Skip to comments.Why I Chose Newt Over Santorum
Posted on 02/12/2012 8:49:12 PM PST by katiedidit1
click here to read article
Exactly what many think of those pushing Mr. Gingrich, thus the problem. There are a good number of entrenched people that will not vote for the other.
Did you know that FR endorsed Huckabee?
Personally, I have no problem with earmarks. I don’t want to send my tax money to Washington in the first place. If my congressman or senator can bring it back to my state to spend instead of spending it on Solyndra in Calif or on a high speed rail in Calif, then I’m just fine with that.
Better that I’d get tax cuts and didn’t have to send them anything.
Santorum was endorsing Romney when the other choice was John McCain. Santorum had worked with McCain. It seems he didn’t like him.
So, Santorum was trying to defeat McCain who he saw as a loser. Turns out he was right.
How could he say that Romney was “conservative”?
There is no way. I assume he was lying and knew he was lying...all for political purposes.
As you know, currently and in 2008, MITT's REAL ENEMIES ARE THE CONSERVATIVES.
By some accounts, Mitt wasnt merely at the 1964 convention, but that he was down on the floor and joined his father in formally marching off the floor in protest against the conservatives, and Goldwaters nomination. In 1968 the right made a laughing stock of his fathers anti-war campaign for the presidency. Romney claims that his mother ran on a pro-abortion platform for the Senate in 1970, that race was actually supposed to be the way that the Nixon administration ushered out George Romney.
Romney did not vote for Reagan, he would not even register Republican until after Reagan was gone, Mitt became a donater to, and even a fund raiser for democrats and was even fund raising for Planned Parenthood after re registering Republican in Oct. 1993. Mitt was anti Contract with America, and spoke out against the Jesse Helms types in the Senate.
Throw in a perfect, unbroken record of no Romney man ever serving our nation in uniform during their 171 year history here (neither patriotism nor the draft has ever snagged one) and you can see a pattern.
For me it is much more simple than that!
Why should I vote for the understudy when I could vote for the the real leader?
Nice guy image be damned; we need a bulldog (or a hockey mom).
More information along this line is the history and power of the Romney family within Mormonism since the family migrated here in 1841, after conversion in England, to more personally serve Joseph Smith.,br>The Romney's have always been deeply powerful within the secretive leadership, Bishop Mitt sought permission from the Prophet himself before running for President, and he and the religion have coordinated this effort in a massive public relations drive.
Romney devastated the state GOP in Massachusetts, losing seats during both elections of his term, he left with 34% approval, and the Democrats have owned the seat ever since, (Mitt had been the 4th Rep. Gov. in a row, Mass. prefers GOP Govs.).
Look at this tidbit as to evidence of a private agenda for Romney.
Romney told the abortion movement in private, to trust him as a stealth supporter, to just get him into the White House so that he could then deliver on his true, and necessarily secret, agenda.
NYT about Romney running for Governor in 2002, but referencing a greater national role: At the end of the private session, when it became clear that the group was going to endorse Mr. Romneys Democratic opponent, he surprised its leaders by saying he could be a good voice and the most effective national Republican leader on abortion, said Melissa Kogut, a former Naral official who has detailed notes from the meeting.
I thought, Thats interesting. Hes running for governor, and hes trying to convince us to get behind him because of the role he is going to play on the national stage, she said. We left the meeting feeling pretty good.
I meant to ping you to 107.
Rick’s supporters are ill advised and have no idea about his big gov’t fiscal views as they refuse to look at his record, are content with him being a liar and his raving about how conservative a pro homo, pro abortion, socialistic healthcare candidate is. He’s a political hack and will use his supporters for his own advancement.
Patriots support a candidate who is FOR America and has a record proving it.
We knew all this in 2008, at least here at freerepublic, Romney was never the best choice for anything Republican.
My recollection is that most of the posters were behind Thompson. I don’t know why anybody would have endorsed that tax hiking, amnesty loving, state trooper abusing, son of a biscuit eater.
Anyone can be in FreeRepublic 24/7 like you and post incessantly and mind numbingly repeating yourself. So, you don't like him. So what?
