Posted on 01/16/2012 9:23:33 AM PST by detective
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Rick Santorum pushed back Monday morning against a series of ads being run against him on his record on earmarks, labor issues and a vote he took in 2002 that would have forced states to let felons' voting rights be restored when they completed their sentences.
Mr. Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania, is demanding the felon charge be stricken from an ad being run by a political group backing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, one of his opponents in the Republican presidential primary.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Amen, Cicero. I’m a Newt supporter, but once felons do their time, they should have ALL their rights restored, including the one to keep and bear arms.
And if he completely admits that he made a horrible mistake, and that he does not support voting rights for felons, then I'll carry on as if little happened.
If he tries to justify his vote (be it an excuse, or some sort of squishy reasoning), then I no longer support him in the primary.
That said, I'll strongly support whomever gets the GOP nomination, whether it's my first choice or last. (NO third parties!)
.
It was a bad call by Santorum and I wish he hadn't done it, but he's still the best viable choice available.
For me, two things are crystal clear.
1. Santorum is great, a fine conservative, with a nice grasp on the issues.
2. Gingrich massively outshines him in every way.
If you're going to disagree, watch the video first. :^) I really think a lot of Newt bashers and Santorum supporters (and I respect and sympathize with them -- we could do a helluva lot worse than Santorum!) are afraid to watch such an obvious and stark contrast between the two.
Which one of the two do you think would become flustered and tounge-tied when faced with the thundering rhetoric of Obama demagoguery?
Which one of the two do you think would connect passionately with the average American?
I'm in for Newt. Godspeed, Newt Gingrich.
He had to respond...a campaign ad was circulating.
You aren’t supposed to defend yourself against a smear?
The POTUS is the bully pulpit. Whatever the negatives Newt has, he makes up for in his willingness to FIGHT DEMONCRATS and is probably one of our best orators and champions of the Constitution, the vision our founders had for the United States, and what it will take to restore America.
I hate squishes like Romney, Santorum, etc.....at least Newt is a heavy hitter. He will articulate the Conservative message better than anyone in the world and won't be cowed by the State run media and the DEMONCRAT mafia party.
It's time to fish or cut bait....better yet, cut the dead weight of loser candidates like Santorum, Perry and Paul. Otherwise we are GUARANTEED f**ed with Romney
well it didn’t look to me like he was going to admit to a horrible mistake.
He did make a clarification that there is a difference between allegedly supporting something that would give a blanket policy for ALL felons to vote with NO questions asked, vs....supporting a policy that would allow some felons to apply to have their voting rights restored.
It certainly brings to mind the quote:
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws"~~Ayn Rand
The links you sent were all based on hypothetical scenarios and not likely ones. How many of those felonies will you commit today?
I'd venture to say zero.
I do get your point though, laws in this Country are way, way out of hand!
If you did, it's plain that the aggressive qualities are considerably more powerful on Newt's side.
Santorum, as another poster pointed out on another thread, comes across like a Golden Retriever puppy, whereas Newt comes across like a BULLDOG.
Again, DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO and compare the two? Or are you afraid to do that?
See post #16.
This post needs to be elevated to the status of one of the finest, most important posts EVER MADE in the history of Free Republic.
BUMP TO THE TOP
well hey...if Harry Reid said it, then it MUST accurately represent what Santorum’s position is! sheesh.....
Ease up on the CAPS LOCK.
I understand you cripple. I’m not a felon, but in the course of my professional career, I have dealt with them, and even worked for one. People who have served their time (whether it be in actual prison or not), should not continue to pay for the rest of their lives. If the crime is rape or murder, sure. But: A) Very few crimes should be felonies, and B) No one but the most heinous of crimes should even be in prison.
Prison is a places that teaches people who have made mistakes (It IS IMPOSSIBLE not to regularly commit some crime or another, which is one reason of what the 5th amendment is actually for, protecting you from hanging yourself in the event unknowingly committed one) how to become real criminal, and milk them for money. The fact is that once you commit a crime, you are therefore generally excluded from anything BUT committing more crimes, because no one will hire you, even if the crime had nothing to do with your line of work. The government has made it night unto impossible to be in business for yourself (along with socialists/crony capitalism), until you have no choice but to go back to (or start, more often) something shady. Then wham, you’re a life time criminal and cash machine (from taxpayers), for the prison state.
The same people that want to lock people up, are generally the same people who make horrible parents. The ones that rather than teach their children natural consequences (Ie, you break something, you clean it up/pay for it, etc.; you take something, you pay it back), they try to be authoritarian dictators. I see it over and over, and it really saddens me. There’s a proper midpoint in between total control (what prison is), and no control (anarchy), and people seem to want to think it has to be one or the other. It doesn’t, and it’s not supposed to be. God didn’t intend for people to be unable to make any choices after making a bad one. He intended for people to grow from mistakes (repent), or in very few cases, to die (as in murder). I’m sick of people playing God. I’m also grateful that one day we’ll be out of the oppression that people inflict upon one another for political and personal gain.
This Q & A after the debate Sat. nite is very disturbing - or should be -
Pretty boring, all in all - but when he defends spending for earmarks saving that money doesn't come from the same pot as ‘entitlements’ - so it's okay - and lumps Social Security in with the same level as food stamps, disability $$$ and free medical (no 50 yrs prepay/no monthly deduction/no copay) and saying he would cut Soc Sec right away - well, I think he's going to lose a lot of seniors if they actually hear him explain his plan - if they can keep from going to sleep while he's trying to explain it, with the attitude that we're too stupid to understand, that he's ‘heard the ‘we've pre-paid for 50 yrs’ and that still doesn't mean SS is an ‘entitlement’ program... etc etc
Here's the link - If you listen to both Newt's session (skip the meet & greet and start at minute marker 5) and then contrast it with Santorums following and ask yourself, “At this most perilous time for us and our country in our lifetimes, who do we need?”
If y ou just want to listen to Santorum’s all-around-the-mulberry-bush explanation of why his ear marks are fine but Soc. Sec. needs to be cut right off the top (Newt's plan on Soc. Sec. gets it back in line, but fairly for both young and old) - start listening at minute marker 43:50
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/303686-1
Listen to Newt leave the lib moderator who tried to trip up Newt on Soc SEc - hahahah
I can think of a gentleman -- two, actually -- who are convicted felons that I WOULD TRUST WITH MY LIFE, and whose values, politics, and morals I respect ten times more that several self-described "conservative Christians" who come to mind.
Thanks for your response. If that is the case then the article is incorrect. Do you have more information to support this?
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.