Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Yes, you can be conservative and not support Santorum

Yes, you can be conservative and not support Santorum

I still support Newt, but I’m not oblivious to the challenges currently facing his campaign.

So what if ….

Should the race come down to Santorum or Romney, I’d have to think about it, as shocking as that may sound given my criticisms of Romney.  That’s not so much a vote of confidence in Romney, as it is an uneasiness with Santorum.

I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other about Santorum at this point.  I find him off-putting and prosecutorial, but I certainly could overcome such measurements.

Most of all, I find him to be the least scrutinized of the candidates so far.

We’ve already highlighted that whatever consistency he has had, Santorum is not a small government Tea Party kinda guy.  He’s just not, and running ads quoting a WaPo writer to say he is isn’t enough (the same writer also said “[c]onspicuous candor has been part of Obama’s campaign”).

Until someone can convince me otherwise, Santorum appears to be as big a big government kinda guy as Romney on economic issues, with the exception of health care.  That “exception” may be enough in the end.

On social issues, Santorum is a bigger big government guy than Romney, although his record is unclear as to the extent to which his anti-libertarianism would be refected in policy, but there is reason to question.  Which is why I’d have to learn a lot more about him.

I consider myself a Tea Party kinda conservative, or what I previously (and I think accurately) have described as conservative with a dash of libertarian.

I think this is a pretty good explanation of the phenomenon which got the Democrats kicked out of the House in 2010:

The Tea Party movement was supposed to represent an end to this sort of moralistic Big Government conservatism. Animated by “fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets,” as the Tea Party Patriots’ credo put it, the movement had supposedly put social issues on the back burner to focus on the crisis of government growth.

I don’t think Santorum “can’t win.”  I’m just not sure yet I would want him to, depending on the alternative.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I’m in a very similar place on Santorum employing a very similar approach, which indicates similar thinking. This bodes worse for you than me, lol.

I can’t help wondering if Santorum would be the complete opposite to obama religiously. By that I mean would he try to push religion into our daily lives instead of abolishing it.A conundrum, is it not?

    Henry Hawkins in reply to BarbaraS. | February 17, 2012 at 5:15 pm

    I don’t see Santorum trying that or even wanting to. Even less do I see congress supporting it.

      That is the problem with people who are freaking out about “religious nutcase” Santorum. They are right to criticize him on the economic issues, just like they would be right to do the same with Newt, Paul, and Romney. But he will not be able to get a Republican congress, let alone a closely divided or Democrat one, to go along with him on the issues of abortion and contraception.

As I said on Dan’s blog…

I don’t believe Santorum CAN’T be elected.

As with Romney, I think he SHOULDN’T be elected.

I don’t support nanny-statism from anybody.

    AmandaFitz in reply to Ragspierre. | February 17, 2012 at 8:55 pm

    I still believe that Newt Gingrich is the only candidate who has conservative credentials, the knowledge of how Congress works (or doesn’t), and the courage to immediately begin to undo the damaging laws and regulations that Obama has put into place to “transform” the country.

    I like that Newt doesn’t take any guff off of anyone- not the media and not his own party’s establishment. (Ask yourself, “WHY did the GOP establishment attack Gingrich SO ferociously when his poll numbers were 10-12 points higher than Romney’s?” Hint: It doesn’t have to do with his marriages or “ethics” issues, it’s about his innate desire to reform how things are done in Washington.)

    Most of us sense that the GOP establishment powers-that-be are almost as detrimental to the country as the Democrats are.

    http://www.timetochoose.com/

I just don’t know if I could vote for Santorum. I don’t trust him, I don’t believe Santorum would fight the good fight for positive, conservative change. I think he would fall in line with the establishment in FACT, he voted with George Bush on practically everything. It would be very interesting to see how he would react if he had the Democrats, GOP establishment and media all joining forces to attack him like they are Newt.

I can’t understand how a guy who can be such a strong supporter of a guy whose only source of funds is a rabid open borders/cap and trade supporter like Sheldon Adelson would have trouble picking Santorum over Romney. Santorum is not a “Tea Party kinda guy” but Gingrich and Romney are? WTF?

    StrangernFiction in reply to Pasadena Phil. | February 17, 2012 at 8:05 pm

    Until someone can convince me otherwise, Santorum appears to be as big a big government kinda guy as Romney on economic issues, with the exception of health care.

    You might want to check this out Professor:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/was-santorum-senate-spendthrift_629850.html?page=2

    You’re a smart man and I’m sure you’d want to make your decision, if it comes down to Santorum vs. Romney, with as much information and context as possible.

      Certainly Santorum opposed regulations on industry and banking, and he opposed anything that increased taxes, but he also supported every Bush-era pork project and give away, spend and don’t tax or make choices our offsets that can hardly be called “fiscally conservative” that ran up the deficit when he was in power. Not hardly conservatism with a libertarian streak. The report cards that make Santorum out to be the most conservative in the Senate are exactly the ones that promote and give cover t io “establishment ” Republicans. If that’s what you want, that’s fine. But be aware of how those report cards are designed to praise.

      For that matter, some among Taxed Enough Already are just fine with lowering taxes, but doing nothing on the spending side, or making a show of not raising the debt ceiling, but not giving up any world police peers or their own pork, or their favorite social welfare program, either out of need, ignorance, or hypocrisy.

Of the three, I support Newt too. But this idea that we would rather have Obama in office rather than Romney or Santorum is wrong headed. Do you really want O to have more Supreme Court nominations?

    Astroman in reply to Malonth. | February 17, 2012 at 9:06 pm

    My reply to this is that I voted for Palin last time (which means I was forced to vote for McCain). Being a good little Republican and voting for the establishment-approved RINO last time got us 4 years of Obama.

    Needless to say, I find that argument much less persuasive this time.

      WoodnWorld in reply to Astroman. | February 18, 2012 at 3:07 am

      My reply to this is that I voted for Palin last time (which means I was forced to vote for McCain). Being a good little Republican and voting for the establishment-approved RINO last time got us 4 years of Obama.

      Wait, this makes absolutely no sense Astro. Explain to me how not voting for the “approved RINO” would have prevented “4 years of Obama.”

      By the time you were even able to vote “for Palin” there was only one alternative to Obama. That was McCain.

      Needless to say, I find that argument much less persuasive this time.

      What argument? When the primary nominee is selected you have two choices: Obama or Republican candidate “X.” That’s it. With those two choices you can either a) vote for Obama, b) vote for Republican “X” or c) not vote at all.

      You didn’t make a mistake by voting for McCain; we just didn’t win. As a matter of fact, we actually didn’t lose by that much either. It certainly wasn’t the sweeping mandate the Left claimed it to be.

The MSM will make the campaign about Social Issues if it is Rick or Crony Capitalism/Bain/Punish the Wealthy if it is Mitt.

Neither of those choices are great,because they will cloud the real issues so I gotta work even harder for Newt.

National Review on Sheldon Adelson’s liberal views.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/291235/why-newts-biggest-donor-so-opposed-santorum

Why does this not explain Newt’s pandering to latinos on amnesty and not reinforce his previously stated support on the individual mandate and cap and trade?

