Skip to comments.Rick Santorum predicts a convention fight with Ron Paul delegates over party platform
Posted on 06/08/2012 1:21:30 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
ROSEMONT, Ill.Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have never gotten along, and while the primaries are effectively over, their intraparty rivalry could stretch on through the summer.
With 267 delegates pledged to him so far, Santorum is planning to flex his muscle at the Republican National Convention in August, where he predicted Friday there could be a showdown over the party platform between the social conservative delegates who pledged support for him and Ron Paul's libertarian supporters. Paul's campaign predicts that about 200 delegates will attend the convention on his behalf.
Both want a piece of the party platform, but the candidates agree on very little politically. Speaking to reporters here Friday at a conservative conference, Santorum said his supporters are ready for a "fight" in Tampa.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Should be fun.
I will go myself if the romtards try to pass a communist platform.
In this case, go Santorum.
The Libertarians should try building up their own party and stop trying to co-opt the Republicans.
How Ron Paul's Minions Plan to Hijack the GOP Convention
The Daily Beast ^ | March 2, 2012 | Ryan Prior
Can Ron Paul delegates cause mischief at the RNC national convention?
Hotair ^ | 05/02/2012 | Ed Morrissey
Bless their pointy little heads............
Ron Paul and Rand Paul both claim to be prolife. We shall see.
I’m going as a Santorum delegate from KS, I can tell you that the Paul-een’s from KS aren’t as bad as elsewhere but many of the, want nowhere near a pro-life, pro-family, anti-drug policy that we agree on (which has been in place for decades.)
For libertarians they sure spend a lot of energy on telling people what to do. There already is a libertarian party, why are they bothering the GOP?
One would do well to recall that Reagan Conservatism is deeply rooted in the civil-libertarian Goldwater wing of the Republican Party.
I do not about Paul the son but Paul the old man is not.
BS. Goldwater and Bill Buckley and those types were never mainstream. Reagan may have made some agreeable remarks towards libertarians back in the 70’s. But its for damn sure his policies were nothing like the idiot lib policies of RoPaul and other libertarians of today.
WaHOO!!! This is very good news!
Conservatives deserve a convention NOT a coronation.
A platform should mean something more than fish wrap, the non-binding treatment it gets now from the GOPE.
Conservatives have VERY much in common with Ron Paul’s approach to the truth of the Constitution, to fiscal responsibility, to the intrusive FED, diluted by scores of elections, where incrementally the Republican Party has so rejected our founding history and our founders themselves that we now openly find a socialist at the top of our ticket and lawlessness coursing through the land.
God help us against further acceptance for anymore swallowing of the bare bone Pavlov tosses us, in exchange for our never ending compliance and cooperation with the Establishment and their increasingly LEFT turn.
It is NOW or never. Paul will be a huge ASSET for the Republican platform, and for fiscal accountability that defends capitalism from the abuse.
His whacky stuff will slide off the table, but much of what he aims to offer is a target that needs to be hit in the bull’s eye.
Holy Carp! To tie the kooky ideals of RoPaul to advance conservatism is the same as using the anti-Obama agit-prop of Donald Trump to advance conservatism.
True conservatives know better than to have anything to do with either of these nut-cases.
Oddly enough, it is not the disagreements at the convention that matter, but the major intersections. This means that by agreeing with each other halfway, both end up getting more than half of what they want.
To start with, let’s look at the sticking points to see “how sticky” they are.
The thing about Paul that upsets most conservatives is his foreign policy that is both non-interventionist and wants to bring much of our forces home. But oddly enough, a lot of our military is deployed on frivolous and non-critical missions around the world, in some 100 countries. We need to be in about a dozen permanent stations, with the navy handling the rest.
Likewise, the Pentagon is as ridiculous with its budget in some ways as the state legislature of California. It needs to have its priorities straightened out so we are no longer buying $3b destroyers that can’t pass their sea trials.
As such, the Pentagon could be streamlined by hundreds of billions of dollars annually, yet give us a *more* effective military. I think conservatives would agree with that. In exchange, Paul gives up the “total isolationism” part.
Another problem is abortion, but not really. Paul is not pro-abortion, but is instead for leaving it up to the states as not federal business. Since most states are red states, the end result would be *less* abortion. No problem with that, either.
While Santorum is heavily law and order, he is fighting against the tide when it comes to drug decriminalization. The War on Drugs is an unmitigated disaster, and by downgrading it, at least by declaring “soft drugs” no longer a federal matter, the US saves tens or hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
Bottom line, though he *wants* to exercise federal power for social issues, most conservatives would be happier if he just left it up to the states and exercised *less* federal power. We all benefit with *less* federal everything.
Once over these issues, the areas of agreement are pretty broad, like ending Obamacare and the welfare state, reducing the size and cost of the federal government, etc.
Now if the two of them agree to use their delegates to block the onerous Romney, we are getting somewhere.
Paul will never get the nomination, nor will Santorum. But another conservative, a real conservative will have a very good chance on a second ballot.
Will someone explain to me how important the party platform really is?
Do any presidents or congress critters actually stick to it once they get in office? Seems to me its only purpose is to get out the vote. But does it really make a difference in what happens once the election is over and the winners have to actually govern?
IMHO this can only be good.
Romney has to know that the party, is not the liberal/socialist party
We have to (figuratively) beat it into his finely haircutted haid
Wrong Paul and his anarchist supporters should be shown the door once and for all once the convention is over.
The platform doesn’t mean ONE DAMN THING these days.
Back in the days when the only info voters had was The Party Platform printed in the local paper, it mattered a lot.
Today, it means absolutely nothing. All you have to do is look at the Dem/Repub Party Platforms for the last 30 years for that.
