Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can we stop pretending that Rick Santorum is a fiscal conservative?
United Liberty ^ | 2-15-12 | Jason Pye

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: biggovernment; bigspender; ricksantorum; santorum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-226 next last
To: NoPinkos

Me too, I beginning to think that a brokered convention is the only answer.


51 posted on 02/15/2012 12:47:28 PM PST by Essie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: douginthearmy

Oh, nicely done.


52 posted on 02/15/2012 12:48:02 PM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: NoPinkos
Those of you who are buying the argument that Rick Santorum is a latter-day George McGovern should check out his ratings from dozens of organizations across the political spectrum at Project Vote Smart. He tends to be rated high by conservative groups and low by liberal groups.
53 posted on 02/15/2012 12:49:24 PM PST by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Seeing as how hits on “SoCons” is utterly mythological, since this isn’t actually a social vs fiscal conservative issue, I’d say your post and a good portion of that article are irrelevant.

Since both candidates have the same “social” positions, it can’t be an issue between Social vs Fiscal conservatives.

Like I said before. It is a situation where we have a group of people who basically have failed to vet their own candidate, and have fallen inlove with the religious/social arguments that their candidate uses to cover up his lack of a platform and fiscal record. Apparently, they identify religious arguments with “true conservatism”, and so they project all their hopes and dreams on him.

Fact is, conservatives have been doing this with just about every candidate who gets his “flavor of the month” time. It’s just the bandwagon effect over and over again, and conservatives voting for phantoms and images. Which is why they can support one candidate one day, and then switch to the other. No principles are actually determining their choices. Just image, emotional arguments, and perception.

In other words, the same stuff that got Obama elected.

And as for Santorum again. It is very much a perception issue. The perception is driving his favorability, and the perception is what is putting people into denial about his character, record and plans. And so they latch on to whatever they can do hold on to their delusions, which just happens to be the social issues.


54 posted on 02/15/2012 12:51:06 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: NoPinkos
Can we stop pretending that Rick Santorum is a fiscal conservative?

Compared to whom?

ObaMao? He most definitely is.

Romney? Gingrich? At least equal.

Ron Paul? Not so much. But you have to cut Santorum a little slack considering his view of military strength isn't stuck in the last century like Ron Paul.


The electoral math, so far, still shows Santorum doing way better than Gingrich.

Seven reasons for Rick Santorum


  1. Who has won the most states without the benefit of their own money, last election's organization or a billionaire casino sugar daddy?
  2. Who is everybody's second choice when he isn't their first?
  3. Who can get both the Romney people and the Gingrich people, who hate each other, to vote for him?
  4. Who has the best record on immigration?
  5. Who has the best plan for repealing ObamaCare? And is the only GOP candidate who didn't help write or approve legislation which helped spawn this fiasco?
  6. Who has the best plan for expanding the American economy and strengthening American families?
  7. Who is the closest thing we have to the "generic Republican" which polls show consistently beating Obama and is most likely to make the election about Obama's sorry record rather than about himself?

55 posted on 02/15/2012 12:51:39 PM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

That’s been argued about, but I believe he did. Do you have proof he didn’t?


56 posted on 02/15/2012 12:51:43 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (You can't invade the US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.~Admiral Yamamoto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: albie
Somebody needs to swoop and save the day for conservatives!

I agree. Our candidates beat each other up so badly that none of them is in a position to win. Santorum may be able to beat Romney, but neither of them will beat obama. Gingrich isn't gaining traction and is lagging behind Ron Paul. We can't win if we continue to split the vote. I agree that we need a fresh face. Paul Ryan has the smarts and knows how to best articulate our fiscal position.

57 posted on 02/15/2012 12:52:54 PM PST by jersey117 (Perry 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NoPinkos
I have a problem with perpetual, interminable, instant fault finders. We're running out of people who will run for high office as conservatives because as Jesus said to those about to stone a whore, "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone!"

Constant castigation with no regard for circumstantial considerations such as poisoning of legislaton by liberals with extreme treachery over one or two terms in office can completely discolor a reps reputation in office.

Single issue, or narrow scope voters then email and blog all the negatives with complete impugnity with no recourse by the elected official. Nobody said it was going to be fair, but conservatives should be considerate, if not compassionate!!!

