Rick Santorum on the issues.
Ron Paul on the issues.
At that Rand, Rick Santorum is also way to the right of you.
Posted on 01/02/2012 5:09:29 PM PST by fightinJAG
DES MOINES, IOWA — Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is in town today to be a walking Daisy ad on behalf of his father, Ron.
His main target: the surging Rick Santorum.
On Iowa talk radio this morning, Rand took after Santorum with a line of attack reminiscent of that infamous Lyndon Johnson dig at Barry Goldwater. In short, Rand asked, is Santorum the kind of guy you want with his finger on the button?
The line came in response to a question about Ron Paul’s foreign policy, which has given many in the pro-Israel right pause. They worry that Paul will allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon and won’t engage the country even if it attacks Israel. Santorum and other Republican candidates have been attacking Paul along these lines with great gusto, thinking they can push Paul out to the extremes and far away from the average Iowa voter.
(Excerpt) Read more at 2012.talkingpointsmemo.com ...
“Whaaah”.
Paul is a Crybaby.
“thinking they can push Paul out to the extremes”
Anybody..? :)
I have to say I am a little surprised that Rand Paul is wading into the middle of this.
They said the same thing about Ronald Reagan.
Seriously.
Exactly the same thing.
Yeah, I don’t care who you are, that’s funny!
Yep. But it seems to me that this is even wierder when it’s being said by, not only Ron Paul’s son, but by a newly elected Senator who ran on a Tea Party theme.
“...surprised that Rand Paul is wading into the middle of this”
me, too. It’s one thing to support his dad, but Rand doesn’t have to go off the cliff with him.
“...surprised that Rand Paul is wading into the middle of this”
me, too. It’s one thing to support his dad, but Rand doesn’t have to go off the cliff with him.
Reagan did not say He was going to attack anybody while on the trail of the White House
Rick Santorum on the issues.
Ron Paul on the issues.
At that Rand, Rick Santorum is also way to the right of you.
There is little difference between the two...Rand Paul just learned to become more pragmatic in his rhetoric to sound more mainstream in order to win his Senate primary and ultimately the general election.
Rand questioned his commitment to conservatism as well (Ron’s also out doing that, accusing Santorum of being “very liberal.”)
Here’s Rand’s version, from the radio:
Well, you know you’re starting to see that some of the conservatives have gone here and there and they’re looking for someone who they think is their champion. But before they settle on Santorum they need to realize he was a big supporter of Medicare Part D, the expansion of Medicare, a big supporter of No Child Left Behind, I’ve seen him asked directly about the Department of Education, he’s for it. … We still believe in eliminating the Dept. of Education, that there is no function on the federal level for that.
But Rick Santorum’s a big supporter of the Department of Education; he in fact voted to double the size of the Department of Education with No Child Left Behind. So I call him a big government moderate and I think conservatives need to be wary before thinking Santorum can be their champion.
I have been getting all kinds of red flashing warning signs about a lot of people who seemed to be the side of the tea party. I add him to the growing list.
To be precise Santorum did not say he would attack Iran.
Santorum said he would attack Iranian nuclear sites if Iran did not allow international inspection.
That is called negotiation.
Rand Paul campaigns with Code Pink and 9/11 truth activist Adam Kokesh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai0DT-TK1iM&feature=plcp&context=C30f88feUDOEgsToPDskLrwH0aNwZKztntFqkc4E1u
Rand Paul: Iran is not a threat with a nuclear weapon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1dBF3b_Udk&feature=g-vrec&context=G2d6e761RVAAAAAAAABQ
I sure don’t want to have to win another Senate seat in KY. This is not looking good.
Doesn't Iran already allow that?
You want the U.N. involved? Or just when it suits you?
I don't want anything to do with the U.N.
If I could, I would evict all U.N members from U.S. soil, immediately. The U.N. does not operate in America's best interest and never has, but has caused much harm to the U.S.
“I have been getting all kinds of red flashing warning signs about a lot of people who seemed to be the side of the tea party. I add him to the growing list.”
Read post # 13 and tell me if you are talking about Paul or Santorum.
Wow, what a great tagline for today's GOP. :)
Yes, “war-mongering moderate” sounds like the winning phrase in a game of “Non-sequitur.”
Why is Rand attacking?
Washington, DC – Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) released its second annual report on the most corrupt members of Congress entitled Beyond DeLay: The 20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress (and five to watch). This encyclopedic report on corruption in the 109th Congress documents the egregious, unethical and possibly illegal activities of the most tainted members of Congress. CREW has compiled the members’ transgressions and analyzed them in light of federal laws and congressional rules. CREW’s Most Corrupt Members of Congress:
Members of the Senate:
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Bill Frist (R-TN)
Rick Santorum (R-PA)
Would be cool to get someone in office who actually has a demonstrable record of cutting spending. Santorum sure don’t.
Thanks, good find. Going to add that to my Santorum truth file.
Really?
And we accuse Paul and his whackados of being lefties...
What were we thinking...
LOL...
BTW for the sane and non drug addled...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_Responsibility_and_Ethics_in_Washington
From the above link:
“In 2010 Politico’s Ben Smith described CREW’s founding in 2003 as “one of a wave of new groups backed by liberal donors” and called CREW “a vehicle for assaults on largely – but not entirely – Republican targets”.[13] In 2006 Congressional Quarterly reported, “Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has taken aim almost exclusively at GOP members of Congress. Since its founding in 2003, it [helped] investigate 21 lawmakers, only one of them a Democrat” (Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, in a complaint that also targeted Republican Sen. Bill Frist, then Senate Majority Leader)[14].[15] A report by McClatchy News Service described CREW as “a Democratic-leaning watchdog group”.[16] In 2007, Ms. Magazine quoted longtime Democratic pollster Celinda Lake as saying, “Corruption was a top issue in the [2006] midterm elections, and CREW was critical to the Democrats’ success.”
