Rick

So just who is Rick Santorum?  What has he done to make him qualified to be president? 
I want to hear from people from his home state… You guys tell me.  I want to hear from first hand sources.
I know he’s conservative and pro second.  That’s it.  Now he’s a front runner.

42 thoughts on “Rick”

    1. See, that’s exactly what I was thinking. I like the guy enough based on what I’ve gleaned from his radio interviews with HH, one of the Town Hall Radio Pundits… nice enough guy. But he seems to be Soft Ball when we need to play Hard Ball.

  1. dont know that much except he has strong religious values and is very conservative. also the gay lobby does not like him and a gay talk show host named a by product of a sex act after him.

  2. After his showing in Iowa he’s going to become the “target du jour” of both the left and the the campaign strategists on the right that don’t work for him. I haven’t heard him stumble on anything yet, even when he’s answering a potentially loaded question about his voting record in the senate. It will be interesting to see how he fares in the next two debates. I think its interesting to contrast how he handled being a relatively conservative republican in bluish Pennsylvania vs. how Romney handled being a republican in solid blue Massachusetts.

  3. Okay, I agree with 90% of his voting record. I’m fine with that.

    However:

    He is ultra Religious. I’m fine with that. He hates gays and wears it on his sleeve. His choice but it doesn’t matter because that should be up to the individual states not the president and he should say so.

    If legislation came to his desk banning Gay Marraige, he would sign it. That is wrong. He should veto it because it is not up to the Federal Government to decide that. It’s a states rights issue.

    Ron Paul has the same conviction here as Santorum, but by contrast, Paul would rightly veto the bill.

    This will be a Ricky downfall and he will be beat about the head with it. As conservative as his voting record is, he will lose to Obama as he lost his Senate seat to another Democrat. The blueprint to beat him is already in place.

    If he can’t hold his seat in the Senate as an incumbant against a run of the mill DFL, he stands zero chance against Obama.

    He is a huge GOP establishment insider and hasn’t seen a welfare entitlement he will not vote for precisely because he is religious. He believes he is his brothers keeper in ALL matters, just like Hillary Clinton.

    Since the #1 national security issue is the debt, Santorum excludes himself by default (IMHO).

    Santorum is extremely pro-energy independance.
    He is extremely pro boarder control.
    He is extremely pro life.
    He is an extremely devout religious man.
    He is extremely pro 2nd Ammendment.
    He is against Obamacare.
    He is a Federalist. He would return Federal money back to the states and let them decide how they want to deal with welfare. He doesn’t think it’s the governments job. Yet he did vote for Bush’s Medicare Drug Rx entitlement and voted for no child left behind, raising the minimum wage to $7.35, the bridge to nowhere, and loves pork (earmark king).

    He is pro Israel and promises to make war with Iran. He is a Nation Builder in the mold of George Bush, which means more spending.

    That’s all I got. He is not as damaging as Obama, but he will get us to the same place in the end with his spending. I see no difference in this.

    Because he is a big spender like Obama and a nation builder like Obama/Bush/McCain (Obama nation builds for the wrong side mind you, but it is just as damaging), the differences are blurred for independants and they will ride the same horse they rode last time to the finish.

    I promised myself I’m not voting for another McCain, so Santorum is out for me…unless he impresses me with a plan to fix our number one problem which is the debt.

    That’s all I got.

  4. BTW, Ron Paul won Iowa. Iowa has non-binding delegates. Paul voters stayed behind after the vote to elect the majority of Paul supporters as delegates and almost 100% of the alternates are Paul supporters as well, so Iowa goes to Paul, not Romney or Santorum.

    Also, Santorum is still in single digits nationally.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

    While Obama’s Popularity is back.
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

    This is precisely because of big spending GOP Establishment Leadership in the persons of John Boehner and Mitch McConnel who are positively doing everything possible to hand both houses back to the DFL.

    Santorum vs Obama? Are you serious?

    Fail.

  5. Establishment GOP hate Ron Paul for the following reasons:

    1. He has never voted to raise taxes.
    2. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
    3. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
    4. He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
    5. He has never taken a government-paid junket.
    6. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
    7. He voted against the Patriot Act.
    8. He voted against regulating the Internet (SOPA).
    9. He voted against the Iraq war.
    10. He voted against the NDAA.
    11. He is PRO-Israel, PRO-zionist (independence & self-reliance).
    12. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
    13. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
    14. Congressman Paul has introduced numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, most recently a bill for the US to leave the UN. There are zero sponsors!
    15. He would cut his Presidential Salary to $39K/yr if elected.
    16. He HAS lead the way on the discussion about the Federal Reserve (Audit then end it).
    17. He has not participated in DC insider trading based on conflict of interest bills that Congress pass to enrich themselves. 100% of his wealth comes on the merits of his own investments. 65% in Gold and Silver mining stocks and the rest in Gold and Silver bullion. He puts his money where his mouth is and is the only one supporting a return to the gold standard, you know, like Utah recently did. Just sayin…

