Posted on 03/15/2012 11:00:14 AM PDT by timlot
“The Tea Party is kidding itself if it thinks the size of government is going to shrink. At best it will stabilize. The problem with attempting to “shrink” the government is that those institutions that should be left alone (Army, Navy, etc.) get shrunk as well.”
Wow. Finally some honesty. I hope all Tea Party supporters here backing Santorum are paying attention.
“Wow. Finally some honesty. I hope all Tea Party supporters here backing Santorum are paying attention.”
Hey guy, I’m a Newt fan, not Santorum. I just don’t like folks bashing him for being socially conservative.
However, I don’t think Newt is really that keen on cutting the government either. He knows that to get the bad stuff, you will hurt the good stuff like Defense.
The only Tea Party candidate that was in the race was Bachmann and she is long gone. Cain had his own ideas.
Neighter Newt or Rick are adverse to cutting government IF it isn’t some across the board nonsense. I sometimes suspect that many “Tea Party” types just want to cut it all....which is dangerous.
Keeping taxes low.....laudible and frees more money to go into the economy. Cutting government across the board...a very bad idea that is never going to happen. Whether it be Elephant or Donkey.
So any conservative running for office better dang well hew to it.
And Santorum is about as far from it as Romney... heck, I'd go so far as to say that Santorum is further away than that. Closer to Obama.
For both believe in the moral purity of their beliefs... and use it to justify government control over the lives of all Americans. Whereas Romney has no beliefs to use in justifying anything.
The Tea Party is a rollback government movement. I know you support Newt, but many many social conservatives back Santorum. Rick is getting Tea Party support. I`m just saying that if your views are indicative of social conservatives` views in general then Tea Party supporters really really need to reconsider their support for Rick.
ps good luck with banning birth control for unmarried women (you really made me smile with that one)
...Santorum promised “vigorous” enforcement to shut down operators who are profiting from commerce in illegal obscenity, and you may agree or disagree with that. But this isn’t an issue that Santorum raised during a stump speech yesterday or that is the subject of his newest campaign ad. THAT STATEMENT HAS BEEN ON SANTORUM’S WEB SITE FOR SEVERAL WEEKS, PERHAPS FOR MONTHS.
If you didn’t realize that when you read the Daily Caller article — if you mistakenly believed that Santorum had suddenly decided to raise this subject during his campaign — ask yourself why you didn’t realize it.
Do you feel you have been misled?
Exactly why the Daily Caller saw fit to assign its associate editor to write a 700-word “news” article, soliciting opinions from Eugene Volokh and Jonathan Turley, I don’t know. Why this cheap political “gotcha” hit-job deserved headline treatment at the Drudge Report, I don’t know.
But for intelligent people who call themselves “conservative” to fall for such a dishonest media stunt as this is ridiculous.
As James Carville likes to say, “If you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you know it didn’t crawl up there by itself,” and this particular turtle seems mighty damned suspicious to me.
UPDATE: Thanks to a sharp-eyed commenter who found this Jan. 9 news release from Morality in Media: Three of the leading GOP 2012 Presidential candidates have made statements committing to enforce existing federal obscenity laws if they are elected, while the current administration still refuses to enforce federal obscenity laws prohibiting distribution of hardcore pornography, according to Morality in Media.
Morality In Media launched efforts in October 2011 to contact the 2012 presidential candidates, including President Obama, to obtain their respective views on the enforcement of obscenity laws. Thousands of individuals sent emails, made calls and even spoke to the candidates in person urging them to respond to the survey. As a result of these efforts, the following candidates responded:
Former Senator Rick Santorum in a written statement: “Federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”
Former Governor Mitt Romney in a written statement: “(I)t is imperative that we cultivate the promotion of fundamental family values. This can be accomplished with increased parental involvement and enhanced supervision of our children. It includes strict enforcement of our nation’s obscenity laws, as well as the promotion of parental software controls that guard our children from Internet pornography.”
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich in a face-to-face meeting: When MIM’s Executive Director Dawn Hawkins asked former Speaker Gingrich if he will enforce existing laws that make distribution of hard-core adult pornography illegal, he responded: “Yes, I will appoint an Attorney General who will enforce these laws.”
The Liberty I refer to is Founding law. If I was hoping to advance anarchy or immorality, I would have said so.
My Faith in Christianity is not at all a function of govt. It may bring you comfort to have govt enforce the New Testament, but it’s not my preference especially in light of the 50+ million *legal killings* that have occurred over the last 40 years.
You casually spun my use of Liberty into the absurd form of immortality perhaps to justify the statism you feel is necessary to corral the unruly. Well guess what, that’s the same attitude Obama has: control.
I regret the suggestion the 1st Amendment is a device of Christianity instead of a promise to respect it.
The list of obscenity laws that extend to your living room, and I also support is small indeed. The only one I can really think of is child pornography, which would entail a child being brutalized whether you viewed it or not.
This election season, fiscal conservatives own the GOP grassroots.
