Why Is Newt’s Biggest Donor So Opposed to Santorum? (Santorum's views on gambling)

>> Comments?

Yeah, Rick’s a humorless, big government statist.

>> I opposed gaming in Pennsylvania . .

Any comments on how Sands is doing over there in ol’ steel country?

Further down the slippery slope, we theoretically join Ron Paul in legalizing heroin.
I'm still for Rick, but don't believe this is the most pressing issue.

I agree with him on the on-line aspect. The internet is addicting enough without adding gambling in the mix. I could see this totally ruining the lives of the college and bored senior set.

Santorum is NOT a small government fiscal conservative, pure and simple. He’s a big government compassionate conservative with a social conservative bent. You don’t have to look for nepharious reasons for folks to not back Santorum, his record, not his rhetoric, give plenty of fodder to why he isn’t backed by this person or that person.

My biggest opposition to him, is I saw him get completely distroyed first hand in 06, and have no confidence the exact same template used against him then by the left, with great success won’t be used again to equal success. I’m already seeing it start to bubble in the press, and believe like it or not, he will wind up with the same result.

I will vote for the Republican canidate no matter who it is, but I saw how santorum was completely painted as too radical in 06 for the electorate, very successfully and him not able to respond or diffuse it at all, and I see the same thing happening if he is the nominee this year.

Your fears are real and sit in the back of the minds of many voters. It is not how a winning election goes forward. We need a confident leader.

Rick’s reminds me of Strother Martin in CoolHandLuke. He wants to everyone to “get their mind right.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y28pFJqDkkU&feature=channel

>>Any sort of societal ills has their cause. No amount of gov regulation, no matter how well-intended, will ease these ills.<<

Given the grammar in your comment, I’m inclined to wonder if I’m arguing with a 5th grader, or a high school dropout, but taking you seriously, what you’re saying is patent nonsense.

You’re arguing for virtual anarchy. Houses of prostitution on every block? Why not? Every manner of drug usage legalized? Sure, go for it. Marriages? Why bother? Just drop all the laws on marriage. You want three wives, a man, a teenage girl and a 10-year old boy for your partners, all living happily in a house next to mine? Great idea.

Child abuse is, how do you put it, one of those “societal ills.” You don’t want a law prohibiting it? A law that puts the abusers away, or somehow keeps them from committing further abuse? How about spousal abuse? Rape? That’s a societal ill. Think removing all government regulations regarding rape wouldn’t have any negative effect at all? None? Or are you a supporter of NAMBLA, perhaps? If so, please let me know, so I quit wasting my time responding to you.

You honestly think you can sit on your little moral island, raise your kids to do the “right thing” and win in that environment? Good luck. “All will fall in place,” you say. Right.

And drop the “Saint” Rick, please. Remember, first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, they you win. You’ve fallen into the trap of thinking you’re winning, but you’re only at step two, and you look ridiculous spouting “St. Rick”, as does everyone else doing it. It just demonstrates lack of a rational argument, and in the end, rational argument prevails, because it’s predictive of what is likely to happen.

This is why liberals, and libertarians too, always lose in the end. What their opponents say will happen if you get your way does, in fact, eventually happen, and saner people either regain control, or the country falls apart and those same liberals and libertarians find themselves ruled by a despot, sometimes even one they voted into power. Eventually, a populist ruler promises to fix the mess, and the people succumb, desperate for someone to finally lead. At that point, poor choices usually result.

Wow, no need to be so angry. (Now I sound like Rromney talking to Santorum!)
No one says gov shouldn’t have laws and enforce them. Surely gov can punish criminals and keep them out of the way to protect law-abiding citizens. However, punishment by gov does not change human behavior. Human behavior is learned from birth. Family upbringing shapes the child. When the children are brought up to be responsible citizens, there will be less need for the gov-imposed punishment or assistance or ‘preaching’.
I agree with Santorum that family is the most important. Going back to the good old traditional family units will do wonder. With more and more broken families, ‘societal ills’ multiply. The ‘compassionate’ government steps in to help, or punish or ‘teach’ people by imposing what the politicians think is the best for them. Is that the best way to influence human behavior or to restore law and order?

I am simply saying it starts with the family. Big gov can’t help. Some big gov politician should really stop trying to regulate human behavior by imposing their own ideas of what is good or bad.

“Let me know when Santorum starts advocating the shut down of all gov’t run lotteries. Until then...”

It’s fodder, it’s grist for the mill.

It along with many, many other things of a social nature he has opined on is fair game for political use.

I don’t happen to think that’s a good thing for our ultimate goal of victory over Obama, Pelosi and Reid, to save America from utter political and economic ruin.

I personally agree with several, though not all, of his social commentary points.

But that is BESIDE the point.

JMO