    1. You forgot to mention that RP is also a hypocrite of the first water, just in his handling of earmarks. He puts this earmarks on a bill that is guaranteed to pass – with or without his vote – and then votes against that bill. Then he stands on the capitol steps and bloviates about “never voting for an earmark” – and then gets campaign contributions from the earmark recipients. He’s as big a crook as John Murtha was; but manages to wrap himself in a mantle of self-righteousness for the rubes.
      From RP’s own ‘newsletters’ – by his own hand and over his own signature – he is shown to be a racist and an antisemite. (Re would, in fact, pass special laws to charge 13-year old blacks as adults while not doing the same to whites. (Because blacks are a “naturally criminal class”)
      He’s also a conspiracy theorist (nut) and a 9-11 ‘truther’, who believes that the Bush white house was “gleeful” when 9-11 happened; and who appears on Alex Jones radio show frequently to expoung on those conspiracies, and who is quoted frequently in the pages of ‘prison planet’ and infowars’.
      Ronpaul also receives a great deal of support from neo-nazis and white supremists – as evidences by a special’donation’ page/button on ‘Stormfront’. Paul, in fact, has a long association with neo-fascists which, in my opinion, gives lie to his statements of nelief in Liberty.
      http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

      Ronpaul is running for president for two reasons: a)To pad his retirement account; and b)I firmly believe that he has cut a deal with the democrats to draw enough votes from the Republican nominee to guarantee the re-election of obama.

      Just sayin’……

        1. No. Actually, they haven’t. And all of the paulbots in the world running out to shout, “Liar! Liar!” don’t disprove them.
          Ronpaul tries to say that he didn’t write his own newsletters – but doesn’t say WHO did write them over HIS signature. And he doesn’t disavow anything that they say.
          Ronpaul takes donations from white supremacists and then keeps the money and doesn’t disavow the endorsement. In fact, he weasels around to try to justify keeping the donation.
          Ronpaul is not an honest man. He is just not trustworthy. Frankly, he seems to be no different from any number of neo-fascist “leaders” who have arisen over the years to attract white supremacists and anti-Semites and conspiracy nuts of all stripes.
          I really do wonder what sort of grip on reality Ronpaul has when he believes in the “secret Israel SPIDER/GOAT DNA HYBRID EXPERIMENTS that are supposedly being done in Israel. Or that Fluoride in drinking water is a mind-control agent. Or that jet contrails are actually chemicals being spread to weaken and control us — and that the “chemtrails” can be dissipated by spraying vinegar into the air in your back yard.
          Ronpaul is a charlatan.
          You believe what you want – and vote for that monstrous fake if you feel driven to do so. For myself, Ronpaul will never – under any circumstances or for any reason – get a vote from me.

          1. So, would you say that the NAACP consists of “paulbots” who somehow enjoy defending White supremacists? Because even the local NAACP chapter said they are confident that he didn’t write them.

            The entire tone and writing style is not in any way similar to Paul’s.

            And then there are minor details like the most infamous of those letters decrying Marting Luther King… who Paul has explicitly and publicly described as one of his heroes.

            The controversial statements in those newsletters are so blatantly different from anything Paul has ever stated in any speech or any other recorded statement, that there is no doubt in any /rational/ individual’s mind that he did not author them. Claiming he authored or even supported them makes about as much sense as claiming that crayon additions to a contract were obviously added by the lawyers who wrote it, and not someone’s toddler.

            Paul is the least-racist candidate for the Republican nomination.

          2. RP disavows what the “newsletters” say. Watch the widely available video (the uncut one) that CNN creatively edited to invent a headline of Paul “storming out of interview”.

      1. Not a truther. He does not believe it was an inside job or that that the CIA blew up the twin towers.

        He does believe Jihadists target the U.S. because of our involvment in the middle east, as stated in the 911 Congressional Report and Osama Bin Ladens own words.

        No, Jihadists don’t blow us up because they hate our freedom. That’s just assinine.

        They don’t like our “nation building” policies and neither do I. Neither does RP. For that, they lump him in with “truthers”.

        It’s a lie.

        Second, the links the American Thinker posted claiming Neo Nazi Ron Black has a donation button for Ron Paul is another lie. The donations are for Ron Black, his white supremist group and his website. No Ron Paul donation button to be found.

        The entire American Thinker article is a hit piece that makes sweeping false claims easily disproven.

        Quoting some moron that Paul is a Libertarian which means he’s a social Liberal and anti Federalist.

        What a bunch of bullshit. This dick has no concept of the difference between a Libertarian and a Liberal. They are not the same thing.

        RP is the standard bearer for Federalism and States Rights and there are scores of Constitutional Scholors that would back this up including Jason Lewis, author of Power Divided is Power Checked, the Argument for States Rights and Dr. John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime.

        The entire American Thinker column not only proves RP’s Constitutional underpinnings but disproves it’s own hit piece by following the links it provides!

        Awesome!

        1. In spite of the very poor vetted RP article in the American Thinker, I do recomend people go there often and read what they have to say.

          The writing and research is usually steller.

          I don’t have an answer for them dropping the ball on the RP research other than they buy into the rumor because they are bias, believing what the MSM and GOP Establishment say about RP.

          American Thinker is good stuff.

        2. From Stormfront index……
          Poll: SF POLL Question: Who do you want America’s 2012 President to be? Let’s work hard & get Ron Paul elected President! (Multi-page thread 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 … Last Page)
          british74

          Help save America now by giving $25 bucks to mail out 45 NEW Color Ron Paul Super Brochures to unaware Americans (Multi-page thread 1 2)

          1. Is it really any surprise that racists would be for small government and secure borders? That doesn’t mean that Ron Paul supports or appreciates the association with racists.

        3. Anyone who buys the line – specifically for foreign consumption – that bin Laden spewed about it being about our policies in the middle east needs their head examined. At MOST, it somewhat influenced target selection.

          The stated goal of nearly every fundamentalist muslim on this planet is expressly to make everyone, by any means necessary, either convert to Islam, live under the scrutiny of Islam, or die. That’s it. Their interpretations of the Koran leave them with no other options.

          1. “Target selection” is right. A sociopath like bin Laden was going to attack someone, but he was able to use US policies as an excuse to attack America. Without that excuse, he would have attacked some closer, easier target.

  6. Santorum was basically the one elected from ‘the part of PA that isn’t Filthy.’ His record is straight old-school GOP, his pockets are lined with unprocessed pork fat, and he lost his seat to an empty suit blue dog.

    I’ve lived in PA my entire life, and I think even old Arlen Specter may have been a better representative for his constituents (with means I did not like him, but he did what the majority around these parts wanted). I’d take Huntsman or Paul over him any day. He IS very much a member of the religion-centric GOP, with all that entails, if that is your sort of thing, and he was FAIRLY pro-second. But, like Romney, he has no problem talking out both sides of his face at the same time on the subject. He supported the Lautenberg bill (which was a double edged sword to me), voted for mandatory locks with all gun sales, and the ‘gunshow loophole’ bill in ’99. He also supported Specter after he flip flopped (and Specter was always a Philly anti-gunner). But he did support the Commerce act that made it very hard to sue gun manufacturers out of existence simply for making a product people sometimes misuse. The NRA gave him a permanent ‘A’ for that one.

    Overall I would put him as better than the RHINO that is Romney, but probably more subject to corrupting on everything but social issues from a conservative standpoint. He will force moderate and indie votes to Obama in a general election, and has nearly zero chance of winning PA.

    1. Oh yes, thanks for reminding me about his support for Specter over Toomey! Forgot about that one.

      I hear Arlen is doing foul mouthed standup comedy now. Maybe Santorum can join him?

      I also forgot about the gunshow loophole vote.

  7. I lived in PA most of my life and had dealings twice with Sen. Santorum. The one in DC, he was the glad handing elected offical that you see on TV. He is a career politian. The other was a briefing were he was one of the few people that asked the right questions and a listened to was was being said by those involved.

    He was alot like Dan Qualye, very good in person with small groups but gets the deer in the head lights look in big crowds.

    He is more GOP than conservative. He picks strange things fights, his first Senate bill was to ban puppy mills. Really that was the most important thing you could think of when Bill Clinton was POTUS?

    He is not the ruling elite like John Hienz or Arlen Specter (spit when you say that name).

    He believes the rules apply to him. See this little story: http://kylecassidy.livejournal.com/688496.html

    He lost in the backlash against Bush and the Iraq war. He never stopped backing Bush and it hurt him. He still stuck to Bush knowing it would hurt. Compare that to Specter (spit when you say that name).

    Yes, the gays hate his guts. Who sleeps with who is a none issue with me.

    Would I vote for him?, yes. Do I think he’ll be a great president? , no. Will he be better than BHO? Hell Yea!

    1. I’m almost with you there. He needs a plan to deal with the debt before he gets my vote, otherwise he will be just as damaging as BHO.

      Look at the backlash happening with the GOP in congress these past few months for their inability to hold the teaparty line on spending, voting to raise the debt ceiling twice since getting the purse strings back in Congress, and now they will have to raise it again next week because we are $25 million away from the cap AGAIN!!!

      GOP=DFL.

