Topic: Santorum: I'm in.

[IronDioPriest]

I know I've changed. My understanding of conservatism has changed. My understanding of the dire situation we are in has most definitely changed. My sense of the timeline we have to work with has changed, thus has my sense of urgency. My expectations of my political representation has changed.

All these things have changed and evolved in me because of my observations of events, people, and the national conversation. I think I am open to those changes because I am a basically good and decent person who loves this country and understands its value to its people and the entire human race.

Could not the same transformation be taking place in many of our conservative leaders - people who have been essentially good and decent people, with a strong conservative record according to the old rules, but perhaps guilty of transgressions that were not considered transgressions until we changed the rules? Could not such a person have changed in exactly the ways the conservative movement has changed?

In fact, since I'm talking about essentially good and decent people who love this country and understand its value, and people who were considered staunchly conservative according to the rules before we changed them, isn't it even a strong possibility that such a person has undergone a similar transformation?

Don't get me wrong. Many - most - cannot be trusted. The Romneys, the Gingriches, the Huckabees, the McConnells, the Roves and Krauthammers... But others, I'm not sure. Santorum, I'm not sure that jettisoning someone like him for past transgressions is the right move. Not saying it's the wrong move. I'm not sure.

[AmericanPatriot]

"Could not the same transformation be taking place in many of our conservative leaders - people who have been essentially good and decent people, with a strong conservative record according to the old rules, but perhaps guilty of transgressions that were not considered transgressions until we changed the rules? Could not such a person have changed in exactly the ways the conservative movement has changed? "

You make good points IDP and I ,too, have that hope.

However, I am skeptical. We have been lied to and taken advantage of for too long
Has Boehner made a transformation when he was gifted the leadership by us? Or others?

As a Christian, I believe in Redemption.
In politics, not so sure

[Libertas]

Not to be Johnny Raincloud...

It is not realistic to think we have the luxury of time to purify all the federal, state and local political ranks to our liking (although I am not opposed to doing so with what time we have left), we will have to accept certain realities but strive for the best candidates we can possibly get.  The stakes are so high that the focus needs to be on defeating the agenda of the Ruling Class whenever and wherever it confronts us.  Strive for the best, and have contingency plans!

As for Santorum, in the pantheon of problems facing conservatives he's not in the same group as those listed by IDP, so while I am doubtful over his prospects, I am not willing to discard him, especially compared to some of the other jokers in the deck!  Exercising judgement is good, but exercising better judgement is better.  That sounds clumsy as hell, but y'all know what I mean!  Eyes on the prize!  Let's play our game, not the MFM's, not anyone else's, ours!

[charlesoakwood]

Not to be Johnny Raincloud...

It is not realistic to think we have the luxury of time to purify all the federal, state and local political ranks to our liking (although I am not opposed to doing so with what time we have left), we will have to accept certain realities but strive for the best candidates we can possibly get.  The stakes are so high that the focus needs to be on defeating the agenda of the Ruling Class whenever and wherever it confronts us.  Strive for the best, and have contingency plans!

As for Santorum, in the pantheon of problems facing conservatives he's not in the same group as those listed by IDP, so while I am doubtful over his prospects, I am not willing to discard him, especially compared to some of the other jokers in the deck!  Exercising judgement is good, but exercising better judgement is better.  That sounds clumsy as hell, but y'all know what I mean!  Eyes on the prize!  Let's play our game, not the MFM's, not anyone else's, ours!

He chucked Pat Toomey under the bus and supported Specter in order to preserve his position in the senate.
He is a player and he's playing for the team that allowed us to get here. He plays for the Washington Senators.

[LadyVirginia]

IDP I appreciate your comments.  I do think some people can change and adjust.

Still I'm more inclined to  Pan's comment: "Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.

I don't give a sht about them individually; I give a sht about lining up next to one who GETS IT today."

I remember as a kid going to political stuff with my parents and hearing folks talk about things we as conservative/tea party folks consider sacrosanct now...

things like the Kansas arts commission being defunded make me chuckle now because WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THOSE THINGS decades ago! And I remember hearing adults say the politicians dismissed them and others characterized it as "extreme" or "right-wing".  Topics like the unions, over-reaching government power, usuarption of the Constitution were all discussed.  It was known there were conservatives who were "more" conservative than what was getting elected--they based their conservatism on principles defined in our founding documents.

Now there's critical mass as all hell breaks out and people are waking up.

My point is that anyone who defines themselves as conservative politician would have been aware of these discussions and beliefs--they've been around for years.  This viewpoint can't be new to them even it has been obscured in the past by playing acording to the rules and fear.

Now is the time to breakout. It's not like they can't figure it out now anyway.  It's on the news EVERY DAY.  Go to a tea party event--explain yourself.  It wouldn't be hard to do--if you get it!

