moonbattery logo

Jan 12 2012

Profiles in Moonbattery: Rick Santorum

Evidence accrues that with the departure of Michele Bachmann, there are no conservatives in the race for president. To the appalling Marxist rhetoric recently spewed by Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, we can add these Rick Santorum quotes:

This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. … I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.
—Rick Santorum, 2008

What the…?

His 2005 book It Takes a Family: Conservativsm and the Common Good provided a warning of his socialist inclinations. From the Preface:

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.

From the Conclusion:

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.

The Founding Fathers were socialists. Who knew?

Conservatives believe the poor should be helped with voluntary charity, not coercive wealth transfers that only create more poverty and that are the moral equivalent of robbing a liquor store. That’s why conservatives give far more to charity than liberals do.

It’s also why Rick Santorum is not a conservative but a “compassionate conservative.” We went down that dead end road with W; it put us $zillions in debt, vastly expanded the size of the government, and set the table for Barack Hussein Obama.

At this point we have two choices: the guy who is most electable and probably least likely to cause major damage (Romney), and the guy who allows us to blow off steam with a protest vote against Big Government as we resign ourselves to another four years of Obama (Paul). The other clowns would have to switch parties to be credible candidates.

rick-santorum-reaching
Another collectivist reaches for your wallet.

Quotes via RedState.



47 Responses to “Profiles in Moonbattery: Rick Santorum”

  1. I think the official term for this is “Red Tory[ism]”.

    Looks to me like the judgement to make is whether it would be better to have Romney, who won’t do much to reverse any of your problems, but probably is not going to do much harm either, or let the Lefties have another four years and capitalise on the resulting even bigger backlash. While trying to find a credible conservative-libertarian to stand at the next election.

    Speaking from the British experience, it can be bad to get a tepid conservative in after a revolutionary leftist government, as we’ve found with Cameron. Depends if you think you can stand another four years of overt cultural marxism.

  2. Sam Adams says:

    “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.”

    The answer, Rick is “none.” Charity begins at home, as Dave points out. When you coercively take money from taxpayers, it is no longer charity, nor is it Christ-like.

    Damn. Where is the conservative candidate we were hoping for?

  3. Sam Adams says:

    We simply can’t stand another four years of Obama. We will be too deep in debt to dig out, the dollar will be worthless, more businesses and reach people will have abandoned the US.

    The most important thing to do when you find yourself in a deep hole is to stop digging (rather than hoping that you will have even more incentive to get out of a much deeper hole in four years).

  4. dad29 says:

    It is disappointing to note that Santorum (evidently) contradicts the Principle of Subsidiarity with the quoted remarks. (Ad arguendam, we’ll assume that the book goes in the same direction as the excerpts.)

    Having said that…..

    You assert that Romney is the “most electable” of the candidates. I think you are dead wrong.

    The Bain Baggage–whether justified or not–will be used by the Left to eviscerate Romney. He has become the very picture of BigCapital/BigBanks; or, if not, he WILL be when the demagogues finish with him.

    The economic recovery will not gain appreciable speed this year; there will still be millions who are out of work, or part-time-by-force, or “no longer looking.”

    That’s not a good background for Bain Baggage.

  5. Spider says:

    What does all this spell out? Another four years of Marxism. It should also tell people who still have the ability to think for themselves that, the Republican Party is dead! If the American people still don’t understand that another major political party is desperately needed to represent those of us who refuse to turn our country into a Venezuela North, then the only recourse for us is armed revolt.

  6. Sam Adams says:

    Armed revolt so that we can be led by whom? I can understand wanting the government out of our lives, but who can be entrusted with that job?

  7. F.D.R. in Hell says:

    One year from now, this place is going to look mighty good in comparison to America.

    🙁

  8. Alhazred says:

    Um, You know that Ron Paul is And was te largest George Washington conservative in the race right?

    Just because he follows the advice from washingtons farewell address, and ignores the progressive republican tradition of Teddy, doesn’t make him a collectivist. In Fact it makes him so centered on individual freedom and states rights he scares the author of this article.

    Let’s not forget that he was one of the only people who supported Regan over all the RINOs and the GOP establishment. And the only things he criticized Regan on we’re when he failed to deliver the pure conservative message.

    Flash forward to today and see every other candidate praise the compromised policies of Regan only to ignore his initial conservative message.

    Ron Paul is PURE CLASSIC conservative. I hate to be blunt, but the writer of this piece is intelligent, but wrong.

  9. jim says:

    I keep reading that Paul can’t possibly defeat obama. Assuming most people are as sick of obama as it seems, why would they vote for him again? It seems that there has to be an assumtion on the part of media that Paul somehow “frightens” folks so bad that they will not vote for him.

  10. karasukanzaemon says:

    This is why Perry needs to ex post haste jettison or at the very least clarify (per the Sarah Palin quote in John Hawkins’ article today re Romney and Bain) the recent talking points on same. His record and his plan are the only reasonable conservative alternatives. And, as Ian recognizes above, Romney WON’T make or fight for the necessary changes. This means that Romney is a mere tap of the brakes as we go over the cliff. You need to be prepping, people.

  11. IslandLifer says:

    I’m still voting for the only man who will play by the rule book. Paul. It’s been very clear from the beginning and still remains that way. Go for the establishment puppet if you want, I stick to principle.

  12. Paul can’t win because of his foreign policy/military approach. It’s simply too drastic.

  13. Stephen Dalton says:

    As a Catholic, I’m very disapointed in Santorum. As a traditional Catholic, he should know better than to believe the guvmint is the answer. His support of Specter a few years back, IMHO, should have tipped us off as to what his real political leanings were.

  14. karasukanzaemon says:

    Island,
    You mean Paul, the guy who is not going to touch the entitlement state and pay for it by stopping all the ‘overseas spending’ (e.g., gutting the U.S. Military)? The one who thinks the Islamofascists will leave us alone if we just bring all the troops home? Like I said, be prepping, people.

  15. Goose says:

    I just can’t agree with this assesment. Any candidate with a record will have some of this stuff in there background, and I view this as very tame. Certainly not enough to proclaim the man a liberal. AND CERTAINLY not enough to equate him with Romney. I am from PA, and I have followed Santorum’s career for more tha a decade and a half. On the whole, I view him as a very good conservative.

  16. Jock says:

    Everyone pray reely hard for God to tell Marcus to tell Michele to stop Sarahquitting and get back in the race.

    A GOP without Michele head is like cowpatties without maple syrup

  17. Sam Adams says:

    “Goose says:
    January 12, 2012 at 9:36 am

    I just can’t agree with this assesment. Any candidate with a record will have some of this stuff in there background, and I view this as very tame. Certainly not enough to proclaim the man a liberal.”

    It isn’t a “liberal” idea to have the government hand out goodies to the poor. It is a progressive idea. Remember how Ben Franklin said the best thing to do with the poor is to make them “uncomfortable in their poverty?” That is the opposite of what Santorum is advocating. Call it “socialist-lite” if you will. But it is still socialism.

  18. IslandLifer says:

    And by cutting overseas spending is stopping all foreign aid. Wonderful idea! And bringing the troops home to defend our borders, wonderful idea. Like I said, vote for puppeteers but I prefer the one they fear.

  19. Fiberal says:

    Santmorun is just another sniveling “compassionate conservative” – a mutation that Bush started that has both degraded the republican party and further pushed the country so far down the socialist portapotty hole, we elected a Homomarxist to rule us.

    Santmorun provides a good example as to why conservatives need to read books.

  20. lvb-rocks says:

    It’s quite common for Catholics to misinterpret Church teaching on economic issues. Santorum does this, but does that mean he’s a socialist? No. I know what socialist/progressive/modernist Catholics look like,(Pelosi, Sebelius, Biden, Kerry…), and he’s not one of ’em. He’s just not well enough versed in Church teaching to make certain conclusions, and he’s not articulate enough to state them clearly.

    I just finished a debate with a true socialist Catholic from England who seems to think that Santorum is an evil paleo-conservative and an off-the-charts right-winger. You can contort Church teaching, like you can contort the Constitution, to fit your political worldview. That’s what happens when one’s politics trumps one’s faith; or, in Santorum’s case, when compassion trumps truth.

  21. jim says:

    I think it’s come to the point that a lot of people are no longer concerned with our foreign policy and want the focus to be put on our govt’s domestic policy. Lest anyone think I am a pacifist, let me state I am a former Marine and in my time as such, I was able to see a pretty good chunk of the world. I was too yound and stupid to understand what I was really seeing then, but with age comes understanding and when I look back, I can understand why there IS a hatred for the US. There were so many places where our foreign policy was one of propping up oppresive dictators to our own benefit, not to the benefit of the inhabitants of those countries. Think Ferdinand Marcos here. I’m in no way anti American,I love my country, but as I have gotten older I have become pretty disgusted by our government. It’s simple. If you help repress one group of people in the thinking that doing so will keep the aggression of another group of people in check, sooner or later that first group of people are going to hate you too. I know thats an extremely over simplified way of stating it, but it seems to me that is what we have today. We are simply reaping the result of the seeds we began sowing decades ago. Remember when Saddam Hussein was considered our ally (if not) friend? If your son or daughter or father or brother was one of the victims of that evil regime, do you not think you would harbor a hatred for anyone that (at one time) helped keep him in power? It seems to me there is an assumtion at times that people in other countries, especially third world countries, are very different than Americans. I will grant that there a few places where that may well be true, but as a whole most everyone wants the same things, no matter where they happen to live. Things like freedom, health and prosperity. So when people are denied these things, they tend to look for the reasons they are denied them, and if that reason happens to be their own gov’t, it gives them something to focus their hatred and frustration on. And if the USA happens to be helping, or has had a history of helping keep their oppressors in power, well, we are in for a helping of that hate also. A lot of this foolish inteferance in foreign affairs has been a direct result of feel good liberal idiocy. Does anyone think the situation in the Middle East would be as chaotic if, instead of failing to utilize our own reserves of natural resources, specifically crude oil of course, we fully exploited (not always a bad word there tree huggers) our still untapped vast deposits? This is where a change of deomestic policy is needed. Reign in, if not abolish, all of these bloated federal agencies with their faceless unappointed “czars” who have been able to cripple our industrial base with directives either based on false science or a “feel good” ideology. Maybe it is time to pull in our military from our outposts in foreign lands. Take South Korea for example. I’m sure more than a few readers have been there in a military capacity. I think they can take care of themselves, and should the North Koreans for some reason decide to attack in earnest, they’ll probably lose most of their forces to desertion. How about Okinawa? I wasn’t there very long but I certainly didn’t feel welcome there. those are just two brief examples, but there are many more and if an ally is attacked, then we should aid them, but keeping our miltary stationed somewhere based on a “what if” scenario has cost us multiple billions of dollars that should have been invested right here in our own country. Those billions came from us, the taxpayers. What if everyone who pays taxes suddenly had a greater amount of discretionary income, by having to pay a far smaller amount of those taxes? Wouldn’t that,by the nature of our consumer economy, be the best thing to grow that economy? Wouldn’t a smaller gov’t require less funding? It would seem so. Look up an alphebetical list of gov’t agencies and imagine paring that list down to the true bare necessities needed to run the country and try to imagine the savings to the taxpayers. And see if you know the names of the heads of any of them, because those are the people, more than any others, who are responsible for the state our once great country is in. To twist a phrase, we have been slowly suffering a death of a thousand bureacrats, and there’s not much time left to stop the bleeding. I could rant about this forever but the last thing I will say is whats the use of electing someone who won’t try a different formula of running our country? I don’t see Romney as being that person. I’m voting for Ron Paul. At least he’s not working from the same old script.

  22. Steven says:

    Somehow, I have lost my taste in voting. All this politicking is a joke; actually, it’s more of a religion. At least I have my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as my Commander ‘n Chief for life. 🙂

  23. karasukanzaemon says:

    Island,

    The video was August. By December in Iowa, Weekly Standard quotes Paul as saying:

    “I want to take care of the people who become so dependent on government, even though there would have been a better way to take of them,” Paul said at a rally in Des Moines on Wednesday evening. “You take the elderly on Social Security—there was a contract. But we can’t honor that contract if we keep spending this money overseas. So I’m for taking care of those people on Medicaid, Medicare, and anyone on Social Security.”

    One of the problems is that the numbers don’t work. Cutting all that ‘overseas spending’ doesn’t add up to the kind of money needed to ‘take care of those people.’

  24. IslandLifer says:

    What you fail to mention is he will gradually work to phase it out. Do you really think anyone can just cut the head off this entitlement monster (I would but that’s why I’m no politician)? No, it’s going to take generations to undo what has been done to this country and Paul would be the perfect man to start that change.
    http://m.iowastatedaily.com/mobile/opinion/article_19443056-ec6b-11e0-aadd-001cc4c03286.html

  25. Goose says:

    To Sam Adams:

    I agree with you that government’s war on poverty is wrong. No argument there.

    But let’s be realistic here for a moment. the conservative movement is not ready to fight that battle yet. We have an illegal president doing blatently illegal things, taking over private enterprise, etc etc etc. Lets try to fight one battle at a time.

    I am a conservative, more so than most, but I am a realist also. And I was very proud to have Rick Santorum represent me in the Senate. I would be proud to have him as president.

    He has done more to advance conservatism than any purist I know.

  26. Goose says:

    To Fiberal,

    Short of an outright revolution, we still need to deal with the realities of our modern day messed up excuse for a republic.

    Much of the country disagrees with you and I and I propose if anything is true, it is that even Santorum may be a little to far right to get elected.

    So we can point out his weaknesses all day, but the reality is we have a huge battle ahead of us and we will be better off with Santorum than Mitt.

  27. IslandLifer says:

    “If Republicans don’t understand the important aspects of what Ron Paul is saying, we won’t be able to exist as a party, certainly not a majority party,” DeMint said. “The debate in the Republican Party needs to be between libertarians and conservatives, that’s what our party needs to be about. There’s no longer room for moderates and liberals because we don’t have any money to spend, so I don’t want to be debating with anyone who wants to grow government.”

  28. dr. theo says:

    So Santorum contemplates the “proper role of government” in combatting poverty. It’s easy, Rick. The federal government has no role except to stay out of the way of the people that make this country work. We, as individuals, and, as communities in some cases, will take care of our poor. We did so for 150 years before the progressives decided they could do better by acting as middle-man between producer and the poor, and taking large chunks of money for themselves in the process.

  29. DaddyOD says:

    THANK GOD DAVE — YOU HAVE FINALLY COME TO THE MOST LOGICAL AND MOST PROBABLE WAY TO DEFEAT OBAMA.

    NO MORE SQUABBLING AND IN-FIGHTING. IT IS TIME WE ALL COALESCE BEHIND THE ONLY CHANCE WE HAVE TO BEAT OBAMA — AND THAT IS MITT ROMNEY. LETS GIVE HIM ALL THE SUPPORT AND MNEY HE WILL NEED TO BEAT OBAMA’S MEDIA BACKED $1B WAR CHEST — NOW AND NOT LATER. EVERYONE NEEDS TO BEGIN TO FORM A FACTS LIST OF HOW CONSERVATIVE ECONOMICS WORKS – AND EXACTLY OUR SOLUTIONS TO REBUILDING AMERICA NOW!!!

    I CALL ON YOU DAVE BLOUNT TO FORM THIS WIKI OF ECONOMIC FACTS THAT ALL CONSERVATIVES CAN POINT TO WHEN EVER THERE IS A DEBATE ON THE ECONOMY.

    PLEASE DO IT — CREATE A SITE DEDICATED TO FACTS WITH REFERENCES AND SOURCES OF THE FACTS.

    $72 = TOTAL BANKS INCOME LAST YEAR 2010

    $4.2 A DAY BEING LOST BY OBAMA.

    17 DAYS = THE TOTAL DAYS THE GOVT. BLOWS WHAT ALL OF THE BANK EARNED IN A YEAR AND CREATED 100’S OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS.

    $72 BILLION A YEAR = THE MAX. OBAMAS TAX THE RICH POLICY WOULD GENERATE.

    $211 A YEAR = THE TOTAL AMOUNT THE “99%” WOULD RECEIVE IF OBAMAS “TAX THE RICH POLICY” WERE ENACTED.

    SHOW THE FACTS.

    PROVE THEY ARE WRONG WITH FACTS NOT BLOVIATING AND PERSONAL ATTACKS.

    ITS TIME TO COME TOGETHER WITH ONE AND UNEQUIVOCAL CAUSE.

    REMOVE OBAMA FROM OFFICE AND GAIN A MOJORITY IN BOTH HOUSES IN 2012.

    KEEP UP THE GREAT JOB DAVE.

    DADDYOD

  30. Fiberal says:

    Goose,

    As long as Santmorun is running around whimpering about “compassionate conservativism” or any other socialistic blather, he is not a better candidate than Romney.

    He is in fact, much much worse.

    The reason is that “compassionate conservativism” is nothing more than an ingratiating curtsy to liberalism.

    Conservatives make this curtsy in order to try and garner votes and to satisfy their own personal sense of moral obligation to whatever.

    They want to give something back with someone else’s money.

