If You Don’t Believe Santorum Is Electable, You Don’t Believe In Conservatism, The GOP, Or Yourself
I've said repeatedly, I have not endorsed Santorum and I am not endorsing him now. It's a trivial thing for a blogger to do in any event. Who really cares in the end? It makes no significant difference and is more about the blogger, than any one candidate due to our limited reach. And that goes for them all. However, this is the latest from Rasmussen – not me.
National GOP: Santorum 39%, Romney 27%, Gingrich 15%, Paul 10%
Follow the bouncing ball. Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum has now bounced to a 12-point lead over Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.
If you insist that Rick Santorum is un-electable at this point, but call yourself a Republican – which I don't btw – then you are wasting your time in the wrong party and may as well go Independent. I did when I left the Democrats and haven't joined another one since. But given these numbers, there is no valid argument in suggesting Santorum would not be an acceptable nominee for the GOP, any more than one can say that about Romney at this point.
But if you are a conservative looking at these numbers and saying Santorum can't win, then you may as well give it up, or stop calling yourself a conservative, because you don't believe enough in what you profess to believe in to even fight for it when called. You assume conservatism is a loser out of the gate. Frankly, I don't believe that, which is why I became one in my twenties. I believe it not only can win in America but must for America to remain strong. And I am always willing to fight to put that assumption to the test.
If you aren't, then I would suggest you are simply wasting your time and the time of others by even considering yourself associated with the cause. Change your ideology, or take up another hobby. Buy a bicycle, or take up knitting, so you have something to show for your efforts at the end of the day. Because if you claim to believe in conservatism but aren't willing to fight for it in America, especially in this day and age, then, frankly, you have and will end up with nothing you want at all.
Leave it to the people who actually believe in both conservatism and themselves enough to fight for those things and to represent conservatism. Because, whatever it is you claim to believe in, obviously, you really don't. You're just clutter on the road to an ever increasing statism and it would be better for everyone, including yourself, if you simply got the hell out of the way.
I don’t believe Santorum CAN’T be elected.
As with Romney, I think he SHOULDN’T be elected.
I don’t support nanny-statism from anybody.
There is only one conservative in this race. That is Newt Gingrich. The others are what they are, but they are not conservative.
Dan, congrats. You finally got it.
Rags. Well, he needs to just go home.
You consistently overstate Rick’s nannystatism, (not much) and totally ignore the massive political opportunist that Gingrich is.
He’s not conservative in ANY way, social or otherwise, and he supported AGW for over 20 years and is amnesty shill, you dont get bigger gov Republican than that. He even backed the bailouts, nuff said. Wait, he even backed the individual mandate, a deal breaker that conservatives do not support.
He even undermined our own side this past year when he called the Ryan plan right wing social engineering. That was a clue to his irresponsible attitude toward entitlement spending. It’s boggling how that idiot rich guy is helping Romney win and ensuring defeat for us in November.
In the end, Santorum prior to 1995 was advocating FOR a balanced budget amendment. He supported cut cap and balance. He cosponsored the first mentioned in mid 90′s AND went so far as to call for resignation of a top GOP committee figure for failing to reign in spending in clear terms.
Earmarks? 2% of the budget, and they can be budgeted for and do not bust those. Big votes, like on bailouts, determine the men from he boys. Debt ceiling increases? The problem is with spending, not paying debt obligations when the ceiling is bucked up against. Again, paying off the credit card is not what is disastrous, it’s maxing it out that is. And Rick has led on that, more than once.
You act as though he never voted down any spending.
As for theocratic charges, and such. Please, that is tin foil hat territory.
Pick Rick.
I’m someone who takes the opinion that gaming is not something that is beneficial, particularly having that access on the Internet. Just as we’ve seen from a lot of other things that are vices on the Internet, they end to grow exponentially as a result of that. It’s one thing to come to Las Vegas and do gaming and participate in the shows and that kind of thing as entertainment, it’s another thing to sit in your home and have access to that it. I think it would be dangerous to our country to have that type of access to gaming on the Internet.
–Rick Santorum
Nanny. Statist.
Well said Dan!
Regardless of who the GOP candidate is the focus needs to ne defeating Xerxes and his puppet master, uncle George.
