Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rick Santorum Must NOT Be Our Nominee – And Here’s Why…
The Red Side of Life ^ | 2-22-12 | RedInNewYork

Posted on 02/22/2012 2:58:17 PM PST by jmstein7

If the GOP nominates Rick Santorum, we will lose. Rick is a social conservative, and I personally applaud that – as I’m sure most of you do as well. The issue is the fact that this election cannot be about social issues; this election must be about economic issues. Yes, Obama has failed miserably in the area of social policy, but the issues where he is most vulnerable are economic. If we nominate Rick Santorum, Obama will frame the debate around social issues – along with his msm cronies – and we will lose. This is already happening.

Our objective is to defeat Obama. We cannot win if we are stymied from discussing the issues that damage him most. Those issues are economic. Go “Google” Rick Santorum. How many stories pop up about his economic policy? Exactly. The fix is in. If Rick is the nominee, we will not get around to economic issues, and Obama will win.

There is an additional danger. Leftist cabals like PP, NARAL, Emily’s List type folk – you know the rest – social issues are their red meat. Start talking about jobs and tax rates, and they snooze. That’s exactly where we want them. Nominate Rick Santorum, and they will go into a frothy frenzy. That is exactly what we don’t want. Rick Santorum will activate, awaken, and enrage social radicals into action. I say, let sleeping dogs lie.

Rick has already demonstrated his inability to re-frame the debate and re-focus on economics. Ever since the contraception issue was manufactured by Obama – yes, it is an intentional distraction – Rick has been unable to talk about anything else. The moment George Stephanopoulos raised the issue, seemingly out of nowhere, Team Obama tipped its hand. They want to go there. We must not.

Team Obama does not want to talk about jobs (or lack thereof), unemployment, Green Energy Sector failures, crony capitalism, or any of its otherwise socialist economic policy. If we nominate Rick, they won’t have to. We’ll be talking about “women’s issues” all the way through November, until we’re cooked. The Church is doing a magnificent job taking it to Obama – and they don’t have to run against him. Let the Church and other religious institutions deal with those issues.

So, please consider what I have said. Rick may be a great guy, but 2012 is not the year of the Social Conservative. Think about what four more years of Obama would look like.


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-119 next last

1 posted on 02/22/2012 2:58:20 PM PST by jmstein7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

Am I in before the ZOT>


2 posted on 02/22/2012 2:59:50 PM PST by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

Translation: Rick Santorum Must NOT Be Our Nominee – Because Mitt Romney Already Paid For IT And IT Would Be Stealing.


3 posted on 02/22/2012 3:00:52 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
but 2012 is not the year of the Social Conservative.

Gee, that's funny, neither was 2008.......or 2000......
4 posted on 02/22/2012 3:02:16 PM PST by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

Good points.


5 posted on 02/22/2012 3:04:28 PM PST by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlipWilson

What makes you think he will be zotted?


6 posted on 02/22/2012 3:06:04 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
Our objective is to defeat Obama.

So the establishment puts up "mini0bama" as their favorite to beat him?

If they are offering 0bama as a counter to 0bama, I will stick with Santorum or Gingrich thank you.

7 posted on 02/22/2012 3:06:04 PM PST by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

All issues are social issues.


8 posted on 02/22/2012 3:06:39 PM PST by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

The author makes some good points. I’m still hoping for a Gingrich home run on Super Tuesday. To be perfectly frank, I think that Santorum would energize the left that is at present doubting the current administration. The buyer’s remorse will evaporate in an instant if they have someone like Santorum to actively oppose.


9 posted on 02/22/2012 3:06:49 PM PST by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
Yes, lets run from our beliefs.

Thats a winner.

10 posted on 02/22/2012 3:07:38 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

FYI Red in NY,
Red flag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In politics, a red flag is a symbol of Socialism, or Communism, or sometimes left-wing politics in general.


11 posted on 02/22/2012 3:10:20 PM PST by Mountain Mary (Freedom is at stake in this election. Rick Santorum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
All issues are social issues.

Perhaps, but as a good general picks his battles, a good politician will take good care to pick his campaign issues. I don't see that here.

His multi-paragraph screed on his website about how he's going to devote resources to battling internet pornography for example is a non-starter. If there is anything that any politician should be aware of at this moment in time is that the people want the government to keep its hands off the internet en toto.

12 posted on 02/22/2012 3:13:34 PM PST by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
We can still have our “beliefs” with Newt as President also. Santorum has no special monopoly on Moral platitudes.
13 posted on 02/22/2012 3:14:47 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
If Rick is the nominee, we will not get around to economic issues, and Obama will win.