    Ragspierre in reply to Pasadena Phil. | February 17, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    Perhaps Adelson sees Santorum as a potential threat to his businesses. In an interview with Jon Ralston in Nevada, Santorum seemed to suggest that he is very critical of legal gambling.

    Asked about the legalization of online gambling, Santorum responds:

    I’m someone who takes the opinion that gaming is not something that is beneficial, particularly having that access on the Internet. Just as we’ve seen from a lot of other things that are vices on the Internet, they end to grow exponentially as a result of that. It’s one thing to come to Las Vegas and do gaming and participate in the shows and that kind of thing as entertainment, it’s another thing to sit in your home and have access to that it. I think it would be dangerous to our country to have that type of access to gaming on the Internet.

    C’mon, Filly. Say it with me…

    NANNY. STATIST.

    Two Words: National Review

    Two More Words: Romney Supporters

    And The Two Bonus Words Are: Not Credible

    As Marvin The Martian might say: There’s no kaboom here

It appears that at this time we have come almost full-circle back to the beginning of our discussions here in regard to who each of us preferred and hoped would win the nomination. At the start of the circle many good and bad points were made about why ‘our’ candidate was better than ‘yours’, but there were also many who agreed the ABO was the bottom line……I haven’t given up hope yet but ABO does contain an ‘O’ …..interpret as you will.

Depending on the time of day and the mood I’m in, I’ll call myself either a conservative or a libertarian. I would be supporting Gary Johnson had he not made squishy doubletalk about the size and role of the military.

Re Santorum: …his record is unclear as to the extent to which his anti-libertarianism would be reflected in policy, but there is reason to question.

That clinches it.

The Big Tent is not a suicide pact.

I think the Tea Party will keep Santorum’s big government impulses in check. And I doubt that an expansive social issue agenda will go anywhere in this economy.

The preachiness is off-putting and tiresome, but Romney really isn’t a charmer either. We need Reagan charisma running against Obama, but none of the GOP candidates are attractive in that department. Gingrich fails in that area too.

I’ve NEVER liked Santorum, and I still don’t, but I’m trying to learn to like him because Gingrich is fading out again, and I doubt he can come back from the dead again.

Romney is a big Govt liberal who doesn’t understand conservatives at all. To him, good conservatism is “severe,” harsh, unfriendly and mean. Conservatives are like dirty, confusing foreigners who push his xenophobia button.

Whoever Repubs nominate will be widely portrayed as a weirdo. Romney as a weird Mormon rich guy who wants poor people to die, Santorum as a weird totalitarian Christian who wants women to die.

With either of these two, there will be formidable challenges in beating Obama.

But I ask myself: If elected, which of these two would sympathize with conservatives… which would make a serious effort to roll back the Obama agenda, including Obamacare?

In a few days, Santorum will be meeting with my local Tea Party group for 3 hours. Suggestions for questions would be appreciated.

    You’re taking big risks voicing Tea Party positions around here. Around here, the only real conservative is a pro-Israel big government establishment liberal.

      Ragspierre in reply to Pasadena Phil. | February 17, 2012 at 6:36 pm

      Awww….

      You want a little Bactine and a band aid before we call the WHAAAAAAAM-bu-lance…???

      Nice to know that you are anti-Semitic also…..I’ll have to be sure to dislike your posts more often

      Hope Change in reply to Pasadena Phil. | February 17, 2012 at 8:15 pm

      Pasadena Phil —

      I infer that you consider that you are representing TEA Party values? If so, you and I are allies. I’ve asked you before what you’re for. Still wondering.

      TEA Party leaders have said publicly that when they were just getting started and no politicians would give them the time of day, Newt came and talked to their new TEA Party group. — And that Newt never asked for anything in return.

      Look at the energy, enthusiasm and eagerness in the audience in the Town Hall from Arizona from last October. Brilliant.

      To everyone who supports Newt — Yes, this is hard. And it’s not fair. And we’re being attacked by people who ought to be our allies. And it hurts. It feels terrible. And did I mention, it’s not fair.

      But think about Poland, WWII, the American Revolution, our terrible Civil War — and the countless people who have had to stand up to tyranny that included death and prison. Think about those who have given so much, sometimes their lives, for freedom. Let’s show some resolve. They are not the boss of us. Our rights are our birthright. There are more of us than there are of them.

      “America is the force that defeated communism and all those who would put the human soul itself into bondage.” Ronald Reagan (via Maggie’s Notebook)

      This is a decisive moment.

      “I WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW FAST WE CAN TURN THINGS AROUND” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PbH-p8ruFA
      WesternFreePress.com, Phoenix, Arizona – October 19, 2011 – 1:16:53 This is a town hall organized in three days. Especially, see the part of this town hall in which the citizens talk to Newt about parts of Arizona that the federal government has posted, 125 miles inland from our border, saying to Americans that it is not safe to go here, a part of the United States. The feds fail to secure the safety of American citizens.

      If you want to be part of Newt’s team, go to newt’s network and sign up. Find your state leaders.

        EmmasMom in reply to Hope Change. | February 17, 2012 at 8:39 pm

        Thanks Hope Change! Just what I needed to read!

          Hope Change in reply to EmmasMom. | February 17, 2012 at 11:32 pm

          Emma’sMom, thanks. really.

          the idea that we’re going to fold up and say we’re doomed when we have an excellent fighting chance to restore our country is just the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.

    Hope Change in reply to RightKlik. | February 17, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    Hi RightKlik-

    What can you do to help get Newt elected? would be a good question to ask.

    You’re welcome.

    I agree with your assessment, RightKlik. Not only that, but I do hear some “moderation” on the big government, big spending stuff from Santorum right now; whether that’s down to the mood of the country (and political shifting) or to actual change in his worldview may be interesting to find out (God knows my own ideology has changed substantially in just the past three years–I’ve become far more conservative in light of the horrors of BO’s failed presidency).

    I heard Jim DeMint on Greta say that he’s a reformed pork spender, so I know that there are shifts toward more limited, less free-spending government in even solid conservatives happening with members of Congress as well as within many of us in America. That matters.

    EmmasMom in reply to RightKlik. | February 18, 2012 at 8:19 am

    Rightklik, Can you ask about non-social issues? Any specifics would be helpful I think.

    One of the concerns I have about the former senator is his seeming inability to admit to changing his mind. That’s fine with on some issues, like support of the unborn and Israel. It may also be a function of media soundbites.

    With changing times and economics, some positions should be changed – or at least tweaked. Earmarks are one example. His statements about being proud of his earmarks may be out of context, or he may still deeply believe this.

    A question about how (if) his position on earmarks (or some other non-social issue) have evolved would be helpful to see how he thinks.

    And I’m interested in knowing how the meeting goes. Thanks!

I share your problem. As a fiscal conservative I am not persuaded by the social conservative values Mr. Santorum hangs his hat on. I am not sure we end up with a smaller more effective government with Mr. Santorum.

it depends on whether we want to have a fighting chance of winning the whitehouse or if we want to make some sort of ‘moral’ statement while going down in spectacular flames.
romney can steer the conversation back to the economy, smaller government, and individual liberty. santorum, with his long history of statements regarding privacy and sex (he doesn’t believe in either one), will be a laughingstock to all but the most ardently ‘religious’.
as for gingrich…i’d still love to see him rip obama a new one in debate, but it’s not all about a couple of debates and i do worry a bit about his tendency to go off and come across as just some angry little old man.

    heimdall in reply to el polacko. | February 17, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    If the economy improves, Mitt Romney will look like a deer in the headlights of the Obama Bus coming for another victim. He is the republican John Kerry.

