Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rick Santorum visits the Gem State (Idaho)
KIVI-TV ^ | 2/14/12 | Jaclyn Brandt

Posted on 02/14/2012 9:48:34 PM PST by Domandred

Republican Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum visited Boise tonight to a packed house at Capitol High School. More than 30 minutes before the speech started, the 1300 capacity auditorium was full and any new arrivals were sent to a spillover gym across campus.

Santorum started his speech speaking about his family. There was applause when he spoke about his seven children, ranging in ages from 3 to 20. He said “Last time I said I had 7 children, I was in NY, and there wasn’t applause. I bet a lot of you have that many children.”

He also used his family to talk about who he is, and perhaps even his other challengers. “If I am the only one who accepts the challenge of faith and family, I will take that.”

The rest of the speech was aimed against the Obama administration and other government. He also spoke about global warming, Habeas Corpus, Obama’s health insurance plan, religious freedom and contraception. There were a few mentions of his now-famous sweater vests.

He was well received by most the audience, although a few times throughout the night a jeer was shouted out. Besides that, there were no demonstrations or other hecklers apparent.

At one point he pulled out his pocket copy of the Declaration of Independence and said “We are the greatest country in the history of the world.” When he read the line “endowed by their creator” there was much applause when he emphasized the word “creator.” He followed the applause with “You people in Idaho know these things.”

He then spoke of how he believes it is our now our duty to do the right thing for our country, pushing the point that “We will be the last stand.”

There were many state legislators in attendance, Russ Fulcher and Bob Nonini being two. Treasurer Ron Crane was also in the crowd.

Santorum finished his speech with the thought that “That’s what every election is about…the future.”

Santorum then took about 30 minutes of questions from the crowd.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Idaho
KEYWORDS: idaho; ricksantorum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last
To: C. Edmund Wright
I think Rick Santorum would be a disaster for the Republican Party.

Yeah. I heard that from Howard Baker and George Bush supporters in '80. They were right. The mushy moderates in the party were given a back seat to Conservatism. A genuine disaster to the party in their eyes.

41 posted on 02/15/2012 10:23:04 AM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

Comparing Santorum to Reagan is a flaming insult to Reagan. Rick is way more moderate, way less talented, way less persuasive and frankly just not worthy of shining Reagan’s shoes.

Assuming I was in the Howard Baker George Bush camp is just blithering. I was Reagan all the way. What you refuse to acknowledge is that Santorum IS a moderate beltway big government Republican who happens to emphasize social issues.

Here are Rick’s key campaign points from his last campaign:
Worked with John McCain on Campaign Finance
Supported more funding Headstart.
Supported record high federal spending public schools.
Senate leader in getting tax money for Bono’s crusades on AIDS
Senate leader in getting tax money for Bono’s third world crusade.
Sponsored legislation to force companies to pay benefits to laid off workers. (FAIR CARE ACT)
WROTE minimum wage increases (for his union buddies)
Supported legislation to get federal tax dollars for PA fire fighters (union pay out)
Helped secured tax money for clean coal plant in PA.
Ardent supporter of more tax funding for Chesapeake Bay.
Teamed up with Lieberman on spending tax money for low income families savings accounts matching.
Authored legislation “CARE ACT” - tax funding to “strengthen” non profits (a major crony industry)
Authored the Pet Animal Welfare Statute (bringing feds into the pet industry)
Introduced Gasoline Affordability Act - price fixing on “big oil.”
Leader in protecting more tax spending to pay heating bills for low income families.
Co Sponsor of GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE legislation helping PA’s small biz provide health insurance.
Supported government oversight of private pensions “Pension Security and Transparency Act”
Supported “IDEA”, increasing federal funding for special needs children.
Joined with Chris Dodd on increased federal funding for Lyme Disease care.
Led to keep congress from cutting foodstamps.

yeah, just like Reagan /sarc


42 posted on 02/15/2012 11:11:37 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
Yeah. But this guy is the gold standard for modern Conservative thought?

And lets not forget Newts DC lobbying gigs and recent books like Contract with the Earth. You slam Santorum for so called unforgivable assaults against Conservatism, yet not a word defending your guy. Santorum has discussed all these past transgressions and has made coherent explanations on them. Newts explanation on his past? It was all a mistake.