[IronDioPriest]

I am inclined towards Pan's comment as well. Lead follow, or get out of the way - and your individual political aspirations mean absolutely NOTHING. I'm only interested in those who get it now, and are willing to act now. But does that mean all new people, or is there redemption for the few?

I'm wondering if some of these politicians are having genuine epiphanies, and if so, how we tell them from the panderers, and if it's worth it. If they ARE genuine, and they can convince us of such, would it not be wise in those cases to consider capitalizing on their name recognition, experience, etc rather than jettisoning them because of positions they formerly held, or politically motivated actions they took according to the old rules?

[LadyVirginia]

If they ARE genuine, and they can convince us of such, would it not be wise in those cases to consider capitalizing on their name recognition, experience, etc rather than jettisoning them because of positions they formerly held, or politically motivated actions they took according to the old rules?

Sure, IF they're genuine.  We shouldn't have to guess. 

But I guess I'm doubting because I can't see what's taking some of them so long.

[Pandora]

I am inclined towards Pan's comment as well. Lead follow, or get out of the way - and your individual political aspirations mean absolutely NOTHING. I'm only interested in those who get it now, and are willing to act now. But does that mean all new people, or is there redemption for the few?

I'm wondering if some of these politicians are having genuine epiphanies, and if so, how we tell them from the panderers, and if it's worth it. If they ARE genuine, and they can convince us of such, would it not be wise in those cases to consider capitalizing on their name recognition, experience, etc rather than jettisoning them because of positions they formerly held, or politically motivated actions they took according to the old rules?

Spiritually speaking, how does one achieve "redemption"?  One recognizes one's transgressions, acknowledges them, asks for forgiveness, vows atonement and to avoid sinning again, yes?

Same thing, different arena, in my opinion.

As an example, suppose Romney came out announcing for president, flat-out declaring his Romneycare legislation as knuckleheaded-wrong, as well as cap&tax, man's contribution to glowball warmink, ethanol subsidization -- all wrong, wrong, wrong -- and stood firm, promising to rectify these issues if elected because he knows now we are right and he was in error?

The press would be beating to him to death as "flip-flopping" <-- here's your business as usual -- but there's his redemption.  An honest acknowledgement that as things have changed and become dire, he gets it; he gets not only was he wrong on the issues, but that the political climate is one now where it's not only right to proclaim such, but necessary.

[IronDioPriest]

I am inclined towards Pan's comment as well. Lead follow, or get out of the way - and your individual political aspirations mean absolutely NOTHING. I'm only interested in those who get it now, and are willing to act now. But does that mean all new people, or is there redemption for the few?

I'm wondering if some of these politicians are having genuine epiphanies, and if so, how we tell them from the panderers, and if it's worth it. If they ARE genuine, and they can convince us of such, would it not be wise in those cases to consider capitalizing on their name recognition, experience, etc rather than jettisoning them because of positions they formerly held, or politically motivated actions they took according to the old rules?

Spiritually speaking, how does one achieve "redemption"?  One recognizes one's transgressions, acknowledges them, asks for forgiveness, vows atonement and to avoid sinning again, yes?

Same thing, different arena, in my opinion.

As an example, suppose Romney came out announcing for president, flat-out declaring his Romneycare legislation as knuckleheaded-wrong, as well as cap&tax, man's contribution to glowball warmink, ethanol subsidization -- all wrong, wrong, wrong -- and stood firm, promising to rectify these issues if elected because he knows now we are right and he was in error?

The press would be beating to him to death as "flip-flopping" <-- here's your business as usual -- but there's his redemption.  An honest acknowledgement that as things have changed and become dire, he gets it; he gets not only was he wrong on the issues, but that the political climate is one now where it's not only right to proclaim such, but necessary.

You're basically describing Tim Pawlenty.

[Libertas]

Not to be Johnny Raincloud...

It is not realistic to think we have the luxury of time to purify all the federal, state and local political ranks to our liking (although I am not opposed to doing so with what time we have left), we will have to accept certain realities but strive for the best candidates we can possibly get.  The stakes are so high that the focus needs to be on defeating the agenda of the Ruling Class whenever and wherever it confronts us.  Strive for the best, and have contingency plans!

As for Santorum, in the pantheon of problems facing conservatives he's not in the same group as those listed by IDP, so while I am doubtful over his prospects, I am not willing to discard him, especially compared to some of the other jokers in the deck!  Exercising judgement is good, but exercising better judgement is better.  That sounds clumsy as hell, but y'all know what I mean!  Eyes on the prize!  Let's play our game, not the MFM's, not anyone else's, ours!