    Seriously, you cannot tell me that Mitt Romney believes in individual liberty or small government with his support of the single thing that has sparked the most hated piece of legislation in modern america. He supports governmental oversight of health care. THAT IS ONE SIXTH OF THE ECONOMY. It is WRONG at the state level and it is WRONG at the federal level. People today are still wanting full repeal of the legislation and are seeing firsthand what this bill is allowing the President to do re: contraception. That is just the tip of the iceberg with Mitt.

    How can you justify his support for Cap and Trade legislation? Is that going to lead to smaller government and individual liberty? How can you justify his support for gun restrictions? Is that what smaller government and individual liberty look like? What about his support for TARP (before he was against it)? What about his nominating of judges to the Massachusetts courts who held liberal radical views, but at least were “tough on crime.” With someone with as long a history as that as a liberal, why is he the one to steer back the conversation to the economy, smaller government, and individual liberty?

    Yeah that religious nutcase Santorum (which won’t have any effect on social issues anyways) and that angry little old man Gingrich is sure baaaaaaaad. I really hope we don’t nominate them to show off our morals. I really want to nominate Romney to show we care about nothing else other than “winning.”

    I will take social conservative Santorum and “angry little old man” Gingrich over Romney every second of every day of the week.

The difference between Newt and Romney or Santorum:

Newt is the only one besides Ron Paul who wants to deal with the FED, restore hard precious metal backed currency, stop foreign/domestic (aka Soros) manipulation of currency, restore supply-side economics, deal with the corrupt political establishment machine (both parties) – He’s not afraid to attempt the big deep stuff that will make the US healthy for years to come.

Paul talks about the economy, closing federal agencies, non-interventionalist foreign policy and legalizing drugs and sex-trafficking (which is ridiculous with Hezbollah’s drug cartels in Mexico, South and Central America – and they are also infiltrating the US. We do not need to stop the war on drugs but accelerate it to an all-out-blast-them-all-to-h3!! war.

Santorum talks about schools, business, mid-level manufacturing, etc., tax codes, reducing entitlement benefits, Iran, but not the FED, currency manipulation, US sovereignty.

Romney is part of both big money and the political establishment. Both Bain and the Salt Lake City Olympics got bailed out with taxpayer dollars. Romney has lived and profited at our expense… at the expense of the mid-level manufacturing, middle income taxpayer families like any other elite. I’m too angry with his blatant lies, flip/flops, etc to want to listen to his platform. I wouldn’t believe anything he said anyway. Just like Obama… his statements mean nothing.

    retire05 in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 17, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    Let’s take a look at your second paragram where you list all the things you think Newt would deal with. Do you think policy happens in a vacumn? Do you think those things are now important but were not important when Newt Gingrich was a Congressman and went on to become Speaker? You don’t get to Z without having first started at A and working your way through the rest of the alphabet.

    Gingrich had a chance to deal with the corruption that was in his House. Instead, knowing what kind of corrupt politician Randy (Duke) Cunningham was, Gingrich appointed Cunningham to a tony committee, bypassing senior members and ignoring standard practice. And where was Gingrich’s bill to restore precious metal backed currency? It wasn’t like he didn’t have a chance to write that legislation, and try to get it passed, in his 20 years in the House.

    I have said repeatedly, I think all the remaining candidates are unacceptable, but to think that Gingrich is now going to do what he had 20 years to accomplish is pure delusional. What he is doing is throwing red meat.

    We are screwed with any of the remaining candidates. Time you accept that.

      Gosh-Oh-Gee-Whiz, Retire:

      You sure filled the room with straw men. Hope you had fun knocking them down.

        retire05 in reply to gad-fly. | February 17, 2012 at 7:47 pm

        And the point you are trying to make is? Perhaps that Gingrich talks a good game, but you can’t show where he persued any of the things he talks about now when he was in the House for 20 years?

        The strawman is your comment which offers no dispute to what I said.

      Hope Change in reply to retire05. | February 17, 2012 at 8:38 pm

      retire05, your criticisms of Newt are like those of an extraterrestrial sent by his planet to learn about humans. They beam him into a grocery store in a shopping center, and he grabs a box of dog biscuits.

      What Newt accomplished is like that whole shopping center. All you know about is the dog biscuits.

      Newt is largely responsible for the excellent economy we had in the 90’s. See Politi Jim’s endorsement of Newt for real research, real facts, real perspective.
      DEAR SPEAKER GINGRICH
      http://www.politijim.com/2012/02/dear-speaker-gingrich.html

      get some perspective. your country is in trouble.

        retire05 in reply to Hope Change. | February 17, 2012 at 9:49 pm

        “extraterrestial?”

        Your debate skills are tbose of a six year old who has recently watched E.T. Please, do try to discuss issues and differences in an adult fashion instead of fairy tale senarios.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to retire05. | February 17, 2012 at 9:58 pm

      retire: “Let’s take a look at your second paragram where you…”

      I don’t think paragram means what you think it does. A paragram is a play on words. Did you mean paragraph? Need to know, because we hang on your every word.

        Yes, I meant “paragraph.” So sue me. You seem to be the type that would do that.

        As to hanging on my every word, I doubt you do that although I also doubt you possess the mind to not hang on someone’s every word. If an independent thought ever entered your head, Henry, it would die of loneliness.

I also have my doubts in the event our choices are Romney and Santorum. Santorum has been pidgeon-holed into a social conservative role by the media (both left and right). No one has really asked the important questions to fully vet his fiscal/legislative record. On a positive note, he is well-versed on foreign policy issues. The trouble is that Santorum reminds me bit of Rev. Dimmesdale from the Scarlet Letter.

Without the debate, Newt has un “uphill resurrection” at this point, but I am not counting him out. He is back on message, has rolled out the “Drill Here, Drill Now” campaign again which tells me that his political instincts are sharp as ever. Of course, he has the tacit approval from Palin which helps, and Sheldon just forked over another $10 million bucks.

If Obama is re-elected, he is going to be far worse in a second term than in his first term. That’s the deal breaker for me and why I’ll support whoever is the GOP candidate wholeheartedly.

Until we have the GOP candidate, I don’t have any problems with the rest of you vetting them like you’re doing now, but after the GOP convention, it’s time to work to prevent Obama from achieving his desire to turn the US into a Banana Republic.

ABO, baby, and OMG in January 2013!!!!!!!

Defeat is not an option. Gingrich has simply got to get it together and get back on top. That’s who regular Joe non-ideologue middle class voters want to vote for. Remember that 65% still remain even after super-Tuesday.

I am supporting Newt and hoping against hope there is an honest effort being put forth to elevate him in significant states.

Sometimes I feel that Newt doesn’t want the Presidency bad enough. He seems to take things for granted and doesn’t grasp that you actually have to work hard and earn the people’s respect. However, my support of him is for his previous record as Speaker and my faith that he would do what he has said he would do.

