Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Santorum lied. Spector said he did not promise to back Bush's Supreme Court picks for endorsement.
http://www.breitbart.tv/specter-santorum-lied/ ^ | February 23, 2012 | Ralph Mitchell

Posted on 02/23/2012 9:00:30 PM PST by mitchell001

According to today's video interview between CNN's John King and Arlen Spector at the link below, Rick Santorum lied about Arlen Spector's promise to support George Bush's Supreme Court nominees in exchange for Santorum's endorsement, during the nationally televised debate on CNN Wednesday. This is damaging video evidence of Santorum's lie about this important reason given by Santorum for supporting the liberal Arlen Spector over the conservative Patrick Tomey is at the following link. http://www.breitbart.tv/specter-santorum-lied/ During the debate, Romney claimed that if Tomey was elected as the GOP Senator from Pennsylvania instead of Spector, Obamacare would not have passed by 50 to 49, but would have failed by 50 to 49. Spector voted for Obamacare and Tomey would have voted against it.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: bush; idiot; santorum; santorumlied; sourcetitlenoturl; spector; stupidparty; supreme
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-142 last
To: mitchell001

Dumb article. There is no reason to believe that Toomey would have won the senatorial seat. Given the nature of elections these days, it would have been at least a 50/50 proposition in liberal pennsylvania.

On the other hand, we know that Specter DID usher Roberts and Alito through the confirmation process.

Also a dumb article because Specter helping with Roberts and Alito did not have to be a deal between Specter and Santorum. It could have been between Santorum and GWBush.

And Santorum specifically said he did it for the team on behalf of GWBush. How are such messages passed?

I’m betting there’s probably no piece of paper anyplace. They are understandings based on conversations.


101 posted on 02/24/2012 2:49:31 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mitchell001

If you are going to use Spector as a source, I will cite Scottish law and say this is “not proved”.


102 posted on 02/24/2012 3:24:27 AM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Honestly, the ‘babe in the woods’ nonsense we are hearing here from the anti-Santorum crowd is just amazing. It’s like politics is somehow a shock to them.

People fail to accept that there’s no ‘pure’ politician out there. Santorum owed Specter from previous election help, and reciprocated. We also have to accept that Pennsylvania is an iffy state (especially at the time), and Toomey was seen as too much of a gamble.

Do I like that decision? No. Do I accept it as a political calculation, yes.

I’m wondering who these people who are bashing Rick now happen to think is pure enough to be casting these stones? I mean Newt from the couch alongside Nancy, with Fannie checks in the pocket? Please. Romney is obviously no conservative, and never has been. Paul, well he’s Paul and that doesn’t really deserve further discussion.

Look, I like Santorum, and I like Gingrich. I could live with either option, but the way people are around here, they are more than happy to let the nonexistent perfect be the enemy of the good, and then let Romney slip by so we don’t get the good, but the awful.


103 posted on 02/24/2012 4:45:26 AM PST by drbuzzard (different league)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard
Honestly, the ‘babe in the woods’ nonsense we are hearing here from the anti-Santorum crowd is just amazing. It’s like politics is somehow a shock to them. People fail to accept that there’s no ‘pure’ politician out there. Santorum owed Specter from previous election help, and reciprocated. We also have to accept that Pennsylvania is an iffy state (especially at the time), and Toomey was seen as too much of a gamble. Do I like that decision? No. Do I accept it as a political calculation, yes. I’m wondering who these people who are bashing Rick now happen to think is pure enough to be casting these stones? I mean Newt from the couch alongside Nancy, with Fannie checks in the pocket? Please. Romney is obviously no conservative, and never has been. Paul, well he’s Paul and that doesn’t really deserve further discussion. Look, I like Santorum, and I like Gingrich. I could live with either option, but the way people are around here, they are more than happy to let the nonexistent perfect be the enemy of the good, and then let Romney slip by so we don’t get the good, but the awful.

I have not liked or respected Santorum since he helped Lott kill the impeachment proceedings against that gutter snipe Clinton. I accept Rick as a typical politician, so the sooner he gets off his 'righteous' soap box then maybe I can accept him as being who he really is.

104 posted on 02/24/2012 4:49:31 AM PST by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

>I have not liked or respected Santorum since he helped Lott kill the impeachment proceedings against that gutter snipe Clinton.

Impeaching Clinton fully would have been suicide for the GOP. While he might have deserved it technically, the American people didn’t think so. The media had diffused the issues down to a ‘mere’ sex scandal, and that was not nationally seen as enough to boot a president who was generally seen as pretty successful. The biggest problem the Senate faced at the time was the pathetically limited scope of the prosecution. Clinton had a lot more dirt on his hands than screwing around with Lewinsky, but nobody was willing to touch the dark stuff. Given what was handed the Senate, I can understand what they did (even if it was unpleasant).