He chucked Pat Toomey under the bus and supported Specter in order to preserve his position in the senate.
He is a player and he's playing for the team that allowed us to get here. He plays for the Washington Senators.

"He plays for the Washington Senators."

No sh*t, but who doesn't?  Let's face it, we're outnumbered...when you look at the asshats in the demonrat party and then add in the Ruling Class clowns in the GOP, the Ruling Class has and has always had a numerical advantage.  Personally, I think the odds are weighted heavily towards us, the country, the whole she-bang being royally fvcked!  It is why I am arguing for Sarah because I think the window to salvage things peacefully in this nation is incredibly small to near nonexistent, the time for being timid or thinking we have time is gone.  We have no more time, zip, zero, nada!  It's time to go Hail Mary and let the chips fall where they may.  Santorum is no longer a Senator, has no say in DC politics...he has little chance be the nominee...he has some positions which may help define who the nominee though...why are we wasting time arguing about Santorum?

We should be talking about supporting the candidate (currently in the race or not) who can best kick Obama's ass to the curb!  Who is driving the leftists nuts?  Who will drive Obama nuts?  Who can do that and attract Indy's sick and tired of having DC dictate every aspect of their life and run the nation and the economy into the ditch?  Without Tea Party support our candidate won't be worth spit in a hurricane!

[Pandora]

I am inclined towards Pan's comment as well. Lead follow, or get out of the way - and your individual political aspirations mean absolutely NOTHING. I'm only interested in those who get it now, and are willing to act now. But does that mean all new people, or is there redemption for the few?

I'm wondering if some of these politicians are having genuine epiphanies, and if so, how we tell them from the panderers, and if it's worth it. If they ARE genuine, and they can convince us of such, would it not be wise in those cases to consider capitalizing on their name recognition, experience, etc rather than jettisoning them because of positions they formerly held, or politically motivated actions they took according to the old rules?

Spiritually speaking, how does one achieve "redemption"?  One recognizes one's transgressions, acknowledges them, asks for forgiveness, vows atonement and to avoid sinning again, yes?

Same thing, different arena, in my opinion.

As an example, suppose Romney came out announcing for president, flat-out declaring his Romneycare legislation as knuckleheaded-wrong, as well as cap&tax, man's contribution to glowball warmink, ethanol subsidization -- all wrong, wrong, wrong -- and stood firm, promising to rectify these issues if elected because he knows now we are right and he was in error?

The press would be beating to him to death as "flip-flopping" <-- here's your business as usual -- but there's his redemption.  An honest acknowledgement that as things have changed and become dire, he gets it; he gets not only was he wrong on the issues, but that the political climate is one now where it's not only right to proclaim such, but necessary.

You're basically describing Tim Pawlenty.

Am I?  I don't know; haven't heard him or heard about him vociferously rejecting his former positions, but I take your word for it.

I guess that's part of my point, too, IDP; not a quiet "move" away, but a loud, vigorous, repeated rejection of the 'wrong'.

[IronDioPriest]

I am inclined towards Pan's comment as well. Lead follow, or get out of the way - and your individual political aspirations mean absolutely NOTHING. I'm only interested in those who get it now, and are willing to act now. But does that mean all new people, or is there redemption for the few?

I'm wondering if some of these politicians are having genuine epiphanies, and if so, how we tell them from the panderers, and if it's worth it. If they ARE genuine, and they can convince us of such, would it not be wise in those cases to consider capitalizing on their name recognition, experience, etc rather than jettisoning them because of positions they formerly held, or politically motivated actions they took according to the old rules?

Spiritually speaking, how does one achieve "redemption"?  One recognizes one's transgressions, acknowledges them, asks for forgiveness, vows atonement and to avoid sinning again, yes?

Same thing, different arena, in my opinion.

As an example, suppose Romney came out announcing for president, flat-out declaring his Romneycare legislation as knuckleheaded-wrong, as well as cap&tax, man's contribution to glowball warmink, ethanol subsidization -- all wrong, wrong, wrong -- and stood firm, promising to rectify these issues if elected because he knows now we are right and he was in error?

The press would be beating to him to death as "flip-flopping" <-- here's your business as usual -- but there's his redemption.  An honest acknowledgement that as things have changed and become dire, he gets it; he gets not only was he wrong on the issues, but that the political climate is one now where it's not only right to proclaim such, but necessary.

You're basically describing Tim Pawlenty.

Am I?  I don't know; haven't heard him or heard about him vociferously rejecting his former positions, but I take your word for it.

I guess that's part of my point, too, IDP; not a quiet "move" away, but a loud, vigorous, repeated rejection of the 'wrong'.

He's come out and unequivocally said his former support of Cap-and-Trade was wrong - a mistake, he's called it. He came out a couple weeks ago and said - in Iowa no less - that ethanol subsidies need to be eliminated, and that his support of them in the past was a mistake. He called for Medicare reform while in Florida. He's acknowledging the dire situation as we see it. He's basically turned against his former positions at the risk of being called a flip-flopper extraordinaire, and doing so because he says the future of the country is at risk.

Do we believe him, or jettison him as an establishment hack?

Understand, I'm just trying to spur discussion here because I don't know the answer. I've been in the jettison camp on all these retreads until Santorum jumped in, and something clicked in my mind. I guess, essentially, I'm asking myself, if frikkin RICK SANTORUM isn't conservative enough for me, then who the heck IS? And I say that with complete acknowledgment of his past transgressions as outlined by AmericanPatriot and others here. I don't seek to minimize those transgressions, or say they aren't important. I'm just wondering if they can be overcome - if he should be given the chance to overcome them.

[AmericanPatriot]

"if frikkin RICK SANTORUM isn't conservative enough for me, then who the heck IS?"

Maybe the discussion should be 'what is a conservative?'

To me, it starts with where one stands on the Constitution.

I am a "social conservative". Abortion is murder, gays are an abomination, marriage is between a man and a woman etc.
But, those issues don't belong at the Federal level.

They are state issues, Roe vWade should never have been decided by the SCOTUS

Santorum, for example, is a Social Conservative.

Political Social conservatives want government to be bigger and more intrusive
No, I'm not a Ronulan

Just someone that believes we need to get back to a smaller FedGuv

[Predator Don]

It might be unfair to the Santorum's of the party, essentially conservative, but his (non) support of Toomey is what happens when you are on the Hill too long. You lose part of your soul...part of what made you conservative. So I just as soon have a fresh face.

The tea party movement, imo, reminds us what we used to be...and where we need to be. It's why I like it as a movement and not considered a 3rd party. Conservatives need to earn trust...again. The status quo won't do it.

[Pandora]

He came out a couple weeks ago and said - in Iowa no less - that ethanol subsidies need to be eliminated, and that his support of them in the past was a mistake. He called for Medicare reform while in Florida. He's acknowledging the dire situation as we see it. He's basically turned against his former positions at the risk of being called a flip-flopper extraordinaire, and doing so because he says the future of the country is at risk.

Okay; just had a click moment of my own; I remember that now.  (I've slept since then     )

Thanks for the click-kick.

[charlesoakwood]

[blockquote]

"No sh*t, but who doesn't?  Let's face it, we're outnumbered..."

[/blockquote]
Surrounded too?  Good, we've got them where we want them.
[blockquote]

"Personally, I think the odds are weighted heavily towards us, the country, the whole she-bang being royally fvcked!  It is why I am arguing for Sarah because I think the window to salvage things peacefully in this nation is incredibly small to near nonexistent, the time for being timid or thinking we have time is gone.  We have no more time, zip, zero, nada!  It's time to go Hail Mary and let the chips fall where they may."

[/blockquote]

             


T Paw, hasn't shown he can go against the grain and win. 
I am willing for him to show me.

Sarah, goes against the grain every day and wins.  It may not be her but it will be someone with her grit and savvy or we lose whether we win the election or not.

[Predator Don]

At least Tpaw admitted he was wrong on a few issues where, well, he was wrong. The start of forgiveness, now don't go back, Tpaw.

I rarely get to listen to Rush, but he was discussing Palin today and said if she gets in, she is the person to beat. He also spoke on not allowing the media to tell us our candidates are damaged goods. I was screaming...YEA!!!! They attack what they fear.

[Sectionhand]

We need to remember that if complete and unswerving purity to a single ideology wins elections , then Ralph Nader would have been President years ago .

[AmericanPatriot]

Don, my complete purity may be different than another's.

But how about a little bit of purity from these guys (and gals)?

[Libertas]

We need to remember that if complete and unswerving purity to a single ideology wins elections , then Ralph Nader would have been President years ago .

Yeah, but Ralph was nuts, everybody thought he was nuts (even many on the left) and was widely seen as a single issue guy, I don't think the comparisson is valid.  One could also argue (and I think successfully) that Reagan was unswerving in his ideology...didn't seem to stop him from kicking ass...and like Sarah he was lit up by the media, the democrats and many in the GOP for several years running before he won the nomination in 1980.

Our enemies might be crazy, but they are not stupid...bright in a wicked way...they do not attack people because they think attacking them is in the best interest of the nation, that they are doing us some sort of public service...they attack those they hate and fear, whoever threatens the establishment, the Ruling Class and the progressive march...whoever instills the most hate and fear into my enemy IMO has to be someone worthy of support, period.  Everybody else is second-tier or pretenders.