Dear Santorum Bashers. Read this and weep.

I’m so sick of the Paulbots and the Romneybots treating Santorum like Obama when it comes to spending. Even Romney and his minions are trying to make this ‘he spends like a Democrat’ smear stick. Problem is, it’s absolutely wrong as the Weekly Standard pointed out today.

I can’t post the whole article here so you need to go read the whole thing there. But I will post the most pertinent part:

NTU’s (scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorum’s 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.

Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.

So, if Santorum was among — and perhaps even topped the list of — the most fiscally conservative senators during this period, who were the least fiscally conservative? That prize would have to go to the two North Dakota senators, who despite representing a state that voted 23 points to the right of the national average in the presidential elections, managed to achieve GPAs of 0.08 (Democrat Kent Conrad) and 0.00 (Democrat Byron Dorgan). Honorable mentions would have to go to Max Baucus (D., Mont.), who got a 0.84 GPA in a state that was 18 points to the right of the national average; Harry Reid (D., Nev.), who got a 0.08 GPA in a state that was 4 points to the right of average; and Utah Republicans Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch, who each barely cleared a 3.0 (3.11 for Bennett, 3.08 for Hatch) despite representing the state that, in the presidential elections, was the nation’s most right-leaning (38 points to the right of average).

As for Santorum’s potential opponent in the fall, Barack Obama’s three years in the Senate (2005 through 2007) overlapped only with Santorum’s final two years. (In 2008, Obama effectively left the Senate to campaign for President and therefore didn’t cast enough votes for NTU to score him that year.) In both of the years that the two men overlapped (2005 and 2006), as well as throughout Obama’s three years’ worth of preparation for the presidency, Obama’s GPA was 0.00 — a rock-solid F.

Now that’s acting like a Democrat — something Santorum has never done.

Also consider for a moment if Paul Ryan were in the race. Would you vote for him? He too voted for the Prescription Drug plan and also support a cap on CEO pay with Obama in 2009. Would that stop me from voting for him now? Heck no. My point is, as Levin says, you can pick over someone’s record and find things you don’t like, perhaps even egregious things. But as the NTU points out, when you look at someone’s total record you often get a different and better picture of the their spending history. And for Santorum, he outranked almost everyone.

is Santorum perfect? No. But is Santorum a conservative? Absolutely. And someone who I believe would fight to do the right as president. And if we give him a Republican House and Senate, it’ll be even more motivation to fight for what is right.

***

P.S. To those of you who think I’ve forsaken Newt, I haven’t. It’s just that Newt clips are harder to come by these days and I’ve not been that impressed with his most recent speeches (CPAC). But I still like him and would be supporting him more fiercely if he had more momentum. But for now it’s all SantorumSurge.

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • THANKS TheRightScoop!! I”LL BE USING THIS TO SHUT UP THE ANTI-SANTORUM HOARDS!

    • Linky1

      Seems they are coming out of the woodwork now.

  • epigone

    Scoop’ why do you support Newt? As a conservative is makes no sense.

    Do you even care that Gingrich thinks we should grow the State Department by 50%!

    Newt loved Romneycare back in 2006!
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/27/gingrich-supported-romney-health-care-plan-in-2006-newsletter/

    Gingrich was for the individual mandate allllll the way back in the distant year of 2009!

    He was soooo against Fannie and Freddie wasn’t he???
    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/03/nyt-gingrichs-ties-to-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-are-deeper-than-you-think/
    Oh and he is amazing on illegal immigration!!!!

    And best of all…
    Newt’s obsessive love for the early America progressives!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJDgEPzHII4
    As an educated conservative you should be troubled by that one the most!!

    • Newt is a conservative!! No one can pass the conservative purity test, not even Ronald Reagan!

      • epigone

        Ronald Reagan was a conservative that used to be a Democrat. He had a turning point and never looked back. Newt has been a chameleon and only has cared for what is politically expedient at the time. If you overlook all that I posted, and still don’t question then I pity your blind support. There is no perfect conservative, but when you have someone that has said this many things on camera and you still try to put him on the same level as a Ronald Reagan, then we will never see eye to eye…

        • Damn Newt for being a chameleon and reforming welfare and forcing Clinton to balance the budget. I can support Newt, and I can support Rick, but I can’t support Mitt. Now that’s a chameleon who only cared for what is politically expedient and why he will not be able to gain the trust of the American people. Newt has a record and conservative accomplishments that you can’t take away with your little links.

          • epigone

            If I went up to you and asked you who your favorite president was in the 20th century and you would say Ronald Reagan, or Calvin Coolidge then I would know that conservatism is at your core. But FDR and Wilson were a couple of the most sinister presidents in our history entirely. Newt even brought up another of the worst presidents in a debate recently which was Andrew Jackson. All of these guys were bad, and they all were Democrats as well. Doesn’t that bother you in the least? He knows his history, so the man is not speaking out of ignorance. The argument that because he has done so much for conservatives means he will never be anything else to you. Its like saying that someone that is for smaller government but voted and was in full support for a department of education means that he still is for smaller government just on a bigger scale. Oh wait Gingrich did vote for the DOE…

            • librtifirst

              Andrew Jackson was a hero to those who understand the central bank issue, though he also relocated a lot of Indians. The Native American issue was not his alone. I would take a Jackson over any of the current guys. Except for the tyranny he put down on the Indians, he was much more of a patriot than any modern president or candidate.

              • epigone

                Alex Jones listeners and Ron Paul supporters tend to only look at his fiscal policies. Yes he paid down the debt in full, and fended off the central American bank with foreign influence. The biggest thing for why I think he’s one of the worst presidents in our history is for his idea of “Manifest Destiny.” it something that any Jackson fan I talk to doesn’t feel the same way I do about, but as a true conservative and one that has read all the founding fathers beliefs and opinions, “Manifest Destiny” is exactly the opposite of their stance. Divine Providence is what every founding father (excluding a small handful of non-believers) believed, but my guess would be that won’t matter at all to you.

                • librtifirst

                  I don’t see how you can say that manifest destiny doesn’t matter to people like Ron Paul and myself. It is the concept of expansionism with a basis of destination. As it is, we are expanding our presence around the world, and it is not appropriate in our opinion. We are using force, as we did in conquering territory back then, including Mexico. The only difference is that we are only planting the flag of corporatism now, and we were abolishing statehood and occupied territory then.

                  The central bank was, and is the biggest threat to our sovereignty. Our sovereignty was gained by rejecting tyranny and claiming independence, both nationally, and individually. The single most stupid thing that we did, was to create the central bank monster, and allow a corrupt government to use it to advance the control systems in such a way as to negate our individual freedoms, such as income taxes to pay the interest, and make us dependents on the control systems and the like tyrants that we fought to become independent of.

                  You may see the proper focus of government to be the legislating of morality, but you would be ignoring the basis of the moral decline, pragmatically, in our country in the process. The more corruption that is allowed by our leaders, the more corrupt the people will become.

                • epigone

                  i agree, but mine is more from a spiritual angle. The idea is the same as Hitlers belief that God was on their side as they were manifesting there own destiny, where our traditional beliefs where rooted in the hand of God showing them the right way to go. The founding fathers were much more worried about being on God’s side then God being on their side.

                • librtifirst

                  Agree. I just think that making people support themselves, and being a good example for them to follow is a better way.

              • MLCBLOG

                It is so easy to judge the past by our present standards. Sad but true, Native Americans were considered subhuman then. The consciences were not as highly evolved as ours then.

        • Was that why Reagan did amnesty and Lebanon? The only perfect person is Jesus. Put the Beck kool aide down

          • epigone

            yeah and Newt is far far from perfect conservative, he would be the perfect Rockalfeller republican:

            • He’s the best we have in the race. We know who you hate. Who are you for? {Beck judges you} Restore the Love brother

              • epigone

                I don’t hate Newt, his blind supporters need to see the light and look at how he lies, instead of explaining past comments.

                • You have been fed lies and you won’t even look to see if you’re being lied to. You are gonna give barry his second term but take heart, S&P is waiting until after the election to see if we make any big changes before they downgrade us again. The collapse may take us out before barry can.

                • epigone

                  and Newt is the one that can save us all… have you seen his favorability rating recently? he scores lower then Pelosi on a nationwide basis. why can’t you look to Santorum?

                • I never said I couldn’t back Santorum

                • Why not look to Santorum? Because the first issue on his position’s page on his site is an article decrying the evils of Pornography. Not that I support Porno, mind you, but I certainly think there are more important things going on in the country right now than running a campaign on family/religious issues. We’re all pro-life here (most of us, anyway). We need to hear something with real substance. Not this c*** that he’s the super duper Christian who is more Christian than anybody else.

                  Here is a comparison of their platforms. Saint Rick plans to lower the tax rate for individuals to 10 percent and 28 percent. Of course, that’s just for the income tax, they still pay FICA. On corporate taxes, he plans to have it at 17 percent and 0 for manufacturers. He keeps the Capital Gains tax, though it’s lowered to 12 percent. I don’t recall him saying he’ll repeal “all regulations” Obama has put in place. He has said he will repeal the regulations that are “onerous”, whatever that means. Spending levels he hopes to reduce will be back to 2008 levels. On Social security, there is a terrible emptiness of specifics and, from what is said, nothing really gets changed. Something about increasing retirement age, making sure social security funds go to social security, blah blah blah. There is a similar lack of specifics on many other topics, so I won’t even bother to bring them up.

                  Newt’s plan is a flat tax rate of 15 percent, or you can choose to remain in the progressive tax system currently in place. Corporate rate is a flat 12.5 percent for ALL businesses, not just for manufacturers. The Capital Gains tax is eliminated, amongst other things to be eliminated. Younger workers will have the opportunity to embrace privatization of social security, which is a good important first step to utterly abolishing it.

                  None of this is perfect, mind you, but they are all good important first steps in the right direction. The real source of our problems is in the tax system itself, and in the very EXISTENCE of the entitlements.

                  Santorum just goofs around with the system as it is, but doesn’t make any major changes that can’t be undone later. He does throw a bone at us with the Balanced Budget Amendment, but I have never heard him once really use that to campaign on… which I think means he’s not very serious about it. He does not even attempt this style of reform in any of his other proposals.

                  Eliminating the tax code entirely and moving over into a purely equitable system of taxation should be the ultimate goal. We should not be choosing winners and losers or punishing success, no matter how big that success. To destroy the tax system would be a major blow upon leftists, who use the current progressive system as a method of control.

                  Social security ought to ultimately be abolished. The Chilean Model, from which Newt’s (and Cain’s) social security plan derives is a good alternative. That system has been shown to be successful and even has been shown to give a better return on money invested therein.

                  I’m a Fair Tax guy myself, but Newt simply goes farther in his proposals.

                  Your guy Santorum is an empty suit, and you have no business accusing Newt of being a liar just to defend your guy.

                  As for Scoop. This is the bandwagon effect. It’s not based on anything really substantive. I doubt any of Santorum’s supporters have ever really thought seriously about party strategy or platform.

                  That’s why I want Newt. He’s campaign minded. He knows how to campaign on issues and craft messages. We need Newt to help back us up as we work to retake the congress. It doesn’t end after we elect somebody. It’s only the beginning. It doesn’t end once we have Obummercare repealed. It’s only the beginning. We need an active campaigner and an active grass-roots that is driven by big ideas after our common enemy is out of the way. Once Obummer is gone, the danger is that we will go back to sleep. With lackluster Santorum pulling the strings, we’ll definitely go back to sleep.

                  You need to look at the big picture.

                • JacquePatriot

                  “I doubt any of Santorum’s supports have ever really thought seriously about pary strategy or platform”.

                  When Rick was campaigning in Iowa, a boy with autism asked all of the candidates what they would do about all of the children with autism in America. I listened carefully to all of their answers for 2 reasons: 1) I’ve worked as a speech therapist for 30 years and know what the public schools are doing in this regard is NOT working. 2) The answer would surely reflect whether the candidates were truly conservative or just trying to say what they believe most people (especially the child) wants to hear….Only Ron Paul and Santorum did NOT say GOVERNMENT was the answer. Santorum had a terrific answer (even the child was heard saying “I like this man” in the video). That was what I needed to hear from a candidate to know that Rick Santorum is not a progressive who talks big policy and then when in office plays the same game as all the RINOs. Rick’s the man….Santorum/West 2012!!

      • JimmyBleep

        I think Ronnie passed a few more tests than Newt.

      • You’d think that the purity test oughta be tied to the Constitution. Polticians take an oath to uphold that not to uphold a nebulous platform called “Conservatism.” Nobody can even define exactly what that is. But the oath of office and the Constitution are very explicit and specific things. Just a thought….

    • Glenn Beck, is that you?

      • epigone

        what is truly sad is that you used to post his show on here everyday, and would post stuff about progressivism. but since you have been for Newt, your conservative side has been throw by the wayside. listen i am not looking for a perfect conservative, but if you are able to look over all the stuff that shows that Newt is an out and out liar then I think the problem with conservatives is with themselves. Blindly following someone, and loving they way they debate and speak without vetting them gave us Hitl… um I mean Obama.

        • I don’t know where to start. The irony is overwhelming.

          • epigone

            Go ahead, you are obviously a Newt supporter.

            • Glenn Beck has been supporting Mittens from day one. He even war gamed it out providing you Mittens ‘pivot point’ on abortion. How do we know Mittens had a ‘pivot point’?? Cuase Glenn Beck said so.

              Glenn is supporting Mittens because of this.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Prophecy

              Glenn said nothing about Newt until he was about to take Iowa. Then it was scorched earth. Beck took clips out of context of Newt saying, ‘In foreign policy matters I am a real politic Wilsonian’ Glen ignores the first part of that quote and shouts to his followers the Newt is Wilson and no one even looks up the word. Here… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilsonian You know who else is ‘Wilsonian’?? Beck. Reagan.

              Then Beck breaks out Newt’s heavily edited clip of Newt being fond of FDR. What Newt has said many times is, ‘FDR is the greatest president of the 20th century based on his ability to self govern and get things done’. That last part never makes it with Beck. You know who else liked FDR? Reagan.

              In one day the blaze had 14 hit pieces on Newt, 9 puff pieces on Mittens and 1 story on Santorum {and one on Santorum’s pastor that was negative}. The stories on Newt are taken out of context or outright lies. Read them for yourself. Search the site with all the candidates names. Find something negative on Mittens. Find the Soros story about Mittens and Obama being the same.

              Beck endorsed all the people polling in last place until they started threatening Mittens. Then they caught the bus from the underside. Cain, Bachman, Paul and now Santorum. Look at the stories on the Blaze. They’re negative on Santorum but pro Mittens

              You’re being played

              • epigone

                this is the saddest excuse for a rebuttal I have ever scene in my life. First of all, one of my links had GB talking… and that is the one you decide to tear apart. and you take umbrage with just one of the comments that inside that clip among all the comments he has said. The fact you attack faith shows me who you are, and if that is a Newt voter then count me out. I don’t agree with a bunch of faiths, but I will never attack an individual for there beliefs no matter how different they are. I just hope people like yourself stay at home and have no influence on society, because a next generation that thinks like you is something I pray I will never see.

                • You reek of Beckism. Every point you’ve brought up is from Beck. I’m sorry that you think Beck’s faith doesn’t influence him. Mine influences me. You are a mindless Beckbot

                • epigone

                  He very well has brought them up in the past, but that doesn’t mean I get all my news from him. you discount Newt own words an opinions and choose to attack GB and Mormonism. Instead of being for Santorum. You choose to make this about Mitt, Mormons, and GB. I find it very sad, and you faith sounds full of hate and close-mindedness. Even in the face of clear-cut evidence, and words out of Newts mouth.

                • I don’t throw out labels quickly but you’re a troll. I never attacked Mormonism and I told you to search the blaze for Beck’s own stories. He is a liar. The funny part is I had never met a beckbot that would intelligently debate points. You are an Alinsky troll.

                • epigone

                  you brought up GB, and you brought up Mormonism. and I am the Alinsky troll. you tried to marginalize me by calling me a beckbot instead of looking at all the facts. You picked one point that was one quote of Newts that you felt you could argue that is what all conservatives are for which is spreading democracy to other countries or whatever. Don’t tell me that I didn’t debate the points, when there are still a bunch of stuff above that you don’t want to seem to tackle. Instead you chose to make this about GB and Mormonism. How about you be for Santorum instead, still not perfect on every single issues, but if you hate Mitt Romney so much you should be able to be on my team.

                • You brought Beck’s talking points into this.

                  Tell me when talking about Mormonism turned into attacking Mormons??

                  That was your main point that’s why I answered it. Maybe you should reread your original post.

                  Next time you get the chance choose the grape. Glenn puts more sugar in it.

