-
Generation Unwed Motherhood
June 11, 2012 | 64 comments
-
The Millennial Perspective
May 1, 2012 | 0 comments
-
The Millennial Perspective
April 26, 2012 | 83 comments
-
Carolina Girl
February 3, 2012 | 30 comments
-
Santorum Doesn’t Pander
January 10, 2012 | 77 comments
A Further Perspective
The Best Last Man Standing
Rick Santorum isn’t a perfect candidate, but neither is he Mitt Romney.
During Rick Santorum’s ascendency to the top tier of candidates (a new CBS News poll shows him leading the GOP nomination battle by a slight margin), my libertarian brethren began to narrow in on the former Pennsylvania senator’s fiscal sins.
Yes, Santorum supported the policy malfeasance of the Bush years — the prescription drug expansion, No Child Left Behind, and profligate earmarks, to name just three. Yes, Santorum supported Arlen Specter for re-election, to the chagrin of conservatives everywhere. I’m sympathetic to Ron Paul’s position on the Patriot Act, so I disagree with Santorum’s support for that law. I would rather be free than safe, and such intrusion by the federal government is anything but conservative in principle.
No doubt, Santorum’s affinity (at least by conservative standards) for big labor is a problem. He isn’t a pure free marketeer. He doesn’t have a spotless record, and his grasp of economics isn’t awe-inspiring.
That said, who is Santorum’s chief opponent? Mitt Romney. I could better understand the logic of railing against Santorum if his rival were, say, Paul Ryan. But as it stands, the harsh criticism is unreasonable, especially given Romney’s own dicey record. One libertarian Cato Institute scholar goes so far as to urge a Santorum nomination on the thesis that he will suffer a 10-point loss and, as a result of the embarrassment, purge the Republican Party of social and foreign-policy conservatives.
So much for the GOP’s three-legged stool.
Santorum supported big-government conservative causes along with most Republicans during the Bush years. That’s bad. But Romney has flipped on most major policy issues that Republicans — and libertarians — care deeply about. It’s relatively easy to argue the former Massachusetts governor has been a statist most of his political life, but harder to make the same case for Santorum.
More to the point, Romney was the architect of the prototype for Obamacare. Aside from jobs, that invasive law will be the number one issue in the campaign this summer and fall. Not the prescription drug benefit. Not No Child Left Behind. Not earmarks. Not labor unions. Underestimating the value of having a candidate with a clear record on Obamacare can’t be overstated. Romney doesn’t have it. Santorum does.
To be fair, libertarian commentators have harshly criticized Romney, and rightly so. But in a face-off between Santorum and Romney, I frequently get the picture that they would much prefer the latter — even though Romney’s policy sins are far more grievous and substantial.
My sense is that libertarian-inclined Republicans detest Santorum’s “God talk,” and that’s driving much of their reproach. Chiefly, they don’t like that he has genuine convictions on the sanctity of unborn human life and the importance of traditional marriage. That’s their right. But the real question is this: From a strict libertarian perspective, which is the greater threat to freedom in America — laws restricting abortion and reserving marriage for one man and one woman, or Obamacare and it’s “mini-me,” Romneycare?
Besides, Santorum’s position on abortion and marriage is more mainstream-Republican than the stance espoused by many libertarians. And the general population is quickly coming in line with Santorum’s view, more so than with Obama’s approach of abortion anywhere and everywhere, financed through coercion by the taxpayer.
Santorum isn’t a perfect candidate. Would that he were more Reaganesque in his delivery. The testy approach won’t win him points in a debate with Obama. And the fact that he lost in Pennsylvania in 2006 by a double-digit margin is one of his most significant deficits. (To his credit, at least Santorum won consistently in a blue state, without sacrificing his principles, and stood for re-election in a tough year for Republicans, unlike Romney.)
But in a comparison between Santorum and Romney, the more conservative choice is clear. If so-called “bedroom issues” and an aggressive foreign policy are that odious to Republican voters, they have an alternative: Ron Paul. But for conservatives who care about both the fiscal and social health of this country, Santorum — warts and all — is the best last man standing.
About the Author
David N. Bass is a journalist who writes from the Old North State. Follow him on Twitter.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (227) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David N. Bass
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/15/santorum-the-best-last-man-sta
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Remy St. Laurent| 2.15.12 @ 6:24AM
Romney is our best chance to defeat Obama.
Santorum too tied to the failed Bush policies.
Jack in Wi.| 2.15.12 @ 7:04AM
It's Ron Paul or ruin and always has been. All the rest mean more of the same, more wars, more bailouts, more bankruptcy, more loss of civil liberties and more trashing of the Constitution. Ron Paul is the only candidate who would get rid of Roe vs Wade using the costitutional powers of Congress to regulate the jurisdiction of the courts. It could be done by a simple majority of Congress.
He is also the only one who has a program for getting us out of the mess we are in. He has a program to cut 1.2 trillion dollars off the budget, inoe year. End the wars. Bring home the troops. end all foreign aid. Slash departments and waste without throwing Americans out on the street or cutting social Security or Medicare. He also is the guy who polls the best against Obama among independents, the young, and disaffected Democrats. Who without which no Republican can be elected.
Eric Dondero | 2.15.12 @ 7:44AM
And what kind of liberties will we have under Sharia Law? Ron Paul is the Pro-Sharia candidate. He's the hide your head in the sand and pretend Islamo-Fascism doesn't exist guy.
I've got news for ya buddy. There will be NO liberties left under Sharia Law.
Muslims love it when the West retreats. Surrender-tarian Ron Paul is their candidate.
Just yesterday news broke that a prominent NYC Muslim terrorist endorsed Paul for President.
We cannot have liberty in our lifetimes, without fighting back against the very people who want to take all our liberties away. Yes, Big Government is a problem. But Big Islam is a far, far greater threat to our lives, liberty and property. And until you Paulists figure that out, you will get little support from those of us who care deeply about our individual liberties.
Jack in Wi.| 2.15.12 @ 7:58AM
Our policies in the Middle East have resulted in 2 things, the collapse of our economy, and the bringing forth of the most radical elements in Islam. The longer we stay, the more radical they become. If we get the hell out of their countries then the moderates have a chance to come back. The young people in those countries want a modern life as well, but want us gone. This talk about sharia law is nothing but nonsense to scare the boobs in the Bible belt.
JJ| 2.15.12 @ 9:04AM
Sorry, but here is where the fantasy begins.
BTW my wife was supporting Ron Paul, then I showed her his disgusting web site and she wants nothing more to do with petty little man.
Jack in Wi.| 2.15.12 @ 12:54PM
I suggest evryone go read Ron Paul's webbsite. You might learn what a real Constitutional conservative looks like. The trash the Republicans have been running the last 24 years has nothing to do with liberty or real conservativism.
Jack in Wi.| 2.15.12 @ 12:50PM
In the latest CNN poll Ron Paul is considered by far the most likeable Republican candidate by the American public. He beats Romney by 42% to 34%. Santorum and Gingrich are far behind. As I have stated numerous times the only 2 electable Republicans are Ron Paul and Romney. Santorum and Gingrich do very badly among women. It is still Ron Paul or ruin. Romney is at best another Bush. Who the hell wants that?
Occam's Tool| 2.15.12 @ 2:37PM
Jack---they were radical before we were in there. You obviously are unfamiliar with the 1948 work of Qutb.
You are a 4-F, a coward, and an ignoramus. Tell me that we were intervening heavily against the people's wishes in Libya. We went in to support the rebels, who are shariaists.
Get your worthless antisemitic ass down to Dearborn and look around Cheesehead.
Jack in Wi.| 2.15.12 @ 3:43PM
Occam is a zionist coward calling for nuclear genocide on millions of innocent people. Occam thinks that his sacred blood is too valuble to shed for the apartheid state. He wants the dumb goyim to do his fighting for him. End the terror End the hate. Integrate the Israeli state. If Integration and full civil rights is all right for Missisipi and Alabama it is all right for Israel too.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 4:59PM
We're coming to get you, goy boy. Be afraid. Be very afraid... (cue diabolical laugh)
Nothing like your daily dose of Jew hating clap, is there, Jackoff?
RCV| 2.15.12 @ 7:08PM
Blacks in Alabama and Mississippi didn't have have plans to exterminate or expel all whites once they achieved majority rule. And I'm also in favor of ending the terror and ending the hate: it's historically flowed from the Islamic side.
Jack in Wi.| 2.15.12 @ 10:31PM
The Israeli's have plans to ethinically cleanse all non Jewish people out of old Palistine. If they can do it by harassment and terror it is fine with them. There are plenty of insane people in Israel or the Dispora like Occam and his pals here who would not stop at genocide. The only hope for the peaceful end of the Aparthied state is the same as South Africa, full integration, and civil rights for all. Lets hope that sane Jews get the message and it is done peacefully. The white South Africans got it done, so can sane Jews.
Bobloblaw| 2.15.12 @ 11:24PM
good...youre out in the sunlight. Calling for the destruction of Israel and the elimination of the Jewish people.
Youre a disgrace and deserve to burn in hell
darcy| 2.16.12 @ 1:11AM
I guess you haven't been paying attention to just how "successful" ending Apartheid in South Africa has been for the white population there, the farmers in particular. But then maybe you just don't care to know.
Bobloblaw| 2.15.12 @ 11:23PM
youre right the radical elements of Islam never existed before 1977 when the US began sending aid to Israel...sheesh
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 9:41AM
" Meet the Lunatic Who’s Calling Ron Paul a Lunatic
In a January 3 posting on Loonwatch, a blogger who goes by the name of Danios writes, “Indeed, Dondero is a rabid Islamophobe and Sharia conspiracy theory nut. He runs a blog LibertarianRepublican, which is replete with anti-Muslim postings.”
Here are a few of Dondero’s posts: (expletives modified by me)
NO YOU STUPID F***ING A**HOLE. MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS ARE THE PROBLEM.
Are you an American or some f***ing Communist/Fascist piece of s**t sent to destroy us from within?
Why do you defend the very people who KILLED 3,000 AMERICANS AND CHEERED ALL ACROSS THE MUSLIM WORLD AS IT HAPPENED? "
http://revoltoftheplebs.wordpr.....-a-racist/
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Dai Alanye | 2.15.12 @ 10:02AM
This is odd. Just a week or two back our boy Clint was quoting the same Dondero in support of RonPaul. Splendid show of hypocrisy by a Paulite.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 10:08AM
Given the fact that many (though not all) of them are college kids who don't know shat from shinola about anything to begin with, can you really say you're surprised?
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 11:00AM
Tell It To Your Fellow Israel Firster, Eric Dondero-Rittberg, Israel Firster Smear Bund Boy, Dai Job.
" Eric Dondero.
Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92
Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President
1987/88
I have been asked by various media the last few days for my comments, view of the current situation regarding my former boss Ron Paul, as he runs for the presidency on the Republican ticket.
I’ve noticed in some media that my words have been twisted and used for an agenda from both sides. And I wish to set the record straight with media that I trust and know will get the story right: conservative/libertarian-conservative bloggers.
Is Ron Paul a “racist.” In short, No. I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant. It’s safe to say that I was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual, whether it be traveling to Fairbanks, Alaska or Boston, Massachusetts in the presidential race, or across the congressional district to San Antonio or Corpus Christi, Texas.
He has frequently hired blacks for his office staff, starting as early as 1988 for the Libertarian campaign. He has also hired many Hispanics, including his current District staffer Dianna Gilbert-Kile. "
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Barry Soetoro| 2.15.12 @ 10:31AM
Please keep pushing Ron Paul's candidacy. Please!
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 11:05AM
The Gutless Israel Firster Smear Bund Coward Is Afraid To Post Under His Usual Moniker.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 11:56AM
The valor thief surrender monkey thinks he knows who every poster "REALLY" is...
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 3:25PM
The 4-F Neo-Chickenhawk Coward, Con Job Frankel Thinks He Can Use Our American Warriors As Cannon Fodder & Piss Away Our Treasure Policing The Middle East For His Personal Traitor Bastard Coward, Israel Firster Agenda.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
RCV| 2.15.12 @ 7:11PM
Cause that's what the tea party's about: wheeling and dealing in smoke-filled rooms, making backroom deals? Ron Paul will be lucky if the GOP is stupid enough to even let him speak at the convention.
Occam's Tool| 2.15.12 @ 2:39PM
He's the one you quote to defend Paul against charges of antisemitism. Clint.