    .
    Here’s Santmorun’s articulated position on this:

    “Someone always gets hurt when masses of individuals do what is only in their own self-interest. That is the great lie of liberal freedom. . . . Freedom is liberty coupled with responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self. It is a self-less freedom. It is sacrificial freedom. It is the pursuit of our dreams with an eye towards the common good.”

    .
    That’s stupid. Just plain doltish. Know it or not, that’s just a 10cent philosophy Santmorun probably got from one of his slower kids.

    And liberals just lap this up in a republican.

    That’s why I said Santmorun is a good argument for republicans needing to read books instead of staring at cars going around in circles.

    CC persists today as an open wound for infection to allow for the ever-present disease of socialism.

    Romney is worrisome in this regard, but Santmorun has laid his filthy laundry on the table.

  31. Steve says:

    Santorum is a fascist. Vote for Ron Paul

  32. Sam Adams says:

    lvb-rocks says:…

    If Santorum isn’t a socialist, then he is an useful idiot, and we can’t really tolerate useful idiots when so much is on the line.

    Re-read Dr. Theo’s and Fiberal’s posts. When people receive hand outs from their friends and neighbors, they are grateful (at least for a while). And they generally know that those handouts will be of short duration, therefore they don’t get in the habit of expecting them. Plus friends and neighbors are in a pretty good spot to determine when someone has just turned into a worthless moneysink.

    When people receive hand outs from the government, soon they expect those handouts, like it was a right or something. Plus the government can only do a poor job in determining who really needs help versus a guy sitting in mom’s basement playing video games.

  33. browncoat says:

    You know you have to pay taxes either way. There is nothing wrong with the government using some of the funds it collects whether by taxes or other ways to help people. Yes welfare and aid needs to be seriously fixed. If they used common sense and did things like limit what people could buy to where they could live, and require them to get a job, even if its only min wage trash collecting on the highway, to enable them to build up a bank account and get off welfare, it would work better. But a government using some of the money they collect to help people is not un-Christ like nor is it evil or anything else. The government is allowed to have compassion and care for people who are in need. Nothing says a government cannot have compassion and help people, no it should not be forever, and the current welfare mentality needs to be stopped and welfare/aid needs to be changed. But a government wanting to help its people when they might need a hand up is not wrong or evil

  34. karasukanzaemon says:

    Browncoat,
    Yes, it actually is.

  35. browncoat says:

    Why is it so wrong???
    Besides lets see what would happen if the government pulled out of all the stuff that some people want them to pull out of.
    No public education: over half of the US population would not be able to get an education, cause its expensive.
    No aid at all for people who lost their jobs, welcome a large return of tent cities with large numbers of people unable to pay for the basics(not everyone who loses a job loses it because their crackheads or irresponsible)
    No aid for seniors or the young: think third world standards for those too old to work, and quite probably alot of minors malnourished whether because of bad parents or unfortunate circumstances.

    Yes government aid should be limited, and yes it should have strict requirements on it, but a government should have compassion and care for those who need it. Yea in a perfect world there would be no need for that, but this world ain’t perfect and so a government wanting to help the citizens of the country it runs. Almost everyone in this country will use government aid of some type in their life.

  36. Sam Adams says:

    Browncoat, let’s review a couple of items. First, there is no (as in zero) permission in the constitution for the federal government to be charitable, period. State governments can do what they wish, but the federal government is not delegated that responsibility.

    Second, public education enjoys a near monopoly. If you want to educate your kids at home or want to enroll them in a private school, you are still stuck with paying taxes to support public education. In Utah they instituted a voucher program which would have essentially provided kids with a chunk of money that could be used to partially pay for private schooling. The teachers’ union howled like stuck pigs and propagandized their little kiddies so that their parents would vote those voucher-supporting politicians out of office (and they did).

    How did the old, the infirm, etc., survive before the government got all compassionate. Simple; their neighbors took care of them. In the 1800’s, you didn’t have old people starving in the streets in the US; friends and family looked after them. When welfare was reformed in the 1990’s, removing many long term recipients from the welfare rolls, the bleeding hearts, predicted disaster. It didn’t happen. People were forced to find a job, and those who did experienced an increase in personal esteem, and did a better job providing for themselves than the government did. If you want to see a compassionate government at work, just look at Detroit…..or an Indian reservation.

  37. Stephan the Original says:

    I think Dave has it right, but I don’t know if voting for a guy who flip flops on the issue of the fundamental right to life has all that great a foundation either. Moral issues are difficult to quantify, unlike economics, but I struggle to believe that someone who can’t stick to the biological fact of the beginning of human life is all that ‘electable’ either.