“Reagan Conservatism is deeply rooted in the civil-libertarian Goldwater wing”
Reagan never entertained the legalization of drugs, prostitution, or the promotion of any form of homosexuality.
He was furthermore a hawk on defense.
Like all conservatives, he was at one with the Libertarians on most fiscal issues.
That is all.
I have been looking for some coverage on this topic.
oh I agree with you...
the libertarians are STRICT constitutionalists..
The republicans are socialist lite...
if forced to choose, I choose the strict constitutionalists..
socialism is the enemy of the republic..
they may claim to be pro life, and we will have to see..
but romney is the father of the 50 dollar abortion, and forcing the state to pay for abortions..
now, with that being said, which side of the argument are you on?
They are trying to take over the GOP as they are not big enough to win a Presidential election as a Libertian Party. I do NOT like RonBots!
There were a couple that were shown the door at the Missouri State Convention! Gooooooooooo Missouri.
I really don't care about this kind of dog and pony stuff. I just wish they would stick to the Constitution.
Ron Paul scared hell out of me with his foreign policy ideas.
But otherwise, he sounded like a pretty solid Constitutionalist, most of the time. He often strays to the libertarian (e.g. anarchy) side of the ledger, but I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing. Are we FREE or not?
Remember, “liberty” means being freedom to do any damn thing you want, without government intervention. As in, LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE. Many things we take for granted as federally “controlled” and “illegal” should in fact be untouched by any federal oversight. (State oversight is another issue.) Limited government, anyone?
I’ll reserve judgement until I see the Ron Paul platform planks.
Reagan was a conservative that didn’t care for the libertarian party and their anti social conservatism and weak defense positions.
Libertarians are soldiers of the left.
Now you can post that single lame quote from the Nixon/Ford era from candidate Reagan in 1975 when he was being interviewed by a libertarian magazine for a libertarian audience.
No they aren't, creating abortion and homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption is not constitutional, it is just the wildly left weirdos coming at conservative America with a new vocabulary.
Important enough to Santorum that in 1996 he was endorsing the removal of the pro-life plank and ending the GOP as the pro-life party.
Tell that to the unborn kids, or those enjoying being raised by two fags.
Well, you know what they say; never get between a libertarian and his hookers and blow. Do you know how to create a libertarian? Just take a conservative and remove all common sense.
Libertarians know as much about the constitution as Fred Phelps knows about the Bible.
Good analysis and I agree, but I don’t think we’re going to see any “balloting” or the possibility of another nominee. The cards at the Presidential level have been dealt. We get a fresh deck for Congress.
the lack of intellegence toward libertarians on this site is just amazing..
I am a small l libertarian, which means i lean farther to the right than conservative..
not all libertarians are nut jobs, just like all republicans are not conservatives...
I do not buy into abortion ( that is why i will not vote for romney )..
I beleive there should be no restrictions on possession of firearms ( that is why i will not vote for romney )....
I beleive in smaller government and less governmental interference in my life ( that is why i will not vote for romney )....
I beleive in lower taxes and less spending ( that is why i will not vote for romney )...
this site has been infiltrated, not by libs, but by republicans..
we here are hard core conservatives, aome of us with libertarian leanings..
the only person I know of that created homo adoptions and abortion on demand is.... romney..
who are the real conservatives here?
not anyone that backs romney..
If I am forced to choose between a baby killing, gay marriage advocate, gun grabbing, big government tax and spend socialist, or a constitutionalist that promotes isolationism, I can deal with 4 years of isolationism.
I cannot deal with 4 years of watching the conservative movement die, and die it will, if romney gets into the white house..
I am the 15%
don’t ask me... ask your buddy romney... he is the father of the 50 dollar on demand abortion, and signed into law gay marriage and gay adoption rights..
Is this who you champion to run this country?
If you condemn and recoil at the Libertarian Party platform then you aren’t a libertarian.
“dont ask me... ask your buddy romney..”
Who says Romney is my buddy? What is your problem?
It will be interesting what non-christian Romney insists on in the platform.
do you consider (as some do), me as a non-christian, as I was born and raised Roman Catholic?
granted the Mormons have some pretty strange(to my mind) beliefs(I use the south park explanation of Mormonism as my rule of thumb)...but they still include Jesus Christ in their official title...
at least its not “Mosque of Muhammed the child molester of latter day saints”....like some _residents we know.
Individual freedom? sounds like libertarian and paleo conservative to me...at least to a point.
I believe the the big L libertarians who wont defend America when she is attacked is the deal breaker for most ‘libertarian/conservatives’
Try substituting the stripping away of any other God-given, unalienable right for the word "abortion" in your paragraph, and see how this holds up to inspection.
Unlimited, unrestrained, Abortion including partial birth, homosexual marriage/adoption/military/custody, polygamy, open borders (truly open, firing the Border Patrol), getting out of the way of science and advertising related to drugs already in existence and whatever the drug world can come up with through mixing and research. Openly advertised and marketed, mainstreamed, routine prostitution.
Hopefully there is more that drives conservatives to fight and call out the left’s new attack on America, called libertarianism, than them just being weak on defense.
Those sound like big L libertarian talking points.
The founding fathers spoke of Liberty, and I follow the liberties as they are spelled out in the Declaration and the Constitution.
Do you have a problem with that kind of libertarian?
By the way I don’t care are what consenting adults do in private. As long as they don’t prostelitize with children.
The childish fantasy of ignoring reality and writing a personal dream script for an impossible world (ie, communism works perfectly in theory)is why both you and Noam Chomsky are libertarians, and neither one conservatives.
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.