OK. Eric, you are a lying maniac. ;) And Ron Paul is an antisemitic swine. Get me another quote from a non-Libertarian Jewish guy who is pro-Israel who supports Paul, Clint.
I'll wait, scumbag.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 3:20PM
He's One Of Your Israel Firster Girlfriends, Israel Firster Coward Neo-Chickenhawk, Smear Bund Scum, Tool Job.
Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize Economist,
"I strongly support Ron Paul. We very badly need to have more Representatives who understand in a principled way the importance of property rights and religious freedom."
The Tea Party Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 3:35PM
Guess the "Tea Party Rebellion" of "Turner Diaries" masturbators fizzled out, so now they're praying for a brokered convention.
The REAL Tea Party want no truck with Jew hating muzzie appeasers like you, Jackboot or your doddering candidate, Dr. Dementia, no matter HOW many canned robo posts your put up 8 million times.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 4:27PM
Asked & Answered Israel Firster Smear Bund 4-F Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Traitor Bastard, Con Job Frankel.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 5:00PM
Ok, Ron Paul fellating, mullah humping valor thief! Whatever you say, Bacha Bazi Bitchboy!
Recardo Fumare| 2.15.12 @ 11:37PM
Oh all of yo go to h e double L.
Ron Piss dont cut it, we industrial workers can see that. He is the ashwhole who challenged the boss and now isnt here.
It's now Santa all the way. Go boy, we d love you.
We do, here in the deep beneith, even if you jack faces want to keep five fingered larry busy.
SpiralArchitect| 2.15.12 @ 5:11PM
Romney is likely the best shot in a general election.
The quality of articles is declining (not this one specifically) at a rate only surpassed by the volume & conduct of trolls in the AmSpec comments section.
Soon AmSpec will no longer be readable as the comments are already at that point.
Pity.
The BS note below the comment box is insulting considering it is about as truthful as The Food Stamp President:
N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.
SGT Baker (native Coloradoan)| 2.15.12 @ 6:35AM
God help us if Romney is our best hope.
Obama or Obamalite, not a big choice there....
Rocky| 2.15.12 @ 6:56AM
It will be a big change to get a Republican President to replace a Marxist dictator.
Vern Crisler| 2.15.12 @ 9:16AM
Yes, I suppose that's the only One who could help us. In addition, all this boosterism for Santorum comes BEFORE all the Romney attack ads against Santorum have been aired. Will all those who salivate for Santorum just say "politics ain't bean bag" as they did when those ads were directed against Newt? Or will they condemn Romney -- something they failed to do when his smear-machine cut down Newt? Hypocrisy 101, I think.
Melvin| 2.15.12 @ 10:00AM
Newt, of course, is well-acquainted with hypocrisy. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.
Vern Crisler| 2.15.12 @ 10:36AM
Evidence?
aware| 2.15.12 @ 6:35AM
If you think either one could win in the general, or if by a miracle they did, they have a clue of how to plug the gash in the hull of this Titanic, you are delusional.
Now the question becomes do we have 4 more years? Both parties agree on our Greek future, they just argue over the timing.
Helen Webber| 2.15.12 @ 6:59AM
Don't despair....We can and will prevail.....Defeat the Muslim, take over the Senate...replace Boehner and McConnell....
Eric Dondero | 2.15.12 @ 7:40AM
In order to "defeat the Muslim," we first have to acknowledge he's a Muslim. Something the Ron Paulists are not willing to admit. They'd rather pretend that Islamism poses no threat to the United States.
Hey Paulists, how you gonna feel when your pretty little wife/girlfriend is forced to wear an ugly black burka from head to toe? How you gonna feel when your marijuana smoking buddy is thrown in jail for life? When booze and gambling are outlawed under Sharia? When the last remnants of capitalism are destroyed under the all-encompassing socialistic Islamist State?
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 9:47AM
" Dondero is also quoted in a December 21, 2011 article for Philadelphia Weekly. He’s upset that some Jewish leaders have sided with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to decry a Pennsylvania bill prohibiting “the application of foreign law which would impair constitutional rights.”
http://www.philadelphiaweekly......52863.html
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Barry Soetoro| 2.15.12 @ 10:33AM
Ad hominems are my favorite tactic, too, clit - right after straw men arguments, that is.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 11:04AM
The Gutless Israel Firster Smear Bund Coward Is Afraid To Post Under His Usual Moniker.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Götterdämmerung| 2.15.12 @ 11:56AM
Are you insane? I mean seriously? Every time I see a post that says "Clint" all I can think is "damn I wish I had those lefty trolls from Breitbart here, at least they can form a semi coherent argument".
Götterdämmerung| 2.15.12 @ 11:57AM
Guess I shoulda worded that "leftists who like to troll Breitbart", makes more sense that way methinks.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 4:29PM
We Don' Need To Ask If You're Insane. GotchaDamnRug.
Attendants Get The Net
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 11:57AM
Just like you're "afraid" to post your Dad's service record or citations for his supposed decorations.
Occam's Tool| 2.15.12 @ 2:44PM
It's a funny thing, Con. The original Colonel for the recon group that Clint says his dad led was wounded and replaced by a major. The history of the unit, penned by the major, is here...http://117th-cav.org/History of the 38th.pdf.
So, the question is, is Clint's dad the esteemed Maj. Charles E. Rousek, Exec. Officer of the 38th eff. Aug 8, 1944, or not? And, if not, when did that Colonel re-appear, because that's not obvious from the history of the 38th.
Occam's Tool| 2.15.12 @ 2:44PM
http://117th-cav.org/History of the 38th.pdf
the website.
Occam's Tool| 2.15.12 @ 2:45PM
Apparently doesn't connect. Just look up 38th Recon WWII and it will pop up.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 4:20PM
This Is What That Author, Colonel Samsel Wrote In The Regimental History He Gave To Dad.
" To Bill,
A Brave And Outstanding Officer,Who Served With Distinction And Honor With The 102 Cavalry Regiment And The 38th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron ( Mech.) In Eupope During World War II.
Harold J. Samsel
Colonel Cavalry Ret.
Short Hills, N.J.
June 24,1983.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 4:02PM
Interesting That You Israel Firster Smear Bund Neo-Chickenhawk Coward's Are Upset About Dad's Combet Accomplishments.
Dad Went Into Normandy With Light Colonel Black Jack Lee In Command.
Dad Was In The Field, Working On Maps With When A Shell Hit.Three Were Evacuated
Dad Was Wounded In The Neck, Was Treated And Stayed In The Field Commanding His Troopers.
Lt. Colonel Lee Was Also Seriously Wounded At The Time By Light Weapons And Was Also Evacuated And Never Returned To Command.
Charlie Rousek Filled In Until Lt. Col. Robert E. O'Brien Took Over Command.
Charlie Rousek Was My Dad's Close Friend And Fellow Combat Officer.
Dad Made Light Colonel When He Was Given A Command For The Planned Invasion Of Japan.
The Real Question Is Why Screwball Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Israel Firster Smear Bund Traitor Bastard, Tool Job Ain't Ridin' An Israeli Nuke Into Iran, Like Slim Pickens.
But Then We Already Know That He's Just A Rough Puff Coatholder, Who Attempts To Use American Warriors As Cannon Fodder And Piss Away American Treasure Attempting ToPolice The Middle East For His Coward Maniac Israel Firster Agenda.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 3:28PM
Asked & Answered Israel Firster Smear Bund 4-F Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Traitor Bastard, Con Job Frankel.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 3:37PM
Yeah. Asked & lied about. "Wesley Ross, Wesley Ross, Wesley Ross."
"What's your Dad's name, Clint? Why won't you post links to his service record or his citations?"
"None of your business, cupcake."
Yeah, what a concise answer, Valor Thief.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 4:06PM
Asked & Answered Israel Firster Smear Bund 4-F Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Traitor Bastard, Con Job Frankel.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
POST American| 2.15.12 @ 6:36AM
----Voter FRAUD in IOWA
-------Voter FRAUD in South Carolina
----------Voter FRAUD in Nevada
-------------Voter FRAUD in Florida
-----------------Voter FRAUD in Maine
Meanwhile, some 74% of ALLLLLL
donations from the serving military are going
to --RON PAUL---
--------EVEN THOUGH
the Globalist RED China handover,
TREASON and FINAL EUGENICS OP
remains unmentioned in the Gates/CFR
-OWNED- 'ME---dia'
----------WHILE NDAA 1021 calls for
North Korea style 'secret arrests' and even
executions of American citizens ---ANYWHERE
---------------as PELOSI decrees the need for
still more tracking and surveillance while
visiting RED China
---------------------and Ginzburg disses the very
document she was sworn to uphold
---the US Constitution
ALL of which is NOWHERE on the A.S. radar.
-----------------HUAC/ NUREMBERG-----------------
Appleby| 2.15.12 @ 6:59AM
My family are supporting Santorum, because his views on the bedrock issues of human life are our views, and because he sounds as if he cares about what he says -- unlike Romney, who sounds like someone doing dinner theatre for the first time and not doing it well. I dislike the whole Romney persona -- it's a gut feeling but I tend to go with my gut feelings as they are based on a thousand little things my subconscious has picked up and added together.
And please don't bother to mention Ron Paul to me. Ron Paul is completely out of touch with the world outside the borders of the United States, and the last thing we need right now is a man of the early 20th century nominally in charge of the ship of state.
Santorum is not perfect. Neither am I, nor anybody I know. But he's not Obama either. And this is not an election for symbolic tantrums in the family; this is an election in which we have to act.
WIARP| 2.15.12 @ 7:22AM
What's "out of touch" and bordering on crazy is is the current US policy which is "if we can't spell the name of the country or locate in a map we must bomb it". There no mention of you know who.
Eric Dondero | 2.15.12 @ 7:38AM
Our current foreign policy rather is called "Girlie-manism." We're all too willing to raise the white flag of surrender in face of the greatest threat this country has ever faced in our history: Islamo-Fascism. What do we do? We seek to buy off our enemies with massive foreign aid. We use diplomacy like Chamberlain with Hitler. We retreat talking about "ending the endless wars," and getting rid of our "bases around the world."
In another day that would have been called Yellow-bellied cowardice.
The Ron Paulists are the ultimate limp-wristers. They're just little scardy cats who want to hide in their little holes and pretend the big bad Muslim guy doesn't actually exist.
And a good 99% of them never served a day of their lives in the military.
Eric Dondero - USN Navy Vet (hon.)
nathan| 2.15.12 @ 8:27AM
I've looked at your posts here. And with all due respect, you're missing the point.
It's not a question of failing to acknowledge that militant islam represents a threat to the country on some level. Everyone understands that, Dr. Paul and people like me included. And no one, and I repeat no one is suggesting that we suddenly roll over and hand the country over to those who seek to harm us.
But neocon interventionists who want romantize the British empire (which I know something about, I lived in parts of it for four years, and spoke one of the languages fluently) and still parrot the notion of "white man's burden", or being the world's policeman miss the point. We don't have the resources or the depth of knowledge to go out and rule the world. And frankly the "democracy jihad" the neocons want to engage in can't work and won't work. Exactly how successful was it in Iraq? Be honest, Iraq, the product of the heroes of the neocons, Bush and Cheney, easily one of the the 10 worst presidents in American history, Iraq was a total disaster. And Afghanistan? We are going to do what every other western power going back to Alexander the Great did, we're going to lose there too. Because the neocon interventionism isn't working (the Balkans are still a basket case and a failure two decades after we meddled there) and yet neocons, who think they are conservatives but aren't (the Founders would never support any of this) can't learn from their mistakes.
It's not a question of being a "coward". It's a question of what's right and what's wrong. And when we go out, self proclaiming our "greatness" and then torture people, abuse helpless detainees, when Bush/Cheney totally violated their oath to uphold what THE CONSTITUTION, in the name of "DEFENDING THE COUNTRY, that's wrong and it's always going to be. We judge people and countries not on words but on actions. And when three Americans, not even tried much less convicted are executed by missiles in a foreign land, not on the battlefield, for actions that in an American courtroom would probably not rise to the level of a capital offense, that's wrong. When a colonel conducts a mock execution of a man in front of his own men, in violation of both US law and the Geneva Accords which WE helped write yet that same colonel who dishonored his uniform is elected to Congress, that's grossly wrong. When we sent people to foreign countries to be tortured that's wrong. When the NDAA has language in it that allows for the indefinite detention of Americans on American soil, what's conservative about that? What's courageous about that? When Rand Paul rose up in opposition to that Fifth Amendment destroying provision of the NDAA McCain more or less called him a traitor. Paul was upholding his oath of office and McCain was violating his. Who is the hero here in December?