At this point I don't think Gingrich, Romney or Santorum can beat Obama. Santorum loses to Obama by the smallest margin but he loses nonetheless. The economy is in tatters and the price of gas is shooting through the roof and yet Obama still leads all of our candidates in the polls. Unfreakingbelievable.

In a year where "anyone can beat Obama" it seems the Republicans found the only guys who can't. Our primary process is broken. Are these losers really the best we have to offer? Really?

14 posted on 02/22/2012 3:15:09 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas
I got news for you: The left hates Gingrich and Romney just as much. They may not throw the pink mafia into quite the same hissy fits that Santorum does, but remember that they hated George W. Bush, the moderate, just as much as they did Ronald Reagan, the conservative.

We have to deal with that hatred no matter who is our nominee.


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?

15 posted on 02/22/2012 3:15:37 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 9 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

There you go again making sense. Reagan was a fiscal and social conservative. But he didn’t spend all of his time and energy focusing strictly on the social side. He ran a balanced campaign. Santorum is all preacher, all the time.


16 posted on 02/22/2012 3:15:37 PM PST by jersey117 (The Stepford Media should be sued for malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

The author proposes defense and retreat. That is not a formula for victory.


17 posted on 02/22/2012 3:16:21 PM PST by matt1234 (Bring back the HUAC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

This, unfortunately, is what the GOP-e has been saying for decades. Ronald Reagan talked about the social issues, and they hated him and tried to force him out.

George Bush talked about the social issues, and he won—twice, even though he was weak on economic issues. Then things started to go south after he started listening to Rove and failed to do some of the things that the voters had expected him to do after his landslide re-election.

The first mid-term, the GOP did very well in congress. The second midterm, they did lousy. Because Rove won the argument and Bush backed off the social issues. He even voted for stem cell research on lines where fetuses had already been harvested, although he blocked the rest. That got him anger from BOTH sides. Another typical Rove move.

Why do you think the left uses Orwellian duckspeak when talking about stuff like abortions? “A woman’s right to choose” instead of “killing an unborn baby”? Because most voters don’t really approve of abortion.

If McCain had said in the debates that Obama was the most pro-abort presidential candidate ever, and that he voted three times to throw babies born alive into the trash or onto the roof to die in the heat, he probably would have won. But he didn’t, because the social issues are not popular, don’t you know? And, of course, Sarah wasn’t allowed to talk much about them, either.


18 posted on 02/22/2012 3:18:37 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas

So you think the left like Gingrich better? (Or Romney for that matter)


19 posted on 02/22/2012 3:18:52 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
Facts for Video: “Votes” (MI, AZ, OH) Rick Santorum voted to raise the debt limit five times.

■FACT: Santorum voted to increase the debt ceiling in 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006. Together, these five votes boosted the federal debt limit by nearly $3.5 trillion. (H.R. 2015, Roll Call Vote #209, 7/31/97; S. 2578, Roll Call Vote #148, 6/11/02; H. J. Res. 51, Roll Call Vote #202, 5/23/03; S. 2986, Roll Call Vote #213, 11/17/04; H. J. Res. 47, Roll Call Vote #54, 3/16/06; Mindy R. Leavit, “The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases,” Congressional Research Service, 9/9/11) Rick Santorum voted for billions in waste, including the “Bridge to Nowhere.”

■FACT: “Santorum was a prolific supporter of earmarks, having requested billions of dollars for pork projects in Pennsylvania while he was in Congress.” (Club for Growth, 2012 Presidential White Paper #4, Rick Santorum)

■FACT: “The announcements flowed out of Rick Santorum’s Senate office: a $3.5 million federal grant to Piasecki Aircraft to help it test a new helicopter propeller technology; another $3.5 million to JLG Industries to bolster its bid to build all-terrain forklifts for the military; $1.4 million to Medico Industries to upgrade equipment for its munitions work. … But an examination of Mr. Santorum’s earmark record sheds light on another aspect of his political personality, one that is at odds with the reformer image he has tried to convey on the trail: his prowess as a Washington insider. A review of some of his earmarks, viewed alongside his political donations, suggests that the river of federal money Mr. Santorum helped direct to Pennsylvania paid off handsomely in the form of campaign cash.” (Michael Luo and Mike McIntire, The New York Times, 1/15/12)