Maybe I don’t watch enough Santorum speeches, but I don’t get the ‘righteous’ vibe that much. Yes, he does have a history of a strong family without any real moral lapses. However he readily admits that he has played politics like the rest of the people in the game. Any politician who claims they have not is merely lying through their teeth.


105 posted on 02/24/2012 5:46:15 AM PST by drbuzzard (different league)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

Now, I admit I am not a Santorum fan, for many reasons... But, am I going to take Spectre at his word either??


106 posted on 02/24/2012 5:49:35 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard
Impeaching Clinton fully would have been suicide for the GOP. While he might have deserved it technically, the American people didn’t think so. The media had diffused the issues down to a ‘mere’ sex scandal, and that was not nationally seen as enough to boot a president who was generally seen as pretty successful. The biggest problem the Senate faced at the time was the pathetically limited scope of the prosecution. Clinton had a lot more dirt on his hands than screwing around with Lewinsky, but nobody was willing to touch the dark stuff. Given what was handed the Senate, I can understand what they did (even if it was unpleasant). Maybe I don’t watch enough Santorum speeches, but I don’t get the ‘righteous’ vibe that much. Yes, he does have a history of a strong family without any real moral lapses. However he readily admits that he has played politics like the rest of the people in the game. Any politician who claims they have not is merely lying through their teeth.

I am sorry, since there was NO trial with live witnesses and the production of evidence it is NOT possible to say how the American people would have reacted.

107 posted on 02/24/2012 5:50:07 AM PST by Just mythoughts (Luke 17:32 Remember Lot's wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

and which of the candidates for the GOP do you think is an ‘appropriate’ or ‘acceptable’ candidate. Your venom is obvious. I am just curious if it is directed at all the candidates or just Santorum.

Since I actually remember how disappointed folks were (did not need to check the history of posts or articles) with Rick about Arlen, I know his short comings.

He hardly presents himself as a ‘Messiah’. All Santorum has done is laid out what he would do.

With the venom you have spewed my guess is you are either for Paul or Mittens (seemingly one in the same)


108 posted on 02/24/2012 6:23:09 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

>I am sorry, since there was NO trial with live witnesses and the production of evidence it is NOT possible to say how the American people would have reacted.

Yes, but the whole of the proceedings had been reduced to him lying about having sex with Lewinsky and covering it up. It had been reduced to a tempest in a teapot, and the GOP charging full bore into that would have been suicide.

Honestly I blame the House more.


109 posted on 02/24/2012 6:36:30 AM PST by drbuzzard (different league)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: dangus; presently no screen name
Santorum acknowledged that Toomey would have; he argued that Specter was ale to carry several Democrat and moderate Republican votes with him.

Do you have a link for that? I have done a pretty lot of research on this to try and be accurate, and I never came across anything where he mentioned that... maybe it was in a PA paper...

110 posted on 02/24/2012 7:08:14 AM PST by true believer forever (Save the Irish Setters - Vote Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Gator113
Romney will not allow this to die.

I think that Mitt Romney is the last person in the world who should challenge another candidate's veracity. Has Mitt ever met a flip that he couldn't flop?

111 posted on 02/24/2012 7:09:16 AM PST by CommerceComet (If Mitt can leave the GOP to protest Reagan, why can't I do the same in protest of Romney?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
He hardly presents himself as a ‘Messiah’. All Santorum has done is laid out what he would do.

With the venom you have spewed my guess is you are either for Paul or Mittens (seemingly one in the same)

Does telling your followers, "God called me to run," qualify as Messianic to you? It does to me. But, more importantly, Santorum has said that his character is of the quality that Americans want in the White House, as opposed to Newt's and his personal baggage.

If you would have taken 2 minutes, instead of guessing, you would know I am an ardent Newt supporter, who, btw, Santorum has described as erratic, dangerous, "the same as Obama", "not to be trusted", running around taking credit for things that the congress did, like a "CEO taking credit for his company that makes cars" - and that's for starters.

I don't know if you are a Christian or not, but I wrote this a few weeks ago to someone who wasn't, and it made him understand the objections of many Christians when it comes to Santorum:

"On Santorum: No, I’ve never met him. I’ve read about him, some of the corruption he is associated with, I’ve watched him, I’ve listened when he was disrespectful to his mentor for political expediency’s sake. I study his voting record. I know a charity of his gathered millions of dollars, and only spent 32% of their funds on the poor, for whose benefit the charity was formed; and that the normative ethical ratio is for most charities to spend 82% of their funds on their targeted constituency - while most of Santorum’s donations went to give his political friends cushy “charity” jobs. Good Neighbor, I think it was called.

I listened as this so-called “good” Christian man stood on a stage and said his character was the quality of character that Americans needed in the White House, unlike the character of others who had personal baggage in their past, without once mentioning the forgiving saving transforming power of Jesus Christ, who is the center of the faith Sanctimonium so piously professes to live by... and sets his principles upon...

