It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Politics/Legislation/Elections => Topic started by: IronDioPriest on June 06, 2011, 10:13:48 AM
-
Based on what I know now, I'd support him in the general election. A summary of his record and positions can be viewed HERE. (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Rick_Santorum.htm) He's recycled, but he's an articulate and fearless defender of conservatism. The fact that he got trounced in Pennsylvania will be played as a net negative, but I don't think that should justifiably taint him as a national candidate. He was demonized by local media, ran in a "purple" state against the son of a popular former governor, and lost in an anti-incumbent wave. Could he have national appeal?
He's back: Santorum runs as reliable conservative (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_santorum_profile)
-
I'm from Pa
Personally, I think he's a Bush-type neocon
But, he does have strong family values and does deserve credit for that
-
I'm from Pa
Personally, I think he's a Bush-type neocon...
You'd know better than I would. Do you have any specific reasons you have this opinion of him AP? I just know of his record on social issues, and did a quick search at the "On the Issues" link above. He seems to have all the boxes checked to me, but I know that digging into the details of a politician over time can reveal what a summary of a record might not.
-
I think he is more conservative than T-Paw and less prone than most to sticking a finger in the wind to know which direction to go, but I just don't see him being a dynamic enough personality to really get people to go "hell yeah" so his national appeal could be minimal, but against Obamakov it'd be a easy decision, I just don't think he'll be there at the end, but who really knows, this thing is wide-open at present.
-
No one specific thing, IDP
But he was in leadership in the 2000-2006 debacle that led to the Democrats taking back both houses.
He supported Arlen Specter over Toomey.
Solidly a Bush type Repub
-
...He supported Arlen Specter over Toomey...
Ooh, boy. That's mighty unfortunate.
-
...He supported Arlen Specter over Toomey...
Ooh, boy. That's mighty unfortunate.
Yeap, because that's what I remember him for too. And I'm not in a forgiving mood.
-
We need a strong and well known name (like Reagan was) to run, I don't think Santorum fills that bill.
-
Not sure why he thinks he can run for Pres when he couldn't win his own state
-
Not sure why he thinks he can run for Pres when he couldn't win his own state
I'm thinking that would be the first question he has to answer.
-
I don't really know much about him other than what I've read others here post, I'll just say I am mightily prejudiced against retreads. The pre-2008 Republicans had their time at bat, and that's largely why we're in the mess we're in right now. I'm not very inclined to have any of them step up to the plate again.
-
...He supported Arlen Specter over Toomey...
Ooh, boy. That's mighty unfortunate.
Yeap, because that's what I remember him for too. And I'm not in a forgiving mood.
Something to do with it being more important to hang with the GOP team. He's not playing for the right team.
benb61
We need a strong and well known name (like Reagan was) to run, I don't think Santorum fills that bill.
You betcha.
-
...He supported Arlen Specter over Toomey...
Ooh, boy. That's mighty unfortunate.
Yeap, because that's what I remember him for too. And I'm not in a forgiving mood.
Something to do with it being more important to hang with the GOP team.
Well, he can HANG with them now!
-
I'm not totally against a re tread, but my preference would be no.
My issue with re treads: When we had the Presidency and majorities, I did not see a conservative agenda pushed. No challenge of abortion, gay marriage, don't ask don't tell, and for the most part taxation, etc. I may detest liberals, but one thing they did was push thier agenda thru, be damned. I don't believe re treaded "conservative" will lead any different than before.
Each election, each time in our history requires certain type individuals. I firmly believe Bush was the correct person as President to lead us, as a nation, thru the challenges faced during his terms.....But even with that said, his last two years were not to my liking......
I believe this election cycle calls for a strong willed person, staunchly conservative, maybe out of the mainstream, not tarnished by Washington. A Bush type personality won't cut it this time around.
-
I don't think he's got a shot but I would tend to believe that he will bring something to the conversation. I would like to see him more in the sense of attacking the leftist in chief.
-
Okay he's not my candidate but I'll give him a pass for now. Just heard his comments about his little girl Bella on Mark Levin's show.
-
I think he's a decent man.
My comments are meant to be on his politics
-
I think he's a decent man.
My comments are meant to be on his politics
Mine too. I just was afraid I didn't come across that way.
-
I think he's a decent man.
My comments are meant to be on his politics
I long for a decent man in the Oval Office in the most desperate way. I long to know that my president loves my country and wants her to succeed and prosper. Third, I long for a president who tells the truth. Rick Santorum fulfills all those needs I have at a very basic level. Politics aside.