Don’t allow the Pravda media to pick our candidate like they did with Mc Shame.
“Regardless of who the GOP candidate is the focus needs to ne defeating Xerxes and his puppet master, uncle George.”
Is that what he said? I didn’t pick up on that. I’m an independent who is right of center fiscally and moderate socially. I am also a pragmatist. I don’t believe Rick Santorum can win because of his uber conservative social views. I am also not convinced that he is conservative fiscally and has the skills and gravitas to turn the country around to sound fiscal responsibility.
Thanks for pointing out something that should be obvious: Santorum is electable. This misperception is the reason why he did not win Florida and did not to do better in South Carolina. He, in my opinion is the real conservative and as such he has a built in crowd waiting to vote for him.
You are right, Dan. I will have no problem voting for Santorum in the general.
For the primaries I’ll stick with Newt, thank you.
Now that I have learnt more about Santorum, I find him a bit too Republican. With Santorum, it will be no different than the Bush years.
We need some drastic changes in DC and I trust Newt more in that regard.
Santorum I trust is serious about getting rid of Obamacare.
Romney and Uncle Paul are not even options, they are running on the wrong ticket.
The trouble with Newt is it’s mostly talk and he’s sucking votes from the only viable candidate against Romney.
Newt is too far behind now to pull this out, 2 that are perceived as anti-Romney’s cannot be in the race at the same time, one must go by now, and obviously it’s Newt. Clearly, even Newt is preferable to Romney, who is only a tad above Obama on the food chain.
Santorum is by far the best candidate left standing. He’s more conservative, in fact, even economically as well as socially, than was Bush.
Now, I preferred Bachmann, ideologically, but if she were running in Newt’s position now against Santorum, I would call on her to drop out too, as a practical matter.
Only Santorum of these 3 is serious about dumping Obamacare. His social conservatism ensures he is, due to the ethical aspects of contraceptive mandates, etc. So you KNOW he’s a true believer who will fight it to the bitter end.
Bollocks, kidding.
If you liked W, you will LOVE Santorum.
Rags, you are desperately cherry picking quotes and distorting them. Lots of folks do not think the internet should be a hard to regulate casino, which would bring up a lot of fraud details in actual operation from the limitations/parameters of the medium being applied to gaming.
Conservatives are not for ZERO gov. This statement, and others oft cited do not equal nannystatism. His RECORD does not show this per se taken in context.
You picked a good owned suit in Newt for gaming lobbyists, since his financier is a casino king. Encouraging gambling vices is hardly an attractive quality in a presidential candidate…
In perhaps the most important free trade vote of the last generation, Santorum voted against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, perhaps the most important trade vote cast during his career in Congress. Days before the vote, he said, “NAFTA will produce pockets of winners and losers across the country. Our area is unfortunately one of the losers.” That analysis, while arguably correct with regard to a small number of industries in Pennsylvania, ignores the fact that every single consumer in Pennsylvania benefited tremendously from NAFTA, as well as did many more affected industries.
As a member of the Senate Steel Caucus , Santorum voted for and co-sponsored a bill to slap tariffs on imported steel in 1999.
In 2005, Santorum voted in support of an amendment that would impose a massive, job-killing 27.5% tariff on all Chinese imports if China didn’t readjust their currency upward.
In 1997, Santorum sponsored a proposal that would impose a one-cent tax on imported honey with the proceeds going to the National Honey Board to aid in their research, a special interest giveaway.
–Club For Growth
Cherry pick…???
You’re full of…cherries, kidding…
YKD
“The trouble with Newt is it’s mostly talk”
You are ignoring his record as Speaker.
He also has a higher ACU rating than Santorum.
He spoke out against TARP in 2008, there is no evidence that Santorum spoke out against TARP at the time it was being proposed.
Sorry, should be addressed to YKM (you kidding me)
Listen, I could vote for Perry, Bachmann, Newt, or Herman as the nominee and I was prepared (still am) to pull the lever for Milton, if there was none that could beat him.
But Santorum is a damned statist and a huge spender. He is no Conservative and the Demos would love him to be the Republican nominee.
Some people may think it’s better to go down in what they tell themselves is a noble cause and subject the country to 4 more (if we’re lucky) years of Zero out of nothing more than spite.