If you are not a Christian, you can’t really appreciate what is so appalling and galling about the man, in light of true christians, who don’t abrogate the work of Christ with attempts at self righteousness attained by heir outside of the cup persona and behaviors.. What you are doing, and why so many sincere Christians have great problems with Santorum, is he, as well as you, overlook how the transformative power an encounter with the True Christ impacts a man’s entire soul and being; he becomes a new creature in Christ Jesus, old things pass away, all things are made new.

Newt has confessed his sins, said he did things he is ashamed of, has sought to make reconciliation with the members of his family, and others he has hurt. He has blamed no one else but himself. He has come to a new and apparently cleansing faith in Christ Jesus and, most importantly, there is no evidence of any of the same behavioral sins in his life since this long journey of his repentance, rebirth, and renewal began.

And, yet, people cannot let the man leave his past behind. After 20 years - think of it - 20 years - there are still a majority of people in the press, politics - Santorum, and a lot of his supporters - who consider Newt the same man he was 20 years ago, and dare he try to take one step away from his past, to step into the new, as his faith promises him he can, they are there loudly, hypocritically, self-righteously to pull him right back. They won’t let him step away from his sinful past, though no apparent evidence of that sinful past exists any longer, or any evidence that he is the same man he was 20 years ago. He is being judged as the man he was - while that man no longer exists. He is, I repeat, a new creature in Christ Jesus.

But no one, not Santorum or his minions, will allow for that, or accept that might ever be true.

So, the final finally: it says more about the people who can’t let Newt be this new creature many believing Christians trust he is, if only because they are likewise sinners, great sinners, saved and transformed by the same power that Newt claims has saved and transformed him.

It is religious bigotry, hard hearts, and people like Santorum, who behaviorally have hit many of the right notes in their outward lives, though it is hard to believe that is extensively true - I am sure we will find out - whose self-righteousness - whose pride in their outward manifestations of sinlessness, and acceptable conduct, that causes believing Christians to distance themselves from him, to see him as a hypocrite, saved more by his self-perceived good works than the miraculous, healing work of a Perfect Savior, by his love and tender mercy, towards those who are fully unworthy.

Santorum is about none of that, he is about a gospel of works and self denial, of earned salvation. Newt is simply a sinner being saved by by the gift of grace, he could never earn or be worthy of... through no goodness of his own... the same as most of those Christians who can’t support Santorum’s apostasy."

112 posted on 02/24/2012 7:40:48 AM PST by true believer forever (Save the Irish Setters - Vote Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Christie at the beach

People do not despis him. Conservatives here despise him. There’s a difference. I was at two debates thisnyear..the Las Vegas one and the last one in. AZ.

The majority of people are for Romney. Also, I live in a vacation community, meaning people visit from all around the country so I meet a lot of people from around the Country. I talk to them. Majority will ONLY vote for Romney. We are talking Republicans, moderate Dems and independents.

Unfortunately the people on this site believe they are the majority voice. But they are wrong. I work in the Republican party, in one of the most Conservative States.. And I am not a Romney supporter.. I am, however, a realist.


113 posted on 02/24/2012 7:42:07 AM PST by Hildy ("When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - SocratesH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Waryone

Really? You do not belivemhe will overturn Obamacare as he says every single time he opens his mouth?


114 posted on 02/24/2012 7:52:35 AM PST by Hildy ("When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - SocratesH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

Bravo!


115 posted on 02/24/2012 7:55:17 AM PST by Hildy ("When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - SocratesH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
None of the Santorum Cultists also realize that Santorum will be exposed for, and called out on the coming Lobbyist scandal, which will prove how Santorum won his “Most Corrupt Senator” award.

The blind koolaid drinkers who reflexively support him, defend him at all costs. But if this insanity continues and he wins, they will regret every minute of it, or they will end up extremely bitter and convey every excuse and apology on the books for their undeserved hero, when he becomes a historical disgrace to the Conservative label.

116 posted on 02/24/2012 8:10:53 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

No it is NOT Messianic to say that God has called you to do something..... In my own Life I have used that phrase. And yes I am a Christian. This is one of the dumbest things you have ever said. When a person is called to do something, who are you to say it cannot be true or must be delusional.

Newt is erratic. I remember well his time in Congress ( not just as speaker).

Your venom speaks volumes and tells me much more about you than about the one you support. Nice try. Have an angst filled day


117 posted on 02/24/2012 8:33:00 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

It sounds like my post got under your skin a little... maybe you should read it again...

To say God has called me as a way to validate or as an endorsement of a political candidacy is way out of bonds, and if you can’t see that, I doubt anyone could help you see it...

and for the sake of accuracy,
here’s what I said:”Does telling your followers, “God called me to run,” qualify as Messianic to you? It does to me.”