-
I think he's a decent man.
My comments are meant to be on his politics
We do need those, IDP.
But we also need someone who respects Constitutional principles
Not sure Rick is the guy
I long for a decent man in the Oval Office in the most desperate way. I long to know that my president loves my country and wants her to succeed and prosper. Third, I long for a president who tells the truth. Rick Santorum fulfills all those needs I have at a very basic level. Politics aside.
-
Not sure why he thinks he can run for Pres when he couldn't win his own state
Another waste of time and money .
-
Not sure why he thinks he can run for Pres when he couldn't win his own state
Another waste of time and money .
I agree, he's not going anywhere. I don't think the nominee has yet been revealed.
-
I guess I will be in the minority but I find Senator Santorum to be a man of Integrity of high morals and a good, decent and Godly man. A man at this time I feel our country sorely needs.
I have been listening to Senator Santorum as he has guest hosted for Bill Bennett's Morning in America every Friday for the past year.
I find Senator Santorum very good on foreign policy, he is a friend of Israel and understands the problems with Islam when he says Jihadism is evil and we need to say what it is. We need to define it and say what it is. And it is evil. Sharia law is incompatible with American jurisprudence and our Constitution.
He is adamantly opposed to obamacare and I feel he has a good handle on the nations ecomomy and its problems and has good ideas on how to fix it. He also supports Paul Ryan and does not speak badly of him like others who are supposedly on our side.
To me however what is most important is he is dead on the social issues that I feel form the foundation of our country. He represents his views well on his beliefs in Judeo-Christian values and lives those values not only in talk but in action. Senator Santourm has a special needs child who loves her beyond words and I realize in my older years I am becoming a softy but a man who has not chose to terminate what some call a “mistake or flawed child” to me is a man of Integrity who not only talks the walk but also walks the talk.
As far as other candiades go I like and would happly support Herman Cain, I have problems with Romney as many can understand and being from Minnesocold I am not a huge supporter of T-Paw as when governeror commited the "unforgivable" sin as far as a conservatives in St. Paul goes and that was he did fight very hard or so it seems to defund LIGHT RAIL…………………………………….
So for the moment until Govenor Palin or Congresswomen Bachmann gets into the race or whoever else, I am strongly considering giving my support for Santorum.
-
very nice magnum. thanks for the well thought out comments.
-
I forgot to comment on this thread last night, but I agree with AmericanPatriot. He doesn't stand a chance.
He got stomped when he ran for re-election to the Senate in 2006. In 2004 when Pat Toomey challenged Arlen Specter in the primary, President Bush and Senator Santorum campaigned for Specter. Toomey lost by less than 1% of the vote, and there is no doubt in my mind that he would have won if not for Bush and Santorum intervening.
That was the year I registered Republican for the first time in my life, specifically to vote for Toomey in the primary.
Santorum is primarily known as a social conservative, and whatever the merits of those positions, keep in mind that there are tens of millions of people who will crawl across broken glass to vote against someone like that. Like it or not, that's just a fact. That is probably also responsible for most of the negative attitudes towards Sarah Palin.
A social conservative just isn't going to win. There is a great perception that social conservatives are willing to use the power of government to enforce their moral values, and there is considerable opposition and resistance to that. What we need now are economic and small-government conservatives. A true Constitutional, small-government conservative who also has socially conservative values might have a chance if he or she can convince enough people that they won't do that. Palin might be able to pull it off, but so far it seems that not enough people believe that.
He seems like a nice enough guy, but I don't know what makes him think he has a snowball's chance in hell.
-
I forgot to comment on this thread last night, but I agree with AmericanPatriot. He doesn't stand a chance.
He got stomped when he ran for re-election to the Senate in 2006. In 2004 when Pat Toomey challenged Arlen Specter in the primary, President Bush and Senator Santorum campaigned for Specter. Toomey lost by less than 1% of the vote, and there is no doubt in my mind that he would have won if not for Bush and Santorum intervening.
That was the year I registered Republican for the first time in my life, specifically to vote for Toomey in the primary.
Santorum is primarily known as a social conservative, and whatever the merits of those positions, keep in mind that there are tens of millions of people who will crawl across broken glass to vote against someone like that. Like it or not, that's just a fact. That is probably also responsible for most of the negative attitudes towards Sarah Palin.
