I would vote for Rick over Obama hoping that the so-called conservative pundits would hold him to his conservative campaign promises instead of carrying his Rockefeller liberal water as they did for W. over 8 years, thus giving us Obama.
Timothy L. Pennell| 1.3.12 @ 9:50AM
If I'm Rick Santorum, and I come in 2nd or 3rd? I am seriously talking to Michelle Bachmann about throwing her support to me. I'm offering her the Veep slot. Period. In my opinion, it's that, or a guy who thinks a Single Payer Government Health Care Plan is a GOOD IDEA, we need to get on board with the whole Man Made Global Warming thing, and that Liberal Judges are "Okay by me", if it's just easier that way.
"Arguments about Electability have dogged Santorum during the past year of electability". Was HUSSEIN "Electable"? The Marxist Coke Sniffing, Chain Smoking, Marxist/Muslim, Street Agitator, who's whole life was a Who's Who of White Haters, Jew Haters, America Haters, Domestic Terrorists, PLO Terrorist Recruiters, Communists, Marxists, Maoists, and Anarchists? Was he ELECTABLE?
Did I mention that he went to a White Hating/Jew Hating/America Hating, Black Liberation Theology HATE CHURCH? Did I mention that all of his Pertinent Information is SEALED in a Vault, in "ASIA"? And that, EVERYBODY knew it, and they voted for him anyway?
I'm talking to YOU, Peggy Noonan! I'm talking to YOU, Mort Zuckerman. YOU, Wall Street Journal. Shut Up! Your choice of Obama, in 2008, was the equivalent of choosing Barabbas, over JESUS, when they were both offered up by Pilate. And, that goes double for Karl Rove, who did NOTHING, as his President was assailed, on a Daily Basis, by the SCUM of the Earth, on the Left. He kept his mouth shut. Do us all a favour, and Shut It, now. Same with Kristal. Same with Will. Same with all of the "Conservatives" who have been lured away from the Conservative Path, by Money and Power. You don't speak for us. We don't need you. We never did.
In my opinion, Gingrich hasn't got a chance. Romney has bludgeoned him with a million kitchen sinks. And, if he hadn't, President 1%, would have done it, with his Fat Cat, Millionaire and Billionaire WAR CHEST, and an Adoring Media, only too anxious, to help their Lover.
Ron Paul. aka "Extra. Extra. Read all about it. Kill a Black Man, and hide the body. Watch out for those Dirty Jews. Get your Newsletter, right here. Extra. Extra." They would eat him up, and spit him out, in a week. He'd get 2 Votes. And you already know who those 2 idiots, are.
Rick Perry? Is he even still in the Race?
Huntsman has shown himself to be closer to his Former Boss, than to you and me. "Iowa is for picking Corn." Yep. Truly a Man of the People. Peggy Noonan may have found her guy, this time around?
And, Michelle? Her Campaign Chief has already left her sinking ship. Yet, she is actually in a good position to be an obvious choice for V.P.
She's from a State that we need. She's a Gal. And this is a time for 1sts, I believe. We've already had the 1st Mulatto/Muslim President, who was raised in Muslim Schools and Mosques, in Indonesia. We have the 1st Certifiable Moron Vice President who believes that "JOBS" is a 3 letter word, asks people in Wheelchairs to "Stand Up", and likes his Boss, because he's "Clean and Articulate, without having that "Negro Dialect" that all the other "NEGROS" have.
We've had the 1st RAPIST. The 1st President to lose a Court Case, where he was charged with Pulling down his pants, and EXPOSING HIMSELF, to a woman he didn't know. The 1st president IMPEACHED, while in Office. (or was he the 2nd?) The 1st President to LIE to a Grand Jury. The 1st President to Lose his Law License for giving False and Misleading Information to a Grand Jury. The 1st President to use a young Intern as a Cigar Humidor, and a DNA Collection Dish.
We've had the 1st former Vice President, lose a Presidential Election, NOT because "Florida was stolen!", but because he couldn't win HIS OWN STATE.
Maybe it's time for the 1st Woman Vice President?
"Yeah. But then Obama will pick Hillary!"
Let him. This ain't 1996. Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro/Abu Hussain has done what Leftists always do. He has taken Advantage of a Crisis, to push through a Socialist Agenda, that has done what Socialism always does. It has destroyed this Country. It doesn't matter who he picks. HIS NAME will be at the top of the ticket. And, besides. She's a PIG. And, a Muslim and a PIG?