My suspicion is that you would dispatch Jesus Christ even easier and with more enthusiasm if He was running for office.
Dave W, not concerned whether you like my posts or not..you read it! it is news worthy as Chuck Norris states his reasons for endorsing Newt.
Better brace yourself because there will be more pro Newt posts and if it offends you ..don’t read them. This is not your forum. GO NEWT!
>>He lives in the Washington area (in Virginia) though takes money from the Pines Hills school system of PA for home schooling.<<
What in the world are you talking about?
Look, I’ll give you all the other points but perhaps you have no clue how Virtual Charters work. They are funded by the property taxes paid, just like any other school. If Santorum has a residence in the Pines Hills district, he can send his kids to the Virtual School in PA. He has already paid for it.
I’m in MI. If I had a residence in Ohio but lived in MI five days a week, I could send my kids to Ohio Virtual Academy. My property taxes in Ohio PAY for it.
What you want is for this dude to pay property taxes in PA, property taxes in VA or MD, where he resides part time (perhaps renting and NOT paying taxes, I don’t know) AND pay to send his kids to a Virtual Academy? Are you Daft?
wtf? the guy humping huckabee is upset at someone humping romney?....thats like calling kim k a sl*t while you are dating lindsay lohan
Newt was appalled and disgusted at the amount of dictatorial power that Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson tried to grab for himself at the outset of the financial crisis. However, he reluctantly supported a scaled-down plan after Paulson told the country that the world financial system was going to collapse without this emergency support.
Newt believes that the reckless, secretive and opaque way in which the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department administered the bailouts has been an affront to democracy. The Fed was picking winners and losers, using several emergency lending facilities to make all types of loans to connected parties, including to a bank owned by the Libyan government.
and yet he praised john mccain leaving the trail in 2008 and going back to d.c to help push it all thru...i know he did it “reluctantly”...
I ordered CAN MITT ROMNEY SERVE TWO MASTERS? from Amazon last week and look forward to its impact on his campaign.
One little lady, Tricia Erickson, taking on the big ol’ Mitt cabal...
I had no idea about the depth and history of the Romney vendetta against conservatives.
Thanks for posting that list of Newt’s conservative credentials, Marguerite. It’s most impressive.
Makes you wonder why there’s even a contest for the nomination at this point. Newt would be the best qualified candidate, with even half that record.
The part of the list I posted is far from being complete. There were two more pages :)
but I decided not to spam the thread with the list in full.
“I assume he was lying and knew he was lying...all for political purposes.”
Santorum caught lying in the 2012 debates as well!
... I’m wondering if he’s not Romney’s kin, after being the fervent Romney’s supporter in 2008 ...
“In a recent debate, Santorum declared, “In 2006, I went out and authored a letter with 24 other senators asking for major reform of Freddie and Fannie, warning of a meltdown and a bubble in the housing market. I stood out, I stood tall and tried to get a reform, and we couldn’t do it.”
From the famous letter tracked down:
“We are concerned that if effective regulatory reform legislation for the housing-finance government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is not enacted this year, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole. Therefore, we offer you our support in bringing the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (S. 190) to the floor and allowing the Senate to debate the merits of this bill, which was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. ...
“Congress has the opportunity to recommit itself to the housing mission of the GSEs while at the same time making sure the GSEs operate in a manner that does not expose our financial system, or taxpayers, to unnecessary risk.”
In other words, the Senators warned of the risk Fannie and Freddie might pose to the financial system if they couldn’t cover their obligations.
No trace of “warning of a meltdown and a bubble in the housing market”, neither of staying “out and tall” (unless he was talking of how tall he is)
“Santorum, who served in the Senate from 1995 to 2007 after a stint in the U.S. House, gets credit for supporting the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act in 2005, the year before senators’ letter to their colleagues. The goal of the legislation, according to its official summary, was to set up stronger congressional oversight of Fannie and Freddie and other housing entities by a new Federal Housing Regulatory Agency.
Santorum bucked a strong covert lobbying effort by Freddie Mac to kill the legislation, supporting it in committee though he was not one of its co-sponsors. (The lobbying effort ultimately kept the bill from reaching the Senate floor.)”
