Posted on 01/06/2012 10:00:48 AM PST by Fred
I’m rather tired of all the people who don’t like Romney trying to claim Rick Santorum is not a big government conservative, or not a pro-life statist. I would support him before I would support Romney too, but I have no intention of giving up ideological and intellectual consistency in the name of beating Mitt Romney.
Rick Santorum is a pro-life statist. He is. You will have to deal with it. He is a big government conservative. Santorum is right on social issues, but has never let his love of social issues stand in the way of the creeping expansion of the welfare state. In fact, he has been complicit in the expansion of the welfare state.
I and some friends, none of us Romney fans, have set about exploring Santorum’s record since Wednesday morning. Here now is a non-exhaustive list of what we have found. It does not even include his support for No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, etc.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Newt is our Churchill. I just detest the constant trashing of our own team (except for Huntsman) by people who call themselves "conservatives".
Who is Huntsman? candidate for???
It’s more about politicians who, on the one hand please conservatives with social positions they like—pro-life, anti-gay marriage, etc. And then on the other hand screw them with big government proposals—out of control spending, ‘compassionate’ social programs, etc.
Santorum has shown himself to be that kind of a politician, over and over again.
And it’s NOT just about his voting record. You can make all the excuses in the world about Santorum’s voting record that you want to—argue that it’s irrelevant because the votes were part of omnibus spending packages, or that these were pragmatically ‘necessary’ votes to please vital constituencies, etc.
But the fact still remains that statements which Santorum has made, articulating his philosophy of governance, indicate that he is no friend of limited government.
Now, I’m willing to give a man benefit of the doubt that he can change. I don’t hold quite the same views I did 5-10 years ago, and I’ll bet in 5-10 years my views will be slightly different yet. But until I see demonstrable proof that Santorum’s convictions have changed when it comes to essential fundaments of limited government, I will remain decidedly leery of a Santorum presidency.
2) We have to choose one candidate from this hugely flawed slate of candidates
3)To choose one of these candidates... we must all admit that they are all flawed in some way... none of them are without their violations of our Ideology... and we must decide who amongst this group will be our candidate to challenge obama
What makes some of us mad is that far too many here on FR try to paint their choice as Reagan... first we need to be honest with ourselves if we expect Americans to embrace and vote for our choice. If you go into this election thinking that any of these people will govern like Reagan... you are setting yourselves up for disappointment. We must make this hard choice and contrasting and debating these candidates is the only way to do that.
LLS
My apologies, did not mean to put words in your mouth.
I understand your arguments. I do. I have heard the same arguments for years about Mike Huckabee.
No one (but an idiot) discounts his SoCon values. But plenty of right wingers take issue with his being a Nanny Stater.
OK, I can see that. But I would ENTHUSIASTICALLY support a “pro life statist” like Santorum or Huck over an abortion flip-flopper like Romney.
Wouldn’t you?
No problem my friend... regardless... we are all conservatives and we have to get through this together.
LLS
Of course, it is. And, members attacking the alternatives to Romney like Fred get away with claiming to principled conservatives with no candidate of their own. But, all Freddie and other "principled" whiners are doing is assuring Romney splits the conservative vote and wins the nomination.
I think that's exactly the reaction the GOP establishment has worked to cultivate in reponse to anyone who'd argue for limiting the federal government to only what's within the original intent of it's enumerated powers.
They'll talk about eliminating agencies or regulations because they're unpopular, not because they're unconstitutional. They don't promise to give the power back to the States, they want to keep it and just promise to abuse it a little less.
Then, get behind Santorum or Newt, nit wit, rather than whining, pissing and moaning about how lousy they are. All you're doing is helping Romney. It's sickening.
The perfect candidate doesn't exist. Obama and Romney will set back the nation and the conservative movement decades. Given that, anyone with a brain realizes conservatives have rally around the best alternative, perfect or not.
Waaaaa...Get over it or curl up in the fetal position, put a blanket over your head and give up and let the rational amongst us concentrate on defeating Romney and Obama.
Then, they are better candidates than Romney for that reason alone. So stop attacking better alternatives to Romney unless you want to out yourself as a Mittbot.
Santorum has a strong relationship with God. So stop tearing him down and paving the way for a dishonest piece of human debris like Mitt Romney, who signed gay marriage into law, attended Planned Parenthood fundraisers and included $50 abortions in this healthcare plan.
If you don't get Santorum or Newt is a vastly better candidate than Romney, you're behind the ability to reason.
Been thinking about it, and yeah I could reluctantly come around to voting for Santorum if it came down to the wire between him and Romney.
I’d certainly never support Romney in any event—even if the nominee. I’d probably end up asphyxiating on my own vomit in the midst of trying to utter words of support for that guy.
I’m just concerned about the caricature the Left would make of Santorum if he were nominee. Because you know the Left will scaremonger about everything but the real issues, and exclaim how Santorum is a bible-thumper who’s coming to take their porn away, etc. And I hope Santorum would have the charisma to bust through that kind of narrative-spinning, but I don’t know if he does.
My personal preference is obviously Newt, because I think that he’s exactly what’s needed—philosophically, experientially, and personality-wise—for the kind of harsh, bitter, ideological fight this country needs right now against the Left. I’d rather see Santorum in a VP capacity, because he’s young and I think might have potential to make a good successor.
Been thinking about it, and yeah I could reluctantly come around to voting for Santorum if it came down to the wire between him and Romney.
I’d certainly never support Romney in any event—even if the nominee. I’d probably end up asphyxiating on my own vomit in the midst of trying to utter words of support for that guy.
I’m just concerned about the caricature the Left would make of Santorum if he were nominee. Because you know the Left will scaremonger about everything but the real issues, and exclaim how Santorum is a bible-thumper who’s coming to take their porn away, etc. And I hope Santorum would have the charisma to bust through that kind of narrative-spinning, but I don’t know if he does.
My personal preference is obviously Newt, because I think that he’s exactly what’s needed—philosophically, experientially, and personality-wise—for the kind of harsh, bitter, ideological fight this country needs right now against the Left. I’d rather see Santorum in a VP capacity, because he’s young and I think could have potential to make a good successor if he can get weaned off the big government track.
Rick Santorum is a social conservative. He is not a fiscal conservative, and this nation is in a full-on plunge into fiscal disaster. I want a nominee whose candidacy and message are about the economy and the need to shrink the federal government - why is this not possible?
go to hell, and quit acting like a stupid paultard, no body tells me to get in line...
Rick Santorum is a social conservative. He is not a fiscal conservative, and this nation is in a full-on plunge into fiscal disaster. I want a nominee whose candidacy and message are about the economy and the need to shrink the federal government - why is this not possible?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ll tell you why. Because if you are not a social conservative - you cannot be a fiscal conservative.
In other words - if your core values are kaput - you can dang sure bet your fiscal values are leftist.
Can you name me one politician who is fiscally correct, but socially liberal?
Erick Erickson is reminding me of how glad I am to be a regular at Free Republic and one who has never posted at Red State
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.