But, last I looked, this blog was not the arbiter of Conservatism.
Such a thing would be un-Conservative.
Then Santorum needs to find a way to change the national discussion from social conservative views to budget. I love his views, but if he focuses on social issues too much when we need a focus on fiscal issues, he will lose.
100% formwiz…!!!
As I said, you cannot cherry pick indie votes and get the total picture. Anybody who thinks Gingrich is more conservative than Santorum has not followed them through their entire careers. I have. At any case, Gingrich comes across as too unfriendly and his negatives are off the charts with voters, he’s poison for a national election where likability (Santy has that) is critical.
It’s been that way for years, voters simply do not like him. 1 primary, due to his being seen as fighting against the liberal media was a feel good protest vote. That style will not work in a national election against a president who is weak. It turns off mods and indies to have somebody who appears angry. That’s a fact known to anyone with experience in this game, it’s why Gore came off bad when he got into Bush’s personal space in that one debate. Gingrich is too unpredictable and loose lipped to last against Obama. He’s also knee deep in lobbying deals, as Bachmann noted.
You are really rewriting history on Gingrich with TARP, which he backed, and Gingrich has not denied this. In fact, he’s on video backing it.
You cannot make Santy disprove a negative.
Given that he pushed for balance budgets and the BBA and called for the resignation of Hatfield, a 28 year ranking Republican, for opposing it.
Quote Santorum:
“He can vote against the balanced-budget amendment. But he shouldn’t be in leadership,” Santorum said at the time.
“This is an issue that is at the core of what Republicanism is all about … I see this as a major stumbling block in the way of the agenda.”
Now, does this sound like a person who believes in unlimited spending?
Santy has said no to other funding as well, many times in his career.
Bottom line is Rick does not have a 20 year plus record of backing global warming, which will lead to gigantic gov intrusion in our lives and spending. He does not equivocate on illegals. Bottom line is Gingrich backed TARP. Romney both TARP and stimulus. He also did not stab Paul Ryan in the back over his plan, quite recently. Gingrich was tossed for turning his back on conservative ideals for pure political expediency. He’s an opportunist slightly less evil than Romney.
He’s also not as solid on the life issue.
That’s why the SBA list endorsed Rick, not Newt.
Santorum has a mixed record on yet another economic issue – this time regulation. He rightly opposes card check and the over-reaching Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. He also voted NO on a cap and trade scheme brought to the Senate back in 2003 and YES on opening up ANWR to oil drilling. He voted YES to get rid of the Clinton ergonomic rules in early 2001.
He voted NO on raising the minimum wage in 1995 and 2005. But on the same day he voted NO in 2005, he sponsored an amendment that would increase the minimum wage, which he later boasted about to skeptical voters in a 2006 campaign brochure he released called “50 Things You Didn’t Know About Rick Santorum.”
He displayed similar duplicity on ethanol. In early 2011, Santorum said, “Prior to 9/11, I was not a big fan of ethanol subsidies, but 2001 change[d] my mind on a lot of things, and one of them was trying to support domestic energy and this is part of it.”
The evidence does show that Santorum was opposed to ethanol before 9/11. Twice, in 1997 and 1998, Santorum voted to end ethanol subsidies. And the evidence also shows that, at times, he was supportive of an ethanol mandate after 9/11. But in 2005, Santorum voted to end the ethanol mandate. If the original flip-flop was a principled stand taken by Santorum because of national security concerns, we’re at a loss to explain this flip-flop-flip-again vote.
In the same “50 Things” campaign brochure, Santorum boasts about sponsoring a bill to regulate “price gouging and unfair pricing by the big oil companies.” This contradicts his opposition to a “windfall profits tax” that Democrats tried to impose on oil companies in 2005. He also voted YES on Sarbanes-Oxley, which was an overreaching bill that tried to tighten accounting regulations following the Enron scandal.
________________________________
More “cherries”, kidding…
Those cherries are getting pretty weighty, yes…???
Say “Nanny” with me…
Say “Statist”…c’mon…
Rags, repeating garbage from your own mind instead of actually refuting my claims based on pure fact will not make you win the debate. Also, you are aware tons of very conservative folks are not wild about NAFTA or GATT?
Do you understand why?
Have you heard of the constitution party?