It is the fiscal conservatives and free-market supporters who own the Republican streets. Through the Tea Party, they have come to dominate the grassroots of the GOP. It is as if an invisible primary were held for supremacy at the grassroots and the Tea Party won.
And social issues are nowhere on the Tea Party agenda. I recently participated in a conference call with tea-party affiliates throughout the country. During the question period that followed my speech, one leader of a local tea-party group asked a question about abortion. The conference-call leader jumped in before I could answer and ruled the query out of order. “Our priorities are to oppose taxes, support fiscal conservatism, and advance free-market principles,” she scolded the questioner. “We do not take a position on social issues like abortion,” she added.
Along with this change has come a shift in what it takes to turn the litmus paper red enough to win Republican primaries. It used to be that abortion, gun control, and gay marriage were the hot-button issues, and anyone straying from orthodoxy was targeted in the primary and handicapped in the general election by a lackluster turnout. Now, a candidate’s social positions rarely even come up. It is fiscal and economic purity that rules the day. Anyone who voted for cap-and-trade is targeted in the primary. And there is no place for a candidate who ever backed a tax increase. Every candidate has to sign the no-tax pledge that Grover Norquist formulated for Americans for Tax Reform.
Where Republican politicians were once terrified to move to the left on social issues, they are now more frightened of retribution for departures from fiscal orthodoxy. The once-elitist demands of the Club for Growth are now echoed throughout America by the surging Tea Party movement.
A recent Wall Street Journal poll found that 71 percent of all Republicans regarded themselves as Tea Party supporters, far more than would identify themselves as pro-life or opposed to gay marriage.
This shift in Republican priorities is opening up the way for social moderates and libertarians to back Republican candidates in the 2010 elections. The libertarian strain in the American electorate has long been neglected by the mainstream media. But, through the Tea Party, it has gained ascendancy on the right. Those who want the government to stay out of both boardrooms and bedrooms have come to dominate the party and its nominating process.
http://dickmorris.com/economic-issues-at-the-forefront/
This has been on his website for months. The liberals decided to use it now I suppose because they are getting worried.
It’s been on his site for months. The libs pulled this out now because they are grasping for anything to destroy him.
I think the left would much rather have a debate about birth control and internet censorship than unemployment, debt, or gas prices.
...which has already been done countless times I might add.
No doubt that large sum of cash is going to be laundered....no way would it cost 90 mill...and there is no justification for Santorum to have supported that....but then he is a BIG Government spender as we know and his record attests to.
Santorum's going to have to fight for Pa.....and Newt's pretty favorable here too of course.... ... recent article that PA. may very well be in Romney's boat and he's already started here now.....the Rep.party Elite are making that clear now....and remember the delegates are non-binding....most of which in the past have been "elites". Additionally the Tea Party people aren't happy with Santorum here either....he's going to have to work them for they remember well his vote for Spector and his other actionswhich opposed concervatiism.
The conservative group Morality In Media is head over heels today after all three top Republican candidates promised to go war against the distribution of porn. In a written statement, Rick Santorum said, “Federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”
Not to be outdone, Mitt Romney gave a statement to the group that said, “(I)t is imperative that we cultivate the promotion of fundamental family values. This can be accomplished with increased parental involvement and enhanced supervision of our children. It includes strict enforcement of our nation’s obscenity laws, as well as the promotion of parental software controls that guard our children from Internet pornography.”
Then we have Newt Gingrich, who wasn’t satisfied with a written statement. In a face to face meeting, Gingrich told Morality In Media that, “Yes, I will appoint an Attorney General who will enforce these laws.” The existing laws that each of these candidates were referring to are federal laws that they and Morality In Media feel make the distribution of pornography illegal.
http://www.politicususa.com/ban-porn-gingrich-santorum-romney/
Also:
Santorum and Gingrich previously signed a pledge by the conservative Christian group The Family Leader in which they vowed to protect women and children from “seduction into promiscuity and all forms of pornography.” But Romney refused to sign, saying the pledge was “undignified and inappropriate for a presidential campaign.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/13/santorum-romney-and-gingrich-vow-to-enforce-anti-porn-laws/
Is Santorum really for this or is the media lying again?
I don’t trust anything the media says.
You mean like Ben Franklin who was a “moral” person????
I guess then that there's absolutely nothing wrong with Michelle Obama saying what school children should eat at school? After all, many parents give their kids foods that are unhealthy. If it is ok for Santorum to step in because 'the gross majority of parents do not' put anti-porn filters on the Internet, then it's ok if Michelle steps in for healthy eating, right? It's all for the children. /s
Santorum is for enforcing obscenity laws already on the books as are the other candidates. See post #334 The only difference is that he has it listed on his issues page on his website and has for months. A lib reporter decided to make a big story out of it, and here we are.
As I figured, the media lies again.
It’s amazing that even on this forum the liberal media manipulates and controls most people like puppets on a string.
We have to take everything the news media says as lies,distortions, deceptions , and political ads for democrats/socialism because that’s what the “news” is.
People tend to be more than willing to accept the spin as long as they feel it helps their candidate and hurts their nonpreferred one, even if that candidate is also conservative.
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.