Has anyone cried “POMPOUS LIAR” ?
I have two for you (1) Dede (2) Scozzofava.
I find it rather interesting that we've come this far in the campaign, and so many of us are still asking these basic questions.
What irks me more, is the fact that when folks begin posting the results of their vetting of Santorum's political career, his supporters begin crying, 'foul!'
I've asked Santorum supporters many times, to post examples of his record that would compel other conservatives to support him, and so far, none have answered the challenge. Not one.
That leads me to believe that there's precious little in Santorum's record that would justify supporting him for president, outside of his well-known social conservative positions.
That’s better than deeming it passed, no?
My position on earmarks is that they really OUGHT to be the way Congress passes budgets, as opposed to the idiotic methods of giving vast departments huge pools of money to divvy up as they choose. The problem with earmarks is that they are used to barter with other Senators/Congressman in a “you vote for mine if I vote for yours” manner.
I don’t believe that “voted for earmarks” should be considered disqualifying for any candidate.
For better or worse, the GOP won’t nominate a candidate for the top spot whose only elective experience is in the House. They do better with governors, historically, or generals than with Senators. The two best governor/ex-Governor possibilities aren’t currently in the race (no, I don’t mean Daniels and Christie) so we’re left with Santorum. More nominatable than Newt, more electable than Paul, much better than Mitt.
Amen, and a BTTT Bump.
May God grant us strength.
I agree with you that it is hard to get worked up against either Santorum or Mr.Newt. They both have some flaws, but those are minor compared to Obama, Mitt, or RPaul.
And, anyone who thinks Rick is boring to listen to has not heard his inspirational, off-the-cuff, discussions of the Constitution and the Declaration and how it applies to issues.
The most certain way of winning the Senate is by having a good conservative heading our ticket. Romney is a problem in that respect. I think both Newt and Rick would face some very different challenges, but would at least not have some of the baggage that Mitt has.
“anyone who thinks Rick is boring to listen to has not heard his inspirational, off-the-cuff, discussions of the Constitution and the Declaration and how it applies to issues.”
Are you ... serious?
Watch this, on Constitution Day, Lancaster County :
8th grade level “speech”.
Santorum: “Government must be big”
I have been pro-Mr.Newt since 1991 or so. I absolutely went bonkers over his course/TV “Renewing American Civilization” ( http://terrenceberres.com/ginren00.html ). That does not keep me from seeing he has some flaws, as do all political figures, and indeed as I have myself. I hope (at this time) that either he or Santorum is our nominee.
Compare Santorum’s speech on Constitution Day with Newt Gingrich talking about the Constitution:
In PA, students are district residents in the district in which they sleep.
The virtual charters are funded by the individual districts for THEIR students. They pay for each student enrolled (who would otherwise be a student at the physical district school). Yes, public education in PA is funded by property taxes paid TO THAT DISTRICT.
Sorry to burst your balloon, but paying property taxes in one district does not entitle your children to attend the school in that district if they do not reside (sleep) there.
There were PA court cases regarding district residency as far back as the 70's so it is not a new revelation.
He was wrong - plain and simple, and morally, if not legally, he owes the district and the state for that tuition that was paid (the state paid the district some so that they would not incur the costs of a lawsuit against Santorum. He did not repay either the district or the state.)
“Second Amendment is A Political Right; Historic Context, Not about Hunting!” - Newt Gingrich
I like many of those endorsing Newt.
Just not Newt.
BTT. Go Newt.