58 posted on 02/15/2012 12:53:51 PM PST by SierraWasp (I'm done being disappointed by "He/She is the only one who can win" and being embarrassed later!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Essie

A brokered convention doesn’t strike me as favorable in any way. What makes you think that a bunch of delegates, who none of us know, are going to support a conservative candidate? The pressure will be on to settle on a compromise candidate. In other words, another RINO.


59 posted on 02/15/2012 12:56:18 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Not credible. Rick Santorum bears the burden of offering proof when asked. He can not prove he opposed TARP because he didn’t. I was against slavery too. Upps, I was not alive, my bad.


60 posted on 02/15/2012 12:56:28 PM PST by dt57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: NoPinkos

If a candidate uses as adjective to modify “conservative,” experience has shown time and time again that that candidate is no conservative at all. “Fiscal conservatives,” “compassionate conservatives,” whatever; they are all socialists at heart.

If a candidate is not deeply troubled by moral crises in America, and doesn’t understand that these moral crises jeopardize both our economic health and our freedom, he is either an unserious, unreflective candidate, or the enemy.

When a candidate starts campaigning to oppose behavior that is inherently private (skipping mass, masturbating, etc.), you can come talk to me about how that candidate’s “social conservatism” is at odds with traditional conservatism. But public behaviors like gay marriage, abortion, and trafficking pornography aren’t merely spiritual issues, they are public, legitimate issues. The only grey area I have seen emerge yet from “social conservatives” deal with people growing marijuana for their own, personal use. I would argue that a democracy does have an interest in preventing behavior that is both addictive and self-destructive, but I understand that there is a legitimate diversity of opinion on whether marijuana is addictive and self-destructive in a way that masturbation, for instance, is not.


61 posted on 02/15/2012 12:58:20 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dt57
Sure, Rick Santourm, fiscal conservative. NOT.

Nonsense:

http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Rick_Santorum.htm

Voted YES on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)

Voted YES on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)

Voted NO on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)

Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)

Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)

Voted YES on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)

Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)

Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)

Voted YES on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)

Voted YES on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)

Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)

Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

Rated 81% by NTU, indicating a "Taxpayer's Friend" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

Rated 100% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)

Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)

If that record isn't fiscally conservative, what is it?

62 posted on 02/15/2012 12:58:20 PM PST by Kazan (Mitt Romney: The greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
I think you are being fair, but I don't think you are taking into account all of Gingrich's votes when you compare their votes. Gingrich has some doozies in his background.

How about cosponsoring an economy0-destroying environmental bill with Nancy Pelosi in 1989. That bill alone should disqualify him for running for dog catcher as a Republican. And there was no reason for him to do it. No pressure from the caucus. That bill was way way ahead of it's time. The fact that he would cosponsor that communistic bill for no reason is a major black mark against him. I can't think of a single excuse why he'd be party to that.

63 posted on 02/15/2012 1:00:25 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NoPinkos; KC_Lion; upsdriver; FrankR; RightOnline; NTHockey; Gene Eric; dixiechick2000; ...
I'm starting to think that a deadlocked convention turning to someone who isn't currently on the stage is the only hope for the party.



64 posted on 02/15/2012 1:01:20 PM PST by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Patlin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan
You're asking the wrong guy; I'm not a Romney supporter. That's why I used the qualifier; “at best” ...that's not really an endorsement on my part. (smile)

Some would argue (Goldberg et al) that Romney is a fiscal conservative; so, I will grant them that possibility; since I don't really give a d@mn ...I will never vote for “Myth.”

If you can make a well documented, concrete case for the fact Romney is a fraud even as a fiscal conservative; more power to you!

If you document your comments on the Romneycare and other charges you made, I will be more than happy to quote and endorse you to that effect.

Hope that helps!

Regards,

-Geoff

GO NEWT!!!

65 posted on 02/15/2012 1:01:37 PM PST by Ozymandias Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

Keep trying my friend. If Rick Santorum is a fiscal conservative then Bill Clinton did not have sex with that women after all. Rick is a SOCIAL conservative and a NATIONAL SECURITY conservative, and I will vote for him if he is nominated. But please don’t tell me he is a fiscal conservative because IT IS NOT TRUE.


