Posted on 02/14/2006 12:01:23 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Who is your favorite Republican for President in 2008?
George Allen
Bill Frist
Newt Gingrich
Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Mike Pence
Condoleezza Rice
Rick Santorum
Tom Tancredo
Undecided/Other
"If these politicians are so weak and flawed that they are malleable to the will of others, why not bend them with light and fire to our way of thinking?"
I'm not against that principle, heck, that's why I write letters to my Senators and Congressman. But recognize if they bend to our will, they bend to the will of others, meaning "Vox Populi, Vox Dei". You are fooling yourself if you think they can bend to only your will and not the pressures of all the rest.
" You seem to say "Oh well" while I tell them to "go to hell." "
Your approach may be more emotionally satisfying but accomplishes nothing. I just suggest you recognize reality. One simple reality is that in a state like Pennsylvania, the chance of ever getting a senator more conservative than Santorum, a 95% ACU conservative, or even *as* conservative as Santorum, is slim to none ... and slim will leave town in November if Santorum falls. The biggest losers from a Santorum loss will be PA conservatives, and your PA GOP will become fully RINOized like New Jersey, and the Democrats will stomp you in future elections. I've seen it before and I'm just begging to see
the writing on the wall.
Santorum is only human and only a politician, but the only winners from his loss are Schumer, Hillary, liberal Democrats and their allies.
"If you believe that conservative ideas are extreme then you have bought their BS."
As a Reagan conservative, I would never say that.
"Throw out the RINOs. Let the party know that they aren't welcome. If you keep voting them in, if you keep rewarding them, then we have no hope of changing them or replacing them."
Look, I gave money to Toomey so he could do just that.
"You failed to address Santorum's record."
I have amply defended Santorum's record every time the anti-Santorum trolls pipe up. We all know he is a solid tax-cutting fiscal and pro-grwoth conservative, a leading social conservative who has dared to speak out in favor of the traditional family, provoking the ire of the irreligious left and pro-abortion liberal interest groups with his outspoken defense of family, of preborn human life, and of traditional values. He's been very solid on raising the issue of judicial imperialism and voted for two awesome USSC candidates, Roberts and Alito. The next time such similar conservative jurists are nominated - say, a Michael Luttig - you can be sure that the Democrats will filibuster and defeat him if they could. The liberal Democrat Casey will be there to pull the plug on conservative hopes for a better Supreme Court - he'll play the same game 'moderate' Dem Salazar pulled on Colorado, running moderate then moving left once he gts inside the beltway.
" It shows that he isn't the straight arrow that you think he is, but you ignore it. WHY?"
See above. YOu nitpick a few things and ignore 12 solid years of service. Heck, I could nitpick President Bush on about 100 times as many items as you found on Santorum, yet I still have a Bush bumper sticker on my car. Sure, I wish Bush were more conservative on things like spending and immigration, but dont we thank God that we have him and not Gore or Kerry in this time of crisis? Cant you at least admit that 4 million jobs due to the 2003 tax cuts is something that wouldnt have happened without their leadership?
One of my favorite sayings is "The Good is the enemy of the Best"
You found out that Santorum isn't perfect in your eyes.
He's even done some things that we think he shouldn't have done.
But he's a decent family man who's never been unethical, he's been 95% conservative ACU lifetime, and yes, I would call him a straight-shooter. Anyone who has gotten as much media lies told about him must be doing *something* right to annoy the liberal media this much!!
"One blue state senator (wannabe) that would have been better is the man that Rick worked hard to defeat -- Pat Toomey."
That is non-responsive to my question. Pat Toomey is not a Senator, neither are countless of other great conservatives like say Alan Keyes or Bill Buckley or Walter Williams or Newt Gingrich. Like this presidential poll: Chances are, our favorite candidates wont be running or wont be 'viable' by primary time. We pick the best of what's on the shelf, not the best period.
Please - name a sitting US Senator from a blue state
that is better than Santorum. I've asked this question many, many times from Santorum-bashers and I get the same lame non-responses, for a simple reason: SENATOR RICK SANTORUM IS THE MOST CONSERVATIVE SENATOR FROM A BLUE-STATE CURRENTLY IN THE SENATE. The #1 BEST we've got! You cannot name one better. Santorum gets the gold medal in political courage in defying the liberal media and being outspoken in ways no other blue-state Senator.
They (and maybe you) are living in a dream world where you get to pick your favorite senators. Wrong - the VOTERS pick. Dont blame Santorum for Specter defeating Toomey - the PA GOP primary VOTERS did that, THEY CHOSE SPECTER. Nobody else. Get over it.
I am asking you to live in reality. And the reality is this: Senator Santorum is the best Senator from your state that you can have in the next 6 years.
Can you really say Specter and/or Casey would be better?
" WHY? Why did Ricky work so hard? Can you answer that or any other question that I posed?"
I've answered that Toomey/Specter question in at least a dozen threads, and I'm sorry that even Freepers have the political immaturity to see that since Specter vigorously helped Santorum on multiple campaigns and worked as his
colleague for 12 years, and since it is almost de rigeur for incumbents to support other incumbents for re-election, it is a slam-dunk that Santorum would help his fellow Republican friend and colleague, ideological differences aside, win re-election in both primary and general elections. I'm amazed that so many think the world would work otherwise - it's extremely rare for party leaders or incumbents to support insurgent primary opponents - very rare. Again, I gave money to Toomey's campaign and tried and hoped he would win. But i'm not surprised nor disturbed by Specter getting establishment endorsements, its the way it works. I'm disturbed that people dont see through all that for the irrelevence that it is.
Badray, it seems you are just a PO'ed conservative and not a troll out to stir up trouble here, I'll just ask you to consider the point that even if you dont like Santorum, that bashing him in an election season is really free media for the Casey campaign and the liberal Democrats. They dont need your help. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on your intentions, but I do ask you to think of the consequences of what you are doing.
"Bush was the most conservative governor in the nation at the time of nomination. "
ROFL! I'm from Texas, and let me tell you, that dog wont hunt! Bush almost signed on to a Democrat tax increase proposal in 1997, he got lucky and the 'compromise' blew up, saved him from being one of those tax hiking GOP governors.
I guess you forget that 'compassionate conservative' stuff when in 1999, Bush complained about some GOP Congressional 'budget cuts'... go check a trendline of spending... higher %age under Bush than Clinton.
Nope, there have been more conservative governors... if you want a sitting one who is more conservative, go with Haley Barbour.
Overall Bush43 is close to Reagan, but others have ably pointed out the differences and the fact that Reagan was indeed a more consistently stouter ideological conservative.
That's all well and good but you cannot tell me of one governor from that period more conservative or less guilty of accomodation when necessary. Reagan had no hesitation in playing the game of politics either and I loved the man.
You will find no greater admirer of Ronald Reagan than I but he never had to face anything close to what Bush has and could not have performed anymore admirably than George W has. He has risen to the level of a Lincoln in many respects though not intellectual depth. But he will be remembered by history as one of our greatest presidents.
House leadership is not a road to higher power but seems to be a deadend. But he can perform vital work there if what you say is true. We need such leadership all the way down the line and many believe that the Senate is a place in desperate need of better leadership.
WOW!
You are unbelievable. And pathetic. You only think that you have a clue, but you don't.
"Damn it. We're gonna save the Republic even it means destroying everything worthwhile about it."
You and Lincoln.
"That's all well and good but you cannot tell me of one governor from that period more conservative or less guilty of accomodation when necessary"
Engler was more conservative than Bush, for sure, and there were probably several others, but memory is hazy.
Even Jeb Bush has been a notably more conservative governor than GW Bush.
You're right. I'm not a troll. I've got a 40 year track record of conservative activism. I've played nice. I've gone along to get along and look where we are. Giving in and compromising is not the path to victory.
Ricky's votes indicate to me that he doesn't even have a basic understanding or appreciation of conservative values or economic theory. He's been 'handled' for so long, I'm not even sure that he knows what he believes.
Yeah, I'm pissed. And make no mistake, a lot of conservatives in PA are. Think about it, if he is that hated anyway, will pandering make a difference in his effort to get reelected? NO! He'll lose more from the right than he will gain from the middle or left.
The left is grounded in "gimmee politics." OTOH, the right is firmly grounded in principle -- and you seem to fall into that category. You recognize the BS of that other poster. If a candidate fails to meet our standards and expectations, he loses the vote. We won't sully ourselves with voting for someone who will work against our values and who cannot be trusted. Ricky has demonstrated that it isn't principle that guides him but political expediency.
He won when he voted conservative. He's losing now that he's wandered off track. PA is not liberal. It is Democrat, but conservative. You gave money to Toomey. You saw how people flocked to him when they heard his message. His grass roots team was awesome -- 10,000 volunteers. Being out spent was not his problem so much as running out of time. Two more weeks on the campaign trail and he would have overcome Specter decisively.
Yes, the people voted for Specter. But you cannot discount the effect that Bush and Santorum had on the race. Those two were trusted. When they said that Bush needed Specter, some took them at their word. There was only a 6500 vote swing out of 12 million votes.
For a man whose reputation was as a rock solid conservative, would it have been out of the realm of possibility for him to stand with a fellow conservative? What was more important? Obviously the Senate Club and not his values.
The issues that I 'nitpick' are just those that I've come across in a brief search. The list is sure to be quite a bit longer if I had the time to look into it. He recently sent out a 'pledge' letter promising to do or not to do certain things if reelected. Problem is that within the last 6 months, he had violated at least 4 of them. His word means nothing. He cannot be relied upon.
I get bashed every day for sticking to principle. If Ricky can't take the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.
Based on your discussions with everyone but me, as I read what you write, I find myself in almost complete agreement and that is what is so frustrating for me that you stick to Santorum. You are viewing him from afar and I'm right here. I listen to his speeches. I read his letters. I see his votes.
Speaking of which, one thing that won't show on his record is his support for the sports stadiums that will cost the taxpayers ONE BILLION DOLLARS! The people in this area where there was a referendum on it defeated it 78 to 22%, yet it was pushed through with Rick cheering it on. A local think tank, as well as others around the country denounced sports stadiums for years for not being good economic generators. Yet there was Ricky, pushing to take money from private citizens at the point of a government gun to give to multi-millionaire team owners so that they could afford to pay other multi-millionaires to play a game. Tell me where the conservative principle is in that.
If you want to see Santorum get reelected, donate to moveon.org. The more they bitch, the better chance he'll have. I, and my fellow unappeasables will not be voting for him.
BTW, don't expect a lot of support for Lynn Swann either. His celebrity status doesn't quite fill out the empty suit that he is. He's not ready for prime time AND he is being backed by one of the most corrupt RINOs in the state - the current State Senate President pro temp. The puppets on the State Committee pushed him through the process at the behest of this man. This is the same committee that refused to condemn an unconstitutional pay increase orchestrated by this same man. Swann blamed Gov Rendell for signing it, but it wouldn't have passed without the full support of the Republican controlled General Assembly.
Bottom line -- Trust, integrity, consistency and conservative values will win the day. It's not that PA is too liberal for either of these men. They just don't pass the smell test in any of these areas.
Sorry but saying PA is conservative doesnt square with PA voters picking Kerry over Bush. It doesnt square with Ed Rendell getting elected. PA is a blue state.
"He'll lose more from the right than he will gain from the middle or left."
Yet the pandering RINO Specter sailed to re-election and the rock-hard conservative Santorum is in trouble. As I said, the message if Santorum loses will be a disaster for PA conservatives - the RINOs will tout as "proof" that conservatives are unelectable. Please open your eyes, its happened in other northeast states several times.
"You gave money to Toomey. You saw how people flocked to him when they heard his message. "
Well they didnt flock enough, did they? Like I said, it was a noble effort, but it didnt make it. Let's get over it. We now have a Hillary/Schumer supported liberal Democrat who is riding on the coattails of his Dad's reputation, against the most conservative blue-state Senator in the US Senate.
"I get bashed every day for sticking to principle."
A 'principle' that is the opposite of what Reagan once viewed as the right principle: He said if someone agrees with you 80% of the time, they are your ally not a traitor to a 100% cause.
Every criticism you make of Santorum could be made in spades of just about any other Senator or politician, of any party.
"If Ricky can't take the heat, he should get out of the kitchen."
Strange comment, given Rick Santorum's willingness to speak out in ways the media loves to crtique and distort.
He *has* taken the heat.
"Bottom line -- Trust, integrity, consistency and conservative values will win the day."
Casey Jr represents none of these and yet you are acting in a way to help him win election.
You have yet to answer some key questions:
- Name a better sitting blue-state US Senator than Santorum
- Tell me if you honestly think Casey JR and Specter are better than Santorum. You know in your heart that whatever flaws Santorum has, he is far better than either a RINO or a liberal Democrat
- Name another PA US Senator who was better than Santorum in the past 20 years
95% ACU Conservative rick Santorum is the best you had in the past, the best you have now, the best you hope to have
in the future. As Lincoln said "There I stand, warts and all."
You call yourself 'unappeasable' and that's the difference between us two. I'm a Reagan Republican, admire his presidency, and I know enough to know he cut many a compromise deal - many of them hated by conservatives - to get his agenda moving forward. Reagan punted on budget cuts to fund defense programs that helped win the cold war.
If conservative Santorum loses, your future choices in PA candidates will be reduced to RINOs vs liberal Democrats.
Like Reagan, I prefer half a loaf or three-quarters of a loaf to none at all.
I am sure that you know it is the job of the legislature to make laws not the executive of a country, a state, or a city...I believe that Franklin was making reference to the fact that we live in a democratic republic not under mob rule (one man-one vote) or an autocracy/ theocracy...separation of powers is the key to maintaining a republic IMHO...so I look for different qualities in a candidate depending on the demands of the job...Guiliani is an excellent executive as well as a mensch IMHO...he'd be a great VP and he would help the ticket win the independent/ swing voters...you do want to win, don't you?
Oh geeze if you're going to slam every conservative who ever stood with a liberal in a picture you better slam the whole damn republican party. That wouldnt be a bad idea as far as I'm concerned. No more socialists lite ala Bush.
Pence
Nice to see you are anti-Lincoln nothing is greater proof of your cluelessness wrt American history and politics than that.
Stick with your Traitors and forget trying to lecture me after that admission.
Are you speaking of John Engler from MIchigan? If so then that is nonsense. No wonder your memory is hazy because there are NONE from that period.
This guy hates one of our greatest president for saving the Union. At first I though he represented the Lunatic Fringe of the Lunatic Fringe. But now I realize he is from the Lunatic Fringe of the Lunatic Fringe of the Lunatic Fringe.
Me I am mere Lunatic Fringe.
Condi Rice/Ken Blackwell '06
While I think both are marvelous they do not have sufficient experience for both to be on the ticket. The only exceptions to the Never Won an Election prohibition are victorious Generals and Taft.
#1 Condi Rice
#2 Fred Thompson
This is my dream ticket, but obviously not a reality. I personally don't think we'll have anyone who will win in 2008. I believe we'll have a Clinton-like Democrat for President (not what I want be what America will fall for).
That is not my worry I believe we have three or four candidates who could win. I don't see any strong RAT candidates.
Winning local elections is not the same as winning National elections.
Many Evangelicals and Jews would not vote for a Mormon. Many believe Mormonism is a cult, not a religion. It is almost impossible for a Roman Catholic to get elected POTUS. Mormon...nearly impossible.
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.