As for Rick Santorum, I don’t think he will carry in a general election. The way he has campaigned has assured defeat when a large percentage of the electorate will see him as an extremist. Most assuredly, the MSM will paint him as such.

Mitt Romney shouldn’t even be qualified to run for President. He was the author of RomneyCare in which Obama used as a model for ObamaCare. How would Mitt even go about defending his position on this, when he can’t even disavow it? He’s actually proud of it! Obama will also play the class warfare card and Wall Street cronyism. It’s a losing platform.

This really puts the people between a rock and a hard place. I’m really mad that the Republicans saw fit to shove Romney down our throats without even thinking what the repercussions could be.

This election is a very serious one and we can’t just throw anyone in the Oval Office. We need to be assured that this person will tear everything down that has been done to destroy our liberties. I don’t want everything to remain the status quo. We need a real shaking up of government and draining the swamp.

It’s really too bad that these debates have been cancelled. Santorum has yet to be fully vetted and it doesn’t look like he’s going to get it.

Should the race come down to Santorum or Romney, it would be Santorum. No-brainer.

There is a lot of vetting still needed. I get an uneasy feeling with both the front runners because I don’t think either one has the backbone to fight the good fight. Gingrich has one more – hopefully – chance to step up his game, otherwise I will have to begin practicing holding my nose. I bid you farewell for a while. Family problems will keep me away and I will miss reading the blog. Keep fighting professor.

I have no concerns that Santorum would attempt to force religious or moral dogma down the electorate’s throat. I, too, am a Catholic and the church is hardly the equivalent of Islam (convert, pay the jizya, or be killed). Santorum has given no evidence that he would violate the secular polity, though I would not be surprised if he tried to nudge policy in the direction of his religious beliefs. Santorum’s beliefs are fairly conservative, standard Christian – nothing exotic. But even if he did, better that than what Obama is doing (Muslim in unconvincing guise of a Christian). Newt is a Catholic, too, and there is a saying in the church that “converts are often holier than the pope,” but I’m not worried about him, either.

I am, however, worried about Romney. He is a very big government guy and, moreover, the tenor of his speeches, and you don’t have to listen very hard, simply lacks the quality of believability.

For you lawyers, if being a liberal (or “moderate”) were a capital offense, would Romney be able to convince an average jury that he is not guilty? I wouldn’t bet on it. Would you?

    retire05 in reply to nomadic100. | February 17, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    While I cannot see what is in Newt’s heart, he is not “holier than the Pope” by any stretch of the imagination. As a matter of fact, Newt doesn’t meet with Catholic doctrine, nor does his wife.

    With the advent of Vatican II, the rules changed about who could marry in the Church. It no longer stands that if you were previously married, but not a Catholic and not married in any faith (which Newt was), you could marry in the Church. Until such time that Newt Gingrich seeks annulments from his first two wives, he cannot marry in the Church, nor can he receive the Sacrament of Communion as he and Callista are basically living “in sin.” Sorry, but them are the rules. Newt may have been baptised, but he cannot make his First Holy Communion, or be Confirmed. Not as long as he, and Callista, live as man and wife.

    And if Callista is being allowed to receive Communion, her pastor should be called down on it by the Bishop.

      AmandaFitz in reply to retire05. | February 17, 2012 at 8:59 pm

      Newt may already have gotten annulments BEFORE he and Callista were married- YOU don’t know whether he has or not.

      Hope Change in reply to retire05. | February 17, 2012 at 9:09 pm

      retire05, it’s my understanding that Newt and Callista did everything under the direction of the Catholic Church, that their marriage is sanctified. I heard Newt say in an interview that if this were not the case, he could not take communion.

      If you are such an expert on Newt, why didn’t you know that? Or do you think of obscure items no one has heard of and criticize with those?

      Newt brings skills and experience, vision and a clear plan to the American People. If we choose to, we can restore our country, using this plan.

      Your criticisms are narrow and untrue. You’re like the boy at the back of the room, who dislikes the student who has done his homework, so you bring your pea shooter.

      Our country needs us right now.

        retire05 in reply to Hope Change. | February 17, 2012 at 10:04 pm

        Newt Gingrich’s ex-wife, Marianne, told Esquire that she had received a request for nullification from Newt. Perhaps you can find an article where it talks about Gingrich’s Church approved annulments and consequent marriage to Callista in the Church. Getting married in a [private] civil ceremony is NOT a “santified” ceremony, not by any rule of the Catholic Church. And no priest, monsignor or Bishop would have officiated a “civil” ceremoney.

        So, until I read that Gingrich has actually received both annulments, and that his marriage to Callista is “sanctioned” by the Church (which requires another ceremony) I will stick to what I know, not what I think I know, as you do.

        As to our country needing us; yes, it does. But as it stands, we don’t have a candidate that fills that need. And no amount of ignoring Ginginch’s past is going to change it.

          Re “As to our country needing us; yes, it does. But as it stands, we don’t have a candidate that fills that need. And no amount of ignoring Ginginch’s past is going to change it.”

          A question retire05…….I ask this as one who dreamed of a Palin/Perry ticket but dreams often don’t come true….

          Are you going to vote for anyone or just stay home and fume?

          retire05 in reply to retire05. | February 17, 2012 at 10:54 pm

          Joy, I have 9 months to decide what to do. I know that I will vote down ticket for every Republican. I know that we must primary those Republicans that vote against our interests, such as the vote today to allow the judicial confirmation hearings for Jesse Furman (an anti-religious judicial nominee who thinks that the judiciary should have the right to over rule the legislature). Those RINOs who voted to allow the nomination hearings to procede were the Maine twins, Collins and Snowe, MA’s Scott Brown, Kyl, Graham and McCain and they joined with every Democrat agains their own party.

          But what is worse? Four more years of Obama, hopefully made a lame duck with a GOP controlled House, and Senate, or 8 years of someone who has been giving pretty speeches but whose history belies their current positions and who is not trustworthy?

          I am no fan of Romney. He governed as he is, a liberal. Sanme with Santorum who seems a bit spineless and was a go-along to get-along Senator. But make no mistake; Gingrich had the opportunity, nay, the responsibility to do the things he now talks about while he was in Congress. People should be asking themselves why he didn’t and why he has changed his opinions on so many things. Yes, he supported the individual mandate (“must carry” rule) as he promoted his Health Solutions group. Yes, he advocated for global warming, a political, not scientific, agenda that is rapidly falling apart. Yes, he praised Romneycare.

          That people here are willing to ignore those things disturbes me but I am not. Nor am I willing to ignore any of the brain dead things Santorum and Romney have done. We do NOT have a true conservative in the running, and that is the simple fact of the matter.

          So what am I going to do? Right now I am trying to help elect Ted Cruz, a first generation American who understands that we are on the road to ruin and that Republicans need to develope a spine, who has a brilliant legal mind and is a true Constitutionalist. As to the general presidential election, I see no difference in any of those who seek power for power’s sake.

          retire05…..while I understand and, believe it or not, agree with much of what you say I think that you and several others here have forgotten about what has been termed the Arab Spring……a turmoil encouraged and I have no doubt fostered in many cases by Obama’s administration. This turmoil will affect not just our allies but every one of us if our foreign policy is allowed to continue down this path. In short…..I ask you put aside your personal feelings for whoever our nominee will be and look at the broader consequences of allowing Evil to reside in the White House.

