Posted on 02/15/2012 12:10:39 PM PST by NoPinkos
...Jonah Goldberg explained that Mike Huckabee's brand of conservatism was inconsistent with traditional conservatism, in that the former Arkansas Governor believes that government exists, not to protect individual liberty, but to make people live moral lives in accordance with his personal beliefs....
While Rick Santorum doesn't have the record of supporting tax hikes that Tax Hike Mike had or some of the other points listed above--though some of the do apply, he certainly has a record of backing certain social policies based upon the notion that government exists to ensure a certain behavior from its citizens....
On the fiscal and regulatory side of the equation, Santorum doesn't even come close to having a record worthy of Tea Party support....
The only two conclusions I can draw from this is that the anti-Romney faction in the Republican electorate will so blindly follow whoever is deemed to be their "guy" at the moment that they don't care about his economic statism....
The other is that the Tea Party movement has been completely overrun with social conservatives. If that's the case, Republicans will lose this election, and lose it badly. That's not to say that social conservatives can't be fiscal conservatives, rather fiscal issues must come first in this election....
Santorum's social conservatism is going to turn away independent voters. For example, his strange rant against contraceptives is going to sound nutty and unserious to many on-the-fence voters in swing states. And national polls show that voters are now supportive of gay marriage, which Santorum vigoriously opposes.
This is the bed that Republicans have made. The idea that Santorum would be any better on fiscal issues than Romney is absurd. They're both fiscal moderates that aren't going to change the culture of waste in Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at unitedliberty.org ...
I note that during one of the recent debates, the subject of SOPA/PIPA (a bill introduced by coin-operated Congresscritters to cripple the Internet at the behest of old-style media) came up. The responses boiled down to:
Newt Gingrich: Not just NO, but HELL NO!
Ron Paul: Not just NO, but HELL NO!
Mitt Romney: What those other two guys said.
Rick Santorum: Well... these bills have a few flaws, but we need to do something along those lines... Congress can try again later....
They all support a form of amnesty.Get real.Every election both parties scream the will FAST TRACK IMMIGRATION REFORM and nothing happens.To pick a candidate by this is ridiculous they are all the same.
To the Newt only anti Santorum MY CANDIDATE MUST WIN OR ELSE naysayers;Palin will not save us.Santorum is a good candidate; even Palin thinks so... keep this crap up and you will have Obama.
“I have a problem with homosexual acts, as I would with what I would consider to be acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships . . . if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual gay sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.” – Rick Santorum
"My colleague Senator John Ensign of Nevada told me a story that epitomizes the selfishness of our culture: ‘When I was a teenager, I had a sticker in my car with a picture of a bear scratching himself on the tree, and under it was the saying, “If it feels good, do it!”’ The image of the bear scratching himself highlights a view of human beings as animals, and that people should do what pleases them at the moment without a thought to the broader long-term consequences of their actions.” –Rick Santorum
“Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.” – Rick Santorum on Fox News Sunday. (So the married couples without children should separate?)
And here is THE MOST DAMNING of Santorum's quotes ever and the reason why I cannot support him:
"The right to privacy doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution." – Rick Santorum
OMG...my condolences to Mrs. Rooster. “;’^(
How many Republicans didn't vote for that from 2000 to 2006? Here's guessing YOU voted for Bush twice and gave him the mandate to push compassionate conservatism, which he openly ran on. Like it or not, the President usually sets the mandate for the party.
Santorum was also a leader in pushing for welfare reform. He voted for a balanced budget.
The perfect candidate isn't on the ballot. Get over it. Santorum is a far better option than Romney as is Newt.
Then, why did he push for welfare reform and vote for a balanced budget amendment?
