Posted on 01/14/2012 2:05:00 PM PST by PieterCasparzen
Rick Santorum should be president for three basic but important reasons. First, his policies are sound. His economic recovery plan includes a reduction of federal non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels by enacting across the board spending cuts. He has called for and pledged to sign into law the repeal of ObamaCare and to replace it with market based healthcare innovation and competitive, market based solutions that will leave healthcare choices where they belong…. between doctors and their patients. Santorum has called for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution and a capping of government spending to 18% of GDP.
...
The second reason to support Santorum is the stability of his personal life. His commitment to his wife and family as a husband and father reveals a man of character who is willing to keep his word. You can’t be pro-family when your family is in disarray.
...
Finally, Santorum deserves our support because of his passion for God. He has had his faith tested in the crucible of personal trial and in the pressure cooker of public attacks against him because of his strong stands on moral issues. His personal relationship with Jesus Christ has in the past and continues in the present to sustain and strengthen him.
...
All of the candidates for the Republican nomination have their strengths. But only one can be the standard-bearer of true conservatism.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at christianfaithinamerica.com ...
oh, there’s no question that having a stable marriage is a definite asset to a POTUS, as is a strong faith. I don’t know how one really survives the pressures of that job without them (tho Clinton did).
Among the current contenders, I think Santorum is one of the strongest in both those areas. I just have a problem with the author (or any clergy) saying that’s why folks should vote for him (or any other candidate). I’m sure every Mormon bishop is saying the same thing about Mitt. Just find me one Mormon who isn’t supporting Mitt for that reason alone .. he is one of them, as Santorum is one of the Evangelicals.
This author gave a passing kudo to Santorum’s economic recovery plan, but his endorsement came down to his being a man of strong faith and a devoted husband and family man. With those criteria, we could nominate (almost) any of the men I know in my personal life.
But we’re not voting for Best Husband, or Best Christian, or Most Likely to Go to Heaven; we’re voting for the most powerful and toughest job on earth, and that demands a whole other skill and characteristics set. We’ve learned, have we not, that having someone in that Office without a wide range of skills is nothing short of disaster.
IMO, Santorum would actually make a fine president if he could be installed. However, we don’t install our presidents, except thru the vice presidency under unfortunate circumstances. Generally, candidates go thru a grueling process just to be able to run in the general election. My concern would be that he doesn’t have either the wherewithal or whatever the spark is to get the nomination or to to win the general election.
If your primary concern is his wherewithal, I’m not really sure what to say. He’s the best we’ve got. We should show that our words aren’t just words and back them up. We want more candidates like Santorum.
Because he’s not liberal enough? He polls better against Mitt than Newt does.
Yeah, and? Seems he’s retracted lots of stuff. You say I should look at the record of the candidate?
I don’t like how every single objection that gets brought up against Newt - the answer ‘he no longer believes in x’. Really?
Sorry, no sale.
I didn’t say my primary concern was his lack of wherewithal, important as that is. More important, he doesn’t seem to have or show “it,” whatever “it” is that excites the electorate. That may seem shallow, and it is, but that’s how folks vote .. for the taller guy, the one they want to have a beer with, the one they think is ‘like me,’ etc., etc. etc. Like it or not, that’s electoral reality.
Santorum’s tall. :)
He’s like 6’4’’.
If you don’t like his image, that’s fine, but I have to ask - if you’re looking for personable, someone who’s looking presidential, is that really Newt? Really?
It seems to me that you’ve picked out your candidate and are set on him. Which is also ok. But I just don’t see why Santorum is lacking the “image factor”.
NEWT is astute.
Santorum'll bore 'em.
No need to be in the inner circle just listen to their words or go to their websites.
Wow. Someone actually posted something useful. This is disturbing news. The Second Amendment is ALWAYS my number one issue.:(
Rick, Rick and Newt are the only conservatives in the race (Santorum being the most conservative), and Rick Santorum brought out a good point on one of the Sunday shows, that he was ahead of both Newt and Rick Perry in the first two primary races.
Now that I’ve gotten to see Rick Santorum more, I think he DOES have charisma, and at the least a very pleasant personality, along with a good sense of humor.
I love the way when Ron Paul was lying about Santorum, at the debate, Ron Paul’s microphone had feedback TWICE, and Rick Santorum said, that’s what happens when you don’t tell the truth. Ron Paul looked like a deer in the headlights. Too funny.
My reply in 87 affirms that Newt does support part of Obamacare, and that he is not worthy of your support. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
Sorry, wasn’t sure where you are coming from.
How could a word make something you did "invalid", "without merit", or anything else? Words describe what a person's opinion is OF something, not the other way around. Words are the description, not the definition.
Posting a cut-and-paste multi-page item to multiple threads based on the candidate being discussed in the threads is called "spamming" here; it's the word used to describe that action. You could easily put that information on your home page, and put a link to it here, or put it in it's own thread, and put a link the thread.
Or, you could try to be the second person in the thread, and post your huge comment to the thread in the hopes it discourages people from commenting in the thread, or allows you to hijack the thread from discussing the article posted to disscussing your article. But then you might get people commenting on your tactic.
If your interest was in providing vital information for the election, you wouldn't have dismissed the idea of putting a similar sheet together for Gingrich. Because you expect other people to do that, it is clear your intent is to discourage supporters of other candidates in the hopes it helps your candidate. That's fine, but don't pretend it's a "public service", just admit it's partisan advocacy and be proud of it.
I'd like to think conservatives would vote with their heads, not their hearts, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
I guess I need to work on making that post more 'invisible', because you sure seem to have noticed it.
If you say so, but I've never heard them make any statements like that. I'll stay tuned, and see.
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.