For Santorum
Rick Santorum opposed TARP.
He didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd — including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.
Santorum opposed individual health care mandates — clearly and forcefully — as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual health care mandate waters.
He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn’t written any “Contracts with the Earth.”
Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement.
Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed.
He won Iowa through hard work and competent campaign management. Santorum has improved in every GOP debate and gave his strongest performance last week in Florida, wherein he both dismantled Romneycare and popped the Newt bubble by directly challenging the front-runners’ character and candor without resorting to their petty tactics.
He rose above the fray by sticking to issues.
Most commendably, he refused to join Gingrich and Perry in indulging in the contemptible Occupier rhetoric against Romney. Character and honor matter. Santorum has it.
Of course, Santorum is not perfect. As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects. He lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives. He was a go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era. He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey.
I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul.
And I wish Ron Paul was not the far-out, Alex Jones-panderer on foreign policy, defense, and national security that he is.
If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul.
Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. ambassacor John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t changed for me in 2012.
Then there’s Newt, who has long made a career out of trashing progressive Saul Alinsky while employing his tactics at every turn. I’ve been making this point for years and have chronicled his dalliances with leftists as long as anyone in the conservative blogosphere.
Many grass-roots conservatives were awakened to Newt’s double-talk and double-dealing during the NY-23 race. Inconvenient truth: Newt’s transgressions are not from decades ago. It’s not ancient history. It’s here and now. Readers of this blog know the truth: It’s not just “the GOP establishment” that’s repulsed by Gingrich’s combination of moral baggage and K Street/Beltway culture of corruption. It’s the very grass-roots that Gingrich’s cheerleaders purport to represent.
From reader Barnaby, who sent back his crossed-out Republican solicitation forms with a “NO RINOS” sticky note for Newt Gingrich:
Remember the rebuke in Dubuque? May 11, 2011:
Guy: Speaker Gingrich, what you just did to Paul Ryan is unforgivable.
Gingrich: I didn’t do anything to Paul Ryan!
Guy: Yes, you did. You undercut him and his allies in the house.
Gingrich: No, I…
Guy: You’re an embarrassment to our party.
Gingrich: I’m sorry you feel that way.
Guy: Why don’t you get out before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
Lest we forget, this election is not about choosing a showboat candidate to run against John King or Juan Williams or Wolf Blitzer.
It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.”
For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine.
And at this point in the game, Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them.
***
Side note: Unlike many bloggers and pundits weighing in on GOP 2012, I have zero connections to any of the final four GOP candidates’ campaigns. I have neither received a single penny from, nor donated a single penny, to any of their campaigns. I have not served as any kind of consultant or adviser to any of the campaigns. I have not written any speeches or talking points or briefing papers for any of their campaigns. I have not organized any blogger calls or social media efforts for any of their campaigns. I have not spoken to Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich since interviewing them for Hot Air at CPAC in 2006, and as far as I can recall, I have not communicated directly with either Santorum or Paul. My first and only contact with Santorum’s campaign came last week when a spokesman called to assure me that Santorum was not withdrawing from the Florida primary or the race in general and was in it for the long haul.
So much for my “establishment” credentials, eh? 
***
Santorum is headed to Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nevada.
“The Rick Santorum for President Campaign will expand nationally this week with campaign stops in Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nevada in the coming days,” a spokesman MAtt Beynon said in a statement.
Santorum is slated to make several stops in battleground states over the next few days, but did not appear to be heading back to Florida, where Republicans go to the polls on Tuesday.
Santorum is expected be in Las Vegas, Nevada on Tuesday when the Florida results are known.
After winning Iowa — the first state to chose which Republican they want to face Obama in November — Santorum’s campaign has struggled to catch fire.
In Florida — a winner-takes-all race — the former senator has not appeared much and is barely avoiding a vote share in single digits according to polls, putting him in third place behing Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.
Nevada will vote just four days after Florida, while Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri all vote on February 7th.
Santorum had put campaigning in Florida on hold Sunday, as his daughter, Bella, was hospitalized just days before a key primary vote.
Two days before Florida’s winner-takes-all primary, Santorum spent the day in Pennsylvania, where his three year-old was admitted to a Philadelphia children’s hospital.
***
A reader writes:
I read your “For Santorum” article on your website. You wrote the argument against Newt clearly and completely. While Romney’s been on both sides of issues, Newt has been on both sides at the same time. I think Newt would be almost as combative and adversarial to a Republican congress than a Democratic one…
***
Question of the day: Who is the “machine?”