                  Later

                • epigone

                  its easier for you to attack the messenger instead of the message. rather than face the facts you use your dislike for GB and make it about Mormons secretly aligning to get Romney elected. Why does Michelle Malkin feel the same way about Newt and think that Santorum is the best conservative choice? it wouldn’t surprise me if you make it about her race or something. if you chose to not even research his past, and how he lies about his past support for liberal ideas and love for the Rockafeller republican side of the party then go ahead and keep your head in the sand. you could send me another link that shows Newt saying that he used to love FDR until he saw the light and understood that Calvin Coolidge was the best President. Or maybe he could admit that he lied about telling Florida voters that Mitt Romney denied Holocaust victims kosher food. Or maybe he could say that his interview on Univision was not reflective on his real views on illegal immigration. Or maybe he could say that yes he was for an individual mandate for healthcare up until obamacare was implemented, but in 2011 he saw the light. Or maybe he could say something like, I am sorry for voting for the DOE and the fairness doctrine. Or maybe come out and say that he is sorry he said that he would arrest any district appeals judge he didn’t agree with, and that is not something a conservative should do or say. Or that he is sorry that he wrote a book about global warming reversal and the contact with the earth and was only for man-made global warming when it was popular. Or maybe come out and say how sorry he is about not seeing any problem with Fannie and Freddie which as a conservative knowing the government forcing housing companies to loan to people that can afford a house was a problem to being with. Or i am sorry I abandoned Reaganism as soon as he was out of office and admitted I was more of a Rockefeller republican, but now I look back and realize that conservatism is the best thing.

                  Everyone would be able to forgive him if he admits his past policies instead of hiding from them and acting like it never happened and only telling you about how he balance the budget or say things like “hey, remember the republican revolution? that was all me!”
                  If all you have is another editorial of someones opinion on Newt, please don’t post. If it was him admitting his mistakes and talking about why he believed and felt the way he did and has seen the light I am all for it.

                • I think scoop got it wrong. I think this is Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

                • epigone

                  and you accused me of using Saul Alinsky tactics…

                • xymbaline

                  No, we actually think that you’re Saul Alinsky speaking from the grave.

                  You’re not only a troll, you’re a fairly inept one.

                • Mtncougar

                  Nice try epigone. MSGT waaay out-debated you.

                • epigone

                  I guess you like Newt’s debating skills of just attacking the moderator, and then not fully addressing the question. Maybe you should elect MSGT for president just based on how much you love his debating skills. Now there is a brilliant idea!

                • xymbaline

                  It’s a whole lot more sensible that anything you’ve advanced here.

      • hehehe , you have a sense of humor too!
        I love this site

      • nibblesyble

        LOL

      • Sober_Thinking

        Lol! 🙂

    • GraceKnows

      You must be new or something. We’ve already brought answers to all those arguments.

      • epigone

        I have followed this site for over three years. I have recommended this site to many of my conservative friends. I have however been disappointed in this site for not showing Newt for what he is, a political chameleon.

          • epigone

            so you send me an article on someone else’s opinion of a candidate? And I am the one that is painted as though I get all my history from an opinion show. Have you read about early American progressives? Read a few history books that show how American progressives and history revisionist are the reason why we are dealing with all the crap we are dealing with today…

            • I was hoping you could read and I wouldn’t have to make such a post as I did above. Reading is good.

              • xymbaline

                Comprehending is even better.

                Unfortunately, both are beyond epigone.

        • Gtrjag

          I agree with you about Newt, but at least Scoop is supporting Santorum now. If Santorum Keeps up this momentum mabe Newt will go away.

        • K-Bob

          This site shows more video of Gingrich than you will find anywhere. Scoop is careful not to trash the candidates, and doesn’t tell you who to vote for.

          You can also start your own site if this one doesn’t live up to your expectations.

          • epigone

            they don’t trash Mitt and Ron Paul? granted I am not for either of them, but this site clearly has given a pass to Newt especially on so many things it’s not even funny.

            • K-Bob

              You apparently misunderstand the entire posting style here. Scoop puts up the video, and lets you decide. He doesn’t write long, rambling screeds or snarky hit pieces like other sites. Also, over time, you can see how Scoop is making up his own mind about the candidates.

              For lists of facts and rebuttals, look to the comments section. We have some very good regular commenters here, with lots of facts and opinion about all of the candidates.

              Scoop doesn’t even write much about Mitt or Ron Paul, so any “trashing” going on is in the comments.

              Come for the videos, stay for the trashing!

    • FreeManWalking

      Epigy ~ you really need to ask for your money back those special beck progressive tunnel vision microscopes only work on those drinking the beck-aid.

      • epigone

        I guess trolls love liar don’t they freepigy!

        • xymbaline

          Wow, looks like epigone finally got too drunk to write.

    • PFFV

      Gingrich is a Tea Party Conservative and we all make mistakes. I like to think I have become a better man as I have lived my life, why can’t Newt be a better man now? I can understand if you want to squash him because he is a better speaker, has a better plan and can articulate it better than Santorum can articulate his but just be honest and say that will you please. I like Santorum and Gingrich but not in that order.

    • K-Bob

      Please do not post a bunch of links. If you want to make a comment, make it yourself. It’s okay to post links backing up facts you mention yourself, but you need to provide the commentary, and the context. A bunch of links are just noise, and this isn’t a link farm.

      • epigone

        here’s an idea, if you don’t like someone to post a bunch of links, why don’t you create you own site where you can set up the discussion board rules. someone gave that advise when I didn’t like how all the candidate on completely vetted on here…

  • Bravo!

  • He still believes something else in his heart yet voted the way he thought Pennsylvanian’s wanted him to. Pure hypocrisy. What will he do as President, believe he’s a conservative at heart but in the end vote for Big Government because that’s what Government people around him want?

    • Actually if you go read the article, they also look at the states they are from and how right or left they are, and it turns out that though Penn was far left, Santorum’s score still beat those who were voting from far right states.

      Seriously, go read it and you’ll see that Santorum was more conservative than most even though he was from a leftist state.

      • librtifirst

        Isn’t this grading system based on comparison? If so, it is a relative measurement, without a specific baseline of an ideal nature. If an ideal baseline was created, that would have to be scrutinized, because conservatism is relative, in general.

    • Hey Pawn here is the thing, you are elected to work FOR THE PEOPLE OF YOUR STATE! You answer to THEM. They didn’t want a National Right to Work Law, so he didn’t vote for it, because he was REPRESENTING his state, doing his JOB! He said as President he would sign it cause he is no longer tied to a state. It is not Hypocrisy, it was doing what he was supposed to do.

      Also if it was a moral issue like abortion, he would have voted with his heart, because no state has the right to authorize murder.

    • Isn’t that his job as an elected official. To vote in the direction that he is pointed by his constituents. Am I wrong? We, in Pennsylvania, are a primarily red state with 2 1/2 blue counties that make us a blue state….unfortunate as that is (Philly, Pittsburgh and Erie absolutely kills what would be a state that would be as strong as Texas). His job wasn’t to make his will be done but rather the will of the people. Maybe he was doing just that….his job….unfortunately. It seems a lot of that is forgotten in the bashing that occurs with a lot of these representatives. It’s not supposed to be what they want that makes the decisions…..that would be a representative oligarchy or some such thing.

      • librtifirst

        Sounds like Oregon. I say that we just count counties and call it good. Isn’t that what the electoral college was all about, the dense populations not being able to vote for everyone else?

  • 911Infidel

    Yeah, and Reagan once supported abortion (and regretted it later). Other digs against him were his stance against unions in Ca, his divorce and the fact that he was an actor who once starred in a movie called “Bedtime For Bonzo”; ignoring his magnificent performance in “Kings Row”.

    All of which amounted to nothing when he swept the elections in 1980 and 1984 in consectutive landslide victories.

    We in the military loved him. We said to hell with his detractors in the media, and in his party (paging George Will).

    RR was a fabulous alternative to Jimmy Kohtair’s malaise.

    Conservatives win when they don’t govern like Dhimiratz and when they buck the Establishment Repubiks. Stay on message, stay with what you are. That’s what RR did and he crushed Carter like a bug.

    RR was just as much the underdog as Santorum is; and I’m hearing the same old tired Repubik complaints about him…just like with RR.

    You want perfect, then vote for God. But since He ain’t running in this election, I think I’ll stick with Rick.

    • politicalnewbie

      Speaking of the military, do you (or anyone here) know who the military favors this time around?

      • c4pfan

        Sadly, I don’t think they have much of an affect, because they give the least money wise.

      • 911Infidel

        The military is just a microcosm of society. They’re just like the rest of the country, they lean conservative. But the one name that no one ever mentions is Ron Paul. Even among my friends fresh back from Afghanistan and others who served in Iraq that is the case. The socialists among them are growing real quiet about Obama. Even they worry about these idiotic cuts in military spending while 60% of the budget is being spent on entitlements. Don’t look for the kind of reception that GW got, when Obama visits military bases. They’re pissed at him. The consensus on the Repubik side is that they will support whoever gets the nomination…but right now some like Romney. Some like Newt. Some like Rick.

        • politicalnewbie

          Thanks.

      • librtifirst

        Ron Paul gets more grass roots support than anyone, even in the military. That doesn’t mean that the entire military would vote in the majority for him. The numbers are so high for Paul in the military, that I believe it still signifies that many in the military do not support the wars anymore.

        • 911Infidel

          I don’t know where you get your information, but I work on a military base and I’m not hearing any sort of support for Dr Paul.

          • puma_for_life

            Well, Paul receives more military donations than any of the other candidates. On Monday, February 20, there is going to be a Veterans for Paul march and rally in Washington DC. They will be marching to the White House.

            • 911Infidel

              Who cares. He’s irrelevant. No one that I know in the military or former military will be there.

              • puma_for_life

                Oh, and you know a lot of people? Naturally, you would hang around people who think like you, that’s pretty normal these days, but you can’t jumped to conclusions based on that. Your faulty thinking is a sign of our poor educational system.

                • 911Infidel

                  Yep I sure do. That happens when you spend your whole working life as a serving member or a civilian member of the military. And I got a newsflash for you: We got all kinds where I work, Socialists Dhimiratz and Repubiks. They all have their own views which do not align with mine, except in two areas: animals and Ron Paul.

                • KenInMontana

                  You need to get educated on the realities of those numbers of military “supporters”.
                  http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/43742

            • keyesforpres

              Read Ken in Montana’s post right above your’s. Paul only receives a small percentage of support from the military.

          • librtifirst

            I would provide you links, but there are probably thousands of clips showing veterans that are against the wars and supporting Ron Paul. There will be a march in D.C. this coming week. My sister and her husband are Iraq veterans who found out what was really going on when they were over there and got out. You could spend days listening to testimonies from vets. Just search “veterans for Ron Paul” and you will get tons of stuff.

            I don’t claim that the majority of veterans would vote for him, just that his support from vets is increasing exponentially.

            If you want to know what I mean by “grass roots”, they are usually the minority of contributors to campaigns. Few people in this country give their own money to candidates. More “individuals” give small donations to Paul than the rest get. You can find this out by researching who gets what from who in the campaigns. Grass roots means “non-corporate” and “non-paid” support.

            • 911Infidel

              I don’t need any links. I get to talk to military people themselves and hear it from their own lips. What I hear is that the ROE’s are killing people, and that if we’re going to fight a war, then fight it to win. Otherwise, leave. My buddy just came back from A-stan and the first thing that I asked him was “We need to get out don’t we”. He said yes. There’s nothing we can do for those people. They are stuck in another century. That’s what I hear. Oh that and Obama betrayed the military by leaving Iraq too soon, and screwed up everything that they fought for. That’s what I hear. Oh and currently serving types are well mixed in with former military types…and the latter aren’t fans of Dr Paul either.

              • librtifirst

                I agree with what they are saying. If there is a real and imminent threat, declare the war, win it, and get out. I also agree that the use of force can not help those people. I also believe that our troops are asked to do insane things in these wars, such as fighting in such a way as to not be able to win. Obama doesn’t do anything for the good of the US, but we had to leave Iraq eventually. Otherwise we may just as well have planted our flag their and completely taken them over, which would be the only way to win, eventually.

                There are plenty of reasons to leave, but equal reasons to say. Not all of the reasons to stay are even legitimate. Much of what we do over there is not about protecting the US. That alone should be reason enough.

                If you wish to ignore Paul’s support from the military and the vets, I don’t really care, but it is out there, and growing. I never said that the majority of troops support him, in fact I started by referring to the amount of money that he has received in comparison to the other candidates, but I was essentially agreeing with you that the military isn’t any different than the rest of the country.

                My “grass roots” comment is based on individual small contributions, not total people who would vote for him. All campaigns may have grass roots support, but the number of Paul supporter who contribute to his campaign is at a higher level than the other candidates. Not a higher percentage of total people who would vote for him.

                • 911Infidel

                  No career military person in their right mind will support Dr Paul. He’d do to them the same as Obama and Pinheadah are doing. Some of these people have done multiple tours in Iraq and A-Stan. They’d like to finish their service. But that is not going to happen in the fantasy worlds of Obama and Dr Paul.

            • KenInMontana
              • librtifirst

                Somebody else posted that, as if they wrote it. I don’t argue that Paul will get the majority vote of the military, just that military contributors give a lot more money to him, verses the others. It may be a small point, but it is an election cycle.

                I have never personally seen or heard of this happening to anyone I know. I don’t know what other people are doing to get these e-mails.

                Do you get them?

                • KenInMontana

                  I did for a while, however I am savvy enough to know what an unsubscribe link is for. As for where they originated from I have narrowed it down to either the tenth amendment center or a pro second amendment site run by a Dudley Brown (I believe that is his last name) selling or donating their e mail lists.

                • librtifirst

                  I don’t subscribe to much, so that makes sense.

              • librtifirst

                Somebody else posted that, as if they wrote it. I don’t argue that Paul will get the majority vote of the military, just that military contributors give a lot more money to him, verses the others. It may be a small point, but it is an election cycle.

                I have never personally seen or heard of this happening to anyone I know. I don’t know what other people are doing to get these e-mails.

                Do you get them?

        • jollyjellybean

          “Ron Paul’s supporters are diligent in their support of him. Unfortunately, a lot of that support is what is known in the software industry as vaporware. In other words, it is phony to non-existent. Right now, for example, I have a bunch of emails flooding my inbox telling me why I should support Ron Paul from droves of supposedly enthusiastic Paulbots.
          The problem, however, is that 98% of those emails are from obviously hastily registered email addresses at any number of free email service providers. In email after email the message is the same, word for droning word. Checking the IP Addresses in the email headers shows that many of these messages are being sent from the same computer under different emails. One enthusiastic Paulbot sent me the same message, under different Gmail addresses, thirty-seven times within the span of three hours. He even forgot to change his signature every time he sent it. So, “B. Anderson”, and I know you are reading this, try to at least be a little less obvious next time, ok? And you folks honestly wonder why I make fun of you?

          What is sad, though, is that sometimes Paulbots are able to fool enough people and parlay this phony sense of support into actual results. See the final vote count of the Iowa Caucuses where Mr. Paul netted more than 21% of the vote.”

          http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43742

          “But there is one Big Lie that Mr. Paul’s supporters like to throw out there that really gets my dander up. It gets my dander up because it annoys so many people who are bravely defending this country day in and day out while standing on a wall and in the line of enemy fire. Something that few people, even ravenous Paulbots, have the courage to do. I hear it every day because the election is upon us. The Paulbot emails me and says, “Ron Paul has more support from the military than any other candidate!” Military personnel email me every day telling me that on base there is at best one Ron Paul supporter and how frustrated they are that the Paulbots are telling this Big Lie.”

          • librtifirst

            I understand what you are saying. I think that “support” is kind of like using the word “conservative”. It is relative to what you are specifically talking about. If you look at the total number of dollars given to presidential campaigns, it is true, but if you look at the total percentage of actual votes, it probably won’t be. They are just using the contribution totals to make a point. I wouldn’t call it a lie, because it leaves it to the individuals who hear it to find out what it is all about. I would say that most of the voting people in this country do not do this kind of homework, and do not pay enough attention to the details to know what the Paul supporters are talking about. I wouldn’t expect any candidate to expand on the difference between actual dollars, and actual votes, but anyone should be able to realize that the military hasn’t voted yet, and so it has to be something else.

            As usual, the media does not straighten it out, or clarify it, so it is simply left to the individual to figure it out.

            I am a Ron Paul supporter, and I don’t get those e-mails, so what are you doing to get them?

            • puma_for_life

              I’m a Ron Paul supporter also and I don’t get these emails either.

          • puma_for_life

            The support claim is based on donations; he receives more donations from the military than all the other candidates combined. And that is a verifiable fact.

            • KenInMontana

              However that support is no where near a majority of those serving.

