Posted on 02/12/2012 2:35:54 PM PST by VinL
Former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin stole the show at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference where she delivered the event’s keynote speech Saturday. After slamming the President, shutting up some protesters, and saying that the drawn out Republican primary promotes competition and a better nominee, the former Alaska governor took a few questions as she headed for the door following the rousing remarks. When asked by Anneke Green of the Washington Times if she thought a surging Sen. Santorum was a threat to front-runner Mitt Romney; “Palin answered that she wouldn‘t consider him a threat but was still ’a good competitor.’”
Green writes that Palin praised the remaining Republican presidential candidates’ willingness to compete and appreciated their efforts as “warriors in the arena.”
While still not offering up an endorsement, Palin has spoken fondly about former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who she said she would have voted for in the South Carolina Republican primary.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
If I’m not mistaken, Santorum is also rated higher by the NRA and GOA.
Not that I’m against Newt at all. I prefer him as our candidate but am sick of the unfair criticisms of Santorum.
Posting his voting record is unfair?
Check post #130 by Windflier. I clicked on the links that went straight to the actual votes and you may check them out and verify them.
BTW, even rino McCain voted nay on Sonia Sotomyer for circuit court.
ACU has Santorum down as voting for The Gun Manufacturers Liability Act of 1994, which prohibited the sale of hand guns with safety devices.
...then either wholeheartedly endorse Newt or keep your opinions to yourself!
Everyone has bad votes.
Center for Security Policy gave him a rating of 94% in 03-04.
NRA graded him as A+.
Hated to ccp this and post it on the gun lock ammendment. This is straight from DC and on windfliers post #130. S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Amendment (Kohl Amdt. No. 1626 )
Vote Number:
207
Vote Date:
July 28, 2005, 12:13 PM
Required For Majority:
1/2
Vote Result:
Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number:
S.Amdt. 1626 to S. 397 (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act)
Statement of Purpose:
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the provision of a child safety lock in connection with the transfer of a handgun.
Vote Counts:
YEAs
70
NAYs
30
Vote Summary
By Senator Name
By Vote Position
By Home State
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Allen (R-VA), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burns (R-MT), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Nay
Thomas (R-WY), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Vote Summary
By Senator Name
By Vote Position
By Home State
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs -—70
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs -—30
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Martinez (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Vote Summary
By Senator Name
By Vote Position
By Home State
I retract my pervious post until further investigation.
No. I never suggested such a thing.
Alright, so Santorum's vote on Senate Amendment 3230 (mandatory trigger locks) shouldn't have been included on that list. Obviously, the person compiling the list didn't delve as deeply into the history of that one vote, as you did.
Score one for CharlesWayne.
You can stand there using that one error to justify closing your eyes to the rest of Santorum's dismal voting record, but understand that everyone watching realizes that you're employing a rather childish defense mechanism.
The fact is, Rick Santorum has a voting record that doesn't mesh gears with patriotic conservatives. He's a big government guy who happens to be pretty good on some social issues. Other than that, there's little to recommend him.
Article by Chuck Norris on why he is endorsing Newt and he mentions this very topic.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/why-i-chose-newt-over-santorum/
Your statement was that Sarah Palin knew Santorum, and to know him was to NOT like him.
OK, I guess that could be read as your opinion that she must not like him, but it sure sounded like you were saying that she didn’t like him.
I apologize for taking that leap, but it didn’t seem so far to jump.
Rick Santorum seems to have excelled at it. I've challenged Santorum supporters to post his pro-conservative voting record, and all I ever get in return is snark and childish arguments.
Michael Tanner writing in NRO online:
Santorum’s Big-Government Conservatism
"...the Tea Party and 2010 elections were largely about economic issues and the desire to limit the size, cost, and intrusiveness of government. And those issues are not Santorum’s strong suit.
There is no doubt that Santorum is deeply conservative on social issues. He is ardently anti-abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, and no one takes a stronger stand against gay rights. In fact, with his comparison of gay sex to “man on dog” relationships, Santorum seldom even makes a pretense of tolerance. While that sort of rhetoric may play well in Iowa pulpits, it will be far less well received elsewhere in the nation.
At the same time, on economic and size-of-government issues, Santorum’s record is much weaker. In fact, Eric Erickson of Red State refers to Santorum as a “pro-life statist.”
When Hillary Clinton was justly excoriated by conservatives for her book It Takes A Village, which advocated greater government involvement in our lives, Rick Santorum countered with his book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, which advocated greater government involvement in our lives. Among the many government programs he supported: national service, publicly financed trust funds for children, community-investment incentives, and economic-literacy programs in “every school in America” (italics in original).