I don't know.
Is that even Kosher?
A. C. Santore| 1.3.12 @ 10:28AM
One glaring error in your otherwise excellent post: "He has taken Advantage of a Crisis, to push through a Socialist Agenda."
It should read "He has CREATED a Crisis, to push through a Socialist Agenda."
Brian Mc| 1.3.12 @ 11:35AM
Nice catch, A.C.!
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 11:55AM
That is the Hegelian approach. Create a crisis, propose to solve it, increase centralization and personal power. The Left has used it in this country for the last fifty years (or more) to our detriment. Dictators find it very helpful for their purposes.
Jeffy| 1.3.12 @ 2:51PM
Give this man a blogspot with American Spectator!
Military man| 1.3.12 @ 9:53AM
As someone who has served I can tell you Ron Paul is no Neville Chamberlain, that is a bunch of shit. He is for getting in and getting out which is what must of us want. They paint RP's supporters as kooks that's shit too, RP gets twice as much support from the military as all the other candidates combined and that doesn't include all the retired military who support him. If you say you support us then you should consider who we want as president, someone who is going follow this Constitution WE are fighting for. God Bless this country, Vote the constitution.
Joe R| 1.3.12 @ 11:07AM
More bull about RuPaul getting twice as much support from the military as the other candidates combined. Either show us the evidence behind this statement or change the damn record. And quit wearing your war wound like a crown, Levon.
Drunken Sailor| 1.3.12 @ 11:29AM
Sorry Military man. As a 20 year vet I can support you without supporting Ron Paul.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 11:56AM
DS:
The Maccallen mostly survived the holiday.
Drunken Sailor| 1.3.12 @ 12:50PM
Sadly enough so did my Single barrel of Jack. Nursed a head cold all weekend. If I had touched the Jack my head might have exploded and I would have been forced to vote Ron Paul. We live to fight again.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 12:54PM
DS:
Best treatment for the head cold is your Jack in hot lemonade. Give it a shot (pun intended). It does clear the sinuses. My best for a great 2012.
KennesawJack| 1.3.12 @ 1:28PM
Follow that up with a shot of ice cold Jaeger - sipped slowly, not chugged. We old folks of German descent know that Jaeger is intended soley to be medicinal. Wonder if that's why I seem to feel a bit under the weather come evening. Prosit! for 2012 to all.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 1:48PM
And to you Jack.
Drunken Sailor| 1.3.12 @ 4:36PM
Can I substitute shine KJ? Don't really care for Jaeger.
KennesawJack| 1.3.12 @ 4:41PM
It's an acquired taste. Took me all of 2 or 3 seconds.
Drunken Sailor| 1.3.12 @ 4:35PM
And to you my friend but alchohol just makes me stuffier. Now a hot tottie for a chest cold? Raised on it and swear by it.
Occam's Tool| 1.3.12 @ 12:41PM
And you would be wrong, Military Man. As a Jewish Conservative I can tell you he IS Neville Chamberlain.
KennesawJack| 1.3.12 @ 12:42PM
I served and I don't like Paul at all. My son serves now and does not like Paul at all. 'Nuff said.
Boar Hunter| 1.3.12 @ 1:30PM
I call B.S.
Boar Hunter| 1.3.12 @ 1:31PM
Should have been more clear. I call B.S. on Military (?) man.
Moe Blotz| 1.3.12 @ 9:59AM
Mr. Lord please note; Shanksville is not at the opposite end of Pennsylvania from Carlisle, but rather 110 miles west before you reach Somerset.
bill| 1.3.12 @ 10:03AM
Santorum should have run for his old senate seat, renouncing a rematch with Sen. Casey, and Santorum would have a better luck on winning back the seat he once held, rather run for the Oval Office and split the Evangelic Votes, and thus gives Obama's campaign a sign of relief.
Former Sen. Aleen of VA is seeking his old senate job, and he's favorite to winning the rematch with Obama's pal Kaine.
Santorum cannot win the GOP nod because he lacks charisma, leadership, resources, and organization.
Crawler| 1.3.12 @ 10:10AM
Watching the last "R" debate, there was one candidate that stood out, made me take notice and impressed me: Santorum.
Newt? Well, thanks but no thanks.
Romney? Would you buy a used car from this guy? Would you, really?
Paul? Great on a lot of issues, way out in left field on others.
