Posted on 03/04/2005 1:29:10 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Santorum.
With people tossing out the term "RINO" indescrimately lately with little knowledge of its meaning, I accept the acknowledgement Santorum is a true Republican. I'm getting a bit tired of folks tossing labels lately if someone varies even slightly, especially when untrue. For example, Guilini is a moderate Liberal, but he is also a loyal Republican. "RINO" means Republican in name only. Folks are confusing "Republican" with "Conservative". Pet peeve of mine when they do that.
Respectfully asking, do you think Rick Santorum is a conservative?
in the end it doesn't matter..i'm just 1 vote but it's a vote that remembers
Part political calculation, part self preservation, part naivety.
The political calculation was made the Republicans could not afford the loss of one Senate seat, and that Santorum needed Spectre on his side, not actively campaigning against him in '06. And Spectre would have done just that if removed by party rebellion. Whether he ran against Santorum himself or utilized his "friends" in Penn, he'd have waged war against Santorum.
I'm also of opinion Republicans can be too naive, or stupid if you prefer, and assume at the end of the day these people will be reasonable. From Democrats to Spectre this is a problem. Santorum probably did believe Spectre would feel an obligation to reward their support. Wrong as that thought is, I do think Reps entered into it with that mindset. It's a mindset that needs to be broken. Trust should be earned, not given under assumption the other person is reasonable.
I think Santorum made the wrong decision. I haven't argued against this. But do I think a failing once should define perception of that individual for life? No. He has a good record aside from this decision. He'd have to make other notable missteps to convince me this was a disturbing pattern rather than disappointing one time weakness under pressure. He did withstand high MSM pressure with his comments on marriage without backing down. Most Reps would have apologized and retracted under that pressure.
Yes, I do believe without doubt Rick is a conservative.
Where I disagree is with thought spoken about here that one isn't a Republican if they are Liberal. Used to be a time when both conservatives and liberals occupied both parties.
i dunno..i joined the republican party in 94 on the basis of the contract with america with republican assuring me that once lected they would change things..then over the years it became " well a bigger majority then we'll change things" and now they don't want to change anything at all in terms of government except to grow it and use it to establish their own power. Love me or hate me for saying but i'm really disillussioned about it when i spent 10 years watching for signs of a trend towards change and all i got was this lousy t-shirt
Thank you for your response.
I would agree with you.
Ah, well, I support the Republicans for a different reason though if that is why you joined I can under disappointment.
I don't believe Republicans can change things. I believe Americans can change things if our voice is loud enough. The Democrats as a party have become immoral, sided with the terrorists and close minded to anyone not 100% in line with them.
In contrast the Republicans are not a Christian Party but they do welcome Christians in the ranks as they welcome people of different beliefs, they are largely still pro-America and do allow some disagreement. Perhaps too much at the expense of conservatives at times....but still they haven't yet denied any one person out of a chance to be heard.
Given this I feel Republicans offer the best environment to promote the advancement of conservatism and have the historical weight to make significant change if successful. The biggest hurdles are a) Republicans being too spineless to defy the MSM and Dems b) grassroots activists failing to understand they have more power to influence change than they believe IF we respond as a group.
I'll give Dems this, their grassroots are typically more unified in making their voices heard. And their representatives have no relunctance to act as the majority even when the minority. From grassroots to representatives we need an attitude adjustment. An influx of confidence on thigh and a strategized union of grassroots activists to force Reps to acknowledge our desires.
Again, I didn't state the Republicans stand for change.
The President stands for change.
Most politicians stand for the status quo and I don't care if they are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Communist, or whatever.
They have to be pushed to institute change and the Republican Party is the only heavy weight that has the open climate that makes that possible. I don't accept defeatism, and if the grassroots accept that attitude, there will never be change.
Huh? No, I'm equating Rick's endorsement of Sphincter with Bush's endorsement of Sphincter; read it again.
Don't get me wrong, I like Santorum, whom I've met, but don't really know. He has a very good voting record. I can't stand Specter, whom I do know, and we ALL know what his voting record is like. I also like Jim Toomey - a lot. Like all politicians, Toomey has his warts, but for the voter willing to find out, he also has a voting record, and it's a helluva lot better than Specter's.
I've been a registered Republican for 31 years (since I was old enough to vote), but I'm a conservative first and a Republican second. I don't and never will go along with the party uber alles crowd (I guess I'm a Constitution uber alles kind of guy). If we Republicans don't insist that the party leaders take the same approach (find strong, CONSERVATIVE candidates well-grounded in basic constitutional principles and work to get them elected - even to the detriment of few RINOs), how can we possibly expect that anything even remotely resembling a conservative agenda come out of our government?
Specter has shown his true colors for the past 24 years and HE is certainly no party uber alles proponent. Santorum's a great guy and as close to a true conservative as there is the Senate, but he blew it on the Specter endorsement. A LOT of PA Republicans are pissed about it and I fear that he - and not Specter - will pay the price.
Now I see where you got the idea that I was equating Santorum's endorsement of Specter to Daschle's opposition of the war effort. I confused my post on this thread with a post on another thread. The operative word in the sentence was miscalculation - that's all. Not the same miscalculation, but a miscalculation nonetheless.
I hope you realize that I will be working hard to get Santorum re-elected here in W. PA; I've contributed to his campaigns in the House and Senate in the past and will do so again. I also hope you realize that not all W. PA voters are as forgiving as I am. I voted for Toomey in the primary, but cast my vote for Hoeffel in the general election just to get rid of Specter. I fail to see where Specter has done anything more, and in fact less, than a number of conservative Democrats (Nelson - a genuine good guy - and Miller come to mind) to advance the President's agenda. I said on this forum that, if re-elected, Specter would take the chair of the Judiciary and would revert to form (which he has). I rest my case.
p.s. I noted your tag line thanking veterans. You're welcome - and thanks for the support, we need it.
Also MH, please explain why it was such a mistake for Rick to back Specter.
Pat Toomey was pretty much unknown here in W.PA. His conservative credentials as far as accomplishments were concerned were dubious at best.
He was in the bar business prior to 1999.
Rick and the President had the same goal. Get Republicans elected so they could get their agenda and judicial nominees confirmed.
Specter had done nothing so far this term to undermine the President.
There was a primary election Specter won.
There was a general election Specter won.
There will be another primary election.
Why not put up a candidate against Rick in the primary?
Why vote for Casey out of spite.
If you know anything about this guy (Casey) you know that he's farther left than Specter.(Except on abortion, presumably)
MH, Post 154 was directed to you.
No .... because of the "true" conservatives .. it will be the people in PA that will pay the price
Why???
Because you "true" conservatives are mad
OK guys, I don't know diddly about either one of you, but let me make a couple of things perfectly clear: 1) I've been a conservative and a Republican for as long as I've been able to vote; 2) I'm a conservative first and a Republican second; 3) I contribute a lot of money to the Republican party and I've put a lot of time into getting Republican candidates elected to office, including my time as a Young Republican at Kent State University; 4) I never said "I" was a true conservative, but, like everything in the political realm, we can all find things to disagree on.
Finally, as I said before, I will contribute to Santorum's campaign and work to get him re-elected, but you'd better realize that he's gonna have one helluva fight on his hands. His endorsement of Specter is the biggest reason why, and facing a recognizable name like Casey is going to make it all the more difficult.
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.