■FACT: Santorum voted for the 2005 highway bill, which included hundreds of earmarks, including the bridge to nowhere, a teapot museum. (H.R. 3, Roll Call Vote #220, 7/29/05)

■FACT: Santorum supported the “Bridge to Nowhere” – twice. Santorum “voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere. In fact, in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.” (Club for Growth, 2012 Presidential White Paper #4, Rick Santorum)

■FACT: Santorum admitted he voted for bridge, and defended vote: “People say that I voted for ‘The Bridge to Nowhere.’ I did. I went with the federalist argument, which is, ‘Who am I in Pennsylvania to tell Alaska what their highway priorities should be?’” (William Petroski, Des Moines Register, 12/29/11) In a single session, Rick Santorum co-sponsored 51 bills to increase spending … And zero to cut spending.

■FACT: “In the 2003-2004 session of Congress, Santorum sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending, and failed to sponsor or co-sponsor even one spending cut proposal.” (Club for Growth, 2012 Presidential White Paper #4, Former Senator Rick Santorum) Rick Santorum even voted to raise his own pay.

■FACT: “Santorum also supported raising congressional pay at least three times, in 2001, 2002, and 2003.” (Club for Growth, 2012 Presidential White Paper #4, Former Senator Rick Santorum)

■FACT: Santorum voted three times – in 2001, 2002 and 2003 – to preserve Congressional pay increases. (Roll Call Vote #360, 12/7/01; Roll Call Vote #242, 11/13/02; Roll Call Vote #406, 10/23/03) Rick Santorum joined Hillary Clinton to let convicted felons vote.

■FACT: In 2002, Santorum voted “to secure the Federal voting rights of certain qualified persons who have served their sentences.” Santorum was one of only three Republican senators to vote with Sen. Hillary Clinton for the measure, which failed in the Senate. (S. 565, Roll Call Vote #31, 2/14/02)

■FACT: Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), who sponsored the measure, on the purpose of his amendment: “Basically what this amendment does is ensure that ex-felons, people who have fully served their sentences, have completed their probation, have completed their parole, should not be denied their right to vote.” (Sen. Harry Reid, Remarks on the Senate Floor, 2/14/02)

20 posted on 02/22/2012 3:20:13 PM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jersey117

“Santorum is all preacher, all the time.”

We’ll it has certainly kept him from having to answer those other questions on silly issues.


21 posted on 02/22/2012 3:20:13 PM PST by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
So you think the left like Gingrich better? (Or Romney for that matter)

I'm certain that they fear them much less than Santorum, yes. Santorum's rhetoric about criminalizing homosexuality and adultery, sicking the AG on the internet to stop pornography etc are exactly the kind of things to really energize the left. Last I knew, Newt Gingrich wasn't going down that road.

22 posted on 02/22/2012 3:22:43 PM PST by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Melas

You apparently haven’t seen some of the horrific stuff, and I’m talking absolutely criminally evil, on the internet, have you?

I suggest you go to zombietime.com sometime and try to hold down your lunch. Anyone seeing this would agree that this sewage HAS to be stopped. There is NO “constitutional right” to purvey this poison.

THIS is the stuff that Santorum is talking about, not your run-of-the-mill lingerie ads.


23 posted on 02/22/2012 3:23:11 PM PST by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

I’m tired of hearing that this is not the election cycle for social issues. There’s ALWAYS something more important. Always. The problem is all the other issues really do hinge on social issues.


24 posted on 02/22/2012 3:23:48 PM PST by FourPeas ("Maladjusted and wigging out is no way to go through life, son." -hg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

Didn’t Santorum say that you have no Constitutional right to privacy? That alone is scary.


25 posted on 02/22/2012 3:24:01 PM PST by SkyDancer ("No Matter How The People Vote There Will Always Be A Federal Judge To Over Turn It")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Quote: “What makes you think he will be zotted?”

I was in error. When I posted that, however, I considered the fact that the groups of which he speaks will be up in arms no matter who we nominate because they are drones who would vote for a dead cat as long as it had a “D” by its name. I just do not know why we would allow the fear of what our enemies are going to do anyway influence our choice of a nominee?


26 posted on 02/22/2012 3:24:33 PM PST by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
Did you expect me to disagree?

The difference between you and I is I'm happy with either, because to me the most important thing is not which person gets in the WH, but that we change the direction this country is headed.

Unfortunately for Newt Rick has momentum. When & if that changes I'll go with Newt.