Secondary question of the day: If you were a simple machine, what kind of machine would you be — inclined plane, wheel & axle, lever, pulley, wedge, or screw?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Obama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
55 Comments
Biden: Tea Party stopped us from growing the economy
May 23, 2012 01:55 PM by Doug Powers
44 Comments
Catholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer
May 22, 2012 04:35 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
A 2012 campaign must-read: The conservative survival guide to Mitt Romney
May 21, 2012 10:23 AM by Michelle Malkin
159 Comments
Biden: Hey, I don’t blame people for voting for a convicted felon instead of my boss
May 18, 2012 01:21 PM by Doug Powers
73 Comments
Elizabeth Warren touted Cherokee heritage in 1984 collection of recipes
May 17, 2012 10:26 AM by Doug Powers
124 Comments
Categories: 2012 Campaign
JustOneMinute
» Barack, Youthful Leader!JustOneMinute
» Patterico And The Brett Kimberlin GangBabalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the Year
If Reagan ran today, he’d have no shot at winning California. He’d probably have little to no shot at NY and MA too, states he carried in 1980. I don’t know if Reagan could even win today.
The only politician in my lifetime I would put in Reagan’s class was Barry Goldwater, who I had the good pleasure to meet late in his life. He was refreshing and open minded and a true gentleman. Everett Dirksen may have been that way also, but statesmen are very rare today.
I think Mickey Mouse could win today. Problem is the cowardliness of GOP candidates. Reagan destroyed Carter, Obama would be a piece of cake.
Really, did any of us get to vote for Cain?
Even against Obama, Reagan could never win with the landslides he did in 1980 and especially 1984. The demographics have changed too much. He would not even carry his home state of California today. That is the problem. If you bring in a massive amount of non European immigrants, put them on the public dole, and then run as the party that wants to cut government, you are not going to do as well. I think we are getting close to half the population not paying any taxes at all. A guy running on a platform to shrink government is not going to be appealing to large portion of the electorate.
We need to get some of this straight. Newt did not lobby for Freddie Mac. As a consultant myself I know the difference between a lobbyist and a consultant. He did criticize the Ryan plan, but did you know that their are NO BUDGET cuts in the Ryan plan, so does that make Ryan conservative.
I am not suggesting people should like Newt, but the misinformation that goes around is rather amazing.
11B, I must disagree. I was just listening to Rasmussen on the Hannity show. He went into voting patterns. He said some interesting things. He said voters will vote against their own interest because they see a bigger picture. In general he said voters are 2 decades ahead of the politicians. Remember they don’t lead, rather they follow.
The welfare state of Bush/Obama is not sustainable and most voters no that. I think a Reagan today would be so refreshing and so clear that he would even carry Oregon (where I live).
The sad fact is that this was all preventable and people like Pat Buchanan were warning us over twenty years ago, but no one would listen, or else they denounced him as the proverbial racist.
As I wrote before, it is ironic that Reagan signed the amnesty in 1986 that made California a permanent democrat playground. Nixon was the guy who put in affirmative action. So why would a newly minted US citizen from the third world, who gets AA with employment and education, decide to vote for a party that supports low taxes, small government and meritocracy that does not award positions based upon race and ethnicity? It is not going to happen. Nixon, BTW, gave us the category “hispanic” which has only added another grievance group to our nation of victims mindset.
These republican presidents have helped to lay the groundwork that is causing the political landscape to become increasingly more hostile to their ideological successors.
Yeah, who needs those racist thugs that want to poisen our water and kill trees and old people and shoot people they don’t like. He’s trying to win an election and he doesn’t need that albatross around his neck.
Whats that Snerdley, those things were made up by the congressional black caucus, the AFL-CIO, Dems in Congress and their media sycophants? Quick, somebody tell Romney. Give him the MM link. That should fix him up.
Maybe it’s time we have a Jimmy Stewart type go to Washington.
We are so sick and tired of Romney and Gingrich being so disgusting. We want to talk about the issues.
Even my lib friends here in Orlando like Santorum as they are really disillusioned with Obama. Duh. Rick may do better than anyone thinks tomorrow.
BTW, Boortz has great issue with libertarian’s views on foreign affairs.
Going to watch “House” now. bye
TXvet, as a vet myself, I am failing to see what is conservative about the Bush foreign policy. I am not getting what is conservative about troops in Korea, Japan, Germany etc. Wars traditionally have been the domain of Democrats. Obama seems very fond of war himself and conservatives should be horrified how casually he violates borders with his drones, how he starts bombing Libya without even going to Congress or how he decides he can assassinate anyone he pleases. It seems to me conservatives should see this as wrong and quite dangerous and we should not be funding it.
