"Yyyyyeahhhh. I don't think anybody really takes anything Ron Paul says seriously."
Posted on 01/06/2012 2:02:30 PM PST by thouworm
Ron Paul's campaign is out with this new ad in South Carolina, which hits Rick Santorum on his "record of betrayal."
"One serial hypocrite exposed," the ad says, showing clips of Newt Gingrich. "Now another has emerged: Rick Santorum, a corporate lobbyist and Washington politician. A record of betrayal."
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Listen folks, Ron Paul is desperate, he came in 2nd in Iowa so he must run a smear campaign, it’s all he knows to do.... People in S.C. will see this for what it is, they are smarter than Ron Paul.... this will backfire on Ron Paul...
Santorum is last of the not-Mitt-not-Newt lightweights.
The only reason he was chosen last of all other lightweights is that he didn’t distinguish himself enough in debates, so nobody paid attention to him and gave him a chance to self-distract before Iowa.
While Gingrich actually fought for and gained his place in top tier due to his performance in debates, well reasoned and constitutionally sound set of plans and policies, interviews ( which are being distorted either by sound bites taken out of context or plain inferring or implying that he said something he didn’t - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2828830/posts?page=3#3 - simply by attributing to him words he didn’t say putting words in his mouth and ) etc.
In other words, as they say, Newt “earned it” while the not-Romneys-not-Newts were just rotated like shirts on the rack, to try them on to see if one fits. It was not pretty, so Santorum became the default.
Just the fact that Ron Paul got more than 20% in Iowa and polls around 20% in NH should either disqualify (or completely discount) those states from being representative of “conservative” Republican primaries - there is nothing conservative about Ron Paul or his policies and ideas.
In fact, it boggles the mind that this charlatan, with his kooky and nutty ideas, gets 10% or more on FR itself - the man could easily lead the OWS/”Occupy” movement, and had in the past played with the idea of Dennis Kucinich as his VP.
Iowa may possibly decide who doesn’t have a chance to go on, but it shouldn’t - and seldom did - decide who wins the overall primaries. Likewise, New Hampshire is also very skewed to more liberal, Northeast, contingent of the party, but neither or both of them give much in terms of delegate count, particularly because they are proportionate and not winner-take-all.
Certainly, in terms of “momentum” (and therefore money) they may help establish an alternative, but I thought that conservatives should look for and at the substance, not a hollow shiny package with nothing or little in it besides standard talking points.
Here is a sample of just one of the very light opening salvos against Rick Santorum that was ignored on FR, but will immediately give him all the usual labels (”hypocrite” “Washington insider” “crony capitalist” “consultant / lobbyist” “getting rich off post-DC connections” “big government guy”) that Newt’s detractors are trying to stick on him and on his [mostly mythical, as so much of it is false,] “baggage” regardless of the facts or evidence to the contrary :
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2828688/posts?page=48#48 - contains a link to “Santorum Becomes Millionaire in Six Year” article, which is dry and factual, yet not really flattering to Santorum (who has, just like Romney, a law degree and an MBA).
The last President who didn’t have an Ivy League degree (from Harvard, Yale or both) was Ronald Reagan. Gingrich had his degrees in history from Tulane University.
“Ron Paul needs to be honest about his Soros money.”
What Soros money? Is there a canceled check out there signed by Soros made out to Ron Paul? I doubt it.
If there is the hand of Soros in this, and I’m very skeptical that there is, it would be more likely to see a lot of small contributions out there that no one, including the Paul camp themselves, can explain. In which case, what is the Paul camp supposed to be honest about? That they received a bunch of small contributions from supporters in Chicago? Are political campaigns supposed to run an audit on every $100 check they get?
You are 100% right, and all I can tell you is why I support Newt first (and BTW Perry second at this point to me). Newt's liberal leanings have mostly been written and verbal, and not legislative. He was a darned good and mostly conservative legislative force in the 80s and 90s. Santorum and Mitt have governed to the left as well as just talked about it. Newt is the best at arguing the conservative vision against the statist in the arena of ideas. So they all have their lefty moments, as you correctly stated. The above is a quickie version of why I landed where I landed. For months, I have been Cain Newt Perry in some sort of order.