          SmokeVanThorn in reply to retire05. | February 18, 2012 at 12:56 am

          Joy – Apparently, if retire05 votes for a presidential candidate at all, he will do so based on which candidate best addresses the most important issue facing the nation – men whose wives violate retire’s understanding of Catholic doctrine regarding taking the Eucharist.

          @retire: [quote]Four more years of Obama, hopefully made a lame duck with a GOP controlled House, and Senate, [/quote]

          Don’t kid yourself. Look at the past three years: “we can’t wait” (i.e. he’ll go around Congress any time he can), his myriad czars running the executive branch agencies like the commies they all are and instituting insane regulations, going around Congress to the UN to go to war with Syria (kinetic military action or whatever he wants to call it), executive orders that make my skin crawl, and who knows what else he’s doing with labor unions and other goon flunkies. And don’t forget that there will be at least one, probably two, and possibly three Supremes to be appointed in the next four years.

          It’s not just you, though. Too many people just don’t seem to understand what he’s doing, how he’s doing it, and what the end result will be. But it’s all there for anyone who cares to look at it. Do you really think he needs Congress to destroy this country at this point, after four years setting up his framework?

          wodiej in reply to retire05. | February 18, 2012 at 7:02 am

          WHO CARES?? People like you who don’t have anything better to do than judge other people. I’ll take a repentant sinner over someone who thinks they are perfect any day of the week. If far right conservatives would quit judging others, the world would be a better place. Take that log out of your own eye before removing the speck from others.

          retire05 in reply to retire05. | February 18, 2012 at 9:15 am

          wodiej, you do not seem to know the difference between sitting in judgement of someone and quoting Canon law. I cut you slack because I know you are not (judging by your posts) real bright.

          What Newt Gingrich, and his wife, do and how they conduct themselves in the Church is a matter between them and their Bishop, but Canon Law 915 prevents either one from taking Communion.

          retire05 in reply to retire05. | February 18, 2012 at 9:55 am

          Joy and Fuzzy, yes, I understand all the points you make and accept they are salient. But this is not my first rodeo. The Arab “spring” is no different, nor was it reported any differently, than the Cuban revolution. Castro was hailed a hero by the American press as he rolled into Havana. Che Guevera has been made into a heroic icon when in reality, he was a murdering slug. Nothing was farther from the truth.

          As to the czars, well, there is a simple way for Congress to get rid of them. They simply defund their salaries. They create legislation that abolishes the positions the czars hold. Congress holds the purse strings and not ONE unelected administrative position would stand if it were defunded. And while you whine about how Obama is doing all this harm, and he is, you ignore the actions of the Congress.

          Example: yesterday, seven Republicans joined with every one of the Democrats to advance confirmation hearings for an Obama nominated lower court justice. I suggest you ask Professor Jacobson about the record of Jesse Furman, an anti-religious juror who believes the judicial has the power to over ride the legislature and who is a leader of the American Constitution Society that believes the U.S. Constitution is not to be taken literally, but applied based on modern sociatal norms. Who were the RINOs that supported Furman’s advancement to Congressional approval?

          The Maine twins; Collins and Snowe
          Brown of Massachusetts
          John Kyl
          Lisa Murkowski
          and the Shamnesty Boys, Lindsay Graham and John McCain.

          Ask yourself this: why isn’t the Congress acting in its own power? Why are we still having hearings, a year later, on Fast and Furious and Eric Holder has not been prosecuted? Why does the Congress continue to make idle threats and no action? Holder has stonewalled Congress time after time, yet he remains in office. Why do we still not have a Constitutionally mandated budget and have not had one for three years? Max Baucus has been accused of using his position for enriching himself with insider trading information. Why is he not in front of an Ethics Committee?

          Obama’s power could be reduced greatly by the Congress, yet they, the Congress, seem imcompetent to do anything about him. Why is that?

          I’m sorry that some of you are upset because I am not falling all over myself over Gingrinch. But he is no different than the other two IMHO. He had the opportunity to advance his “conservative” beliefs and agenda when he was in possession of the gavel, but instead, his leadership was so bad that he knew he would not hold onto the gavel after January, 2009, SO HE QUIT. He turned his back on his constituents that has just re-elected him, picked up his marbles and left. That is not the sign of leadership, or should not be in anyone’s mind. That is someone who, if they can’t make the rules and be the referee, is not going to take part in the game.

          While I have great respect for Professor Jacobson, I am not inclined to concede to his personal opinion on the candidates. The responsibility for investigating each candidate falls on me, not someone else. I rejected Romney in ’08, and he has done nothing to change my mind in four years. Santorum left me unimpressed when he was in the Senate, and I remain unimpressed. Gingrich was a self-serving politician when he held the gavel, he remains self-serving and his record bears that out.

          The argument that one candidate is just not as bad as the other candidate is not a valid one for me. But since the Democrat Party has seen fit to try to take Texas out of the nomination process, by going to court to move our primary back to May 28th, by then it will not matter who I support. The choice will have been made by those who have simply joined one hallelujah chorus, or another.

          retire05…..Putting aside all of your arguments, both reasonable and petty, your comparison of the Arab Spring to Cuba both shocks and repulses me. I try very hard to not post harsh words to anyone but for you I will say

          HOW DARE YOU—–ARE YOU REALLY THAT STUPID?

          @retire, this may not be your first rodeo, but perhaps the first one quite like this? You talk about the GOP as if it is one thing, one group of monolithic ideals and principles, that somehow the 2010 midterm election was sufficient to change Congress. That’s rather naive in a way, and you yourself cite ample evidence of not only RINO’s but establishment republicans who need to be primaried and replaced with Constitutional conservatives.

          This has been coming for over a hundred years, one midterm won’t change anything, didn’t change anything. Expecting otherwise is an exercise in defeatism and naivete. Unless you (and other who expected some miracle after 2010 and are disappointed that one half of one third of government, and that one half of one third still run by RINO’s and establishment didn’t change everything) come to understand that we are the only ones right now who can change things.

          And the only we can do that is to be dedicated to replacing as many people in Congress (in both parties) with Constitutional conservatives (social or not, I don’t care). That’s going to take time (remember 100 years for the Dem party to essentially and effectively become the Communist party). It may not take 100 years, but it will certainly take more than one midterm. I’m expecting that we’ll still be replacing losers with Constitutional conservative until at least 2020–in every midterm and every general. That’s 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020. Likely beyond.

          If we’re not as committed to saving our republic as the far left has been to destroying it, we lose. I see a lot of evidence in these comments that we’re well on our way to losing . . . by our own unthinking, impatient, unrealistic hand.

          Hope Change in reply to retire05. | February 19, 2012 at 12:17 am

          Retire05

          I have appreciated some more recent posts from you and so I want to try again to bring to your attention some of the facts about Newt.

          Your characterizations of him are not consistent with the facts.