27 posted on 02/22/2012 3:25:54 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

Exactly right. Newt can take it to BO about conservative social and economic values. IMHO...Rick could be seen as a one trick pony. I’m not saying he is...but I’m fairly certain the left could make it appear that Rick is too focused on social issues and not enough focus on the economy.

That said...if Rick’s the nominee...he has my vote. I’m just not excited about the prospect.


28 posted on 02/22/2012 3:26:02 PM PST by conservaKate (Hoping Newt's still in by WA caucus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: All

don’t shoot the messenger - I’m with Newt.

Santorum, as another said, cannot BALANCE the social and economic like Reagan. He’s 95% focused on social issues, and he is to rigid to shift when needed.


29 posted on 02/22/2012 3:26:54 PM PST by jmstein7 (A Judge not bound by the original meaning of the Constitution interprets nothing but his own mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Melas

Santorum never said anything about criminalizing homosexuality.


30 posted on 02/22/2012 3:28:19 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Melas

I agree with you that Gingrich is very liberal. I disagree with you that the media knows that.


31 posted on 02/22/2012 3:29:03 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
Ricky "SOPA" Santorum the collectivist big government nanny-statist.
"This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. 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 regulations low, 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." [source]

"What was my vision? I came to the uncomfortable realization that conservatives were not only reluctant to spend government dollars on the poor, they hadn’t even thought much about what might work better. I often describe my conservative colleagues during this time as simply ‘cheap liberals.’ My own economically modest personal background and my faith had taught me to care for those who are less fortunate, but I too had not yet given much thought to the proper role of government in this mission." –Rick Santorum, p. IX It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good (2005)

"I suspect some will dismiss my ideas as just an extended version of ‘compassionate conservatism.’ Some will reject what I have said as a kind of ‘Big Government Conservatism.’ Some will say that what I’ve tried to argue isn’t conservatism at all. But I believe what I’ve been presenting is the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned. One that fosters the opportunity for all Americans to live as we are called to live, in selfless families that contribute to the general welfare, the common good." –Rick Santorum, p. 421 It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good (2005)

"If you're a conservative, there really is only one place to go right now. I would even argue farther than that. If you're a Republican, if you're a Republican in the broadest sense, there is only one place to go right now and that's Mitt Romney." –Rick Santorum, 02/1/2008 [source]
Check out his brochure, 50 Things You Didn't Know About Rick Santorum, where he proudly defends food stamps, increasing minimum wage, stem cell harvesting, college tuition subsidies, bloated school funding, working with Bono to fight world poverty, etc.

Also see his disturbing voting record for more doozies.


32 posted on 02/22/2012 3:30:40 PM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

Social conservatives aren’t one dimensional anymore than social chameleons like Romney. Santorum’s brain doesn’t go blank after the subject of abortion is over, anymore than Romney shuts up after talking about his idiotic tax scheme. Santorum will do fine with other policy issues. The fact that he is a social conservative, understanding the right to life, speech, private property, and to be an individual in personal life, business and public, only serves to make him smarter than Romney. Newt and Rick are capable of making this nation great again. Romney is capable of keeping it on the status quo.


33 posted on 02/22/2012 3:30:49 PM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Since the negative ads started, Santorum has maintained a lead in Michigan, jumped to the lead in Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Washington, and moved within the margin of error in Arizona and Georgia. It sure sounds as if what he is peddling is unpopular to me. /s


34 posted on 02/22/2012 3:33:18 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 27 | View Replies]

To: pallis; All

I hate Romney.


35 posted on 02/22/2012 3:33:31 PM PST by jmstein7 (A Judge not bound by the original meaning of the Constitution interprets nothing but his own mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
In fact, in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.” (Club for Growth, 2012 Presidential White Paper #4, Rick Santorum)

Well, Sarah killed the Bridge to Nowhere. But are you saying that the Gubbermint didn't spend enough money on NOLA after Katrina? Good grief.

And I'm not sure why ex-felons shouldn't have their voting rights restored, after they've done their time and satisfied their probation. Are you saying that there's no such thing as repentance and forgiveness? We're talking about federal voting rights. The states can decide on state voting rights.

36 posted on 02/22/2012 3:34:48 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

That’s because we’re the choir! This is not the general.


37 posted on 02/22/2012 3:35:41 PM PST by jmstein7 (A Judge not bound by the original meaning of the Constitution interprets nothing but his own mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7
Santorum, as another said, cannot BALANCE the social and economic like Reagan. He’s 95% focused on social issues, and he is to rigid to shift when needed.

