Posted on 02/15/2012 12:10:39 PM PST by NoPinkos
...Jonah Goldberg explained that Mike Huckabee's brand of conservatism was inconsistent with traditional conservatism, in that the former Arkansas Governor believes that government exists, not to protect individual liberty, but to make people live moral lives in accordance with his personal beliefs....
While Rick Santorum doesn't have the record of supporting tax hikes that Tax Hike Mike had or some of the other points listed above--though some of the do apply, he certainly has a record of backing certain social policies based upon the notion that government exists to ensure a certain behavior from its citizens....
On the fiscal and regulatory side of the equation, Santorum doesn't even come close to having a record worthy of Tea Party support....
The only two conclusions I can draw from this is that the anti-Romney faction in the Republican electorate will so blindly follow whoever is deemed to be their "guy" at the moment that they don't care about his economic statism....
The other is that the Tea Party movement has been completely overrun with social conservatives. If that's the case, Republicans will lose this election, and lose it badly. That's not to say that social conservatives can't be fiscal conservatives, rather fiscal issues must come first in this election....
Santorum's social conservatism is going to turn away independent voters. For example, his strange rant against contraceptives is going to sound nutty and unserious to many on-the-fence voters in swing states. And national polls show that voters are now supportive of gay marriage, which Santorum vigoriously opposes.
This is the bed that Republicans have made. The idea that Santorum would be any better on fiscal issues than Romney is absurd. They're both fiscal moderates that aren't going to change the culture of waste in Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at unitedliberty.org ...
That criteria being his name isn't either "Mitt" or "Romney"... which all things considered, sadly, is looking like it may be the best I can hope for.
He supported Bush’s expansion into medicare and said her supported big government Bush 96% of the time.
Terrific post, Marguerite, every word.
How about welcoming new members instead of scorning them?
The Obama’s turned this abortion thing into a contraceptive thing strictly to trap people like Santorum.
If he really made a rant against contraceptives (which I doubt) he will hurt himself with the majority of people who are pro life but have no problem with contraception.
All this infighting reminds me of the Cain years.
Okay it was just the Cain weeks but it seemed like years.
“now if we could get the Tea Party types to look at him clearly... there is still time..”
They have two-three months to open their eyes and make the right choice, which is NOT Rick Santorum the loser, or Mitt Romney, the conservative pretender.
Santorum WAS classified as the third most corrupt Senator in 2006. That’s the reason why he miserably lost his reelection 41% to 59%.
Two year later, in the presidential primary 2008, he was pandering for Romney, another potential loser, who chose not to run for reelection as governor in Massachusetts, where he was polled with 36% intentions of vote, and instead popped in the race for POTUS ...
So what do the losers do, after losing reelections? They become presidential candidates! If they miserably failed, each in their state, HOW could they win on national level? That’s stranger than fiction.
You think Ronald Reagan was not an active campaigner? Ronald Reagan was elected president, and despite what you may think, he was a fiscal conservative. People try to claim he wasn’t now. But he had to deal with Tip O’Neill & Congress. They pushed spending to astronomical levels. They even backed him into signing a bunch of tax increases. That’s why people say he wasn’t a fiscal conservative. But he was. But he had to deal with this little thing called the Constitution. There’s a legislate branch. There’s judicial branch. The president’s power is balanced. You may not like the Constitution, and you are free to try to change it.
All those people who are telling you they will have a magic wand are blowing smoke. Maybe you should take that into consideration. Candidates who promise the moon sound nice, but they are naive and/or lying.
Reagan was a fiscal conservative.
(more recent examples: President Obama promised to close down Gitmo and end war when he became president. Woopsy, that didn’t happen)
“now if we could get the Tea Party types to look at him clearly... there is still time..”
They have two-three months to open their eyes and make the right choice, which is NOT Rick Santorum the loser, or Mitt Romney, the conservative pretender.
Santorum WAS classified as the third most corrupt Senator in 2006. That’s the reason why he miserably lost his reelection 41% to 59%.
Two year later, in the presidential primary 2008, he was pandering for Romney, another potential loser, who chose not to run for reelection as governor in Massachusetts, where he was polled with 36% intentions of vote, and instead popped in the race for POTUS ...
So what do the losers do, after losing reelections? They become presidential candidates! If they miserably failed, each in their state, HOW could they win on national level? That’s stranger than fiction.
Sorry for the double post.
I wish we had a “Delete” button for our own duplicate posts ...
How bout minding our own business.
What the heck are you going on about, and how does this answer anything that I wrote?
I don’t recall saying anything about Reagan not being a conservative of any sort. I don’t even remember bringing Reagan into this conversation at all, unless you think your boy Rick is Ronald Reagan back from the dead. Which, he honestly isn’t much like Reagan at all.
I’m talking about platforms here. Who has the most experience as a leader and pushing through legislation? Who has the most vigor in promoting other candidates and helping us gain a larger majority? Who has the strategy and the enthusiasm to come up with new ideas or to champion new ideas?
You’re sitting here rambling about Ronald Reagan and how we can’t do anything. I’m sitting here talking about which candidate can help us retake congress and push good legislation.
But since you have this love affair for Saint Rick, you’re blinding yourself to his real character and you’re embracing his lack of ambition and vision.
I am all in for Rick Santorum. Rush played Santorum sound bytes today. Yep, Rick gets it.
That *IS* their goal.
---
I recently asked on these forums a very simple question, directed to social conservatives, to which no real response was returned. So I'll ask it again of our social conservatives:
I’ve long wondered how one can be a dedicated religious conservative and still support a small, Constitutionalist government and low taxes.
After all, how can you force proper ethical behavior onto a resistant populace (ex: San Francisco) without strong, centralized government powerful enough to do so?
I consider it my business to chide people who automatically discriminate against people who have just joined.
Everybody but me has joined late.
Apparently the guy espoused a viewpoint you don’t like. Deal with that and forget his signup date unless you have reason to suspect that he’s a troll or something.
Just what kind of social conservative *ARE* you if you have/know where to find pictures like these...
You characterized it as a "total liberal platform" scorecard.
Looks like Gingrich doesn’t intend to actively challenge Santorum in Michigan.
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.