          In a post above here you say NEwt didn’t achieve anything in the 90’s But he did. What you say is not true.

          I ask you to look at the facts. Be fair to him. This is a video about Newt and the Republican Revolution of the 90’s.

          As Roger’s Daughter says, this video clearly shows a person who is truly a national treasure who had a huge impact on our society in the 90’s.

          And Damage Report says Newt saved America $35 million on Newt’s first day as speaker.
          HERE’S THE “SPECIAL REPORT.”
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tS83Y5we-iM#!

          via – http://rogersdaughter.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/this-video-clearly-shows-a-person-who-is-truly-a-national-treasure-who-had-a-huge-impact-on-our-society-in-90′s/

          retire05, of course you are entitled to your opinions. I have definitely seen posts from you that were interesting and from which I learned something. But you make accusations about NEwt that are not true. Your credibility is nil with me when you say things that I know are not true. You see what I mean? Peace.

        retire is of the religious right variety where judging others is more important than reason and what is best for the country. The church is full of hypocrites and self righteousness.

      wodiej in reply to retire05. | February 18, 2012 at 7:05 am

      And I thought Santorum was self righteous….good grief, Only God is fit to judge anyone. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. That would be uhm, nobody.

        Astroman in reply to wodiej. | February 18, 2012 at 11:16 am

        So after you’re done judging others as being self-righteous, you then gone a holier-than-thou kick of telling us how it is wrong to judge others?

        Which is it you hypocrite?

I am not thrilled with Newt, Mitt, or Rick. They are all very flawed candidates. But Grover Norquist is right, the critical battle will be repealing Obamacare and enacting the Paul Ryan budget. Both will require us having the House and Senate (sixty votes). We can do that. It is possible. But we need the White House too. And God forbid we don’t prevail there, we certainly cannot have a blow out between Obama and some candidate who implodes on his own (that will hurt all the down ticket races).

Can Rick Santorum be a better candidate than Mitt? Not from what I am seeing right now. He has a couple of weeks to change that perception but if he doesn’t, my prediction is Mitt will be the nominee (I suppose there is still a chance for a brokered convention).

    Browndog in reply to EBL. | February 17, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    Indeed.

    That’s what drew me to Newt in the first place.

    It’s one thing to get elected; quite another to get legislation through the Congress and on your desk.

    I honestly don’t think Santorum or Romney could CommieCare and a Ryan budget to their desk, even if they wanted to-

    I believe Newt can and, more importantly, will.

    BTW- Checked out your blog;lol

    Not much of a fan of the original evil blogger lady these days….

    Xymbaline in reply to EBL. | February 17, 2012 at 7:20 pm

    If you’re fairminded, and truly want to evaluate the candidates, see this Uncommon Knowledge video.

    http://www.therightscoop.com/newt-gingrich-on-uncommon-knowledge/

    Then tell me which of the candidates is the most presidential.

    As for myself, I am in awe of the man.

    EBL in reply to EBL. | February 18, 2012 at 2:52 am

    I am not saying I want Mitt to be the nominee. I just see it happening. I would welcome a brokered convention as an alternative to that.

I am not worried about Rick Santorum imposing some V for Vendetta theocracy on us. I worry about the Dems and MSM being able to label him as such and completely destroying him in the general election. Because Rick walks into it by alienating allies, saying stupid stuff that is not a priority, not having the sense of humor to parry this crap, and not getting that “it’s the economy, stupid.”

    Anchovy in reply to EBL. | February 17, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    The dems and MSM are not just destroying Santorum they are using him to destroy all Republicans. Read through the comments on any major newspaper. They are making contraception a woman’s health issue and doing it successfully. They are using Santorum to paint all Republicans as religious nuts wanting to turn the country back to the 1950’s.

    Screw Scantorum. I said it before and I repeat…. I want government out of my pocket book AND out of my bedroom.

This race is the settle for race. With the exception of the Paul supporters, it seems most everyone’s first choice has dropped out and we’ve had to settle for the dregs of the party. I’m certain that enough fear/loathing of Obama will get the Republicans out on election day, but with no enthusiasm for the candidate or fantasies that we are going to turn back the spendaholic ways of government. We are doomed.

    Terri in reply to windbag. | February 17, 2012 at 9:49 pm

    My first choice was Newt…. My last choice is Newt. 🙂
    If it comes down to Santorum or Romney, well….. I will just have to hold my nose and pull the lever.

    Hope Change in reply to windbag. | February 17, 2012 at 11:15 pm

    Good grief. The whole internet is at your fingertips. YouTube. There’s no excuse anymore.

    Listen to this speech from last week. Newt’s 2012 CPAC speech:
http://newtgingrich360.com/profiles/blogs/newt-2012-cpac-2012-american-campaign-newt-man-with-the-plan

    Listen to this lecture Newt gave to the Citadel on Conservative Intellectual Tradition in America. “ONLY COURAGE WILL SAVE FREEDOM”
    http://conservatives4newt.blogspot.com/2012/02/speaker-gingrich-on-conservative.html The Conservative Intellectual Tradition in America
    The Citadel Experience – February 1, 2012 – 1:11:22

    One of our co-commenters here said he is in awe at Newt after listening to this lecture. Dittos from me. Our schools have left us so badly educated about American History that everything Newt says is like a revelation.

    If you can’t see something more than dregs, well, ok, but that’s on you.

    If we want a better government, we’re going to have to fight for it. If we want less power in Washington D.C., we need to be better and stronger citizens at home. That ‘s going to require something from us. Our country needs us.

Go Newt! I haven’t given up hope!

Raquel Pinkbullet | February 17, 2012 at 7:10 pm

I live in NV, and Santorum’s gambling comments will not play well here. I have a lot of friends in the casino industry, and pretty much all of them are Republicans, but casinos are a sacred cow here, if Santorum keeps this up, he will lose big in NV.Reno is one of the biggest cities in the country that is dominated by Republicans. However a lot of the Republicans in Reno/Sparks/Northern Nevada are very RINO-y. I am conservative on social issues too, and not libertarian leaning but sadly I am in the minority among Republicans here.I should add NV is a libertarian-Republican leaning state.

While Mittens might do better in NV, overall he would do much worse, especially in the Rust Belt, and among blue collar workers (aka Reagan Democrats). Mittens is the perfect candidate for Obama’s class warfare campaign, as he comes across as an elitist, 1%. The Democrats and corrupt MSM will destroy him. Mittens “money shot” will be plastered on every ad, with his comments “I like firing people,” “I’ll bet you $10,000,” “I don’t care about the poor” all will be used out of context too.

I said I would vote for Mittens if he wins the primary and I will, I just hope I don’t have to.

Brokered convention and a Palin-Jeb Bush showdown. The Tea Party and grassroots vs. the Bushies and the Rove/RINO herd. Can’t you just feel it?

    Astroman in reply to raven. | February 17, 2012 at 9:30 pm

    If we go to a brokered convention, you can be sure we’ll end up with Ultra-Rino – either Romney or Jeb Bush.

    I used to be a fan of Palin, but quitting the governorship (yeah, I understand why she did it, but still) and stringing her supporters along for so long on will she/won’t she run for president, I’m tired of Palin.