The only thing Santorum is guilty is what virtually every Republican was in Congress during the Bush years -- letting Bush set the mandate, which is what parties usually allow a President to do.
ok so vote for him, I will to if he gets to the general election. I am not going to argue with fellow conservatives anymore. Rick is no better than any of the establishment republicans that have been in D.C. the last decade. He is a good guy and a great family man. He is an average stump speaker and a fair debator. My only consern is whether he has the personal charsima to pull off a national campaign. I have not seen it yet, and I have watched him closely over the last couple of months. Republicans are just desperate now to keep Romney from being the nominee. I am getting a bit desperate myself. I support Newt, because I believe he is our best bet not only to defeat Obama, but to bring America back.
The right to privacy is not a part of the Constitution, at least not in so many words......
The right to privacy would best be seen in the 9th Amendment, which basically says that just because a right is not in the Constitution, does not necessarily mean that it does not exist.......The justices of the Supreme Court, in several cases over the past half century, have found that a right to privacy does exist in the Constitution, to a degree.........
.... The cases that started the process of the "finding" of this new right began with cases like Loving v Virginia, where it was ruled that the state cannot prevent mixed-race marriages; and likeGriswold v Connecticut, where it was ruled that a state cannot prevent a married couple from buying and using condoms.
The first mention of a right to privacy was in a dissenting opinion in Olmstead v US in 1928, in which Justice Brandeis argued that the Framers had created a framework for the greatest right of all: "the right to be left alone."
The Supreme Court has found that this right to privacy appears in the Constitution in several pre-existing forms. .......For example, the police are not allowed to search your home or papers without a warrant, which is a direct protection of privacy.
The majority of the justices found a right to privacy in some form, a right which could be expanded. Some justices argued that since there is no right to privacy directly enumerated in the Constitution, such a right does not exist
With all due respect, however, this is exactly the sort of argument that the 9th was designed to counter. The right is far from absolute, and many invasions of privacy, such as drug tests and the census, have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
http.//www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q113.html
The right to privacy is not a part of the Constitution, at least not in so many words......
The right to privacy would best be seen in the 9th Amendment, which basically says that just because a right is not in the Constitution, does not necessarily mean that it does not exist.......The justices of the Supreme Court, in several cases over the past half century, have found that a right to privacy does exist in the Constitution, to a degree.........
.... The cases that started the process of the "finding" of this new right began with cases like Loving v Virginia, where it was ruled that the state cannot prevent mixed-race marriages; and likeGriswold v Connecticut, where it was ruled that a state cannot prevent a married couple from buying and using condoms.
The first mention of a right to privacy was in a dissenting opinion in Olmstead v US in 1928, in which Justice Brandeis argued that the Framers had created a framework for the greatest right of all: "the right to be left alone."
The Supreme Court has found that this right to privacy appears in the Constitution in several pre-existing forms. .......For example, the police are not allowed to search your home or papers without a warrant, which is a direct protection of privacy.
The majority of the justices found a right to privacy in some form, a right which could be expanded. Some justices argued that since there is no right to privacy directly enumerated in the Constitution, such a right does not exist
With all due respect, however, this is exactly the sort of argument that the 9th was designed to counter. The right is far from absolute, and many invasions of privacy, such as drug tests and the census, have been upheld by the Supreme Court.
http.//www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q113.html
Social Conservatives are those who would maintain the social values of their communities. There is no way that an intrusive Federal Government can possibly serve such purpose. All you need to do to expose the fallacy is to point out the very great differences in priorities & values in different communities, across the several States in our Federal Union. History, moreover, should teach everyone that Massachusetts & Virginia would never have joined the same Federation, had it been empowered to dictate social values to the States which had just rebelled against Britain, for interference in our local affairs.
William Flax Truth Based Logic
Nope, but neither will they change by putting gays in the military, in the class room, judgeships, or in politics, where they strangely wield power not reserved to them. If you think bowing down to baal is the answer then good luck.
Personally, I am glad you are no longer in the Army, with your attitude.
I have repeatedly denounced the lunacy of even describing what is involved as "marriage." Nor have I ever engaged in the misuse of the English word "gay," to describe men attracted to other men.
