Posted on 06/07/2011 5:42:18 PM PDT by JimWayne
Rick Santorum must be opposed because he is a RINO who I think is setting himself up to be the running mate of Mitt Romney. At that point, we will have freepers saying we should unite behind them.
Santorum is not in the same category as Palin, Bachmann, Allen West or Herman Cain.
Santorum supported funding for Amtrak. Santorum was for abortion (in 1990) before he was against it. Santorum supported ethanol as automobile fuel. Santorum supported Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey. Santorum endorsed Mitt Romney and called him a conservative. Santorum called himself a "progressive conservative" and positioned himself as such in the initial days.
Santorum and Arlen Specter were partners in pork-procurement and figured out that between them they could share the right rhetoric to get voters to vote for them.
Don't get fooled. He just knows to use the right rhetoric. DO NOT help MITT ROMNEY. Support for Santorum is support for Mitt Romney.
principals = principles
‘Santorum called himself a “progressive conservative”...’
Compassionate conservative, progressive conservative...all they’re saying is they’re not conservative when it counts (i.e., when it comes to actually following the Constitution and appointing judges that will uphold it).
Thank you...I agree.
Santorum jumped the shark with Specter. He can’t be trusted.
So far as I know, the only complaint against Jim DeMint is that he endorsed Mitt Romney early in the 2008 election cycle.
I wasn’t talking about ethanol. I don’t think that a single issue could possibly make someone a “RINO” — frankly, I don’t think republicans have a stated single position on ethanol anyway, so how could someone on one side of the issue or the other be a fake republican because of it?
Maybe you meant he was a false conservative, rather than a false republican. Because if Rick Santorum isn’t a republican, nobody is.
He’d make an excellent choice for *Sarah Palin*. Bob
I listed more than a single issue in the case of Santorum. See my first post. If my analysis is correct that Santorum wants to raise his profile to be the VP running mate of Mitt Romney in the event that he will be the GOP candidate, that too should be held against Santorum.
We know this game quite well. A RINO, picks another RINO who knows to press the right buttons and has masqueraded well as a conservative. At that point, we are supposed to tolerate people like Mitt Romney.
Maybe you meant he was a false conservative, rather than a false republican.
On FR and other sites for conservatives, the term RINO is used to mean someone who is not a conservative, but a "moderate" or a "liberal." There is no use splitting hairs and figuring out the literal meaning of words. The point is that Santorum is a moderate and a fake conservative. Why is he even running this time? Here is why (or so I think, which is why I made the post hoping that others will see through his game).
If conservative votes get split during the primaries, then it is possible that Romney might end up being first past the post in many states. If that happens, who do you think will be his running mate? Mark my words: it will be Rick Santorum.
A Mormon and a Catholic for the GOP! You're really pushing it.
Of course, that only works if Mr. Clean wins the nomination.
My fear is that in state after state, the conservative votes will be split between Cain, Palin, Bachmann and West and that will give Romney a chance to win the nomination.
West? I doubt he will run. In the last two days Bachmann and Cain have had mini implosions, so I don’t think you need to worry too much.
The term is misused to mean something other than what it actually means. Mostly, it is used to indicate a personal dislike for the person being labelled, and as an easy way to attack an unfavored politician without having to actually discuss issues or think too hard.
There's not much point in having language if people start redefining terms as it suits them. Might as well live in wonderland.
The majority on FR and other conservative sites use the term as I described. It is best to speak the language in the manner most people speak it. If you want to be a literalist, it would also imply that you mean the term RINO to mean a member of the GOP who is secretly a member of the Democrat Party. IOW, you will end up implying that you are a conspiracy theorist.
Cao was a RINO. Bloomberg was a RINO. People who would never embrace the majority of the REPUBLICAN beliefs, but run as republicans because it gives them an advantage.
Maybe the real republican in name only are those who claim to be a republican, but then insist that positions accepted by a sizable minority of republicans aren't republican positions.
Support for ethanol subsidies, unfortunately, crosses party lines. In 2008, when the republican platform called for an end of the subsidies, it was considered "stunning". Conservatives are much more likely to oppose the subsidies, but again the Republican party is not the Conservative Party -- the name is a giveaway there.
To label Santorum a RINO is to render the term meaningless. What party do you think Santorum would better belong to? "On the Issues" calls him a "hard-core conservative". On the major fiscal issues, he's conservative. On the major social issues, he's a conservative. On the major constitutional issues, he's a conservative. He has a few holes in that conservative armor.
Pro-life; Pro-marriage; pro-gun; anti-government-healthcare, pro-death-penalty, pro-vouchers, anti-progressive-taxation;pro-taxcuts, anti-illegal-immigrant.
Oh, but he favors ethanol subsidies, so he's a RINO. On the issues, he's probably got more conservative credits than Ronald Reagan. But he's a RINO, because, well because you say so, and RINO means whatever you say it means, because you are the Queen of Hearts.
While we are at it, since you have posted a vanity with no sources, why don’t you reveal your source for your claim about Santorum being “pro-abortion” in 1990.
As I pointed out earlier, Jim DeMint also endorsed Romney in 2008, and called him a true conservative. You claim that makes Santorum a RINO, but you insist that mentioning DeMint is out-of-bounds somehow.
You claim Santorum was “pro-abortion” in 1990, without evidence and 20 years ago; during his public career he has been a strong pro-life advocate.
And your “analysis” didn’t exist, you just made a claim without evidence. Now you say that your claim should count against Santorum in proving your claim. Good circular reasoning there.
You claim Santorum is really a liberal who has simply be pretending to be a conservative for his 16 years in public office, and 4 years since. That’s a pretty long game, and with only a few examples during those 16 years of specific items you didn’t like about him (support for amtrak? That makes you a RINO now? Have you ever seen an anti-Amtrak vote by the republicans?)
I doubt I would support Rick for President. I certainly won’t be supporting Romney this time around. But smearing Santorum because of your irrational fear that Rick will get Romney nominated isn’t much of an argument.
Santorum was pro-life from the time he first ran for Congress, but it wasn't an issue he was vocal about. Santorum never gave a speech about abortion in the House or Senate until the late-term-abortion debates of 1996 and 1997In 1990, Santorum became the United States Representative for the 18th District of Pennsylvania. He was re-elected to this seat and set his sights higher to serving in the Senate.Note: Elected in 1990, and was pro-life from the time he FIRST RAN.Now, where is your evidence to the contrary?
I already posted the newspaper excerpt from 1990. Why don't you look it up before attacking me? In that excerpt, it describes how his initial position was to oppose abortion only in the last trimester when it was viable that the fetus was a baby. He quietly withdrew this position paper. He had also called himself a "progressive conservative" at that time. If you cannot find my post, please let me know and I will pull it up for you in the evening.
You posted a vanity, right here. Are you too lazy to include a link to your charges? I’m supposed to instead search the entire site in the hopes I can find some thread you posted in the past?
Real posts have links to articles, and we can read them. Vanities are usually just someone’s opinions, stated as if they matter. If you want your vanity post to contain real information, you should provide links.
Notice how I provided a link to refute your charge.
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.