A social conservative just isn't going to win. There is a great perception that social conservatives are willing to use the power of government to enforce their moral values, and there is considerable opposition and resistance to that. What we need now are economic and small-government conservatives. A true Constitutional, small-government conservative who also has socially conservative values might have a chance if he or she can convince enough people that they won't do that. Palin might be able to pull it off, but so far it seems that not enough people believe that.
He seems like a nice enough guy, but I don't know what makes him think he has a snowball's chance in hell.
I blame Bush for that one.Santorum was just doing what he was asked to do. But he doesn't have a hope in hell.
-
He got stomped when he ran for re-election to the Senate in 2006. In 2004 when Pat Toomey challenged Arlen Specter in the primary, President Bush and Senator Santorum campaigned for Specter. Toomey lost by less than 1% of the vote, and there is no doubt in my mind that he would have won if not for Bush and Santorum intervening.
He's on the wrong team.
Yeah, it will take more than a just a social conservative, it will take a conservative through and through, and a tip of the hat to libertarians.
-
What we need now are economic and small-government conservatives.
I agree, and I tend to believe the small-government conservatism automatically covers the social issues in that such a person is not inclined to use the power of the government to legislate theocratically, but won't be inclined to assist the left's nihilism either.
-
I forgot to comment on this thread last night, but I agree with AmericanPatriot. He doesn't stand a chance.
He got stomped when he ran for re-election to the Senate in 2006. In 2004 when Pat Toomey challenged Arlen Specter in the primary, President Bush and Senator Santorum campaigned for Specter. Toomey lost by less than 1% of the vote, and there is no doubt in my mind that he would have won if not for Bush and Santorum intervening.
That was the year I registered Republican for the first time in my life, specifically to vote for Toomey in the primary.
Santorum is primarily known as a social conservative, and whatever the merits of those positions, keep in mind that there are tens of millions of people who will crawl across broken glass to vote against someone like that. Like it or not, that's just a fact. That is probably also responsible for most of the negative attitudes towards Sarah Palin.
A social conservative just isn't going to win. There is a great perception that social conservatives are willing to use the power of government to enforce their moral values, and there is considerable opposition and resistance to that. What we need now are economic and small-government conservatives. A true Constitutional, small-government conservative who also has socially conservative values might have a chance if he or she can convince enough people that they won't do that. Palin might be able to pull it off, but so far it seems that not enough people believe that.
He seems like a nice enough guy, but I don't know what makes him think he has a snowball's chance in hell.
I believe a social conservative can win, but does not need to be the focus of a Presidential run, in lite of our economic woes. We need a strong fiscal conservative, who will be steadfast when the hate rain falls...and it will fall. But I also do not want my conservative candidate to shy away from thier beliefs, socially. We need to frame the debate, not allow the debate to be framed for us. Admitedly, difficult when every media outlet will jump on any preceived "weakness"....But good leaders understand how to take a preceived negative and turn it into a positive...and if we can't do this in regards to our beliefs, we are already defeated.
Because there are those who will crawl thru glass with any true conservative....and almost every true conservative is socially in line with my beliefs. It comes down to what the media and liberals feel will be the best line of attack.
And personally, I'm glad he is in the race...even if he doesn't have a snowballs chance, as long as, at some point, he recoginzes it and throws his socially conservative support behind the right candidate. His beliefs can have a positive influence.
-
There is a great perception that social conservatives are willing to use the power of government to enforce their moral values
It just occurred to me that this may be yet another example of projection by leftists.
-
There is a great perception that social conservatives are willing to use the power of government to enforce their moral values
It just occurred to me that this may be yet another example of projection by leftists.
I believe you are correct.
-
What we need now are economic and small-government conservatives.
I agree, and I tend to believe the small-government conservatism automatically covers the social issues in that such a person is not inclined to use the power of the government to legislate theocratically, but won't be inclined to assist the left's nihilism either.
I know of one congressman who ran as a fiscal conservative and social moderate. He wouldn't vote to defund Planned Parenthood.
-
What we need now are economic and small-government conservatives.
I agree, and I tend to believe the small-government conservatism automatically covers the social issues in that such a person is not inclined to use the power of the government to legislate theocratically, but won't be inclined to assist the left's nihilism either.
I know of one congressman who ran as a fiscal conservative and social moderate. He wouldn't vote to defund Planned Parenthood.
