Religious leaders rally behind Rick Santorum

Los Angeles Times ^ | January 14, 2011 | Kim Geiger

[rob777]

I guess the bitter Newtie nitwits will equally dismiss every conservative who endorses Santorum over their “golden boy”.


People are free to support whoever they want. When a group of people gets together in a meeting to decide who "conservatives" are going to support, that comes off as a bit presumptuous.

[rob777]

"Well, they’re going to find out."


So far, it is not working out very well: http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/poll-mitt-romney-leads-ron-paul-by-20-points-in-south-carolina/ Romeny now has a bigger lead than he ever did.

[darrellmaurina]

26 posted on Saturday, January 14, 2012 1:55:39 PM by TitansAFC (Rick Santuckabee is 2012’s version of Mike Huckatorum. Avoid Conservicide voting; support Newt!!): “You guys are spot on. One problem we need to deal with next election is Iowa. We have got to preemptively nip the religious leaders there in the bud before they propel another one-percenter with no money or organization into a bona fide vote splitter. I have had enough Santuckabees for one lifetime.”

Blast it, man... what do you not understand about the fact that the Republican Party and the conservative movement both draw a large part of their support from Christian conservatives? We don't control the party or the movement, but in large parts of the United States, Republicans can't win elections without us, just as we can't win elections without other conservatives whose focus is on something other than abortion, gay rights, or other moral issues.

I don't appreciate one bit your comments about needing “to preemptively nip the religious leaders there in the bud.” I expect such stuff out of Democrats. I don't expect such comments from fellow conservatives.

The conservative movement consists of social conservatives, economic conservatives, and national defense conservatives. Those are overlapping and not mutually exclusive constituencies — some of us are all three — but the fact is that we all have far more in common with each other than we do with the Democratic Party.

We all need each other if our goal is to win elections. Frankly, for a lot of us evangelical Protestants, we're already having to compromise a great deal to not just vote for but aggressively support a conservative Roman Catholic. Both Gingrich and Santorum would be denied communion in my church, as I would be barred from the Mass in theirs, and we regard each other as being members of churches which are in very serious doctrinal error if not actually apostate false churches.

If we social conservatives are willing to compromise on something that to us is literally a matter of eternal importance so we can help get a pro-life candidate elected, I think we can expect you to show at least a little bit of courtesy to us as part of the conservative coalition. We know we need you, and before you start your pre-emptive war on Christian conservatives, you'd better not forget that you need us, too.

[af_vet_rr]

And yet we had FReepers getting spastic over Perry signing an instate tuition bill in TX when the bill went through the legislature by a vote of 170-4

Do you believe that Rick Perry supports that legislation and is in favor of it?

[af_vet_rr]

Rick Santorum played the D.C. insider earmarks game.

He did the GOP establishment bidding and supported Arlen Specter.

He is a “team player.”

And Perry had friends and former staffers who turned lobbyists and benefited from their ties to Perry.

And lest we forget, Perry supported Rudy Giuliani for President in 2008. Rudy is probably more sleazy than Specter, although both are despicable men.

I'm not sold on Santorum just yet, but Santorum, Newt, and Perry all have their problems.

[patriot08]

I believe Rick is a true Conservative, and that he has done the best he could in a state over-run with Mexicans and rats.

[af_vet_rr]

Even after FL I think it would be too early to concede to Romney if he wins there.

FL is WAY too early for any candidate to be dropping. I don't care if Perry and Huntsman match their polls numbers, neither should drop if they want to stay in it.

Romney needs 1144 delegates. He's nowhere close to that, and FL and SC won't put him all that close.

People have got to stop buying into the MSM pushing the idea that SC is make-or-break. If they buy into that, then they probably think we should just stop the primaries and go ahead and nominate Willard.

[WorldviewDad]

“FL is WAY too early for any candidate to be dropping. I don't care if Perry and Huntsman match their polls numbers, neither should drop if they want to stay in it.”

I would agree, but I believe that some MAY drop out after FL depending on how they do...each candidate will make up their own mind based on much better information then what I have. If that would happen then the race will be completely different...Romney has not “won” a state yet (gained 50%+). He has only been the top vote getter with the majority not voting for him...this contest is no where near being decided.

[af_vet_rr]

I would agree, but I believe that some MAY drop out after FL depending on how they do...each candidate will make up their own mind based on much better information then what I have. If that would happen then the race will be completely different...Romney has not “won” a state yet (gained 50%+). He has only been the top vote getter with the majority not voting for him...this contest is no where near being decided.

I wouldn't be surprised to see somebody drop after SC - seeing Perry going back to Texas to think about whether he should continue on or not after Iowa makes me think he'll drop after SC.

But he should stay in it if he wants to. He's not hurting Santorum or Gingrich like some claim.

[af_vet_rr]

I believe Rick is a true Conservative, and that he has done the best he could in a state over-run with Mexicans and rats.

But to get back to the question I asked, do you believe that Rick Perry supports that legislation?

[patriot08]

Secretly, no.

[af_vet_rr]

Secretly, no.

In 2005, he signed additional legislation to deal with legal issues that arose from the 2001 legislation.

In 2007, he publicly defended the legislation when some Republican legislators were talking about repealing it.

In 2010, he defended it during the gubernatorial election.

In 2011, in a nationally-televised debate, he said critics who don't like it don't have a heart.

If Perry secretly does not support the legislation as you claim, then that means he was publicly lying when he praised it in 2001, that he was publicly lying when he supported it in 2007, that he was publicly lying when he defended it in 2010, and that he was publicly lying when he defended it again in 2011 during his Presidential campaign.

I think a lot of things about Perry, but I have to take him at his word on this one and disagree with you. I don't see him lying about this over the past 10 years.

[patriot08]

I think Rick is like most of us Texans, secretly, he’d love to see them all deported and the border defended with armed guards.

[af_vet_rr]

I think Rick is like most of us Texans, secretly, he’d love to see them all deported and the border defended with armed guards.

If you believe that, then that would mean that Rick Perry has lied about the issue a lot, and that he's done so while campaigning for the Presidency.

Somebody who would lie that much about something like that to help their political career is liable to lie about many other things.

I have to disagree with you. I think he is being honest when he has defended it.

[Theodore R.]

No, candidates cannot assign their delegates to other candidates. Such matters are left up to the delegates themselves.

[TitansAFC]

You misread my point, or else I did not properly execute my argument.

I AM a Christian Conservative; Life issues are the FOREMOST issue to me, as is religious freedom.

What I mean by “preemptively nip the leaders in Iowa in the bud” is to stop the propelling of one-percenters into bone fide vote splitters WHEN THERE IS a Pro-Life, Pro-religious freedom, Social Conservative with a considerably better chance of winning available.

Huckabee is not such an upgrade from Fred Thompson that it was worth risking everything and getting McCain. Santorum is not such an upgrade that it is worth risking everything and getting Romney. All four of them are reliable Pro-Life Social Conservatives with records of protecting religious freedom and traditional marriage.

We need very strong standards merged with pragmatism. We cannot afford anymore Iowa pipe dreams. Never again!

[Cincinatus' Wife]

And lest we forget, Perry supported Rudy Giuliani for President in 2008. Rudy is probably more sleazy than Specter, although both are despicable men.

A lot of Texas side-stepped McCain and/or supported Rudy in that primary election. They remembered McCain's campaign tactics against Bush.

This is an interesting article about where Texas' campaign money and support was going in '08. Things just aren't back and white. Texas donors on fence for 2008 election

[Cincinatus' Wife]

If you believe that, then that would mean that Rick Perry has lied about the issue a lot, and that he's done so while campaigning for the Presidency. Somebody who would lie that much about something like that to help their political career is liable to lie about many other things. I have to disagree with you. I think he is being honest when he has defended it.

Gov. Perry and Texas has realistically dealt with the mess wrought on border states by Federal action and inaction. There is no more we can do to alleviate the problem with the Fed's foot on our neck.

Every request is met with silence, scorn or a bandaid. Every legal challenge is met with the US Attorney Gen. and Federal Courts tying the state up in court. Federal immigration laws on the books are ignored and/or become a financial burden on the state and businesses.

[af_vet_rr]

Do you believe that Rick Perry supports the in-state tuition rates for illegals?

[hocndoc]

There’s no secret. Perry has publicly stated that the courts shouldn’t force us to give free education and healthcare to illegals. He’s said that when President, his ICE, DHS, & DOJ would enforce the boarder - with “boots on the ground”- and make sure that deported illegals don’t have a “revolving door.”
No one would qualify for the exception to non-resident tuition in a Perry administration.
In the meantime, the courts *do* force us to educate these kids and the DOJ and ICE refuse to prevent them from invading and refuse to deport thefamilies or individuals, so there are young people who come here with their parents before 15 years of age, go to our schools, become assimilated enough to get accepted to our colleges. We are dealing with them as best we can, since Texas is not allowed to deport them. They’re here and going nowhere until the Feds change the way they treat the border and illegals.