              • puma_for_life

                No one said majority; it’s based on contributions and that article you have referred me to is pure conjecture. Also, is the person who wrote that article blogging on this website, because the exact same words are in that article that someone here wrote about all of the emails they are getting..which leads me to believe that the person here is either the person who wrote that article or they just cut and pasted the paragraph to make it sound like it was about them. I never thought about that; some people actually copy other people’s words from other blogs and articles and paste them into comments here and pretend they are the writers. Weird..

                • KenInMontana

                  The numbers have been posted here on the site by commenters but, I have not seen anyone here take credit for writing it, your attempts to dismiss it out of hand I would call weak. As for the story being conjecture, hardly, it is simple math using known figures, no conjecture at all. Unlike Paul supporters who consistently crow misleadingly that Paul enjoys the support of the majority who serve actively in the armed forces.

                • puma_for_life

                  NO, no one has said Paul enjoys the support of the majority; what is said and is true is that he gets more contributions from the military than anyone else. Can you grasp what I am saying or are you so set in your thinking that you simply cannot hear what is being said. MAJORITY of financial contributions, not troops.

                  Yes, someone on this site did say they were getting these emails and I and one other Paul supporter stated that we have never received these types of emails and we are Paul supporters.

                • KenInMontana

                  I “grasp” what you’re saying, and the claim of “the majority of the troops support Paul” has been made by many of his supporters on this site. Apparently you did not grasp what I said. As I did not respond about the emails to you, but to your dismissal of the article.

            • K-Bob

              Very few military people donate to any campaign, whatsoever, and that’s also verifiable. So it’s nothing to crow about.

              • puma_for_life

                Actually, that makes it even more worthy to crow about. If very few military people donate to campaigns, but the ones who do donate to Ron Paul, that makes it more important. The more committed ones, the more passionate ones, are Ron Paul supporters.

                • K-Bob

                  Ugh. That’s even worse! You just slammed over 90% of the military for not being committed. You need to drop that nonsense because it is really an ugly mistreatment of our military folks and their families.

                • librtifirst

                  I find it hypocritical to find people talking about how most of the citizens of this country don’t pay enough attention to politics, or even vote, and calling Americans lazy in this regard, then say that it is wrong to say this about the military, but also say that the military is not any different than the rest of society.

                  Which one is it? Do military personnel pay more attention, and vote much more than the rest of society, or not? Why is it wrong to say that the most passionate people in the military support Ron Paul? She didn’t say “the only committed ones”, or “the only passionate ones”. Gingrich may win the military vote, and if he does, Ron Paul will still have received more donations than Gingrich. That signifies more commitment, and passion to their cause.

                • K-Bob

                  Your hypocritical situation is incorrect. Military are not allowed to join in the political fray AS military. This isn’t complicated.

                  I suggest the Ron Paul fans stop abusing the military with this factoid. The only accurate way to portray it is to point out that, of the tiny percentage of military who contribute money to any campaign, most of them contribute to Paul.

                  Making assumptions about what the rest of the Military folks think, based solely on that factoid is not only mathematically incorrect, it’s dishonorable.

                  With both of those nasty problems weighing over the concept, I’d think you would want to drop it, fast.

                • KenInMontana

                  Yes military “people” do pay attention to politics and do vote. Officers rarely make it a formal command, although they will make very pointed, insistent, strong and frequent suggestions that a service member does so. However military “society” is not like the civilian “society”, they are two very, very different worlds.

                • librtifirst

                  I didn’t know that about people being prodded to vote. I believe that it is a good thing. I have family that has served for the last three generations, and have always been intrigued by their stories. No just war stories, but daily life in the military. I take interest when people are talking about it, and ask question to get elaboration. After so many years, you think that you get a good impression of what it is like, but everything has its relative meaning to everyone. There are those constants that are always mentioned, but human behavior is a different story.

                  I did not serve because my father instilled a distrust of our government in me from a young age. I matured through adulthood with those shades on. It used to be based on assumption, but has now metastasized into a fact based knowledge. I am actually grateful for that instilling, as it has deterred me from believing that government is basically good.

                  My sister was career military, but went to federal employment for her kids. She also is a student of human behavior, and has many astute observations to convey. I had a good idea about military culture, but wasn’t aware of the political involvement. Although, I would say that she lacked in judgment for a long time. She was a liberal democrat. Just this year, she registered republican to vote for RP. She says she will never go back, but will never vote for the establishment ever again. We agree after 22 years of disagreeing.

        • K-Bob

          I’m really tired of that claim. It’s an abuse of the fact that active duty military folks are so restricted in what they can and can’t do with regard to politics that they tend to stay the hell out of political stuff altogether.

          A ridiculously small percentage of military folks donate money to candidates. Out of these, the majority send money to Paul. I’d argue that the ones who send money at all are already considered cranks by the rest of the active duty military.

          Using the military this way by the Paul supporters is wrong. Let the men and women of the military speak for themselves, and stop claiming they support Paul (or anyone else for that matter). It’s dishonorable.

          • librtifirst

            Active military is not allowed to publicly display their political affiliations, and their job description at the same time. This was prominently displayed fairly recently at a Ron Paul rally, and was covered by the media. The person was reprimanded an bumped down a grade in rank for wearing his military clothing at a rally.

            Something tells me that Gingrich supporters wouldn’t have a problem with it if the military numbers (contributions) favored him. I don’t see a huge problem with it, especially when foreign policy includes so many wars, and these people are putting in their two cents, then having their support diminished by people who don’t like RP talking about his military contributors. They are a group of people who serve our country in a specific way that involves risking their lives. If they want their particular opinions known, they should be allowed just as public of a display as they want to make.

            If a person wearing a private corporation’s uniform was reprimanded for doing it, I would understand, because it would be a private affair, but government and the military are public entities, and those who “serve” should be able to display their affiliations.

            I agree with you, and have stated such several times, that RP probably does not have the majority of the military voting for him. It is not a lie to call contributions “support”. At worst, it leaves it up to the people who hear the message to determine what kind of support he is talking about. Those who don’t like Ron Paul can, and do. Those who don’t know anything about him can find out as well. Who is harmed?

            • K-Bob

              The reason they are restricted from displaying support for any political party or politician while in uniform are very well thought out. It’s part of the special circumstance of wearing the uniform.

              I wouldn’t mind it if the Ron Paul folks described the situation accurately. The truth is a proper defense. And I would mind it if any other campaign tried this tactic, as well. It’s always wrong, no matter who does it.

              • librtifirst

                What is the special circumstance that should not allow free speech in the military concerning the governing of our country? I truly haven’t heard that term used in this contexts, nor do I know what it is referring to.

                • K-Bob

                  The military serves “the people.” Not a person or a group or a party. In order to serve the people, it must be made absolutely clear that their sole allegiance is not to a person or group or party. This is self-evident.

                  Further, those who are active (and recallable, to a very limited extent) live under the UCMJ first, and only follow civilian law where applicable, and not superceded by UCMJ. That’s my understanding, at least. Their rights are much more tightly defined.

                • KenInMontana

                  Well said, sir. Thank you.

                • KenInMontana

                  I would also add that your understanding of politics in the military is spot on.

                • K-Bob

                  Thanks! Comes from hangin’ round with guys who served. At one time we had six out of eight in our rock band who are vets. Army, AF, and Navy. Those guys are my brothers.

                  Also a bunch of cousins who were military families because of uncles who were career types. And one grandfather who was in both big ones. And my old man, who was in Korea.

                  The perspective I learned from them is that, when you’re on a tour of duty, you look at us civilians as a bunch of folks who need protecting. And besides, everyone I know who served said they were much too busy dealing with military politics, military situations, and not having much money, to focus on anything else.

    • Well said 911infidel!

      • 911Infidel

        Thank you.

        • And if I haven’t said it already, I’m saying now, Thank you for your service. God Bless.

          • 911Infidel

            Thank you. Blessings to you and yours.

    • keyesforpres

      We PICK RICK!!

      • 911Infidel

        To borrow a Obaminite phase: “Yes we can.”

  • gothicreader

    No one is perfect and each candidate will have some things we disagree with. But, I’d rather have Newt or Rick.
    The only beef I have with Rick – and maybe this isn’t his fault – he doesn’t have any detailed solutions. So, when I compare it with Newt – there isn’t much there.

    Also, where is sticky Ricky’s tax return? I’d be curious to see it and I’m sure others too.

  • The only reason Santorum is surging is voters are fickle and he’s never been the front runner. Now everything about his past, and yes, including his big spending votes, his endorsement of both Mitt and Specter (the 60th vote for ocare), and other skeletons. He didn’t lose by 18 pts in PA for nothing. His comments about women, contraceptives, gay marriage, and SOPA are enough for me not to support him.

    And I thought Newt’s speech at CPAC was fantastic. He was the only one out of the three that talked about what he would do to turn the country around. The other two gave talking points.

    • Aren’t you counting on those “fickle” voters to run back to Newt? I think it’s funny that Newt supporters are piggy-backing Mitt Romney attacks. They should be piggy-backing Newt’s ideas and solutions.

      • Trust1TG

        I heard a Santorum speech in Montrose, CO that used so many of Newt’s ideas that it sounded like a recording of a Newt speech.

        Face it, as Sarah Palin and others have said, Newt Gingrich has made all of them better candidates.

        He is the one with the ideas, the in depth analysis, solutions and know-how.

        The others have not lived, taught, thought about American politics, history and government as he has.

        Newt Gingrich has lived conservatism, fought, suffered and sacrificed for it.

        Romney has never stood for anything.

        Santorum should be Gingrich’s VP and learn, run after Newt has gotten things under control.

        As it stands, Santorum will not deal with the FED and currency problems or Soros…OR the establishment past and present.

        Only Newt has the b—s and guts to do that.

        • Mtncougar

          It seems to me that only a few people like us have noticed how Newt’s opinions and perspectives have turned the whole Republican “campaign ship” in a powerful way. I do remember the first debate – it looked and sounded like an America’s-Got-Talent production. Newt growled. Thank goodness, and things slowly changed. Of course not completely – but it’s MUCH better now, and now other candidates are growling too.

          Newt called Obama a Saul Alinsky radical at a time when the other candidates were being “civil” and “respectful.” I could go on, but simply said, Newt has been waaay ahead of the pack, and I hope he hangs on.

    • philgilles

      The Freaking world is on fire and you care that someone doesn’t agree with gay marriage and that his faith makes him anti contraceptive????!!!!!! both of which are states issues that Rick has already said he would leave to the states….priorities please people..Newt is a worm, he loves the big government progressive presidents, (Wilson, Roosevelt 1&2) Andrew Jackson!!! the guy who killed the native Americans.. he loves big government solutions and has a very questionable character, you would vote for him because he makes pretty speeches????? that is how we got here with the Bamster

      • philgilles

        I agree with you on SOPA BTW, that is concerning

      • Gtrjag

        I don’t like Gingrich. Like you I am bothered by his his praise of populists and progressives, but why are you lumping Andrew Jackson in With Wilson and the Roosevelts. Besides what he did to the Indians, particularly the Cherokees, he was a pretty good President. Andrew Jackson was a war hero and a strong advocate for a limited federal government and states rights.

    • He lost in Penn. that year because a majority of Republicans lost that year, it was an anti-republican mood, not personally against him.

    • Newts done some crazy things in the past so if your willing to over look those things for him why not for another?

      BTW what did he say about women? phony “gay” marriage

    • librtifirst

      Newt and Santorum would basically govern the same way. They would compromise to get things done, and this would ultimately be bad for our economic security, and our liberties. The issue that you mentioned in regard to your unwillingness to support them, would ultimately have no practical effect on the way they rule, with the exception of SOPA. Newt may have more appeal, if you view these two as real change candidates, but if you view them as status quo candidates, as I do, then it frankly doesn’t matter.

      This is not a sell for Obama, but rather a radical reversal of many years of corruption, and compromise. You can probably guess who I support.

      • jollyjellybean

        Obama?

        • librtifirst

          You didn’t put a 🙂 after that, so I will just have to tell you. Ron Paul, the true anti-Obama, uncompromising constitutional conservative.

          • Gtrjag

            Ron Paul will say something brilliant one minute and then something idiotic the next. The man is principled, but he has no clue when it comes to foreign policy which is the Presidents most important Constitutional duty. The world is too dangerous a place right now to elect someone like him.

            • librtifirst

              The constitution limits the government’s ability to wage war. He only advocates for a constitutional process toward war. The constitution does not allow government to take our money from us and give it to foreign dictators. Paul has a problem with all of this, and I agree. I also agree with the general premise behind the Christian based just war doctrine, which disallows us to be the aggressor in attacking people preemptively.

              If you want a president who will follow the constitution, Paul is your guy, if you want the constitution changed or abolished, he is not.

              I don’t believe that our foreign policy is blameless for much of the danger in the world, so I advocate reducing the danger by changing our foreign policy. You know the old saying about revenge. One person does another wrong, the other gets even and tries to stop it by harming the first, and the first comes back and does something worse, and so on? That goes on between peoples and nations as well.

            • Mtncougar

              Indeed. I like so much of what RP stands for and says. And then he gets all crazy on foreign policy. I truly, deeply, sincerely, honestly believe he would get us all killed. Isolationism left the realm of sanity with the invention of the nuclear bomb and virus warfare and terrorism tactics. And as you say – keeping Americans safe is the President’s A number One duty.

              • librtifirst

                Why don’t we just cover our side of the world, and let all of those civilized nations over there handle their part of the world? Then we might be safer, and more prosperous at home. Heck, when the dollar goes down, it will partially be due to us bailing out their economies. How long will this last?

      • Trust1TG

        If you are pushing Ron Paul: Give it up and get a brain.

        While he is right about many economic issues, he’s FLAT OUT WRONG on legalizing drugs and sex-trafficking.

        We have the Hezbollah-Hispanic hybrid drug cartels infiltrating the US, beheaded bodies being found recently, just like in Mexico… We don’t need to end the war on drugs, we need to escalate it until these ruthless beasts give the H3!! up or are all wiped off the face of the earth.

        A vote for Paul is a vote to have these inhuman beasts setting up shop in every city and town all over the US…luring our children into deeper decadence, disease and death.

        • librtifirst

          You could end the violence on the border by making drugs legal. The cartels only have the money and power that they do, because of our drug laws. Those who advocate for the use of force in our personal lives for the sake of morality, ignore your point about the border.

          If we spent the money used in the middle east to protect borders here in the US, we would have the most secure borders in the world.

          When I don’t understand these concepts anymore, I will look for a brain.

    • He’s had comments about women?

      • K-Bob

        Yes. Evidently he wants to put them all in hijab. Or something.

        Sorry, that should be, “Big Government, not-actually-a-conservative hijab.”

        Those are the ones that are still allowed to roam free, of course.

    • jollyjellybean

      Blah, blah, blah.

    • PFFV

      We agree 100% Kim. It’s nice to know there is someone else that feels the same way I do. 🙂

      I want to hear solutions not platitudes and blah, blah, blah. Newt is far and away the best candidate if we judge on articulated solutions to the problems, especially ObamaCare.

  • sandynsavannah

    I’ll vote for santorum if he gets the nom (unlike mitt).
    But I will always believe Newt would be better in his place.

  • kamiller42

    One should reference the actual grading sheet. The letters and numbers don’t quite align with the article’s point. I get an average of 77.7, a B.

    If anyone wants to see how the scores are created and Santorum and the senate’s actual numbers can go
    http://www.ntu.org/on-capitol-hill/ntu-rates-congress/
    AND
    http://www.ntu.org/on-capitol-hill/ntu-rates-congress/members/senate/rick-santorum.html

    His average rank is 19.5. That’s top 5? Dunno.

    • StrangernFiction

      The authors are looking at just those that served the years he served, and just those years.

      • kamiller42

        So is NTU. See 2nd link.

  • Cindy09

    throughout Obama’s three years’ worth of preparation for the presidency, Obama’s GPA was 0.00 — a rock-solid F.

    Triple Yikes!!!!

  • timeout31

    good!

  • timeout31

    This is a good link, and it is apparent that the long knives of Mitt will be sharpened, and those other guys will be out to destroy Rick S

    • StrangernFiction

      Speaking of guys out to destroy Rick, did you see Talent’s scores? And he’s bashing Santorum on his lack of fiscal conservatism. What a scumbag.

      • jollyjellybean

        Who’s this “Talent”?

        • Romney surrogate from Missouri who used to serve in the Senate with Santorum

          • nibblesyble

            ‘talentless hack’ says the professor over at Legal Insurrection!

  • FreeManWalking

    SCOOP: Right on!!! or as Daniel Hannan would say “Here here!”

    I like Paul Ryan, but neither he or Santorum inspires me with pride and confidence of a brighter future like Sarah and Newt. And for the record neither / none of them are as inspiring as Reagan.

    I hope and think the differences which seem like infighting between Rick and Newt supporters can easily be patched up once a decision is made. It is minimal compared to the differences either have with Romney. I think either will do much better presenting a clear difference against a socialist than Romney.

    • politicalnewbie

      My sentiments exactly.

