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 ...
So quit talking trash like a liberal, and post the good side of Santorum's voting record.
Sure, but that doesn’t excuse his prior support for Cap and trade, and the individual mandate.
Maybe flip flopping on the issues is good enough for you, but not for me. 2009 is what, 2 years ago? Maybe he’ll flip back again in 2013. That would be just awesome.
Make sure you ping me when you post Newt's big government record.
That said, I'll be the first to admit that he's strayed off the reservation too often, but of the candidates who are now in the race, he's the only one with the right intellectual heft, experience, conservative orientation, and guts to defeat Obama, then go on to reverse course on what the Dems have done to America in the last couple of decades.
He may be flawed in some ways, but he's the best we've got, by far.
Where did you plagiarize that from, RedState of ConfederateUnderground?
You have been lying from day one about Perry.
You said he reduced government in Texas.
In the year 2000, when Perry became gov, the state budget was ~ 110 Billon.
Today, in 2011, it is OVER 200 BILLION.
Now please explain how that’s not a huge expansion of governement!
Doubt me, go to www.usgovernmentspending.com, select texas and make your own chart.
ping
How about in 2008 when he made the commercial with Pelosi??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154
Newt said he did it just to show that conservatives can care about the environment, too. He has later apologized for this ad and said it was a stupid move on his part.
He has been an ardent fighter against AGW and Cap & Trade for the last few years.
Can we move on?
I’ve already said that I can respect the fact that Santorum made a strategic political decision to support Specter—at least that’s the story. Fine. It just looks bad on Santorum when he tries to construe this narrative of himself being someone with perfect moral constitution. If he such a hardliner about his principles like he’s been putting himself off to be, he’d never have supported Specter, period.
In any event, my issues with Santorum aren’t as much with his record—which is still pretty bad, given that all those votes can’t be easily explained away. Rather, it’s his expressed philosophy, which I regard as collectivist and promoting wealth redistribution under the guise of ‘helping the poor’, etc. I’m immediately skeptical of anyone who talks about the so-called “common good” like he does. Who the hell is he to think he knows what that is? I don’t need nor want the government dictating that to me.
I also think he has weak force of personality. Sorry, but a political leader needs charisma to do well, especially right now given the current challenges.
So yeah, Santorum’s philosophy and personality are what turn me off about him and why I see him as a non-starter candidate.
Thanks for posting.
Thanks in advance!
No clue. I’d have to see it in context. Means nothing to me otherwise.
Which candidate are you spamming for now?
That blah blah blah doesn’t bother me nearly as much as how you can actually listen to Gingrich say something on C-Span, and within 8 hours you will be attacked by Gingrich supporters who will have deluded themselves into believing he was so smart that he meant something different and we are just too stupid to understand.
Ha ha! Well, look who showed up. A blast from the past!
I'm not 'spamming' for any candidate, but I do support Newt. How 'bout yourself?
At this point, “why” matters little, while “how” is everything. Perfection is meaningless if voters don’t notice him.
PING!
"On the subject of health insurance, Gingrich said he believes that everyone should have coverage, which Beck said was the same as the individual mandate in Obamacare. Gingrich would provide subsidies to make insurance affordable to all....He argued that the expansion of Medicare to provide a drug benefit improved the program."
http://news.yahoo.com/glenn-beck-tags-newt-gingrich-big-government-progressive-232400647.html
"like Mitt Romney, he was a flip-flopper, being in favor of government mandates on health care before he was against them, and in favor of big-government climate-change “solutions” before he was against them, and in favor of putting giant mirrors in space to light American highways by night before he was agai . . . oh, wait, that one he may still be in favor of.... At Freddie Mac, Newt was peddling influence to a quasi-governmental entity. At Bain Capital, Mitt Romney was risking private equity in private business enterprise. What sort of “conservative” would conflate the two?
" It was Newt who gave us S-CHIP, the biggest expansion of Medicaid since the program was created. On the other hand, when it came to holding the line on “tax credits” for people who don’t pay any taxes, Gingrich looked into Clinton’s eyes and melted. ...In that sense, few of Gingrich’s proposals bear comparison with the Homestead Act: Instead of enabling Americans to take risks and push the frontiers, they incline mostly to the expansion of bureaucracy and an increase in dependency. As a result of Gingrich’s “reforms,” four out of ten American children are on Medicaid.