Cain was done in by his
brothersister. He was un- ABEL to continue.I disagree. Washington might have opposed spreading democracy around the globe, but he wouldn’t have opposed protecting our interests around the globe. If spreading democracy were the best way to accomplish that in his view, then he would be for it. More likely he’d be in favor of spreading individual liberty around the globe.
But, again, we’re not talking about Washington in 1790, we’re talking about Washington in 2012. Instead of huddling on the shore of a vast empty continent, we span from sea to shining sea. We have territories and interests around the globe. Jefferson didn’t go after the barbary pirates because they crashed oxcarts into Boston Market. He went after them because they were interfering in our global trade, and making slaves of our citizens. The Marine Corps Hymn goes “…from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli”; we have a tradition of fighting our enemies on their territory rather than ours. And the shores of Tripoli didn’t refer to, “We gotta get Libya’s permission to land troops and arrest these criminals“.
Look, I don’t favor “spreading democracy” either. But are YOU willing to let us go in and CONQUER these pestholes and turn them into U.S. possessions? I didn’t think so. Yet conservatives get condemned for not being willing to compromise…
Pre 9/11 or post 9/11?
You know 11B, I am thinking how woefully ignorant we were. I remember the only really political program was Crossfire on the radio with Pat Buchanan. I use to find it rather interesting. There was no internet, no blogs, no Rush even. All we had was the nightly news and Crossfire.
I think that alone must change the playing field.
I wish it were true, but I doubt it. Just look at the new electoral map based upon the 2010 census and start to consider which states will fall to either party. The dems just get to start off with too much of a head start with CA and NY. There is no way a republican can win those states today. And now republican states like TX and FL are increasingly under threat due to the changing demographics.
Is Obama violating OUR borders with OUR drones? No. Is he violating the borders of our traditional allies and those who share our cultural philosophy, even? No.
You don’t get the double standard, so let me spell it out for you plainly: middle eastern toilets ARE NOT OUR EQUALS. When they give themselves Constitutions and republican forms of government, then we can maybe consider them junior members of the best social philosophy yet devised club. Maybe.
There is no overriding international government imposing equal sovereignty over national territories. Outside the U.S., it’s nature’s law. Inside the U.S., it’s the Constitution. I don’t worry about Obama violating the unprotected rights of non-Americans. I care about Obama violating my protected rights. I care a little about him offending England, but only because England shares our cultural philosophy (so far) and shares a common history of felicity with us.
When France wouldn’t “let” us overfly them to bomb Libya… I would have bombed France.
Post 9/11
Phase 1 I was fine. Iraq broke the truce and the war needed to resume. Bush was patient in my opinion getting the UN and Democrats to go along with it. Then he dropped the bombs, destroying the military of Saddam.
Phase 2 Building a nation at the cost of American taxpayers – this part I have trouble with. We never even demand Iraq’s oil pay for the nation building or the defense we were building.
This extended war lead in my opinion to the appeal of Barrack Obama and the mess we are in today.
Afganistan was about Al-Queda, somehow it also turned into nation building. Something we can not afford and may never end successfully.
Translation from P.C. to English:
Received a call from a pollster asking who I would most likely vote for in the Missouri Presidential Preference Primary. It has been my desire to vote for the Herminator but it is looking increasingly like Santorum would benefit more from my vote. As much as I like Herman, a vote for Cain would be a protest vote with very minimal effect.
As for Romney and Newt, I say a pox on both their houses.
It turned into nation building because we had no choice. The thing to do after crushing Iraq and Afghanistan was to keep our boot on their necks as we used them as staging grounds for crushing Iran between, then swinging left and crushing Syria.
But, the leftists in this nation would never, ever cooperate enough to let that happen, so they began with their (IMO treasonous) propaganda campaign.
Iraq is now declaring that the sky over Iraq is their sky, not ours. I say any piece of land on which an American soldier has shed blood belongs to America. Let’s see how those Moslems like that adaptation of their policy.
“Of course, Santorum is not perfect. As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects. He lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives. He was a go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era. He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey.”
So, by all means, in a primary without a single candidate who even remotely presents a consistently conservative philosophy, she endorses the candidate least likely to come within 10 points of Our Idiot President.
Good thinking.
Hiraghm, who the hell cares what you think?
A Constitution Party ballot is available but, as I recall, there is no candidate on the ballot. Unconfirmed is the only option there.
It’s not about spreading democracy, nation building, or fighting wars. It’s about leadership. Promoting fundamental ideas of basic decency, truth, beauty, love, freedom, justice, good over evil, right over wrong. Something that occupies their mind, not their land.