Bachmann? I pretty much agree with her on everything she says, but I know the RNC and the MSM will squelch her presidential aspirations in the coming months.
Since most voters will cast their votes for "Anyone But Obama" in 44 weeks, it will be very interesting to watch which "R" candidates endure and which ones the MSM will trash the most. The ones that receive the most media trashing will be the very ones to take a closer look at...
William R| 1.3.12 @ 10:16AM
Goodbye to Goldwater
Rick Santorum's Republican crusade for big government.
http://reason.com/archives/200.....-goldwater
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 12:56PM
Yes, however Reason mag is notoriously Libertarian.
William R| 1.3.12 @ 2:03PM
So!!! Can you refute anything in the article.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 2:35PM
Wouldn't bother which is the reason for my affirmative expletive with which I began my reply.
Let me also posit that part of the problem we are having this season is looking to the past when some of the candidates have come to recognize that the rules have changed and that policies must change as well. What was practical in 2005 for example is not so today. Again however, I prefer principle over expediency hence my concerns about Romney.
SteveJ| 1.3.12 @ 11:57AM
There is a fundamental difference between “peace through strength” and “making the world safe for Democracy.” It looks like Santorum, along with the Republican Party in general, does not want to come to terms with this difference.
There was an unholy alliance that occurred during the Reagan years between a group of liberals who wanted to use the military as part of Woodrow Wilson’s crusade to make the world safe for Democracy, and Conservatives, who recognized the need for a strong national defense and also understood the threat posed by the Soviet Union.
To hide the fact that they are liberals, they coined the label "neoconservatives."
While both of these groups opposed the McGovernites, who took over the Democrat Party, these two groups don’t share the same ideas about foreign policy, and I am not sure how practical it is to have both of them in the same political party.
After Reagan, the Republican Party chose to give Conservatives the boot. And Republican electoral weakness at the Presidential level has been the result.
Au Contraire| 1.3.12 @ 12:24PM
I couldn't agree more. I think Ron Paul is a good and decent man with the right intentions (upholding the Constitution, always), but he will of course never get the nomination given this unholy alliance with the warmongers in the party. If he does win a good number of state primaries, however, we may see the initial splintering we see now finally shatter this modern amalgam of a GOP at the convention. That could be the great cataclysm of this election.
Vern Crisler| 1.3.12 @ 1:27PM
I think "neoconservatives" also believed in peace through strength. In addition, there is nothing wrong in principle with making the world safe for democracy. The devil is in the application.
The label "neoconservative" nowadays is used by Paulistas to refer to anyone who disagrees with whatever Ron Paul says on foreign policy.
Au Contraire| 1.3.12 @ 1:44PM
And no, neoconservatives most definitely do NOT believe in peace through strength, and there is EVERYTHING wrong with making the world safe for democracy if you propose that the American taxpayer foot the bill for such an endeavor, which more often than not results in the opposite actually occurring.
And "Paulista" is the term that neocons use against true conservatives when they are being condescending. The bottom line is, the party's over. Conservatives and neoconservatives will part ways in the not too distant future.
Vern Crisler| 1.3.12 @ 2:32PM
I don't know why Paulistas are bringing up this distinction between a Reagan foreign policy and a Wilsonian foreign policy. Paulistas hate Reagan and his foreign policy just as much as they hate Wilson's.
But neoconservatives do believe in peace through strength: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
In fact, the term "neoconservative" was invented by a Communist, and it's just as meaningless now as it was back then. As I said anyone who rejects Ron Paul's irresponsible foreign policy is automatically labeled as a "neoconservative" by his loon followers.
The division among conservatives is just how much America should exert itself to protect its national interest. We have limited resources after all, and while we could support the overthrow of a Libyan dictator, it doesn't mean we have the means to overthrow a Syrian one. As I said, the devil is in the application, not in the ideal, something the Wilsonians don't understand.
SteveJ| 1.3.12 @ 1:56PM
"The label "neoconservative" nowadays is used by Paulistas to refer to anyone who disagrees with whatever Ron Paul says on foreign policy."
That is laughable, with all due respect. If you want a Conservative take on the Bush administration and the current Republican Party, for example, you can google the writings of General William Odom or someone like Doug Bandow. Both of them were in the Reagan administration.
Odom was one of the four original founders of the Hudson institute.
I don't think either Bandow or Odom would support Paul in his entirety, but they might consider some of his views an improvement on Republican neoconservative orthodoxy. I wouldn't describe either one of them as "Paulistas."