"Presumably this is what he meant when he told Newsweek that his Gestalt is “in many ways conservative, in many ways very moderate.” I’d prefer to formulate it this way: Gingrich is a pushover for progressivism who’s succeeded in passing himself off as a hard-line right-wing bastard. Which is why Democrats who make the mistake of believing their own talking points on Newt invariably have to improvise hastily. In 2007 John Kerry found himself booked for a debate with Gingrich on climate change and had his speechwriters prepare some boilerplate about Newt’s “marching in lockstep with the climate-change deniers.” Unfortunately for him, the former Speaker spoke first and announced that man-made global warming was a real threat that we needed to address “very actively.” He praised as “a very interesting read” Kerry’s unreadable book on the subject, and for good measure added that he was “very worried about polar bears” because “my name ‘Newt’ actually comes from the Danish ‘Knut,’ and there’s been a major crisis in Germany over a polar bear named ‘Knut.’” Kerry abandoned his prescripted attack on Gingrich, hailed his candor, and put his arm around him. Lest the paying customers feel cheated by the bipartisan love-in, the senator attempted to put a bit of clear blue water between him and the ruthless right-wing bastard by raising the possibility that perhaps Gingrich did not share his enthusiasm for cap-and-trade. Newt said he was willing to be persuaded. “I am going to sell a few more books for you, John,” he declared.
when he was forced from the speakership, Newt stayed in Washington working his Rolodex. These are different times, but even so the Freddie Mac business is not a small thing. Perhaps the single most repellent feature of the political class that has served America so disastrously in recent decades is its shameless venality in parlaying “public service” into a guarantee of an eternal snout at the trough. Newt writes bestselling books about government, produces DVDs about government, sets up websites about government, but he is as foreign to genuine private-sector wealth creation as any life politician. Indeed, his endurance in Washington represents one of the worst aspects of contemporary “public service” — that a life in politics no longer depends on anything so whimsical as the votes of the people.
"So what does that leave? Tonally, his confident swagger is more appealing to the Republican base than Romney’s unctuous aw-shucks wholesomeness — just as John McCain’s maverickiness was more appealing than Romney last time around. And we know how that worked out for the GOP. The Dems are confident that this is a gift from the heavens: The Stupid Party is stupid enough to put up a scowly, jowly fat guy whose name is a byword for everything from the Nineties Mr. and Mrs. Moderate don’t want to revive."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286068/gingrich-gestalt-mark-steyn?pg=4
"This came out in the interview in which he supported subsidies for oil and gas exploration, which Beck along with a lot of other tea party people oppose."
http://news.yahoo.com/newt-gingrich-big-government-conservative-000800509.html
When Ron Paul introduced a budget plan in October calling for $1 trillion in cuts in one year, even conservatives who were not Paul supporters cheered. Said Gingrich of the plan: “It’s a non-starter.” When Rep. Paul Ryan introduced an entitlement reform plan this year, conservatives supported it as a bold first step. Gingrich called it “right-wing social engineering.”
"It’s quite another to say that on virtually every issue of importance to conservatives in the last decade — amnesty, TARP, climate change — these men have mostly been on the liberal side. Watching Gingrich now argue with Romney over who’s more conservative is like watching the two guys from Milli Vanilli argue over who’s a better singer. ...Mitt and Newt's lip-synch conservatism increasingly falls on deaf ears. Co
"While Paul wants to cut $1 trillion tomorrow, Gingrich and Romney are stuck bickering over who is more responsible for giving Obama the blueprint for government healthcare — as both men have supported the individual healthcare mandate as “conservative.” It was reported this week that as late as 2006, Gingrich was still praising Romneycare in Massachusetts as the ideal healthcare model for the nation.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/28/gingrich-would-be-worse-than-obama/#ixzz1jV87RAfn
Yeah, he's a conservative, all right. Like McCain.
As you said, you are posting a multi-page item to multiple threads. That’s pretty much the definition of spamming.
I think I remember you in the Perry threads, but you had a different candidate then.
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.