  • drphibes

    It is human nature to want support the winner. Who wants to be on the losing team? Up till now, Romney’s been the perceived winner. So, a chunk of his support comes from the non-thinking class just looking for the “winner.” Now, he loses that status. The aura surrounds Santorum now, and Romney will lose some of that support. I’m glad for votes from the un-thinking class. We need them any way we can get them, short of cheating.

  • GJPinks

    Non of these candidates are perfect, but any one of these guys are miles better than His Oneness. Paul is hard core smaller government, but I can understand some go along. There are earmarks and there are earmarks. The bridge to nowhere vs a major biological lab consolidating scattered smaller on communicating labs. Even the most liberal (Romney) or progressive (Newt) understand spending is way out of control and must be cut. If we do not change the resident at the White House it most likely will be the real end of this experiment in freedom. Support who ever you want now, fight like heck, but dedicate yourself to vote for who ever is the candidate, our future depends on it.

  • So scoop is everyone you disagree with a bot?

    • Trust1TG

      A toon?

    • K-Bob

      You know how you would know if that was what he meant?

      He’d write something like: “Everyone I disagree with is a ‘bot’.”

      That way, you’d know.

  • Major914

    Excellent article on Santorum’s fiscal conservative record!

    Surely the libertarians, who pride themselves on being oh-so-rational, will accept the truth now…

    From libertarian Cato–the Tea Party is split 50-50 on social issues. There is an excellent diagram in the article which illustrates some of the similarities and differences:

    http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-tea-partys-other-half/

    It is both ironic and revealing that libertarians claim to believe government should not support any particular set of values, while at the same time libertarians themselves tend to favor government allowing gay marriage, etc., not to mention the perennial favorite–drug legalization. Politics IS a competition for which set of values will prevail in society–it is absolutely unavoidable. Even nihlism is value framework…somebody’s values are going to prevail–there is no such thing as a purely neutral government any more than there are purely neutral people…

    We may as well have a free and transparent market (would that be libertarian?) for argument regarding which valuesshouldprevail…

    • librtifirst

      I think that you may be missing the point behind Libertarianism that causes many people to believe that we support gay marriage, and the like. It is simple. Nobody has the right to use force to cause the loss of liberty to another unless harm is done directly to another individual.

      The basic premise of our founding documents, and our supreme law, is that government does not have the right to infringe upon our personal lives, and individuals are sovereign beings who’s rights are derived from our creator. Individuals have the right to do the wrong thing, unless it harms another. Such is the case with freedom of speech. We have the right to say all kinds of stupid things, even immoral things, but we do not have the right to cause harm with our words. By harm, I am talking about destroying someone’s reputation with lies. There is legal recourse for this.

      If you have the right to say immoral things, then you have the right to do immoral things, so long as you harm nobody else. Otherwise government has the right to take away your right to say immoral or stupid things. So modern conservatives advocate a loss of liberty on those who do immoral things, but support people saying immoral things regardless of harm done? This is a contradiction.

      You either believe that we have these rights, or you do not. If you do not, then you should be willing to give up the rights that you have left, so that the government can legislate all morality. If they deem it immoral to eat chocolate, you should be willing to go to jail if you do.

      Christian libertarians do not support the act of homosexuality. They do not view homosexuals being married as a good thing, but they recognize that equal justice under the law requires that they do not dictate this to others. Furthermore, they advocate that government gets out of the marriage business so that there will be no interest by the gays to be married. The moral state that they are in does not require a covenant marriage, it is a legal disadvantage to no be married because government picks winners and losers within the system based on marriage.

      Control is an illusion when it comes to human behavior. Legislating morality, as an effective way of governing, is a falsehood that is propagated by those who “seek” to control people.

      Does anyone find that being controlling makes other people more moral?

      • Major914

        You point out why the entire libertarian argument, as it is framed today, fails utterly.

        Individuals are benefitted or harmed not only by direct actions upon their person and property, but by the general condition of society.

        We all have a fundamental interest in what kind of person we meet on the street… Mankind is made in the image of God, but is in a fallen condition, and is subject to variation in character and behavior based, in significant part, on outside influences. People shape both government and civil society, both of which in turn shape people. Pretending that government can be neutral is a fatal error.

        The idea of ‘controlling’ is a shibboleth. Am I being controlled when I drive on the right side of the road or stop at a stop sign? As a member of a democratic society, a voter, I don’t particularly care if this individual or that individual is more moral or less moral–I care about the overall moral tone and atmosphere that the laws governing society tend to foster in the aggregate.

        Libertarians are hyper-individualists, which again, is a fatal error in their position. Control per se is not properly an issue, as the opposite is impossible–the issue is what should and should not be controlled, why, and to what extent. The individual who may be directly affected by a law or its absence is neither the only nor the final consideration relevant to crafting laws–the other multiple millions of people are in many instances even more important…

        • librtifirst

          That lends itself to collectivism. A stop sign, or driving on the right side of the road is based on state laws, and they are there for the “physical” protection of “other” individuals, not their moral protection. If you are on your private property, and you have a stop sign in the middle of it, is it immoral to go through it without stopping? You don’t have to obey your own sign, because it is not public domain. The same goes for personal habits on your private domain. If you smoke pot, which is a dumb thing to do, and stay on your property while you are intoxicated, who do you hurt? Only yourself. If government has the right to protect you from yourself, then we should never complain about any law that is written to protect us, even if it bans chocolate. Collectivism says that because obesity is to prominent in our society, it is ok to ban chocolate. Collectivism is socialistic, and communistic. Do we really want to go there? The cost to society is only on society because of government interventions. This includes the welfare state, that is funded by stealing from people to begin with, which is the biggest consumer of the drugs that you want people to quit using, and because of the drug laws, gives the cartels a profitable business.

          If you believe that government can make law, and use force to enforce them, and this will convert our society to a God fearing one, then you have the right, that I would protect, to say that. Rather than banning your right to support that, I would just advocate that people consider whether being under the law actually gave the Jews of Jesus’ time a heart for God? If not, then laws will not change the hearts of the American people, and clamping down on their liberties will not help.

          • Mtncougar

            I really liked your presentation – few libertarians express things this well.

            • librtifirst

              Thank you. I don’t hear positive feedback very often.

          • Major914

            No one claims that laws will directly change people for the better. The choice is limited to being between bad and worse.

            Various laws or the absence of those laws can provide license and foster a social milieu which tends to make individuals worse. It is not primarily about protecting a person from themselves (there’s that hyper-individualism again), nor necessarily limited to the immediate effect. The issue is to protect the other (which is all of us in the aggregate), in present as well as future generations, from the multifarious effects of moral and ethical decay over time.

            I consider myself an individualist–but as much as I might want to pick up my ax and walk off into the western frontier of Kentucky to live alone in the wilderness, that opportunity no longer exists. I’m no collectivist, but in any philosophy of government the individual is necessarily viewed as existing at a point along a continuum–there is no absolutely atomistic individual… So understanding that an individual is inextricably bound up with other individuals, and is mutually interdependent with and upon them with regard to the moral and ethical aspect of society as a whole does not, in and of itself, make for collectivism–quite the contrary.

            The liberty interests of the individual are obviously not absolute, but are balanced against numerous other considerations–as troublesome as that is, it’s unavoidable.

            So, again, we’re stuck with the messy business of debating, and voting for (via our elected representatives), just exactly what should and should not be restrained and why.

            • librtifirst

              I do not disagree with what you are saying, in general. Individuals have to operate on the same planet as the rest, and therefor their personal behavior can have an effect on others. Yet, I would also say that if individualism is the majority concern of the citizenry, then others will not be able to influence them easily. It is the weak minded that follow the corrupt based on influence. This is why I consider biblical and Godly discernment to be such an asset.

              If the corrupt are not able to force corruption upon the citizens, and the citizens are able to reject it, free of penalty, then the corrupt can only harm themselves, as society in general is individual minded. In this case, the behavior of the uncorrupted will be desirable, and therefor society as a whole will follow biblical principles out of popularity and based on free choice, rather than the use of force, or a government who rewards or denies to manipulate the population.

              The very nature of man is why government is corrupt. The founders recognized this, and applied it to the nature of government. Thus the need to restrict government from intervening in matters of a personal behavior when no harm is done.

              If we view these factors as being true, then we have to look into history to see what the result of the loss of personal liberty has accomplished. This would be using the scientific method to determine the best way forward. History is not kind to the governed when the governors are allowed certain powers. If government power leads to more government power, then what is the end result that is seen time and time again in history?

              Nobody has the right to destroy other people’s property. Therefor environmental regulation should be based on this premise, and the federal government should only be involved when there is a state to state issue to settle.

              Property ownership was the one thing that Americans had that was the basis for securing personal liberties. If a man’s home is his castle, then he has a right to do as he wishes on it without harming his neighbors. Since government took that away, our other liberties have been continuously slipping.

              Libertarians sound radical when we talk like this, but that is because we recognize the patterns that lead to serfdom. We started out being able to own property in this country. Nobody had the right to take it, not even the government with few exceptions. Now, we pay them a yearly rental fee, and are simply renters. We either pay, or we hit the street. When government debases the currency, even those who paid for their property do not have the right to stay there.

              Government is too big. It controls too much. We will lose what is left, if we don’t turn back the tide. We need a good, hard, unending, philosophical debate about liberty, and how it effects our society.

        • K-Bob

          Libertarians are not hyper-individualists. Most libertarians accept that you need a form of limited government, and that states, counties, and municipalities have the right to control things they wish to control, even if it means some people end up on the short end.

          Example: neighborhood decides to build a schoolhouse. Holds a vote, and the school carries. Everyone has to kick in time and money to get it built. The Nay voters still have to pitch in time and money.

          Libertarians would not tell us that the neighbors who voted ‘no’ should not have to participate. The anarchists would say otherwise. Right now a lot of anarchists and leftists have muddied up the libertarian message.

          • librtifirst

            I would agree with most of that. Yet, I would say that a libertarian view would not require anyone to pay, but those who don’t, don’t benefit either. I would protect the right of other individuals to build that school, and use it as they see fit, but I do not support government mandating education. Before education was mandated, I believe that most people probably wanted their kids educated. Now, after government mandates and control, we have a very poor educating system, and an inability by many to afford the alternatives due to government forced taxation for the socialization of education.

            • K-Bob

              The problem with “no pay no play” is it puts a tremendous cost burden on any group activity, just to monitor who gets to participate. See clubs, private. If everything had to operate on that basis, your freedom of motion would be severely limited.

              • librtifirst

                If the institutions are kept small, private, and local, it seems like it wouldn’t be much of a burden. Just as companies who grow have greater administrative costs by percentage, so would a school system. This is one of the reasons that I advocate for small, local organization. The larger the enterprise, the more political it gets as well. Being in the public domain just kills the original goal, eventually. We should only expect inefficiency, political correctness, corruption, and liberal viewpoints from a huge public education system of control.

                • K-Bob

                  That’s the way I see it. Unfortunately the institutional rot starts as soon as you have three or more people involved. The founders knew this, for certain.

      • I hope you are not suggesting that the Founding Fathers are libertarians. They were not. They did not believe that man is sovereign, for that leads to anarchy. Your problem is that you do not deal with the fact that mankind is prone towards evil and needs government to help keep us in line (Romans 13)

        I love the “as long as it hurts no one” argument. There is no such thing as being able to do something immoral that does not hurt others eventually. Simply lying to another hurts the person that is being lied to.

        So according to your argument, lets get rid of all laws on morality which would include murder, rape, incest, etc. I know, your rebuttal is the “as long as it does not hurt anyone.” But, that is hypocritical from your position. You cannot demand that man is sovereign and not sovereign (can’t hurt someone) at the same time: either one or the other.

        Sorry, your philosophy is weak and cannot stand under the very weight of being human.

        • librtifirst

          If government wasn’t there to bail people out, personally, and moral people rejected immoral behavior, how big of a problem would the immorality of society be? People who work for a living and have no safety net, have tightly nit families more often. Societal bailouts allow easy divorce. Government systems require people to lie to gain from them.

          Government does much more to create immorality than any other factor in society. This country would not be as wealthy as it appears to be if we didn’t have a central bank printing money from nothing. That easy money has been used to draw the resources of other countries into the US, and it was based on fraud. The social systems were build on this debt money. Most of society’s assets are leveraged for things that people cannot afford. This moral hazard has caught up with us. The fake money is being rejected by the world. It is rightfully becoming worthless, and will continue until the people are left in devastation. The socialistic/communistic systems that have been destroying the moral fiber of our country were created using this moral hazard money.

          The bible promotes individual responsibility, not collectivism. The bible, and the founders based their understanding of liberty on individual sovereignty concerning our personal rights which were given to us by God. Individual sovereignty does not negate God’s influence in our lives, it negates the legitimacy of government’s ability to influence our lives. It appears that your understanding of individual sovereignty has been severely compromised. What God gives us, it is not the right of government to take it away, unless it follows God’s law.

          Does God forbid all people from committing homosexuality? No, it does not. God says that it is wrong, but it is not a commandment. God only forbids His children from these behaviors, and he says that we are not to judge the world, but to be a light within it. If we cannot judge the world, then we cannot force our convictions on the world, but only deal with it within the body of Christ. If we are not to judge the world, but be a light within it, then we are obviously supposed to be an example of Christ that others may see, that they might be saved. I don’t see the requirement to force our moral will on others.

          Murder, rape, etc, etc, are violence toward others that do physical harm. It is proper for government to deal with this using force. One person is taking the liberties of another person, and it is the proper role of government to protect our liberties, not to restrict our personal choices.

          Collectivism is what you have, and you will likely get more. I hope you are ok with it.

          • “The bible promotes individual responsibility, not collectivism. The bible, and the founders based their understanding of liberty on individual sovereignty concerning our personal rights which were given to us by God.”

            Sorry but you may need to review Scripture a bit. Israel is a nation and as a nation was judged by God for the sins of the collective. There is no individual sovereignty in the Bible. You are either a slave to sin or to Christ. It is that simple. Why do you think that the founding fathers believed in the essence of a religious people? It is because it takes a religious people to uphold the limited government.

            I guess the monarchy of Israel, the Judges, and God’s expulsion of Israel for the land was based on what then, individual sovereignty? Admit that this is flawed.

            Also, collectively the church in the NT was responsible to take care of the widows and the poor. Not sure how that fits in with what you are proclaiming…

            “Does God forbid all people from committing homosexuality? No, it does not. God says that it is wrong, but it is not a commandment.”

            Again, you are in error. It is commanded not to be practiced in Scripture, both the OT and NT. In the OT, one was stoned to death for such practices seems severe if it was just a suggestion, eh? In the NT, one who practices this will not inherit eternal life. Please, go back and reread your Bible.

            ” it negates the legitimacy of government’s ability to influence our lives.”

            When Jesus informs the people to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s; he is saying that government has no influence on our lives? Sorry, but you are again incorrect in your understanding of what the Bible says.

            Yes, there is individual responsibility, but there is also governance to make sure that people lived up to the Biblical standard.

            • librtifirst

              I appreciate your perspective, but I believe that you are viewing the old covenant with Israel as a model for the church. This was something that the Judaizers did in the new testament, and were rebuked for it.

              If we were still under the law, your points would make sense. I agree with you about Christians being under a system of governance within the Church body. I think that you missed what I said about Christians not being able to judge the world. Do you agree that the bible says that? If we cannot judge the world, would Christ have us forcing our will on others in the world for His sake? I don’t think so. Would Christ have us go throughout society, or the world, and forcing our values on others? Is this how He teaches us to spread the gospel?

              The law was put in place to show us our inability to keep it. The law was a part of the covenant with God’s chosen people. The Jews were not commanded to go throughout the world forcing their God’s will on everyone else. Their society was based on God’s law, and when they broke it and turned from Him, God gave them over to the corrupt world. The law clearly did not turn Israel from their sin and back to God. When God had no prophets for hundreds of years, Israel became corrupt under the law. They added to the law many, many, things as well. Jesus rebuked them, and called them wicked, and hypocrites.

              I believe that it is ok to use the old testament to understand God’s plan from the beginning. The law is righteous, but impossible for a fallen man to live up to. There are many lessons to learn in the old testament, but taking God’s commandments and laws for the Jews to the level of direct application today is to lack an understanding of what Christ died for. He died so that we might be saved. He died so that men could choose of their own free will to follow Him, or not. He died so that we could be reconciled to God the Father, because the law could never save anyone. He died to teach us what love, peace, long suffering, and understanding was all about.

              He did not die so that we could use His name to force others into obeying God, or treat one group differently than all the others. The things that he died for are to be applied by His church equally to all the world. When we favor one group, and deny another, we are not being a good example for the world in the light of Christ.

