Posted on 01/14/2012 3:31:10 PM PST by TBBT
COLUMBIA, S.C. -- With the South Carolina Republican presidential primary a week away, former Sen. Rick Santorum on Saturday received the endorsement of 150 influential Christian conservative leaders who are hoping to prevent former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney from becoming the GOP nominee.
The group, suspicious that Romney's commitment to social conservative causes such as ending legalized abortion is weak, met at a ranch outside of Houston, Texas, in hopes of rallying around one candidate rather than split their votes among three - Santorum, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
The endorsement came as the Republican presidential field converged on scenic Charleston, S.C., for a televised town hall meeting for undecided voters hosted by Rep. Tim Scott, R-S.C., and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said in a telephone news conference after the meeting that the conservatives had begun their deliberations with "not a lot of hope that we could reach consensus around one candidate."
But in the end "there emerged a strong consensus around Rick Santorum," Perkins said, after three rounds of balloting.
Santorum, a staunch anti-abortion social conservative, was considered a long-shot candidate before surprising many by losing to Romney in Iowa caucuses Jan. 3 by only eight votes.
Support fluctuated between Santorum and Gingrich, Perkins said, before more than two-thirds voted for the former Pennsylvania senator. In the end, Santorum received 85 votes out of 114 - a smaller total because Perkins said some participants had left to catch flights.
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
Beat me to it.
The Santuckabee screws the pooch again for conservatives.
I’m not seeing how Santorum is conservative. What, on his record, leads you to believe that he is?
I think the most productive way to advance this discussion is, how do you define a conservative? What is it that makes someone a conservative in your understanding.
I know what it is for me. And I can describe why I support him, but I don’t know about you.
For me - what catches my eye is his consistant support for unborn children, his outright rejection of abortion, contraception and gay marriage. I’m a convert to Catholicism. This really resonates with me seeing a candidate who not only supports the things that I do but is outspokenly in favor of them.
As for the rest, Santorum has a solid spending plan, to cut spending to 2008 levels, and 5 trillion on top of that. That’s important that he has a plan, but that plan is not why people support him.
It’s not something that’s going to change. What you see is what you get. You’re not going to come back 5 years from now and go, whoa. Where did that come from?
I also take a look at his enemies. Who hates santorum so much that they put up a site with his name to try to smear him? You never get an enemy, unless you’ve stood behind something. Churchill said this. Santorum has been so consistantly in support of these things that he’s come by his enemies honestly, and I respect that.
I’ve had to deal with these folks myself and that is why Santorum appeals so much to me, because he knows what I have gone through.
But that’s just me. I can appreciate folks being skeptical. If you want someone like Paul who wants to slash government spending to that degree - then you should probably vote Paul. But if you want a solid conservative then Santorum’s your man.
Shall we check his voting record?
Doesn't believe in Right to work?
How are his gun votes?
Tarp?
Balanced budget?
Newt and Kerry agreed on the problem and only disagreed on the solution.
Why wouldn't it be polite.
Newt is the only one who has provided any fireworks in these debates.
He is able to reframe the question when the MSM twists it.
All Santorum is going to do is 'me to' Obama.
He isn't going to beat Romney and he won't beat Obama.
He said it was a “mistake”. As far as I know, correct me if I’m wrong, he never said why or offered any elaboration or disavowed that he believed in climate change.
Why appear in the ad if he didn’t believe the nonsense and favor a Gore/Pelosi style radical government solution to the imaginary problem? Doesn’t make any sense.
Which is good.
The problem I see is that his past record shows that he's never seen a spending bill he didn't like. And with a deficit bigger than our entire national GNP, this is a massive danger.
Furthermore, his past record on the US Constitution shows that he believes it good and proper to disregard it when his personal beliefs are in question. Which is just the same as Obama and his beliefs. That also is a great danger.
(http://www.redstate.com/louisianapatriette/2012/01/12/perry-santorum-and-the-evangelical-dilemma/)
At a time where our nation is so very close to bankruptcy... and at a time where our nation is *ALSO* so very close to losing it's very ideal of a federal republic, I don't think we can afford to have yet another President trample over our Constitution and spend our money like a drunken sailor.