The 1866 Supreme Court made it clear, in time of war the Constitution still applies you cannot ignore it, you cannot violate it. And yet the neocons support actions every day that directly totally violate the document they claim to support that you sir took an oath to uphold and defend. And when helpless detainees are tortured and abused, the people who do it, and the people who allow it to happen are violating that oath. West was no better that day then the people he was going after.
Real courage is playing by the rules sir, even when may cause pain. Even when you don't want to.
Today America is in far too many places we don't need to be, Korea, Japan, Europe and elswhere. Ron's question/statement was good one. There's a difference between military spending and defense spending and far too much of what we are spending doesn't remotely contribute to the defense of this country. So called conservatives who pay lip service to the principles of the Founders ignore Washington when it comes to humane treatment of detainees or avoiding entangling alliances.
In 1999 Pat Buchanan wrote that if we insist on being in places where we have no legitimate interests, people will come at us asymmetrically. Two years later he was tragically proved right. We need to remember that not every fight is ours, that much of the middle east can manage without us being involved. True courage sometimes means knowing when NOT to fight.
JJ| 2.15.12 @ 9:05AM
Then explain the draft which takes all ones rights away for 2 years.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 9:54AM
" Dr. Ron Paul served in the United States Air Force as a flight surgeon for several years (1963-1965). While in the air force, Paul reached the rank of Captain. Directly after his service in the air force, Paul worked again as a flight surgeon for the United States Air National Guard (1965-1968).
" Paul served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force in the 1960s, spending time on the ground in countries like Ethiopia, Iran, Pakistan, South Korea, and Turkey. He also sits on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs."
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 10:06AM
Wow. 3 years, no promotion, no combat zone, never left the continental US.
If this is Clint's basis for judging how someone's military experience is a qualification to be President, then its too bad my Dad isn't still alive. He was 17 years, 3 ranks, a combat zone & 3 overseas duty stations more experienced than Dr. Paul.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 11:09AM
The Veteran American Military Officer Dr.Ron Paul Has The Israel Firster Smear Bund Girls And Their Chickenhawk Candidates Upset.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Don| 2.15.12 @ 12:26PM
As an enlisted man [Infantry] 1959-1965 I went from E1 to E5 in 30 months, but commissoned officers took about 5 years to reach captain [o3] and another 5, 6, or 7 years to reach major [o4]. Paul couldn't expect a promotion in his three years active duty. If you yourself had served, you would have known that.
Dai Alanye | 2.15.12 @ 10:12AM
Face facts. RonPaul is a chickenhawk who had to be drafted to serve. His most courageous military act was not running off to Sweden.
And the lie that he "reached" the rank of captain is getting tiresome. He was given captain's bars by virtue of being a doctor, just as nurses were given the rank of lieutenant, and I was given the rank of private.
As for Clint's rank... It's low on the factual scale.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 11:14AM
Interesting, How ManyTimes You Israel Firster Smear Bund Girls Crybaby About Dr.Ron Paul's Military Service, While You Support Your Chickenhawk Candidates.
Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 12:00PM
Oh, look! Its Clint's Canned Robo Post Number 15. Nevermind the fact Dr. Dementia stabbed Ole Ronnie in the back after he made this statement that Clint so kindly cherry picked for us.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 4:38PM
Asked & Answered Israel Firster Smear Bund 4-F Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Traitor Bastard, Con Job Frankel.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Occam's Tool| 2.15.12 @ 2:49PM
Actually, Nathan, Paul is suggesting rolling over. You may not, but he is.
I also lived in the British Empire for a year, and, compared to the Maori nation that preceded it, it was damn fine. Allen West, by the way, is a hell of a lot more of a man than you are, Nathan. Sorry.
It is best to eliminate threats before they become significant, as it is best to eliminate disease before it has a toe hold in the human body. I do NOT agree with our approach to Iran and Afghanistan, because I do not think the savages living there can be civilized until thoroughly, savagely, beaten---and we did not do that. But we should do it to encourage the others. And the best place right now is Iran, which is the place we should have gone into INSTEAD of Iraq.
nathan| 2.15.12 @ 3:19PM
With all due respect to you sir, cross lines and you don't come back. Abuse helpless people, no matter how noble your intentions are, and you are no better than the bad guys you sir in this post call "savage". That policeman had rights, whether you like or not, HE HAD RIGHTS. RIGHTS that west had no authority no matter what GOOD INTENTIONS west claimed to have, to take away from him. And notice, it was all for nothing. Like so much of all this is, it was all for nothing. THE MAN GAVE HIM NOTHING BECAUSE HE HAD NOTHING. Proof? He was was held for a few weeks but released with no charges. West by all accounts tortured an innocent man.
"Savages"? Sir they are HUMAN BEINGS! They are not savages, they are not animals, they are not anything other than what you and I are. Human beings endowed by who? THEIR CREATOR with certain unalieanble rights. You do know what Jefferson wrote applies to everyone on the planet right? EVERYONE? You know that right?
But there's a bigger problem here. Call them savages, call them animals, refer to them as anything other than the human beings that they are and start building the camps because you can do anything you want to "savages", do things to "savages" that you can't do to "people". Humans have rights, savages have NOTHING.
So torture them, yes, abuse them yes, throw them into camps and kill them yes. Because they aren't human. That's what the Nazi's did that's what the Hutus in Rwanda did, that's what WE did with the Indians. Dehumanize then abuse and kill them. Read how generals like Sherman and Sheridan referred to the Indians out west. It made it all too easy to commit what amounted to genocide against them. They sounded a lot like you.
The lessons from the last century are so clear, the interviews with the perpetrators of the Holocaust, the Japanese who did unspeakable things in China are so very clear, once we cease to think of a group, anyone as other than human, we can do horrible things, treat them in ways than are totally outside societal norms. Which is why at all times we can not use such terms as "savages" or "animals" or anything other than "human" and "people" because it's too dangerous, it risks us becoming the very people we fight against. And in some respects as we saw with west, we have.
No, they are people, they are human and it doesn't matter if they act horribly, they remain people who must at ALL times be treated as the people and humans they are.
You sir and others like you, are just so totally out of line here.
Nick| 2.15.12 @ 3:53PM
Nathan,
You can't even get simple facts straight.
Lieutenant Colonel West did not conduct a "mock trial." He outright threatened to shoot that Iraqi. The Iraqi terrorist spilled his guts, and the plot against Lt. Col. West and his men was foiled.
This is exactly the kind of man we need in the House of Representatives of the United States of America.
You need to go get fitted for a new pair of panties.
TrueBlue | 2.15.12 @ 3:57PM
You're right nathan, they ARE people. People that routinely kill their own citizens for saying anything against them. People who stone women to death because THEY WERE RAPED and then blame the woman. The same people that came to our country and kill civilians who were doing nothing except working behind their desks.
They may be human, but their own actions make their lives worth NOTHING. The primary duty of our government is to defend the citizens of this country. If that means we have to torture some prick that participated in the death of US citizens so more people don't die, then so be it! If it means we have to glass an entire city to get them to understand the idea that they don't want to mess with us, FINE!
I'm all for minimizing civilian deaths on the other side (though we get blamed for them even when the other side kills them), but if destroying an entire city by air saves even one American life, then I say that is the method we use.
TrueBlue | 2.15.12 @ 3:58PM
I don't advocate starting wars, but if someone else starts something with us, then we should end it. As quickly, and with the lowest loss of life of OUR citizens as possible.
CRW| 2.15.12 @ 8:24AM
Aldous Huxley deftly illustrated the concept of infantilization in Brave New World, but politicians and bureaucrats have employed it for centuries. The Romans perfected it in their panem et circenses. Keeping what they referred to as the “mob” happy was the key to success for many a Roman Senator or a merchant attempting to climb the social ladder. Our own “leaders” look upon we voters as a mob, the great unwashed, offering us the modern equivalent of bread and circuses in exchange for our votes as we, in turn, forge our own chains as we continue to give up ever more of our freedoms for illusions of security. Americans of all socio-economic classes now mostly vote for the person who promises them the most goodies from the public trough or who will enact laws and policies to keep them “safe” from terrorists or economic vicissitudes.
“The fault … is not in our stars, But in ourselves ….”
Leathersmith| 2.15.12 @ 9:59AM
Appleby, as long as the President understands and respects the limits of his office under our Constitution, pro-choice citizens need not fear his heartfelt Catholicism. I'll take a good Catholic who knows he works for us over a religious chameleon who thinks of himself as our "ruler", any and every day.
If Santorum is able to communicate this notion to the public, he might be able to dampen the hysteria over his pro-life position.
Jack in Wi.| 2.15.12 @ 7:20AM
Post American You said it all. Ron Paul is the soldiers best friend. The warmongers that want endless war for Israel are the enemies of all our service people. Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich all have one thing in common. They all grovel before a foreign power more then they care about America. They are nothing but chicken hawk sell outs.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 9:16AM
Yes, Jack, we know. Its all a plot by "ze CHOOOOS!" Soon you will be force fed noodle kugel & LIKE IT, goy boy.
MAN, you Jew haters are tiresome.
Frank Drackman | 2.15.12 @ 9:39AM
Shouldnt you be sucking an A-rabs dick somewhere...
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 9:58AM
Drackman's Busy Doin' Bibi's.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 10:02AM
Clint's trying to do Ron's, but Ron probably doesn't have any lead left in his pencil.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 11:17AM
Con Job's Tryin' To Do Bibi's Goat, Frankel , And Bibi Is Jealous.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 12:01PM
More projection. How unsurprising, Lip Spliff.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 4:42PM
More Crybabyin' From The 4-F Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firster Smear Bund Coward Traitor Bastard, Con Job Frankel.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 8:10PM
Oh no, Clint! Whatever you do, DON'T use my last name!
See, Cwint, unlike a valor thieving coward like you, I'm not afraid to post my last name. Nor my address, for that matter. All you do is sit in Mom's basement in her house that's supposedly on the Main Line & post your insipid, 3rd grade level Jew hatred. That is, when you're not trolling King of Prussia Mall pretending to have enough money to shop there & picking up 7th graders.
Proud Mormon| 2.15.12 @ 7:08AM
Romney will sweep super Tuesday finally putting an end to this plague we know as the Tea Party. Ricky Santorum is a joke losing his home state 59-41.
TTL| 2.15.12 @ 7:56AM
Yeah, we really believe you're a "proud mormon" while calling the Tea Party a "scourge".
Tea Party = limited government. Wow, that's so radical.
Please go back to masturbating to MSNBC hosts.
Nick099| 2.15.12 @ 9:36AM
LOL...that was hysterical!!
Teaghan| 2.15.12 @ 7:57AM
You refer to the Tea Party as a plague?
If not for us, the house would still be under the gavel of tate evil bitch Pelosi.
They will be the party that rises to the top when the Republican party dies. And that wil more than likely happen if this current White House occupant is reelected.
Von Mises Jr.| 2.15.12 @ 8:31AM
Are you proud of Harry Reid, Proud Mormon?
He had to call in the SEIU to save his sorry ass from being beaten by a novice grandma. He has done much damage to this country as he gets rich flipping land in sweetheart deals.
And your boy Romney, who is so smooth, doesn't even dirty his hands while he smears everyone but the Democrats.
Are you proud of Warren Jeffs because he is a Mormon too?
JJ| 2.15.12 @ 9:07AM
I believe you represent Romney well. I am sure he shares your contempt of the tea party. So please tell Romney to be honest and tell that publicly, please.
Anthony| 2.15.12 @ 3:32PM
I don't believe for a minute that you're a Mormon, and you sure as hell ain't a conservative.
That said, it's better for a candidate to lose his home state than for a religion to lose its sacred gold tablets, wouldn't you say, Proud Mormon??
So when it comes to losing things PM, you ain't got a leg to stand on.