              Our personal sovereignty does not negate God. Nothing can. God is the great I Am. Our sovereignty is only a worldly protection against the influences of the world. We claim it in the world to stave off the tyrants. It is a matter of respect for God, because it respects His creation. When governments infringe upon the basic rights of individuals, they are disrespecting God’s creation, and therfore they become illegitimate rulers. God would not expect us to allow one person to harm another without some form of intervention, therefor He gives us the institutions of the world to bring justice. But only righteous rulers are of God, and not the unrighteous. Hitler was not a ruler ordained by God.

              If you do a real study of Roman’s 13, you might just find out that the new translations are incorrect in using the world “government”. Therefor you have to find out what it does mean by “powers” or “rulers” in the KJV. A Strong’s concordance will help, and there are many online resources. Here is one, and a good translation is at the end of the article, but the rest is good as well.

              http://www.kingwatch.co.nz/Law_Government/romans_13.htm

              We are supposed to be fighting the good fight spiritually, not trying to preserve the world for God through our laws. We are supposed to honor “legitimate” rulers, not all rulers. “Legitimate’ rulers are those who give out Godly justice, not those who are corrupt, and tyrannical.

              Example: God will not judge us for refusing to fight in an unjust war, for a government who is unjust, and dishonorable. In fact, we will be persecuted by that government for refusing, but rewarded by God, because we did not fall into their corruption, and took our lumps.

              We are supposed to be as “aliens” in this world. We are just occupying it for the time being. We are not of the world, and should not act like it. We should not be seekng to make the world a better place, but rather leading others to Christ. We are supposed to understand bible prophesy, and know that this world is ending.

              If the world is ending, what good will it do to beat people over the head with the law of the old covenant?

              • I disagree with your assumption to my handling of the Scriptures. Better yet, I used both the OT and NT to refute some of your poor understandings of Biblical teaching. It is allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. If you noticed, I used both as references and not rely on one or the other. I find it interesting that you have settled on trying to sidestep the problems of your own contentions, I guess I will have to wait on your retraction of the homosexual item.

                Though I appreciate your indulgence regarding the Law and Christ, you simply missed my point. You state, I think that you missed what I said about Christians not being able to judge the world. Do you agree that the bible says that? I guess you missed what Paul says in his letter to the Corinthians, Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! (1Co 6:2-3 ESV)

                Paul states just the opposite of your contention. We who are Christians do judge the world. And, we ought to care what others are doing. Do you think that missionaries have done a horrible job in bringing order out of chaos to the lawless cultures they became apart of? As an aside, I am not talking about “westernizing” but bringing the commands of Christ into the very heart of the culture.

                Romans 3 and 6 make it clear that there is no such thing as personal sovereignty. It would be nice to see from the Scriptures you came up with this idea. It is misguided at best, and error at worst. We are slaves to either sin or Christ. Does not sound very sovereign for us, does it.

                Your argument for Romans 13 is sadly weakly based. The Greek word for power that you are desiring is not the one used in the text here, that word is dunamis. The Greek word here in this context is properly translated, “authority.” If I may be so bold to suggest, that you may want to look at the Greek when you want to roll up the sleeves in studying the meaning of the words in a text instead of relying on one English translation. So, I will wait on a better response in regard to Romans 13.

                Again, I do encourage you to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Remember, the OT was all that the apostles had at the time to prove Jesus is the Messiah. The OT is still relevant today. By the way, I do hope that you were not suggesting that practicing homosexuality was only condemned in the OT. It is quite clearly done so in the NT as well.

                Respectfully,
                PD71

                • librtifirst

                  The saints will judge the world, but that is prophetic for another time. God will judge the world, but He hasn’t done it yet. Are we to preempt God? The battle that we face today is a spiritual one, and should be fought as Christ would have us fight it.

                  The scripture that you reference concerning the saints judging the world, only backs up my overall point. Paul is speaking about Christians making judgements about Christians. He is talking about settling our own differences. We have that duty within the church, but we are not to judge the world. 1 Cor 5:12. All other references that people use to be judgmental, are focused on judging within the church. So we should.

                  There are different Greek words for “judge”. Krino has a condemning contextual meaning, whereas anakrino is more of a discerning judgement. It is important to understand this when determining the context of these scriptures. If you apply one context to all mentions, then you would have to believe the bible contradicts itself. Since it does not, only spiritual discernment will help anyone understand the concept of discernment for the purpose determining the realities of the day, and of other people’s actions, and discernment that is used to condemn others. Scripture clearly teaches that we are to discern the things of the world, but it is clear that we only have the right to act upon our discernment toward others within the church. Otherwise 1 Cor 5:12 would be a contradiction. “for what have I to do with judging those without, do you not judge them that are within”?

                  If the law lives within the Christian heart, it will battle with the Holy Spirit. it is the sinful part of us that seeks to use the law to bind others. We have freedom in Christ, but would seek to restrict others? It will never make sense to go around judging the world publicly, and then expect them to desire what we have. God’s natural law will bring the consequences, and this is His worldly correcting influence for the time being. It is not for us to bring consequences to others for immoral behavior that does not harm the innocent directly. It is for us to speak the truth in love, even if it brings consequences. Those consequences do not hurt others, and neither do those words.

                  The world does not know their sin. God may be working on them in giving them a conscience for their sin, so, are we to anger them by condemnation which may harden their heart toward the still small voice of God?

                  We should give them the freedom that we have in Christ to pursue their path, and not interfere with the work that God is doing. If God leads them to us, then we accept them for who they are, lead them to Christ, and then help them to avoid sin. How can we do that if we are wearing the banner of judgement?

                  Christians have been parading their judgments toward the world for a long time. Has it improved the world? I agree with the statement made by Einstein: “One definition of “insane” is doing the same thing and expecting a different result”. I know first hand that condemning judgement does not draw people closer to you. Why would we expect that it will draw people closer to God?

                  We can speak the truth to the saints for Godly discernment, and answer others who ask us what God says about it. If we put our judgements out first, and seek to use force to control behavior, we will not be a light in the world, but darkness to those who are already in the dark.

                • librtifirst

                  The saints will judge the world, but that is prophetic for another time. God will judge the world, but He hasn’t done it yet. Are we to preempt God? The battle that we face today is a spiritual one, and should be fought as Christ would have us fight it.

                  The scripture that you reference concerning the saints judging the world, only backs up my overall point. Paul is speaking about Christians making judgements about Christians. He is talking about settling our own differences. We have that duty within the church, but we are not to judge the world. 1 Cor 5:12. All other references that people use to be judgmental, are focused on judging within the church. So we should.

                  There are different Greek words for “judge”. Krino has a condemning contextual meaning, whereas anakrino is more of a discerning judgement. It is important to understand this when determining the context of these scriptures. If you apply one context to all mentions, then you would have to believe the bible contradicts itself. Since it does not, only spiritual discernment will help anyone understand the concept of discernment for the purpose determining the realities of the day, and of other people’s actions, and discernment that is used to condemn others. Scripture clearly teaches that we are to discern the things of the world, but it is clear that we only have the right to act upon our discernment toward others within the church. Otherwise 1 Cor 5:12 would be a contradiction. “for what have I to do with judging those without, do you not judge them that are within”?

                  If the law lives within the Christian heart, it will battle with the Holy Spirit. it is the sinful part of us that seeks to use the law to bind others. We have freedom in Christ, but would seek to restrict others? It will never make sense to go around judging the world publicly, and then expect them to desire what we have. God’s natural law will bring the consequences, and this is His worldly correcting influence for the time being. It is not for us to bring consequences to others for immoral behavior that does not harm the innocent directly. It is for us to speak the truth in love, even if it brings consequences. Those consequences do not hurt others, and neither do those words.

                  The world does not know their sin. God may be working on them in giving them a conscience for their sin, so, are we to anger them by condemnation which may harden their heart toward the still small voice of God?

                  We should give them the freedom that we have in Christ to pursue their path, and not interfere with the work that God is doing. If God leads them to us, then we accept them for who they are, lead them to Christ, and then help them to avoid sin. How can we do that if we are wearing the banner of judgement?

                  Christians have been parading their judgments toward the world for a long time. Has it improved the world? I agree with the statement made by Einstein: “One definition of “insane” is doing the same thing and expecting a different result”. I know first hand that condemning judgement does not draw people closer to you. Why would we expect that it will draw people closer to God?

                  We can speak the truth to the saints for Godly discernment, and answer others who ask us what God says about it. If we put our judgements out first, and seek to use force to control behavior, we will not be a light in the world, but darkness to those who are already in the dark.

                • Ummm, Paul was stating clearly that since we will judge the world and by the way, we do an awful lot of judging, Krino has a condemning contextual meaning which is what is used in the verse I gave you by the way, nice to try to switch the topic again. By the way, I have notice that you keep refusing to acknowledge that 1) practicing homosexuality is a sin and 2) that we are not sovereign in any sense; still looking for that Scriptural context.

                  Please answer these two issues that were fundamental to your first post that helped make it a very weak argument; and then we can move forward.

                  Yet, I see that another error needs to be corrected and will do so.The world does not know their sin. God may be working on them in giving them a conscience for their sin, so, are we to anger them by condemnation which may harden their heart toward the still small voice of God? What? Each person is given a conscience at birth, do you not know Romans? For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Rom 1:20 ESV) Are we not to tell them what God demands? Is John the Baptist condemned by you? Is Paul? The world does know their sin, they just revel in it.

                  Until your response to those two issues,*

                  PD71

                  *Please note, will continue to correct as necessary.

                • librtifirst

                  I condemn homosexuality as an act of sin. I do not condemn homosexuals. I would speak up in church against open homosexuality in it, but would not ask homosexuals to leave the church if they were recognizing the act of homosexuality as a sin, and avoiding it.

                  I did address the sovereignty issue. I said that it was a worldly protection against mankind’s tyranny upon the people. It is not a word that I would use in reference to our relationship with God, only our status before men. Christian values support the idea of personal sovereignty on earth, and before men. If we choose to claim no such sovereignty, then we choose to be entirely ruled by wicked individuals who would take our natural rights, which allow us the freedom to do what Christians do. Without individual sovereignty, the world will infringe upon our lives in ways that would be unjust. Personal sovereignty is limited, but as a concept has merit. Sovereignty allows us to be free of other people’s interventions that are unjust. It does not allow all behaviors in a civil society, but it limits the ability of our rulers.

                  If you believe that we should not claim individual sovereignty for the purpose of limiting government, then you may want to consider the environment that will ensue if the premise behind personal sovereignty is lost. Without this sovereignty, we will have no claim to any liberty on earth. If our rulers are not held to this concept, we will end up living in a society that is rife with evil, and will persecute those who speak of Christian values. This will happen anyway, but as we can see, it is partially due to our rulers failing to recognize our liberties as inalienable. What God has given, let no man take away. If God gives it, it is just and right. Yet it is just and right to prosecute those who infringe upon other people’s liberty as well.

                  Why did Jesus say “forgive them, for they know not what they do”? These people were doing what their leaders told them to do. The governing rulers brought it to fruition and gave the orders. Did that make it right? Should we give honor and respect to those rulers? The world does not know their sin, because they do not know God. Does a baby know that it is wrong to cry when there is no reason? Do they know that they are just being selfish? Does a four year old know that it is wrong to take another child’s toy from them? Why does God say that you hate your child if you withhold discipline? Because, if you do not teach them what their sins are, they will not correct their actions and repent from sin.

                  I don’t disagree that God created us, and influences us to understand the big issues of sin. Most know that cutting someone’s head off and eating their flesh is wrong, but they often just understand the severe sins to be wrong. Christians aspire to understand the depths, immensity, and quantity, of our sins. The world couldn’t care less, and therefor do not know their sin. They don’t even recognize it as sin. They come up with their own reasons for it being wrong, or just say that it is.

                  I think that you are attempting to argue every point based on the lack of direct scripture to the points that I am making. Are we not to say anything that was not said in scripture? Can we not discern things based on biblical principle? I would say that if something goes against scripture, then we should have a problem with it. Accepting sinners into the church is not a sin, because we are all sinners. Claiming personal sovereignty to the point of keeping rulers limited to their ability to enact tyranny upon us is not a sin either. Why are you so apposed to these concepts?

                  If you want to use Romans 13 to say that we should obey an evil and unjust government, then go for it, but I won’t buy into it. If you want to shove the issue of homosexual sin in the faces of those who practice it, and condemn them to hell, then go for it. That will not be my approach. Unlike some, I would not take someone’s liberties away because I don’t agree with them. I would only advocate for that if they harmed someone else directly.

                  If the citizens fail to recognize these principles, then they will see their liberties disappear, and so we are. I would rather advocate for equal justice toward all men, than accept a theocratic rule by men and lose my liberty. Christ did not, and would not advocate for theocratic rule by men, because he knew man’s sin, and man will never get it right.

                • Finally, we are getting somewhere. Appreciate the fact that you agree with the practice of homosexuality. No one opposes a person who desires to sin. However, at the same time we have to defend what marriage is. No one has the right to redefine it to their own liking. What a person does in their home can stay there as long as we are sadly talking about consenting adults. Conservatives do not care about a person’s sexual orientation. We though are concern with the fundamental building blocks of society and one of them is the institution of marriage. By aggressively demanding marriage they are destroying an essential fabric to society.

                  If you want to disobey God’s Word that is up to you. But make no mistake we are to submit ourselves to the authority of government that God has raised up. Make no mistake, Romans was written to those in Rome under the government of the Roman empire. If you think US is bad now, it was nothing compared to the emperor of Rome during the time that the letter was written. The only exception is when the government tries to make a Christian disobey God’s law by obeying man’s. Two great examples, Acts 5 and HHS trying to force religious institutions to pay for someone’s abortion. On top of this, Paul urges Christians to pray for those in authority over us that includes rulers (a.k.a. government officials).

                  Your explanation of sovereignty to me is a bit strange. I still do not understand how this works in any frame of reference. The founding fathers did not believe this, the Bible does not speak of anything close to being referenced. I will take one last stab at this. We are all called to be interdependent. If one wants to use the church as an example, in a letter to the Corinthians Paul writes that as one part of the body suffers all suffer, when one is joyous there is joy throughout. At the same time, we are responsible to provide for our families and if we do not work, we ought not to eat. There is a need for personal responsibility along with submission to authority God places upon us and a dependency upon the community. There is no autonomy of the individual.

                  The main reason for my pressing for Scripture is that in your earliest post you stated that you were a Christian libertarian. By this assertion, your worldview has to be base primarily on the Bible before your political philosophy. This is why your answer to Romans 13 is grievous that you would rather disobey God than correct your philosophy. Romans 13:1 is an imperative, a command not a choice.

                  Thanks for your patience with me in helping me better understand your position, even if we do not seem to agree on some of the items.

                  Thanks,
                  PD

                • librtifirst

                  Personal sovereignty is worldly, but is based on the concept of inalienable rights given by God, not some humanism concept. We just claim our rights under a sovereign God who gave them to us. This helps to ensure that the church has the liberty to operate within its own rules without the state being involved. If we claim these rights, we have to extend them to the rest of society to protect their validity. Equal justice is simply allowing others to do what they want to as well as us, therefor I am forced to defend their right to it. If the state gives tax breaks, or insurance regulation that favors “married” people, it is only just to not deny it to others outside of the faith. Rather than having to defend homosexual marriage, I would rather have the state out of marriage.

                  Thanks for the discussion, as well. You have caused me to think more deeply about it.

                  LF

                • Thanks! Marriage will always be an institution that has a high interest from Government. Since the earliest written codes like Hammurabi, government needs such an interest to keep our culture and society flowing. What proof does one have that they are married? separated? widowed?

                  These are important questions that need direction. The state has an important function in such a thing and a desire to keep society away from anarchy. Yes, there are times when they overstep the bounds, but on this side of Heaven there will be no “perfect solution,” even the story of Abraham demonstrates the important insights of social & governmental involvement of this sacred institution of marriage.

                • librtifirst

                  I guess that I tend to view anything that the State does as either being righteous, or not. When the state abuses their authority, or manipulates the population through such traditions as “legal” marriage, I tend to view the State as giving up its authority in such matters. I view our spiritual leaders in the same light. Although an elder is not to be accuses easily, they are not immune to sin. If a teacher, or an elder is doing wrong spiritually while in authority over the flock, I will not give them the respect of an elder, or put myself under their authority. I will place myself under the authority of a righteous ruler, or leader in the church. If government, or church leaders, live or rule through immoral means, and won’t be held accountable, then I do not believe that we have to obey.

                  We know that we will be persecuted for our faith. Not just killed for it, but jailed, ridiculed, etc. There are plenty of examples of men who refused the commands of worldly leaders, and were persecuted for it. I agree that worldly possessions are not a valid reason to rebel. “Give to Caesar”. Yet immoral behavior dictated by the State is a reason to rebel.

                  If you think about it, what would have happened with the Vietnam issue if the citizens refused to go to war? Our government would have been held to a different moral standard. The citizens of this country have been manipulated and lied to in almost every armed conflict of the last century. At very least, we have been pushed into these things through the use of fear tactics. As we have accepted more and more loose reasons for war, the morality of our society declines. There are other reasons for this, but the two issues go hand in hand. As the moral decline of the country persists, we have more and more war, as well.

                  Governments who use the good intentions of the public to achieve their corporate crony goals, do not deserve honor and respect. I will not follow their unjust dictates based on whether or not it is moral, or immoral. Paying taxes is not immoral. Helping to kill hundreds of thousands of people in a foreign land, who have not attacked, or threatened to attack, us, is immoral.

                  We all have to make these judgements. I simply see marriage as between man, woman, and God only. I do not see a biblical command to register, or get permission, with or from the State to make my covenant legitimate. I believe that the church should only marry church members who are accountable within the church. This is a biblical governing body for married people. I view the State, (as it is today) as an intrusive manipulator in the affairs of the family and marriage. Therefor their authority is negated in the matter.The state doesn’t mandate all who live together to be married, and a marriage covenant entered into within the church is still a legitimate marriage before God.

                  Mathew 19 is a good example of the covenant. “The two become one flesh (spiritual), and therefor let no man separate what God has brought together. This was Jesus’ response to the question of what circumstances justified divorce. His answer was “never”. They asked Him about Moses, and he stated their hard hearts. Mathew put an “exception” in there, but Mark and Luke did not. Why? Mark and Luke just wrote “Any man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery”. No exception included. Mathew was writing to the Jews. Mark and Luke were writing to gentiles. The Jews had a “legal” marriage before the covenant called betrothal. They had to officially divorce from it. Mathew included the “exception” for the Jews who were in a betrothal and had a legal spouse who committed “fornication” before the covenant. After the covenant, there was to be no divorce, according to Jesus. The KJV uses the word “fornication” for the exception, and “adultery” for the sin committed while in the covenant. Two different Greek words. Not the same meaning.

                  This is too difficult for our society to accept, so it is taught as an exception for divorce. If we actually taught and followed Jesus’ word on this, the christian community might just have different statistic for divorce. As it is now, the church gives justification outside of God’s will. It is quite sad, and the world see no difference, therefor we are not a light unto it in this regard. We are no more forgivng than the rest of the world.

                  I have a freind that I counciled this to while his wife openly cheated on him for two years. He stuck it out, but separated. She repented, and they have had a good marriage for the last eight years. This is being a light unto the world.

                  I have been single for eight years after a divorce. My first wife abandoned me, and the second committed fraud to get me to marry her within the church. It did not last long at all, and the church failed misserably to follow biblical procedures for dealing with it. I do not know, at this point, if I will ever remarry. I reject interest from women, because my conscience is not clear. If I marry again, the State will not be involved, which may just keep it from ever happening, because I will be quite open about it from the start. I wouldn’t date anyone that I wouldn’t marry. The world, and even many churchs, don’t produce mates that are compatible with God’s criteria. I these end times, I view a risky marriage as a selfish move to satisfy lust. Unless lust overtakes me, I will remain as I am, as stated in 1 Cor chapt 7.

                  Sometimes it helps to have a little background, but this is where God has brought me on this issue.

                • Will response soon…I am on Sabbatical right now with limited opportunity for internet.

      • Gtrjag

        I really don’t think the differences between true libertarians and conservatives are all that great. Our principles are the same but I think that radical Libertarians misapply them. I agree that immoral activity should not normally be criminalized unless it hurts someone else. When the state forbids homosexual marriage they are not discriminating against homosexuals. Homosexuals have the right to engage in whatever perverted practices they choose, but society does not have to legitimize that behavior by permitting them to get married. Two men or two women is not a marriage any more two men and one woman or a man and horse. You cannot equate these perversions on the same level as a sacred institution upon which our entire civilization rests. If marriage and the family falls apart all other arguments become academic.

        Abortion should be illegal because the “fetus” as it is called is actually a human being and has the right to live. The government by not protecting this right is abdicating its most important function.

        I also think we need to distinguish between what the Federal government can do and what the state government can do. As someone who believes in Federalism I can support actions taken by state and local government that I would not accept coming from the Federal Government. If the state or county wants to pass a law that reflects the collective values of that community I am okay with that. If you don’t like it you can go to San-Francisco or Las Vegas. But the Federal Government ought not be involved with such things.

        • librtifirst

          I think that you are right about the heart of conservatism being libertarian, it just doesn’t seem to stick with it enough. I wish that it was true that government does not discriminate against homosexuals. When the government created the laws forcing people to comply with health insurance regulation, and retirement income allocation, they immediately created the discrimination by tying marriage to these issues which gives advantage. I think that the best way to make the homo marriage issue go away, is to get government out of the market, and get rid of these social systems, and tax laws, etc. etc. Gays don’t want to marry because of religious conviction, they just use that as an excuse to gain equality with the rest of the citizens. If marriage was not regulated and documented by government, then used as a control tool, it would be returned to its proper place, which is between man, woman, and God. Not man, woman, and government. Or man, man, and government.

          I will never register with the government to be married again. I am divorced. Any new bride of mine will have to accept that our covenant will only exist between God, myself, and her. If she is interested in some form of security from government to make her feel good, it won’t happen. She will have to settle for accountability in the body of Christ. If that isn’t good enough, then we shouldn’t marry, because a Christian marriage has no place in the world, and the world will never save it.

          Let the world work out their own problems, and let the body be a light unto the world, rather than a part of it. Get government out of God’s business in the body of Christ, which is what our founders desired.

      • The founders stated so eloquently that the Constitution of the United States of America was created for a MORAL and RELIGIOUS people-and that it would never work for any other group. That morality and religion eventually helped lead us away from the sin of slavery and allowed us to grow and prosper as a great nation and as an example to the world.

        We are not a moral and religious people as a whole anymore-many people offer lip service-henceforth you have a variety of candidates that do indeed represent the variety of people that now live in this country-I don’t know if any of them can beat Obama-I want them to desperately but we as a nation are very divided in our values and it is foolish and naive to think that the one person/one President can save our country.

        The American people have a lot to answer for as a nation just inside our own borders alone…the values that once made this a God fearing country have been laid aside for more shallow and narcissitic ideals. We have given up our devotion to God and have turned to worldly things to satisfy ourselves. And as a result we have laid aside our most powerful spiritual weapon-the nucear family.

        If you think that the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob is going to turn a deaf ear to the sins of this country than you are in for a rude awakening! God loves us and He is a loving Father but He is also a jealous God and He will not accept anything other than our hearts turned towards Him.

        Now if we repent as a nation then that is a totally different story and hope and restoration is on the horizon.

        Though I know that God can use politics to help this nation-politics isn’t the answer. Sometimes pain and suffering is the only way to bring about healing! I don’t know if America has reached the bottom yet. I pray she turns herself around very soon.

        “But since we belong to the day, let us be self-controlled, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet” (THES 5:8).

        • librtifirst

          Excellent post. I don’t think that I disagreed with anything. I believe that the US will suffer greatly. In this suffering, I believe there will be a great revival. The systems of government will fail, and people will turn to the Lord of Hosts. It will be painful, but exciting spiritually. Christian charity will shine like the sun, at least as much as government allows. There will be opposition to this revival. Christians will be blamed and persecuted as the Jews in Germany were. To live is Christ, and to die is gain. That is something worth living for. We do not battle against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities. The whole world is in a spiritual battle, and we forget that too often.

  • 3seven77

    I found this video of an interview Newt did with Newsmax last weekend on Newt’s website:

    http://www.newt.org/news/video-gingrich-obama-relentlessly-hostile-religion

    Here is another link with the interview and an article:

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cpac-Gingrich-Newsmax-Obama/2012/02/11/id/429142

    And I thought this one was fun! Pets with Newt!

    http://petswithnewt.com/home/page

    • politicalnewbie

      Pets with Newt is awesome! That makes me want to go out and get a pet so I can send in its picture for that site!

    • Mtncougar

      Thanks for the links, 3seven77, l hadn’t seen them.

  • We that will vote for Newt Gingrich on Election Day, Tuesday, November 6, 2012, are on our own. We know without a doubt that Newt is the obvious choice based on his consistent revelations in debates. But most media outlets have abandoned any follow up to the Gingrich campaign to lead us to think that Gingrich is going to fade away. Nothing to this effect is true, but rather regardless what the media chooses to write their stories about, We the people of the United States will elect Newt Gingrich not only to repeal ever death policy that Obama has created, but also release the economic engine in this country AND GET PEOPLE WORKING AGAIN TO REGAIN THEIR LIVES!

    • jollyjellybean

      If he’s so obvious why is he sinking so badly?

      • the Romneyites chose to run and temporarily profit from blatantly untrue TV spots, with one spot that Romney publicly defended drawing four “Pinocchio’s” from The Washington Post for false charges. (E.g. Gingrich was “fined” for ethics violations as Speaker.)

      • Mtncougar

        Who says he’s sinking? We get that impression from the Establishment and the Romneybots. Here’s a great article about Newt’s campaign…

        http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/evans-gingrich-wins-nomination/2012/02/13/id/429318

  • Thank you Scoop for posting this. I was for Cain before his campaign imploded. I would’ve voted for Newt if it was between him and Romney. But only as a last resort. I still have a hard time with the Newt, Pelosi love fest on the couch. Mostly because I truly despise Pelosi to be honest. But unless Palin (pray for a miracle) hops in my husband and I had decided on Santorum. I admire his slow but steady hard work he’s done in campaigning. He’s been articulate in all the debates and hasn’t really stuck his foot in his mouth like Romney has done. Conservatism comes naturally to him. It’s not staged or forced. That’s why we chose Santorum.

  • Reckoner_3

    Good thread. Context is everything..Remember Rick has 16 years worth of votes one can cherry pick. Hasn’t Allen West had a couple of stinkers. Paul Ryan??

    Mark Levin has rattled off these first five ratings on his show . He got annoyed by the talking
    points against Santorum by some Romney and Paul’s camp.

    “American Conservative Union — 88%

    National Right to Life Committee — 100%

    Americans for Tax Reform — 95%

    National Tax Limitation Committee — 92%

    U.S. Chamber of Commerce — 88%

    League of Private Property Voters — 94%

    • Maybe RS can get us some of that audio from today. What do you say RS?

      • Reckoner_3

        Mark mentioned these ratings of Santorum’s last week I believe, in response to Romney’s attacks on Santorum as being a “big spender” “earmarks” Either last Thursday’s show on the 9th or on Wednesday….

  • shatwood

    Romneybots??? What the heck is a Romneybot????

    Paulbots, yes. But I don’t know of any Romney fans who touch themselves to pictures of Romney.

    • Major914

      Romney’s people have 3-D holograms…

      • K-Bob

        With knobs on.

  • Reckoner_3

    (Source is VoteSmart)

    2006 FreedomWorks – Positions 83%
    2005 Americans for Tax Reform – Positions 95%
    2005 FreedomWorks – Positions 63%
    2005 National Taxpayers Union – Positions 69%
    2004 Americans for Tax Reform – Positions 95%
    2004 American Shareholders Association – Positions 90%
    2004 National Taxpayers Union – Positions 83%
    Here are his ratings from when he was in Congress:
    American Conservative Union — 88%
    National Right to Life Committee — 100%
    Americans for Tax Reform — 95%
    National Tax Limitation Committee — 92%
    U.S. Chamber of Commerce — 88%
    League of Private Property Voters — 94%

  • kamiller42

    Speaking of numbers, let’s talk delegates.
    http://biggovernment.com/bshapiro/2012/02/15/why-mitt-romney-will-win-the-nomination/

    That’s going to get the Santorums fired up against the Newts.

  • Reckoner_3

    Here’s the flip side of the opposition’s ratings against him, posted by some other Santorum voters/supporters

    Unions 11 %
    NRL 100%; NARAL 0%
    Concerned Women for America : 100%
    Americans for Tax Reform : 95%
    U.S. Chamber of Commerce : 100%
    American Security Council : 100%
    American Coalition for Ethanol : 0%
    Arab American Institution : 0%
    ACLU : 17%
    Human Rights Campaign : 0%
    League of Private Property Voters : 89%
    American Wilderness Coalition : 0%
    Republicans for Environmental Protection : 0%
    League of Conservation Voters : 10%
    American Bar Association : 0%

    ****
    You can disagree with him here and there on votes, even on policy differences, but to (in the case of the opponents) trying to make him out as some DEMOCRAT Light GUY is ridiculous. Or pigeon hole him as just a social conservative who is LIBERAL on everything else… that is also Ridiculous…

    He is A + on 2nd Amendment, foreign policy, strong on Immigration, he was endorsed by Tancredo , Energy, very strong on tax policies….

    It’s ridiculous to try to attack him with purity tests.

    • Trust1TG

      BUT Santorum won’t go deep enough – deal with the FED, Currency, UN, Soros, the establishment.

      He’s only interested in the economy…and manufacturing… but the economy will build up for a while like in the 80s, but fall back again if the foundation is not corrected.

      As Sarah Palin and Newt have said, we need a bold, deep, complete overhaul…not a paint job.

      • Reckoner_3

        Newt can talk big , but if he can’t motivate people to vote down ticket, without taking back the Senate, there will be no complete overhaul in the budget.

        Santorum has a better chance of winning than Newt, and reaching out beyond the base through his political campaign style, his honesty, and his connection to the people.
        No matter who we put in as a Republican. Santorum or Newt or even a Mitt don’t control the BUDGET. the Congress will. You don’t get reform unless you have a leader that listens to the people.

        Out of the three, Santorum would be the one who would allow for much upside in taking back the Senate.

        This idea that Newt is going to solve everything. What did Newt do when he got his power?? Look deeper. This guy is telling us what we want to hear.

        As Sarah Palin and Newt have said, we need a bold, deep, complete overhaul…not a paint job.

        Talk and Red Meat is cheap. Love Sarah but it’s easy to talk from the sidelines. She’s been off the mark lately.

        Santorum has a better chance in a general election to win seats in the House and take back the Senate.

        Many House members don’t like Newt. Many are worried he might hurt their chances down the ticket………

        Santorum is the one with the longest coattails to motivate those running for the House and the Senate. He has allies in the Senate who speak fondly and respectfully that Santorum has worked well with…

        Santorum has campaigned state wide in a Democrat state. Gingrich is only familiar with running in a district.

        He has allies in the House and they respect him tremendously, many of Newt’s colleagues however say his leadership was erratic and frustrating.

        Those who are thinking Newt will magically change things are being short sighted. It’s not going to happen.

    • Where did you find these numbers? Thanks for posting them.

  • c4pfan

    Thanks for the info!

  • mjs_pa
  • c4pfan

    I really don’t think any of them left will beat Obama. I’m hoping for a brokered convention and a real Gut check for the GOP. However, I do believe that Rick is a good guy and actually says what he believes unlike Mitt & sometimes Newt.

    • jollyjellybean

      If that’s the case then I don’t think Sarah will have a chance either, js.

  • I’m “feeling good” about Rick Santorum…

    Feeling Good – Michael Buble
    >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSK9kkM7GL4

    Art

  • stage9

    I hate it when people bring facts into the picture. I want to be “inspired”. lol.

    On a serious note…I don’t have a problem with Gingrich. As a matter of fact I would’ve voted for Gingrich if Santorum would’ve dropped out. His numbers were abysmal early on. But since Santorum has been on the rise, I have new hope for electing a principled Conservative and not settling for second best.

    I will NEVER vote for Romney however. He is a New England liberal whose record in MA is no different than Obama’s. He is simply Obama-lite. NO THANKS!

    • The liberal knock on him: The Santorums’ charitable giving was a small percentage of his income each year.

      He has seven kids one with special needs. Despite the fact they paid about $167,000 in taxes in 2007, about $262,000 in 2008, $310,000 in 2009, and $263,000 in 2010.

  • Thank you Scoop. Great post and straight to the point.

  • CPAguy

    Obviously, Santorum isn’t very Conservative. Cain was the closest to a real Conservative that was running.

    However, Sanotorum is almost Conservative, and that is better than any other option we have….sigh…

    • Major914

      You should check out all the legislator ratings he received from conservative organizations during his time in office –there are a boatload of them, and the ratings are consistently very high.

      I’d say he’s very conservative.

      (There are a couple of posts below with the ratings.)

      • CPAguy

        He’s very Conservative compared to Obama, but not when compared to the actual definition of Conservative.

        I am for the guy. But Eyes Wide Open!

        He is a nannystater who doesn’t know anything about business. He is another career politician with nothing else worth anything on his resume.

        However, he appears to be honest, and would be a better alternative compared to the uber-RINOs, Mittens and Newt.

        If Santorum doesn’t win this campaign….the GOP is finished…a new, Conservative, party will send it the way of the Whigs.

    • K-Bob

      Santorum is conservative. Newt is conservative. Both of them are solid, movement conservatives. Anyone selling something different is engaged in a pointless exercise.

      Romney and Paul are not conservatives. At various points, they have each said so.

  • The problem isn’t the score. He’s not Harry Reid and we all know that. You can put your 9 fingers in a bucket of ice water and your right thumb in a cauldron of boiling peanut oil but saying you are 90% super cool doesn’t tell the complete picture.

    His sanctimony of this “principled conservative” is the problem here. Like saying he was against TARP and Gingrich was for it – when in fact Gingrich spent weeks battling it in the media and only “sadly and disappointingly” went along with vote after passionate criticism against it. Santorum? He gave a PittGazette interview saying he’d rather talk about movies. That was it. (That wasn’t scored)

    ObamaCare? Gingrich spent months writing, lecturing, making TV appearances battling it. Santorum? A mild displeasure on a couple of interviews while promoting himself. (not scored)

    The PA Senator was the “top” lobbyist of 2006, and also said he was fiercely pro-life. And yet voted for Sotomayor’s judgeship and undercut conservatives who wanted to filibuster. NEITHER are scored by ACU or or your “fiscal” test.

    In 2006 Santorum’s ACU rating was 96. Seems pretty good right? What also wasn’t graded (besides his extremely questionable ties to Glaxo-Smith and other KStreet lobbying efforts), was undercutting the candidacy of a conservative pro-life Senator and supporting rabid pro-abortion Arlen Specter. Specter’s ACU rating that year? 46.

    Forget for a minute that his absolutely crazy statements on personal freedoms, women and gays wouldn’t be promoted by $1 Billion Obama campaign (including saying conservatives believe they have a right to regulate what goes on in someone’s bedroom) – there are a few little things like making Pennsylvania pay $100K for homeschooling his kids who never lived there, lobbying for a maximum 250K cap on medical lawsuits while suing a chiropractor for $500K and claiming to be tough on terror when you won’t accommodate Dick Cheny to close a loophole allowing US companies to sell to Iran.

    When you put out an ad attacking your “mentor” who has a higher ACU score than you do as “big government,” you open yourself up to a whole different level of scrutiny and criticism. Especially if you were the #3 ranking Senator in a Congress that never balanced a budget and voted for excessive spending that LOST your party the Senate. (While the mentor you are attacking balanced the budget 4 years in a row with a DEMOCRAT President and left Congress with a 60% approval rating).

    When Paul Ryan and Allen West would NOT “hold the line” with Jim DeMint and the Tea Party 22 causing a catastrophic cut in Defense and continuing spending by Obama – they no longer became “principled conservatives.” Are they conservative? Of course. But they’ve shown they can not be counted on to do the bold things to straighten out this mess, going along with the establishment when they are forced to.

    And that is NOT how Santorum and his followers like to portray him. Although his votes show – that is exactly who he is. (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/09/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like-2/)

    Gingrich stood up to Reagan, Dole and Bush refusing to raise taxes every time he was asked. He ain’t perfect either – but he has shown he has a backbone.

    We quite correctly point out the exaggeration of Romney’s conservative credentials whih is mostly NEW positions he talks about, not what his voting record says. In my opinion Santorum is fair game for being hammered on some of his rather liberal votes because he CLAIMS that he has a record that isn’t reality.

    • CPAguy

      Dude, you can’t compare Santorum negatively to Newt. It just isn’t possible.

      There are hundreds of actual Conservatives in politics who Santorum does compare negatively, unfortunately, none of these people are currently running for President.

      • Mtncougar

        ? “you can’t compare Santorum negatively to Newt. It just isn’t possible”

        Dude, did you bother to read the posting? I doubt it. He just did, and brilliantly.

        • PhillyCon

          Is Newt’s contract to the Earth mentioned in this expose or his support for healthcare mandates?

          • K-Bob

            It wasn’t an analysis, so that would be out of form.

    • lostdutchman

      Linky1, several posts above, quotes (I believe) Scoop for mentioning how important it is to have a compatible House and Senate accompany whoever we elect for POTUS to Washington. I have heard no other candidate even allude to that necessity, not Santorum, not Romney… EXCEPT Newt. He not only mentions it, it is part of his appeal to his listeners, “I don’t want you to be ‘for’ me… to vote for me and then go home and hope Newt gets it done. Be WITH me and work to elect a complete Republican sweep in both the House and Senate in November.”

      Don’t the other ‘guys’ realize this? Why does Newt know this and the others apparently NOT? Maybe its called experience? Like you might get with someone who has actually been in a leadership position in Washington, before?

      Yes, its mandatory to get to Washington, first. Its something else to be able to get things done after you arrive. Gee, when do you start that campaign?

    • K-Bob

      Nice hit piece. Good use of inflating the significance of one guy, and diminishing the significance of the other guy. Decent list of cherry picked items. Nice finish with the “backbone” thing. All classic tools in the hit piece game. Nothing of substance in a hit piece, though. I don’t know why anyone would waste their time writing one.

      I’m leaning toward Gingrich, myself, but the bizarre crop of hit pieces and claims of “not being a conservative” against Santorum make me wonder what has some people so scared. It’s almost like the Santorum haters actually believe Rick is going to round up their women and put them in baby-makin’ prison, and after that start in on the gays. And of course, all while mysteriously having no backbone.

      Interesting you also spared a little hate for Ryan and West. Looks like they just fell off your tightrope. Good thing we each have our own notions of what “principled” really means.

      Somehow, you failed to address anything from the posted article.

      You’re not going to scare people away from supporting Santorum with this, but it’s always nice to see a good effort.

  • Linky1

    “is Santorum perfect? No. But is Santorum a conservative? Absolutely. And someone who I believe would fight to do the right as president. And if we give him a Republican House and Senate, it’ll be even more motivation to fight for what is right.”

    Amen, Scoop. Who among us is perfect, whether you’re an every day worker or a politician. For me, Santorum represents what is good and right about a candidate – he has the fundamental basics of a love for his country, family and a desire to do the right thing.

    We went through the same thing here in Canada when we elected a majority Conservative government, after many years of Liberals spending us to oblivion and wrecking the social fabric of Canada.

    Now, our Conservatives are far from perfect, but they have one thing on their side-a majority to go on with the business of governing Canada. I like what I see, so do most Canadians. Liberal politicians are left in tatters, trying to create scandals out of nothing, while Canada begins to prosper once again and regain some of the values we had taken away from us.

    • nibblesyble

      Yes we have had better conservative governing, however we still pay for abortions, we still have that liberty-sucking ‘human rights council’, we still pay waaaay to much in taxes..I am happy we are going the conservative way, but much needs to be improved!

      • Linky1

        It took 40+ years to get Canada the way it was and the changes won’t happen overnight. At least we have SUN News on our side, exposing the liberals and progressives in Canada, that is a huge help and a giant thorn in the side to those who don’t see things form our perspective.

        • nibblesyble

          I know…sucks having to wait though. Especially about tax-funded abortion. It makes me sick that I work hard to help pay for a woman to suck a baby out of her womb.

          • Linky1

            That’s one thing the Conservatives say is off the table…for now. I firmly believe that it will be brought to debate again and soon.

            When you think of it, our state-sanctioned and funded abortions are what is on the table now with the “contraception” debate between the Catholics and Obama. The ultimate goal-just like Canada, state sanctioned abortion and birth control.

  • jollyjellybean

    “If you can watch this all the way through and still believe Rick Santorum should not be President, then I feel sorry for you.” (H/t LG)

    http://electad.com/videos/rick-santorum-campaign-rally-coeur-dalene-idaho-february-14-2012/

    • nibblesyble

      I guess you better pity me…but I do like the sound of VP Santorum!

  • puma_for_life

    So, is The Right Scoop officially a Santorumbot, Paul basher site now?

    • This has always been a Ronbot basher site, one of the reasons why its so good 🙂

    • Conservative_Hippie

      RS tells it like it is; he’s a Truthbot!

    • Trust1TG

      Ron Paul’s economic/currency ideas are right on. His drug legalization idea is ridiculous with the Hamas-Hezbollah drug cartels invading our country.
      And he’s too soft on Islam. Islam is an evil plague – a barbaric violent aggressive racist, misogynist hate group.

      • stevenbiot

        You forgot that it was founded by an epileptic pedophile. Just trying to elaborate a bit!

      • grizzlybear71

        If drugs were legalized, it would crush the drug cartels. Cartels thrive on a lack of competition. See the Federal Reserve System (a cartel of private banks with the exclusive right to create money out of thin air).

    • stevenbiot

      Yes!

    • stevenbiot

      You know what rappers do to haters? What bloggers do to haters is much harsher!

      • puma_for_life

        I have no clue what you are talking about.

    • Nukeman60

      People that like Paul are not all Paulbots. People that like Romney are not all Mittforbrains. People that like Beck are not all Beckistanis. Just the wild-eyed, zeolots that see nothing but their self-made gods are the bots. They get bashed and ridiculed, as they should, when they come in here selling tin foil hats.

    • K-Bob

      Reading comprehension just takes too much energy, eh?

  • nibblesyble

    Thanks Scoop for not forsaking Newt..although I knew you hadn’t because you have made every effort to put up the few interviews he has done. Rick is a conservative, anyone who says he isn’t are remarkably obtuse, but he just is not Newt…

    • José Luis Lugo

      He is not Newt, you are right, he is much better.

      • nibblesyble

        whateves……

  • Trust1TG

    For those suffering from NWS (Newt Withdrawal Syndrome – 7 days until the next debate) – here are a couple of great Newt videos:

    2008 – Newt defends Sarah Palin remarks on foreign policy – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijb9JajlZt8

    2009 – Newt rips Obamacare – defends Palin’s death panels remark – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRBYqazDDr4&feature=related

    • José Luis Lugo

      Newt lost my vote. Some of his ideas are just too ridiculous. A base on the moon in 8 years and grant it statehood? Really?

      • nibblesyble

        So when kennedy said it was possible to go to the moon in ten years..it was a bad thing? Nope, it inspired America, it made them the top of the heap for scientific communities, put the Soviet to shame. Now The Chinese and India are trying to do what the States should be attempting. He also proposed it be funded 90% by the private market. I like big, grand ideas..I want to be inspired thank-you very much. I am tired of doom and gloom.

  • Megadeath frontman Dave Mustaine backs Senator Santorum. I’m that much closer to being all in….
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/02/megadeth-frontman-backs-rick-santorum-114539.html

    • stevenbiot

      Megadeath, huh. That’s what I’m talking about.

    • Now, Rick is Rock N Rolling!

    • librtifirst

      That is interesting. I have seen Dave on the Alex Jones show a couple of times. He is quite aware of the NWO issues. I would have taken him for a Paul supporter. He became a Christian some years ago.

  • Trust1TG

    Quotes from Prof. Jacobson’s endorsement of Newt (He goes down the original list of candidates)
    http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/11/why-i-support-newt-gingrich/

    Ed Morrissey, Newt Gingrich is for real:

    “Those who want a fighter know that they can trust Gingrich not to embarrass them through incoherence or ignorance, and that he has a more natural inclination to confrontation than Romney. …. And if it comes down to Gingrich and Romney, the Tea Party contingent may well put its shoulders behind a man who they know will outfight Barack Obama if a more consistently conservative alternative fails to emerge.”

    More from Morrissey here:

    “Gingrich may not be a conservative dream candidate, but he has worked with grassroots conservatives far more than Mitt Romney has over the last several years, and he shows a much greater tendency to fight than Romney does as well. If there are no reliable conservatives whom voters can trust not to make fools of themselves in a long campaign, Gingrich at least fills that bill. And compared to Mitt Romney, Gingrich may well be conservative enough to become a rally point — much like Romney himself was in 2008, albeit too late to stop John McCain from winning the nomination.”

    Don Surber:

    “I am not brushing aside his support of Dede Scozzafava, or that global warming commercial he made with Nancy Pelosi. His personal baggage is known.

    But so is his record: He pushed for term limits, balanced budget, balanced budget amendment… He is pro-life and pro-liberty. I cannot think of another leader in Washington — he was 2 heartbeats from the presidency from 1995 through 1998 — who has publicly denounced secular humanism.”

    • Interesting that you quote Morrissey there. Morrissey mentioned all those things and still endorsed Santorum if I recall correctly. There are many good things about Newt. There are many more good things about Santorum.

    • ApplePie101

      Yet Ed Morrissey endorsed Santorum.

  • stevenbiot

    Scoop, you are now my hero. It should be a Santorum and Scoop ticket. Santorum is money! That’s who I’m voting for. This guy is going to pull an upset – Manning vs. Brady style.

    • José Luis Lugo

      Haha. Good one! I will vote for Rick as well.

  • It is pretty obvious, and pretty sad, that an awful lot of people have blinders on when it comes to their own candidate, but use a microscope when looking at the other candidates.

    Most of the criticisms of candidates (and this includes Romney) involve cherry-picking, taking things out of context and the like. I thought that was what liberals did.
    Reminds me of people who proof-text from the Bible – they either show that they don’t know or don’t care about the whole picture.

    At various points in this campaign I have been leaning towards Palin, Pawlenty, Daniels, Cain, Gingrich, even Romney, and now Santorum (sorry Bachman and Paul). The fact is, every candidate has flaws and none is perfect. Let the process take its course, and we’ll eventually have a candidate. And we jolly well better support that candidate. It takes a lot of gall to sit there and say that my candidate is so superior that any conservative that doesn’t support him is an idiot. Save that for the general election.

  • Radical Rabbi

    I like Newt; I wish he could get his act together. The next debate and Super Tuesday will tell. That being said, I also like Rick Santorum. Right now, it is his primary to lose to Obamalite, also known as Romney.

  • Nukeman60

    So, Obama got a 0.00 GPA for his three years (can you really count it as a full three?). Two things can be gleaned from this:

    One, I wonder who he paid off to get it that high, and, two, he would say it was Bush’s fault!

    • UpChuck.Liberals NoBO12

      When Barry’s school grades are finally released I’ve got even money that they’ll be the bare minimum to pass and it’ll turn out that they were inflated.

  • ApplePie101

    That sums up my feelings as well, RS. Moreover, when Romney harps on the issue of spending, it shows that he still does not understand the destructive nature of his own individual mandate. Constitutionality doesn’t matter to him. We don’t want a dictator, benevolent or otherwise. Romney’s a micro managing politician of the past; Santorum a resourceful politician of the future.

  • B-Funk

    Hey Scoop, do you have the clip of Levin talking about this very thing? It might be a nice thing to hear…

    • c4pfan

      I believe I read that Levin won’t be on until tomorrow?

  • romney is a RINO

  • Ariadnea

    This is really the time when one wishes for the Wisconsin Governor to run for the Presidency with Paul Ryan as his VP. Both these guys are not into showmanship and big talking points, but serious well thinking, hardworking, and common sense policy making individuals. If only someone could push these guys to run, it would wake and energize many sleep walking Americans. I and many others have enough of talkers. Should people have a need of another good talker or teleprompter reader, kindly just head for the closest used car dealership, at least there is a car at the end of a transaction, no matter how lemonized (instead of trillions of debt, with nothing to show for it).

    • librtifirst

      I don’t know about those two guys, but the rest is pretty good. We just need to write off the debt and start over with a US currency.

      • Ariadnea

        No one can just write off a debt without facing long term negative consequences, for a country it would even be way worse than that.

  • ReaganiteRepublican

    Speaking as a Newtbot, I find Santorum to be a very weak candidate who was ignored until all more savory choices where destroyed in Romney/PAC/MSM/candidate x-fire attacks. Basically, he’s still here because nobody bothered to even look at him, let alone slander.

    With his hollow record of accomplishment, whining demeanor, and loser’s aura in the wake of getting trounced by 19 pts last time out (as an incumbent!), Obama will paint him as a religious kook and CUT HIM TO SHREDS in November.

    All I can tell you is that I didn’t just fight for three years, every day just to hook up our wagon to a lame horse like this… Ricky has not the resume nor the fight in him to get my support going into the fall.

    If Newt’s third comeback (pending) doesn’t materialize in time, maybe we can get Palin or somebody else to step up at the convention… but not Santorum, please

    • Jay

      Team Alinsky- Oops, I mean Team Obama is going to attempt to rip any GOP candidate to shreds and Santorum has the fewest faults for them to pick on. As you can see they are already using the “Santorum’s going to take away your birth control” argument. Pretty weak compared to Romneycare or the false attacks on Newt’s Senate record. Reagan and Bush were both painted as idiotic religious nuts and they even got REelected.

      Santorum has an 88% voting record from the ACU. Not as good as Newt but head and shoulders above Romney.

      • K-Bob

        Yes, and the critical fact of Santorum’s ACU rating is that he had the best ACU rating of all serving senators when he was still in that body.

        I swear, people who write nonsense about either Newt or Rick being somehow “not conservative” must have no moral compass.