    It’s January and already the conservatives have lost the election. It doesn’t matter who the candidate is, they are ALL flawed in major ways. Even if the GOP defeat Obama in November, this so-called ‘conservative’ swing will do little to stop the rot over the next 4 or 8 years, when by that time the country will again vote in another radical socialist who will have no interest in the ‘compromise’ RINOs love. You can see this playing out in slow motion.

    I just wonder who the political leader will be who will be mortally wounded yet have a miraculous recovery, just before the one-world financial system is implemented.

  38. lvb-rocks says:

    @ Sam Adams —
    I am in agreement with you. But in this thread we see Santorum being called everything across the political spectrum, from a socialist to a fascist to too far right to get elected. The guy I was debating in England thinks Santorum is off-the-charts right wing on economic issues. If conservatives can’t figure out whether or not their prospective candidate might actually be a socialist, then the movement is already lost. Santorum peaked in Iowa and is probably not going to be the nominee.

    I would love to see a Catholic president in the mold of the highly intelligent Catholic justices on the Supreme Court. Santorum isn’t that guy; he’s a little confused on Church teaching, but he’s no socialist. Now take Paul Ryan or Thad McCotter or possibly Bobby Jindal, all Catholics who understand this Church decree from 1931: “Socialism conceives a society and social character of man foreign to Christian Truth… . Catholic and Socialist are opposing terms… . No one can at the same time be a sincere Catholic and a true socialist.”

  39. Cranky Catholic says:

    I understood the context of the last Santorum quote to mean that the family itself is what is good for the general welfare. I don’t think he means emptying the families’ savings.

  40. Fiberal says:

    Santmorun is about state-operated compassion.

    Governments create poverty -not the free market.

    The free market if left to work would lead to the creation of wealth. Wealth in the hands of individuals who earned that wealth by looking out for their own interest first, set up charities to aid the destitute.

    The federal government was not meant to be and cannot be the vehicle for charity.

    That is because state-operated charity can only be a consequence in which person A sees something he, personally and for his own private reasons, doesn’t like. A goes to person B who has power. A convinces B to force person C (you) to fix what he, A, doesn’t like.

    That is a situation that requires force. That is the opposite of liberty.

    Such a system, bc it works by force, perpetuates the problem, and provides for ill-gotten gains—- each thing, in and of itself, is inherently immoral.

    .
    “It (charity) is the pursuit of our dreams with an eye towards the common good.”—-Santmorun Marx

    (No. Actually, state-operated charity is the pursuit of the dreams you want others to have, with your eye toward someone else’s goods.)

    Only liberals and fascists think this way. Conservatives should never tolerate such an attitude in a president.

  41. Bob Roberts says:

    As much as I hate to admit it, you seem to have summed things up rather nicely. I wish we had candidates without major flaws but, unfortunately, unless the Republicans have some ace up their sleeve they’re going to slip out at the convention, it does look like Romney will be our only alternative to Obama. Once again, forced to choose the devil we hope we know against the other, much worse (we hope) one we surely know.

    I don’t know – it is possible Santorum isn’t as bad as he seems – people make mistakes, say things they later regret, and in many other ways he’s a lot better than Romney, who certainly is about as worse as far as the whole “compassionate conservative” nonsense goes.

    But is he electable? Unfortunately, other than as the only choice other than Obama, probably not – the point being he probably won’t make it to that stage – is not likely to garner the nomination.

  42. Alhazred says:

    Bob Roberts:

    Why settle when you can have Ron Paul.

    He polls with independents by more than a 2:1 margin compared to Mitt Romney.

    The key to his charm is he is a TRUE 10th amendment supporter. This is a man who could and I think will carry California in the general election. Not with pandering and compromise, but with a message of freedom and states rights. (alot of the young Californian youth are states rights supporters, but to brainwashed by their schools to know that’s what it is called.

  43. oldguy says:

    It’s over for these also rans. Limbaugh has damned you so you may as well all drop out. Florida will decide it.

  44. mande says:

    Anyone who advocates Mitt Romney as the most conservative doesnt know what he is talking about. Romney is no different than ObamaRick Santorum is the only true conservative. Who do the liberals despise the most? Santorum. That should tell anyone with a brain who the most conservative is. If you listen, liberals always tell us who we should vote for.


Alibi3col theme by Themocracy