Thats what we do. We are not a country or a group of people that go around pillaging and plundering and stealing and killing to enrich our pockets with ill gotten booty. We are fallible and do make mistakes but our intent is good.
When is that Iraqi oil we went to steal going to arrive anyway? I hope by next summer before gas prices go up again.
Who the hell cares what you think?
Remember, Jefferson sent the Navy/Marine team to thrash the Barbary Pirates. However, keep in mind WE DID NOT STAY in North Africa, we did not make them a colony, we did not nation build, we did not concern ourselves with how they ran their lands. We only left our “calling card”. Namely, we whipped butt, told them we were going to ply the Mediterranean to trade and if they ever messed with our guys again, we’d be back. Contrast that to what we have done in Afghanistan, Iraq and maybe Iran.
I am not against beating the crap out of people. But first, if you are going to beat the crap out of them, don’t import them to my nation. Second, running a big military to support these occupations leads to BIG Government, which I deplore.
Side note, there is a great book detailing the taking of over 1 million European Christians by those very same pirates
Look at it by area and it is overwhelmingly red. All I can say is that one of the great virtues of Reagan was that he didn’t let fear drive his decisions. Fear will paralyze you.
One of the differences I’ve heard conservatives explain between conservatives and liberals is that liberals care about intentions, conservatives care about results.
To crush and conquer Iraq, Afghanistan, the entire middle east is not a matter of pillaging or gaining ill-gotten booty. It’s improving the quality and future of all mankind.
, 11B – well said.
Maybe if we had, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened…
And it’s only ‘their’ lands so long as we say it is. They’d still be living like animals if it weren’t for OUR investment in the oil under their feet.
And, btw, 11B, let’s get it right: Jefferson sent in the marines, and just when the marines were about to replace a despot with his brother, Jefferson cut a deal with the despot, leaving our ally to be murdered.
Perhaps people who engage in rational conversation. You have proven yourself so irrational so many times you are impossible to chat with.
Nothing irrational in what I’ve said. I’ve got more history behind my viewpoint than any other viewpoint thus far expressed.
The most common and stable form of government in history has been empire.
Perhaps if you were to point out what you consider “irrational”, I might be able to educate you.
Unfortunately electoral votes are by population not area. I think you are implying that I fear the demographics change. I suppose I do. But I would add that fear works the other way too. I imagine Reagan might have been fearful of being labeled a racist. Remember, thirty years before, Ike launched Operation Wetback which deported over 1 million illegals. I doubt the PC environment of 1986 would have supported Reagan on this. So maybe Reagan was fearful too. Maybe most of us are fearful too in that we know deep down something is amiss, but know that expressing it publicly is a sure fire way to harm one’s chances for employment and social standing.
So yes, I think fear is a big driver on this issue.
Thanks so much fer straightening me out, professor. The founders borrowed their political values from the British Monarchy? Allrighty then. Locke and Hume are irrelevant. Mmm hmmm, I see. How many millions were subjected to Brit, Portuguese and Spanish Monarchy rule as compared with a million Christians in North Africa? Washington’s threats came from European imperialism and expansionsionism, not Muslims. Today, he would see the Muslim threat and act accordingly – and he would say Ron Paul is batsh!t crazy, and dangerous. Period.
You should apply to the Revisionist History Society. They’re always looking for writers of creative history books to fit their ideology. Or perhaps the Tolkein Society. That Middle Earth stuff is dynamite.
I can agree with most of that. However, I am not sure if just dropping bombs would have defeated the Taliban government. They have the money and arms to control a population. They also don’t care if we bomb the poplation. It actually makes them stronger, especially if they control the flow of information.
We needed the Northern alliance, Kurds etc to accomplish our goals. Now we can’t leave them high and dry. When Dems went namby pamby for politcial gain, thats when the Taliban had a resurgence.
Bombing a nation into oblivion may not be as workable as some think. On the other hand, doing nothing may not be a great plan either. We settled somewhere in between.
Actually I believe we can thank the French under Napoleon for invading and occupying North Africa to finally put an end to the slaving.
But as for preventing 9-11, remember, those bastards we here on expired visas. Throwing open America to the world, as though coming here is a God-given right to every people and culture on Earth, is crazy.
To get an idea of what types of immigrants Washington and the Founders wanted, refer to the Naturalization Act of 1790.
@ChapBix – who the heck is Neal Boortz? (rhetorical question – I know who he is), but what influence does he have? He opposes Santorum on his Abortion stance??? Who in the GOP is Pro-Choice?? If Boortz thinks Santorum will lose GOP votes by being Pro-Life, Boortz is nuts.