I didn’t say it was inaccurate or delusional, I said it qualified as messianic... If Santorum wants to proclaim that God, indeed, has called him to run, what does that say about the people opposed to him - that they are against God’s will? this is a very murky place where no politician needs to go, ever.

It is the manner by which despots are born. You need to think a little... this is exactly what Barack did in 2008... he was the hope and change the world was waiting for... and it’s happening again, on the republican side, your response is proof of that..

You have a wonderful day...


118 posted on 02/24/2012 8:56:51 AM PST by true believer forever (Save the Irish Setters - Vote Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

If you say someone is Messianic in their thinking AND if in fact they are not the Messiah then indeed that person is delusional. Your limited ability to use logic has you tied in knots.

You pooh pooh Newt’s ‘personal baggage’ and slam Santorum every step of the way. They are both Washington politicians. They both have much in their backgrounds that can be damaging.

Our focus as conservatives should be clearer than this stuff that you prattle on about. None of these candidates is ideal. Some are even dangerous. To compare Santorum and his views to Obama is ridiculous on its face. ( and yes you do that when you say that the last Messianic to run for President was O).

Clearly you are out of your depth. Your comments do not get under my skin in any manner. Your lack of thoughtful discussion on the other hand...

Say by the by How is Nanacy Pelosi working out for Newt? You know that global warming thing that he was so hot on before?


119 posted on 02/24/2012 9:03:30 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

’ If Santorum wants to proclaim that God, indeed, has called him to run, what does that say about the people opposed to him - that they are against God’s will? this is a very murky place where no politician needs to go, ever.’

Flawed logic....It is not mutually exclusive. God may well have chosen many people to run for a nomination-——Since when are you so wonderful as to underestand the mind of God????


120 posted on 02/24/2012 9:07:25 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

Listen, friend, I don’t find your level of intellectual discourse elevated or informed... and I find you running over with hatred, way beyond what my few words should have provoked..

3/4 of that post was about Jesus Christ - why don’t you tell me what you think about that prattle?

Learn to address people with respect - I deserve respect - and if you can’t address me that way, don’t address me at all...

Jesus is Lord, not Sanctimonium..


121 posted on 02/24/2012 9:09:52 AM PST by true believer forever (Save the Irish Setters - Vote Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

And if this was the religion forum I would be happy to discuss whatever you wanted to but this was about politics and you made specific statements about a candidate and his Messianic statements. You are the only one running over with anger (I do not know you to know if it is hatred). Your responses to a few sentences have been verbose and often off point....other than that it has been a fine discussion.


122 posted on 02/24/2012 9:14:05 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

‘Learn to address people with respect - I deserve respect - and if you can’t address me that way, don’t address me at all...’

You really are too amusing


123 posted on 02/24/2012 9:18:22 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

Lots of people in this forum discuss christianity and often in depth... in fact, I have learned quite a bit from them... so feel free...


124 posted on 02/24/2012 9:21:26 AM PST by true believer forever (Save the Irish Setters - Vote Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

Read Mere Christianity and Pilgrim’s Regress


125 posted on 02/24/2012 9:25:25 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

What makes you think I haven’t? You are the typical Sanctimonium supporter... just take your arrogance and peddle it somewhere else. I am on my lunch hour, and don’t plan on answering anymore of your “prattle” postings.

God bless you...


126 posted on 02/24/2012 9:30:08 AM PST by true believer forever (Save the Irish Setters - Vote Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

1. Romney (Obama white) is the biggest liar out there.

2. Even if he keeps his promise to remove Obamacare he will replace it with Romneycare which is Obamacare.

3. His own people have said they will probably not eliminate Obamacare. They will just tinker with pieces of it.

The dumbest thing you can do is believe anything that comes out of Romney’s mouth. Obama white is a liar. It does not matter how many times the words come out of his mouth. A lie is a lie.


127 posted on 02/24/2012 9:36:28 AM PST by Waryone (Mitt Romney, the father of gay marriage and socialized medicine in the US, is a lying socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

You asked me to discuss religion with you. My comment was simply an indication of what has directed my thinking and part of my faith walk.

And if you had bothered to do any checking yourself I am not a Santorum supporter.

Hope your ulcer improves...


128 posted on 02/24/2012 9:37:42 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
Romney is going to be our nominee and will beat Obama and we will hold him accountable. The stakes are too high. Please let’s deal with it.

There is a reality that you need to realize as well. There is a sizable portion of the conservative community (including myself) who will not vote for Romney, under any circumstances. Romney is not attractive enough to independents to make up for the loss of the Republican core. His general election campaign, IMO, is doomed to defeat. At least with McCain, we could remember the days he was fighting for Reaganism. At best, Mitt Romney was AWOL during the Reagan fights or was opposing Reaganism (if his own words from his campaign with Ted Kennedy can be believed). Lining up behind Mitt Romney is surrendering the soul of the Republican party.