Marriage is the method traditional societies--what we Conservatives support--sanctify human procreational activity. It represents the honor & respect that we have for the formation of families; reflects the multi-generational importance of the family as the bedrock of any social order; any sustainable community; indeed, the real significance & function of the Fifth Commandment.
The oxymoron that you employ can never be equated to actual marriage; and, indeed, almost everywhere, an actual marriage has been considered void & subject to annulment, if not consummated by a sexual act--an act involving the sexual parts of a man & woman. People of the same sex cannot possibly perform such an act--not with each other. To equate a muscular attempt to simulate some of the feelings of such an act, is obviously no equivalent; claiming otherwise, merely an effort to disparage the social values of the rest of us.
Here, if you want to read what this social conservative thinks of some of the issues, and how far we are from properly defending our social heritage, Truth Based Logic
William Flax
“The justices of the Supreme Court, in several cases over the past half century, have found that a right to privacy does exist in the Constitution, to a degree... The right is far from absolute, and many invasions of privacy, such as drug tests and the census, have been upheld by the Supreme Court.”
That’s bloviating.
Either the right to privacy EXISTS or NOT.
It can’t be both ways.
Sick and tired of the Supreme Court playing games with the Constitution, according to their mood, or penchant of the 5 Justices out of nine.
A right cannot only exist “to a degree”, or exists in one case , but not in another.
“The right to be left alone,” IS the right to privacy for a honest man and the government has no right to trample it.
Really?
Are you really saying that social conservatives, if given the chance to ban, for example, gay marriage and abortion...would not enact laws at the federal level prohibiting that deviant behavior, and thus requiring a federal government strong enough to enforce said new laws?
I think they would take it.
(Most social conservatives I know are dead-set against repealing Roe v Wade solely because it would then return the issue to the states, depriving them of the chance to prohibit it with a federal law.)
Read the Declaration of Independence. the grievances relate to distant Government interfering with local self-Government. Look more closely at the design of our Federal Constitution: Constitutional Overview.
Do not confuse the one or two issue types with Conservatives who understand the whole picture & the division of power, function & responsibility.
If you want to fight against legal abortion, you will not accomplish much until you adopt tactics consistent with reality. The abortion decision could have been reversed--in effect--by a simple act of Congress;--but the faux Conservatives to which you allude have not been willing to work with real Conservatives to that end. (And see Against Abortion, for arguments for which the Left has no real answer.)
William Flax
Well it seems the right to privacy exists, and not when one might otherwise invade that privacy.
The Supreme Court, as we know, is trying to re-write the Constitution in many cases....and can’t seem to come down hard in any case. They’re as whimpy in taking a real stand as our politicians.
THAT must be stopped! The Justices have NOT the power to rewrite the Constitution, OR to legislate from the bench as they often do. Their role is subaltern to the Constitution, not above it.
Article III Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority ...
Is this directed to me or to the typical social conservative, a la Santorum?
For you’re really just summing up my own beliefs.
I am not confused, but you seem to be. Marriage is not defined in the Constitution, because I doubt the writers could ever even considered that idiots would be in charge of the courts and congress.
Whether you like it or not Marriage is defined by custom, and by law, the laws has define "gay marriage" denying thousand of years of common sense, guess which one has the upper hand right now? Leaving it up to states alone to protect traditional marriage will assure the most recent court decision will define it for you. A Constitutional amendment is the only way to keep their hands out of it. Congress apparently has no power or will, since the DOMA act was ignored by the courts and the president.
Of course you can always just shack up as that apparently seems to be the latest fashion. Or maybe you can rent a wife by the hour, as I hear is the custom for some religions, that can't be named.
About 37,300,000 results-
Christian Science Monitor - 46 minutes ago
The New Jersey Assembly passes gay marriage bill on Thursday, sending the bill to Republican Governor Chris Christie, a possible vice-presidential candidate
Here chew on this, let me know how that works out letting the states deciding what marriage is, ok.
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.