Jack in Wi.| 2.15.12 @ 7:14AM
Appleby. Santorum is just another Neocon who puts Israel and war above life. He will get us into WW3 if by some chance he should be the nominee. There is no way to return this country to fiscal sanity without getting out of these wars and closing up all the foreign waste. Most of the world wants us out of their lives. The people of Japan, Korea, Europe, and the Middle east, except Israel want us gone. Israel is just going to have to learn how to live in the neighborhood it stole. Think Switzerland as a model for this country. A strong military that defends it's own borders and minds it's own business. It also has a very decentralized federal system with a lot of local control.
Appleby| 2.15.12 @ 7:55AM
Jack, you don't seem to grasp the fact that there are two parties to any war, and the other side isn't listening to you.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 9:19AM
You forgot your obligatory "sieg heil." Or is it "allahu ackbar." Good Ole Blame America/Israel First Jack. You never fail to disappoint us with your stunning idiocy & bigotry.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."...Churchill
That's you, Jack.
Frank Drackman | 2.15.12 @ 9:41AM
Whats wrong with Israel?
Heck, they even let Homo's like you live there.
I mean openly, unlike the A-rab countries you love so much.
Frank
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 10:01AM
They Even Let Drackman Prance Around In His High Heals And Matching Purse.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 10:25AM
Project much, Gimp?
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 11:20AM
Project Much, 4-F Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firster Smear Bund Cupcake, Cookie.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 12:03PM
Wow. I stand in awe of your devestating & witty riposte, Clint. You truly are a mental giant.
Frank Drackman | 2.15.12 @ 10:29AM
Clit, I wasn't talkin to you, Homo.
I was talkin to your BFF Jack(off).
and FYI, even if I was a Cross Dresser, there mostly Hetero's unlike Cross Dick Suckers like yourself.
Now go get your effin Shine Box, Shine,
Frank
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 10:52AM
"Now go get your effin Shine Box"...Billy Bats, "Goodfellas"
One of my favorite scenes.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 11:32AM
Fwankie: You look like Lucy's stunt double.
Con Job Frankel: [dancing around in red wig cleaning] No actually I'm a combination of Lucy and Ricky
Fwankie : That's horrifying.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 11:26AM
I Was Talkin' To You, Bawney Fwank, Sugar Pockets.
Bibi Likes His Fwankie To Wear His Carmen Miranda Outfit, At The Birdcage.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 12:11PM
Do you call Ron Paul "sugar pockets" after he pays you for BJs? Did coach Sandusky teach you that one?
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 4:45PM
Does Bibi Call Ya Sweetie Pie After Ya Service Him, 4-F Con Job Frankel
jstwndring| 2.15.12 @ 8:39PM
Clint and Jack are just frustrated that their guy doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell in getting the nomination. If we could have Paul's position regarding the U.N. and the Fed Reserve without all the apparent requisite antisemitism, he'd be more attractive. As it stands though, they all sound like they're dangerously close to butterfly net territory.
USSAlabama| 2.15.12 @ 10:00AM
What's wrong with Israel, you ask? Nothing! One of the best countries I have ever visited -- and for extended periods, spending time with families and seeing how they live, how they all make it. How a retired army commander volunteers as a soccer coach for a Druze k'far (village). Visited with those and had tea in their home. Talked much about the issues.
Until you have some first-hand knowledge Jack, or just some knowledge . . . keep your butt-mouth shut.
Frank Drackman | 2.15.12 @ 10:31AM
and they love Americans,
I remember this Wet T-Shirt Contest in Haifa, 1992, didn't have to buy a drink the whole night.
Try doin that in Terror-An, Homos.
Frank
Occam's Tool| 2.15.12 @ 2:52PM
Frank---you find yourself in Northwest Minnesota, you won't have to buy a drink the whole night here either.
Barry Soetoro| 2.15.12 @ 10:35AM
I just love Ron Paul's position on Israel.
jstwndring| 2.15.12 @ 8:48PM
Israel is minding its own business by preparing for war against a nation that threatens to destroy them on a daily basis. Switzerland faces no such threat. And, as I've pointed out to you before, the Jews have a legitimately documented claim on the land of Israel that no other people possess (it's called the Old Testament, shhh). You, claiming to be a Christian in prior posts, should have some knowledge of that. Which, of course, leads me to conclude that you are, in fact, not a Christian at all. A real Christian would support the people that Jesus spent His entire earthly ministry trying to reach.
Old Soldier| 2.15.12 @ 7:16AM
I am a libertarian-inclined Republican. It isn't Santorum's "God talk" I detest. It is his authoritarian inclinations that I absolutely loath. Apparently the Democrat nanny-state is bad but a Republican nanny-state is good.
Combine his self-righteous authoritarianism, his terrible fiscal record and his ability to repel independents - and we get the absolute worst candidate I could imagine.
Baby Face| 2.15.12 @ 7:37AM
Very well said....I salute you Old Soldier.
Aleck| 2.15.12 @ 8:33AM
Well said. Add to that the fact that Santorum has zero executive experience, and is enjoying his current surge, not because of his organizational skills or intellectual prowess, but only because some have managed to persuade many that he is the least objectionable "non-Romney". Moreover, I thought we already learned the hard way how well" his "big government conservatism" (i.e., Bushism) works out for us. Well, if we haven't, we can be sure the rest of the country has. My fellow Republicans, nominate Santorum and you will guarantee 4 more years of Obama.
rightasrain| 2.15.12 @ 11:43AM
Well said by you too. At least Romney has led a state, led a business and turned the Olympics around. As someone recently wrote, while Romney was busy doing all this, Santorum was busy trying to get useless bills out of committee.
idalily| 2.15.12 @ 3:32PM
This pretty much sums it up for me, too. Add to it the fact that Santorum will energize the left to get up and go to the polls in a way Romney would not.
Old Soldier| 2.15.12 @ 7:22AM
"Yes, Santorum supported the policy malfeasance of the Bush years --"
An honest but huge understatement. Here is his Senate voting record, look the monster in the eye before sweeping this mess under the rug.
http://libertycounselaction.or.....ing_record
Eric Dondero | 2.15.12 @ 7:32AM
Umm, hate to break the news to ya, but we libertarians like to win elections. And that includes Pennsylvania Senate seats. No, the biggest problem with Santorum is NOT his issue stances. As a pro-defense libertarian I luv the guy on his willingness to raise the Islamo-Fascism issue, when even my guy Mitt mostly avoid it.
No. The biggest argument against Santorum is that the guy LOS T HIS LAST RACE TO AN ULTRA-LIBERAL AND LOST BADLY BY FRIGGIN' 19 POINTS!
Hey Ricky boy, go back to PA and win back that Senate seat for Team GOP before you start talking about running for president.
betwyan| 2.15.12 @ 7:44AM
What reasoning........and Mittens lost his Mass. Senate bid by about 14 points.
Wow, big difference.
Old Soldier| 2.15.12 @ 8:13AM
Then won the Governorship.
Barry Soetoro| 2.15.12 @ 10:36AM
Then he passed Romneycare. I liked it so much, I brought it to the whole country.
Old Soldier| 2.15.12 @ 12:41PM
Technically, the MA legislature passed it and he signed it. I've been gone from there a long time so I don't know all the details. I do know that Weld, and then Romney had to use a "veto, then compromise" strategy to keeping the state under control. If they didn't compromise, the Democrats would have just overridden all their vetoes with pure badness.
Frank Drackman | 2.15.12 @ 9:45AM
Can I be Frank?
Richard Nixon lost the California Governors election in 1962, and was elected President 6 years later.
At least Santorum had the balls to run, unlike that big Pussy Mitt Romney.
And I LIKE how his name's been stolen by the Homo's as a slang term for there sick repulsive sexual acts, it'll just piss em off that much more when he's elected.
Which was really the best thing about Nixon, the first President I remember, not any of his dubious accomplishments,
but that the Liberals hated him so much, still do.
Frank
jppc| 2.15.12 @ 7:48AM
Do any of you actually think Obama is not going to be re-elected?
Get real. You must not understand the nexus of government and media. Obama will win not in a landslide but rather easily, like 2008.
The GOP is dead. They can't even find a pretty good candidate to offer an alternative to Obama.
And with the opern borders policy of both parties, each day, more and more "non-white" immigrants come to our country and almost all of them are natural Democrat voters.
Buh-bye limited government, buh-bye GOP.......
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 2.15.12 @ 8:30AM
Jppc: If you last statement is right, "bye-bye limited government, bye-bye GOP", then I just want to add another line to that, "bye-bye America"!! The Democratic Party is "most" responsible for the debt and deficits that we have today, and they have "no" solutions to fix the damn thing, and the damn thing "will" blow up in our faces, it's just a matter of time, and the day draws closer by the hour!! It'll be Greece times 50!! The future of America in the next 60 years, is going to be exactly what happened to Detroit!! In the 1950's, Detroit was the 5th largest City in America, with a population of almost 2-million, today, there's less then 800,000 left, and the City lies in complete ruins!! Vote Democrat, Vote for the destruction of America!! And of all the States that are on the verge of going bankrupt right now, Illinois, California, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, New York, they all have one thing in common, can you guess what that is? They all have been controlled by the Democratic Party for decades, they all have bloated pensions, huge welfare rolls, and high taxes, and business killing regulations!! They blame the Republicans for everything that's wrong in their States, but the funny thing is, the Republicans haven't had any control in their States in decades, but somehow they did it!! Throw a rock in any of those States, and it hits a Democrat, but somehow it's the Republicans fault? That's funny!! Vote Democrat, and vote for the continued destruction of the Unites States of America!!
Barry Soetoro| 2.15.12 @ 10:38AM
LLL, I have a plan to fix the deficit: DOUBLE IT! How do you like them (road) apples?
Mimi| 2.15.12 @ 9:23AM
jppc....I have no doubt that he will be defeated in a MASSIVE landslide...he will be lucky to get 20% of the vote!
Black support down 10%...Catholic vote down to 40% from 54%...71 % of whites won't vote for him.
Even the dead people vote will go down ...their gleaning that vote of one and 1/2 million off the rolls. Who is stupid enough to vote for him...???
Maybe those who just love LIARS and the fibster of all time types!
Add in those who are just disgusted and won't spend the bus money to go vote for him again. All the other RELIGIOUS folks who worry their NEXT, The rich who haven't left yet ....The young who can't get work and WHO DO YOU HAVE left???
Frank Drackman | 2.15.12 @ 10:34AM
Hate to admit it, but the GOP's best hope is Small Cell Lung Cancer,
which isn't totally out of the question, occurs almost 100% in smokers, no Surgical treatment, and even with treatment, life expectancy is a few months.
Its what Joe Paterno had.
Frank
Nemo| 2.15.12 @ 8:05AM
A lot of what Ron Paul says makes sense, but put the whole thing together and there's someting nuts about it. He's like an early Alzheimers whose periods of lucidity are slowly becomeing less frequent, but it has not become an obvious embarassment yet except among his family.
canuckistani| 2.15.12 @ 9:08AM
Sounds alot like the GOP in general.
Tone deaf mostly, but rote learners of the universal populist playbook.
Von Mises Jr.| 2.15.12 @ 8:34AM
You do not win a war until you start winning the battles. The first battle is ObamaCare.
The designer of RomneyCare is not the General I want leading the resistance.
Bill| 2.15.12 @ 8:54AM
Santorum's record:
1. voted for raising debt ceiling 5 times, adding to the national debt $3 trillion
2. voted against "Right-to-Work" law
3. voted for the Medicare Part D
4. voted for allowing felons to vote
5. voted for "bridge to nowhere"
that is why he lost his senate bid by 18 points to a "silly" liberal Bob Casey in 2006.
wanna be the President? You wish!
canuckistani| 2.15.12 @ 9:19AM
He is a toady candidate throwing the most absurd policy pronouncements in the mainstream today. Even more absurd than Paul and his backward revisionist baloney about monetary policy.
Romney won CPAC. Santorum went there and Paul skipped it. Who was the wiser?
It was a sad commandeering by the establishment groups mortified by making this a referendum on narrow sectarian views once again.
Similarly, it is almost comical watching evangelicals align behind old Catholic theoreticals to avoid being imbued by one iota of Mormon conjecture. How they dig out from this ditch will be fascinating to watch. We will never learn.
RR was an agnostic with a clear affinity for other forms of mysticism, yet we canonize him here. Think about it.
Nick| 2.15.12 @ 3:09PM
"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill, yesterday, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403
You're a moron and a racist, Bill.
GO AWAY!
