Posted on 02/22/2012 8:27:14 PM PST by detective
Rick Santorum’s front-runner status in the GOP presidential race is predicated on the idea that he is the consistent conservative alternative in the field.
And that image had some serious holes poked in it at Wednesday’s debate in Arizona.
Mitt Romney and Ron Paul tag-teamed the former Pennsylvania senator much of the night, calling into question his conservatism on issues ranging from earmarks and fiscal policy to his endorsements and even what is often considered Santorum’s most solidly conservative credential — social issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“The majority of truly Christian Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians sadly agree that their denomonations have left Christianity.”
You claim the majorities of those religions believe their own denominations are not Christian?
That sounds like an outrageous claim. Do you have any research to back that up? A link or citation? Anything?
My mother-in-law is Methodist, and I think she would be shocked if I told her what you said.
Santorum defended his endorsement of Romney for president too. Romney used Santorums own words against him. Santorum told Laura Ingrahm, “this is the guy who is really conservative and we can support him” RS on Mitt Romney election 2008.
GO NEWT!
Are you trying to equate mainstream with constitutional conservatism??? Cause that dog SURE don’t hunt.
And I’m not believing the press today basically saying that Santorum’s opponents scored on him based in his pas support of earmarks... Who of the filed can honestly say they are innocent of involvement in earmarks? Really...
Your answer just shows your ignorance. An Ayatollah is a Muslim cleric in Iran. Santorum is a Catholic. There is no such thing as a Catholic Ayatollah.
If you are just pretending to be ignorant of the words you use and are using the incorrect term Ayatollah to attack Santorum because he is a sincere man of faith then you are also ignorant.
There is enough anti-Christian bigotry out there without you adding to it. Politically correct types likes yourself who ridicule people just because of their religious beliefs do not contribute anything positive to the conversation.
Fortunately the armed forces do not allow for the dope usage.
Santorum beat Romney on earmarks. Saying Rick was mistaken for giving them while you were asking for them is a very weak argument...isn’t an argument at all.
Santorum outclassed Romney on Romneycare. Not only statistically, but factually, like Romneycare being more leftist than Obamacare is. Also the fact that Romney took federal money to start his romneycare to the tunes of hundreds of millions of dollars...
The only “blows” Romney landed was that Santorum praised him and endorsed Specter.
I’m not going to touch his defense of Romney...none really, but I m not sure what he has said about it, so I’ll leave it alone until I can look it up.
His argument as to why he backed Arlen, in that supreme judicial appointees was the major issue at the time and that AS promised to back them, is understanable to me. We saved a conservative judge and appointed another...we now have a conservative majority on the supreme court. Specter and his liberal dogma is one man...conservative judges deciding the fabric of our constitution and lives is a tad bit more important than supporting a liberal that made it possible.
Yes, Santorum blasted Romney, and Ron is as always, a non player and dismissable.
Again, with that said and as a Santorum supporter, Gingrich clearly won.
I don’t think there is much doubt that the leadership of all those denominations have adopted extreme Leftist viewpoints. I am Presbyterian which has traditionally been the most conservative of the group and it is firmly in the grip of the Left.
All enthusiastically groups which will gleefully feed them to the Lions to applauding crowds. Urkel attended a Methodist church for years where the minister raved like a lunatic in support of Evil.
There are no character issues which would detract from his appeal as there are with Newt so he won’t be dragged down by irrelevacies. He is AT LEAST as conservative as Newt.
He is FAR more conservative than Mitt with AT LEAST as high a character rating.
He is NOT a polly-anna in terms of foreign policy as is Paul and AT LEAST as good on economics.
So by that matrix he is by far the best candidate. All the others can be attacked in an honest way with Rick it will have to be something false on its face such as that he is a religious fanatic who would make Catholicism the national religion.
No they didn’t. His conservatism is not in question. His support of omnibus bills is. He needs to come up with a good explanation why omnibus bills are unavoidable.
Santorum’s problem last night was that he didn’t go on the attack the way he did in the last Florida debate.
They get in front and play prevent defense, and all it prevents, just like in football, is their doing well.
I don't think anyone who is intelligent and knowledgeable thinks Rick Santorum is the reason that there are omnibus bills. Santorum should have articulated his position better but these attacks are just grandstanding and are without substance.
Santorum was ganged up on two against one by Romney and Paul. They did not come up with any convincing attacks just political posturing. The Romney supporters in the crowd were also vocal and the moderator helped the Romney/Paul team attack Santorum.
I would have liked to have seen Santorum less defensive and more articulate in his positions. But overall I think he did fine. I saw nothing that would make an intelligent voter not support him.
The numbers are really quite large.
The membership of Mainstream Protestant Churches has declined dramatically over the last 30 years.
Santorum would appear to be accurate.
I agree with you. I still support him. However, I think that he (and Gingrich too, probably) needs to come up with a concise, solid explanation why omnibus bills are unavoidable, and especially in a divided government.
As a mainstream protestant minister, it’s not so easy to transition to the priesthood in the CAtholic Church.
For whatever reason those from Episcopal and Lutheran backgrounds are preferred....I suspect it’s due to their liturgical experience and more moderate theology.
So who mentioned birthers? Sure wasn’t me.
I see it differently. Romney had the crowd, the moderator and Ron Paul all on his side trying to help him. He had many easy targets to enhance his canditacy. He could have attacked Obama providing guns to Mexican cartels, Obama’s failed economic policy, Obama’s failed immigration policy, Obama’s failed energy policy, the Iranian situation, American hostages in Egypt, the problems with Korans in Afghanistan etc. Any of these would have helped Romney and made him seem like a serious and attractive candidate.
Instead Romney wasted time on omnibus bills, Arlen Specter and Santorum’s endorsement of him in 2008.
None of these issues really matter. None of these points make Romney seem like a stronger presidential candidate. None of it makes him seem like someone we would want to nominate to go up against Obama.
Newt did best in the debate. His statement on infanticide was great. He also articulated positions that made him seem like a viable presidential candidate.
Satorum did fine. Nothing in the debate would make an intelligent voter not want to support him.
Romney, despite all the help he got from Ron Paul and others, did little to make him seem like a good candidate in the general election.
Santorum certainly could have articulated the situation better but in the end he should waste as little time as possible talking about things like omnibus bills.
There are so many important issues out there. The economy, out of control government spending, record deficits, failed energy policy, Obama supplying guns for Mexican drug cartels etc. These are the things the candidates should be talking about.
Santorum shouldn't give bogged down with the intricacies of omnibus budget bills.
If I know the media, he’ll get hammered by this question in every interview between now and kingdom come.
And in every debate.
I’m just guessing, but I’m assuming that states and their governors also have to deal with the same things.
I,too, think Santorum did a great job of explaining the bad system in Congress which makes members vote sometimes for things they don’t want to. However, if you notice, the TV media only played Romney snippets and cut Santorum’s logical replies. Ron Paul is a nasty snake in the grass. I hope this all blows up in his face and Romney’s.
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.