Skip to comments.Santorum's Propery Rights Problem
Posted on 03/02/2012 6:50:42 PM PST by Apollo5600
I found two reviews of Santorum's book "It Takes a Family." There are some interesting quotes and perspectives that are worth perusing. The first is negative, the latter is a positive review.
After reading Santorum's quotes, I can't help but to think that Santorum is gravely confused regarding conservative philosophy. It explains his comments against Libertarianism, and why the Libertarians make big hay over Santorum's comments against "personal autonomy." It appears as if Santorum believes it is the government's duty to promote the family and "morality," but not necessarily to make government smaller.
Also thank true believer forever, fellow freeper, for that image/expose of Santorum’s amendment. I just put “Fellow Freeper” as the author.
It definitely opens up discussion of a serious problem within Santorum’s overall philosophy.
Santorum used to describe himself as a “Progressive Conservative”.
Point well made.
I think I’m going to puke now. It just goes to show that if a politician says the word ‘G-d’ enough in his speeches, there are enough idiots on our side to think he’s a moral person.
I come out of the Theodore Roosevelt LaFollette progressive tradition. - Newt Gingrich
Interesting, to say the least.
“Fannie Mae is an excellent example of a former government institution fulfilling its mandate while functioning in the market economy. - Newt Gingrich
I think conservatives were “projecting” themselves onto Santorum, because he seemed to share their same values. This is why people get so offended when Santorum’s record gets attacked. It’s basically like attacking them.
Conservatives must realize that Santorum really isn’t like them at all.
That was quite the little con you pulled there.
You not only did not give the context, but you cut off the last two words of that sentence and even added a period, to make it something it wasn’t.
PHD history professor Gingrich was talking about corruption and reform.
“I’ve always said I came out of the Theodore Roosevelt-LaFollette progressive tradition of reform,” Gingrich told CSPAN. “I always knew that if you’re dealing with genuine corruption, people will come after you.”
He added that “in every campaign against me that they did, they tried, when people actually looked at the evidence, they concluded in the end that I hadn’t done anything.”
Absolute excellence, ansel12!
Exposed Rightwing Conspiratr1 as though he were writing for Mitt Romney or Santorum...LOL.
Yes, Rick Santorum was pro-abortion, and first ran as a "Progressive Conservative", and that is what he had printed into his campaign materials.
Santorum supported Arlen Specter for President
Here is who Santorum wanted for President, (and years later saved him in a Senate race).
"For Specter, who later became a Democrat, his pro-abortion-rights position was a centerpiece of his campaign. Specter believed that anti-abortion activists were a fringe group hijacking the Republican party.
There are clearly more Republicans who are pro-choice, Specter told Newsdays Susan Page. Up until now, I am the only person willing to take on the fringe. After Specter dropped out of the race, he led an ill-fated movement to change the anti-abortion provision in the Republican party platform."
Your quote is from 1995, and Newt was speaking about the business model several GSEs had adopted putting them into the private sector. They screwed that up royally...
For YEARS Freddie/Fannie have been known to be corrupt.
And Gingrich was pointing out HOW CORRUPT they were, even in 2008.
Here is a transcript of Newt saying on CSPAN, how horrible Freddie and Fannie were managed and they should be dismantled...
“Governing & Political Change” held in St. Paul, Minnesota.
September 3, 2008
“Bachmann: The question is on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
and the outrage and will it go private? or where are Fannie Mae and Feddie Mac going to go?
Gingrich: Well, I think this is one of the great tests of reform- of a populist reform conservatism.
There is ZERO reasons to bail out these two institutions.
They have violated the fundamental principle of why
they were created.
And I did a fair amount of-... Let me be right up front...
I did a fair amount of work with Freddie Mac, looking at
it, consulting it, but not at a fiduciary level, but at a
general public policy level.
I am appalled at the degree of management
irresponsibility that both places have had, and I think
they should be treated precisely like a private sector institution,
And the stockholders, and the senior management should
fundamentally have to bear the brunt...
I don’t think you want to let them go broke, because
they’re enormous, and that has a BIG second and third order
consequence on the system.
But I think what you want to say, is as a consequence of
their survival, they should be broken up, they should
go thru the equivalent of a receivership, and everybody who
was profiting from them should pay the cost of having failed.
And the general taxpayer should NOT bear that burden.
and I think that could be handled totally different.
But there is ZERO reason, now that they’ve failed...
I was perfectly happy to not PUSH the issue, as long as
they weren’t failing, but NOW that they’ve clearly failed their fiduciary responsibility, there is zero reason for the average taxpayer to bail out these institutions.
And their senior managements have been DISGRACEFUL
in the mismanagement, particularly I think, of Fannie
Mae which had huge, huge, internal problems
in terms of accounting, in a way you can’t quite understand...
How could people run an institution THAT badly? “
(Here is Royyal Wulff’s pointer to that historical video clip)
That’s absolutely devastating.
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.