Peppermint Tea| 2.15.12 @ 8:55AM
Please don't have the impression that Proud Mormon speaks for the rest of us humble Mormons, most of whom agree and identify with the Tea Party. Tea Party just means "cut the spending," shrink government, and get back to the constitution. More Rubio, Lee, Rand Paul, Bachman, Chaffetz, and Wyoming, and less Hatch, Bohner, and California.
canuckistani| 2.15.12 @ 9:21AM
Thank you.
It is the same habit demonstrated when speaking of Jews, Blacks and Hispanics. These growing constituencies need to see the GOP as departing from failed policies and embracing policies and themes that reward fidelity, risk and honor.
Caving on Payroll taxes and refusing to shut down government are symptomatic of disappearing spines.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 10:13AM
Tea Party Patriots Mission Statement and Core Values
Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
Core Values
Fiscal Responsibility
Constitutionally Limited Government
Free Markets
Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.
Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.
Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.
Our Philosophy
Tea Party Patriots, Inc. as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual. As an organization we do not take stances on social issues. We urge members to engage fully on the social issues they consider important and aligned with their beliefs.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To Brokered Convention.
Barry Soetoro| 2.15.12 @ 10:39AM
And thank god for that, clit. I need four more years, because in the real world, even McDonald's won't hire me.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 11:34AM
The Gutless Israel Firster Smear Bund Coward Is Afraid To Post Under His Usual Moniker.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Anthony| 2.15.12 @ 9:10AM
Santorum can't win with some of the folks who post here at TAS. Yes he supported his president on some issues, as many of us did, despite our reservations about some of what Bush was doing.
I have no doubt Santorum did not want to support Spector, but was pressured to do so by Bush, because the Rs were into counting senate seats, as opposed to ideology.
Even sister Sarah had to hold her nose and support McLame this last time around.
Jeez, what is it with some of you? You love picking apart your own, and for what, so that Romney can get the nod, is that your great accomplishment at the end of the day?
Give me a break, Santorum is a far better principled conservative choice than Romney.
This country is in deep trouble, and all some folks here do is nit pick until we have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
If you all want perfection, I suggest you pray to God for a miracle and ask him to resurrect President Reagan. And if God does not comply, then I suggest you all get real!!
NVA Patriot| 2.15.12 @ 9:25AM
So if Santorum can't stand up to Bush, how is he going to stand up to the Socialists and the establishment R's when he's President? His political ambition trumps his principle - you see it time after time in his record of Governance.
And for me it's the governing record that tells the tale.
I would not have heatburn with Santorum except for the sanctimonious attitude he and every supporter has about St. Rick. His vetting has just begun and it's not looking nearly as good as the surface projection St. Rick pushed.
Now he has to live up to the persona of St. Rick - he won't.
canuckistani| 2.15.12 @ 9:27AM
"Even sister Sarah had to hold her nose and support McLame this last time around"
Seriously?
She could have said no very early on when Schmidt and his cabal of idiots contacted her cabal of idiots.
I prefer a candidate that does not flee their record, but one that embraces it, can be self-aware and show a willingness to evolve.
RR demonstrated this by abandoning Hollywood liberalism and connecting with John Birchers and other sectarian groups that started the coalition building to the 80's revolution.
It can be done again, the demographic war is not yet lost. Real America still has the land and the money to make it happen.
Anthony| 2.15.12 @ 10:09AM
Fine, you two guys continue to revel in your temper tantrums, hold your breath until you are blue in the face, and then turn on the TV come January 2013 to watch Obozo ascend to the throne as King of America.
My God what losers we have in our party.
NVA Patriot| 2.15.12 @ 9:11AM
It's been a very interesting Primary season. First we learn that NRO, a key conservative journal is really the National Republican online or the National Romney Online. If you want to get the establishment take on what the establishment is telling the Hobbits to do, you read NRO.
American Spectator was my personal relief from the National Romney Online. However, now I see that the American Spectator has become the America Santorum. You spend a lot of time promoting the cause of St. Rick, the Pro-life savior of the Conservative movement.
These same magazines & online news outlets stress how dire our situation is because we spend too much and the federal government has become the monster. Yet the establishment, NRO American Santorum favorite candidates have little track record defeating big government or Democrats.
So let’s stroll down memory lane regards St. Rick. He loves to remind everyone that’s he’s Pro-life. Unfortunately, Santorum’s prolife positioning stops at the water’s edge of his political ambition. That’s why he supported Arlen Specter; political ambition First, Pro-life principle second. Jim DeMint is the standard for Senate conservatives and he would not support such a flawed person let alone candidate – but St. Rick would. For example, here are some of his judicial votes; note the number of Pro-choice justices – surely St. Rick would not enable the courts to re-order society by voting for Pro-choice justices:
Voted for Richard Paez to the 9th Circuit (cloture)
Voted for Sonia Sotomayor, Circuit Judge
Voted for Margaret Morrow to be District Judge
Voted twice for Marsha Berzon to the 9thg Circuit
Voted for Mary McLaughlin to be District Judge
Voted for Tim Dyk to be District Judge
Voted for James Brady to be District Judge
Afterall, St. Rick is the principled, pro-life conservative – he would not do what the establishment wanted to further his petty political ambition by enabling abortion in any way?
What did Chuck Norris discover?
Chuck Norris identified in his comments regarding St. Rick:
Santorum actively supports the Global Fund, which was created by the United Nations to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, but also “channels a large portion of its funds through Planned Parenthood’s affiliates around the world and through a British group Marie Stopes International (the largest chain of abortion mills in the UK, with 66,000 abortions a year.)… to operate in Cambodia, Fiji, Bangladesh, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Burma, Kenya, Tanzania, and other countries,” according to the pro-life Gerard Health Foundation that provides millions of dollars to pro-life groups.
Let’s stroll further down memory lane – When did St. Rick reduce the power of the federal government? Cut the federal budget? Balance the budget? Here’s the List:
ZERO
In fact, St. Rick actively opposed the Tea Party and actively worked to undermine the protections on the Second Amendment – which was not put there by founders to enable recreational hunting; it was put there to overthrow future tyrants. Here’s a critical pair of votes:
Voted for Federal funding for anti-gun education programs in schools.
Voted for anti-gun juvenile justice bill.
I find it amazing given what we are up against that the candidate who has defeated democrats and cut government is somehow unelectable. Yet when we look at voter turnout, Newt's wins increase turnout; Romney and Santorum wins depress turnout. So for the establishment down ballot candidates - be careful what you wish for - you may get the top of the ticket and lose the enthusiasm of conservatives on the bottom – which is where VA is headed. How does a Republican win without VA? McCain tried that and see how it turned out.
When deciding who the Republican nominee should be rather than look at what these guys have done when they are OUT OF OFFICE, lets look at how they GOVERNED.
What did Romney do? He gave us Obamneycare at the state level. He gave us anti-Catholic health insurance regulations. Basically, he prototyped the Obama administration in MA.
Let’s look at how St. Rick GOVERNED. Did he ever vote against the establishment? Did he ever really accomplish anything? What landmark program or project has he succeeded at? He has a great Family – great, so does Barack. Anyone? Something?
The fact is Barack Obama, a man of no accomplishment has lowered the bar on who can run for President. Romney is a one-time governor who could not win re-election after accommodating the Dems in MA. St. Rick is a long-term congressman and Senator who has no notable legislative accomplishments and lost by the widest margin of any sitting Senator in modern times. We can’t overcome the Democrats with accomdationist, establishment loving politicians.
Newt did two things we need again – First, he defeated the establishment Democrats and defeated the establishment Republicans who accommodate democrats. Second, he balanced the federal budget not once but twice and for that establishment Republicans teamed with liberal democrats to make him look like something he’s not – a failed Speaker.
Well the democrats are not democrats anymore. They are socialists who have instituted crony capitalism as a practice. A practice that Romney used at Bain capital. And Santorum is one of the biggest earmarking; pork producing candidates the Republicans have had. Only Ted Stevens of Alaska fame trumps Santorum in this regard.
And for the Santorum folks - I will assure you that VA will fall to the Dems if Santorum or Mitt is at the top of the ticket. Both will depress NVA conservative turn-out; while Barack's Get-out-the-vote team continues to work NVA GOTV as they are NOW in Prince William county.
Mimi| 2.15.12 @ 9:45AM
Let us hope...that the voters in these larger states will show some wisdom....and not let Newt slip thru our fingers and be rejected....The country is SO IN NEED of his talents, expertise, and BOLD Leadership!
Dai Alanye | 2.15.12 @ 10:35AM
Not to mention his grandiosity, his narcissism, his instability, his predilection for dumping inconvenient wives. Got to face facts -- lack of good character is Newt's biggest failing, and makes him unelectable in November.
NVA Patriot| 2.15.12 @ 10:54AM
Except I look at Governance - the good family men are in fine company with Barack - great family - socialist governance; Santorum fine family - compationate pave the way to socialism conservative; Romney - great family, except for the Dog who he treated so well - progressive
Not seeing anyone answer the question what has Santorum legislatively accomplished that's reflective of conservatism or reflective of what we need today.
So, after we deal with the Wife issue every other statement you made applies to every candidate running for President.
On Marriage, Catholic marriage is distictively different for converted Catholics than what came before in their lives. Catholic marriage is a sacrement and most converted catholics are far more true to the Christian ideal than other Christians - so now what's the gripe?
Are you afraid of a man who has actually beaten both the Democratic and Republican establishments - I get that - that's why I think of Newt as Newtzilla - a force of nature bringing destruction. And right now I'd like to aim Newtzilla at the Republican establishment, Democrat establishment, and the Mittstablishment.
canuckistani| 2.15.12 @ 9:34AM
Good synopsis.
BHO with a soft economy is beating the field by at least 6 points. The college tally may be closer, though, so strong tacticians may be the answer.
When Norquist bluntly stated all we need is a toady in the WH, he laid out the dem strategy in the fall to run against Boehner and his cabal of fools instead of the nominee. I would do the same if in that position.
The nominee will be seduced into creating daylight between their campaign and the congress to their detriment. Divide and conquer will be on BHO's side - and he has been shown to be impervious to swift-boating. Willard and Rickie have not demonstrated this same resistance.
Stop funding any presidential nominees and get back to congressional campaigns before it's too late.
Nick099| 2.15.12 @ 9:34AM
The race has really just begun. Writers in the Media just want to end this race and call a winner before all of the people have yet to decide who to support much less cast a vote.
Makes you wonder why: after all, if the race is called early, what would these know-it-all chucklebutts have to discuss????? Each other's golf game??? How the grass is growing??? What losers. Santorum is still unknown to most Republicans. They see an image on the screen. Let's take a look at his record. So far, there seems to be cause to worry. Not to mention his demeanor, which can be annoying at times and a turn-off to voters. I mean, the chucklebutts complain about Newt....and I don't see that one...yet they have been silent on Rick's obvious abrasive-to-the-point- of-irritation personality.
Media chucklebutts have written off Newt for some reason. They could not wait for him to get off the stage. Their boy Romney is going the way of Hillary...flawed, phony, and average.
The fact is folks, this battle is first won with language: the Left is adept at co-opting words and meanings to change the debate in the minds of the sheeple. Recently, Obozo's decision on contraceptives; a violation of the First Amendmen has been characterized by the Left as standing up for women's health and rights. This is just a small example of the battle over language and message and as a result...action.
Our Congressional leaders are mostly devoid of real skill in communication to the people. We need a man who can make that communication with large and bold vision, and there is only one this election cycle: Newt Gingrich.
NVA Patriot| 2.15.12 @ 10:28AM
Sanctimonious St. Rick will wilt...the Spotlight is harsh and R-establishment writers can't cover the failings effectively like D-Establishment writers - less practice
Newtzilla ;)
Bill| 2.15.12 @ 9:39AM
Romney sounds like a "used car salesman." Santorum screams like an "angry unemployed college drop-out", who lives in his mother's basement and detest the world. Gingrich talks like an adult, offering "bold solution", and with his debate skill, he can defeat Obama without money or manpower.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 10:00AM
From the Article:
"No doubt, Santorum's affinity (at least by conservative standards) for big labor is a problem."
Then, later in the piece, Bass writes:
"(To his credit, at least Santorum won consistently in a blue state, without sacrificing his principles, and stood for re-election in a tough year for Republicans, unlike Romney.)"
This former is the reason for the latter. Like it or not, the man is elected to represent his constituents. In this case, the people of union heavy PA. If this were not a union heavy state, I'd be willing to bet that he'd not be as favorable towards big labor as he was.