Wait, I thought we were under one party rule. You mean Republicans are against abortion? How did that happen?
Where the heck did I say British monarchy? Our Founders were overwhelming British, and to use a phrase from Pat Buchanan, were marinated in that great British culture. You yourself even mention Locke and Hume.
Do you even understand how fortunate we were to have been founded as a British colony? There is a reason why the New World nations of Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand are such wonderful, politically free places to live versus anything created by the French and Spanish in the New World.
Suffice it to say, the nation that came up with the Magna Carta, English Common Law, Locke, Hume, the Industrial Revolution, etc., was the main reason why the New World Anglo nations took off.
The Founders were British and proud of it. They felt they were not getting the full rights of English citizens and decided to separate. As a non WASP American, I can only thank God for the British and what her children did in the New World.
@The Ugly American – so you are against Santorum because he would lose the “gay vote”? How many votes is that, and how many would ever vote Republican anyway?
I live in Florida, I already voted for Santorum…I fear it won’t matter. Sigh…
At least you participated. That should count for something.
Win, lose or draw, did you not vote your conscience of what you considered was the right choice? If so, it mattered!
Been a Santorium guy for awhile now. Sad he can’t seem to get any traction. Glad his daughter is better. What a great family to be in the Whitehouse.
Libertarianism departs from Conservatism when it denies that the number one duty of the Federal Government is to defend the nation from all foreign foes.
Conservatism is also truest when it holds to the Constitution, reserving to the States all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government. Specifically on abortion, but in many other ways.
Santorum staying in the race only helps Rombone. Rombone gives us Obie.
Newt is the ONLY candidate who will take it to Obie.
Thanks, Rick. Thanks, Michelle
What we ought to fear is Obomber’s WH taking control of the census for the first time in history – and utilizing ACORN et al to do it. Gerrymandering electoral districts based on manipulated census data can easily shift results 3-5% , more than enough to swing a close election.
If you like third party or indy candidates, you may wish to remember Perot’s 19% in ’92 gave us President Clintoon. As disgusting as the GOP is, the reality is it’s all we’ve got, and ObaMao must go.
It would seem our differences are semantic…the Founders declared independence from the British and were proud of it. What’s the point in distinguishing between the Brits and their Monarchic system of government. If you’re a Brit you swear allegience to the Monarchy.
…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…
Unless the self evident truths are in fact endowed by the Creator and real, the Founders were guilty of insurrection, treason and sedition – hardly proud Brits.
Go Santorum.
Pelosi, Reid, Van Jones, Trumpka and Jarrett: “Shariah law for thee, but not me.”
@Michele Hampton – Romney’s going to win Florida, no doubt, but if Santorum could come close to Gingrich’s number of votes, or even gets more than Ron Paul, that will be a huge boost for his campaign. You certainly didn’t waste your vote!!
He compared me to a pedophile. There is no way I will ever vote for a ticket with this man in either the presidential or VP slots.
Never.
And yet I didn’t claim that Bush’s foreign policy was conservative. In fact, I didn’t mention foreign policy at all, I said “radically downsize the military”.
You can’t legislate morality. They never learn that little fact. And pro-choice means you can also choose life instead of abortion. FL has the license plate that says that…Choose Life. Really ticks off the libs.
As I said earlier, a lot of us are voting for Santorum in the primary and whoever it turns out to be in November….anyone but Obama.
The media is saying the Tea Party is not the force it was (or rather they are just ignoring it). I say, we are waiting in the weeds. We have some good conservatives in FL. They are redistricting this year so that will make for some interesting races. I consider myself a conservative independent but am staying registered Republican only for the primaries.
Do you honestly think our Founders would have pushed the ideas they did had they been Spanish or French colonists? Do you think if the 13 colonies were primarily peopled by Chinese we’d have turned out the same? Do you think we would even be a first world nation had the colonists primarily been sub-Saharan Africans?
Of course not. Our Founders were products of the Anglo world. They were educated and cultured in British values. You seem to be suggesting that because they broke away from Britain, they somehow somehow eradicated all traces of that cultural linkage.
Looking at the world, the most similar nations to us, no surprise, are those with a similar British heritage. Canada, Australia and NZ share many of our values, culture and have functioning governments. Heck, going into Canada almost feels like you are still in the USA. Contrast that to traveling to Mexico.
Yet those other Anglo nations did not break away from Britain and received their independence peacefully later in life. Despite this, they show a remarkable similarity to the US which you seem to think dropped its British influence once the shots were fired at Lexington and Concord.