I’ve reviewed some of the items on your list. As I suspected, what you left out was at least as important as what you included. For instance, why he voted against the NRWA. He voted against it because he thought it was a state—not national—issue. He’s right.
I assume you have some inkling of what is actually in the Constitution. You do remember that that the Federal Government is only granted those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution? All other powers are the domain of the individual states. That vote alone places Santorum squarely in the Constitutionalist camp. That is small Fed. Gov’t.
As for Sotomeyer: He voted for her in 1998 or 99. At that time Pubbies—rightly or wrongly—were still voting for judicial candidates who were considered qualified by the American Bar Assn. It has only been recently that Conservstives have come to realize that the ABA’s list of qualified judiciary candidates should not be the sole criteria for judicial selection. Obviously a person’s political persuasion is an important component.
As for the remainder of your list I will say only that individual votes must be considered in a larger context. An issue one is generally in support of might be voted against because the other side attached something one is against. Or, vice-versa.
On balance, given what I know about Santorum, I support him.
He’s absolutely pro life. He knows public education has been politicized and is controlled by Marxists. Afterall, he’s home schooling something like 7 children. I don’t see his vote for background checks on people buying guns from pawn shops as being inherently anti-second amendment. I’m a licensed hand gun owner. I support any reasonable and consistent effort to keep legal guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane. Voting against military weapons systems is not inherently anti US security. Some weapons do not pan out or wind up costing way to much. I’m retired US Army. I spent a significant portion of my career in weapon system procurement. What I’m saying is that, in the absense of any other info, I believe Santorum is a patriotic American. He will do what is necessary to protect the country.
Frankly, there is nothing in the record of the other RINO clowns—Gingrich, Perry and Romney—that is anything but negative. Which part of Pelosi’s admission that she has Newty [by the b****] don’t you believe? If you can explain it otherwise, why do you think Newty appeared in the global warming ad with Pelosi? Not to mention that Gingrich has been a member of the political elite who paved the way for a Marxist in the White House—by what they did or did not do. Romney(care) and his election to gov. in the Marxist state of Massachusettes speaks for itself. As for Perry, his fellow Texans have made it quite clear here on FR they consider him nothing more than a political bully and opportunist. His primary campaign bears that out. Oops.
Paul has no right to critize. He has been in the Congress for 22 years (how he could fool the voters for so long is amazing) and his name is not on any bill he authored. Some record.
No offense, but that's easily the dumbest thing I've ever read on this site. And there's been plenty of stupid $hit posted here over the years.
Maybe you should read a little more before posting. Most of the other Paultards on the thread were cheering that.
The was the longest most useful post I have ever barely read. Thanks!
The was the longest most useful post I have ever barely read. Thanks!
Santorum is the best one to beat Obama, as Santorum won 4 times, out of 5, in a blue state and blue district.
“What Soros money?”
Do you think Soros will be that obvious about it?
But here’s one of many connections:
“Ron Paul proposed to put a bunch of Soros funded think tank experts in charge of dismantling the US military.”
Santorum’s philosophy is to go in the right direction, even if a bill is not perfect. Unlike Ron Paul who is a PURIST:
“But Ron Paul is a PURIST,(imphasis mine) too often at the cost of real accomplishments on free trade, school choice, entitlement reform, and tort reform.”
snip http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=921
Santorum is pragmatic, and will accomplish and make some, or many gains, while Ron Paul accomplishes ZIP.
Except that it’s not true - the liberal part.
“Do you think Soros will be that obvious about it?”
No, nor do I think that the Paul camp would be so stupid as to accept funding directly from him. And while we’re at it, I don’t think they would they be stupid enough to enter into some sort of nefarious conspiracy with him.
And if you think about it, how is a campaign supposed to know who is really contributing to them, outside of relatively large dollar, direct contributions?
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.