Same here. Very interesting. Great thread. Thanks to all posters.
CREW is not anything that you can believe, unless you are a lefty.
Because his father is retarded as far as international reality goes.
- Political neophyte types...
- Drug addled, legalize pot now living in moms basement with a case of Twinkies types...
- Mental health Patient of meds types...
- In the rear with the gear military types who “didn't sign up this sh*t, my pothead parent couldn't afford college types..”
- Code Pinko lefty types...
- And of course Stormfront Skinheads...
So from that we get the use of CREW...
Wow, that’s a plus for Rick then!
CREW is a left wing group funded to attack conservatives. So the question I have for you is are you a libtard or just another moderate easily duped by George Soros?
Believe it or not, this is the list...
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum was blacklisted in 2006 by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a non-profit legal watchdog group dedicated to holding public officials accountable for their actions.
Illegal tax-paid school for his children
Reasons for the blacklisting included evidence of Santorum enrolling his children in Pennsylvania State-paid online classes while the were actually registered in Virginia, a political slight-of-hand that cost Pennsylvania tax-payers over $70,000.
AccuWeather bill
Santorum received $2,000 from a private weather information service two days before introducing a bill that would bar the tax-paid National Weather Service to distribute its information directly to the public. Santorum’s bill would have the National Weather Service use tax money to collect weather data, like it does today, but then mandate that it route the information to various private weather information companies, which would then presumably sell the same information to the public.
To add insult to injury, Santorum accused the National Weather Service of poorly predicting Hurricane Katrina, using the disaster as fodder for his palm-greased weather bill.
US Tobacco bill
Santorum received $3,000 from U.S. Tobacco Corporation a day after he voted against an amendment to a bill that would allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the tobacco industry.
Beer companies
Santorum received $6,000 from the Miller Brewing Company six months after Santorum introduced a bill that would cut federal excise tax that large brewing companies have to pay on beer in half.
Puerto Rico
Santorum received $48,765 from donors in Puero Rico. $34,500 was from hospital executives, administrators, and healthcare industry workers. Months prior, Santorum introduced a Puerto Rico hospital bail-out bill to coincide with the reform package Congress enacted that same year.
In April of the same year, Santorum introduced the Puerto Rico Medicare Reimbursment Equality Act of 2005, and has since raked in $44,750 from Puerto Rico, $10,000 confirmed from healthcare executives and administrators.
Energy interests
Santorum received at least $16,400 for his campaign committee and at least $8,500 to his PAC “America’s Foundation” after crafting a provision in the National Energy Security Act of 2000 to federally subsidize construction of a $612-million coal-to-diesel plant in Pennsylvania.
The legal watch-dog group concluded their report of Santorum by stating,
Federal law prohibits public officials from directly or indirectly demanding, seeking, receiving, accepting, or agreeing to receive or accept anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. It is well-settled that accepting a contribution to a political campaign can constitute a bribe if a quid pro quo can be demonstrated.
On the day of Reagan's inauguration,the hostages were freed.
On the day of Santorum’s inauguration,the Iranian nuke program will be scrapped.
Is that second cut and paste also from the Soros-backed CREW organization? (sniff)
I wonder how many anti Rand Paul people here think that Santorum would seek an actual Declaration of War before he decided to bomb Iran (a patently offensive military act). Oh, but the neocons here in FR seem to cherish the Constitution but not that pesky Article 1. Section 8 clause about Congress taking us to an offensive war...NOT the Executive Branch.
Perhaps Paul is right about warmongering neocons.
Rand Paul is awful cocky for a freshman senator. It’s one thing to stand by your dad, I understand. To start shooting from the lip and looking like a kook yourself, well that’s jusy asking to be primaried.
Being a nut won't play well in Kentucky—six and out RP.
Well, any primarying of Rand is 5 years off. He’s only been in office one year!
Kind of a rough spot, I suppose, being and newly minted Senator AND son of the kookiest candidate out there. But there’s no good reason to go beyond speaking to his dad’s positives. Why go after his opponents, especially one like Santorum who was in the single digits till a week ago.
And you're still here Paulitard?.
You must be very entertaining...
But the "dropping dead" will probably be your account...
Now you've done it...There are even calls here for the U.N. to get involved...oh yeah!
:) I rarely support Ron Paul but when I read nonsense like some of the extra-constitutional baloney out of Santorums mouth like “I’ll bomb Iran,” I have to respond to all of the so-called conservatives on this site. How can they support a Santorum that will act extra-constitutionally after raising his hand and pledge an oath to God and then violate that very oath by “bombing Iran” without a Declaration of War. And please neocons who read this, don’t suggest that Rick will go to Congress and ask for a DoW, it would NEVER pass. No, he’ll just act unilaterally like most presidents do.
And yet so-called conservative after conservative will beat their chests as they proclaim fidelity to the Constitution yet support someone who will overtly violate it. Now tell me again...who’s the “Living Constitutionalists?” I would suggest they’re in both parties and here on Free Republic.
How do you know what the team told them? I was still in the USMC at that time, never heard a word like that.
They were sh!ting their robes at the thought, But He did not have to say a word.
Rick should not have said anything.
If someone is about to layout another, a look will do. Always has.
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.