I wouldn't call that "small government". Would you?
-
What we need now are economic and small-government conservatives.
I agree, and I tend to believe the small-government conservatism automatically covers the social issues in that such a person is not inclined to use the power of the government to legislate theocratically, but won't be inclined to assist the left's nihilism either.
I know of one congressman who ran as a fiscal conservative and social moderate. He wouldn't vote to defund Planned Parenthood.
I wouldn't call that "small government". Would you?
Nope, but I know folks from his district that read that as small government-- ::facepalm::
-
What we need now are economic and small-government conservatives.
I agree, and I tend to believe the small-government conservatism automatically covers the social issues in that such a person is not inclined to use the power of the government to legislate theocratically, but won't be inclined to assist the left's nihilism either.
Yes, and it would be to his benefit if he could illustrate such positions by consistent actions in his history.
-
I heard his segment on Hannity this afternoon, and I liked what I heard.
I tend to agree with Don. I'm glad he's in the race, if for no other reason than what he will bring to the table, and the support he will offer to a credible conservative candidate should he feel the need to exit the race. I also think in spite of his establishment history (Specter, etc), he would be a good possible choice for VP.
There's something that's been gnawing at me a little bit, and I'll just say it. There are many pubbie politicians who are essentially conservative and have tried to fight the good fight, but who have been playing by a set of rules that no longer exist. For instance, Santorum supported Specter because it was what was expected of him as a team player. We justifiably see it as unprincipled, and nakedly political - which it is. But Santorum was playing by the rules as he knew them.
Now we (Tea Party, etc) have changed the rules in one fell swoop. We demand principle and authenticity over expediency and backscratching.
Does that automatically mean that every conservative politician who played by the old rules is incapable of adapting to the new rules? Does it automatically mean that if they dare try, we assume they are lying and disingenuous?
They (not all of them, but I'm talking about the few good and decent people) were just being what they thought they were supposed to be, and we rightfully decided that was no longer good enough, and created a new standard and demanded that conservative politicians adhere to it.
Does that mean someone like Santorum who only a few short years ago was considered to be the quintessential conservative now has no opportunity to reorient himself around the conservative principles we demand?
-
Does that mean someone like Santorum who only a few short years ago was considered to be the quintessential conservative now has no opportunity to reorient himself around the conservative principles we demand?
Good question.
Seriously, I mean that.
BUT
How much time do should we give them?
We've already figured it out...what have they been doing?
-
...We've already figured it out...what have they been doing?
Playing by the old rules, and being left in the dust by events driven by the people.
We're trying to force politicians to enact our will. Does that mean we have to start from scratch, and jettison every politician who has disappointed us in the past - or in some instances who disappoint us only in retrospect because our standard has changed, replacing them with new people who promise to do better? Or do we recognize that some good people have potential to adapt to our demands?
I'm just asking the question, and it is Santorum's entering into the race that has focused the question in my mind.
-
...We've already figured it out...what have they been doing?
Playing by the old rules, and being left in the dust by events driven by the people.
We're trying to force politicians to enact our will. Does that mean we have to start from scratch, and jettison every politician who has disappointed us in the past - or in some instances who disappoint us only in retrospect because our standard has changed, replacing them with new people who promise to do better? Or do we recognize that some good people have potential to adapt to our demands?
I'm just asking the question, and it is Santorum's entering into the race that has focused the question in my mind.
It depends on how fast they adapt; narrow window. We have and they need to as well. Times have changed.
A "leader" that cannot morph as required is no leader, so, yes, we jettison every one that hasn't grasped the new reality. Business can turn on a dime. Business is led by humans, politics is no different. 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.
-
Does a leopard change his spots?
Not to pick on Santorumm, but to use him as an example.
His success was in the old system.
He really hasn't shown that he gets it.
Small government and fiscal conservatism thay's Constitutional based.
I'd say we need new leaders that haven't been tarnished by the old ways.
Outsiders and not present or retread insiders
-
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.
-
"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
-
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!
-
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.
-
IDP I appreciate your comments. I do think some people can change and adjust.
Still I'm more inclined to ::clapping:: 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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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'.
-
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.
-
"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
-
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.
-
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.
-
[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]
::USA::
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.
-
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.
-
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 .
-
Don, my complete purity may be different than another's.
But how about a little bit of purity from these guys (and gals)?
-
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.
-
Even Reagan , God bless him , made compromises in the face of reality . He , above all others , knew the necessity of deal-making in politics . He just refused to give away the store .