    At this point, your choices are Romney, Santorum, or stay home.

I have been a fan of Gingrich since 1994, and have been leaning heavily towards him for this election. It was Gingrich who motivated me to get involved with the Republican Party. I’ve always admired his brain, so when Tom Coburn criticized Gingrich’s leadership, I was puzzled and just brushed it off as not worth considering.

Curiosity finally got the better of me, so I went to Google Books to locate Coburns’ 2003 book, “A Breach of Trust”. I searched for Gingrich’s name and found many excerpts, some of which I linked through to read in their entirety.

Frankly, I was surprised, both because Coburn criticized himself as well as Gingrich. Coburn wrote a balanced assessment of the events that caused turmoil during Gingrich’s speakership. I also learned things about Gingrich that concern me.

Rather than synthesizing Coburn’s remarks, I recommend others read the excerpts, and then see if you still think Gingrich deserves your support. I haven’t ruled him out yet, but I sure am giving him a second look.

    I congratulate you for doing research on a candidate like Newt, instead of just following the pack of supporters who seem enthused by the ‘words’ of the candidate, as well as seeing him in the glow of the Reagan rovolution era. I have done the same thing, earlier on Newt, and what I discovered was uncomplimentary and hypocritical of many things he is saying in 2011-2012

    wodiej in reply to ETPaws. | February 18, 2012 at 6:33 am

    so you’re basing your decision on what one person said? Oh my, no wonder conservatives can’t pick a decent candidate.

Haaahahahaha…wait – seriously??! WTF?!

Yeah, I guess Santorum is “big government” because he supported and helped Newt’s House agenda…wait that isn’t “big governent” is it?

I guess it’s “big government” to pledge to roll back all Obama regulations, lower tax rates, reform the tax system, halt crony capitalism, and believe the free market should be free. Wait…no that isn’t “big government” either.

Yeah, I guess biting the bullet and not making waves with a GOP president wasn’t the best idea – but he has clearly said he was wrong for doing that – but I guess being honest about that isn’t as good as Newt saying it was stupid to support a leftist mantra by sitting on a couch with a Marxist. Yeah.

Here is what we have come to – all in supporters for one candidate ready to pull the pin and blow up any chance for a conservative. Great.

I’ve always been an either or for Newt or Santorum because I know they are clearly conservative with how natural it is for them to speak with passion about what conservatives care about. Why the heck would one be so in for someone to pull the plug on any chance of a conservative winning?

WTF?

    StrangernFiction in reply to iambasic. | February 17, 2012 at 10:15 pm

    It comes down to an inability to make distinctions. If folks want to call Santorum a “big government” guy then fine. But that just makes Romney a massive government guy.

      You are so right. I’ve noticed a bunch of comments here full of Santorum hate or social conservative bashing. I find that strange and disturbing considering we are supposed to be conservatives. I guess Rush is right that social conservatism frightens other so-called conservatives. I’m wondering, if Reagan was running now, how those finding Santorum too “holy” would be able to handle his staunch social conservatism.

      I guess it’s too socially conservative to be Catholic, have more than 2 children and believe God gave us our rights 🙁

If it comes down to Romney or Santorum, I can’t see myself jumping up to vote for either one. And while I don’t think either stands much of an effective chance against Obama, Romney would probably fare better than Santorum in a general election.

I am really frightened by the “can win-can’t win” talk.

If somebody equal to or worse than Obama can win, why does it matter?

I can’t see repainting the Oval Office for somebody with the same lack of principles as Obama (might be worth getting rid of Mooch, I’ll have to put a think on that).

That’s cute. 🙂

Newt and Santorum are equally acceptable to me at this point.

I can’t get excited about either one, but I’d work hard to help them beat Obama.

I am perplexed with the idea that a “brokered convention” could produce a truly conservative candidate.

The GOP establishment would do everything in its considerable power to manipulate the outcome of their event, in their backyard ,run by their rules, run by their people.

We are not going to a brokered convention and coming out with Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin.

I was just telling someone today my progression on Santorum went from a definite possiblity, to a “maybe”, to a “reluctantly” to – “can he even beat Obama?”

If Santorum had the charisma, policy or leadership to generate interest from the American public, he certainly would not have been CONSERVATIVES last choice. Perception IS reality in politics – and unfortunately Santorum is benefiting from the TEBOW effect of those longing for a principled Christian. I see no evidence that the perception is real (http://www.politijim.com/2012/02/can-tebowing-santorum-change-culture.html)

After winning Iowa EVERY interview he got from the MSM was related to divisive social issues. As with this week again, the issue of “contraception” becomes front and center. Does anyone truly assume he A) has the discipline to stick to ONLY jobs/economy/foreign policy or B) get the media off of the social issues stuff?

There is ZERO evidence that he has the communication skills to do so. Dick Morris is wrong about a lot (A WHOLE LOT) but he is correct in saying the same thing that hurts Romney with conservatives will NOT be a problem in the general election. I agree, and it causes me suspect that even Ron Paul would be more electable to a public that wouldn’t put a serial womanizing rapist out of office for fear of messing up the economy.

Look at the numbers. Over 50% of the population is FOR gay marriage, and all the candidates say they believe in DOMA, but it becomes a lightening rod for the guy who looks like he was pulled from a bad 1950’s crooner band.

As I study the hypocrisy of Santorum’s “wholesome” image (cheating PA out of education money for his kids, overtly stingy in his personal giving, and dishonest in much of his explanation of past positions), I’m now wondering if he WOULD be unelectable – something I couldn’t fathom 2 weeks ago.

Forget he has no governing experience to now how to IMPLEMENT any strategies even if they were conservative – I am beginning to think he would be our John Kerry or Howard Dean.

    “…the same thing that hurts Romney with conservatives will NOT be a problem in the general election.”

    If Romney can win the nomination, he will have much more freedom to ignore the concerns of conservatives. If.

    But he got a premature start with that strategy, so he’s had to fight off a long series of NotRomneys. This has been costly, in more ways than one.

    I think it says a lot about Romney and his establishment supporters that they’re so determined to tell the conservative base, SoCons and the tea party to piss off.

    In a close election against an incumbent who enjoys rabid support from most of the media, that strategy could backfire. Why take that risk unless you dislike conservatives more than you dislike Obama’s radical leftist agenda?

    My impression is that the GOP wants to disenfranchise conservatives and the tea party even if that results in 4 more years of Obama.

    Jack Long in reply to PolitiJim. | February 18, 2012 at 1:52 am

    cheating PA out of education money for his kids

    For the record, I am not a Santorum supporter.

    That said, I would like to offer a link to a report that debunks your statement.

    American Thinker – Post-Gazette Revives Phony Santorum Scandal

    I’m not saying you’re incorrect in your statement. I just wish your statement was sourced or explained in the light of contradictory information that is readily available.

    wodiej in reply to PolitiJim. | February 18, 2012 at 6:29 am

    One of my biggest issues w Santorum is he is always talking about social issues while Gingrich is talking about solutions for America. Gingrich is obviously more qualified to lead. Santorum comes off as self righteous and judgmental not mention arrogant and sexist.

    “Just so I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” Luke 15:7

    (I read your article-it was right on the money.)