66 posted on 02/15/2012 1:01:52 PM PST by dt57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: NoPinkos
Santorum is NO fiscal conservative! An antitax advocacy group zinged Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s tax plan, giving him a grade of “D+” grade and the dubious honor of proposing what “may be the worst idea of any of the Republican candidates.” http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/06/tax-foundation-rips-santorum-tax-plan/ Sntorum and earmarks Bridge to Nowhere project in Alaska; $522,000 for cranberry and blueberry disease and breeding in New Jersey, and $1 million for a Woodstock museum, honoring the 1969 music festival in upstate New York. Senators Propose Redundant Media Research Study (Washington, D.C.) - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today criticized Senators Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), and Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) for reintroducing the Children and Media Research Advancement Act (CAMRA), which will set up a $90 million program to research what countless other studies have already documented the effects of television viewing and other media on children. CAGW named Sen. Lieberman Porker of the Month when he introduced the same legislation in August, 2004. “This proposal is just one expensive rerun,” CAGW President Tom Schatz said. “For decades this issue has been studied to death, always yielding the same results. Calling for yet another taxpayer-funded study belittles the ability of parents to use common sense in deciding what shows are appropriate for their children.” 1. Santorum joined Sen Hillary Clinton, Sen Lieberman, Sam Brownback in introducing the CHILDREN AND MEDIA REASEARCH ADVANCEMENT ACT which allocated a 90 MILLION dollar program to research the effects that watching tv has on children. This was a call for ANOTHER taxpayer funded study that thinks the govt knows better than parents on what is appropriate for their children to view. http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/releases/2005/senators-propose-redundant.html 2. Santorum voted to raise the minimum wage and to have the govt be allowed to set wage regulations. 3. Santorum spent more than 1 billion on earmarks including..., Pennsylvania in 2005 received $483 million in earmarks for 872 projects, including $5.4 million for an igloo upgrade for an Army Depot and $5 million for a new visitor center at Gettysburg. Senator Santorum voted on raising the debt ceiling 6 times. Five of those times, he voted in favor of raising the debt ceiling and once he voted against it
67 posted on 02/15/2012 1:02:10 PM PST by katiedidit1 ("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dt57
Rick Santorum bears the burden of offering proof when asked.

How about you "proving" you're a fiscal conservative. Did you vote for George W.Bush twice when openly ran on his Medicare prescription drug plan and compassionate conservatism?

Conservatives elected Bush, knowing what he was, and gave him a mandate, one most Republicans went along with. If you voted for Bush, you gave him that mandate and you shouldn't be complaining conservatives in Congress almost universally went along with it.

68 posted on 02/15/2012 1:04:43 PM PST by Kazan (Mitt Romney: The greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: dt57
So your argument is Santorum supported TARP because he didn't vote for it?

One reason I trust Santorum more fiscally, is he would have to listen to conservatives if elected. His survival would be contingent on it. Gingrich would owe conservatives nothing, and he does what he wants, no matter what conservatives think. Even Bush had to back down to conservatives in the Harriet Myers case. Santorum would be constrained. Gingrich will do whatever he feels like.

69 posted on 02/15/2012 1:05:04 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600

No one would use that as a platform.


70 posted on 02/15/2012 1:05:56 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600
...The fact of the matter is, Newt Gingrich, the “fiscal conservative” choice, is also pro-life and holds all the same social positions...

Just for the record, Newt is - although I am rethinking my priorities - my first choice. Why? Because I thought he had the best chance to defeat OHOMO, which is really turning out be a real "Satan" when it comes to my values. For that reason, although far from perfect, I am with Newt... but I was NEVER against RS and at no time I felt he should quit, because for me, as a person who cares for moral "values" it would unthinkable to abandon him.

But, I NEVER expected he would be doing so well as he is now... never. So?... Of course I am happy and delighted, that at least many of my "social conservative" counterparts, finally found enough spine, wisdom, conviction and hold their cards tight, until something happened such as what is going on now.

As to NEWT? I am waiting for him to make his move!... Nothing would please me more than to have Rick and Newt at the top and see Romney and the "rest" disappear. If RS is doing it, why not NEWT?... We all know Newt is super intelligent and creative, etc. I frankly don't know why Romney ate him alive in FL!... but just like RS, Newt should reset, recharge and keep fighting... and get back on the race!


71 posted on 02/15/2012 1:06:05 PM PST by ElPatriota (The SILENCE of the Catholic Church in protecting our culture from perversion is ** DEAFENING **)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: dt57

You got that right! Santorum voted not only to fund but to increase funding for the National Endowment of the Arts; voted to raise the debt ceiling 6 times; voted for a 90 million dollar study on the affects watching tv has on children; voted for govt control of wages and on and on.

Santorum is the type of big govt spender the Tea Party folks fought hard to get rid of!

and with his endorsement of Romney (socialized medicine and pro abortion at the time) and Spector (voted for Obamacare)..I am begining to question Santorums judgement on social issues.


72 posted on 02/15/2012 1:07:06 PM PST by katiedidit1 ("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600

Even the president does not act with complete power. There are geopolitical and other realities that constrain a president. Even if Ron Paul were elected, things would change far less than you might think.


73 posted on 02/15/2012 1:07:53 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

Yes, I voted for George W. Bush, just like I will vote for Rick Santorum if it gets that far. But listen, I am not running for President, so I don’t have to offer proof, but Rick does. It is the price you pay for the that priviledge


74 posted on 02/15/2012 1:10:28 PM PST by dt57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: onyx

I truly Pray for that Onyx, I know the Conservative Rank and File, and even the Average Republican Voter would be behind that, however the GOP-E don’t have no brains at all, but on the other hand they know if they chose Mittens than we will kick their ass to the curb, so we need to keep fighting, the L-rd helps those who help themselves!


75 posted on 02/15/2012 1:13:15 PM PST by KC_Lion (I will NEVER vote for Romney, the GOP will go the way of the Whigs if they nominate him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

NO, my argument is that he never once publically denounced it until after he started running for President. Hmmmm.


76 posted on 02/15/2012 1:13:25 PM PST by dt57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

It’s funny how often I hear that from Santorum supporters.. and ONLY from Santorum supporters. This must be the official answer to those who point out Santorum’s lack of a platform. “Well, he doesn’t need one, since not much will get accomplished anyway.” I’d rather have an active campaigner in office than the Pope.


77 posted on 02/15/2012 1:14:37 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: dt57
Yes, I voted for George W. Bush

So, you, along with just about everyone else here that was eligible to vote in 2000 and 2004, gave him the mandate to push the Medicare prescription drug plan and compassionate conservatives. So, why are you bashing Santorum for going along with something YOU gave Bush a mandate for?

How many Republicans in Congress didn't go along with the Bush agenda from 2000 to 2006? Not many. Is everyone that did go along with bush disqualified from being considered a fiscal conservative? Not in my estimation.

78 posted on 02/15/2012 1:15:45 PM PST by Kazan (Mitt Romney: The greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp

Amen. It’s one thing to look them over and vet. It’s another to never find anyone quite perfect enough.


79 posted on 02/15/2012 1:17:41 PM PST by brytlea (An ounce of chocolate is worth a pound of cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: NoPinkos
Can we stop pretending that Rick Santorum embraces the tenets of conservatism: fiscal discipline , low taxes, small spending, small government and freedom for people in the pursuit of their individual happiness?

Pro-big government Santorum in 2005: “they have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone...”

80 posted on 02/15/2012 1:19:53 PM PST by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

I am not bashing mr Santorum, I said I WILL VOTE FOR HIM, dang it. Ease up. He is not a fiscal conservative. Maybe I am not either under you criteria. Rick has risen to the top because in many opinion, because of Newt’s past transgressions he is disqualified. Rick Santorum is at best a second tier condidate in a very weak field. Again, I WILL VOTE FOR HIM. He just can’t be Obama. YES, my opinion. Newt has real solutions and real experience changing washington.


81 posted on 02/15/2012 1:20:42 PM PST by dt57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: NoPinkos
Jason Piles seems to be a bit in over his head, why does he not call Mark Levin with that BS.
82 posted on 02/15/2012 1:23:08 PM PST by org.whodat (Sorry bill, I should never have made all those jokes about you and Lewinsky, have fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dt57
NO, my argument is that he never once publically denounced it until after he started running for President. Hmmmm.

Yes, interesting that. I was prompted by this thread to take a poke around the internet to find video from that time period of Santorum opposing TARP and could find nothing. "He wasn't a political office holder at the time!" some say? Huh. Newt wasn't in office either and I managed to find THIS VIDEO from Hannity and Colmes calling TARP, among other things, "...about as bad as anything I've seen in economic policy since I've been active in public life."

Oh and wait, didn't Santorum accuse Newt of (like Romney) supporting TARP? He wouldn't LIE would he?!

83 posted on 02/15/2012 1:24:17 PM PST by Taxachusan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

And NO I am not a hater or unspiritual. I can have an opinion. and this is my opinion, Rick Santorum is a big government republican when it comes to fiscal matters. Personally, not sure I care if he was a team player. People say I am not a team player, maybe that is not always a bad thing.


84 posted on 02/15/2012 1:24:35 PM PST by dt57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Taxachusan

Well, he DID support it at one point.
http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/newt’s-justification-for-supporting-tarp/


85 posted on 02/15/2012 1:30:04 PM PST by brytlea (An ounce of chocolate is worth a pound of cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

Thank you for the link, I’ve bookmarked and will read more in depth tomorrow (on my way to work presently). From a quick skim it seems that while instinctually opposed, he changed his mind after some in business spoke with him about it. I would love to know who they were and what was said!


86 posted on 02/15/2012 1:35:00 PM PST by Taxachusan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: dt57

Thank you! I have asked Santorum supporters to explain to me how a Senator, who could not withstand the pressure to endorse Specter, would have been able to stand against the all the “end of the world” wailing that was going on and vote against TARP.


87 posted on 02/15/2012 1:35:34 PM PST by Mangia E Statti Zitto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mangia E Statti Zitto

Bump.


88 posted on 02/15/2012 1:40:33 PM PST by gov_bean_ counter (Yo Mitt - Money can't buy you love...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
That’s been argued about, but I believe he did.

What's your source?

Do you have proof he didn’t?

You mean, can I prove a negative? Of course not.

I have no proof that he didn't say the following, either:

"The tragic death of Whitney Houston has soured me on contemporary R&B."

or

"You know what goes really good with a peanut butter and banana sandwich? A nice orange Shasta."

You can attribute any quote to anyone.

The question is: what grounds do you have to assert that he said this? The answer is: none.

It's not good practice to go around putting words in peoples' mouths.

89 posted on 02/15/2012 1:40:42 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: katiedidit1; b9; onyx; true believer forever; caww; All

“Santorum is NO fiscal conservative! An antitax advocacy group zinged Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s tax plan, giving him a grade of “D+” grade and the dubious honor of proposing what “may be the worst idea of any of the Republican candidates.”

” I’m rather tired of all the people who don’t like Romney trying to claim Rick Santorum is not a big government conservative, or not a pro-life statist. I would support him before I would support Romney too, but I have no intention of giving up ideological and intellectual consistency in the name of beating Mitt Romney.

Rick Santorum is a pro-life statist. He is. You will have to deal with it. He is a big government conservative. Santorum is right on social issues, but has never let his love of social issues stand in the way of the creeping expansion of the welfare state. In fact, he has been complicit in the expansion of the welfare state.” - Erick Erickson

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/

Anyone who raises spending is actually raising taxes, to support his high spending. And Santorum was NEVER shy in raising spending. In his Congressman career he sponsored or co-sponsored FIFTY-ONE spending bills.

Individual freedom and limited government, are the true values that made America great. The welfare, nanny state that Santorum strongly supported, is certainly not what the US was founded on.

We do not need the government to tell me how to live and to give me values, I can do that on my own just fine.
Santorum thinks he is the man, who hold all the truth, and that he and his government have the “obligation” to impose it on people.


90 posted on 02/15/2012 1:41:38 PM PST by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am vI do not need the government ery, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Taxachusan

Yeah, that’s what I got out of it. I think all of these politicians play politics.... It’s what we’re stuck with. And yes, wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall? Of course, if we were we would probably never vote again. I am not 100% opposed to Newt or Santorum. I am not thrilled with our choices, but they are better than what we have in office now. We need a conservative Congress regardless.


91 posted on 02/15/2012 1:49:13 PM PST by brytlea (An ounce of chocolate is worth a pound of cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
The AFL CIO voting records are not just labor issues - its' a total liberal platform scorecard.

Simply not true.

The AFL-CIO scorecard, as disclosed on their website, consists of a list of votes on specific bills (looking over their scorecards about 15-25 per session) that they consider important for "the labor movement."

It is not a list of all bills voted.

92 posted on 02/15/2012 1:52:54 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Marguerite

Thanks for all the stuff to read, and more importantly, THINK ABOUT... now if we could get the Tea Party types to look at him clearly... there is still time.. Thanks!


93 posted on 02/15/2012 1:55:07 PM PST by true believer forever (Save the Irish Setters - Vote Newt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

I never said it was a total bills voted ledger - but it is not just labor bills. Far from it. “Important to labor” means a lot of things to labor union liberals and if you go thru and link to some of the bills, you will find out that many have nothing to do with labor per se.


94 posted on 02/15/2012 1:57:48 PM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

There are some problems in his voting record, but it is statistically slightly more conservative than Santorums - which is ironic - because many of Santorum’s followers and Santorum himself wants folks to believe he is actually far more conservative than Newt. That’s my main point with that.

And Santorum did get more and more liberal the longer he stayed in congress (first the House then the senate).


95 posted on 02/15/2012 2:01:41 PM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: true believer forever

I have looked at him clearly and judged him to be a better choice than Mr. Gingrich. I wish we had those two choices, without the distraction of Romney and Paul.


96 posted on 02/15/2012 2:02:57 PM PST by Ingtar ("But it is hard to maintain an aura of invincibility after you have been vinced..." Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
There are some problems in his voting record, but it is statistically slightly more conservative than Santorums - which is ironic - because many of Santorum’s followers and Santorum himself wants folks to believe he is actually far more conservative than Newt. That’s my main point with that.

And Santorum did get more and more liberal the longer he stayed in congress (first the House then the senate).

I think the difference is that those who believe Santorum more conservative look at the post-Congress and pre-Contract years for Gingrich and compare them as a whole.

97 posted on 02/15/2012 2:07:51 PM PST by Ingtar ("But it is hard to maintain an aura of invincibility after you have been vinced..." Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: dt57; katiedidit1; b9; onyx; caww; true believer forever; All

What “past transgressions disqualify” Newt ?

Newt is the MOST qualified candidate for the office of president, and the other contenders including Obama, cannot hold a candle to him, as far as their accomplishments are concerned.

And I tell you from the start, DON’T even dare bring the divorce matter on the table, I won’t even listen to them. If you elected a candidate for sainthood, then you could make a point, but as you elect the president, his past personal life is a moot point. Playing into the leftists’ hands, who never gave a damn that the democratic presidents from Roosevelt, Kennedy to Clinton, entertained their multiple mistresses in the White House, but are rediscovering their “puritan side” when they point their “horror” in face of two divorces in 50 years in a man’s adult life. It would be funny as hell to see all those Obama supporters - Hollywood stars rising this topic.

Other than that, his private life, which is none of your business, you have NOTHING against Newt. His 20 years record in the House speaks for itself - 91% conservative voting record , 98.7% pro-life voting record.

You guys, you tire me with the mantra that “Newt is disqualified”. He’s the BEST Republican candidate in the past 25 years.


98 posted on 02/15/2012 2:10:20 PM PST by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am vI do not need the government ery, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

I agree that’s what they do - I just don’t think it’s that valid - since most of them overlook or have no idea how Santorum was getting more and more liberal the longer he stayed in congress and they have no idea how incredibly liberal is last campaign was in 06.

I also submit they have set a high bar for themselves by sniping at other candidates while pretending to be pure. Very off putting.


99 posted on 02/15/2012 2:10:41 PM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free
I don’t pretend to know how fiscally reponsible Santorum would be, but this fallacious article is a joke and doesn’t begin to teach me a thing besides the fact that junior Senators have to vote along party lines a lot of the time.

Why?

Is someone holding a gun to their head?
100 posted on 02/15/2012 2:13:00 PM PST by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-226 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson