Rick Santorum and the two playbooks
[Posted by Karl]
Rich Santorum surges to a 38-23% national lead over Mitt Romney in the latest PPP poll. Indeed, “Santorum gets to 50% in the Newt free field to 28% for Romney and 15% for Paul.” (Of course, the field is not Newtless… yet.) Per usual, I am inclined to throw cold water on momentary buzz, in this case the excitement over discovering a potential consensus NotRomney.
Most would say that Santorum’s most surprising and impressive win to date was the Colorado caucus. Although weather and Romney’s overconfidence may have been factors in that win, there were likely deeper factors at work there. However, it is not clear those factors would benefit the GOP in a general election.
Seth Masket’s statistical breakdown of the Colorado win confirms a fair amount of the conventional wisdom about Santorum’s victory there, i.e., he won conservatives and his voters were more enthusiastic. But another graph shows another result that is perhaps not unexpected, but telling:
Romney’s caucus vote correlates highly with the 2010 primary vote for U.S. Senate candidate Jane Norton. Norton, you may recall, was the candidate with the solid resume, lots of insider support, and a huge monetary advantage whom the activist base nonetheless didn’t like, and she lost to a Tea Party-backed conservative. Sound familiar?
Indeed it does. Norton lost to Ken Buck, who lost in the general election. That loss is generally attributed to Buck’s comments on social issues like abortion and homosexuality, not to mention what was perceived as a gender-based attack on Norton herself.
Team Obama has pretty openly declared that one of its two playbooks would be to exploit social issues in hopes of winning Western swing states like Colorado and Nevada (where Sharron Angle similarly lost in 2010). Santorum has an expanding library of exploitable quotations on social issues and consistently criticizes the more libertarian factions of the party. In the remaining GOP field, there may be no candidate who more strongly plays into this Democrat strategy.
However, lest you think I am implicitly shilling for Romney by dumping on Santorum, note that Obama’s other playbook (2004 over 2010) is based on defining Romney as an inauthentic plutocrat, in hopes of holding the Rust Belt, including Ohio. The latest Rasmussen poll has Santorum as the better candidate against Obama. The latest Susquehanna poll has Romney and Santorum in a dead heat in Pennsylvania, but Romney as the marginally better candidate against Obama (which may change quickly if Santorum continues to surge). And PPP may well show the same surge in Michigan (although a GOP win there in November still strikes me as a long shot, regardless of candidate).
This is why a growing regional divide among the right — and having a candidate with broad appeal to more than one region, especially in a general election — matters.
–Karl
Ding!
Karl (8cdbad) — 2/11/2012 @ 9:20 amThere is no way that Rick Santorum can win the general election. A vote for Santorum is a vote for Obama.
Kevin M (563f77) — 2/11/2012 @ 9:26 amChristine O’Santorum?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/11/2012 @ 9:30 amIf we run a man who is primarily (and correctly) viewed as a culture warrior with no executive competence, at a time when the country badly needs renewed economic freedom, competence and far fewer wedge-issues diversions, then we deserve to lose.
Kevin M (563f77) — 2/11/2012 @ 9:39 amSantorum did not go back to Pennsylvania after he lost his Senate seat in 2006. Like all his professional pol friends, he became a lobbyist.
Mike K (9ebddd) — 2/11/2012 @ 9:48 amSantorum is the only candidate that gives me hope for the GOP. As for his electability, the same thing was said about Reagan (by no less than ex-President “nobody to the right of me can be elected” Ford.)
nk (3d837f) — 2/11/2012 @ 9:49 amNeither Santorum or Gingrich have what it will take to defeat Obama. Just my opinion, but they don’t have the chops.
Colonel Haiku (469872) — 2/11/2012 @ 9:50 amAnd I like the name Santorum. Gingrich? Romney? Those are names for car salesmen. 😉
nk (3d837f) — 2/11/2012 @ 9:51 amObama…
Colonel Haiku (469872) — 2/11/2012 @ 9:53 ambarack obama
Colonel Haiku (469872) — 2/11/2012 @ 9:55 amno dalai lama is he
closer to Trotsky
Maybe Obama started a trend with exotic-sounding Presidential names? 😉 The closest my half brain can think of, of the Presidents on the dollar bill, are the Roosevelts. 😉
nk (3d837f) — 2/11/2012 @ 9:56 amPerry perry bo-berry
Colonel Haiku (469872) — 2/11/2012 @ 9:57 ambonana-fana-fo-fairy
fee-fi-mo Mary
Perry
FWIW, remember that it was Bob Casey, Jr., a Pro-Life Democrat son of a well-loved conservative Democrat governor, perhaps the last of the breed. Bob Casey (Sr.) and George W. Bush were roughly the same general tone, conservative on moral issues but more dem-lite on govt programs. (At least this is my gestalt.)
So, that is the kind of voter the PA voters flocked to, someone they thought was “compassionate” like the Dems, and pro-life enough but not too much. His father was famous for being denied the opportunity to speak at a Dem Nat Conference because they were afraid he was going to give a Pro-Life plea.
Of course, the Dems and media did not vilify Casey’s pro-life stance, they pretty much ignored it and let the Pro-Life community spread that news. (Personally, I saw it as a sell-out and emailed him so even before he officially became a candidate- why he didn’t listen to me I’ll never know…)
Tons of things to campaign on. IF it could be shown that Santorum’s views are actually closer to the average American’s than Obama’s pro-infanticide, left-of-Pelosi views, it would be a winning point. The obvious question is whether that would ever rise above the MSM narrative.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/11/2012 @ 9:59 ama little trick with tuck
Colonel Haiku (469872) — 2/11/2012 @ 10:01 amTucker tucker bo-bucker
bonana-fana-fo-fu… whoops!
My daughter introduced me to Phineas and Ferb and I got hooked. I watched every episode on Netflix. I love Perry the Platypus but Heinz Doofenschmirtz is a name you can conjure with.
nk (3d837f) — 2/11/2012 @ 10:02 amThe obvious question is whether that would ever rise above the MSM narrative.
The media is truly in the bag, so that is true of all Republican candidates, whatever the issue.
Colonel Haiku (469872) — 2/11/2012 @ 10:02 amPhilp Klein on sickos hero:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/walkers-courageous-conservatism/370051
York on the man card played too often:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/did-romney-quell-conservative-doubts/370471
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/11/2012 @ 10:08 am15. I go to Disney for Phineas and Ferb after Sprout before Nickelodeon for the Squirt. Might as well be entertained too.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/11/2012 @ 10:10 amNot sure exactly what Santorum was doing after he lost the election. My understanding was he was running his own outfit more or less lobbying for conservatism, a little like Palin but not as visible. He also had his national media exposure for many months being the regular Fri. morning guest host for Bill Bennett’s am radio show.
I actually sent him an email regarding a school issue in PA, and while he did not answer personally, one of his staff gave me the information I needed from Santorum (for free).
Santorum would likely get the enthusiasm of many Palin supporters, especially the women voters who identified more with Palin than the “typical” female politician. One question would be would he draw as much negative as Palin?
The most active group against Santorum, as easily discovered by googling his name, is the gay rights community. There was a time that the conservative vote was drawn out big time voting on gay-marriage referendums which were soundly defeated, I believe 2004. Like most vocal and public opponents of gay-marriage, the main desire is to keep marriage defined as it is. To those who equate that with being hateful, so be it. But two guys walking down the street at night hand in hand would not need be afraid coming upon Santorum and his friends, FWIW.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/11/2012 @ 10:17 amhey nk and gary,
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/11/2012 @ 10:19 am“Whatcha doin?”
I’m sitting under the virtual tree.
nk (3d837f) — 2/11/2012 @ 10:27 amWhat the Perry-Cain-Gingrich-Santorum surges tell me is conservatives in every region (except possibly the Northeast) are concerned about nominating Romney. Romney has everything going for him but he can’t seal the deal with conservative voters. The longer this goes on, the more likely someone else will.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/11/2012 @ 10:27 amSantorum ick
he’s weird
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/11/2012 @ 10:41 amSome advice for Rick Santorum…
EBL (f71fce) — 2/11/2012 @ 10:55 amRomney has everything going for him but he can’t seal the deal with conservative voters. The longer this goes on, the more likely someone else will.
And yet, per Jay Cost’s analysis, Romney has won more conservative votes to this point.
Colonel Haiku (469872) — 2/11/2012 @ 11:27 amI think Karl would be right if we were running against a Clinton.
People despise Obama. Romney would have a better cahnce, but I think Santorum could win big if Obama keeps being Obama. Santorum’s extreme views are not as extreme as you think, and the overiding issue even the Media will have difficulty obscuring is the Obama economy. As Europe teeters the lesson will become more clear.
What Santorum needs to do for my vote again (I’m a Pennsylvanian) is convince me that he will not govern as a senator. We don’t need a conservative Obama. I want an authentic conservative, social and economic, but I also demand one who can govern. Santorum’s ability to communicate already has me almost there. I hope he can keep it up without getting into the verbal traps he has in the past, and these will continue to haunt him.
Now he needs to effectively promote lots of specific workable economic plans, and he needs to have people around him who can implement them. He needs to comment intelligently on foreign policy. He needs to demonstrate a mastery of the mechanics of federal administration.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 2/11/2012 @ 11:39 amAmphipolis… watching Dorothy Rabinowitz on the WSJ show on Fox News a few minutes ago, she mentioned a plethora of what she termed “unacceptable” quotes attributable to Santorum related to his social conservatism. The only one that she specifically went into detail about was Santorum saying that re-hearing a JFK speech on separation of church and state made him [Santorum] “want to vomit”.
I don’t know enough about his views in this area, but Rabinowitz piqued my curiosity.
Colonel Haiku (469872) — 2/11/2012 @ 11:47 amColonel –
The media, and socially liberal Republicans (and libertarians?), will do everything they can to paint Santorum as a crazy zealot. If that was her best example, you see what I mean – so what? Those compassionate liberals have already tried and failed to poison Santorum by callously making him the dead baby candidate.
Santorum needs to be very careful what he says, he has said some stupid (ie impolitic) things in the past. But I don’t think any, in context, are out of the norm of politically incorrect America, although I’m sure I haven’t heard them all.
My hope is that he will be able to break through with a flood of reasonable and pithy conservative statements centering on the economy and the total irresponsibility of the Democrats. He’ll need to keep this up all the way to November.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 2/11/2012 @ 12:04 pmIf the tea party supports santorum, we lose all credibility. He’s a big government progressive. It’s not that we spent too much money, but that we spent money on democrat policies instead of republican policies.
I didn’t think that’s what we were about. I can accept that no one likes my guy. He’s out there. But santorum? Really?
Ghost (6f9de7) — 2/11/2012 @ 12:06 pmHe’s a big government progressive?
That’s just crazy.
Libertarians loose all credibility when they say that. Come out and say that you disagree with his social positions, but don’t hide behind “big government” scare tactics.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 2/11/2012 @ 12:17 pmListening to third-hand gossip again, Colonel?
Icy (c9fff2) — 2/11/2012 @ 12:23 pmJust made me curious enough to see what the fuss is about, Icy.
Colonel Haiku (469872) — 2/11/2012 @ 12:28 pm“This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.”
“What was my vision? I came to the uncomfortable realization that conservatives were not only reluctant to spend government dollars on the poor, they hadn’t even thought much about what might work better. I often describe my conservative colleagues during this time as simply ‘cheap liberals.’ My own economically modest personal background and my faith had taught me to care for those who are less fortunate, but I too had not yet given much thought to the proper role of government in this mission.”
That’s Rick santorum in his own words. You lose credibility when you don’t vet your candidate. If you want more big government, then yes, Santorum is your guy. He might not spend as much as Obama, but spend it he will.
Medicare part D, no child left behind, his support for NDAA… If that’s the face you want for republicans, then we all lose.
Ghost (c3709d) — 2/11/2012 @ 12:37 pmThe Col. whistles the Stars & Stripes a lot (especially past the graveyard) but he can’t get anyone to salute that poor excuse of a flag he keeps running up that flagpole.
AD-RtR/OS! (0ac475) — 2/11/2012 @ 12:59 pmYeah, and welfare reform. Santorum is no entitlement pusher.
they hadn’t even thought much about what might work better – better than spending government dollars on the poor.
He made a lot of wrong votes to support the Republican team back then. His worst action, the one that cost him conservative support in his last election, was his endorsement of Specter over Toomey. That still bothers me.
He’s not the perfect candidate. I stated some of my objections to him above. But saying he is Big Government is crazy – it’s just crazy, and I think disingenuous.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 2/11/2012 @ 1:15 pmone complication I see is that when people get to know santorum they’ll find him weird and repulsive, which will make it very difficult for him to get the nomination
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/11/2012 @ 1:20 pmGee, another visibly flawed candidate leaping to the top of a poll after a burst of publicity. It’s not as if we’ve been seeing that for almost a year now (Donald Trump, anyone?) or anything.
M. Scott Eiland (003254) — 2/11/2012 @ 1:50 pmbut he can’t get anyone to salute that poor excuse of a flag he keeps running up that flagpole.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS!
h8ters gotta h8te!
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 1:51 pmI will vote “Rick” if time comes
have my doubts it will
“I suspect some will dismiss my ideas as just an extended version of ‘compassionate conservatism.’ Some will reject what I have said as a kind of ‘Big Government Conservatism.’ Some will say that what I’ve tried to argue isn’t conservatism at all. But I believe what I’ve been presenting is the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned. One that fosters the opportunity for all Americans to live as we are called to live, in selfless families that contribute to the general welfare, the common good.”
“One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in the cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world.”
I’m sorry you fell for the bait, Amphipolis, but the only thing disingenuous would be to claim that Rick santorum wants a smaller government. He’s saying it right there in his own words, he disagrees that taxes should be kept down or that regulations should be low.
How do you accomplish those things without a big government? Answer that and stay fashionable.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 2/11/2012 @ 1:52 pmSpeaking of L(l)ibertarians and the Tea Party, Jim DeMint was interviewed in Reason:
“More recently, DeMint has been leaning libertarian. His new book, Now or Never: Saving America from Economic Collapse, is a warning to the nation that we need radical spending cuts (including putting defense spending on the table) or else face economic oblivion. And he was instrumental in getting Tea Party Republicans elected in 2010, including the most libertarian member of the caucus, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who also wrote the foreword to DeMint’s book.”
Video of DeMint talking with Reason’s Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch at the link.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (8b4baf) — 2/11/2012 @ 1:53 pmdo the “Not-Romney”!
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 1:54 pmfirst you flip and then you flop
any girl will do
the Not-Romney peeps
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 1:57 pmtried more flavors-of-day than
Baskin-Robbins gots
Santorum made those Big Government Conservative remarks in 2008, according to Red State. Has he changed his mind since then?
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (8b4baf) — 2/11/2012 @ 1:58 pmput away yer school-girl diaries… yer knight in shining armor ain’t comin’ this year. He took a job at the car wash.
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 2:01 pmFox News is sayin’ that Romney won the straw poll… Romney 38%, Santorum 31%, Gingrich 15%, Paul 12%.
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 2:04 pmSantorum is a huge whore for the American Family Association whose one million twats campaign wants us to boycott JC Penney’s cause they hired Ellen for their commercials and stuff
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/11/2012 @ 2:09 pmjust keep swimming just keep swimming
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/11/2012 @ 2:12 pmGiven the Santorum doesn’t seem to have much in the way of fiscal conservative bona fides, why is “the base” rallying to him? Is it just because of social issues?
Or is it the idea that Romney is the establishment candidate and therefore we have to nominate someone the establishment doesn’t prefer?
If it’s the second, then the base has pretty much gone off the deep end. Their focus is not on any rational objective. I consider myself part of the conservative base of the Republican party. I wanted someone other than Romney. First I wanted Pawlenty, then Perry, but after them the pickings were suddenly slim. However, this mania about “The Republican Establishment” is resembling the way the left tends to focus on abstractions, which is what “The Republican Establishment” is, rather than the real world, resulting in predictably loony real world results.
I’m open to the possibility that Santorum would prove to be stronger than Romney against Obama but if it becomes clear that he isn’t, then continuing to back him to prove that “The Republican Establishment” can’t get their way is adolescent at best and moonbat loony at worst.
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 2/11/2012 @ 2:19 pmWalker in a brokered convention.
sickofrinos (44de53) — 2/11/2012 @ 2:31 pmThat is a disingenuous reading of what Santorum said, ghost. Punctuation gives clues as to what he was saying. Some think we should keep taxes low, minimize regulation. I think we should do that as well as what followed is a more fair reading.
JD (5f146b) — 2/11/2012 @ 2:33 pmI am no Santorum fan, I just cannot stomach douchey attacks. He is the only one speaking eloquently of liberty, as opposed to being a better manager of the State, driving us off the cliff, slower.
JD (5f146b) — 2/11/2012 @ 2:35 pmJD,
Ghost’s statements seem to follow from the plain English reading of what Santorum said. I’d vote for Santorum (or Romney) over Obama, but Santorum explicitly rejected a small-government agenda.
If you can point to any more recent comments by Santorum indicating that he’s changed those views, I’d like to see them.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (8b4baf) — 2/11/2012 @ 2:44 pmI’m abo.
sickofrinos (44de53) — 2/11/2012 @ 2:47 pmMy favorite Santorum Quote-“I am no longer a deficit hawk, I had to spend the surplus”.
Ghost specifically said that Santorum does not think taxes should be kept down, or regulations low. I don’t agree with Santorum’s big govt social conservatism, but that does not make what ghost said true.
JD (5f146b) — 2/11/2012 @ 2:50 pmJD,
Santorum said:
“One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in the cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world.”
Since Santorum calls himself a traditional conservative, in that passage he rejected those things. His description of traditional conservatives is also partly false, because they do want to keep taxes and regulations down.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (8b4baf) — 2/11/2012 @ 2:57 pmNational Review published an article last month from a Cato Institute staffer making those same criticisms of Santorum:.
Santorum’s voting record shows that he embraced George Bush–style “big-government conservatism.” For example, he supported the Medicare prescription-drug benefit and No Child Left Behind.
He never met an earmark that he didn’t like. In fact, it wasn’t just earmarks for his own state that he favored, which might be forgiven as pure electoral pragmatism, but earmarks for everyone, including the notorious “Bridge to Nowhere.” The quintessential Washington insider, he worked closely with Tom DeLay to set up the “K Street Project,” linking lobbyists with the GOP leadership.
He voted against NAFTA and has long opposed free trade. He backed higher tariffs on everything from steel to honey. He still supports an industrial policy with the government tilting the playing field toward manufacturing industries and picking winners and losers.
————————-
I’m willing to hold my nose and vote for Santorum if need be. But let’s be honest about what he stands for.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (8b4baf) — 2/11/2012 @ 3:00 pmI didnt read it that way, and still dont, but can see how one might, were you not prone to agree with him.
JD (5f146b) — 2/11/2012 @ 3:01 pmwait a minute… Santorum voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals?
sonuvabiatchola!
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 3:02 pmBrother Bradley – I was simply responding to taxes and regulation. Many, if not most, on Team R lost their cred on these issues in the 2000s.
JD (5f146b) — 2/11/2012 @ 3:03 pmAgain, rich for a Rombey fanboi to attack judicial opponents.
JD (5f146b) — 2/11/2012 @ 3:04 pmThat’s true, JD. On the positive side, Santorum is far stronger than Romney and Gingrich against the global warming hype and government health care. Those two things are huge, because they represent the institutionalization of big government.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (8b4baf) — 2/11/2012 @ 3:06 pmSantorum sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending.
sickofrinos (44de53) — 2/11/2012 @ 3:06 pmSantorum sponsored or cosponsored zero bills to cut spending.
I can pick the carcass of mittens if you’d like. I am an equal opportunity basher of all rinos. But am abo.
WTF!… Santorum supported Arlen “Don’t Call me Phil” Specter’s 1995 presidential bid?!?!
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 3:07 pmWait, you are scared of the Left’s playbook? Your whole approach to choosing and supporting a candidate is from a defensive position? It sounds like more of a safety score for the other side than a winning Hail Mary pass. I believe in Conservatism. I believe in American cultural confidence. I believe in our founding documents. I believe in our Judeo-Christian moral foundation. I believe in Americans. I’ll not hold all the money and run the clock out with Romney for, win lose or draw, there would be little upon which to build the next generational winning season. I owe it to those who gave their last full measure of devotion to ensure America’s cultural inheritance so I will not cower and call a truce.
The depth of the hatred toward Santorum is not over social positions Obama himself holds but knowing this monstrous centralization of power in Obamacare will not stand. The “inevitability” the opposition craves is not in Mitt Romney as the nominee but enshrining health care as a “right.” Mr *I heart* Romneycare will repeal Obamacare? More fool us.
FeFe (c2547f) — 2/11/2012 @ 3:08 pmSorry, JD… I ride with Judge Robert Bork, not the Wise Latina…
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 3:08 pmLet me be clear… if Rick Santorum wins our party’s nomination, I will proudly donate cash to the cause. I’m not one of these “I’ll take my ball, go home, bite my pillow and cry myself to sleep” types.
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 3:16 pmBut… full disclosure… I have cornered the pillow market.
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 3:17 pmRomney wins CPAC and Maine… it’s a good Saturday for Romney.
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 3:25 pmMaine caucuses results: Romney 39%, 2190 votes; Paul 36%, 1996 votes; Santorum 18%, 989 votes; Newt 6%, 349 votes
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 3:27 pmHow many moose voted?
sickofrinos (44de53) — 2/11/2012 @ 3:38 pmthe same thing was said about Reagan
And about Goldwater.
Kevin M (563f77) — 2/11/2012 @ 3:56 pmCome out and say that you disagree with his social positions, but don’t hide behind “big government” scare tactics.
OK, I’ll say it. Rick Santorum is a right-wing control freak. He wants to use big government to enforce his social beliefs just as much as Ted Kennedy did. Whether I agree with him or not (about 50-50) isn’t the issue. I’s about control vs choice and he’s on the wrong side. He’s a statist and always has been. Sorry if you don’t believe that, but that’s the Rick Santorum I’ve seen for the last two decades.
Kevin M (563f77) — 2/11/2012 @ 4:02 pmda moose was loose in da hoose!
okay… back to the funereal mode, much sadness here, it seems…
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 4:03 pmPerry in 2020! Coyote Rules!
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 4:05 pmSantorum opposes birth control.
“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country…. Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
This just won’t fly in America today. This election needs to be about the economy. A super conservative social message is just going to let obummer change the subject and with the aid of the MSM, win.
Peter (89008a) — 2/11/2012 @ 4:10 pmNewt is becoming mute.
sickofrinos (44de53) — 2/11/2012 @ 4:39 pmPatterico has become a great place to find nice unsourced Santorum quotes. I guess I’m simply not used to that cherry-picking blog style. I’m sure they’re all spot-on, but how about y’all provide links for a little context?
It’s just the right, responsible thing to do. Wouldn’t want to quote IowaHawk or something by accident.
Here’s a new one: “If Obama is reelected we’re all going to die”
Amphipolis (e01538) — 2/11/2012 @ 4:41 pmPeter – did he follow that with a call for govt action?
JD (5f146b) — 2/11/2012 @ 4:42 pmJD
I didn’t twist anything santorum said. I just highlighted the parts that conservatives would be at odds with.
And again I point to the earlier quote where he disagrees with personal autonomy. How does that correlate with him being a champion of freedom?
If he’s your guy, then you should be making the case against freedom and for big government, not trying to pretend that Rick Santorum will reduce govt or increase freedoms. That’d be like Obama campaigning as the civil liberties, anti-war, pro-constitution candidate.
He’s the only guy I can’t hold my nose for. You may say its “taking my ball and going home,” but I won’t vote for someone who quite clearly despises me and my beliefs.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 2/11/2012 @ 4:43 pmYou apparently cannot read. He is not my guy.
JD (5f146b) — 2/11/2012 @ 4:44 pmAmphipolis
Some of the quotes are from his book, some are from interviews. It was really hard to track down these quotes, too. First, I had to go to google, then I had to type “Rick santorum big government quotes.” then I had to click search. Some were from that ultra liberal RedState, and one was from an interview he did with the republican hating O’Reilly.
Research your candidate. If you like him, then like him. Defend his positions, or say he’s changed. If you don’t like what you find, decide if you can live with it, and if you can’t, find someone else to support.
Ghost (c3709d) — 2/11/2012 @ 4:52 pmJD
Ghost (c3709d) — 2/11/2012 @ 4:55 pmThe “if he is your guy” was a rhetorical statement. It wasn’t aimed at you. Sorry for the confusion.
amphipolis-bing quotes by santorum. I hope your ready for non-conservative quotes.
sickofrinos (44de53) — 2/11/2012 @ 5:02 pmAmphipolis
I wish Ghost had provided the links too, but it’s easy enough to find the sources. And from what I’ve read, the Santorum quotes are in context. Moreover, there’s no sign Santorum has disputed their accuracy. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’d be relieved to see it.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (8b4baf) — 2/11/2012 @ 5:20 pmIt’s simple, many of the pundits and politicians have done their best to help Romney by bashing whoever is his best foe (note: I’m not referring to Karl here… he’s been one of the exceptions). Yet the party already considered Romney prior to Obamacare and saw him hide as the Tea Party emerged to fight Obamacare, and we’re quite sure we don’t want Romney.
So we have a flood of support from one guy to the next as the pundits and whomever struggly to keep up. Now this not Romney is particularly vulnerable. I know I’ve said I support Romney over Santorum simply on executive experience, though I think the party’s rejection of Romney stands for control of the GOP, and therefore stands for a real path forward to reform, so I am not sure which of these two I prefer (or more accurately, have less of a problem with).
Dustin (401f3a) — 2/11/2012 @ 5:27 pmSpeaking of divas, Whitney Houston… dead at the age of 48.
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 5:32 pmDustin,
Regarding Romney, here’s a good analysis of David Brooks’ strange column on how Romney should fake authenticity:
“Brooks wants a Sister Soulja moment. He also wants a dramatic, principled stand. We don’t agree that a candidate must conform to this dreamy template. But these are ideas that come from a novel—and its story-line doesn’t fit Mitt.
Our news has been novelized for a long time. In this case, it’s a bit like the old saw concerning sincerity. If Romney can learn to fake this novel, all else will follow from there!”
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (8b4baf) — 2/11/2012 @ 5:44 pmBro. Bradley – isn’t it sad that hoping someone can fake it good enough is the best available choice for some?
JD (318f81) — 2/11/2012 @ 5:49 pmRomney wins Maine 39to 36 today.
Romney wins CPAC straw poll today 39 Romney. 31 Santorum, Gingrich 16, Paul 7
bio mom (c82c6c) — 2/11/2012 @ 5:51 pmAmphipolis,
Here is a 45 minute Santorum interview posted October 18, 2011, at YouTube. I think it includes the quote Peter repeated above. I’ve transcribed the first few minutes of the interview in which Santorum answers a question about what his core values and convictions are, what “hill he’s willing to die on” (beginning at 3:35):
I apologize for only transcribing a portion of the interview, but it’s tedious to transcribe oral interviews and I only have limited time. I chose the beginning section because I couldn’t find it transcribed elsewhere and I think it adds context to Santorum’s other answers/quotes.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/11/2012 @ 5:54 pmRomney is in favor of, the stimulus, TARP, individual mandate, Cap and destroy, gun control laws, and automatic federal minimum wage increases tied to inflation. CPAC just made themselves anything but C
JD (318f81) — 2/11/2012 @ 5:56 pmJD,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (8b4baf) — 2/11/2012 @ 5:59 pmIndeed it is sad, but that’s our vacuous MSM for you. BTW, the site I linked to, Daily Howler, provides a lot of good MSM debunking, from a lefty who is unusually candid about the failings of his tribe. This analysis of the confusing coverage of the contraception mandate, and whether 28 states already have it, is well worth reading.
“…(L)iberals have been told about those 28 states all week long. The claim has been on wide display, voiced with perfect certitude. Is this factual claim correct? In our highly tribalized political culture, there are no facts any more!”
JD,
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air seems to think Tomney’s victory was expected:
Still, Romney won CPAC and Maine so I’d say this was a good day for Mitt.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/11/2012 @ 6:02 pmSorry for the typo. I meant Romney, not Tomney.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/11/2012 @ 6:03 pmSantorum is a social con not a fiscal con. Pork barrel spender, union supporter, lobbyist, Washington insider. Against Right To Work . Be fair. If Romney is held to past so should Santorum.
bio mom (c82c6c) — 2/11/2012 @ 6:07 pmSour grapes by Morrisey. No tweets today said that was expected.
bio mom (c82c6c) — 2/11/2012 @ 6:10 pmWhat was incorrect about his analysis, bio mom?
JD (318f81) — 2/11/2012 @ 6:12 pmThank you, DRJ, for that transcript above.
JD (318f81) — 2/11/2012 @ 6:12 pmA good day for Romney, but not enough to offset his losses earlier this week.
The CPAC vote historically hasn’t meant much, or we’d be talking about the re-election campaign of President Paul. Maine is a New England state, so Romney is a quasi-favorite son.
Michigan promises to be interesting.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (8b4baf) — 2/11/2012 @ 6:14 pmHere in California, we vote last, in June. Since it is unlikely that my vote in November will mean anything (if the Republican wins California it will just be while mopping up), it would be good to have the contest continue until then. Last time that happened (and the vote was in June) RFK won.
I wonder, though, if it comes to June and the remaining candidates are Santorum and Ron Paul … I think I go with Ron. Or maybe I write in Ronald Reagan. But I doubt I could bring myself to vote for Santorum in a primary.
Kevin M (563f77) — 2/11/2012 @ 6:20 pmRomney is in favor of, the stimulus
Are you saying Romney supported Obama’s stimulus?
individual mandate? He did not and has not supported a federal individual mandate.
Cap and destroy [trade]?
“As Massachusetts governor in 2003, Romney joined in support of a compact among several northeastern states to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. In a letter to then-New York Gov. George Pataki, he said, “I concur that climate change is beginning to affect our natural resources and that now is the time to take action toward climate protection.” The Economist named him a “Climate-Friendly” Republican in 2004.
But in 2005, the same day he announced he would not seek re-election, Romney abruptly pulled out of the regional cap-and-trade agreement. He told the New York Times the pact did not protect businesses and consumers from increased energy costs. Environmental advocates fumed.”
gun control laws? Who in their right mind does not support some form of gun control laws?
automatic federal minimum wage increases tied to inflation? yes, he does. Part of that safety net for the poor.
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 6:30 pmOr maybe I write in Ronald Reagan
why vote for a liberal, former ballet dancer/half-assed political pundit?
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 6:33 pmAll severely conservative, haiku.
JD (318f81) — 2/11/2012 @ 6:33 pmso… JD… gun control. You think people without criminal records who are over the age of 21 should be able to own automatic weapons? And if so, as many as they wish to purchase?
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 6:36 pmNo, that is ot my position, epwj. It is telling that you resort to smears so quickly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAGpLOKtQDA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Global cap and trade. Severely conservative.
JD (318f81) — 2/11/2012 @ 6:46 pmIt is true he did not support Obama’s implementation of the stimulus, but he supported stimulus focusing on tax cuts, infrastructure spending, and letting federal bureaucrats decided the winners and losers instead of politicians. He would have been a better manager of the stimulus.
JD (318f81) — 2/11/2012 @ 6:50 pmThanks DRJ.
I have seen quotes in other situations (such as Newt) that have no pedigree. It’s important that they be well sourced. I don’t post quotes without a link. The fact that it is difficult to find where some came from is automatically suspicious to me. And I’m not a big fan of Redstate.
If you post a quote, we have no obligation to accept it unless it is sourced. Period. It’s not up to us to google them. That’s not how it works, people. If you quote it, you support it, even by referencing some other blog – or don’t use it.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 2/11/2012 @ 6:50 pmI just asked you a question, JD. No reason to get upset or defensive. Your “gun control laws” point was somewhat open ended. What sort of gun control laws are acceptable to you, as a conservative?
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 6:51 pmIn what world is tying automatic minimum wage increases to inflation a conservative position?
JD (318f81) — 2/11/2012 @ 6:51 pmwhat is so all-fired important and “litmussy” about that minimum wage issue, JD? Why would that define a conservative?
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 6:53 pmSome view it as a job-killer, but I suspect there are economists – e.g., Mankiw, perhaps – that don’t believe that to be the case.
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 6:57 pmThen make the conservative case for it.
JD (318f81) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:01 pmRon Unz of the American Conservative says that by raising the minimum wage, we can reduce a large amount of illegal immigration.
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:03 pmGreg Mankiw on the motivations for raising the minimum wage:
In watching this debate unfold, I am moving toward the view that the issue is more symbolic than substantive. Posner asks, “why are the Democrats pushing to increase the minimum wage rather than to make EITC more generous?” Here is my answer: Many voters don’t know what the EITC is, whereas the minimum wage is easy to understand. As Becker points out, “Most knowledgeable supporters of a higher minimum wage do not believe it is an effective way to reduce the poverty rate.” True, but few voters are so knowledgeable. As a result, the minimum wage is an easily explained issue that says, “We Democrats care about poor people, unlike those Republicans.”
Does that sound like someone that thinks not only increasing it, but tying automatic increases to inflation would be a good thing?
JD (318f81) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:03 pmWe can reduce illegal immigration by enforcing our laws.
JD (318f81) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:04 pmIMHO, there are more important issues than the minimum wage. Certainly not one of the pillars of a successful presidential campaign, I would think.
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:05 pmAmphipolis
No, since you’re the one pushing Rick Santorum as a limited government crusader, it’s your job to convince us that such things are true. The quotes from redstate were taken directly from Santorum’s book. His voting record proves he is otherwise. I don’t care if you support him. I’m just asking you to be honest about why. If reducing spending and the size and scope of the government are important to you, I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Rick Santorum is not the guy you should support. If stopping the gays and bombing Iran are more important to you, then have at it. Just don’t try and say that he’s something he’s not.
Colonel,
Since the 2nd amendment was written to protect us from a tyrannical domestic government, yes, any non-felon should be allowed to own fully automatic weapons. It wasn’t written so we could hunt or shoot home invaders, but to protect ourselves from the government. You may disagree with the necessity, but that doesn’t change the intent of the founders. Are you saying that the govt should be able to stop people from owning certain guns? What about a Barrett .50 cal? That’s not fully automatic, so that should be allowed while the less accurate Uzi be banned? Where’s the line?
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Ghost (6f9de7) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:05 pmI am very familiar with Santorum. He was my senator for 12 years. However, I never said he was my guy, and I freely acknowledged there are things I don’t know. And he’s a politician.
I’m no libertarian. I suspect that a lot of this big government critique is motivated by those who oppose his forcefully maintained social stands, and the quotes y’all chose to use bear me out somewhat. That’s fine, just be up front about it and don’t throw up some kind of “Big Government” scare that absurdly paints him as a progressive. We could cherry pick anyone in the same way.
If you buy into the fantasy that abortion is a victimless crime, you will not appreciate Santorum. If what he meant to attack in his personal autonomy statement was the privacy argument in Roe, I’m with him.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:08 pmGetting back to gun control… as a conservative, JD, what are reasonable gun control laws? Semi-automatic? full automatic? None of that? Where are the lines drawn?
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:08 pmYeah, I would scuttle that idea as quick as possible too.
JD (318f81) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:08 pmI didn’t scuttle it, Dustin, I asked you a question about gun control laws.
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:10 pmI didn’t agree with Brady, most if not all assault weapons bans are silly, and since I am not running for President, my views are not all that relevant. We know Romney signed an assault weapon ban, jacked up fees, and supported Brady.
JD (318f81) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:10 pmI broke my rule for not engaging your vapid Fanboi nonsense, my apologies to everyone.
JD (318f81) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:11 pmYou’re the guy who complained about Romney’s stance on gun control laws. He raised a fee in Mass to $100. Is that what set you off?
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:12 pmSorry you feel that way, JD. Hope you’re feeling better tomorrow.
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:13 pmIf a conservative must support the right to own “assault weapons” to pass some test, something is rotten.
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:15 pmI explained above. Apparently you read only the phrase about jacking up the fee.
JD (318f81) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:16 pmAmphipolis:
I completley agree.
Of course, it’s not easy for me to quote, copy, paste and link with a phone or iPad. That may also be true for others so I’m willing to help out with links when I can.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:23 pmAmphipolis,
I think abortion is one of the two (the other being oxygen. I hear we’re both fond of breathing) issues I agree with santorum on, but I don’t agree with how he would get it done. but I think you’d be hard pressed to limit that quote about autonomy to abortion.
And yes, a lot of his “social conservatism” is based on bigger government. You can’t implement the standards he wants without massive bloated government. Look at the drug war. It has failed by every metric you could measure it by (more drugs, cheaper drugs, stronger drugs, more gangs, more beheadings on our border) yet the republicans and democrats keep on expanding it. You know they’re using predator drones to spy on Americans, right? How do you achieve that with a smaller government?
The reason libertarians attack Rick santorum on his big government issues is because we got tired of being hypocrites. We can’t scream about the horrors of a bloated government and then vote for the guy who wants to fatten it up some more. Tea party woke me up. I got tired of defending bush, and then McCain… I don’t have the ability to doublethink and not start screaming like an insane person.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:31 pmSantorum may not be the best vehicle, as was Newt, but this faction of the party that carries the enthusiasm the reform spirit, is considered persona non grata, because we have to pretend to kowtow to the ignorant fools who bought the junk bond that was Obama in the first place,
Whether the savaging of this lady, who really hasn’tbeen substantially wrong on any issue, who is ethically beyond reproach, to the attacks on
all the other current and prospective candidates
that had something to say;
http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/k611/snowlinen/ccc.jpg
narciso (87e966) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:34 pmPoor Whitney.
Icy (c9fff2) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:35 pmWe forget the lesson of the Opium War, which the Brits used to acquire their concessions in China,
narciso (87e966) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:39 pmor France’s failed experiment to tax opium, in the late 19th Century,
Drj,
Nailed it. I do all this on my phone.
Colonel,
No one is saying you have to support anything. It’s completely okay to disagree with the founders on gun control. It doesn’t make you wrong, just differently opinioned.
However, if you are a conservative, which I’m pretty sure you are, you should favor a constitutional amendment to change the language in the second amendment, not heavy handed unconstitutional mandates. And just so you’re aware, politics is a war of words. “assault weapons” is just political speak for “scary looking guns.” the left won that word battle. Then they tried “late term abortion,” and we called it by the more honest title, “partial-birth abortion.” Thank God we won that one.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:39 pmNo, because the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution for very good historical reasons, namely the experience with the Colonial administration, abortion lies in a ‘penumbra of a s shadow of an emanation’
narciso (87e966) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:43 pmGhost –
I want wise government, not just small government.
I see your point, but I think it is misplaced. Overturning Roe and leaving it up to the states (wherein libertarians and I would likely be together) does not require bigger government, etc. Santorum’s social stands don’t necessarily lead to the kind of bloat you imagine, but I could be wrong.
We don’t fight the drug war to win, never have. That’s why we are losing. Look at Colombia. But I don’t have time or energy right now to argue this properly. G’nite.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:45 pmColombia which has been fighting a proxy civil war since 1948,
narciso (87e966) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:47 pmnarciso – Commissioner Lin is one of my heroes.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:48 pm#75
A super conservative social message is just going to let obummer change the subject and with the aid of the MSM, win.
Yeah that really is playing into the Democrats’ hands. I’m certainly not opposed to a social conservative since I’m one. I also think a solid social con can win. The problem with Santorum is that seems to be his main message. That’s not how you do it.
If he’s the nominee the independents are going to be scratching their heads saying “Why did they nominate him?”. This gets back to my earlier point, that some people seem to be obsessed with this thing called “The Republican Establishment” whatever that is. They’re more concerned with the idea that they’re being told what to do by it than Obama at this point.
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 2/11/2012 @ 7:55 pmComment by DRJ — 2/11/2012 @ 5:54 pm
Thank you for the transcript.
From a libertarian point of view, the last paragraph in that quote means he’s in favor of big government. He’s not against government social programs and regulations–he just thinks that in some cases it’s better for the state governments to be in charge and not the federal government. And in some eras of our history, civil rights concerns justifies the federal interference.
That’s not really a small government position. It’s rather like saying that coercion done at the state level is justified when coercion at the federal level is not.
It’s another iteration of the supposedly conservative defense of Romneycare–that the mandate was okay there because it was passed under the eye of the Great Cod. (The Mass. HoR has, or at least used to have, a large sculpture of a codfish hanging behind the Speaker’s chair.)
I think big government conservative is justified in speaking of Santorum’s record–and Romney’s too. Both men may not want a government as large and interfering as Obama’s ideal, but they’re definitel not for small government.
JBS (46fd97) — 2/11/2012 @ 8:10 pm“You know they’re using predator drones to spy on Americans, right?”
Ghost – They’re still using black helicopters in my hood. I wonder when we’re going to get the upgrades.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/11/2012 @ 8:11 pmIf you Google “cpac straw poll” you get “Romney wins CPAC straw poll” on all of the hits — except one:
“Mitt Romney wins meaningless CPAC straw poll”
So, thank you, Daily Kos, for winning the race to the bottom of the barrel . . . again.
Icy (c9fff2) — 2/11/2012 @ 8:25 pmthe Blue Thunder model, first introduced in 1984, right daley
narciso (87e966) — 2/11/2012 @ 8:28 pmJBS:
I didn’t understand it that way. Santorum said he wanted to limit federal government in favor of state government, while also favoring local control and families:
It’s a lengthy interview and I got tired of transcribing it, but Santorum went on to explain that power should be retained at the least burdensome level and preferably the family.
But I hope you listen to the rest of the interview and decide for yourself.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 2/11/2012 @ 8:30 pmPoor Whitney.
Comment by Icy
That is a damned shame. I’ve lost two friends to alcoholism and drug abuse. It’s a frustrating, painful thing to watch people slowly kill themselves.
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 8:37 pmDRJ–the least burdensome level of control would not be the state, not the locality, and not the family. It’s the individual. I think his choice of words there–to talk about the family and not the individual person–is telling.
But maybe I’m just reading too much into that.
JBS (46fd97) — 2/11/2012 @ 8:46 pmGhost… I’m all for rifles or shotguns that people use for hunting, or shotguns and handguns that people use for home protection or – where legal – in states that allow “carry”. People have no right to “assault” weapons, there is no reasonable recreational use of a fully automatic weapon and if it needs to be better defined, then so be it.
That’s my take, at least.
Colonel Haiku (5c6441) — 2/11/2012 @ 8:47 pmSantorum has made many statements that kind of creep me out, but then, accept for being avidly pro-life, I am not a cultural issue conservative.
However, this statment he made on the campaign trail in Iowa makes me not want to support him.
I am supporting Romney for one reason. I truly believe he is the man for these times, a genuine fix-it guy, who has the exact skillset needed to turn this country around.
Sara (e8f5d4) — 2/11/2012 @ 8:58 pmhttp://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/10/nation/la-na-drone-arrest-20111211
*sorry for linking the dogtrainer, pat.* Keep on laughing, Daley. They used a predator drone for stolen cows.
Colonel,
Ghost (6f9de7) — 2/11/2012 @ 9:22 pmThat’s fine. You should argue to amend the 2nd amendment, because as it stands, we do have the right to fully automatic weapons (constitutionally speaking). The 2nd amendment was written so we would be able to protect ourselves from a well armed government.
Ghost @148 – Sure sounds like “spying” to me. LOL!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 2/11/2012 @ 9:45 pmsantorum has a long history of making inflammatory and often ridiculous comments regarding sexuality and privacy that will be easily exploitable. he would not stand a chance in the general election. luckily, it does look like that tonight his brief ‘surge’ has come to an end.
el polacko (32039f) — 2/11/2012 @ 9:52 pmNot really.
Milhouse (9a4c23) — 2/11/2012 @ 11:38 pmRick Santorum, Big Government Conservative
Rick Santorum as this Year’s Mike Huckabee
Santorum: “States Do Not Have the Right to Do Wrong”
Santorum, Federalism, and States’ “Right to Do Wrong”
You tell me why not. Then show how the second amendment allows you to stop them.
Milhouse (9a4c23) — 2/12/2012 @ 12:29 am“[Santorum] issaying it right there in his own words, he disagrees that taxes should be kept down or that regulations should be low.”
A look at Santorum’s record would show that this interpretation of what he said is patently false, and that he meant conservatives should address social issues in addition to keeping taxes and regulations low.
Here’s a summary of his voting record on fiscal issues. It is mixed, but I would argue the good outweighs the bad.
Comments GOP Candidates Santorum’s record on fiscal policy
The bad:
1. He voted for Medicare Part D.
2. At one point during the early 2000s he proposed (relatively small) increases in the federal budget.
3. He loved him some earmarks when he was in Congress.
The good:
1. Taxes
2. Balanced budgets
3. Entitlement reform
The Club for Growth also pointed out that Santorum voted to increase congressional pay every year from 2001 through 2003.
Overall, I’ll take it. Especially since the other two leading candidates were (before this election cycle, anyway) supporters of the individual mandates, cap and trade, and TARP. That makes a pork project here and there look like small potatoes.
Ernie McCracken (e98efe) — 2/12/2012 @ 2:21 am“The Club for Growth also pointed out that Santorum voted to increase congressional pay every year from 2001 through 2003.”
That was supposed to be in the “bad” section, obviously.
Ernie McCracken (e98efe) — 2/12/2012 @ 2:23 amTwo playbooks? Team Bam-Bam has a playbook for every conceivable candidate.
HWGood (ae7ee1) — 2/12/2012 @ 2:45 amAny candidate who runs against Bam-Bam’s record has a chance, especially if the New Media hammers on the facts the Left Stream Media will ignore.
Hopefully Brietbarts film on obama will expand the playbook for the republicans. The republicans have to win this. For the Gipper.
sickofrinos (44de53) — 2/12/2012 @ 3:10 amkeep pretending that you can find a candidate you won’t be ’embarassed’ by, while they tear down the edifice around you, you have seen it in California,
how did seven years of Arnold work out;
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/wont_you_come_home_bill_daley.html
narciso (87e966) — 2/12/2012 @ 5:33 amnarciso- that was painful. We have decayed so far so fast, the future could be over.
sickofrinos (44de53) — 2/12/2012 @ 7:25 amNarciso, that American Thinker read should steel the backbone of all of us as it reinforces the need to rid ourselves of the ObamaNation.
Colonel Haiku (ba2539) — 2/12/2012 @ 8:26 am“Let’s take a look at the president’s semantics of late. In no accidental turn of phrase, he called his change regarding contraception “an accommodation” for those who have moral objections. Why didn’t he call it “a compromise,” which is what it supposedly is?
I suspect the reason has to do with the president’s great-pyramid-of-Giza-sized ego…”
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/12/obama-compromise-and-congress/#more-783507
Colonel Haiku (ba2539) — 2/12/2012 @ 8:29 amThe sheer arrogance will help to do him in.
Colonel Haiku (ba2539) — 2/12/2012 @ 8:29 amHere’s a new one, at least for me…
HISTORY: Secret documents lift lid on WWII mutiny by US troops in north Queensland. “An Australian historian has uncovered hidden documents which reveal that African American troops used machine guns to attack their white officers in a siege on a US base in north Queensland in 1942. Information about the Townsville mutiny has never been released to the public. But the story began to come to light when James Cook University’s Ray Holyoak first began researching why US congressman Lyndon B Johnson visited Townsville for three days back in 1942.”
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/137005/
Colonel Haiku (ba2539) — 2/12/2012 @ 8:37 amListening to Ron Paul on Face the Nation… he came close to telling it like it is when talking about the incumbent’s advantages:
“… they have control of…[trails off]… they have the bully pulpit…”
Couldn’t tell by Bob Schieffer’s rhuemy eyes if he’d noticed…
Colonel Haiku (ba2539) — 2/12/2012 @ 8:43 amhttp://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/c510a453-5846-4809-a930-e02542c7f479
Colonel Haiku (b6369f) — 2/12/2012 @ 9:34 amhttp://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/02/12/fareed-zakaria-asks-george-soros-will-you-create-super-pac-help-presi
narciso (87e966) — 2/12/2012 @ 10:14 amRan into a couple of Gingrich voters, today, at the mall. They were parked next to us.
My little girl was getting into the car and the methhead with dark aviator sunglasses still tries to back out. I yell “Hey”, my daughter is safely in the car, the inbred mistake of nature still keeps on backing out.
He thinks he needs to impress the scrubheaded cow sitting next to him. He asks me, sitting inside his car, with the window rolled down only two inches, “Why did you yell ‘Hey’ at me”?
To make a minor story short, he looks at my 6’2″ plus and drives off. His scrubber, when they’re fifty feet away and doing 20mph, yells back at me “Get out of America”.
Gingrich and [retch]Paul supporter.
For me, it’s Romney or Santorum and I go Santorum.
nk (3d837f) — 2/12/2012 @ 9:52 pmme I santorum not
religiously
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 2/12/2012 @ 10:33 pmCommunity values, as opposed to federal, state, county, mmunicipal values, predate my law degree, happyfeet. They even override the most worthless, “you say what what you want, I do want what I want” Amendment, in the Supremes’ anal alyses.
I think Santorum is saying, “Listen to your neighbor, not Washington”.
nk (3d837f) — 2/12/2012 @ 11:09 pmWe give every voter an unlimited number of black balls to negate every candidate that comes along.
And the supporters of those permanently excluded won’t acknowledge their guy was axed.
More like musical chairs than anything.
We may need to agree to rules next time.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 2/13/2012 @ 12:47 amhttp://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/shrinking-senate-hopes_626641.html?page=1
narciso (87e966) — 2/13/2012 @ 7:49 amComment 47 by sickofrinos in the Democrat hypocrisy on religious liberty thread — 2/13/2012 @ 3:14 pm
Independents must think mitt has the plague.
mitt could be in melt down stage if he loses Michigan.
No, that Michigan poll showing Romney getting very little support from independents compared to Santorum doesn’t mean that. What it means is that there is very little enthusiasm for Mitt Romney from anyone.
Remember, this is a poll asking people who say they intend to vote in the Michigan Republican presidential primary who they would vote for or lean toward voting. Voting is completely voluntary, and there is much less of a feel among people who would normally not consider themselves Republicans to vote in the primary than might be the case for some other elections, so people don’t say that they will vote unless they think they have somebody to vote FOR. And that’s not Mitt Romney. Romney is only a fallback choice at best for just about anybody.
Right now, in polling, Michigan resembles a caucus state. But things won’t stay that way.
There will be advertising and broadcast and print coverage of the election. Therefore, all other things being equal, the Romney vote is underestimated.
A Romney PAC has now started advertising but they are still anti-Gingrich ads at this point.
There is another thing. You see how these poll shift so much? That’s because probably a lot of people are undecided, especially between Gingrich and Santorum. If asked how they “lean” this will change rapidly based on which two people seem to be in the lead or winning recent contests. You are not going to get many people at this stage who say Herman Cain or Rick Perry or people who never ran. They shift also among the remaining contenders.
Sammy Finkelman (39761f) — 2/13/2012 @ 5:19 pmComment by Kevin M — 2/11/2012 @ 6:20 pm
Here in California, we vote last, in June. Since it is unlikely that my vote in November will mean anything (if the Republican wins California it will just be while mopping up),
The last time California went Republican in a close election was 1976, when President Gerald Ford carried it by less than a 2% margin. The Electoral Vote margin was 297 to 240 (Washington State was also carried by Ford but one Elector voted for Reagan) And Ford also carried Oregon by a very narrow margin. And Nevada. And New Mexico. And Arizona by a wider margin. But Texas voted for Carter. On Election night the Ford people were thinking that maybe they would carry New York because of he way the election returns came in (but Pennsylvania, as usual, was closer for the republican and not carried by him)
The last time California was carried by a Republican presidential candidate was 1988. Bush got 51.13% and Dukakis got 47.56% Nationally, it was 53.37% and 45.56% The Electoral vote total was 426 to 112. Maryland had a similar Bush versus Dukakis margin. The only big state carried by Dukakis was New York. The next biggest were Massachusetts, Washington State and Wisconsin.
it would be good to have the contest continue until then. Last time that happened (and the vote was in June) RFK won.
Actually by that time RFK had really lost the nomination, despite the fact that California was a winner take all state (The last time that was allowed by the Democrats) but it didn’t feel that way because they were counting up delegate total. that didn’t happen till 1972. This year, Romney wants people not only to conclude who will win on the basis of delegate leads (no combinations possible) but on the basis even of trends!!
The 1976 Democratic contest actually also continued until June. But California was a foregone conclusion for Jerry Brown and Jimmy Carter came up with a trick. There were 3 big primaries on the same day: California, Ohio and New Jersey. In New jersey there was an “independent” (machine) so-called “Humphrey-Brown” slate (draft Hubert Humphrey for president, Jerry Brown for Vice-President) That was also heading toward victory, as just about any place people were voting for anybody to stop Carter. Jimmy Carter then went to Mayor Daley of Chicago – the original Mayor Richard J. Daley, who was probably a bit semi-senile by then – and got him to agree that if carter won Ohio (ignoring the other two states) he should win the nomination. In Ohio, he campaigned on the following platform:
1) Only a candidate who has run in the primaries should win the nomination.
2) Hubert Humphrey is not running in the primaries.
3) If you don’t actually want to make Jerry Brown president, you therefore should vote for me for the good of the process.
Even so, Jimmy Carter had something like 37% of the delegates. the first thing Jimmy Carer did after that was go to George Wallace, and argue they were both southerners and therefore he should endore him which he did. In the primaries Carter had run against George Wallace and argued he was better for the reputation of the south than George Wallace and he was basically the only way Wallace wouldn’t win primaries. So, in the end he collected both the Wallace votes and the anti-Wallace votes. And then he used that to leverage more committments.
the race also went down to June in 1992. Again, many candidates had dropped out (it was in 1972 that candidates started dropping out not when they lost hope, but when they were running out of money, something hat may finally have stopped this year) and again Jerry Brown was running and again people were voting left and right to prevent Clinton this time from becoming the nominee. That year Jerry brown was campaigning on a platform of a one deduction income tax system – rent or mortgage costs, which is very logical since they differ from person to person not based on actual quality or quantity of housing but to the extent that it does it is related to family size. It is also related to differences in living costs between states and counties. This was somehow all forgotten after the campaign was over. Jerry Brown also had seriously weakened himself by saying he would name Jesse Jackson as his vice president, something which he didn’t seem to understand what was wrong with. Like Jimmy Carter part of Clinton campaign was that you shouldn’t vote for Jerry Brown unless this was what you actually wanted. Again, like Carter, he finished the primaries with something like 37% of the delegates and again got concessions. Ross Perot was polling ahead of him. People hated the idea both of Bush again and of Clinton.
I wonder, though, if it comes to June and the remaining candidates are Santorum and Ron Paul … I think I go with Ron. Or maybe I write in Ronald Reagan. But I doubt I could bring myself to vote for Santorum in a primary.
If Romney collapses, Gingrich should still be in the race.
Sammy Finkelman (5048f3) — 2/13/2012 @ 6:19 pmComment by Colonel Haiku — 2/12/2012 @ 8:37 am
Secret documents lift lid on WWII mutiny by US troops in north Queensland. “An Australian historian has uncovered hidden documents which reveal that African American troops used machine guns to attack their white officers in a siege on a US base in north Queensland in 1942. Information about the Townsville mutiny has never been released to the public. But the story began to come to light when James Cook University’s Ray Holyoak first began researching why US congressman Lyndon B Johnson visited Townsville for three days back in 1942.”
I looked something up, wondering how Robert Caro didn’t find this out, amd..
Lightbulb! Lyndon Johnson was apparently awarded a Silver Star for this. (on totally bogus grounds
in the citation. A meaningless flight)
Caro was apparently never able to finds out why he was actually given this. This could be the answer.
Sammy Finkelman (5048f3) — 2/13/2012 @ 6:29 pmWebsite with more about the Townsvlle mutiny, with link to report LBJ filed:
http://ozebook.com/wordpress/archives/22057
(As for the Silver Star I don’t know if the chronology fits)
Oh, here. It does fit apparently, and somebody already had the thought:
Comment on the ozebook website:
Roy on February 13, 2012 at 10:58 am said:
LBJ’s trip to Townesville is famouns for the Silver Star he got out of it. Very anti LBJ biographer Robert Caro made a huge deal out of Lyndon’s unearned award and other historians have expressed amazement at how enthusiastically the local US military authorities were about LBJ’s conduct on his ride a long mission was, though I have even heard rumors that he didn’t even do that. Quite a bit of brown nosing for such a junior congressman. This story makes me wonder if his service wasn’t the supposed combat mission, but rather cleaning up the mutiny.
Sammy Finkelman (5048f3) — 2/13/2012 @ 6:38 pm5. Comment by Mike K — 2/11/2012 @ 9:48 am
Santorum did not go back to Pennsylvania after he lost his Senate seat in 2006. Like all his professional pol friends, he became a lobbyist.
He had already in reality left Pennsylvania before the election, and that was apparently a big issue on the 2006 Pennsylvania Senate election (especially in connection with his children’s schooling)
He and Newt Gingrich both came down with Potomac Fever, a malady that causes members of Congress to stick around and live somewhere near the Potomac River, rather than live in their home state, or anywhere else for that matter. Santorum wasn’t really a lobbyist, except for one company. He wanted to fight cap and trade, as he had been doing in Congress, and looked for a company interested enough to pay him to do so. another job he got was as a director of a company and that was really because the company needed outside directors and he was somebody friendly. There is also some lobbying form mentioned but what exactly were the ties are not clear.
Gingrich was more into political intelligence than lobbying, and he didn’t directly lobby but rather gave general advice. In 1999-2002 he seems to have helped work out a program for making mortgage more available to lw income people that satisfied both Congress and sound business planning – at that stage the prices for houses were not sky high. In 2006-08 when he again had a contract with Freddie Mac ,he apparently broke off on bad terms with them, but it seems like he signed pledge of confidentiality and he can’t say what that was all about except that he didn’t write something they wanted him to write.
Sammy Finkelman (5048f3) — 2/13/2012 @ 6:54 pm* some lobbying FIRM mentioned in some news articles about Santorum. It’s made to sound more ominous than it is logical.
Sammy Finkelman (5048f3) — 2/13/2012 @ 6:57 pmThe Club for Growth assessment of Santorum was somewhat reassuring to me:
“On the whole, Rick Santorum’s record on economic issues in the U.S. Senate was above average. More precisely, it was quite strong in some areas and quite weak in others. He has a strong record on taxes, and his leadership on welfare reform and Social Security was exemplary. But his record also contains several very weak spots, including his active support of wasteful spending earmarks, his penchant for trade protectionism, and his willingness to support large government expansions like the Medicare prescription drug bill and the 2005 Highway Bill.
“As president, Santorum would most likely lead the country in a pro-growth direction, but his record contains more than a few weak spots that make us question if he would resist political expediency when it comes to economic issues.”
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (454c31) — 2/13/2012 @ 7:04 pmSANTORUM: Limited government … I’m not a conservative in the sense that saying, “Well, the government should be the size it was in 1789.” It’s a different world and I don’t know anybody back in 1789 that would have suggested Washington is going to stay a sleepy, little swamp town.
——————-
In 1789 – the year the Constitution went into effect – the temporary capital of the United States was New York and the city of Washington was maybe not even an idea, although the constitution did have an idea like that in it.
Southerners wanted a southern capital and northerners wanted something more north. Alexander Hamilton in particular wanted New York. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had an idea for building a capital on the banks of the Potomac River, incorporating parts of Maryland and Virginia.
Alexander Hamilton wanted the federal government to assume the debts of the state, and also wanted to pay speculators, who had bought many of the bonds, the full value of the bonds. Thomas Jefferson didn’t like the idea of assuming the debts so much, because after all, Virginia had paid off its debts and especially he didn’t want the second and third owners to make a windfall profit. A compromise was reached. The capital would be moved to Philadelphia for ten years, after that, an entirely new city, to be built on the banks of the Potomac River, would become the new capital.
Washington, named after George Washington, who died at the end of 1799, was only used starting in the year 1800, and it stayed a swampy mud town for many years after that.
Sammy Finkelman (5048f3) — 2/14/2012 @ 4:04 pm