And despite that stance, he still remained one of the leading voices of conservatism for the entire time he was in office. As I've said before, I knew who the guy was before I moved up here 10 years ago & really wasn't too involved in politics. It was "the testy approach" that Bass referrs to that makes me like Santorum all the more. He's a fighter, not some timid punch puller when trying to convey his opinions or rebutting debate opponents.
His G*d talk only scares those who're prone to pre-pubescent hyperbole. The man's not out to install some theocracy where women will be chained to the stove & pregnant all the time. The only people who would worry about his religious convictions should be liberals. After all, as Jefferson said, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" (unless that "god" is Allah, in which case he saws your head off on You Tube).
Finally, as for foreign policy, we've seen what grovelling to foreign powers has done for our nation under the CURRENT putz in the White House. The enemy is Islam & those on the left who make excuses for it. Islam has NEVER wanted peace with ANYONE. Since its inception, the "religion" (Islam is NOT a religion, its a complete theopolitical construct with laws for jurisprudence, finance, etc.) was spread by conquest & subjugation. It took people like El Cid, Vlad Tsepesch, Charles Martel, Charlemagne & the Mongols (to name a few) to stop them.
To bury our head in the sand about the resolve & insidiousness of our enemy is folly. They've been at war with us since the Barbary Wars. Why?
"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.
Jefferson reported the conversation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who submitted the Ambassador's comments and offer to Congress. Jefferson argued that paying tribute would encourage more attacks."*
What has changed? We're still infidels & they still seek tribute. The Barbary Wars weren't because of any support of any Jewish state or "interventionism/militirism" on our part. The only thing that changed between then & now is the spine of our nation to deal with such things. We cannot afford to turn a blind eye to this enemy. That's not to say we need to go balls to the wall for war, but we'd better DAMN sure recognize the threat & not play it off as casually as some do. I think that Santorum understands this, as he was a voice against the threat posed by jihadis. He will certainly not be an appeaser.
"If he yields it from fear, it is for the purpose of avoiding a war, and he will rarely escape from that; for he to whom he has from cowardice conceeded the one thing will not be satisfied, but will want to take other things from him, and his arrogance is increased as his esteem for the Prince is lessened."...Machiavelli, The Discourses
NVA Patriot| 2.15.12 @ 10:33AM
So if your issue is Islam you better be v. careful about St. Rick. Still doing research, but Sharia loving sham corproataions and organizations are donating a lot to R - Candidates - e.g. Chris Christie & Bob McDonnell. And they are numerous in NVA - where Santorum lives. I suspect Santorum's subtle sharia dealings will surface in due time...
Dai Alanye | 2.15.12 @ 10:42AM
So it has come to this. Not content with distoring Santorum's record and with taking his votes out of context, his opponents are now reduced to outright fantasy. The smell of desperation is in the air.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 10:56AM
If anyone will sniff out if Santorum has any chummy relations with jihadi/sharia types, I'm sure Debbie Schlussel would've written about it by now. She's drawn to that stuff like a wolf to meat. Until I read it from her, or some other similarly trustworthy source, I think that you're barking up the wrong tree.
NVA Patriot| 2.15.12 @ 12:13PM
We'll see - there are things going on in NVA that most Americans don't get to see. For example we have the Saudi School which to this day has not been shut down despite training terrorists and publishing anti-israel books and characterizing America as the great Satan - so I have gotten in the habit of asking Why a lot.
NVA Republicans all have taken $ from people associated with Sharia Promoting organizations - St. Rick ALONE is untainted; and so far not yet shown to be a recipient so we will see
As rule I am not big into conspiracy theories but I find it v. problematic that the R-establishment which Rick is a part of is v. comfortable with these organizations. In NVA the Ramadan state delegate campaign generated a lot of study and shed a lot of light on who's on what side of which issues. Unfortunately folks opposed to Sharia over-reacted and made it v. hard to assess the truth. Dealing with sharia promoters makes Dems look like pikers.
As I wrote earlier - we'll see...just need to finish researching
And I still hear crickets on Rick's legislative accomplishments - what conservative, small government action did he take? Anyone? Anything? Please I want to believe and have another Not-Romney choice; not establishment choice.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 12:45PM
As to Muslim influence in Northern VA, I've read a lot about it from the aforementioned Debbie Schlussel. And I agree that we would need to take a close look at all sharia backed corporations & who they donate to. Not to beat a dead horse, but when I want to find out about jihadi influence on ANYONE, from a conservative point of view, I go to Debbie Schlussel's site. I gotta give a nod to Occam's Tool for hipping me to that site. I've learned alot since I started reading her site.
NVA Patriot| 2.15.12 @ 2:57PM
I will look at the site...
After Obma socialism - radical Nazi inspired Islam is the next great threat.
One of the reasons oil and energy exploration are so important is to deprive sharia lovers of $ by making oil so cheap they have to choose between saving their own skins or funding Sharia in America. My guess is self interest wins.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 3:41PM
www.debbieschlussel.com
Occam's Tool| 2.15.12 @ 2:54PM
Schlussel, I think, generally is OK with Rick. Wolverine decribes her better than Wolf, Con, seeing as she's from Michigan.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 3:40PM
I'll forgive her for that!
My 2nd favorite college team is the Buckeyes.
:-)
Stroker97| 2.15.12 @ 10:03AM
Sure would be refreshing to see a so-called "conservative" magazine/news outlet act like they were actually not the exact same thing as the liberal media. We really have too much to fight now with this rather unexpected alliance. I surely don't recall so many wonderful articles about Newt when he was on top and I remember very well how everyone, including this conservative imposter magazine, jumped all over Newt for suggesting that St. Rick step aside. Newt is fighting the administration, the LSM, his opponents, and now the conservative blogs--me thinks Romney's money is going a long ways these days.
Indy| 2.15.12 @ 10:17AM
This piece about Santorum is quite damaging, why haven't these issues been raised? long article but as part of doing my homework, I got through it http://prospect.org/article/li.....is-friends
I'm so frustrated with all of these candidates, in the end it will be ABO but my focus remains on senate / house races
Dai Alanye | 2.15.12 @ 10:58AM
American Prospect has its own agenda, and it certainly isn't standard conservatism.
Indy| 2.15.12 @ 1:50PM
I understand American Prospect has an agenda, however, the link I posted above or this one
http://chestnuthill.patch.com/.....torum-iowa
points out areas of concerns, it's the same old story, politicians taking advantage of taxpayers and playing the game. There is no perfect candidate, I get that but Rick has some questions to answer, if only someone will ask them. You can be sure the Chicago Machine is fired up and ready to go no matter who the nominee is...
I do like his speech here where he talks about the tipping point.
http://www.therightscoop.com/s.....r-freedom/
martin j smith| 2.15.12 @ 10:41AM
Newt is not out of the running and I also beg to differ that Social Conservative issues are primary. Just as Romney must show that he is serious-so far he has not done that --about beating Obama Santorum must stress the economic issues that plague our nation. Before writing Santorum off lets see how voters react. What Mr Bass's axe to grind is not absolutely clear but he dismisses Gingrich and also focuses on one element of Santorum so I wonder. Any way good luck Mr Bass.
Naql| 2.15.12 @ 10:53AM
Ron Paul, or I take door #3: Gary Johnson on the Libertarian ticket. The Libertarians will make a good showing, if not win qualify for 90 million in federal campaign funds (why let principles stand in the way when the game is rigged?). That would be a good thing and the embarrassing 10 point loss purge of social conservatives would just have to be a bonus consolation.
9thID| 2.15.12 @ 11:06AM
I'll take a reformed Santorum in a heartbeat over the likes of Obama-lite Romney and Ron "Lord of the Flies" Paul. Tehran Ron's supremacist associations, desire to return to the Articles of Confederation, moral relativism, and genocide enabling foreign policy are a clear and present danger to original-intent conservatism. May the torch of Liberal-tarianism be passed to the more levelheaded Rand Paul...
Old Soldier| 2.15.12 @ 12:44PM
"Reformed?" How has he been reformed? Just because he says so?
Nick| 2.15.12 @ 3:20PM
9thID,
I think Herr Doctor wrote some of the Articles of Confederation, didn't he?
Just say no to Paul Trek II: The Wrath of Ron.
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 3:45PM
Now THAT'S some funny shat, Nick!!!
Nick| 2.15.12 @ 3:57PM
Thanks, Con Chef.
I do have my moments. Ha-ha!
Bill| 2.15.12 @ 11:39AM
Santorum is an angry debater, red eyes and verbal outburst, Obama will exploit Santorum's weakness debating one on one, and will fall short and lose to Obama. Gingrich has no money, but with his debate skill, he can shred Obama into pieces. Obama is doomed if Gingrich gets the nod.
Occam's Tool| 2.15.12 @ 2:55PM
I don't know how angry Rick is---he took the way below the belt shot on Bella well....
Nick| 2.15.12 @ 3:20PM
"That nigger lover President Clinton had the pen and vetoed so many good bills passed by the Gingrich-led Congress."
- Written by Bill, yesterday, in the Time for Newt to Do the Honorable Thing thread:
http://spectator.org/archives/.....ent_749403
You're a moron and a racist, Bill.
GO AWAY!
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 3:46PM
Ah, yes, Bill. Our resident Nathan Bedford Forrest wannabe.
"Remember Ft. Pillow!"
Bill's a real piece of work.
Rick| 2.15.12 @ 12:29PM
If Santorum wins nomination..WE LOSE! Independents will not vote against Obama for another inexperienced Senator! Especially one who wants to keep women in the kitchen & Gays back in the closet!
RCV| 2.15.12 @ 2:27PM
I know. It's hard to believe that in 2012, with all the economic and world problems we have, the GOP may nominate a guy who's main concerns seem to be cutting back on contraception and reproductive rights for women. What a recipe for a crushing defeat!
Nick| 2.15.12 @ 3:27PM
RCV,
Nice distortion of the facts, there.
Mr. Santorum didn't bring this up, nor is it his "main" concern. It's President Downgrade's issue, since he is the one depriving Catholics their religious liberty.
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 4:43PM
Actually, they are right on Santorum probably losing.
He would lose cause he makes the mistake of letting the Left define the narrative.
Newt Gingrich would totally destroy their narrative, show the left to be the dishonest clowns that they are, and explain to the American people what the real fight is over and that is forcing people to pay for abortions in violation of their religious beliefs.
That's why the nominee needs to be Gingrich and not Santorum.
Nick| 2.15.12 @ 4:59PM
Garfield,
Yeah, and Ronald Reagan wasn't electable, either.
By the way, you never answered my objections, last time we discussed this:
http://spectator.org/blog/2012.....ent_747804
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 5:26PM
Ronald Reagan wouldn't make the mistake of letting the left define the narrative like Santorum is.
Nick| 2.15.12 @ 5:55PM
Garfield,
Well, Mr. Santorum isn't the nominee.
Yet.
RCV| 2.15.12 @ 6:00PM
Sorry, Nick, but I don't agree. As I said publicly on this site, I agree that the President's original proposal, to the extent it did not provide exemptions for church-run hospitals and institutions, would raise serious First Amendement concerns. The revised proposal does not. And warranted or not, Santorum's position would deny many women access to contraception through their health care plans, a position that is rejected even by the majority of Catholic women in this country.
Nick| 2.15.12 @ 8:02PM
RCV,
That is pure democrat party spin!
O'Bama has made the situation worse. Now, the Catholic Church, as well as all other denominations and non-Christian creeds, has no exception, whatsoever. We all have to pay for contraceptives, sterilizations (which include men, by the way,) and abortifacients, e.g. IUDs and RU-486.
This is far from over. The USCCB is going to fight this all the way. It will not be left to stand. And there will be many from different faiths who will join us.
p.s. It doesn't matter how many women who claim to be Catholic use artificial contraception. It doesn't make it right. At one point in history, most of the Church's bishops were Arian heretics. They lost.
At one time, a majority of Southerners had no problem with Jim Crow laws. Did that make those laws okay?
RCV| 2.15.12 @ 9:00PM
Of course not. But simply because the Church opposes use of contraceptives doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of Americans must make public policy about what constitutes "comprehensive health insurance" to qualify for listing on a government sponsored insurance exchange. Should we not include coverage for psychiatric treatment in such definition because Scientologists find it objectionable? Or coverage for surgery because Christian Scientists believe it religiously objectionable? No one is forcing Catholics or anyone else to utilize available contraceptive coverage if their religious scruples tell them it's wrong, just as no adult Christian Scientist is required to seek medical treatment for himself in lieu of prayer, or a Scientologist to take psychotropic medicine.
