Rick Santorum sounds off on ‘bomb throwers’ Rand Paul, Ted Cruz

Washington Times ^ | January 12, 2015 | David Sherfinski

[SoConPubbie]

Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania threw a few elbows at several potential rivals for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, calling possible contenders Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas “bomb throwers” with little experience.

“Do we really want someone with this little experience?” Mr. Santorum said, referring to Mr. Paul, Mr. Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, The New York Times reported. “And the only experience they have basically — not Rubio, but Cruz and Paul because I don’t think Rubio is going to go — is bomb throwing? Do we really want somebody who’s a bomb thrower, with no track record of any accomplishments?”

Doug Stafford, a senior adviser to Mr. Paul, told the paper they would pass on responding to the “alleged wisdom” of someone who lost re-election in 2006 by 18 points and who “has spent the time since then trying to convince people to elect him to an even higher office than the one he was booted out of.”

[Finny]

I suppose it all boils down to the ol' "purist" argument. Newt had a lot of flaws but he also had a standing track record and articulated conservative limited government principle. I'd have voted for him with my eyes wide open knowing his flaws and gambling that on balance, he'd bring more good to the table, and I stand by that gamble still -- I believe he WOULD have, though I also know he would have angered and disappointed me in other areas, such as the global warming hoax.

Santorum, on the other hand, really had ZERO to recommend him and in fact, his incessant use of the ugly, divisive, devious "family values" indicated that he would do quite a lot to make folks regret voting for him. I make a living in language and especially recognize empty "fluff" when I see it, and Santorum's campaign was very heavy on the feel-good happy talk such as "family values." That is a VERY large red flag, a huge warning, because it means that the person using it is only using it because he doesn't have anything substantial to offer and is deceitful about it.

During the '08 campaign,, I asked many Santorum supporters: What is the difference between "family values" and "Christian values" and if they are the same, why not call them "Christian" values? I never got an answer.

Here's what Santorum was doing with that phrase: he was using it as code for "Christian values" and he was also using it as a dig against Gingrich, implying that Santorum was a "better" person because he hadn't been divorced. That phrase "family values" ALSO alienated tens of thousands of conservative Americans who either don't have families or who don't focus their lives around their kids and grandkids. Santorum, with his constant "family values" moralizing, was implying that people who DON'T have families are of lesser value, inferior Christians, second-class Americans.

Rick Santorum was, in my opinion, a nattering moralizing church-lady socialist who wore his Christianity on his sleeve as a badge of "conservatism." He talked a lot about who was/is to blame for America's moral malaise (not him, of course! But everyone else). Gingrich didn't blame anybody; instead he talked a lot about how to REDUCE GOVERNMENT.

I will now consistently reject a devious manipulator of language and grower of government like Santorum, even if -- especially if -- he presumes to represent "Republican" and "Christian." He is a haughty, pride-filled Christian and that stinks. Santorum FOUGHT AGAINST cuts in food stamps -- he wanted to keep them going strong. Santorum was and is all for government usurping from individuals their moral, Christian duty of charity -- please, re-read his quotes in post 109 above.

Charity is a MORAL act on two fronts. It requires sacrifice and mercy on the part of the giver, and because the receiver knows this (that's why NOBODY likes to be an object of charity), it requires gratitude and obligation on the part of the receiver. It is a MORAL act and the Christian bible says it is REQUIRED.

When Santorum uses government to provide charity, he turns it into an AMORAL act and evil results from it. He makes slaves of taxpayers and entitled dependents of receivers, and removes all morality from the equation. That's what happens when government takes over moral duties such as charity: they become AMORAL, without reference to morality, and evil results.

There is no voluntary sacrifice or mercy involved from the givers of "government charity" because they are FORCED, via taxation, to fund it, and morality is entirely REMOVED. Likewise on the receiving end -- gratitude and obligation among people who receive government charity is at best symbolic; in fact and in truth, receivers become ENTITLED to the forced fruit of others' labors. We see what results when government presumes to take over the duty of charity and turns a moral act into an IMMORAL act, that is, without reference to morality. Ferguson, anyone?

Again, compared, clearly Gingrich was the far better choice morally and politically. Gingrich was a humbled sinner; Santorum was a holier-than-thou altar boy.

[Finny]

His insulting comments on Ted Cruz say more about Santorum's own limitations than anything about anybody else. I would personally lump Santorum with Obama, Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush and John McCain, as individuals that I could never vote for.

Ditto. Please see my post 121.

:^)

[Finny]

CORRECTION:

We see what results when government presumes to take over the duty of charity and turns a moral act into an AMORAL act, that is, without reference to morality. Ferguson, anyone?

[subterfuge]

Stupid comment on your part.

[M Kehoe]

...with no track record of any accomplishments?” Or experience like 0bama, Rick?