    I’d like to see Santorum become a bit better (okay a LOT better) at redirecting interviews with the LSM. He takes their questions seriously, as if they really want to give him time and voice. But they are just setting him up with the social issues questions, and he’d do far better by stating in one sentence his answer (whatever it might be) then shifting to the more immediately relevant issues of the day: the economy, jobs, foreign affairs. Things that he can contrast himself and his policy ideas well against this failed president.

    Unless Santorum learns to do that, he’s going to struggle constantly. Heck, just reading these comments it seems evident that even people on the right have no idea how strong he is on foreign policy, the economy, (maybe not jobs), and the war on terror. Maybe he’s too polite to do this? But it’s past time for we conservatives to stop being doormats in the name of good manners and start pushing back. As politely as possible.

I prefer Santorum over Newt and Newt by tons over Romney.

I support Santorum and am definitely a conservative (hold the libertarian leanings), but I would vote for either Newt or Romney if that’s the choice against Obama.

Also, let’s not forget the very real impact a good VP can make on any candidate. I was sick to my stomach knowing I’d have to vote for McCain in ’08 . . . until I heard Sarah’s VP acceptance speech. Not only did it make many of feel better about voting for McCain, but a lot of people who may have otherwise stayed home went to the polls and (yes, some still very reluctantly) voted McCain/Palin.

I’d feel better about a Romney/West ticket, for instance (even though my dream ticket, given the final four, is Santorum/Ryan).

Whoever wins, Bobby Jindal would be another excellent choice for VP being from the South and being non-white.

    Oh, I agree. Jindal is great, a strong conservative, a capable leader, and he’s not afraid to speak his mind. I like him a lot.

    I guess I was thinking about the VP role as bolstering the weaknesses of the candidates, so West would bring Constitutional conservative and foreign policy “cred” to Romney’s economic strength, and Ryan would bring economic strength to Santorum’s foreign policy and Constitutional strengths.

Major chill pill required. Santorum has some evident vulnerabilities, as has every declared candidate in this cycle.

His surge to the top is only remarkable in that he is the last of the candidates to do it, except for Paul. Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and Romney have all led at one time or another and fallen back. Scrutiny will do the same to Santorum, although by luck of timing he may well end up the leading Not Romney candidate anyway.

But it’s a long way to Tipperary, as the song goes.

Santorum comes off as self righteous and sexist to me. He certainly is no fiscal conservative nor does he have nearly the credentials that we will need beginning in Jan. 2013. It is unbelievable that he is getting the support that he is based on nothing more than his personal social conservative values.

Sounds like a lot of oppo research commentary on Santorum. Every candidate on our side is going to be raked for his/her personal beliefs…so why go there on our side.
Santorum voted at the time with the majority of Republicans.
Haven’t we all learned a lot the last 3 years under this existential threat..Santorum included. In hind site, don’t we agree TARP should not have happened, neither auto “bailouts”(or union buy offs, if you prefer); so many economic decisions leading to this sad state. We,all conservatives, were WEAK.
Our candidate must energize the base! We are looking for a standard bearer, not following a cult of personality.
My problem with Newt(I have his badges,stickers,contracts which I had planned to pass around etc(Michigan), but I think he is trying to recreate an image of Reagan which grates a little (Callista always present, doting)
on some conservatives (not me),looks old and just is not resonating with enough conservatives.
I spent some time listening to Santorum, not eloquent maybe, not silver tongued but eventually he spits out a conservative viewpoint that I can agree with. Sometimes he can be eloquent. And he needs more often to show his sense of humor, which I think raising 7 children, you must keep.

The Rombo ad was a good example. Maybe this country needs a good housecleaning. At any rate, the assault on conservatism is not going to abate, so we might as well pick a line in the sand.

If anyone has not seen the video interview on Ricochet by Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institute with Newt, you are really missing something. It’s a 30 minute interview that I think all the candidates should do.

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Uncommon-Knowledge-with-Peter-Robinson-Newt-Gingrich

Above it’s been suggested that Congress would keep Santorum’s moralistic tendencies in check if he became President.

1. The Republican Congress did nothing to restrain Bush’s spending; they abetted it. As for the Democratic Congress and Obama…

2. A Democratic President is exceeding his legitimate authority via czars, regulations and executive orders. I have no confidence that a moralizing Big Government Republican would not do likewise.

Judge not, lest ye be judged. Always a good thing to remember. God is the only one to judge us.

    Astroman in reply to Scorpio51. | February 18, 2012 at 11:19 am

    In context, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t judge, only that we shouldn’t judge hypocritically.

    It is expected, in the context, for one to see and help remove the speck in someone else’s eye – after making sure you don’t have a plank in your own.

“Those are mistakes, Otto, looked them up.” “A FISH CALLED WANDA”

Ok, Astroman, IDK, being no theologian, so I looked this up.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

I think, before one goes before the throne of judgement, or however it happens, we’d better be VERY, VERY sure there is no beam in our own eye. By what measure WE use, so will we be judged. I mean, this certainly makes me stop and think.

Because how do we know for sure? Isn’t the whole point that we are often unaware that we have a bean in our own eye? So we may be a hypocrite but unaware of it?

I’m no expert and certainly no theologian. But it stands to reason.

The thing I notice is, some here seem to dislike Newt.

But I never get a sense of what they’re for.

They spend time here, at a blog where the blogger has endorsed Newt, taking potshots at the candidate others have chosen.

What’s the deal, I wonder. What are they FOR, I ask. I genuinely ask.

Our country is in trouble. What can each of us contribute to the restoration of our country? that’s about the only question right now, IMO.

The grassroots is catching on for Newt. The movement is picking up momentum. I’ve talked to Newtonians on the phone. People are signing up at newt’s network .com and teaming up in their states. It’s like the committees of correspondence in the first American Revolution. SO awesome.

“ONLY COURAGE WILL SAVE FREEDOM” http://conservatives4newt.blogspot.com/2012/02/speaker-gingrich-on-conservative.html The Conservative Intellectual Tradition in America
The Citadel Experience – February 1, 2012 – 1:11:22

This is no time to play at being crabby appleton.

    Hope Change in reply to Hope Change. | February 19, 2012 at 12:53 am

    a beam, a beam, a beam in our own eye, not a bean!

      Hope Change in reply to Hope Change. | February 19, 2012 at 1:04 am

      Oh, and speaking of “pearls before swine,”

      do you know the anecdote about Dorothy Parker…?

      Some society rival, in the lobby of a theater, got to the entrance to return to the theater at the same moment as Dorothy Parker. They both paused at the entrance, and the rival bowed slightly and, gesturing with her hand that Dorothy Parker should go first, she said, “Age before beauty.”

      Without hesitating, Dorothy Parker swept past her, saying, “Pearls before swine.”

      Oh hahahahahahaha.

Hope/Change that was an excellent rebuttal to Astroman.

[…] = [];}. . . or movies or food or something besides politics, because right now we are diametrically opposite and neutralizing each other:Should the race come down to Santorum or Romney, I’d have to think about it, as shocking as that […]

[…] hyperbolic rhetoric is one of the reasons “I’d have to think about it” if there is no third surge for Newt and the choice came down to Romney or […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend