Indeed, on numerous occasions he has demonstrated for all to see for themselves where his heart is.
Posted on 02/10/2012 9:57:42 AM PST by Steelfish
Agree. Gingrich needs to put the interests of conservatives before his ego. He is utterly unelectable at this stage.
AiT,
As an expat in Tokyo, can you register your vote in your primary via absentee ballot?
Do you really believe those lists are an accurate representation of what he would do as President?
I think people forget what governing means, and how legislation is done. They don’t understand enough about bills to know that you can pretty much take any vote and make it sound evil.
The meme this week is that Santorum is a master of illusion, managing to fool an entire media hoarde into calling him conservative for 15 years, earning a Hard Core Conservative ranking from “OnTheIssues” (combined score 20 points better than Newt Gingrich - 90/0 vs 90/20).
When Gingrich retired, he had a lifetime 90 ACU rating. When Santorum retired, he had a lifetime 88.1 ACU rating. His last year was a 96, btw, while Gingrich’s last year was a 100.
These are so close to the same that the Gingrich folks instead like to compare the year “1998”, as if the world stopped then.
jim_trent wrote:
<<
So we are staking our hopes on a guy that couldn’t win his own seat in his own state?
>>
**************************************************************
That’s ancient news, my FRiend... For a host of reasons, the 2006 elections were horrible for MANY incumbent Republicans, not just Santorum.
ping/bump/thingie
When one considers that Gingrich was a representative from a safe conservative district, and Santorum was a senator from a purple state, the only shocking thing about the disparity between their ACU ratings is how low Newt's is in comparison to Ricks. One would expect it to have been far more than 1.9% higher.
I have to laugh whenever someone says people are less likely to vote for a candidate because of something some freeper says to people who already won’t vote for that candidate.
I say that because no thinking person would pick their presidential candidate based on what some supporter said on an internet chat.
And because even people stupid enough to choose their candidates based on how they are treated by another random person wouldn’t be stupid enough to admit how stupid they are.
I notice though that you are slightly smarter (it’s relative) because you are just saying OTHER freepers are that stupid.
Wow, you only got one snide response to that suggestion. Freeper heads really ARE exploding...
I’m guessing you have no idea how many dollars of earmarks Newt obtained for Georgia during his tenure. I certainly don’t — nobody writes about it. And I don’t “know” how much Santorum did either, just how much people say he did, with occasional links to blogs that repeat the same things.
Fact: It was Newt Gingrich who created the modern earmark. Before he was in leadership, earmarks were the purview of the budget committees. Newt convinced his fellow republicans that earmarks could be good for everybody. After the 2004 takeover, he told all of them to vote earmarks to bring money back home to their constituents, to help them get more support in the next elections.
Santorum learned about earmarks and their political purpose from the master.
Of course, this whole “negative attack” presupposes that there is an inherent evil in congress directly controlling where money is spent. I reject that notion, and would rather have my representative directing money to a specific needed project than to let the machinery of the executive branch decide where to send the money with no chance of me voting them out of office.
The problem with earmarks isn’t that they exist, or how much money is spent. It’s when the earmarks are for useless things, or things the government has no business doing.
And since Gingrich and Santorum are running for PRESIDENT, who the hell cares about congressional earmarks? President’s don’t get earmarks, and there’s no chance the house and senate would pass an actual LAW banning them, and if they did, every president would sign it in a second, even Obama, because it would increase presidential power.
SO I have no idea why anybody would be basing any part of their vote decision on what Gingrich or Santorum did with regard to earmarks years ago.
Santorum’s record is like a pro-life Democrat’s, from south Chicagoland. (Big-Union)
“But I do have concerns about women in front-line combat, I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission, because of other types of emotions that are involved,” Santorum continued. “It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat, and I think that’s probably not in the best interest of men, women or the mission.”
Thanks for the ping.
Even Intrade is taking Santorum seriously now.
Contract Bid Ask Last Vol Chge
PRESIDENT.DEM.2012
Democratic Party candidate to win 2012 Presidential Election M Trade 60.8 61.3 61.0 49661 0
PRESIDENT.REP.2012
Republican Party candidate to win 2012 Presidential Election M Trade 37.8 38.7 37.8 46668 -0.8
PRESIDENT.OTHER.2012
Any other candidate to win 2012 Presidential Election M Trade 1.2 1.5 1.3 38494 +0.2
2012 Republican Presidential Nominee
Contract Bid Ask Last Vol Chge
2012.REP.NOM.ROMNEY
Mitt Romney to be Republican Presidential Nominee in 2012 M Trade 70.1 72.4 71.0 243258 -8.0
2012.REP.NOM.SANTORUM
Rick Santorum to be Republican Presidential Nominee in 2012 M Trade 17.2 17.9 17.2 361411 +3.8
2012.REP.NOM.GINGRICH
Newt Gingrich to be Republican Presidential Nominee in 2012 M Trade 3.2 3.4 3.4 352766 +0.3
They’re in CIRCLE THE WAGONS mode and otherwise demonstrating complete denial while their annointed candidate self-implodes.
Indeed, on numerous occasions he has demonstrated for all to see for themselves where his heart is.
How is this possible? We MUST have tax cuts. But they cannot be sustained without MAJOR CUTS IN GOVERNMENT starting with CUTTING ENORMOUS WASTE, USELESS CABINET DEPARTMENTS (most of them), and A LOT OF "ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS" (NOT defense, a legitimate government activity, even though our whole defense and intelligence capabilities need an overhaul because of 25 years of mismanagement since Reagan).
How can we not have one guy with his head screwed on straight talking about this stuff? Maybe we really are in the Final Days and God is starting to allow things accordingly.
Absolutely! :)
Either Newt or Rick will be the light at the end of the dark, demonic obama tunnel.
If you heard Santorum at CPAC, he spoke about cutting government and budget reductions...each year less than the one before, across the board cuts. In order to do that, we need to increase the majority in the House with Tea Party patriots and re-take the Senate, making DUmocrats a permanent minority.
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.