I give major thanks to the great creativity in philosophy, politics, industry, naval prowess and other endeavors that came out of that island and helped birth our nation. We benefited mightily. Thank God for the British Army that helped clear out the French and others allowing our colonists to take root and prosper.
The sad irony is that while Britain provided us with so much good, we appear to have infected them with the evil twins of diversity and multiculturalism. I think Britain might be more screwed than us.
Or to the People. Why is it so many people forget the 9th Amendment, and remember only half of the 10th?
The vaccination against this danger is oft labeled “xenophobia”, or “nationalism”. The idea that your nation is superior to others, and so you will only let the very best of the others come here.
What leads to throwing open America is the idea that we’re just another country, no better than anyone else.
I am with you Michelle. Mitt and Newt are RINOs and always have been.
Sadly, I find myself in agreement. Newt’s persistent inability to grasp the disastrous nature of our country’s idiotic immigration policies is the final straw for me. I am not even sure I would back Newt over Romney. Romney seems to understand the invasion better than Newt does.
So Santorum it is.
Less than 7 percent of the 2010 midterm vote was Hispanic. The current problem we are having is cultural: People expect “the government” to pay for everything and correct all conceivable wrongs. That would still be true if we had no immigration problem.
Immigration is currently more of a problem of increased entitlement expense, health risks, and crime. It may become a huge voting problem in the future, but that day has not yet come.
Now there’s a foreign policy to hang your hat on! Does that include Britain, France, Germany, etc. etc.?
But we’re not bullies, we’re the good guys! They hate us for our freedom! Sheesh.
In California, non-hispanic whites are just 40.1% of the population, and plunging. Hispanics are 37.6%, and soaring.
Not arguing the population, just the vote turnout. As a demographic Hispanics are not high-turnout voters, in fact they are considerably underrepresented in the turnout.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/04/26/the-latino-electorate-in-2010-more-voters-more-non-voters/
I understand. However, population matters over time, as young people who vote less get older and vote more.
Most Californian’s graduating from high school are now hispanics.
Since hispanics are tending to vote as another Democratic Party identity/grievance group, the danger to California is real, immediate and catastrophic, and that impacts the rest of the nation.
I am not arguing all is lost and so we must capitulate so the Democrats don’t get most of the hispanic votes. Just the opposite.
If we don’t stop it now, and I do mean right now, there will be no turning back. The borders will be pried opened more and more, and it will be politically unstoppable.
Does getting caught in front of the big screen TV displays at Best Buy count?
You’re right. It’s far better to let Obama continue to bankrupt the country and turn us into a permanent third-world fiefdom for George Soros & Co. than it is for your feelings to get hurt. Glad someone here has his priorities straight.
Santorum has been my candidate of choice since the beginning.
I heard him on the Hugh Hewitt show way last summer and was impressed.
If I were a simple machine, I’d be….a shoelace.
***
HI 11B–#335. There are 535 electoral votes for president. Yes–most of them–435–are based on the population of the states. The other 100 are based on the number of states. Same as the number of representatives and senators.
***
It was called the Great Compromise–the smaller of the 13 colonies refused to sign the Constitution until they were guaranteed some voice in controlling the new government. Otherwise the big rich states like New York, Virginia, and Massachusetts would have ruled over the rest of the states.
***
If we had a strictly population controlled representation only 6 states would have to hold elections–California, New York, Texas, Florida, Michigan, and Illinois would run everything. No campaigning or voting would occur in the remaining 44 states. Even my sparsely populated ex home state of Nevada is a player in this election.
***
Those old White guys who wrote our Constitution were pretty brilliant people. Far smarter and more honest than our current political “betters”. And lots smarter than average bears.
***
John Bibb
***
Voting for Santorum is waste of time, if he, as I expect,loses and then endorses Romney/Gingrich. I already believe that he will do so anyway, which is why I support Ron Paul. Paul or an independent conservative who runs outside the two party system is the better place to put your conservative eggs.
OT: do you think he realizes how truly stupid he is. He went to Haaaavaaad dontchaknow.
You screw one chicken…
One only has to look at, and listen to, Bonnie Prince Charlie to know that is true! All that inbreeding!!
I know! I know! People want to label you all the time! If only Tweeter hadn’t gone out of business. At least that would’ve been more upscale.
You kinda make my point, so consider this: With all of the severe economic problems facing this country, why would a candidate feel the need to create a firestorm of social debate and alientate moderates, by reinstating DADT and give conservative states free reign to legislate against the ability of same-sex couples, to have sex? As you mention, it’s hard to enforce, and as you may not know, jails are already overcrowded and the criminal dockets overburdened. Do you think our economy and with DOC layoffs, we need to create an entirely new class of defendants? Maybe Santorum doesn’t understand priorities. And those who support him, don’t understand the priorities.
Malkin is the one who linked the “savaged” portion of her post. Because it’s relevant to Santorum’s view for the country; apparently one she and others agree with. That’s too bad.
There are REAL problems facing this country, and the obsession of the likes of Santorum, with homosexuality, is a sad and unfortunate distraction. I think the American people–including moderates needed to win an election–can see that, and will be turned off by a candidate who wants to talk about rolling back the rights of homosexuals, as opposed to focusing on the war on Islamic Terror and our horrific economy.
A slip like this would too trivial in his mind to even consider that he could be even the slightest bit stupid. Besides, Russia, Georgia, both former SSRs, what is the difference? In his mind they are the same.
On January 31st, 2012 at 12:16 pm, Ota Benga said:
“There are REAL problems facing this country, and the obsession of the likes of Santorum, with homosexuality, is a sad and unfortunate distraction.”
Then why are you sniveling about it?
People are entitled to their opinions and beliefs and just because those beliefs do not dovetail with the Homosexual Agenda it is a distraction?
A distraction to who? You? If you do not like what he says, DO NOT VOTE for HIM! If you do not like what our Hostess writes or believes – DO NOT COME HERE and COMPLAIN! There are plenty of other sites where your ilk is welcome.
That makes sense…after all he doesn’t exactly strive for excellence, especially when mediocre will do just fine and doesn’t take quite the amount of effort.
On the flip side, if my posts and opinions bother you, you’re free to ignore them. It’s not hard. Try it.
I know everyone has been eagerly awaiting my comments regarding this article, so I will provide them for all readers’ benefit.
Rick Santorum is better than Newt, slightly better than Romney, but inferior to Paul, as every candidate is inferior to Paul.
Rick will go to war with Iran and will force the U.S. into bankruptcy if elected President.
Rick might do it with more caution and the demise of America might be slowed with Rick over other candidtaes, but it will still happen with him.
If Michelle wants to see the fall of her country, then she is making the right choice.
Just wanted to add some investing advice for those who don’t wish to support RP.
If RP does not win the presidency, as I have said, America is going down the drain.
Therefore, look to Canada for currency holdings, as well as oil and gold investments. The Canadian dollar will surpass the U.S. dollar in value if America goes to war with Iran. Also, gold and oil will spike, so since Canada is a leader in these areas, you should sell your U.S. dollars, invest in Canadian currency and in Canadian companies and try to hedge against the downfall. Yes, Canada will be hurt too, as will the rest of the world, but you have to look at the best of the worst here.
If you wish to invest in America still, buy Walmart, as the poorer your nation becomes and the more inflation that occurs, retailers like Walmart will be popular as they are most efficient at distributing products/services at the lowest possible prices.
Of course, with a new war in Iran, defense contractors might be a good play as well.
Look for companies that also are increasing their overseas earnings, as America’s wealth dominance will be cut.
On January 31st, 2012 at 12:57 pm, Ota Benga said:
Not Hardly, We all come here because we all are of a like mind, differences, but like mind. Liberals like you come to conservative sites to spew rubbish, look and feel smug and generally say your ilk has freedom of speech but when it comes to anyone else not towing the party line – then it is Double Bad Speak – or some such thing. Frankly, it is astounding how the liberal mind works -your thoughts and ways or none at all.
Sticking a fork in a babies head, sucking its brains out with a vacuum cleaner and calling it a woman’s right to choose, teaching young girls that it is ok to do what feels good under the “empowerment” ruse while turning around and trying to deny anyone who disagrees to your twisted philosophy a hater or some such drivel. Any woman that is conservative is automatically in some sort of indentured servitude. Your ilk…
Stillontheroad: And, I just read, that OWS was throwing condoms at Catholic school girls. It took place at a Rhode Island pro-life event
This is the leftist thing. If you don’t agree the left will get as disgusting as they wish.
It isn’t trite, it’s how they operate.
RI was taken over by the lefty New Yorkers who infiltrated that state long ago. RI was founded on religious tolerance. Tolerance from the left has become non-existent.
123UpNorth, you said what I was about to say for the most part. I would add this: The cost of invading Iran will not be as much the cost in lives and resources to accomplish the task, but rather for the fact it will give oil producers and consumers reason to conspire to de-link oil production, sales and distribution from the US Dollar either out of jealous for the US for retaliation.
Already, India, the world’s fourth largest oil consumer and industrial power, is opting out of an oil boycott of Iran. The additional rumor is that they are trying to arrange paying for Iranian oil with their own currency or Gold holdings, rather than the US dollar. If this were to spread, the demand for US dollars would fall precipitously, and they woud become inflated massively considering how important oil consumption/production is worldwide, and how foolishly the US gov’t/Fed keeps printing more of an unbacked (fiat) currency.
Santorum isn’t going to cut it. He will spend much more than he will ever cut, if he goes along with what he has said he will do, and I do not see him having the strength to make the hard decisions on the budget.
re post 384: ‘out of jealous for the US for retaliation’ should read ‘out of jealousy for the US or retaliation’
my bad.
I love erratic batspit crazy Newt. It’s a shame he won’t be the nominee. Freaking wow:
“The Newt Gingrich campaign has a robocall out in Florida claiming that Mitt Romney once took kosher food away from Holocaust survivors.”
I’m gonna find a way to vote for Newt in today’s primary. lol
out
s.o.t.r.–you crack me up. Thanks.
Hello to any Rush listeners who may be viewing this after Rush has mentioned just now the endorsement by our lovely hostess, MM.
Thanks for responding for me. I was away, and I liked that part in particular. It encapsulates the point brilliantly. People (like Ota) always turn the question backward. We have to totally rewrite the history of Western societal standards because to do otherwise would be a distraction. Puh-lease.
spaceycakes and S.O.T.R.
I have to ask you a question: Do you consider the phrase “freaking wow” one of empowerment or is it just way cool?
Hmm. Lose the gay vote but gain the christian vote. Which way do I go? We can go to the percentages or go to the principles.
Them, plus China buying up as much gold as they can. I guess they’ve been listening to Ron Paul.
123upnorth:
If any of us wants financial advice, we can go to our financial advisers, not some moron on a blog.I go to my best man. He has only doubled his clients’ worth in 10 years.
Obtuse, I see. The GBLT community has already made gains in regards to Civil Rights. Blacks made similar gains in previous decades. How dare those freedom fighters “totally rewrite the history of Western societal standards, huh? The DADT repeal was so easy, that it whisked through Congress, and even this blog didn’t complain about it.
So yes, trying to force Congress to revisit the issue, would be a distraction. Regarding laws involving gay sex, perhaps you should re-read what you wrote here:
So yes, it would be a distraction to encourage states to revisit the issue, and then watch it come screaming back on appeal from SCOTUS.
Santorum wants to “rewrite the history of Western societal standards”, by relitigating matters that have already been firmly settled.
If you think you can win the White House by alienating moderates by rolling back the gains of the GLBT community(where is the mandate?), you’re an idiot.
Economy and Terrorsism. That’s what most non-fringe folks care most about.
Even Roland–normally a really mentally disturbed puppy–sees the danger that an extreme social conservative will do for the GOP chances of winning the White House. Go re-read what he wrote on this thread, on the topic.
This discussion is moot. Santorum doesn’t have a chance in hell of being the nominee. Romney will get the ticket and move to center, by trumpeting his moderate views “social” matters, and he’ll win.
It’s funny when you folks try to suppress your inner common sense by parroting an idiot like stillontheroad, in order to feel like you “belong”.
L.O.L
123upnorth #379:
Right now I’m reading the book One Second After, by William Forstchen. All Paulbots should read it.
Thanks to massive stupidity, going back to Carter, war with Iran may be inevitable. After you read the book, MAYBE you’ll understand why I keep saying that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. Let’s just say that the book is my worst nightmare, times 100.
On January 31st, 2012 at 3:30 pm, Ruta Benga said:
I see I hit a nerve — well you can always go out tonight and walk up and down the block chanting “Take Back the Night” and relive the good ole days.
Or perhaps you can infiltrate a Girl Scout meeting to teach them good ole “Empowerment”
Ota Benga:
Why so much hatred for Rick Santorum? Is it because all the children he has, the ones you’ll never have? Or is it because deep down you know he’s OK, and you’re not? Please enlighten me, if you can.
Nothing has been “settled”. We are rushing toward a nationwide redefinition of marriage into something it isn’t, with more redefinition on the way.
I could live with leaving things as they currently stand, but that is not the agenda. This kind of phony-issue crusading is the pablum that the Feds and special interests eat up while they ignore our insolvency problem.
But by all means, continue to invert the issue and be the problem.
On January 30th, 2012 at 12:20 pm, happyscrapper said:
Did that guy write a book about a Nuclear North Korea also? How about Pakistan? They don’t seem all that stable. What about France, those guys are really effed in the head?!