Santorum’s voting record shows that he embraced George Bush–style “big-government conservatism.” For example, he supported the Medicare prescription-drug benefit and No Child Left Behind.
He never met an earmark that he didn’t like. In fact, it wasn’t just earmarks for his own state that he favored, which might be forgiven as pure electoral pragmatism, but earmarks for everyone, including the notorious “Bridge to Nowhere.” The quintessential Washington insider, he worked closely with Tom DeLay to set up the “K Street Project,” linking lobbyists with the GOP leadership.
He voted against NAFTA and has long opposed free trade. He backed higher tariffs on everything from steel to honey. He still supports an industrial policy with the government tilting the playing field toward manufacturing industries and picking winners and losers.
In fact, Santorum might be viewed as the mirror image of Ron Paul. If Ron Paul’s campaign has been based on the concept of simply having government leave us alone, Santorum rejects that entire concept. True liberty, he writes, is not “the freedom to be left alone,” but “the freedom to attend to one’s duties to God, to family, and to neighbors.” And he seems fully prepared to use the power of government to support his interpretation of those duties."
(more at the link)
Wow! If Rick is that bad on guns, Newt must really suck since both the NRA and GOA rank Santorum higher than Gingrich!
Santorum is a lawyer, and I think that might make him less critical about judges; certainly though in the 90s things hadn't deteriorated to the point we are today.
Santorum voted against the bills that raised spending, and he voted YES to pay the debt we accrued through that spending. I know that nowadays people think that not raising the debt ceiling is a fiscally responsible thing -- but seriously, the fiscally responsible thing is to not vote to spend the money, not to vote to not pay the credit card bill.
Things have gotten so bad that some now think that holding the debt ceiling is the only way we can stop spending. But it isn't fiscally responsible, it's a desperation move, maybe necessary, but it is the end result of the failure of our elected representatives, and a profound failure to live up to our obligations.
I'll have to read your posts, to check links and find out if what you are saying is true or not. That is the sad fact -- I'd love to ignore your posts, but they might be spreading lies, and I can't at this moment trust that you are doing a good job of research.
I'm not voting against a good conservative because he didn't vote no on a multi-billion-dollar appropriations bill because of a few extra million of NEA spending. Every republican budget that had NEA spending had the votes of the republicans.
I've got a question, which I don't know the answer to. Did Newt Gingrich's congress ever send the appropriations bill to the president that had no NEA spending in it? Did we ever actually pass such an appropriations, so Santorum could vote yes on it?
Don’t forget the 90 million Santorum, Liberman and Hillary voted for to study how watching tv effects children.
Santorum is supposed to be a conservative..at least on social issues so how could a conservative lawyer ever go along with a radical left wing judge? it opened the door for her and we know where she sits now.
A few million here...mega millions there are killing our economy. I want it to stop. I am tired of giving congress more of my tax dollars to throw to the wind. There is never any end in site. We need a break!
Just me, but a very conservative woman here and I would be most happy to vote for Newt. Somebody said, “Judge not lest ye be judged.” or some such thing...
Well, go check out Newt's voting record and let us know what you find.
Such an important election-—they all say-— yet NONE are willing to commit.
From GOA: Newt Gingrich on Guns: A Mixed Record
Friday, 30 September 2011 16:19
Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America. But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.
The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban. And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”
His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped like a lead sinker to a “D.” In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal. Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.1
The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.2 Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home -- and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.
While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996. Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”3 He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress -- despite repeated requests to do so.4
Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions. For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.5 (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.) Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”6
Not really.
Let's see what the interest groups have to say:
The Reagan coalition consists of social, fiscal, and national security conservatives. No one disputes that he is socially conservative, so I won't bother posting what social issues groups say about him. On national defense issues, as i posted before, the Center for Security Policy gave him a rating of 94% in 03-04. Here is what some interest groups relating to fiscal issues say. AFL-CIO gave him a lifetime rating of 13%. SEIU gave him 0% in 2005. United States Chamber of Commerce in 2005 gave him 100%. The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council gave him 95% in 2005 and 100% in 2004. Americans For Tax reform gave him 95% in 2005. On gun issues, I already mention that the NRA rated him as A+. On immigration issues, the Federation for American Immigration Reform gave him a rating of 93% for 2005-2006. On environmental issues, the League of Private Property voters gave him 89%, 83%, and 100% in 2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively. Republicans for Environmental Protection gave him 0 in 2005, and the American Wilderness Coalition gave him 0% in 2005.
Sounds like a pretty conservative guy to me.
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.