We all pay for things indirectly that we object to on religious or moral grounds: Jews and Muslims support FDA inspections of pork producers, Baptists pay to supply soldiers with a cold beer, and Quakers' taxes support our armed forces. It's a cost of living in a multicultural democratic society. The alternative can be sampled in Saudi Arabia.
Nick| 2.15.12 @ 11:47PM
RCV,
Apples and oranges. Your list, for the most part, is paid for by taxes. (When I was in the Army, we were never supplied with beer.) We are told constantly that O'BamaCare is not a tax. Organizations, businesses, and individuals are required to purchase a product, health insurance, on their own.
If our taxes are spent on things that we find morally objectionable, our recourse is to lobby our elected representatives to stop said spending. If I'm required to purchase a product, and all of the suppliers of the product are forced to provide contraceptives, what recourse do people of conscience have?
This is a great example of why forcing us to buy a product, simply as a consequence of living in this country, is antithetical to the essence of freedom and unconstitutional.
Here is a better analogy: If a Jewish or Moslem hospital had a few kooks who believed that eating pork was essential to a healthy lifestyle, and they demanded that the cafeteria include pork chops on the menu; wouldn't the Jewish or Moslem administrators have the right to say, "No"?
Now, what if these same kooks said that the hospital had to pay for their pork chops? Would this not be a gross violation of their religious liberty?
Birth-control is not health care, nor is it medicine. Anyone working for a Catholic organization in this country is free to use their spouse, or their whore, as a masturbatory device for their own gratification, while using contraceptives or sterilization procedures. They have absolutely no right to force the Catholic organization to pay for these devices or procedures.
Finally, how about this: The Second Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States spells out a clear right to own and carry a firearm. Shouldn't the government be forced to provide all of us guns?
Better yet, shouldn't our employers be forced to provide us with guns?
Somehow, I think you liberals would scream bloody murder if we conservatives tried to get you guys to pay for our guns, no?
RCV| 2.16.12 @ 11:40AM
Nick, you're intertwining public policy with unconstitutionality. On the insurance issue, you have the same right and opportunity to lobby your elected representatives on what constitutes good public policy vis-a-vis comprehensive insurance coverage. I happen to believe that mandatory inclusion of birth control is bad public policy; it is not, however, a violation of the First Amendment.
And as an aside, many of us -- including many, many Catholics -- have a higher view of conjugal love than yours, even when not done with the aim of procreation. Loving sexual relations are a gift from our Creator as my wife and I have gratefully known for the 42 years of our marriage.
Best regards, my friend!
Nick| 2.16.12 @ 2:02PM
RCV,
When I buy insurance, medical or otherwise, it is a private contract between myself and the people who own the insurance company. It is not a public policy issue, except when it involves inter-state commerce. This is why mandating contraceptive coverage violates the Free Exercise clause of the First Article of Amendment. It violates my conscience not to pay for something that I find morally objectionable in a private transaction.
At the same time, states that mandate birth-control coverage are also violating the free exercise of religion and the ability to enter freely into a contract. I shouldn't have to lobby my government representatives for a private business transaction, unless fraud is involved.
O'BamaCare is like requiring everyone to buy auto insurance, even those who don't own a car. How is that fair? Or, more importantly, how is this living freely? It is theft, plain and simple.
How about my other examples? Should Jewish hospitals be required to pay for pork chops for their employees? Should you be required to pay for my shotgun?
I realize that my statement on the use of birth-control may seem harsh, but, the truth hurts, as they say.
When a man and woman engage freely in the marital act, they are saying to each other that they love each other so much that they are willing to make a life-long commitment to each other. This life-long commitment is made manifest by the creation of children. There is no bigger commitment in the lives of human beings.
This is the meaning of marriage and the marital act. The spouses express their love for each other by being willing to have children and raise them together.
When they purposely attempt to stop the creation of children, they are saying to each other, implicitly, that they are only interested in their own gratification. They are telling each other, "I don't care enough about you to be willing to have a child with you, I'm only interested in my own physical pleasure. I want to use you only to please myself." This is true even if they are married and already have children.
This is why the Catholic Church teaches that using contraceptives are an evil act. The marital act is the ultimate expression of love; it is the most intimate of relationships a man and a woman can enter into. When contraceptives are introduced into the equation, they defile this intimate relationship by removing the giving one's self to the other, as the ultimate expression of love for each other.
God Bless!
Dean| 2.15.12 @ 12:29PM
I recall a local radio station that used to run an advertisement that said "We suck less!" Perhaps the Republicans should adopt that phrase for their presidential candidate. Imagine seeing a bumper sticker or billboard: Romney/Santorum . . . I suck less than Obama!
Who knows, it just might work!
Slacker| 2.15.12 @ 12:29PM
I lean libertarian and think Santorum is wrong on almost everything but, I have to commend the guy for the damage he has done to Romney. I’m agreeable with anything that’s bad for Mitt.
Old Soldier| 2.15.12 @ 12:48PM
At least Romney has been conservative once in a while. Here's what Rick thinks of you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
Old Soldier| 2.15.12 @ 12:48PM
At least Romney has been conservative once in a while. Here's what Rick thinks of you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded
Indy| 2.15.12 @ 1:55PM
Romney has not ruled out a VAT, he's not a conservative, I wish someone would ask him about this so we can understand where he really stands, voters need to know but we get stuck with debate moderators asking stupid questions.
Slacker| 2.15.12 @ 2:01PM
I know. I know. Still, I have this dreadful gut instinct on Mitt that supersedes political views. I sense a meticulously disguised inner malice in Mittens. I do not want him to be President.
I can hold my nose and vote for any other republican but, something tells avoid Romney at all cost, even if it means more Obama.
I’m just one guy with an opinion. Mitt will likely get the nomination and beat Obama handily. I fear hatred of Obama is causing Romney supporters to make an epic mistake.
NVA Patriot| 2.15.12 @ 3:00PM
Luke, trust your feelings :) ;) Turn off the Nav 'puter :) :)
Gertrude McFuzz| 2.15.12 @ 12:36PM
I think all the coverage of Santorum's little daughter, Bella, her illness and stay in the hospital helped him IMMENSELY a few weeks ago. I think he knows it, too.
I saw a new ad last night that he's putting out; and Bella was prominently featured in it. There's something about him using her like that which makes me more than a bit uncomfortable.
Now, I'm not saying he should hide her in the attic or something -- I just think perhaps one or two scenes of him with his entire family would have been more tasteful than using SEVERAL scenes of him with only Bella. It feels like he's using her to get votes.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/.....ooks-like/
Montana Bob| 2.15.12 @ 12:50PM
I will vote for whoever the nominee is. Saying that,I have huge prroblems with both Mitt and Rick. Both I think are good men who have raised fine families. They are both 1,000 times better than Obama.
My problem with Mitt is he has shown no ability to generate the needed enthusiasm and intensity needed to take doen Obama.Whether it is Romneycare or whatever,he after 5 years of running for pots can still not seal the deal.
As for Santorum,he is not really this old school Goldwater conservatives cup of tea. Maybe it's regional. We out here want to just be left alone,which explains why western Republicans generally are more libretarian than social cons.
As I stated,I will gladly vote for either but hope for another option.
David| 2.15.12 @ 1:28PM
Hey folks, Gingrich's debating skills are old news. We all know he is a great debater. Problem is, how many debates do you think Bam Bam will agree to have. I bet no more than two, if that. Newt has to have a lot more than that to win. Unfortunately, can you imagine all of the negative ads the dems can come up with with all of his political and personal baggage?
Santorum has zero personal baggage, and his political baggage (previous support for unions, scuttling the National Right to Work Act [17 years ago], etc.) are positions Bam Bam holds. The dems will have a hard time finding things other than homosexuals and abortion issues with which to attack Santorum. And to compound the dems' problems with Santorum as the nominee, most voters agree with Santorum on the moral issues.
Go Santorum - sen
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 4:47PM
If Obama refuses to have a debate Gingrich can use that against Obama very easily.
Furthermore, remember that Obama has a pretty large ego, I highly doubt that he will be able to go through the campaign without a series of debates and be able to look at himself in the mirror, or even pictures of himself.
David| 2.15.12 @ 1:47PM
Gertrude, I have to agree about the photos. Family photos are fine, but one on one photos with Bella - not cool. That reminds me of something Huckabee would do. Probably Romney, Gingrich, Obama, too.
That said, I don't believe his daughter's illness him much at all. She was sick during the Florida primary - now tell us, how did that help him there?
Ted| 2.15.12 @ 1:50PM
"Yes, Santorum supported Arlen Specter for re-election, to the chagrin of conservatives everywhere. "
He did. And he did it to ensure a Republican majority in the Senate. And he did it under a deal with Spector that Spector, as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would support President Bush's Supreme Court nominees. Which Spector did.
The results? Mr. Chief Justice John Roberts and Mr. Justice Samuel Alito.
NVA Patriot| 2.15.12 @ 3:26PM
And Toomey would not? And any R Judiciary chair would not?
Ummm Weak Tea; especially given Specter was a memeber of the Gang of 60 who gave us Obamcare - Thanks St. Rick, where would be be without you!!
Con Chef (NB) | 2.15.12 @ 8:20PM
It was Santorum's support for ExSpecterate that ensured those men wouldn't be "Borked." If Rick hadn't plugged ExSpecterate, you KNOW that vindictive ole cuss would've let those men twist in the wind. I'm convinced of it
Tom| 2.15.12 @ 2:54PM
I will be completely honest and say that I have no great liking for ANY of the candidates that are or have been in the Republican primary.I can say that as a Republican that began working in the Goldwater campaign of 1964 and worked for Reagan all four times he ran for president. Will I stay home and not vote...no . Nor would I vote for a third party candidate, that is the same as casting a vote for BO. Instead I will take a deep breath, close my eyes and vote for whoever is the Republican candidate is...there is NO other choice.
AgentRose| 2.15.12 @ 3:06PM
AND on the top of Drudge today clip of Santorum saying birth control harms women. Creep. Neanderthal. Are you kidding? Griswold v Connecticut!
Well, guess what? Santorum is absolutely right! Please get this message to his campaign.
See article: Politics and the President's Pill Is It Healthy for Wowen?
http://www.americanthinker.com.....women.html
SCIENCE BACKS SANTORUM UP!!!
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 3:33PM
I don't think Santorum can beat Obama, he stands a much better chance than Romney (whom is the absolute worst possible choice).
I think people are counting out Gingrich way too soon, how many times has his campaign been declared dead only to come back again. Each time cause he's been attacked/smeared by the drive by media.
Obama wants Romney to be the nominee.
Obama only considers Santorum to be a possible threat.
Obama and the establishment are terrified of Newt Gingrich, I think he's our best choice and if he was really as unelectable as they have claimed, they would have been treating him with kid gloves (like they do for Romney), it would be him they were propping up instead of Santorum.
Stop and think people, Romney had to launch the biggest smear campaign in primary history to carry Florida. He did it with the help of the establishment and surprisingly from the Obama regime.
I don't want to send someone to Washington to win popularity contests, I want things to get fixed and no more kicking cans down the road. I want the establishment to have panic attacks when our nominee beats Obama. I don't want them expecting business as usual.
Folks we're running against a class-warfare ideologue with a silver tongue. We need someone that the class warfare rhetoric won't work on, and can tell the truth better than Obama can lie.
I know people don't like the current field of candidates, fine.
Everyone needs to stop looking at the polls, not give them credibility they don't deserve (they are trying to manipulate us into choosing who Obama wants to run against and/or is the most like Obama), and look at Obama's baggage, then look at Romney's, then look at Santorum's, then look at Gingrich, then look at Paul's.
Romney's Baggage:
- Bain Capital (in the general it will be baggage Gingrich was right to bring this up)
- offshore bank accounts
- "I don't care about the poor." remarks
- "I like firing people," remarks.
- Romneycare (which puts our chief issue off the table cause Obamacare is based off of Romneycare)
- 2005 mandating religious hospitals provide abortions in Massachusetts (you can argue this that or the other, if he was really staunchly opposed to this, he would have taken this all the way to the US Supreme Court)
- the shannigans to try to get him the nomination that have happened in Virginia, Maine, now in Indiana, heck I'm not sure he legitimately won Florida, they could have selectively counted the ballots (this is due to what happened in Maine, if the Romney camp would pull stunts like this in Maine, can we really trust the results of any other state he won).