On Reagan's record, he raised taxes as Governor and signed pro Abortion legislation. If he were running today, I would hear nothing but that stuff all through these threads and how he was a RINO. You seem hell bent on slamming the only man standing between sanity and a Mittens nomination. Milt would be a guaranteed loss for the GOP. Santorum can and will win if nominated and judging by the traction he is getting in the swing states, that is becoming a greater possibility by the minute.

43 posted on 02/15/2012 11:36:56 AM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

Thanks for explicitly providing nothing of substance, as usual.


44 posted on 02/15/2012 12:05:02 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

First of all, it you want to have a substantive discussion there is one to be had on Newt’s conservatism. But don’t throw up a bunch of pictures. That’s childish and non substantive.

So, here Is the substantive and pertinent facts:
Newt’s dalliances are well known, well admitted, and rarely have anything to do with how he governed or campaigned. They were mostly thought experiments.

Newt has a more conservatie voting record than Santorum (by a small percentage) and he has a lot more conservative accomplishment than Santorum does (Contract w America, forcing clinton to the left, winning the house after 40 years, etc.).

Meanwhile, Rick’s liberal dalliances are mostly part of his voting record ANd how he campaigned. And he has run THIS campaign as if that is not the case. It is the case.

Rick has run as the wind driven snow conservative, and it’s simply not the case.

Them’s the pertinent facts. Do not be shocked if a major personality starts to backtrack and bring this to everyone’s attention in the next day or two.


45 posted on 02/15/2012 12:10:49 PM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster

The idiots think that if they can keep us on defense, nobody will look at Rick’s poor record and pitiful platform for themselves or question his own past and present misdeeds throughout the campaign, including his sanctimonious claim of being the “true conservative” because he has 7 kids, smiles in family photos, and looks good drenched in makeup.

They expect everyone to relax and accept it lest we elect someone who actually has a platform.


46 posted on 02/15/2012 12:12:50 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

“Them’s the pertinent facts. Do not be shocked if a major personality starts to backtrack and bring this to everyone’s attention in the next day or two.”

I hope you’re right. Major personalities though haven’t exactly been terribly reliable this cycle. They seem more interested in covering their own a**es than in anything else.


47 posted on 02/15/2012 12:24:53 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600

I know that there’s a back channel effort that is being made over next day or so to at least one - the big one - about this. The channels are good channels. The case to be made is a good one. How the big guy reacts is something I cannot predict for sure.


48 posted on 02/15/2012 12:28:37 PM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright

A picture is worth a thousand words and those three pretty well sum up that last 10 years of Newts political philosophy since leaving office. Running state wide in a blue state for two terms is far different that maintaining a red state house seat in a Conservative district. Newt could afford to have a higher ACU rating. Unfortunately, this race is going to be fought in swing states where some of Santorums past clinkers are not looked at as unacceptable like they are here on FR. I live in the ex home of Mack Trucks and Bethlehem Steel. Even GOP voters do not look at unions as a totally evil entity. Santorum speaks to those people. OH and MI are full of those voters as well. People are not seeing these votes you bring up as issues. What they do see as problems is TARP, Bailouts and Obamacare added to the overall over regulation by the Regime. Santorum has clean hands on those issues and a solid positive message on ending and removing these barriers to prosperity. BTW, I notice you like to play inside baseball predicting so and so is going to do this and that to shake up the race. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and FReepmail me who said what and we will see exactly how omnipotent you are in 2 days time?

49 posted on 02/15/2012 12:58:47 PM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

You are smug, self righteous, and hold others to higher standards than you hold yourself. Gee, I wonder who you could POSSIBLY be for? /sarc

I am not claiming ominipotence - I simply am fairly well connected and fairly deeply involved. I know that certain people will find out information that they are not aware of currently. What I do NOT know - and I admitted as much - is HOW they will react once they do. And I don’t know that.

Nothing to do with a seance or ESP at all.

And for the record, I am not going to give Rick a pass for being from Pennsylvania since the little snot refuses to give Perry a pass on the realities of immigration for being from Texas or Mitt a pass on governing Massachusetts or Newt a pass for dealing with a Democrat President.

Can’t have it both ways - unless you rock a sweater vest I guess.


50 posted on 02/15/2012 2:06:28 PM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
You are smug, self righteous, and hold others to higher standards than you hold yourself. Gee, I wonder who you could POSSIBLY be for? /sarc

If you would bother to read the posts in the Santorum threads you constantly Troll, you would know I am one of the people running the Santorum For President Ping. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know who I have been openly for over the past year.