Given Obama's vulnerability on the issues, the last thing we need is a "me-too" candidate like Romney. The Republican candidate to win has to emphasize the differences between himself and Obama as Gingrich or Santorium would do, not blur them like Romney would.

129 posted on 02/24/2012 10:12:41 AM PST by CommerceComet (If Mitt can leave the GOP to protest Reagan, why can't I do the same in protest of Romney?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: CommerceComet

Four more years of Obama. The is no way independents will vote for Santorum.. Not going to happen.


130 posted on 02/24/2012 11:28:34 AM PST by Hildy ("When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - SocratesH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Linda Frances

Yes, thank you. Is there a way that your post could be *mailed* to me at FR, so I can print it without the extraneous stuff? As I said, I need to take a computer course some day. LOL
Yesterday, I called Rick’s campaign HQ, and asked them to emphasize Mitt’s leftist judicial appointments. Rick talked about them on Beck today briefly. Probably a coincidence, but maybe if we all call HQ about Mitt’s bald-faced lies about his support of Tsongas, this revelation would drive the final nail in his quest to purchase the nomination. Believe me, I’m going to call local radio shows on Sunday and Monday exposing the phony. Bob


131 posted on 02/24/2012 1:07:05 PM PST by alstewartfan (27 of 36 of Romney's judicial appointments were DEMOCRATS!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

Find a debate transcript; I heard it during the debate.


132 posted on 02/24/2012 1:22:24 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: dangus

When I post information I usually supply a link, as there can be a lot of misinformation posted as fact, I’m sure you know... thought you probably did the same, apparently not... sorry.


133 posted on 02/24/2012 1:35:16 PM PST by true believer forever (Save the Irish Setters - Vote Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: mitchell001

http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=20106049


134 posted on 02/24/2012 2:42:25 PM PST by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gator113
Romney will not allow this to die.

Romney has his own problems.

And nobody in their right mind believes that Specter is capable of telling the truth.

This isn't going "viral". It's going nowhere.

135 posted on 02/24/2012 4:44:34 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

Do you mean private mail? I’m not real techie, so not sure exactly what you want.


136 posted on 02/24/2012 5:04:43 PM PST by Linda Frances (Only God can change a heart, but we can pray for hearts to be changed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Well, considering that in a little over a week, Santorum has collapsed in Michigan and Arizona, it’s apparent that he isn’t going to prevail in this race whether he lied or not.

President Newt Gingrich—”Our beloved republic deserves nothing less.”


137 posted on 02/24/2012 5:06:09 PM PST by Gator113 (~Just livin' life, my way~.. President Newt Gingrich--"Our beloved republic deserves nothing less.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Gator113
Well, considering that in a little over a week, Santorum has collapsed in Michigan and Arizona, it’s apparent that he isn’t going to prevail in this race whether he lied or not.

You are aware, aren't you, that Santorum's description of events corresponds with what was understood to be the deal at the time. Specter is clearly lying -- as is his nature.

You purport to favor Newt. Yet, you are willing to profit from lies that are evidently being spread by the Romney campaign.

I'm uncommitted...not a Santorum partisan. Yet, the delight that FReepers favoring Candidate A seem to take in the crippling of Candidate B by the spreading of pernicious lies by Candidate C -- without directing any ire toward Candidate C -- is a more than a little disappointing.

Why not promote candidate A's advantages over Candidate B. And justifiably excoriate Candidate C? All this celebration of negative bullshit that gets sprayed around -- so long as it doesn't touch your guy -- is appalling.

138 posted on 02/24/2012 5:45:42 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Linda Frances

Yes Linda, through the private mail here. But that’s OK. I’m going to copy your salient points about Mitt’s myriad excuses for supporting extreme leftist Tsongas. It was great of you to synthesize his lies. Thank you. Bob from Scranton


139 posted on 02/25/2012 3:24:44 PM PST by alstewartfan (27 of 36 of Romney's judicial appointments were DEMOCRATS!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Toomey would have lost in 2004, probably by a large margin. The only reason that BUSH won re-election was b/c of the Swiftboat guys standing up against Kerry. Bush was very unpopular in Pa, and Specter won b/c he was seen then as a fair-minded man who often opposed Bush. Bob


140 posted on 02/25/2012 3:28:07 PM PST by alstewartfan (27 of 36 of Romney's judicial appointments were DEMOCRATS!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

Did you see this?

