She’s an authoritarian-friendly judge who once ruled that a school could punish a student for criticizing the school on her own time and own website. Of course “cultural conservatives” would support her.
Appearing before the racist group La Raza like he did, and not only that, what he said to them in his pandering speech, and his relationship with Juan Hernandez who was illegal alien advisor to Juan McCain's 2008 campaign, and that Gov. Perry comment in one of the earlier debates that we are all heartless if we want to crack down on illegal aliens, to me those also strike me as being not necessarily "good conservatism" but rather of Lindsay Graham-ism of the worst kind. Granted, I am not behind every single vote of Sen. Santorum, for sure, but I know hypocritical comments when I see them, and just now, we saw one.
Great so now he’s dissing Strom Thurmond in SC.
South Carolina has very few Catholics, which is why Perry repeatedly refers to Santorum as a “good Catholic.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23192.html
Criticism over his vote (then) is valid.
As for Perry's criticism of Santorum's earmarking of funds to PA and his quote of "On the fiscal side, Rick, he has a horrid record", I find it laughable considering the source. The funds in question represent a small fraction of the overall budget, and were funds which were already targeted for spending. If Santorum hadn't earmarked those funds for PA, they would have gone elsewhere.
As for Perry complaining about this, I remind you that this is the same Governor who claims to have been critical of the Stimulus Program, yet was happy to accept funds and participate in that same program in order to attempt to balance the Texas budget. I say "attempt" as most already know that the Texas budget deficit (under Perry) has doubled.
“So, I mean, there were 29 conservatives that voted against her. People like Strom Thurmond and Rick voted for her.”
That should help him get below 5% of the vote in South Carolina.
These are side-bar issues of little consequence.
Neither Perry nor Santorum will be the nominee. Their sniping at one another over meaningless matters (i.e. who is more conservative) only detracts from the central debate: who is the best candidate to defeat Obama?
It’s time to get focused: The ONLY issue that matters in November is getting Zero out of office.
Voting for Sotomayor is enough to turn me off. The balance on SCOTUS is critical and endangered, it can’t survive even a “moderate” appointment.
The NRO author is distorting the focus if he claims that Perry was commenting on Catholics. The focus of this paragrgh is conservatism and consistancy.
Palin’s backing of Newt will be a signal for the rest of them to sit down. This is now a race between mitton and the rino’s against the tea party.
I would like to point out something quite disturbing, which absolutely cannot be blamed on Rick Perry or on those who support him.
If polls are to be credited, Romney appears to be surging.
Even in the South.
Santorum is a big fat fake. He is not a conservative beyond some social issues when he will sell out when the Rinos tell him to.
Going after Santorum will not help Perry at all. He needs to remain focused on Romney and Obama, in that order. Defeat Romney first, Obama second.