As for your claiming to be "connected" to inside matters regarding politics, I rather doubt it. I figure your about as connected to this stuff as the drunk expert at the end of the bar who tells everyone how to bet on the big game because his uncle knows a guy who knows a guy. Tell me the name of the "Big Personality" and what you think they are going to do or don't bother positing it. Your nebulous Carnac predictions don't tell anyone anything.

I don't care if you give Rick a pass or hate him to the core. My issue with you and your compatriots is the fact that you are constantly rolling into Santorum thread with your accusations and innuendos without a constructive thing to add. We have seen your posts using DU talking points about his wife. There are plenty of Newt threads here where you all can commiserate on what an awful campaigning he is running and how he doesn't deliver wins against Milt.

51 posted on 02/15/2012 2:26:35 PM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600

Wow! I didn’t realize personal attacks on a candidate’s family was deemed a “platform” by the Newters. I’ll have to remember that next time I confront a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth Newt supporter.


52 posted on 02/15/2012 5:49:24 PM PST by RasterMaster ("Towering genius disdains a beaten path." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster

How about instead of being so dishonest with yourself and dishonestly attacking me, you actually respond to something of actual substance here.


53 posted on 02/15/2012 5:56:27 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600

LOL! As if you’ve contributed to anything substantive other than baseless personal attacks.


54 posted on 02/15/2012 6:03:16 PM PST by RasterMaster ("Towering genius disdains a beaten path." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA

“If you would bother to read the posts in the Santorum threads you constantly Troll, you would know I am one of the people running the Santorum For President Ping. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know who I have been openly for over the past year.”

Which doesn’t really give you permission to surrender your objectivity. You basically deteriorate every debate on this topic by shoveling BS and refusing to acknowledge or confront anything that hurts your position. It’s like we’re talking to a robot that’s simply programmed to spin responses out. On top of that, you rely heavily on weird character smears on the people you’re talking with. Pretty soon you’ll be attacking him for being an anti-Catholic and of hating all the little children.

It’s utterly obnoxious.


55 posted on 02/15/2012 6:05:39 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster

Yea, I’ve challenged you bozos multiple times to actually try arguing from Santorum’s platform, explaining how it is superior to Newt’s, as opposed to simply putting out one liners about how the other candidate isn’t trustworthy. In response, you guys just squeeze right into the clown car, honking your horns.

And just a second ago you accused me of attacking Santorum’s family, which you cannot demonstrate that I did. That’s pretty freaking desperate. If you can’t see what you’re doing, it would explain why you refuse to acknowledge anything other people say on these matters!

Look at Saint Rick’s record and tell me that he’s the “true conservative”. And after that, look at his platform and explain to me how it’s better. The arguments against Newt quickly fade away with an objective look at both of them, and so it must be handled by looking at platform and strategy.

Newt wins that exchange, so you don’t play.


56 posted on 02/15/2012 6:09:29 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600

Thanks for proving my point again with more baseless personal attacks. Wipe the spittle from your chin and re-read your own posts sometime when your vision hasn’t been impared.

Santorum never once jumped on the Gorebull Warming loveseat with Natzi Pelosi and coddled with Jean-Fraud Kerry and Al Gwhore, thought it was a great idea to appoint Hitlery for Secretary of Defense, flip-flopped on Libyan intervention, nor considered a race-baiting poverty pimp like Al Sharpton as an “expert” on education.

What else does Newt do in his “spare time”??? He’s been very busy: pushing for ethanol subsidies, government-mandated healthcare, medicare drug benefit, TARP, expanded government involvement in education and other “reforms” all the DUmocrats wanted to get passed.

Newt’s 20-year stance on Gorebull warming and healthcare will kill the economy just as Obama-Romney care, if not quicker, since he’d have backing of both parties in congress to do it.

Newt has exhibited extremely poor judgement on the many occasions listed above for consideration as President or to be considered as a self-described “REAGAN CONSERVATIVE”.

His support of closet amnesty for illegals is just the latest dealbreaker for me, but I started looking into his record and background when he started rising in the polls (before sinking like a rock) and was reminded again why I didn’t trust the guy.