Or thats the narrative the mainstream media is constructing.

Prove it, or admit you are carrying their water.

38 posted on 02/22/2012 3:35:41 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

The person that wrote the article is right. Santorum will never beat Obama.


39 posted on 02/22/2012 3:35:50 PM PST by Katarina ( Only RINO's left to vote for. God help us all. Perry and Palin not candidates....America's loss!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Bradlee Dean radio show, October 22nd, 2011.


40 posted on 02/22/2012 3:36:15 PM PST by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Geez, you must be young to not remember that the year 2000 was all about the ‘Compassionate Conservative’... aka: Bush the Younger.


41 posted on 02/22/2012 3:36:59 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

If we can’t win this election with a social conservative, we as a nation deserve what’s coming.


42 posted on 02/22/2012 3:37:45 PM PST by dangerdoc (see post #6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla

Bush the spender?


43 posted on 02/22/2012 3:38:12 PM PST by jmstein7 (A Judge not bound by the original meaning of the Constitution interprets nothing but his own mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7; All

Santorum:

Voted AGAINST increasing the number of immigration investigators:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00201

VOTED AGAINST HIRING AN ADDITIONAL 1,000 BORDER PATROL AGENTS, paid for by reductions in state grants.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00179

VOTED TO GIVE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00058

Voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive the earned income credit before becoming citizens.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00154

SANTORUM: Trim Social Security now- even if painful.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j7O34Bpp42k-IlMMNiOLBkYF2zNw?docId=b1cff9ecefe24ca6ae1764a09761e361

VOTED AGAINST FOOD STAMP REFORM
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00353

VOTED AGAINST MEDICAID REFORM
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00352

Voted to increase the social services block grant from $1 BILLION to $2 BILLION
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00302

VOTED TO RAID SOCIAL SECURITY instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00056

Voted to impose a uniform federal tax mandate on states to force them to allow convicted , rapists, arsonists drug kingpins and all other ex-convicts to vote in federal elections.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00031
.
Santorum; Big government spender:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt6XCZz2X1Y&feature=player_embedded
__________________________
.

Pop quiz: Which Republican presidential candidate supported the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor?
Hint: It’s the same one who endorsed a pro-abortion-rights presidential candidate in an earlier campaign.
Give up? The answer is Rick Santorum.

Santorum not only supported Specter. He ran an ad for him.
“Arlen is with us on the votes that matter,” Santorum said in an ad for Specter. “I’m proud to endorse Arlen Specter.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/which-republican-presidential-candidate-supported-sotomayor/

__________________________

This is only part of it. Santorum has not been properly vetted.
Even before this RINO voting record above came out,
he stuck me as a petty, egotistical little weasel

He needs to put his ego aside, put his country before himself and drop out.

.


44 posted on 02/22/2012 3:39:18 PM PST by patriot08 (TEXAS GAL- born and bred and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

If a candidate isn’t a social conservative, they aren’t a fiscal conservative. If they are not a social conservative, that means they are willing to fund HUGE social initiatives that takes money from taxpayers & economy.


45 posted on 02/22/2012 3:39:18 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Katarina

Since I believe that Newt cannot beat Obama, we are in a pickle. If Newt or Rick win the nomination, they have my support. I happen to believe that Rick has the better chance in November, so he has my vote in Tennessee.


46 posted on 02/22/2012 3:40:06 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 39 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

Please site your source for this. Last, albeit local, poll for TN I saw showed Rich and Newt head to head.


47 posted on 02/22/2012 3:41:25 PM PST by Fledermaus (I can't fiddle so I'll just open a cold beer as I watch America burn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Katarina
The person that wrote the article is right. Santorum will never beat Obama.

Then unless you like Romney get your crying towel out.

Or get behind whichever of the two look like they have the best chance - right now that would be Rick.

WHY is that so hard to understand?

48 posted on 02/22/2012 3:42:03 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: matt1234

No, the author proposes to attack where the enemy is weak...

...not as you, and Santorum, want. Which is to attack where the enemy would gather the most strength.

But to a single-issue type voter, it would look like what you say.


49 posted on 02/22/2012 3:42:43 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
We're talking about federal voting rights. The states can decide on state voting rights.

No, we are not. The states are the sole determiners of voting rights, with the fed being solely limited to enforcing constitutional provisions. There is no such thing as a federal vote that is not cast via the metaphorical auspices of a state.

50 posted on 02/22/2012 3:42:50 PM PST by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-119 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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