A Stern Warning to the “Conservative Elites” about Mitt Romney
Published by Peter LaBarbera at 1:00 pm under ’Pro-Family’ Compromise, Romney
Contact: John Haskins
JHaskins@ParentsRightsCoalition.org
508-480-0705 

A Stern Warning to the “Conservative Elites” about Mitt Romney

Through their silence, the elites are assisting a political cancer that has profound consequences for our children and grandchildren

We write the following because we must oppose the deception of the American people by powerful and influential conservatives. Many in the conservative grassroots no longer trust the “conservative” media, lawyers and leaders, whom they see as serving the GOP establishment regardless of the will of the conservative base, regardless of the truth.
 
Most of us are not allied with any presidential candidate. But we are troubled by the unethical and Orwellian cover-up of Mitt Romney’s role in catastrophic events in Massachusetts, once the cradle of American liberty. Actions he took as governor were beyond the pale. As Romney twice explained to the homosexual “Log Cabin” Republicans, it would take a Republican to enact their agenda (www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2006/12/romneys_thought.html ).

Attorneys, journalists and pundits must be fearless and selfless watchdogs of politicians and guardians of democracy. This is a sacred trust that is being defiled. Silence about ugly truths, such as the points enumerated below, is a betrayal of the lofty status we claim in a constitutional republic. Pay the price of courage. Tell America the truth.

Phony Pro-Life “Conversion”

Issue # 1.  Mitt Romney established abortion as a “healthcare benefit” in his own government-run healthcare plan at $50 per abortion — after his supposed “pro-life conversion.” (http://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/binary/com.epicentric.contentmanagement.servlet.ContentDeliveryServlet/About%2520Us/Connector%2520Programs/Additional%2520Resources/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf ;) He created a permanent, official government role for an unelected Planned Parenthood representative on the health care board.

Issue #2.  Romney’s well-timed “pro-life” conversion for the Republican primary pulled a “states’ rights” committment out of nowhere to hedge his political bets. His claim that states’ rights trump the unalienable right to life is inconsistent and unprincipled: he simultaneously opposes an amendment to protect human life, but claims to support one to preserve marriage! What happened to Romney’s committment to “states’ rights?” 
 
Issue #3.  Unforced by anyone, Romney overruled his own Commissioner of Public Health and lied about state law in order to compel Catholic hospitals to issue abortifacient pills — in violation of their freedom of religion enshrined in the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions. Using exactly the crafty political theatre he employed to cover his actions on same-sex “marriage” and homosexual adoption, Romney posed as defender of the very thing he was destroying, gallantly “asking” the legislature to create a special “religious exemption” for Catholic institutions. Even Democrat former governor Mike Dukakis publicly agreed with Romney’s commissioner of public health that state law already grants a “religious exemption.”

“Gay Marriage,” Gay Adoption and Pro-Homosexuality Propaganda In Schools

Issue #1.  In another flagrant lie about the law, Romney told Catholic Charities’ adoption and foster agency they had to give children to homosexuals even when normal mother-father families were lined up to give them a home. Again, he deployed his standard smokescreen, gallantly proposing a “special exemption,” with a wink of his eye to the militantly pro-homosexuality legislature. Again, he got caught. Former governor Dukakis pointed out that the “state law” that Romney was citing as requiring gay adoption was non-existent. It was merely an executive regulation that a governor can rescind with a few strokes of his pen. Romney was apparently fulfilling secret 2002 campaign promises (http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/12/is-romney-working-with-log-cabin.html ;) to Republican homosexual power brokers whose endorsement he coveted and received. He had sought no backing from social conservatives. 
 
Issue #2.  Romney says the Boy Scouts should accept homosexual scoutmasters and that homosexuals have “a legitimate interest” in adopting or producing and raising children.
 
Issue #3.  Though Romney pretends he opposed homosexual “marriage,” he did the opposite. In 2002 he opposed a  marriage amendment that would have prevented homosexual “marriage.” 120,000 citizens, including his wife, son and daughter-in-law signed the amendment petition. Romney’s militant pro-homosexuality Republican predecessor, Governor Jane Swift, and Democrat legislators openly violated the constitution to deny the citizens their right to vote on the amendment. Even the ultra-liberal Massachusetts court ruled that they were violating their oaths and the Constitution. Romney failed to oppose their subversion of the law or to defend the people’s right to amend their own Constitution. ( www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07051409.html )

Issue #4.  Since the notorious Goodridge court opinion discovering a constitutional right to “gay marriage,” Romney has methodically lied about the judges’ legal authority and his own legal duty to enforce the Constitution. As professor of jurisprudence Hadley Arkes pointed out, under the state Constitution, the court has no jurisdiction over marriage law. An opinion issued without jurisdiction is legally void and cannot be “enforced.” Romney also knew that the same judges had recently admitted they have no power over the legislature or governor.

The Legislature never “obeyed” the judges by changing the marriage statute to legalize “gay marriage.” Under the state constitution that was the end of the line. The court neither ordered nor even suggested any intervention by the governor. Many lawyers and law professors (including Hugh Hewitt:http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/12/hugh-hewitt-told-romney-to-defy-mass.html ;) told Romney to ignore the unconstitutional Goodridge opinion and embarrass the judges. Mysteriously, Romney rejected their advice. Why? The New York Times finally revealed four years later that, to win a coveted endorsement, Romney secretly promised the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans in 2002 that he would not defend the constitution against an illegal attempt by the judges to sneak same-sex “marriage” past the voters. ( www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/us/politics/08romney.html?_r=3&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin  )

When the Legislature did not legalize homosexual “marriage,” to fulfill his secret promise, Romney claimed that the judges had. This is a blatant lie plainly refuted by the state constitution Romney swore to uphold! He quickly found willing “conservative” lawyers, pundits and “pro-family leaders” to back him up. Rather than challenge the motives, integrity and “expertise” of their own friends and colleagues, most of the conservative establishment suddenly went silent. Ignoring his oath to faithfully enforce the statutes, Romney ordered officials to violate the marriage statutes and perform homosexual “marriages.” His Department of Public Health illegally bypassed the legislature by changing the marriage certificates from “husband” and “wife” to “Party A” and “Party B.”

Romney gave orders that illegally usurped the exclusive constitutional authority of the Legislature, as proven in this devastating “Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders.” (www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/dec_letter/letter.pdf   ). He violated multiple Articles of the Massachusetts Constitution, including one of the most vital principles of American government, which John Adams stated more forcefully than anywhere else in American law:

“In the government of this commonwealth…the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, …the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers,  …to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men. — Article XXX, Part The First

We deplore the glaring refusal of the “conservative” establishment to face the implications of a devastating article by a leading constitutional scholar, illuminating why pro-establishment attorneys have covered up Romney’s unconstitutional actions:

“The deeper failure must go to the man who stood as governor, holding the levers of the executive. And if it is countdown for marriage…it is countdown also for Mitt Romney, whose political demise may be measured along the scale of moves he could have taken and the record of his receding, step by step… [I]t became clear that even conservative lawyers had come to incorporate, and accept, the premises that gave to the courts a position of supremacy in our constitutional schemes.” — Hadley Arkes, Professor of Jurisprudence, Amherst College ( The Missing Governor, National Review Online May 17, 2004 )

We equally deplore the refusal to acknowledge the obvious truth in highly respected conservative attorney Phyllis Schlafly’s assessment:

“Massachusetts public officials … are groveling before the four judges… (Romney) said: ‘We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the [Court] and … decide ‘what kind of statute we can fashion which is consistent with the law.’
But what ‘law’? There is no law that requires or even allows same-sex marriages.” — Phyllis Schlafly ( It’s Time To Rebuke The Judicial Oligarchy (EagleForum.org, Dec. 3, 2003 )

Schlafly was right, as any honest and competent lawyer knows. The Massachusetts Constitution powerfully refutes Romney’s entire story that the judges changed marriage law and forced him to give unconstitutional orders:

“[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.” Article X, Part the First of the Massachusetts Constitution

“The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature…” Article XX, Part the First of the Massachusetts Constitution

Mitt Romney created homosexual “marriage.” His “conservative” legal experts are aggressively covering up both his role and the plain language of the Supreme Law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Issue #5.  Though Romney admitted the Goodridge opinion was not based on the Constitution and that the judges had exceeded their power, he opposed a citizen’s drive to remove the four rogue judges who violated their oaths. ( http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/09/iowa-patriots-seek-to-remove-gay.html ;)

Issue #6.  Though Romney says same-sex “marriage” will damage religious freedom and harm children, who need both a mother and a father, he personally issued more than 190 special one-day certificates to allow homosexual “marriages” to be performed by legally unqualified persons. He claims he was “just applying the marriage statutes evenly.” But as Phyllis Schlafly reminded America, and even the outlaw Goodridge judges admitted, the Massachusetts statutes do not allow homosexual “marriages,” despite Romney’s false claim that the court “legalized” homosexual “marriage. Moreover, a governor is not obliged to issue any special marriage certificates to anyone. Since Romney says same-sex “marriage” will harm children and erode religious freedom, why did he violate the marriage statutes and issue hundreds of special permits? (www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/ )

Issue #7.  As governor, to please Massachusetts’ militant homosexual groups, Romney aggressively BOOSTED government funding for pro-homosexuality indoctrination, starting in kindergarten. He refused to defend schoolchildren and parents’ rights against this indoctrination. He refused to order his education officials to obey the law guaranteeing that parents’ can protect their children from sexual brainwashing. ( www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/ ) This is a continuation of his views since 1994 when he opposed congressional efforts to protect children by banning federal funding to public schools that encourage “homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative.” His deference to militant homosexual groups’ “right” to indictrinate other people’s children was jaw-dropping:

“I think that’s a dangerous precedent in general. I would have opposed that. It also grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there’s an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it’s wrong-headed…”  (www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2006/12/romneys_thought.html )