- He has alienated much of the base to the point they have to hold a coin toss as to whether to vote for "Obamney" or Obama.
- George Soros approved
- Romney's own supporters (seriously when you start calling people whom are critics of Romney anti-mormon bigots, you further alienate the people you're trying to get to support Romney).
- Stuff we don't know about yet, folks Romney hasn't truely be vhetted at all. The media has been treating him with kid gloves, that should be a warning for everyone.
- Record as Massachusetts Governor (Rick Perry was right, this is a negative for Romney)
Santorum baggage:
- Remarks bashing tea party.
- Reputation for lots of earmarks (he can be seen as part of the problem)
- Remarks that can seem sexist
- He has a tendency to let the left define the issues. This contraceptive issue was in part a trap for Santorum, instead of going off and let the left define it, he should have flat out switched it back and said this is a fight over forcing people to fund abortions in violations of their religious beliefs.
- He hasn't been vhetted yet, I'm sorry but trying to kick Gingrich to the curb when we don't know that much on Santorum and how he holds up is idiotic.
- He doesn't have a history of standing up to the establishment in his own party.
- no executive experience
Gingrich Baggage:
- Consultant for Freddie Mac (this would be a major problem except for the fact we are running against someone that used his position as US Senator to protect Fannae and Freddie, also Gingrich is on record against the bailout of those two government entities)
- Personal life (if our economy was like it was in 1996, this would be a problem, however with so many Americans out of work, I don't think this would be a big issue, especially when people discover that a lot of the stories they were told about it were flat out lies).
- The ethics violations
Gingrich can easily turn this against the Democrats and the establishment by painting it as an attempt by the "establishment, particularly Democrats" to get rid of him, because he wouldn't let them do the things that got us into the mess we're in. Fact is, Gingrich can post up the IRS report exonerating him, the CNN article from 1999, etc. I think Gingrich is planning on the Democrats trying this attack and then hit them over the head with it from nomination to election day. With how unpopular congress is, and Gingrich having not been in public office since I think 1998, he actually can seperate himself from the negative approval ratings of congress easily.
- Fact the establishment hates him (given the approval ratings of the establishment this could actually help Gingrich in the general).
- Fact Gingrich is know for "unrealistic ideas" (Gingrich can point to the "unrealistic ideas" that came true and paint a difference between himself and the establishment. He can show he comes up with solutions while the Establishment just wants to continue the status quo)
- Gingrich supposedly gets angry easily (this is coming from what the establishment says, remember people are really upset with the establishment)
- Gingrich is disorganized (okay? A lot of good leaders seem disorganized, furthermore remember the fiscal shape we were in when Gingrich was speaker of the house, do you really think people are going to buy that argument?)
- Gingrich isn't politically correct (again how does this hurt him, he's actually turned this into a positive).
- coup to remove him as speaker (remember folks how unpopular Congress is now, remember also the last balanced budget we had was created when he was speaker of the House, everything started going downhill after he was no longer Speaker of the House, I think one of the people responsible for the coup actually later ended up going to prison for corruption, so again Gingrich can turn this into a positive in the General election)
Ron Paul baggage:
- FOREIGN POLICY (sorry but being unable to understand why we shouldn't allow a bunch of fanatics that think they go to paradise for killing infidels get their hands on a nuclear weapon kinda makes him unelectable). (not even going to comment on his comments on Israel which also alienates our base and anyone that believes we should stand up for our allies, particularly one that has stood with us even when it wasn't conveinent for them.
- His stuffing earmarks in bills and then voting against the bills he stuffed the earmarks in, so he can claim he never voted for an earmark. (Puts his credibility in question)
- no executive experience
Ron Paul supporters, make no mistake I think some of Paul's domestic ideas are very good. If the Presidential election was just about the domestic issues, I would actually say given the Federal Reserve's shannigans, that Ron Paul would be the best choice. However, this isn't just about Domestic Policy, and Ron Paul's foreign policy is dangerously naive at best (and I'm being charitable).
Newt Gingrich has adopted some of Paul's domestic policies, intends for there to be an audit of the Federal Reserve. So he is taking Paul's policy ideas seriously and giving them serious thought. I don't believe Romney would give Dr. Paul's policy ideas the same honest looking at that Gingrich is.
Heck I wouldn't be surprised if a President Newt Gingrich would have Ron Paul be put in charge of the audit of the Federal Reserve and investigation of their shannigans. Cause if they were doing something illegal, I guarentee Ron Paul would find it.
Obama's Baggage -- The person we need to defeat in november.
- Used position as US Senator to protect Fannae Mae and Freddie Mac from scrutiny.
- Reverend Wright
- Crony capitalism
- Obamacare (something Romney can't go after, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, and the people that are no longer in the race can all go after Obama on this issue) (Aside, to Santorum supporters: Gingrich actually can go after Obama on this with just as much credibility as Santorum, if not more so by saying it was a mistake to ever even support a concept like the individual, the proof that it is an unconstitutional powergrab, is Obama's own core legislative achievement, etc. In doing this, he also destroys the attempted narrative concocted by his critics that he is arrogant).
- Bill Ayers (part of his radicalism, and we know there is one candidate that would go after him on this and has already (Gingrich))
- Saul Alinski radical (Gingrich has already called Obama this)
- George Soros (Romney is approved by Soros too, so Romney can't go after Obama there)
- ACORN (well everyone in the election can go after Obama on ACORN except Romney thanks to what happened in Maine)
- Tendency for his supporters to call his critics racist (this would have looked plain stupid if Herman Cain was the nominee, and Gingrich has already taken the Obama loving media apart on this while the other candidates were afraid to challenge it)
- Obama's record as President (Romney has his mixed record in Massachusetts which could help or hurt Romney; Santorum and Paul have no record; Gingrich has a record of a balanced budget, trumped up ethics violations (which were later proved bogus by the IRS, which proves Gingrich was the victim of a partisan if not establishment based witchhunt), the coup by the establishment and the fact that we can trace the budget starting to go more and more out of whack for every year since then).
When you get right down to it, the person with the best record of accomplishments, the baggage that Obama would have the most problems attacking, the one most able to show Conservatives are the ones with ideas and Obama has nothing but rhetoric, is Newt Gingrich. It would be a mistake to dismiss him or count him out.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 5:10PM
Read George Washington's Farewell Address, Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address, The Old Right And Get Back To Us.
" George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"
William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 5:38PM
If this heads to a brokered convention it's likely the establishment will still try to shove Obamney on us.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 7:35PM
That's Why Dr.Ron Paul's Supporters And The Tea Party Have Been Busy Running Delegates.
Our Valley Forge Tea Party Patriots Have Placed Dr.Ron Paul Supporter Delegates.
Indy| 2.15.12 @ 3:59PM
Rightscoop has some more good posts, there are two recent speeches from Santorum, listen to them...Romney cannot speak like this, I do want the campaign to go on longer, we need to hear more of this
http://www.therightscoop.com/s.....ntrol-you/
http://www.therightscoop.com/s.....r-freedom/
Now, if all of the candidates can deflect questions about birth control and focus on how this election is about freedom, individual liberties, economic freedom, what they will do to keep us from ending up like Greece...they need to use the campaign to educate voters. In the first link, I finally heard a candidate speak about unifying Americans by telling voters the truth about the challenges we face...more please!
David| 2.15.12 @ 4:39PM
Sorry Garfield, but Newt has the most, not the least amount of baggage, that will be ripe for the dems onslaught of negative ads.
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 4:52PM
David, you should stop and compare Gingrich's baggage to Obama's.
It isn't just the amount of "baggage" it's whether or not the opponent can attack said "baggage" without either.
1. looking like an idiot
2. having said attack blow up in their face due to their own baggage
3. having said attack turned against them and then beat over the head with it from when they made that attack to election day.
Give Gingrich some credit, David, he probably already has a pretty good idea what Obama will try to attack him with, and how to turn that against Obama. I'm just hoping he doesn't have to tip his hand too soon due to Romney's dishonesty.
David| 2.15.12 @ 4:42PM
Garfield, if Santorum hasn't been vetted YET, after 16 years in Congress, then how is it that you and other posters here have so much negative to say about him. I suggest to you he HAS BEEN vetted. He just hasn't had the negative ads run against him that Newt has. But we certainly do know his record and his flaws and attributes.
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 4:54PM
Scrutiny while being a Representative and Senator is nowhere close to the scrutiny a Republican Speaker of the House or a Republican Presidential Candidate would have to endure.
So honestly, Rick Santorum has not been vhetted.
jstwndring| 2.15.12 @ 8:28PM
My first choice was Bachmann.
My second choice was Cain.
My third choice was Perry.
My fourth choice was Gingrich.
I'm down to my fifth and last choice Santorum.
I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ROMNEY. I'll write in someone else while voting for other seats, but, I've had it with the establishment's picks.
RCV| 2.15.12 @ 9:03PM
Maybe if your candidates had broad enough appeal to win a primary or two, they'd still be in the race. You can vote for anyone you choose.
Old Soldier| 2.15.12 @ 10:31PM
I add Tim Pawlenty and Thaddeus McCotter on that list before I got to Santorum or Gingrich.
Dan| 2.15.12 @ 10:04PM
Rick Sanctimonium is the least best last man standing. His pronouncement about abortions hurting women is one of the reasons he is the ex senator from Pennsylvania. Except for a far right religious philosophy he is nothing more than a big spending, big government RINO.
Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 3:22PM
Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney are also not going to participate in the March 1st debate...
Philip Cohen| 2.16.12 @ 3:58PM
Yeah, let’s send women back to the backyard abortionists …
Now, come on, all you sanctimonious prigs; having ripped and torn into all and sundry and now, apparently, settling on Santorum as the most suitable Presidential candidate, is his wife a suitable candidate for First Lady given her history?
Come on now, you can’t have it both ways.
Maybe it would be better to do away with the Presidency and let the somewhat less dysfunctional “Westminster” system prevail?
Regardless, I doubt that any of this crop of Republican wannabes can beat Obama.
Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 4:51PM
Not sure you intended this, but you have pointed out precisely the narrative that Democrats plan on using against Santorum.
Problem here is that Santorum is playing right into it.
That's why I think Newt should be the nominee, because he doesn't fall for these tricks.
Philip Cohen| 2.16.12 @ 6:47PM
What I find frightening about Santorum is that he gives the impression that he literally prays to God for advice. My worry is that he may well be receiving such advice.
cybercorrespondent | 2.23.12 @ 1:16PM
The more a candidate criticizes another candidate, the more that candidate turns me off. Instead of criticizing Santorum, Romney should look in the mirror and having Ron Paul doo his dirty work makes them both look bad. http://youtu.be/8qHmXMMCrlI
KG| 2.23.12 @ 2:43PM
Romney's policy sins are "far more grievous and substantial" than Santorum's? Really?
Santorum voted for the $17 trillion -- that's SEVENTEEN TRILLION DOLLAR -- unfunded mandate for Medicare Part D. There, he accomplished the twin tricks of astounding budget prodigality and complete unconstitutionality. What has Romney done that is on a par with that? Massachusetts doesn't spend $17 trillion in a century, so the answer is "nothing, nothing even close."
Santorum also supported No Child Left Behind. Again, brazenly unconstitutional and totally prodigal. Besides that, it had only negative effects on education all over the country. What did Romney ever do that is on a par with that? Answer: "nothing, nothing close."
Oh, but at least Santorum is the first major-party presidential candidate in history to promise during a campaign to bomb a country with which America wasn't then at war. Great. What has Romney done that is on a par with that? Answer: "nothing, nothing close."
He also took the lead in getting us the Patriot Act. 'Nuff said.
Santorum now promises that if elected president, he would work to repeal ... much of what he did as senator! You can't make this stuff up: "Vote for me, because I'll undo my awful record as a senator."
Santorum is far the worst Republican candidate. Easily. TERRIBLE on the Constitution, TERRIBLE on spending, and just generally without any redeeming qualities. If he's nominated, I'll vote for Johnson.
zeke spelkinzeckler the third | 5.4.12 @ 8:09AM
check out mah blogzorz
http://kamikazeearth.blogspot.com/