Vern Crisler| 1.3.12 @ 2:16PM
Never heard of Odom, but I believe Bandow is a libertarian, not a conservative.
Go read the Lew Rockwell site. It's anti-George Washington, anti-Abraham Lincoln, anti-Reagan, anti-Buckley, and anti-anything-that-favors-American-strength. The Rockwell site even harbors a writer who hates the Constitution.
These are Ron Paul's fellow-travellers. And you think that's conservatism?
SteveJ| 1.3.12 @ 3:07PM
Well Bandow worked for Reagan Vern.
And as Reagan said: "The backbone of Conservatism is libertarianism."
A conservative have many principles in common with libertarians. And almost NONE in common with Wilsonian liberals.
To be fair Odom was in the Reagan administration although not as a political appointee. He was NOT like Charles Krauthammer who worked as a speech writer for Walter Mondale when Mondale ran against Reagan. By the way, Krauthammer has NOT changed his views on foreign policy one iota since working with Mondale.
But in Odom's political capacity he was a founder of the Hudson Institute.
Vern Crisler| 1.3.12 @ 3:33PM
Here is what these mountebank "libertarians" think of Ronald Reagan:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rot.....ard60.html
SteveJ| 1.3.12 @ 4:02PM
How is this a response to anything I wrote? I never mentioned Rockwell.
I do note the following: Reagan actually merely slowed the rate of increase -- what the Democrats laughably referred to as "cuts."
And he was the last Republican to attempt to do even that.
There many Reagan supporters who have no use for the current Republican Party, both for domestic and foreign policy reasons.
If you want to pretend otherwise, that's your business.
Vern Crisler| 1.3.12 @ 4:19PM
You cited Ronald Reagan. You are either being disingenuous or else you don't understand the depths of hatred these Paulistas have for Reagan, (and for Buckley, for Limbaugh, and even for Lincoln or Washington).
That's why this attempt by Paulistas to wave the Reagan banner as over against the "neocons" is laughable.
SteveJ| 1.3.12 @ 4:30PM
I only mentioned Ron Paul once in passing. You are confusing my comments with somebody else's.
I will note the following: supporters of neoconservative foreign policy are not in a position to be calling someone else's foreign policy zany.
SteveJ| 1.3.12 @ 4:31PM
By the way, if you cannot see the difference between William F. Buckley Jr. and Rich Lowry, you are living in denial.
Vern Crisler| 1.3.12 @ 5:01PM
The fact that you continue to use the label "neoconservative" shows that you are in fact a Paulista pretending to be pro-Reagan. Nuff said.
SteveJ| 1.3.12 @ 5:07PM
Apparently, you are under the delusion that George W. Bush pursued a Conservative foreign policy.
That, along with your inability to see the huge differences between William F. Buckley Jr. and Rich Lowry, makes you part of the problem for the Republican Party in the future.
Au Contraire| 1.3.12 @ 3:32PM
Yes, when real arguments fail, fall back on, "But so-and-so likes him, and so-and-so is a racist, therefore..."
Spoken like a true demagogueing Democrat.
Drunken Sailor| 1.3.12 @ 4:38PM
Straight off the Paul website huh?
Robinson1| 1.3.12 @ 4:55PM
No, rather you have been reading too much of the Weekly Standard.
David| 1.3.12 @ 12:04PM
Timothy, that was hilarious. Personally, however, I would like to see Perry as Santorum's VP.
He has so much executive experience that it can't be ignored. If Santorum did pick Bachmann, can you imagine the media frenzy that would bash him for his first presidential act in choosing Bachmann. It would be non-stop all the way to election day with not a word said about Bam Bam's choice of the idiot, wrong on every issue, Joe Biden. No, he would have to go with someone like Perry, or even Romney, but I would not want to see that.
As I have said for a few years now, Bam Bam is going to make Hilly his running mate and move Biden to Sec of State. I can see that coming. What do you think about that Mr. Lord?
It is time to get behind the most consistent and most conservative in the race, and that is Santorum. Send him five bucks and he will be well on his way to the nomination and the presidency.
Darcy| 1.3.12 @ 12:15PM
Don't know much about Rick, except for the pummeling he got from the MSM in 2005-6, but I did see him interviewed on Bret Baier's show. My impression: best-equipped in the field to articulate conservative positions in an attractive manner.
W| 1.3.12 @ 1:28PM
Santorum was hit by the left and right in 2006. He supported Arlen Specter in 2004 at the request of Bush because they needed Specter on the Judiciary committee for the judicial picks. So we got Roberts confirmed as Chief and Alito.
The so called conservatives did not support Rick in 2006 because Rick supported Specter in 2004 in the primary against Toomey, who is now a senator.
The left hates Rick because he is strongly pro life.
The Republican establishment in Pa is lukewarm to Rick because he is strongly pro life, while many like Tom Ridge are pro choice, and in 1994 the Rep establishment wanted to annoint Teresa Heinz in the primary for the John Heinz seat. Rick ran in the primary and scared off Teresa. Of course, Teresa did not mind, she went off to marry a Senator instead of running for office, somebody named John something.
So Rick had everybody upset, and the Iraq War did not help.
KennesawJack| 1.3.12 @ 1:30PM
Your first point is sufficient to offset the remainder.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 1:51PM
We all must remember to distinguish the Iraq War (necessary) from the Iraq occupation (a futile nation building attempt) as the confusion only aids the opposition as does the confusion between illegal migrants and legal immigrants.
W| 1.3.12 @ 2:00PM
Good point. We should have left Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq in 2003.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 2:38PM
Exactly so W:
Flatten them and move on.
Do you remember how many celebrations in the "arab street" took place after 9-11? Why are any of those cities still standing? Bush had the opportunity to take the country to war and failed to do so out of his Wilsonian tendencies. A sad failure of will indeed.
TrueBlue | 1.3.12 @ 3:37PM
That's because Total War is considered inhumane these days; it's ugly, it sucks, but IT WORKS! The reason Japan worked out so well is that we made it obvious we were willing to go as far as necessary to end the war on our terms. That's why we haven't won a war since, the world knows we won't take that last step anymore. The Geneva convention is crap anyway, it's a piece of paper people signed, but we're the only ones that follow it.
Smash your enemy into the ground until he gives up, and do what you need to in order to get information to save OUR people. Treat US citizens according to US law, but the enemy is the enemy, stop treating them like they should have the same rights as our citizens.
W| 1.3.12 @ 3:59PM
Al Adab and TrueBlue
Agree 100% . Fight to win, and not for a draw. Hit them hard and end the war.l
Jeffrey Lord| 1.3.12 @ 9:23PM
W....
You are on the mark.
Jeff Barnett| 1.3.12 @ 1:40PM
Santorum may be a Reagan conservative, and even courageous on social issues, but very weak conservative on policy otherwise. He was a part of the establishment republicans whose lack of strong leadership contributed to our fiscal shape now. Good guy, but his 'whiny' demeanor is not anything like Reagan positive message either. His success only assures a Romney nomination victory in the longrun by knocking down other, stronger conservative leaders (i.e. Perry or Gingrich). Santorum and Bachmann need to drop out ASAP to strengthen a conservative's chance for the nomination.
TrueBlue | 1.3.12 @ 3:38PM
Perry and Bachmann need to drop out. Put Santorum and Gingrich in a room for a couple hours on live TV and see who comes out on top.
Vern Crisler| 1.3.12 @ 3:47PM
Best idea yet....
David| 1.3.12 @ 1:40PM
I am going to send Santorum a few bucks. I still believe that Fred Thompson, who was the one most of us wanted to get the nomination the last cycle, never caught fire or got the fire in the belly because he did not see the financial support coming in. I believe that Santorum will stay at the top tier, and hope that all conservatives support him with their words as well as their money. He can defeat Bam Bam.
Jeffrey Lord points out very well that Santorum is a passionate person about a lot of issues. Santorum is well-studied on the issues and can make the conservative case in appealing fashion to the average voter.
OryGun| 1.3.12 @ 1:50PM
I have watched Santorum on Greta the last couple of years and he is brutally honest even if it doesn't sit well with others. One thing you can't fault him for is his love for this nation and for that he gets my vote and money. I would appreciate a straight talker and a person with integrity.
Al Adab| 1.3.12 @ 2:39PM
How about the Ducks, eh?
bill| 1.3.12 @ 2:53PM
Rick Perry is more viable candidate than Santorum.
Perry is Tim Tebow, lost of ups and downs, but still made it to the playoff, and poised a real threat to Obama in the general election match up.
