Skip to comments.Rick Santorum Must NOT Be Our Nominee – And Here’s Why…
Posted on 02/22/2012 2:58:17 PM PST by jmstein7
click here to read article
I've got news for you, too. It isn't the hateful left that we need to appeal to but to those who are caught up in the economic malaise. That includes folks from all walks of life, party affiliation, etc. Santorum with his social issues focus only gives the hateful left their opening to attack, fund raise and scare the electorate with lies.
We need to focus on economic issues(and that's not saying social issues aren't important, they are) because that's where people are focused everyday. Of the candidates, Newt Gingrich is by far our best bet. Melas has it right.
Apparently, you’re still posting, and after your zot it will be peaceful.
No, he explicitly calls for removing social issues from the conversation. You read into it what you want to read into it.
Is past and future alien concepts to you? Santorum has been on record as opposing gay marriage and will use his power as President to push for it’s ban.
So what’s with the asking for past precedent for someone’s call for future action?
Why are you asking for examples of Democraps pushing for drug legalization when, as social liberals, they always push for more government control over one’s personal actions.
My example is of social conservatives, who... just like social liberals, work to increase government control over your person.
Agreed. Gingrich or Romney are just as "vulnerable," if you want to call it that, but this guy is right just the same. The whole conversaton would devolve to moralizing. Illegal pornography is not the reason we're paying $4+ a gallon for gas as Obama promised (we're being European, you see). Arguing over abortion? Hey, after you've stated your piece that you understand it for the murder it is, what more is there to it? What's next????
I like the guy who's also talking about devolving Federal power to the states on a set plan. Pre-Roe v. Wade would start the right path regarding abortion, and IF dismantling Federal powers included the schools and Federal anti-discrimination, public prayer, and "diversity" law, states could really take things in hand for a moral turnaround. The pornography and abortion are symptoms of the malaise, not the causes of it.
I say, Godspeed Newt Gingrich.
Typical Obama voter. Not only do you want to impose your views on me, you want to vilify me for desiring freedom.
Let me guess you are also one of those people who want to let hardened criminals back on the streets because the past precedent (They murdered someone) does not equal their future call to action. (They promise they'll be good.)
The election will NOT be about economic issues. It will be about national security as the Mideast continues to blow up.
Square that with:
""What was my vision? I came to the uncomfortable realization that conservatives were not only reluctant to spend government dollars on the poor, they hadnt even thought much about what might work better. I often describe my conservative colleagues during this time as simply cheap liberals. My own economically modest personal background and my faith had taught me to care for those who are less fortunate, but I too had not yet given much thought to the proper role of government in this mission." Rick Santorum, p. IX It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good (2005) (Hat tip to UC above)
You wrote: If they are not a social conservative, that means they are willing to fund HUGE social initiatives that takes money from taxpayers & economy.
It can be argued that a social conservative who was not ALSO fiscally conservative, would feel compelled to use OUR tax dollars to engage in charity -- just exactly as in Rick's quote above. Charity is a moral act, and good charity is moral in that it encourages moral behavior. Government charity encourages immoral bevoir! Hello, Rick???? EXCUSE ME!
My dream candidate is the guy who is anti-abortion, anti-homosexual agenda, and who is ALSO equally committed to slashing government, dismantling government, restoring financial as well as moral freedoms to people, such as the right to choose their own school, abolish the Department of Education so local people control their schools and the teachers in them.
It's why I say, Godspeed Newt Gingrich.
I think we can all agree that Rick TANKED tonight. Clear winner was Newt. Rombo was plastic. Paul, well, he’s never all there.
I know, right?
But your idea of Gingrich being a government slasher is laughable. He's the man of big ideas and big government. Socialized medicine, Cap & Trade, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, Oppressive environmental regulation, taxpayer-subsidized moon bases. (Even Obama doesn't go that far) I can only imagine what the tax rates would soar to, if Gingrich were president.
By the way, even running as a Republican, Gingrich couldn't attack Romney from the right, he attacked him from the left. He bashed capitalism with material stolen right from Mother Jones magazine. Face it, he's a stone cold socialist.
“No, you idiot. He means someone who can do both, and can shift gears. Rick is a one-trick pony.”
I don’t believe that’s the case, as Santorum’s economic ideas are at least decent, and much better than 0bamney’s. However, unlike a lot of posters on this thread, I believe Santorum realizes that social issues are in fact a winning platform if presented properly. He may need to tone down the rhetoric as he reaches the general (and I’m sure he will move to the center) but a good majority of voters are Christian and share at least most of his values. A recent poll shows 70% believe in “Satan”, for instance. This is in stark contrast to 0bama, who I believe a good percentage of the electorate finds unconvincing as to his piety and morals.
Beyond that, if you’ve seen him speak, Santorum is clearly an intelligent person who can hold his own intellectually, and has a good degree of self-control. Gingrich does well with the first part, not so well with the second.
I remain convinced that Santorum is the best choice for a nominee this cycle. Yes, he’s flawed - as is every other candidate. It’s a matter of degree.
I’m talking about Santorum’s campaign... and his supporters. And you want past precedent of his possible future Presidency’s actions?
Really, showing to all who read here your utter lack of understanding regarding the concepts of past, present, and future is quite amazing.
Talk about reverse logic.
Nickcarraway sezs that since Santorum hasn’t done anything he’s campaigning on yet, you can’t argue that he’ll do what he’s campaigning to do if he wins! Cause he gots no record of doing it, herp derp!
That’s your argument in a nutshell. In which case, why support someone who ain’t going to work towards what he says he’s going to do?
Yeah, so we should just surrender to the enemy....
BTW, this election is NOT about economic issues. Economies will go up and down over time, regardless of the President. It IS about individual liberty and freedom. We MUST repeal Obamacare and your guy ain’t up for that!
Yes, I am 99.9% certain that you are a Romneybot!
“The states are the sole determiners of voting rights,”
The fact that you had to explain that and other comments on this thread are depressing me. If we see this type of ignorance on FR, then we should be very afraid for our Republic.
It’s rampant. In a recent thread, a poster just couldn’t understand why Texans couldn’t have a primary until we get our districts ironed out. In her mind the presidential primary encompasses all districts, so she didn’t get the big deal. I asked her if she’d ever voted in a primary, as we not only choose the presidential candidate, but the GOP candidate for every office from the county on up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.