With their silence about the illegal actions and toxic legacy of Mitt Romney, the elites are assisting a political cancer that has profound consequences for our future. If anyone has convinced themselves that so-called “same sex marriage” is a fringe issue and not a grave threat to the rule of law and to children they should read Maggie Gallagher’s stunning article “Banned in Boston.” They should also investigate the pro-homosexuality indoctrination of Massachusetts children (“It’s 1984 in Massachusetts – And Big Brother Is Gay”) which had been covert, but in the aftermath of Romney’s illegal orders imposing homosexual marriage, is swallowing up parents’ most fundamental right to protect their children and control their moral education. To remain silent about the re-engineering of the human family and child psychology, and the active and dishonest role Romney has played, is a dereliction of our highest duties. 

We are among those who believe that same-sex “marriage,” homosexual adoption and pro-homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren hasten the decline of Western Civilization in its most crucial aspects, whether the elites face that and comprehend it or not. Yet many who have the greatest obligation are cowering in the shadows or even aiding the deception. Our silence is a fatal abdication of duty to our children and future generations, a breech of faith. It is a betrayal of the honor of young soldiers dying overseas for principles that we decided in our hearts long ago require no profound sacrifice from the elites.

The truth is this: Mitt Romney’s fictional defense of natural marriage, childhood innocence, life in the womb and constitutional governance is sustained only by our silence in the face of overwhelming propaganda. Edmund Burke famously said, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
 
Dante went further: “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality.”

It is very telling of today’s “conservatism” — an endless regression of sophist ironies and nuances, dissolving, in the end, into absolutely nothing at all — that dire warnings from ancient voices seem like faint, distant echoes bouncing absurdly against rock walls far below our feet, beneath a precipice that we scaled long ago in the conceits of our modern conservative minds. 

To continue in silence or in support of the craftiness and ruthless ambition of Willard Mitt Romney betrays generations past, present and future, including our own children and grandchildren.

Pay the price of courage, friends. Tell America the truth. 

Sincerely,

Judge Ned Kirby (ret.), former Assistant Minority Leader, Massachusetts Senate
Atty. Edgar Kelley, former Assistant United States Attorney, Massachusetts District
Atty. “Robert Paine,” author: “The Governor’s New Clothes; How Mitt Romney Brought Same-Sex Marriage To America”
Dr. William Greene, President, RightMarch.com
Dr. Ted Baehr, Chairman, Christian Film and Television Commission
Linda Harvey, President, Mission America*
Gary Glenn, President, American Family Association of Michigan*
Michael Heath, Executive Director, Christian Civic League of Maine*
Ray Neary, Director, Pro-Life Massachusetts (former President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life)
John O’Gorman, Member of the Board of Directors, Massachusetts Citizens for Life
Peter LaBarbera, Founder, Republicans For Family Values; President, Americans for Truth*
Diane Gramley, President, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
John Haskins, The Parents’ Rights Coalition
Gregg Jackson, Co-host, “Pundit Review,” author: “Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies,” contributor, TownHall.com,
William Cotter, President, Operation Rescue: Boston*
Brian Camenker, President, MassResistance
Mark Charalambous, Spokesman, CPF-Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts
Nedd Kareiva, President, Stop the ACLU Coalition
Phillip Magnan, President, Biblical Family Advocates
Rev. Earle Fox, D. Phil, (Oxford), President, Road to Emmaus, School of Judeo-Christian Apologetics (www.theroadtoemmaus.org)
Janet Folger, author, columnist, President, Faith2Action
Michael W. Calsetta, Former President, Conservative Democratic Alliance
Allyson Smith, Director, Americans for Truth-California*

* For identification purposes only. All persons are signing as concerned private citizens. This information is solely for educational purposes and not in support of any candidate.

The irrefutable proof that Romney’s “conservative” lawyers are lying to America:

“Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders.”

www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/dec_letter/letter.pdf

“Governor’s New Clothes; How Mitt Romney Brought Same-Sex Marriage To America,” by Robert Paine, Esq. http://robertpaine.blogspot.com/2006/06/governors-new-clothes-how-mitt-romney_17.html

The most thorough documentation of Mitt Romney’s record anywhere is at:http://massresistance.org/romney/
Contact: John Haskins
JHaskins@ParentsRightsCoalition.org
508 480-0705

Sent from my iPad


141 posted on 02/25/2012 4:09:21 PM PST by Linda Frances (Only God can change a heart, but we can pray for hearts to be changed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Linda Frances

Thank you so much, Linda. God bless. What a Faustian choice if Romney buys the nomination. Bob


142 posted on 02/25/2012 8:05:04 PM PST by alstewartfan (27 of 36 of Romney's judicial appointments were DEMOCRATS!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-142 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson