Posted on 01/31/2012 5:05:36 AM PST by SeekAndFind
RE: I’d love to know who that talk radio personality is, because in the world of talk radio, if it’s not Rush or Levin, the guy’s a backbencher.
It’s actually Mark Simone ( and he occasionally subs for Mark Levin when Mark is away ).
“Have you read any of the Federalist Papers? Very dry.”
And unfortunately wrong. The more cynical Anti-federalists have proven to be correct about the gradual corruptions of government.
Fair enough if that is your opinion. I just don’t see him as that conservative or that strong. I certainly prefer him over Romney or Paul however, and will support him in the general if he makes it and is not sharing the ticket with Romney.
I love Mark Simone, but he’s more a moderate than anything. I’d never think of casting a vote based on his commentary, but I would take his advice re entertainment for a night out.
IMO, the Constitution of the United States is also as dry as toast. Very *VERY* dry.
Agreed! So much so, hardly any legislators or executives seem to have read it.
Did you even bother to read Newt’s white paper on health reform?
My point being that anyone who complains that Santorum is “boring” or “dry” is really complaining about the “boringness” or “dryness” of the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution, because our founding documents comprise the platform from which Rick launched his entire campaign.
Neither Rick, nor the Constitution, are as dry as those complainers are dull witted and intellectually lazy.
Oh, I know he was in the wrong of it, as was the Heritage Foundation. None of the candidates we had this cycle are solidly conservative, nor is Gingrich my first, second or even third choice. But out of the two who remain who might fight for me some of the time, I will take the pit bull over the lhasa apso.
It is not so much that he is dry as that he comes across as weak. At his best in the debates when he rightly took Romney to task on HealthControl, it was more like a scolding from the bookkeeper than being brought before the mast by a commanding officer. Santorum underwhelms me. That’s just how it is.
I thought he was masterful in the last debate.
At any rate, it might be a good thing to compare your visceral reaction with Rush’s comments regarding the conservative message and the *bearer* of the conservative message. Rush oftentimes is a very wise man. :-)
I thought he was masterful in the last debate.
At any rate, it might be a good thing to compare your visceral reaction with Rush’s comments regarding the conservative message and the *bearer* of the conservative message. Rush oftentimes is a very wise man. :-)
No, i am talking about the White Paper that Newt’s campaign released a few months ago.
No one is talking about it because no one was really paying attention to Newt at that time. Newt’s plan is better than Romneycare, but not by much.
My visceral reactions have actually proven correct more than my intellectual ones in assessing character. Not infallible, but very good. I’ve ignored them only to my cost.
Anyway I look at the deeds rather than the rhetoric. Santorum is a big government guy. For the reasons that he is both uninspiring and big government, he is my weapon of last resort should it come down to that. He is useful to me at is only because a portion of his social conservatism is acceptable to me. A portion is not. Most social conservatism is the province of spiritual warfare, IMO. Not all, but most.
Rush is more clever than wise. And he certainly is clever. Last time he was all over the concept of vote dilution in the Democrat primary. It did not work out, as clever things often backfire, but it was still clever.
Would it put taxpayers’ money into the hands of Planned Parenthood?
You mean Gingrich’s health care plan? I’m not sure, but it is a big government solution, just less so than Obamneycare. Gingrich is still the same big government guy that he always was. As far as I’m concerned, more government is never the answer to our problems.
The only way to keep Gingrich thinking small government is to keep Santorum in the race.
“As far as I’m concerned, more government is never the answer to our problems.”
On that, we are in full accord.
Yes....see my post # 29
Santorum is about Santorum. He's true blue establishment as evidenced by his Spector over Toomey endorsement. Folks should not be surprised he's happy to split the conservatives to Romney's favor.
Arguing with this is like arguing with someone who says they don't like bologna. Moving on....
Anyway I look at the deeds rather than the rhetoric. Santorum is a big government guy. For the reasons that he is both uninspiring and big government, he is my weapon of last resort should it come down to that.
1. We'd have to go through all his votes to determine how "big government" he was, and in proportion to other Congressmen of the time. As Santorum points out, some of his earmarks were for the state he represented, and some were for the military, such as the development of predator drones, which the DOD wanted to discontinue.
2. Some of his votes were in support of those who would later support him on *his* legislation, such as welfare reform and the partial birth abortion ban.
3. He has acknowledged that times have changed and in response to current conditions, he discusses his plans for entitlement reforms, economic recovery, manufacturing, tax cuts, spending reductions, balanced budgets, etc.
But you're free to cleave to the past, and chant the MSM mantra.
BTW, Rush is right about that one. :-)
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.