-
Even Reagan , God bless him , made compromises in the face of reality . He , above all others , knew the necessity of deal-making in politics . He just refused to give away the store .
He should have left a how to book for dummies.
-
Even Reagan , God bless him , made compromises in the face of reality . He , above all others , knew the necessity of deal-making in politics . He just refused to give away the store .
He should have left a how to book for dummies.
He was the book.
-
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.
::USA::
This election is for the heart and soul of the nation.
If we elect a 'get-a-long' the Republic is history.
It's time for a revival of the Republic.
Nail the bawls to the wall.
-
Even Reagan , God bless him , made compromises in the face of reality . He , above all others , knew the necessity of deal-making in politics . He just refused to give away the store .
He didn't run on a platform of compromise or answer many questions with "I dunno, I'll get back to you after I figure out what the right answer is". Deal-making after your elected is one thing, and every "deal" he did was with the goal in mind of advancing conservative (his!) ideals. Annual appropriations aside, he was enormously successful, and with a hostile opposition congress! he got them to compromise a hell of a lot more than they got him! If you recall, it was the dem's who backslided on their deficit promises and caused the debt of that era, Reagan won all the other battles.
I guess I am foolish to think that can ever be replicated ever again, maybe it won't, but it is the template to aim for.
-
Even Reagan , God bless him , made compromises in the face of reality . He , above all others , knew the necessity of deal-making in politics . He just refused to give away the store .
He didn't run on a platform of compromise or answer many questions with "I dunno, I'll get back to you after I figure out what the right answer is". Deal-making after your elected is one thing, and every "deal" he did was with the goal in mind of advancing conservative (his!) ideals. Annual appropriations aside, he was enormously successful, and with a hostile opposition congress! he got them to compromise a hell of a lot more than they got him! If you recall, it was the dem's who backslided on their deficit promises and caused the debt of that era, Reagan won all the other battles.
I guess I am foolish to think that can ever be replicated ever again, maybe it won't, but it is the template to aim for.
We can try but we can't get stuck on it.
-
[blockquote]If you recall, it was the dem's who backslided on their deficit promises and caused the debt of that era, Reagan won all the other battles.
I guess I am foolish to think that can ever be replicated ever again, maybe it won't, but it is the template to aim for.
[/blockquote]
Reagan said he intended to do three things, only three things, and all his activity was directed to their accomplishment. This conversation would be enriched by that quote. ::gaah:: I cannot remember enough of it to cue it in Bing or even Goolge. ::gaah::
-
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.
You can tell you're over the target by the flak you're taking.
-
Even Reagan , God bless him , made compromises in the face of reality . He , above all others , knew the necessity of deal-making in politics . He just refused to give away the store .
He didn't run on a platform of compromise or answer many questions with "I dunno, I'll get back to you after I figure out what the right answer is". Deal-making after your elected is one thing, and every "deal" he did was with the goal in mind of advancing conservative (his!) ideals. Annual appropriations aside, he was enormously successful, and with a hostile opposition congress! he got them to compromise a hell of a lot more than they got him! If you recall, it was the dem's who backslided on their deficit promises and caused the debt of that era, Reagan won all the other battles.
I guess I am foolish to think that can ever be replicated ever again, maybe it won't, but it is the template to aim for.
We can try but we can't get stuck on it.
Exactly . Reagan never got stuck on a point of ideology to his detriment . If we look for the pure idealogue who fullfills our every requirement we're going to be not only disappointed ... We'll get killed next November .
-
" If we look for the pure idealogue who fullfills our every requirement we're going to be not only disappointed ... We'll get killed next November "
But we need someone with core principles.
That person can win if they can deliver the message
-
" If we look for the pure idealogue who fullfills our every requirement we're going to be not only disappointed ... We'll get killed next November "
But we need someone with core principles.
That person can win if they can deliver the message
Principles go a long way, that would be refereshing!
-
" If we look for the pure idealogue who fullfills our every requirement we're going to be not only disappointed ... We'll get killed next November "
But we need someone with core principles.
That person can win if they can deliver the message
::bashing::
-
" If we look for the pure idealogue who fullfills our every requirement we're going to be not only disappointed ... We'll get killed next November "
But we need someone with core principles.
That person can win if they can deliver the message
That's tha problem who with principles would want to go through the he!! it takes?
::gaah:: ::praying::