Sorry, unlike some on this forum, I don’t get WEAK IN THE KNEES whenever someone gives a decent speech. He said plenty on numerous occasions that should give conservatives reason to pause, but that’s hard to do when your screaming like a 14-year old Beeber groupie whenever he gets an applause line.


57 posted on 02/15/2012 6:35:55 PM PST by RasterMaster ("Towering genius disdains a beaten path." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster

“Thanks for proving my point again with more baseless personal attacks. Wipe the spittle from your chin and re-read your own posts sometime when your vision hasn’t been impared.”

Unlike you, I wasn’t pretending I was holier than thou with “personal attacks”. That seems to be a funny pattern with you and your candidate that goes straight over your head.

An objective review of Santorum’s record does not lead one to conclude that the “true conservative” label belongs to him, and everyone else is scum. An objective review reveals that all of your “trust” attacks on Newt can easily be applied against Saint Rick. Hence the name “Saint Rick”, because he lies about it just as easily as you ignore it.

On the other hand, we do see quite a good deal that is good in Newt’s record. One must be utterly ignorant of his good work for us in congress and as a Speaker in order to critique him as a liberal. And one must perform all sorts of mental gymnastics to square the idea that Newt is a closet commie with the fact that the moderate RINOs have been his most vicious attackers and deceivers regarding his history.

There is good stuff in Saint Rick’s record, such as his long running emphasis on Islam. However, he blows it all out of the water with his behavior during this campaign. My problem with taking him at his word at this point is that he has been quite deceptive about his record and about the platform and record of Newt. And not just Newt, but against Cain, Perry, and so on and so forth. When you have a guy who basically knee-jerk reactions to everything he hears from an opponent with something negative... that is quite off putting. It is even more off putting when he joins with the Romney propaganda chorus, while at the same time claiming to be “above it all”. It’s pure politics and ticks me off incredibly. But you simply won’t acknowlge Saint Rick’s record and you are simply incapable of discussing his actual platform and comparing it to Newt’s. Unfortunately, the same is true of Saint Rick himself! That’s why he embraces the social issues, sine that’s honestly all he has.

And fyi, you’re basically accusing Newt of being a liar here, since he has repudiated all of the things you’ve stuck on him. Not only has he repudiated them, he’s admitted to them and offered solutions. At least with the Global warming thing, in his Climate Contract book (and I was a big critic of this early on) Newt at least tackled the mythological problem of GW with “conservative” type solutions, such as encouraging the free market to invest in green energy. One can say it was a strategic move to steal the GW issue away from the libs so it couldn’t be used against Republicans. With Santorum there is no similar repudiation. He either ignores it entirely, or pretends he had no choice. And then he has the nerve to apply a standard of conservatism over Newt that he himself would quickly fail.

I challenged you to address and argue from Santorum’s platform, explaining HOW it is better than Newt’s. Instead, as I specifically said that you would do, you immediately come back with a post basically calling Newt a liar, a low down dirty politician who supported this or that in his past. Nevermind the sweet irony that Santorum just doesn’t stand up to those same standards.

And keep in mind just who Newt REALLY is. To ignore his leadership, his accomplishments, and his ideas, is simply criminal.


58 posted on 02/15/2012 6:54:02 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: RasterMaster

And by the way. Please stop with the dishonesty. Either put up or shut up. You accused me of “attacking” Santorum’s family. Prove I did, or quit lying to me, or at least acknowledge that you are wrong.

Maybe if you do that, it’ll be the first step to free you from the delusion that Santorum really is a Saint.


59 posted on 02/15/2012 6:55:22 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600
Obviously there is no standard regarding Newt's record, other than claiming his alignment with DUmocrats were all "mistakes" that should be explained away without substantial demonstration of a "change of heart". He admits his long-time support of such issues were mistakes, then devotes himself to making new ones.

"When you have a guy who basically knee-jerk reactions to everything he hears from an opponent with something negative... that is quite off putting."

That describes Newt's reaction all through the campaign and most likely a reason for his decline since the latest news coming out from his staff is now claiming he's once again "changed" focus of his campaign after losing ground through baseless attacks he himself was guilty of.

Newt has a long history of talking a good game, making it a point during this campaign to say “all the good things” (we’ve already got one of those in the White House). I'll take a leader who LIVES IT every day and doesn’t run the ball for the other team during his down time.

60 posted on 02/15/2012 7:18:49 PM PST by RasterMaster ("Towering genius disdains a beaten path." - Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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