Are all of Santorums votes perfect. Nope. Is he the best overall choice with limited options.
Heck yes.
It’s not even debatable at this point, especially given the lateness of this sequence and in respect to Mitt Romney. A vote for Gingrich now is a vote for Romney, pure and simple.
General spending does not sway anyone in a case of 3 possible choices, all flawed to some degree. The key is BIG PICTURE and BIG TICKET items, and Romney and Newt are simply not equal to Rick. Period.
They have vocally supported or voted for, sometimes over years, too many HUGE “deal breaker” aspects of spending that bust budgets in trillions. From TARP to stimulus to global warming to amnesty to lobbying the Hill with mortgage giants that nearly blew up the country, it’s a joke that anyone would try to cherry pick Santorum’s record, and call HIM a statist but think the other 2 are for smaller government. Get real. Nobody with a brain buys it, or anyone that has really thought this out and looked at all their records comparatively.
Santorum? Earmarks, a nice soundbyte, worth about 2% of an allotted budget.
He was not my 1st choice, more like the 3rd, but he’s better than Newt or Mittens.
YKM – The records of the two gentlemen speak for themselves. As for me, I am more impressed with Newt’s record.
As for the ACU rating, it is what it is, you may not like the facts, but you can’t change it. It shows Newt to be more conservative than Santorum.
I used to defend Santorum as being the most conservative all round, until I researched his record. Those who said that he is a big government spender were correct.
The last thing a Santorum supporter should do is trying to make personality an issue. There are many who say that Santorum comes across as snotty and angry…
*********
kidding, honey, you just lost the argument.
Those are not MY words.
THAT IS THE RECORD, DUMMY.
“conservatives” who think they can tell me who to buy from…???
You LOVE the nanny state, by your own admission.
Thanks for the clarification…!!!!
Santorum is toast in the general election. He does not appeal to the center, and in fact, he turns off the center. That’s reality. I’ll line up and vote for him in the general election, and I’ll tell my friends to, but he’s going to lose if he’s the nominee. Republicans who win presidential elections invariably are able to draw votes from the middle. The Republican base is not enough to elect a president all by themselves, and that’s all Santorum will get.
“You are really rewriting history on Gingrich with TARP, which he backed, and Gingrich has not denied this. In fact, he’s on video backing it.”
I take it you watched the edited version. You should watch the whole video in context.
If you can find Newt on tape re: TARP in 2008, you should also be able to find record of Santorum in 2008 speaking out against TARP.
“you should also be able to find record of Santorum in 2008 speaking out against TARP.” And there isn’t any, because he didn’t.
What Ricky said up there, Ditto!! Great job as always, Dan!! Thanks for keeping us straight!!
Once again, he cannot disprove a negative. You are grasping at straws, and have not refuted what I said. As to Santorum losing the middle, there is no evidence he loses indies in a national election. None. Zilch. Zippo. This idea is repeated again and again, and as recently as last time a far left record level senator from IL won those groups against an avowed moderate.
Unlike loyal bases, the center is the most influence prone group. They vote from comfort level, not positions. The more likable candidate usually wins, because indies and mods tend to vote for that, while the “wingnuts” on both sides divide the rest on harder ideology.
Here’s a classic example of Santorum being unfairly hit by so called conservatives. In an article released today on American Thinker, this author correctly says Repubs lost on this issue, because they let it be about contraception. He’s basically right. It is as he says. Problem is, he then says
“Fortunately, Jonah Goldberg gets it right. It is a broader question of liberty. However, he incorrectly believes that Santorum, who at times inserts an occasional reference to liberty, is focused on the issue of individual rights. He isn’t. He is fighting contraception, sexual promiscuity, and a host of other matters that shouldn’t be part of a campaign for a government office. There’s a reason why his campaign motto is “faith, family, and freedom.” The first two are personal matters. Liberty is the issue. It is obviously last on his list.”
Here’s what Santorum has ACTUALLY been saying on this HC mandate (which Newt and Romney supported so by extension it leads to things just like this!)
“It’s not about contraception,” Mr. Santorum said at the Conservative Political Action Conference Friday. “It’s about economic liberty, it’s about freedom of speech, it’s about freedom of religion, it’s about government control of your lives and it’s got to stop.”
Santy HAS NOT made it about that. The left has with their lie that Santorum seeks banning of contraceptives, when he’s never advocated that in realized policy, and in fact has 1 opposite vote.
“As a member of the Senate Steel Caucus , Santorum voted for and co-sponsored a bill to slap tariffs on imported steel in 1999.”
a pittsburgh senator voting for the steel industry – shocking
About Newt – long but worth the read:
http://www.politijim.com/2012/02/dear-speaker-gingrich.html
YKM
I believe Santorum when he says he was opposed to TARP from the start.
You should also try to find Newt’s remark’s about TARP in context, just to be fair to him, even if you don’t like him. He ended up “supporting” it reluctantly.
You forgave Santorum all those not so perfect votes, and Newt did not even vote on TARP.
The other thing, knowing how Santorum voted along with Bush on almost every issue, it is likely that if he could vote, he would have gone along with Bush on TARP.
I am an ABR guy. Newt or Rick is fine with me. But if it comes down to Santorum vs. Romney, there is no comparison as to who is more fiscally conservative. As this article points out:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/was-santorum-senate-spendthrift_629850.html?page=2
Point is, if you’re not willing to fight Democrat and progressive media narratives when they start the firebombing, fine, get out of the damn way. There are plenty of us who’ve had enough and are willing to engage them on the very things they think will intimidate us. Got news for them, we will not be shouted down any longer.
If you claim to be conservative, yet this particular notion offends you, doesn’t apply, or simply doesn’t appeal to you, you’ve already surrendered and are useless to the process of correcting what’s wrong in the country. You don’t have to go away, but certainly, get the hell out of the way.
Yeah, I’m going to pick my candidate based on whether they are for or against internet gambling. I might as well make my choice based on whether they are right-handed or left.
There are only two candidate who have core principles, Santorum and Paul. The other two are inkblots who have taken every side of every issue at one time and have no core beliefs. Political opportunists who will say anything to get elected. No matter what side you are on any issue, you could make a promotional video making Romney or Gingrich look like your champion.
If McCain and the rest of the Republicans had fought Obama and the Democrats as fiercely as they fought conservatives, McCain might have won in 2008. Every time conservatives steppe up to fight, they were thrown under the bus. It’s going to be the same again this year apparently.
Santorum is a big government progressive.
See here.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/
No cherry picking here.
“Santorum is a big government progressive.”
By this definition Paul Ryan is a big government progressive as well.
@StrangerFiction According to Mark Steyn he is. His budget never balances. Ever.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/291315/corpsing-mark-steyn
http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/05/rep-paul-ryans-plan-vs-barack
Actions, not words count. Ryan talks the talk (sometimes) but never walks the walk.
Well Herman Cain had the same profile – as did Rick Perry – until those people got to know them both. A snapshot of a poll (again without ANY negative advertising against him) is not reality.
The media has not begun to play the endless clips of Santorum suggesting that conservatives should monitor bedrooms (which he did) or that priests having sex was acceptable because they weren’t young boys (he said that in 2003 with the first pedophile cases).
Palin had great numbers – until the media began an incessant chant to “introduce her” to the public in their way. NO ONE REALLY KNOWS WHO RICK SANTORUM IS. Even in the GOP he is benefiting from a (false) image as a principled conservative – of which there is much objective evidence to suggest he isn’t “true” in either category.
I think you are a little premature Dan to make the accusation that the guy who Pennsylvanians knew for 16 years and truly DID run him out of office by historic losses is eminently electable when Malkin, Levin, Limbaugh completely act like Rick’s personal Pravda propagandists on his REAL record.
No one knows him yet. And your numbers are only GOP voters, who also don’t know him yet. NOT the general electorate who will be appalled at his campaign manager circulating a memo saying that Bachmann can’t be president because she is a woman, or that he believes that homosexual activity should be against the law.
And he has LESS ability to sustain negative hits than Cain or Perry from an organization or money perspective, and far more “skeletons” than anyone is acknowledging.
If – after $44 million in negative ads, and the Main Stream Media running the stories that ran in Pennsylvania in 2006 – he is still leading Romney – I will reverse my position.
But while Santorum still holds an 88% lifetime ACU despite voting for employers to be unable to fire union workers, electing Sotomayor and stop conservatives from stopping her from SCOTUS and being the #3 man in the Senate that got the GOP tossed from power because they spent too much – forgive me if don’t don a sweater vest just yet.
Those worshiping Paul Ryan may want to remember he refused to stand with Michelle Bachmann and Jim DeMint to “hold the line” with the Tea Party 22.
Oh yeah, he also voted for all of those big government Bush programs.
Forgive me if I don’t worship Paul Ryan as the definitive definition of a conservative. He has shown no backbone in standing up to the RINO establishment despite his good ideas.
BONUS QUESTION: (Do you know who did stand up to his party on EVERY tax increase including a popular Ronald Reagan and who balanced the budget with a Democratic President?)
I do believe, I do believe, I do, I do, I do.
Brokered convention.
Gov. Walker has delivered.
Walker/West 2012
abo
Can Rick Santorum win the general? Yes, of course. But he better run better than he is running now. An economics based conservative message (primarily) and stop attacking allies like libertarians and tea partiers and Rick would have a chance.
I agree he’s got fence mending to do with libertarians. They’ve got to concede that they won’t get 100% ideological agreement though. But I definitely want to see him have that conversation.
Tea Partiers? While we don’t compromise, we are pragmatic, I think he’s good with most of us.
I’ll OPPOSE Santorum in the primary.
I MAY vote for him if he is the nominee. We’ll see…
Well, Rags, we have sparred, heck I would even vote for Newt if he was the nominee against Obama. I might even for YOU if you were the nominee. My cat would is more fit to be president than Obama is…
I’m just hoping voters dont blow this and avoid Santorum by giving in to the media ploy to make him look as extreme as possible on social issues in the primary, to avoid him and run back to Romney, as a “safe” choice. If they do, that would be an extreme error, since he’s the easiest person to beat due to his robot glare and Wall Street fat cattish halo, deserved or not.
He’s too trust fundie, with a 200+ page free opposition report on his flip flops courtesy of McCain in 2008.
He’s the Republican John Kerry, with Alf Landon’s ghost thrown in.
A person who does not in any way connect with voters beyond issues or their voting records seldom wins, and Romney is the poster child of aloof and phony. That is a big loser in a general.
Even Newt with his flaws at least has some fire in the belly to work with, Romney is like eating stale white bread.
http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/02/thanks-mark-steyn-for-ruining-my.html Depressing info from Mark Steyn, but I did like Rick Santorum’s come back to Charlie Rose on contraception.
I’d vote for your cat, kidding, over Bad Luck Barry.
M-a-y-b-e for his human servant, too…
Good gravy, people. They are ALL “big government progressives.”
Anyone who has been in government for any length of time either began as a big government progressive or became one over time.
It doesn’t matter if you’re a Governor or a Legislator – at some point, on some issue, you come to the conclusion that there’s a problem and that you’re in a position to “fix” the problem and the “fix” is a law or a regulation. And, PRESTO, you’re a “big government progressive.”
The questions, then, are “What are the issues upon which THIS big government progressive pursues governmental intrusion?” and “To what degree does THIS big government progressive cause government to intrude?”
I don’t care which candidate you choose (Palin supports Title IX whole-heartedly, for example) they ALL believe in a government which intrudes upon our public and private lives.
I will take ANY of these big government progressives over the extra-constitutional, power grabbing, country-transforming fascist we currently have even IF that person is a “big government progressive.”
Because he/she won’t be AS big or AS progressive as our budding leftist dictator. And, in some ways, in some areas, whomever is selected will, in comparison, not only to what we HAVE but to what we have HAD, pursue a REDUCTION in the power and scope of that same “big government.”
Just a passing note…
Were I to meet Shellie Obama, I’d have to kick her in her fat butt for screwing with my candy bars.
Not that I eat a lot of candy.
See, I’m an adult, and don’t need a nanny. Of either sex.
Blame it on Jen!
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49627
Beautiful!
http://fund47.blogspot.com/2012/02/bay-area-tea-party-movement-finger-wags.html
Actually the two, belief in Santorum’s electability and conservatism can be mutually exclusive. Part of it is that he has not always been conservative, and those lapses can come back to haunt him. Also, if he is unable to frame the discussion properly, then his conservative positions can be harmful to his election prospects.
Ricky:
“I like the guy so much I want to do a deal with him,” Gingrich, then the House speaker, confessed to his outraged lieutenants during a government shutdown almost exactly 16 years ago, according to a book about the stormy Clinton-Gingrich partnership.
“Conservatives didn’t trust him,” recalled John Feehery, an aide at the time to House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, who chaperoned Gingrich to meetings with the president to keep them from making deals.
As part of the 1997 balanced budget deal, Gingrich agreed to a proposal to give block grants to states to pay for health care for uninsured children who didn’t qualify for Medicaid. The deal forced Republicans to swallow a major new entitlement, the largest expansion of taxpayer-financed health insurance coverage for children since Medicaid began in the 1960s.
In fact, the national debt went up, not down, during the four years Gingrich was speaker. In January 1995, when he assumed the leadership position, the gross national debt was $4.8 trillion. When he left four years later, it was $5.6 trillion, an increase of $800 billion.
ABC News, Associated Press
“ABC News, Associated Press”
Names we all know and trust…
Really, Richard…???
You guys can’t win. None of these guys are electable and you know it.
The problem for the GOP is that your base hates the reasoned intellectual conservatism
which is the only chance you have to see a Republican in the White House.
Guys like David Brooks would win you elections, guys like Rick Santorum won’t
If you want the party of limited government to remain relevant, you really need to pursue
a pragmatic reasoned agenda (get out of the business of arguing that pure wild-west
laissez faire capitalism works) and find a leader that will stand up to the “free lunch”
false promises of the current administration. This country needs you guys to step up.
“I think you are a little premature Dan to make the accusation that the guy who Pennsylvanians knew for 16 years and truly DID run him out of office by historic losses is eminently electable when Malkin, Levin, Limbaugh completely act like Rick’s personal Pravda propagandists on his REAL record.”
This is similar to saying the GOP itself should go away because a country that knew the GOP well kicked them out of office in 2006 by and large.
Then again… I guess that’s true.
Santorum has some really unfortunate stuff in his record, but he’s an honest man and he’s not Romney. I personally think it’s a disaster if either of them is the nominee, but Santorum’s probably don’t translate into a) a bunch of lost congressional races as conservatives are turned off and b) the beltway GOP defeating the Tea Party because romney is our party leader now.
And frankly, Santorum is a better politician than Mitt. If winning is all that matters, he’s really better at this winning stuff than Mitt.
A lot of his 2006 problems were why Arlen Spector switched parties. A lot of it has to do with the Iraq War.
I can’t say I’m a fan of Santorum… I would rather Newt. But I think beating Romney will pay dividends in this party and I don’t see how Romney is more electable.
“…get out of the business of arguing that pure wild-west
laissez faire capitalism works…”
What the FLUCK are you babbling about…????
Dan doing what Dan does. Telling the world who is and isn’t a conservative, based on nothing but his own feelings.
Here’s news, Santorum is not a small government conservative. He has this habit of thinking it’s the Federal Governments to regulate vices out of existence. In what conservative manifesto/writing/speech is this ever a hallmark point?
Watch out, Dan: Ace might throw a hissy fit over you disagreeing wiht him.
ANOTHER hissy fit. Seems like that’s most of what he does these days.
I live in the present moment and enjoy it to the fullest.
I live in the present moment and enjoy it to the fullest.
I live in the present moment and enjoy it to the fullest.
If Santorum were a conservative then this post would have more meaning.
I live in the present moment and enjoy it to the fullest.
I don’t think you’re correct. The number of voters who are “social liberal/ fiscal conservative” might be small, but it’s a small number of voters who help swing elections. Santorum alternates between being dismissive and hostile to this block. (In point of fairness, this is my political niche.)
Currently the Republican coalition is a big tent with social cons, libertarians and moderates. I can’t see that unifying under Santorum. I get along just fine with my social con brothers, but on this man I must part ways. I just can’t picture any circumstance where I would pull the lever for a man who said “I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.” Thanks, but I would rather not help someone who promises to fight against me.
If social cons think they can win without us, then best of luck. I’m just not going to attend their funeral come November.
I live in the present moment and enjoy it to the fullest.