Posted on 02/16/2012 10:55:59 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
Yes, yes he is....and it is unfortunate that others can’t see past their own noses to figure that out.
Santorum is nothing more than a beneficiary of the “Thursday of Blood” onslaught against Speaker Gingrich.
One of the many problems I have with Mitt Romnmey is that I have no confidence whatsoever that he would turn any of his ruthlessness on Obama if nominated. He would make McCain’s halfhearted campaign in 2008 look vicious by comparison.
I agree that Santorum is flawed. But what does it say about Romney that conservatives are flocking to any other choice they can get, and Romney can’t close the deal?
I am trying not to start arguments - we should save our energy for the liberals and establishment types.
If Romney is destined to be the nominee, a decent debate won’t hurt him - it will sharpen his skills and his message. So having continued debate shouldn’t be a concern.
I am not happy with my choices!!!
I don't know about the rest of the folks on Free Republic who are wary of Santorum, but I am "carpet-bombing" in an attempt to get people to READ and COMPARE Santorum's and Newt's policy positions and proposals with an open mind.
I'm "working for" limited government in the U.S. I'm "working for" the side that seeks to weaken Daddy State Government "conservatives" like Santorum. I'm "working for" the TRUTH, which is that Santorum's voting record shows a guy who is socially conservative but otherwise, pretty well inclined to big government "for our own good."
The TRUTH is that many accusations against Newt, such as his sitting on the couch with Pelosi and supporting health care mandates, have false implications because Gingrich has fought VALIANTLY against cap-and-trade regulations, and he has stated unequivocally that on further reflection, he (along with pretty much everybody at the conservative Heritage Foundation, which once supported mandates) has concluded that they were wrong in thinking mandates would work. Newt has DEMONSTRATED that he is humble enough to admit mistakes and press on toward solution. Santorum, on the other hand, demonstrates ZERO such humility or vision. On the contrary, Santorum has demonstrated a disturbing tendency to lecture Americans on morality.
Gingrich has a thoughtful, detailed plan, including one that really should resonate with EVERYONE HERE: Enforce the Tenth Amendment by starting an orderly transfer of power and responsibility from the federal government back “to the states, respectively, or to the people,” as the Constitution requires. Over the next year, state and local officials and citizens will be asked to identify the areas which can be transferred back home. This bill will decisively return power and responsibility to the states and the citizens.
Unlike Santorum, with regard to Health Care, Gingrich has stated CLEARLY that mandates in anything he plans are off the table, as in having "no individual mandate or employer mandate of any kind."
Look where I could, I found no such assurance from Santorum, and Santorum is already CONFIRMED as being a guy who likes to use government to force people into doing things "for their own good."
Santorum NEEDS TO BE VETTED. In my opinion, what you're seeing are the actions of a lot of individuals, like me, who really want folks to stop and read the handwriting on the wall with regard to Santorum: he is a former Senator and big-government "compassionate" conservative whose political philosophy is very close to Romney's.
Gingrich, whom Santorum has described as his mentor back in the days of the Reagan Revolution, has about ten times the leglisative experience and record of success as Santorum, he has a plan that details exactly HOW he intends to reduce government and increase freedom and prosperity for Americans, and he is clearly the superior choice for 2012.
GODSPEED NEWT GINGRICH.
You call Santorum decent? He’s a member of the Senate’s corrupt bastards club. He was a political whore who sold his political worth to the highest bidder. And he did it over, and over, and over...
1. Santorum’s charity “Operation Good Neighbor” (2001-07), doled out just 36% of income as grants, far less than the 75% of responsible causes. It can only be coincidence the charity which spent most of its money on lobbyists, aides and fundraisers closed after he was defeated for reelection.
Note: Santorum’s charity, “Operation Good Neighbor” (2001-07), doled out just 36% of income as grants, far less than the 75% usual for such causes. It can only be coincidence the charity which spent most of its money on lobbyists, aides and fundraisers closed after he was defeated for reelection. It was never registered with the State of Pennsylvania as required by law.
2. Santorum’s “leadership PAC,” called “American’s Foundation,” was worse—just 18% went to actual candidates. That’s well below similar PACs. The rest went into overhead like trips to Starbucks for staffers.
3. The $500,000 mortgage for his Leesburg mansion came from a private bank run by a big campaign donor. By all appearances, Santorum was not eligible for the closed program since it was for high-wealth investors in the trust.
4. Santorum bilked a Pennsylvania school district out of $72,000 to pay for home “cyberschooling” of five of his kids ... in Virginia. (He makes a great Tea Party candidate, don’t you think?)
5. As the third-ranking Republican, he worked closely with House majority leader Tom DeLay, now felon, on the “K-Street Project” to grow ties between the GOP and major lobbyists. Twenty-three of his own staffers landed well-paying jobs at lobbying firms. When he was fired by the PA voters? Santorum turned to lobbyists.