I see from the article that every campaign sent representatives. What kind of a group of Christian conservatives was this? Does it have a name?
“The fact is that both Rick Perry and Rick Santorum are, thankfully, pro-life.”
False. Perry supported abortion in the case of rape and Incest until as late as december.
“My comment reflects my recognition that marriage and most issues of the family historically have been decided by the people at the state and local level.”
Also false. Reynolds clearly demonstrates that it is the responsibility of the federal government to enforce marriage. This is why Utah could not be admitted by supporting polygamy. The federal government can only enforce, it can no more change the definition then it can drop Habeaus Corpus. The definition of marriage is an essential part of the English common law.
Read the decision. This red state article does not even understand the constitutional issues surrounding Gay marriage. This is why Santorum is right and Perry is wrong.
As for the rest - Santorum’s plan is better than Paul Ryan’s. He argues in favor of cutting back to 2008 levels immediately, with a further 5 trillion in cuts on top of that.
You can argue that his record speaks otherwise, but his platform is clear. The state cannot continue as it has and the federal government must spend within their means.
That article, is a terrible article. I could write a better one and if you pay me, I’d be happy to write an article explaining why Rick Santorum’s position is constitutionally correct, and why Rick Perry’s position is constitutionally incorrect.
He appeared in the ad's, thinking the problem was a real one, to say that even though they agreed there was a problem, they disagreed on how to deal with it.
Newt wanted to take a free market approach to it.
Simple :
1) He says its a mistake for the same reason Romney became ‘pro-life’, to make it through the primary
2) He is no longer being paid by the ethanol industry so he gets nothing for pushing it now.
You choose platform over record?
Did no one tell you that politicians tell voters only what the voters want to hear?
(shakes head at the stupidity of taking a politician’s words at face value)
Hey, Herb Cain was hugely popular with conservatives and ALL he did was talk. These days an actual conservative governing record is meaningless. Say the right things, tear up a bit, wear anti-abortion on your sleeve and you’re in.
Suckers.
If I wanted fiscal conservativism/social liberalism, I’d vote Paul.
Frankly, Newt’s track record is terrible. Between Santorum and Perry, Santorum’s the better social conservative and he’s acceptable as a fiscal conservative. So he gets my vote.
Endorsing Dede Scuzzyflava doesn’t strike me as particularly conservative.
I cant blame them, it makes perfect sense.
complete BS, Look at what he says in the vid with Pelosi.
'Our leaders'='congress'. There is no way possible this statist meant 'free-market'. Did he publicly oppose the 2007 GWB/Pelosi energy bill that mandated ethanol and banned light bulbs? Of course not!
Now he is trying to use a film very similar to Moore's 'Capitalism a Love Story' to score a few points. No 'free market' advocate would do that.
What "new data"? All the evidence necessary to conclude this was nothing other than a giant scheme to redistribute wealth and manipulate energy markets was available in the 1990s when Gore came out claiming global warming was the world’s greatest threat. Legislation proposed in 2001 gave all the details on how this scam would be accomplished.
He appeared in the ad's, thinking the problem was a real one, to say that even though they agreed there was a problem, they disagreed on how to deal with it.
He appeared in ads in 2008 long after most thinking humans knew or suspected this was a scam. Don't you see a problem with that?
Newt wanted to take a free market approach to it.
Ah, yes. The old "market based approach" like cap and trade. There was nothing market based about it.
His appearing with Pelosi was not endorsing 'cap and trade' but rather an acknowledgement that there was a problem which had to be dealt with.
There is something in #50 that we have seen repeated over and over. He is responding to Impy who pointed out that Newt never explained his recent position change on climate change. At #50 he says “Maybe now he has.....” making up possible explanations for unexplainable actions.
So we are to believe Nancy Pelosi tricked the smartest Republican in the race on climate change? The brilliant one?
The price of gas was high in 2007 and 2008. Voters did not quite YET understand that Green solutions meant more expensive energy and were polling more popular than now. (The MSM was flooding the outlets with stories on it.) I certainly knew it did back then. The RINOs in the party like McCain couldn't wait to sell us out. Green energy is still a Democrat/progressive dream for social justice. They still talk about it.
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.