5.56mm

[C. Edmund Wright]

You nailed some of the main points - which is that Newt was able to articulate what we believed, and was making that the focus of his campaign. Newt, flaws admitted - also had the most successful track record of implementing conservatism than any of them. And third, ALL of us - 100% of us - knew of Newt’s flaws and decided that based on the above reasons, he was the best choice.

It was the low information Santorum supporters who would come to FR daily and bring up some part of newt’s past as if no one knew about it. The Newt supporters readily admitted his flaws. The Santorum supporters STILL haven’t figured out that Rick is a big gov weenie who is socially conservative.

[GOPsterinMA]

Santorum is a frigging loser who needs to go away.

[campaignPete R-CT]

Walker at 10% in IA, Cruz at 7%.
http://townhall.com/columnists/neilmccabe/2015/01/13/draft-n1942438/page/full

“Rick Santorum, who won the Iowa caucuses in 2012, was not included in the poll.”

http://politicalwire.com/2015/01/13/romney-is-clear-frontrunner-in-iowa/

16% Evangelical seems low.
http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/iowa-poll-romney-leads-nascent-iowa-field-with-21-bush-at-14-walker-10/

[AuH2ORepublican]

16% is ridiculously low. In 2012, 51% of Iowa GOP “likely caucusgoers” were Evangelical or “born-again” Christians: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/03/iowa-caucus-goers-by-the-numbers/ (I don’t know whether this percentage was confirmed by the “entrance polls” that they carried out.)

[Finny]

The Santorum supporters STILL haven’t figured out that Rick is a big gov weenie who is socially conservative.

LOL!! Well said!

[C. Edmund Wright]

polls at this point are less than meaningless.....

[campaignPete R-CT]

polls at this point are less than meaningless.....

A. the horserace at this point is less than meaningless.....
B. I claim this poll had a built-in bias to make the more establishment candidates look good and portray the Huckabee-Santorum-Cruz "grassroot types" in a poor light. It seems timed to help justify Romney in his gearing up for a race.
C. Polls are always meaningful, even if done poorly ... there is usually some useful information contained in them. Of course, this poll cannot be studied because the details and cross-tabs are not available online at this point ... only news articles about the poll.
D. Favorable/Unfavorable ratings on Bush and Romney would be interesting, especially among those who backed Romney in the 2012 caucus. Are his supporters sticking with him? Who is leading among evangelicals?
E. Ideologues are motivated by ideas, not so much interested in the electorate. I've never known grassroots conservatives to have a big interest in polling. So, yes, on FreeRepublic, polls are meaningless.

[C. Edmund Wright]

I agree with almost all of that...just a few little semantic quibbles....

[SUSSA]

Santorum prefers the likes of Arlen Spector to conservatives. He is a phony piece of human dung.

[SUSSA]

Santorum is so staunchly pro-life that he endorsed pro-abortion Arlen Spector over pro-life Toomy.

[sickoflibs]

RE:”Again, compared, clearly Gingrich was the far better choice morally and politically. Gingrich was a humbled sinner; Santorum was a holier-than-thou altar boy”

Humble Newt?? His head is bigger than the US capital

But he has friends in high places,

[BillyBoy]

>> 16% is ridiculously low. In 2012, 51% of Iowa GOP “likely caucusgoers” were Evangelical or “born-again” Christians: <<

To hear the media describe it in 2012, you'd think the demographics of Iowa citizens were about 99% "Evangelical" and 1% everyone else, since the ONLY religious group they ever discussed the voting habits of in Iowa was that group, and made it sound like they represent the beliefs of all Iowa voters.

I looked up the ACTUAL breakdown by religion in Iowa, and in reality its almost evenly split between white evangelical protestants (25%) and Catholics (23%). http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2004/11/State-By-State-Percentage-Of-White-Evangelicals-Catholics-And-Black-Protestants.aspx# ) Protestants as a whole form a narrow 52% majority (so that means about 25% of Iowa voters are mainline protestant), making the state pretty balanced equally between different religious faiths and Christian traditions.

It's no Alabama-style bible belt state where everyone is born again, despite the media's attempts to portray it as such. It would be like claiming Australia (currently equally split three ways between Catholics, Anglicans, other Christian denominations) and is a gung-ho Roman Catholic nation and votes for whoever the Pope wants.

If Evangelicals make up a majority of Iowa caucus voters, then they must have a far greater turnout than any other religious faith in Iowa.

[sickoflibs]

I hate to rehash this stuff but Newt, Santorum, Cain, Bachman were all losers and had no chance of beating Romney let alone Obama.
Newt and Santorum both were booted out of congress (Technically Newt resigned, but so did Nixon)

On paper Perry looked like he could beat Romney but he couldn't handle the camera.

We better get better alternatives than them or 2016 will be another disaster,

[fieldmarshaldj]

But in the end, folks, Gingrich was unelectable. You can’t beat an unpopular elected official (Zero) with someone even more unpopular (Newt). It’s common sense. Santorum didn’t have his baggage. Still, none of these guys should’ve been running for President at all if the GOP was serious about winning.

[GOPsterinMA]

AMEN!