    • K-Bob

      That’s just brilliant. You actually wrote that after reading the article? Seriously? What next, you’re going to tell us two is actually one?

      I don’t get this whole “bot” thing. Do you have to check your brain at the door to get a “bot” pin or something?

  • DavidRobertson

    It is interesting to watch the Gingrich and Santorum supporters tear each other down and do Romney’s work for him. Who needs millions of dollars and Super PACs when all you need to do is put conservatives in a virtual room together? We are excellent at cannibalizing our own. You Newt supporters need your head checked if Santorum isn’t “conservative” enough for you. Likewise for Santorum voters. I prefer Rick, but I’m not going to go blistering Newt over it.

  • I just want to hear Santorum’s excuse for saying he will publically and vocally oppose the Tea Party. http://exposethemedia.com/2012/02/15/rick-santorum-hates-the-tea-party/ I have a real problem with this video. Don’t get me wrong, if he is the cand. I will vote for him.

  • Kordane

    Dear Santorum followers, read this and weep:

    “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 cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I’m aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
    – Rick Santorum

    Source – http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/01/19/rick-santorum-is-tired-of-you-people-wanting-the-government-to-leave-you-alone/

    Explain this to me, because I find it utterly despicable.

    • jollyjellybean

      He decrys, as do I, the far left radical liberalterianism of the occupier, code pink variety. He is the thinking man’s candidate as he so articulately explains why the radically different outcomes between the French and American Revolutions (the ideology of RP is advancing the libertine madness of the FrenchRev). Rights of Man vs Rights from the Creator. If I have to explain it to you, it’s obvious you were throwing paper airplanes and spitballs in 5th grade, rather than paying attention in History Class. This is 101 stuff people.

      • Kordane

        No, he definitely decried the “libertarianish right” and not “far left radical liberalterianism” as you suggest, although I don’t doubt he’d do that too, if prompted.

        Santorum is so not the “thinking man’s candidate” at all. The guy is a mystic for starters, which means that he puts faith above reason, although I don’t doubt that he uses reason extensively, because one cannot live one’s life by faith alone, otherwise one would die from ingesting something poisonous and “having faith” that it’s healthy, or something like that. Secondly, I don’t really hear any intellectual arguments put forth from Santorum. Compare him with someone like Mark Levin, Milton Friedman, or Ayn Rand, and you’ll see what I mean. I just don’t think the guy is intellectually minded at all, and I’ve yet to see evidence to prove that he is.

        On rights, there is definitely an argument to be made for rights being objectively inferred from “the creator”, but I would depart from religious folks who say that “the creator” is an omnipotent intelligent super being called “God”. Instead, I would argue that “the creator” is simply “reality” or “nature”. You just don’t need an intelligent super being as the source of rights, since there is a perfectly good non-intelligent “reality” which also has the advantage of being perceivable, whereas “God” is not.

    • K-Bob

      Tough beans. He’s correct, and I’m glad he said it.

      He’s not using correct terms, philosophically speaking, but he’s absolutely correct. The ranks of libertarians have been swelled recently–thanks to the Ron Paul campaign–with anarchist-type leftists. They do not understand libertarian thinking, but they hate republicans, and are mad at Obama. So they claim they are libertarian, act like the clowns in the “occupy” movement, and want to tear down everything. All in the name of personal rights.

      You cannot create a society at all if everyone wants to operate as though whatever they want to do, they can just do it. That is the attitude that led to the range wars of the old west. It brings violence and death, and does not celebrate individual liberty at all.

      Most importantly, the anarcho-libertarian way of thinking debases the concept of personal property, because without the guarantees of an integrated, organized society, and the peace provided by a government, personal property rights vanish. Anarchists are anti-liberty, and anti-property, despite their rhetoric. The libertarians need to speak out against these fools.

      • Kordane

        Santorum isn’t out there criticizing anarchists – He’s out there criticizing libertarians as a whole. I really do think that this man has a deep hostility towards libertarianism, given what I’ve read and heard. I think he believes there is some kind of conservatism that has no libertarianism in it, even though the conservative hero Ronald Reagan is quoted as saying “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism”, and even though Republicans would probably never get elected if all the libertarians bogged off to vote libertarian, rather than investing whatever shreds of hope they have left in them that maybe just maybe this time would be different and that the Republican they voted for (following some stupid buckley rule) would actually do something libertarian this time, rather than farting in the general direction of milton friedman, and praying at the altar of statism.

        I don’t think that conservatives really know what “individual rights” really implies for the relationship between the individual and the government. For instance: What would you say if I told you that if individual rights were 100% recognized and protected (by the government) then people could do anything they wanted to do, just so long as they didn’t initiate force/fraud against other individuals?

        I think that conservatives would fight against such a thing, because when it really comes down to it, conservatives don’t truly advocate individual rights, because individual rights means exactly the kind of society I described, and that is a society that is simply “intolerable” to (probably) the vast majority of conservatives.

        You know, I listen to Mark Levin a lot, and I hear him go on about how important individual rights are – but when it comes down to such things as whether people should be free to (for example) use any drugs they want to use, Mark says that most drugs should be banned, even though to do so contradicts individual rights because no force/fraud is initiated against other individuals. It’s that kind of pathetic lack of principle that makes my blood boil when I hear conservatives talk. Even someone as mighty as the great one himself falls prey to tyranny when faced with the kind of free society that individual rights implies. Most people don’t realise it when they listen to him, but I most certainly do, and I just thought I’d share that with you.

        Also, don’t compare libertarians with the occupy movement which as of 12/9/2011 had a rap sheet of 417 egregious “incidents” – http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstreet-the-rap-sheet-so-far/

        • K-Bob

          Look, I come from the libertarian side of things. I’ve spent a lifetime reading and studying philosophy in general, and political philosophy in particular. I know libertarian principles, and where they differ from conservative. So I guarantee you I would hear it if Santorum was antagonistic toward libertarianism.

          He’s not a ‘Believer,’ but he’s not antagonistic.

          Libertarians do not advocate the right to do anything you want as long as you don’t initiate violence. That’s a drastically oversimplified view.

          You couldn’t even keep a village together with that view of things. You’d have people dumping garbage in the river, people burning things where smoke gets into homes of people with respiratory illness, and thousands upon thousands of other, everyday problems that cannot be resolved easily outside a framework of law.

          What is good about the libertarian viewpoint is that it should be a guide to those charged with making law. To that extent, I can see libertarians being unhappy with Gingrich and Santorum. However libertarian thinking does not come easily to the general population, so libertarians will always be forced to compromise at election time.

          NOTE: I sure as h*** didn’t compare “libertarians” to the Occupiers. I compared the anarcho-libertarians who support Ron Paul to the occupiers. HUGE difference.

          • Kordane

            I didn’t say “violence”, I said “force”. Violence is the most egregious form of force, but there are other forms (eg. verbal threats, fraud, etc).

            In your post you give all the same kind of scenarios that liberals give for opposing the free market and capitalism. I’d argue that this is quite telling, since you should already know that there are free market solutions to all these scenarios. Establishing property rights (land/sea/air) solves all these kinds of problems. Your river scenario would be an initiation of force against the river’s owner, and they can take you to court for doing so. The same goes for air pollution, if you can give evidence that the pollution is the fault of whomever is emitting it.

            The scenarios you give are all problematic in the absence of property rights to land/sea/air. It goes by the name “the tragedy of the commons”.

            Bring on these “thousands and thousands” of other problems.

            As for “anarcho-libertarians”, I don’t know what that term really means. Either you’re for anarchism or you’re for libertarianism. There is no middle ground, as far as I’m aware. To be honest, I see all the “anarchists” in the occupy movement – Not in the libertarian movement as such. Both anarchists and communists have a common cause – the downfall of capitalism – which is why they team up. You won’t, however, see actual libertarians teaming up with communists.

            • K-Bob

              You misunderstand. I know libertarian philosophy. I know anarchist thinking. And yes, there is a range in between. Always will be.

              One failing of “pure” libertarianism is the tendency to assume one solution to all problems. It disregards human nature on the one hand, and assumes you can negotiate between parties for every situation where a clash occurs. Both of those assumptions are ridiculous. That’s why the “thousands and thousands of problems” will always bury “pure” libertarianism, and result in–at the very least–a minimal form of government. You cannot have property without it.

              As I say, libertarian thinking is a good principle for the creation of laws, but it’s as unworkable for a nation as pure democracy is.

              Under the scenario you paint (and which I’ve seen thousands of times in these discussions), people would spend their entire lives in some form of “court.” In practice, to stay out of court long enough to actually accomplish anything, force will be employed by the strong, and the weak will fall prey to the absence of law. The history of the westward expansion shows this over and over.

              Look, I’m not really interested in Libertarianism 101 here. Having spent many years studying it, I don’t have time to bother with it anymore. The anarchists in the Ron Paul “movement” (which is NOT libertarian due to their inclusion) are who I’ve been writing about. You keep assuming my criticism is against libertarianism. It’s not. It’s against the hodge-podge of leftists, anarchists, and those who have a poor grasp of libertarianism who are followers of his.

              The libertarians have their own candidate. By and large, they think Paul is way off the reservation.

              • Kordane

                Ok wait, my OP was to highlight Santorum’s hostility towards libertarianism. I’ve provided a link that highlights some of this hostility. I wasn’t interested in having a debate about some fringe elements within the Ron Paul campaign, or about the problem of anarchists in general – Those are roads you took me down. I’ve pointed out how Santorum has a problem with libertarianism itself, and that he doesn’t mention anarchism at all. Just read what I quoted in my OP, it’s disgraceful of him!

                As for your retort about the need to go to court to settle property disputes, I would argue that having a “loser pays” system (like Britain) would solve many of the frivolous lawsuits that might take place… but that is a whole other topic (ie. tort reform). I simply don’t think that people would be doing stuff like taking factories to court just because they may have dirtied their shirts a little, or somesuch nonsense.

                The fact is that if someone violates your property rights, then you’d have to weigh the relative effort of “taking someone to court” vs “the force initiated against you”.

                For instance, if someone walks across your land, despite you prohibiting it, then yes they’re initiating force against you and you could take them to court – but you have to ask yourself whether it’s worth doing that, especially when considering the risk that you may lose the court battle, or even if you win, being more out of pocket than you would have been if you hadn’t taken them to court. The market will regulate its use of the court system to settle property right violations; it just simply wouldn’t be the malevolent world that you picture.

                • K-Bob

                  I might be getting my dialogs between you and libertifirst mixed up.

                  Regarding Santorum though, I think you are implying more than he meant.

  • RobertGman

    First, I am a big time Romney fan and I’m tired of all the crap that gets spewed about him and his supporters (Romneybot? Hardly). Romney inspires me and I think he has the best chance of turning around our country. I like him for who he is and what he represents. For Santorum fans I have a simple issue…

    Santorum is a Senator who has never run anything (I don’t care about his voting record). Obama was a Senator who had never run anything (until the Presidency). Senators and congressmen do NOT make good presidents. Do you really, really want to have someone else who needs on the job training at this point in our history?

  • cabensg

    I don’t see people looking at future consequences of choosing a novice president like Santorum who will choose a novice VP.

    I just looked at a list of possible VP choices, at “Human Events” if Romney or Santorum wins the nomination and it ain’t pretty. One of these could be a future president after either serving under Romney or Santorum. I am seriously concerned about the future of this country.

    I hope Gingrich is able to come back strong because whoever he chooses for VP will have the wherewithal to keep the successes going and defeat any future liberal the Democrats choose to put up against him.

    I guess the popularity culture is as alive and well in on the Republican side as it is on the Democrat side. If this is true I guess this is one time I’m glad I’m not young enough to see the consequences of this kind of thinking.

    http://www.newt.org/ “21st Century Contract with America” video or transcript.

    Compare that to Romney or Santorum. It’s time to think in futures.

  • Santorum is consistent on Rule of Law as it relates to illegal immigration. He also recognizes that importing hoards of foreigners on H-1b’s is harming Americans trying to get a job.He does not fall for the amnesty schemes as does Newt.

    • K-Bob

      I don’t remember him claiming H1b’s are bad. The fact is, too few American kids are majoring in technology fields. Companies can’t get enough of them, despite working closely with may colleges and universities to try and pull kids into those fields. Without H1b hires, a lot of our technology businesses would be in trouble.

  • Constance

    I find it incredible that supporters of Romney and Paul are trying to use this tactic against Santorum. Is this all they have? If so, they are in heap big trouble. In particular, Romney needs to change course on this one – There is not a chance he can defend himself against Santorum when it comes to supporting government takeovers and spending. This is a moronic move.

  • Thanks for exposing the records and the explanation of the grading scale. “ABO” is the game plan.

  • puma_for_life

    I’m surprised (not) there isn’t something here about Santorum’s tax returns which he released yesterday…

    http://news.yahoo.com/santorums-tax-returns-show-rise-wealth-030829446.html

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum released four years of federal income tax returns on Wednesday night, showing a sharp rise in his personal wealth spurred by his growing work as Washington-based corporate consultant and media commentator.

    …Santorum, 53, has sold himself in the Republican primaries as both a social conservative and a Washington outsider, stressing his family’s coal-mining background and his appeal to religious and working-class voters. His personal finances tell a different story, detailing the trajectory of a politician who grew more prosperous in the Senate and became a millionaire afterward, at times capitalizing on his Beltway connections.

    Santorum was also paid nearly $400,000 in compensation and stock options as a board director at Universal Health Services, a hospital management firm, after he left the Senate in 2006. He also owns up to $250,000 in Universal stock. As a senator, Santorum had sponsored several unsuccessful bills that would have secured more Medicaid funding for hospitals run by Universal and other medical firms in Puerto Rico.

    • NJK

      He released his tax returns, and still no records on Zero?

  • “But I still like him and would be supporting him more fiercely if he had more momentum. But for now it’s all SantorumSurge.”

    So basically you are admitting you are a bandwagon jumper with that statement instead of fighting for who you believe in. That’s messed up and probably explains much of the “Santorum Surge” you mentioned. Also, you completely skipped over Santorum’s support of Mitt Romney last go around. It is no wonder we can’t get a definitive front runner with all this band wagon jumping go on! :<

    • I’ve been clear that I support the conservative candidate against Romney. Whoever it is. Newt or Santorum. Call it whatever you want.

      But at this point I do prefer Santorum because I think he doesn’t give up the vital issues like Romney and Newt do.

      Either way, I’m open about where I stand. Sorry if you disagree.

      • Kordane

        RS, what do you think of Santorum in regards to this – http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/01/19/rick-santorum-is-tired-of-you-people-wanting-the-government-to-leave-you-alone/

        This is the kind of stuff that should instantly disqualify him, since America was founded on “radical individualism”, and that is precisely what he falsely claims has “never succeeded as a culture”, even though it resulted in the greatest success story in the entire history of Mankind, in the United States.

        It may be argued that Santorum thinks that Conservatism can exist independent of any influence from Libertarianism. I would argue that a Conservatism absent of Libertarianism is like a Man with a heart/soul; just a hollow shell.

    • K-Bob

      Man, when you build a straw man, you make sure he’s ugly, too.

    • nibblesyble

      I agree with you, even if it means disagreeing with scoop(who I adore of course) too many people jump back and forth..I was always for Newt, up or down and practically dead(as he was in the summer) Unless he drops out I will support him till he wins! Santorum is great..as a role model, Newt is a leader and we need him!

  • Jaynie59

    I hate Santorum but even I think this whole “big spending” crap is just that, crap. He went along to get along. That’s how he ended up in the leadership. So what? You think Paul Ryan would be chair of the budget committee if he didn’t play the same game? I don’t mind politicians who play politics.

    I still hate him, though. He is the epitome of why liberals hate Right Wing Christian Conservatives and is the worst possible candidate to face Obama. If I thought he could keep his mouth shut he might stand a chance. But there is no way an immature girly man like him will able to keep it shut.

    • in this day and age it takes a real man to stand up and say what needs to be said, and Santorum says it.

    • stevenbiot

      Don’t hate!

      • K-Bob

        I hate it when people hate.

  • Sober_Thinking

    Thanks Scoop! I appreciate this info and all your hard work!!! 🙂

  • grizzlybear71

    Chris Matthews: “Santorum…he’s relatively OK”

  • Hurah right scoop, hurah.

  • ProLifeMommyof2

    Newt doesn’t need a fickle fair-weather supporters like you anyway. He needs people like me & MILLIONS of others who support him EVEN when his momentum is down!! THAT’s called LOYALTY.

  • key word current , former senator santorum, former governor romney , former speaker gingrich , current congressman paul , who is more electable

  • Any Republican that opposes RomneyCare and ObamaCare is a CONSERVATIVE. Any Republican that opposes secularism is a conservative. Any Republican that promotes Life, God and Family is a CONSERVATIVE! Rick Santorum is a CONSERVATIVE!

  • Go Rick go!