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 ...
If a candidate uses as adjective to modify “conservative,” experience has shown time and time again that that candidate is no conservative at all. “Fiscal conservatives,” “compassionate conservatives,” whatever; they are all socialists at heart.
If a candidate is not deeply troubled by moral crises in America, and doesn’t understand that these moral crises jeopardize both our economic health and our freedom, he is either an unserious, unreflective candidate, or the enemy.
When a candidate starts campaigning to oppose behavior that is inherently private (skipping mass, masturbating, etc.), you can come talk to me about how that candidate’s “social conservatism” is at odds with traditional conservatism. But public behaviors like gay marriage, abortion, and trafficking pornography aren’t merely spiritual issues, they are public, legitimate issues. The only grey area I have seen emerge yet from “social conservatives” deal with people growing marijuana for their own, personal use. I would argue that a democracy does have an interest in preventing behavior that is both addictive and self-destructive, but I understand that there is a legitimate diversity of opinion on whether marijuana is addictive and self-destructive in a way that masturbation, for instance, is not.
Nonsense:
http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Rick_Santorum.htm
Voted YES on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)
Voted YES on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)
Rated 81% by NTU, indicating a "Taxpayer's Friend" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
If that record isn't fiscally conservative, what is it?
How about cosponsoring an economy0-destroying environmental bill with Nancy Pelosi in 1989. That bill alone should disqualify him for running for dog catcher as a Republican. And there was no reason for him to do it. No pressure from the caucus. That bill was way way ahead of it's time. The fact that he would cosponsor that communistic bill for no reason is a major black mark against him. I can't think of a single excuse why he'd be party to that.
Some would argue (Goldberg et al) that Romney is a fiscal conservative; so, I will grant them that possibility; since I don't really give a d@mn ...I will never vote for “Myth.”
If you can make a well documented, concrete case for the fact Romney is a fraud even as a fiscal conservative; more power to you!
If you document your comments on the Romneycare and other charges you made, I will be more than happy to quote and endorse you to that effect.
Hope that helps!
Regards,
-Geoff
GO NEWT!!!
Keep trying my friend. If Rick Santorum is a fiscal conservative then Bill Clinton did not have sex with that women after all. Rick is a SOCIAL conservative and a NATIONAL SECURITY conservative, and I will vote for him if he is nominated. But please don’t tell me he is a fiscal conservative because IT IS NOT TRUE.
How about you "proving" you're a fiscal conservative. Did you vote for George W.Bush twice when openly ran on his Medicare prescription drug plan and compassionate conservatism?
Conservatives elected Bush, knowing what he was, and gave him a mandate, one most Republicans went along with. If you voted for Bush, you gave him that mandate and you shouldn't be complaining conservatives in Congress almost universally went along with it.
One reason I trust Santorum more fiscally, is he would have to listen to conservatives if elected. His survival would be contingent on it. Gingrich would owe conservatives nothing, and he does what he wants, no matter what conservatives think. Even Bush had to back down to conservatives in the Harriet Myers case. Santorum would be constrained. Gingrich will do whatever he feels like.
No one would use that as a platform.
Just for the record, Newt is - although I am rethinking my priorities - my first choice. Why? Because I thought he had the best chance to defeat OHOMO, which is really turning out be a real "Satan" when it comes to my values. For that reason, although far from perfect, I am with Newt... but I was NEVER against RS and at no time I felt he should quit, because for me, as a person who cares for moral "values" it would unthinkable to abandon him.
But, I NEVER expected he would be doing so well as he is now... never. So?... Of course I am happy and delighted, that at least many of my "social conservative" counterparts, finally found enough spine, wisdom, conviction and hold their cards tight, until something happened such as what is going on now.
As to NEWT? I am waiting for him to make his move!... Nothing would please me more than to have Rick and Newt at the top and see Romney and the "rest" disappear. If RS is doing it, why not NEWT?... We all know Newt is super intelligent and creative, etc. I frankly don't know why Romney ate him alive in FL!... but just like RS, Newt should reset, recharge and keep fighting... and get back on the race!
You got that right! Santorum voted not only to fund but to increase funding for the National Endowment of the Arts; voted to raise the debt ceiling 6 times; voted for a 90 million dollar study on the affects watching tv has on children; voted for govt control of wages and on and on.
Santorum is the type of big govt spender the Tea Party folks fought hard to get rid of!
and with his endorsement of Romney (socialized medicine and pro abortion at the time) and Spector (voted for Obamacare)..I am begining to question Santorums judgement on social issues.
Even the president does not act with complete power. There are geopolitical and other realities that constrain a president. Even if Ron Paul were elected, things would change far less than you might think.
Yes, I voted for George W. Bush, just like I will vote for Rick Santorum if it gets that far. But listen, I am not running for President, so I don’t have to offer proof, but Rick does. It is the price you pay for the that priviledge
I truly Pray for that Onyx, I know the Conservative Rank and File, and even the Average Republican Voter would be behind that, however the GOP-E don’t have no brains at all, but on the other hand they know if they chose Mittens than we will kick their ass to the curb, so we need to keep fighting, the L-rd helps those who help themselves!
NO, my argument is that he never once publically denounced it until after he started running for President. Hmmmm.
It’s funny how often I hear that from Santorum supporters.. and ONLY from Santorum supporters. This must be the official answer to those who point out Santorum’s lack of a platform. “Well, he doesn’t need one, since not much will get accomplished anyway.” I’d rather have an active campaigner in office than the Pope.
So, you, along with just about everyone else here that was eligible to vote in 2000 and 2004, gave him the mandate to push the Medicare prescription drug plan and compassionate conservatives. So, why are you bashing Santorum for going along with something YOU gave Bush a mandate for?
How many Republicans in Congress didn't go along with the Bush agenda from 2000 to 2006? Not many. Is everyone that did go along with bush disqualified from being considered a fiscal conservative? Not in my estimation.
Amen. It’s one thing to look them over and vet. It’s another to never find anyone quite perfect enough.
Pro-big government Santorum in 2005: “they have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone...”
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.