6. This supporter of Medicare Part D was so important to this culture of crony capitalism, an internal memo at pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline said his loss “creates a big hole that we need to fill.”
7. Before anyone heard of Solyndra, on behalf of a major supporter Santorum was securing $100 million federal loans for a coal-to-liquids plant that was never built. The project’s lobbyist was PA’s top GOP power broker, Bob Ashner, and paid nearly $1 million.
That’s seven places just to start. Besides his unheard of 18-point loss for reelection, putting electability in question there’s also his hypocrisy of campaigning on requiring health insurance in 1994, on his public tort reform position vs. his testimony in his wife’s own legal case, his “problem” with working women, his union pandering and more. Lots more.
What has this failed lawyer and career politician really done? What credibility does he bring to reform, what does he propose to “drain the swamp” he help create as project point-man while part of the leadership?
We all know what Romney is.
Newt’s been vetted for more than a decade. He’s the most honest person in the race.
Can you honestly say you know all there is you need to know about Rick Santorum? The Democrats do.
Don’t fall for his “family values” cover; open the book on Santorum and start reading.
The idea the former third-ranking Republican is some how not part-and-parcel of the establishment is ludicrous on its face. He made his choice for traitor Spector over conservative Toomey in the senate GOP primary. The result?
Specter provided the 60th vote for Obamacare.
Courtesy of newzjunkey at Free Republic
The billion dollar Obama machine is going to cut ANY Republican nominee to ribbons.
OUCH!.......(That one went right down the chimney!)
Fantastic, Finny — agree 1,000 percent. Just wish these dunderheads would LISTEN!!!
Just finished listening to Rush. Warts and all, he’s still one of the most politically knowledgeable people around. He thinks Bambi is so disliked, so unpopular that a trained seal could beat him. And he says you can take that to the bank.
Just my two pesos.
Huckfillary
1. Weak: Gingrich is a horrible negotiator who spins gold into straw. Example: He was completely innocent of ethics violations, but he admitted guild and paid a $300,000 fine. He couldn't be a king high with a full house.
2. Uncharismatic: Gingrich has unbelievably high negatives, and is unlikable to most of the U.S. Pretty much the ant-Reagan. 3. Left wants him: He's the ONLY candidate the Occupy movement attacks. They leave Romrich alone. The left basically said GOP voters had to pick Romney or Gingrich. No other options.
4. He only popped up when other candidates receded: Isn't the same thing true of Gingrich. He only popped up late in the game. He was busy taking cruises before.
5.Stay on message: Was Gingrich on message when he decided not to attack Romney not from the right, but from the left? He basically trashed capitalism, and used Marxist terminology. Have we really come to the point we need a GOP nominee, who sounds like a back issue of Mother Jones ?
You make an excellent point about what would happen were a Republican in office now. We all know it, but it bears repeating!
most of what you posted about Santorum is half truth and lies; but thanks anyway; cause now we sure as hell know who YOU are.
Rush has not been accurate for quite some time. He is interesting to listen to, but at times his theories get way off track and he is becoming somewhat self serving. Especially his belief that Obama will be easy to beat. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Understand what you are saying but remember this quote:
"...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
Thanks - I hope he is right! And I hope the Republicans don’t screw it up.
I agree that Rush is an excellent analyist and commentator. But I have been listening less lately, because he himself sounds worried. Maybe he’s just passionate, but his usual good cheer seems to be waning.
I know this is a serious election, and Rush is not a court jester. But I am fighting my own discouragement and depression, and Rush’s tone itself has me worried. He should not sugar-coat his message. But when he said today “when it’s time to move to new Zealand I’ll tell you,” I don’t think he was engaging in hyperbole. Not at all.
I like Rick. I think he’s a good man and would make a good president. I just wonder if he has the guts and guns to take on a machine like the one protecting Obama?
I believe that Newt could hold his own against Obama. I’m sure that they would go after all his dirty laundry but it’s already been aired anyway so they have little they can use that isn’t already known.
Santorum is a nice guy with some fight in him, but he better be really ready and able to stand toe to toe with not only Obama but his team of cutthroat pigs. They will fight in the dirtiest way possible. Count on it.
First let's see how Santorum weathers the Romney attack machine that blew Gingrich out of the water. If he can survive Romney. Santorum should not be worried about Obama. Obama's big weakness won't be the economy, it's social issues and that's Santorum's strong area and one badly needed in America.
“What ever dude”. You attack me with lies and accuse me of being something I’m not. I refute it with facts and all you can say is “what ever dude”.
Aren’t you such a delightful little punk.
[most of what you posted about Santorum is half truth and lies; ]
Put your money where your mouth is. You show US, where what Segovia said was what you claim. (Do you think you can? I don’t.)
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.