      A pox on both houses. I hate to say it but I think we see the rise of the third party after this election. The GOP has totally tainted the Conservative well. The poison must be removed.

  8. I grew up in PA (in the non-filthy part…Pennsyltucky as we sometimes called it); moved after graduating from Penn State.
    Not much to disagree with, or add, to what those from the Commonwealth have already said.
    Hardcore devout Catholic. Anti-gay, Pro-Life, a social conservative’s social conservative. He will have a hard time wooing professional/upper middle class independents for that reason.
    Evangelical Christians, at least those of a pro-life activist bent, will contribute mightily to the ground game vs. Obama, but it won’t necessarily be enough to win.
    Like others above, I can see him as a Big-Gov “compassionate conservative” do-gooder, not a debt hawk.
    Better than BHO? I’m with Gerry. Hell yeah.

  9. There is still a lot of left over animosity on the conservative side of the GOP over his endorsement of Spector when it was Toomey that they wanted.
    Given the choice between him or Obitwat I’d go for him.
    I’d go for Gringrich even though he has more baggage than cruise ship. Romney….eh. I’m tempted to stay home if he gets the nomination. I’m a Perry fan but he’s pretty much a long shot unless he restructures and pulls an upset in South Carolina. He’s let the media and his enemies define him too much. In my opinion he should of jumped down that Baptist Preacher’s throat who was trying to hitch a ride when he mouthed off about Mormons. It’s not like we don’t have Mormons in Texas who vote. anyway excuse the rant.

  10. What makes anyone qualified to be President?

    I would humbly assert that anyone who believes they have the innate ability to intelligently speak for millions of people they’ve never met should probably be kept warm, safe, and away form sharp objects. Not given the keys to military and police forces.

    But, that’s just me.

  11. Chris,
    No it is not just you. The process of just running for office has become so corrupted by the amount of money you need and the opposition research crap you have to put up with that only people with cast iron egos will do it or can stand it. We end up voting for who we think is the least insane. We end up lying to ourselves because the truth is so disgusting. What is really scary is that the whole “checks and balances” thing that was supposed to put one group of rats against another seems to have broken down. The one bright spot is that I’m seeing more good people running for office at the local level. Lordy my rant switch seems to be on today.

    1. I am a fan of a healthy and well developed ego.

      Political types have to have more than just self confidence.

      They have to be narcissistic and arrogant in a nearly pathological way.

      I would never in a million years presume to know so much about other peoples needs and wants. Especially when those people are strangers from places I’ve never visited with priorities I might never understand.

      To be a politician you have to be able to claim with a straight face that you are a master of a nearly infinite assortment of complex disciplines. Expert to such a degree that you feel your opinions should be imposed on everyone through the force of law.

      It’s like going to a party, and meeting a someone who claims they are a master pianist, Navy SEAL, world renowned chef, a leading philosopher, a football superstar, and a best selling author. At some point you’re going to work out that this person is not well.

      I think we should call it Kim Jong Il’s disease… (To soon?)

  12. I keep thinking of Brewsters Millions with this field. Can I get a vote for none of the above? /heh/

    To be fair to Santorum on a coupla points:
    1. He’s prolly the ‘nicest-realist’ guy still in the running. I trust no politician but relative to Newt ‘on the couch with Nancy’ Gingrich and Mitt ‘I won’t rule out a Value Added Tax’ Romney… sigh. see what I mean

    2. Yeah Santorum’s basically a career politician. Mr Smith goes to Washington was a nice movie but reality bites. You want someone who has a clue about gettin’ er done. Santorum was #3 man on the Republican Senate team. That suggests he’s got a clue how things move through Congress — and how to move things thru Congress. He might actually be able to get a couple things done.

    3. Careful about implied ad hominem attacks on (reportedly) a fairly decent guy in referreing to him as one how “hates gays.” To want to leave the traditional definition of marriage alone does one a hater make.

    1. Definition of Marraige is not up to the federal government.

      States rights.

      You don’t like the definition in the state you reside, vote with your feet and leave. That is the beauty of the Constitution and its Federalism underpinnings.

      Republic!

        1. Amen. A Republic would be very good. I would prefer it over a pseudo-socialist oligarchy with aspirations to monarchy.

  13. When did this become a “I love Ron Paul” forum? Chill out fellas. And I thought Obama fans were “vocal.”

  14. Santorum, just another shyster and coward who never served in the military. That classes him with Obama and Clinton and Romney.

    Too few of the candidates have military time and I don’t like the idea of a President who is too cowardly to put his personal fanny on the line, sending our kids out to die.

    Rick Perry and Ron Paul, for all their faults, served in the USAF.

    Geoff
    Who notes someone will mention Rush Limbaugh never served in the military, but he’s not running for President.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>