David| 1.3.12 @ 2:57PM
Now that Gingrich has turned negative on Romney, and legitimately so, this is what his campaign manager had to say when asked if they will also attack Santorum now that he is rising to the top of the pack. Like some of us have been saying, there is not a lot of bad that any republican can say about Santorum.
This is from an article in National Review.
"While Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are likely to also beat Gingrich in the Iowa caucuses, Romney is the only candidate Gingrich is focused on right now. Asked specifically if a Santorum win in Iowa would result in the campaign offering criticisms of him too, Hammond says, “No. Rick’s a good guy.”"
David| 1.3.12 @ 3:05PM
bill, Perry may appear more viable AT THIS POINT, but let's see it looks in say........about 8 or 9 hours from now.
I like Perry........he has been my governor for 11 years..............BUT, when he campaigns on a stupid issue like making the Congress a part-time Congress.........pleeeeease.........do you believe he is serious? Do you believe he will spend time on that as president? Does anyone believe that will ever happen?
That is no different than the idiot repub candidates who pledge, and demand that every other candidate pledge, to support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. We have seen it over and over and NOT ONE HAS DONE ONE SINGLE THING TO MOVE THE AMENDMENT PROCESS FORWARD.
I hope Santorum does not do that. If he already has, I will be seriously disappointed, but not enough to withdraw my support. I do encourage to stop the nonsense unless he truly intends to move in that direction.
bill| 1.3.12 @ 3:22PM
We have too many "Monday morning QB" in the GOP race, like Santorum, Huntsman, Romney, Gingrich. It's time to clean the house and nominate a conservative like Rick Perry, a Tim Tebow can make playoff and win the Superbowl.
Jeff| 1.3.12 @ 4:03PM
Yes, Santorum is consistent- although a committed pro-lifer, that stand doesn't extend to people Israel doesn't like, i.e. Moslems. Santorum is a neo-con warmonger who would send millions of Americans to die for Israeli regional hegemony.
David| 1.3.12 @ 4:12PM
bill, Santorum tends to lead on the issues - not Monday morning quarterback on them. Are you going to defend Perry's campaign gimmick to about a part-time Congress? That is like Huckabee's denial that the cross in his television ad just happend and was not planned. All gimmicks. I haven't heard Santorum use trickery and gimmicks to date. I will say I have been working a lot and may have missed it if he did, but I am not aware of it.
Jeff, are you saying that we should side with countries that have vowed to destroy Israel rather than side with Israel. The same people who hate the Jews hate and want to destroy us.
David| 1.3.12 @ 4:17PM
As to who can win, and who is tougher, and who can convince the electorate of the correctness of his positions, Santorum is the man.
Remember, he has always been an underdog in heavily democratic PA, while Perry has had it relatively easy in his election battles in heavily republican TX.
Santorum is a fighter who does not quit and can definitely punch back when punches need to be thrown. I just don't think Perry will think on his feet as quick as Santorum will when debating Bam Bam.
Kingofthenet| 1.3.12 @ 10:17PM
Yeah, you 'Real' Conservatives should go with Rick, without a doubt he is the most Conservative who stands a chance at this point.He also is VERY Socially Conservative besides being Fiscally, I guess that is another feather in his cap.
POST American| 1.3.12 @ 10:28PM
----------------------FINAL WORD----------------------
NO MORE establishment CFR front op
Republicans OR Democrats.
IN FACT, time, high time, to dump BOTH
of our decades corrupt parties.
The 4 decades on, deeply engineered,
authorized, broad daylight, US taxpayer underwritten
Globalist RED China world TREASON OP
-----------------IS THE ISSUE-----------------.
RETRO-active IMPEACHMENT of our
past 4 Rockefeller CFR-Trilateral front
ops is absolutely demanded
------HUAC/ Nuremberg is coming, and even
now convening in our souls. . .
Clinton| 1.4.12 @ 6:00AM
NO! He's the Huckabee 0f 2012. Going nowhere fast.
WM| 1.4.12 @ 5:24PM
Where is the discussion of Santorum's economic liberalism? This column is not objective analysis, but worthless cheerleading.
Goldstein Chickenhawk| 1.5.12 @ 1:55PM
Most of Lords economics comes from Lord Keynes.
James Phillips| 1.4.12 @ 7:32PM
The American Spectator is nothing more than a neo-con Zionist mouthpiece. Here you will find an excellent expose on same:
http://www.catholicintl.com/in.....-santorum.