Posted on 03/16/2012 9:03:36 AM PDT by Josh Painter
“Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.”
Promoting personnel responsibility sounds very conservative.
I just don't want to descend to their level.
If Newt actually had a chance of getting the nomination, I would quite possibly even vote for him.
But I have yet to see his most ardent supporters explain how they would ever attract the supporters of any other candidate to their banner with the all negative all the time stuff they throw around.
I'm not even calling on Newt to drop out at this point. He alone has to make that decision. But it is beginning to look very much like he is willing to sabotage the eventual GOP nominee, whoever it is, to preserve his precious ego.
My point of posting that (I did not even read it all) is to point out that Newt and Rick both have things they regret doing. We also know sites where we can pick up trash and throw it back. Some Newt supporters have such hatred of Rick that if we post good news for Rick, they go into that threads only to trash Rick. They, like romney and the gop, expect us to support their candidate after attacking ours with such hatred. (and a few have a lot of hate for Rick and his supporters) They want us to turn our backs on our values and our beliefs and go with them. Every person has their reasons to support their candidate, and no one should bully people into changing theirs.
Shocker: Bob Dole wasn’t in the Senate in 2006, and therefore could not POSSIBLY have had a better 2006 lifetime ACU record. Oddly, Jindraker made two other errors, first in saying there were 50 Republican senators, when there were 55, and second in saying Jim Jeffords switched “around that time”, he switched 5 years earlier in 2001 (which is also when there were 50 republicans).
As Powerline has now corrected, it was Elizabeth Dole, not Bob Dole, in the ratings.
Anyway, correcting for 55 republicans, and also not comparing Santorum to himself (yes, they did that, Santorum was one of the 4 that was within the margin of error with himself), the numbers for Santorum are: 24 worse, 27 better, 3 the same (54 total).
Newt Gingrich’s lifetime ACU Rating when he resigned in 1998 was a 90. (Note: this is a rounded number, I couldn’t find the more “accurate” decimal version for the 1998 results).
Of the 55 senators in 2006, 24 were more conservative than Gingrich. That includes Graham, Trent Lott, and Kay Baily Hutchinson. And Burns, Enzi, and Talent.
Or using the “about the same” criteria, Gingrich was 27 worse, 6 the same, 21 better. He’s tied with Orrin Hatch.
So if this shows Santorum isn’t conservative, it also shows Gingrich wasn’t even “conservative” when he resigned, BEFORE he took several decidedly moderate positions that aren’t covered by ACU ratings since he wasn’t in congress.
I am not saying Gingrich isn’t sufficiently conservative — I am pointing out that, by the criteria being advanced here, if Santorum isn’t conservative, neither is Gingrich.
In truth, a lifetime rating within a couple of points really isn’t a distinction worth a difference. Both men had to make many votes, some of which supported leadership rather than conservatism.
So you posted someone else’s words without reading them nor do you give the original author/poster credit. I could now not careless for what you have as a view.
Josh, you aren't that stupid.
Graham in 2006 had a lifetime ACU rating of 90.6.
Newt's final lifetime ACU rating was 90.
So, how many of those who condemned Graham as a RINO will make excuses for Gingrich?
Those who can't handle the truth ignore it?
BTW, you do know that Hindraker published this to help Romney, and that the only reason he didn’t do the comparison I did with Gingrich is that he believes Gingrich is no longer in the race.
It has 3 errors — It was Elizabeth Dole, not Bob Dole, there were 55 Republican Senators, not 50, and Jeffords “jumped” in 2001, not 2006.
Pretty sloppy for Hindraker.
Then shut up and vote for your hero Romney then. You have two choices Romney or Santorum. We know your choice.
our choices are simple:
mcromney, the white version of fubo
santorum, the bushes 4th term
paul, classic nut job
newt, the pissed off old hounddog that led a conservative revolution
I look at what people in office do, not what they say. With that there statement in mind, the only person that was a true conservative in office is newt.
I will not associate myself in any way with a white fubo, another term of bushes, or a nut job. Period.
If this country is to be lead to the abyss, let that person have a d after their name. I am done compromising, i am done playing “team” politics, i am done voting for socialist or socialist lite. Best case scenario is at the brokered convention a non bush true conservative comes out to play...
You are correct about Thompson. Also, Rick’s lifetime rating was lower than his final 2,3, and 4-year average — he was getting more conservative before he lost his election. His last couple of years were in the mid-90s rating-wise.
And as I pointed out, Newt Gingrich’s ACU lifetime is barely higher than Santorum’s, and he also was behind many of the Senators that people here are mocking Santorum about, including Lindsay Graham.
Of course, Lindsay Graham’s ACU rating is a bit lower now than 2006.
Good catch(es); and furthermore, Liddy Dole’s lifetime rating is only an 85. Terrible fact checking on the author’s part.
Santorum IS as conservative as he says. An 88% lifetime ACU score is a conservative score. Remember that he was representing PA. Not TX or SC where it’s much easier for conservatives to get elected.
Perhaps a more instructive way to look at Santorum’s Lifetime ACU rating of 88.1%(House+Senate) is to observe each of the rated Senate years that make up the average. It becomes glaringly obvious that Santorum was becoming increasingly more conservative as the years went by, and was far more conservative as a Senator representing the entire state than he had been as a Republican Congressman representing the heavily Democratic 18th District. He nonetheless compiled a 78.5% ACU average for his 4 years in the House.
It should also be noted that his Lifetime Senate ACU average is 92.1%.
His 12 Senate ACU ratings year-by-year:
‘95-—83%
‘96-—95%
‘97-—84%
‘98-—84%
‘99-—88%
‘00-—100%
‘01-—100%
‘02-—95%
‘03-—90%
‘04-—96%
‘05-—92%
‘06-—96%
If you take an average of the 6 years in his last Senate term, his ACU rating is an impressive 94.8%
Soutce: http://conservative.org/legislative-ratings/
He has shown a steady trend of becoming more conservative as he has matured from the 32 year-old House freshman of 1991 to the Presidential candidate of today.
For Santorum supporters, it’s fair to say that the trend is their friend!
Thanks, I really appreciate the info.
Newt? Not so much. He represented a safely conservative district in Georgia and never faced a serious reelection challenge. His forays off into liberal la-la land almost all occurred after he lost the speakership and quit congress.
As do I and I'm not crazy about Tim Murphy.
Well analyzed post-thanks
Gingrich's record in Congress is far more conservative than Santorum's. He's got a demonstrated record of conservative accomplishments that none of the other candidates can touch.
About the only thing you can really fault the man for, are some of the oddball positions he's taken since being out of office, most of which he's since recanted and apologized for.
You can't prove that by how he's campaigned in this election. The man is as stuck on big government social conservative issues, as he's ever been. I can't remember when he's significantly stepped outside that box in the last year.
Obama is laying waste to every pillar of our American system, and all I ever hear from Santo are social conservative positions. It's going to take a lot more than that to roll back all of the damage the Dems have done since 2007.
We're going to need a president who's got the reformation of our fundamental system of government at the very top of his list, if we're to have any hope of survival. Santo is not that man, in my opinion. I just do not believe that he's got it in him.
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.