Marguerite: I like you, I very much like Mr.Newt, and LOVE that long list of what Mr.Newt has done for conservatives, but that post of yours stating that letter Santorum referred to makes him a liar is terrible. That letter was only part of a discussion that some people including Sen.Santorum and President Bush were trying to bring to the forefront in 2005&2006 because of the troubling signs in the housing market at that time. I wish I had access to posts on FR that I made at the time supporting those efforts, but there were ample statements of impending disaster made by many “in the know” about financial matters at the time and reading that letter in isolation is dishonest. That these senators did not use the language of catastrophe in letters and bills and we can right now agree would have accurately described the situation does not justify characterizing his current statements as those of a “liar”. Those discussions were shut down by the Dems, especially in the Senate, and if stronger language had been used it would have been even more roundly criticized and more soundly defeated by the Dems than it was at the time. The efforts by Bush, Santorum, and others, were prescient, if insufficient. At least Rick was part of the effort. For what its worth, he joined DeMint, Coleman, Thune, Shelby, and some other notable financial hawks in the failed effort, but over half of the other GOP senators could not even bring themselves that far (Olympia Snowe and Mitch McConnell for example). I don’t know of an even stronger effort to bring this issue into legislation, although I believe that Ron Paul and Taranto were among those sounding the same alarm in the House.
By the way, using politifact to criticize any conservative position is inherently suspect.
Please, take a little of your time to compare Santorum speech on Constitution Day, post 131,
with Newt speech about the Second Amendment and the people rights guaranteed by the Constitution:
Yes I am serious. I don’t get into youtube battles - and definitely won’t about two men I truly respect. If I were someone who did, I could grab some terrible clips of Mr.Newt from the FL debates, as you know. I refuse to do such cherry picking in any venue. There are some really rocking examples of Santorum speaking of the the Constitution and the Declaration. I agree that Mr.Newt is even better, but Rick can be very inspirational, too.
Frankly, I just cannot fathom HOW a conservative may prefer Santorum over Newt.
When one compares their political records, their experience, their solutions and plans for restoring America's economy and greatness, their vision for the future of the country, it becomes crystal clear WHO must be the next president - Newt Gingrich.
“Rick can be very inspirational too”
Give me a live example. All Santorum speeches a heard so far made me sleepy.
I’ve got to disagree about Santorum’s ability as a speaker.
I have listened to him in person long before he ever ran for the presidency, and he is outstanding, able to captivate with ideas.
I continue to support BOTH Newt and Rick, and I think it’s crazy for conservatives to be attacking one or the other instead of attacking Romney.
Why should we help Romney knock off one or the other and find ourselves left with NONE?
Romney is clearly a liberal.
And despite their stumbles, both Newt and Rick have always been conservatives. It’s that simple.
“I continue to support BOTH Newt and Rick, and I think its crazy for conservatives to be attacking one or the other instead of attacking Romney.”
In my opinion, Romney is toast.
“And despite their stumbles, both Newt and Rick have always been conservatives. Its that simple.”
Then WHY don’t you tell Rick TO STOP running negative ads against Newt? He led vociferous attacks against Newt in Missouri, where Gingrich wasn’t even on the ballot.
Santorum is Romney’s twin in this respect. I cannot support either.
“Then WHY dont you tell Rick TO STOP running negative ads against Newt? He led vociferous attacks against Newt in Missouri, where Gingrich wasnt even on the ballot.”
“the newest broadcast ad from Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, which calls Gingrich’s economic proposals “fiscal insanity.”
The ad’s wording and tone also borrows a read-between-the-lines theme that front-runner Mitt Romney has been using against Gingrich - that he is mentally unstable and therefore unfit for the presidency. In addition to liberal use of the word “insanity,” a digital press release accompanying the ad makes note of “Gingrich’s erratic behavior” and “wild ideas.”
The text of the radio ad, which the Santorum campaign says will be aired nationally beginning Friday, says, “Reckless spending has led to a 15-trillion-dollar national debt. That’s $50,000 of debt for every person in America, and it’s crushing our economy. And what’s Newt Gingrich suggest? Spending half a trillion dollars on a moon colony.”
I’m not talking about the candidates leveling off on each other...that’s to be expected.
It’s the conservatives I don’t want knocking off one or the other candidate, because it plays into Romney’s hands.
But, I do expect Gingrich and Santorum to play up their strengths and play down their weaknesses. I expect them to play up the other’s weaknesses, and play down their strengths.
I am fine with:
1. Gingrich winning the nomination
2. Santorum winning the nomination
3. Their combined total preventing Romney from winning the nomination.
If you agree with that little pric... Santorum calling Speaker Gingrich “insane”, then I guess our discussion has to end NOW.