By The Right Scoop


I’m only half way through this but it is excellent. Rick Santorum was interviewed today by Off The Record in Michigan where they discussed a lot of different issues including his stance on minimum wage, why he ran for president (in which he gives a GREAT answer), the payroll tax cut extension and much more. Like I said I’m only half way through the first video.

Highly recommended viewing:

“Online Exclusive”:

Thanks to C4Pfan for the tip.

About 

Blogger extraordinaire since 2009 and the owner and Chief Blogging Officer of the most wonderful and super fantastic blog in the known and unknown universe: The Right Scoop


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.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

  • Steven

    Santorum has the right vision for America. He is the right candidate for this time and I am glad we were able to come near the end of this nominating process to proudly vote for a conservative vision for our country. He gave an excellent economic speech in Michigan that has me sold. Rick Santorum is what Romney is not. He knows what he believes, he has a bold and achievable vision for America and he’s an unabashed conservative that will be able to contrast himself with Obama and expose his backward policies. I am with Rick! Michigan and Arizona don’t let us down! Pick Rick! Santorum 2012! (hopefully Santorum/West!)

    • Jim Botts

      I’ve got issues with Rick Santorum, but I’ll applaud you for making a good point. You typically know where Santorum stands, agree or disagree. With flim-flam Romney, all you get is double-talk, denials, and untrue declarations that his record is a conservative one.

      Sorry Mitt, but you moved to a blue state. You governed a blue state. When you left, it was not purple, but a deeper shade of blue.

    • Constance

      I’m in Arizona, and I just mailed in my early ballot voting for Santorum. I started out as a Cain supporter, and I’m finishing with Santorum. He has my vote here in Arizona.

      • Big_Louie

        Me too! I’m in Michigan. I started out supporting Cain and am with Santorum now too! Mailing in my early ballot in a couple of days for Santorum.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bill-Reed/100002167760925 Bill Reed

          Interesting. I started out Santorum but I didn’t think he had a chance, so settled in nicely with Cain. Of course, we all know what happened there. Last Friday, 2 Ohio absentee ballots were mailed in for Santorum! And those who say women won’t vote for Santorum because of his views, not sensing that at least in the Republican party.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aaron-Sheamus-Reale/1217208778 Aaron Sheamus Reale

          Me three in NY, Cain first, but on to Santorum due to unfortunate circumstances.

      • eyewatcher1960

        I agree with you and was very ashamed of Cain when he withdrew. I am ALL the way for Santorum here in Louisiana. I think he will make America move again. He is a very honest man as well.

      • Bullhead1

        Funny how your Cain is now a Newt supporter.

    • Sober_Thinking

      Spot on! :)

    • maynardb50

      I like Rick!!

  • c4pfan

    I thought it was interesting that the kids in the single family homes still didn’t get it. Why would they want more people to suffer in poverty?

    Also, these people are way better interviewers than the Alphabet soup and cable networks.

    • stage9

      Because this is the illegitimate generation that liberals have always longed for. One in which children are the automatons of government. State schools and even hollywood have programmed them to champion immorality and promiscuity and encouraged them to endorse the broken family unit. It’s all they’ve ever known. But it isn’t that they’re any less a family; it’s that they haven’t the slightest clue how good a traditional family could be. They’ve never known it.

    • PhillyCon

      Local reporters are usually more fair. Their egos aren’t as big either.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

    It will be a great victory for conservatives if Rick can win Michigan!

    • sDee

      I hope we all can send donations to help. No matter how large or small – it tells Santorum and his big backers we are with them.

    • MLCBLOG

      A fabulous victory!!

  • http://twitter.com/ningrim Jose

    I love the reporter with the glasses in his mouth, classic liberal pretentiousness.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

    I like his answer on raising the debt ceiling then and now.

    • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

      The man simply can’t be stumped. I’m very impressed.

      • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2GR77FIJZ2A2ZBKZFGRXYG7QY4 kim

        Not only that, he doesn’t stutter while doing it. This is what Rush would call conservative fluency.

        • cabensg

          I agree it’s great to have a conservative (most of the time anyway) who doesn’t make a fool of himself when being questioned. It gives us all a boost.

          However answering questions isn’t governing is it?

      • jollyjellybean

        I live in PA and I don’t think peole realize what an intellect this man has. He is exactly what America needs.

        • http://twitter.com/strngernfiction strangernfiction

          He really is underrated in this respect, and generally. But I kind of like that. Romney is the exact opposite.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

        I’m impressed too.

        I did have a minor disagreement with his answer about Coach Joe Paterno, I don’t think the coach could play out the season but it’s not anything I’d hand over Rick’s head.

      • Reckoner_3

        He’s a closet brainiac…

        His Senator colleagues are on record saying “He’s really, really smart”

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/2GR77FIJZ2A2ZBKZFGRXYG7QY4 kim

          And so humble about it too. Gotta love that.

          Going into the General will be a real study of contrasts if RS is the nominee.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001358570743 Maury Kay

            Humble? He is arrogant.

      • Asian_chic

        Thanks for posting! A few questions were answered for me. I had a weak moment…

      • MLCBLOG

        I was all so picky about Santorum, demanding my “perfect” candidate, just a short while ago. Now I am all for him!! we need a conservative so badly.

      • MLCBLOG

        I was all so picky about Santorum, demanding my “perfect” candidate, just a short while ago. Now I am all for him!! we need a conservative so badly.

  • aquaviva

    I like Rick, alot, as an advocate, but here’s why he’s not my first choice for President.

    I get the idea he doesn’t like gov’t intrusion….except in the case where he agrees with it.

    Examples:

    1. Federal Minimum Wage (when he thinks it should be raised, or not)
    2. Special Treatment for Manufacturing Sector (picking winners and losers)
    3. Supported Tariffs for Steel Companies.
    4. Additional Constitutional Ammendments for pet issues
    5. Etc.

    The pattern here is with is someone who is just not completely comfortable with leaving it to markets. Individual liberty’s and constitutional restrictions on federal powers are just not a priority for him.

    We’d be exchaning the current “statism” for “Santorumism”, a political philosophy particular to Sen. Santorum. He’s consistent, but not as a classical conservative. He’s a Santorum conservative.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000679899592 John Bohler

      1. i don’t really care

      2. it needs an extra boost and it should be a national security priority seeing as alot of our military hardware is made in Russia now

      3. Tariffs are as old as our country

      4. Abortion is a constitutional right issue, can’t have liberty and the pursuit of happiness without life, and Gay marriage is to put marriage back as an exulted and respected institution, and to shut up the militant gay crowd.

    • Reckoner_3

      lol if you watching his speeches….the last thing he is is a statist…..

      He understands the Constitution in the Context of how the Father’s viewed it…..

      Constitutional Amendments does not necessarily imply STATISM…some things reach the level of Federal concern . State government and state’s right do not trump all….

      We wouldn’t have been able to develop the Nuclear bomb, if we left it to state government level.

      He’s consistent, but not as a classical conservative. He’s a Santorum conservative.

      People can spin it that Santorum is not a conservative. But what they are refusing to see their folly is that Santorum is NOT an IDEOLOGUE.
      There is a difference.

      You can’t call him not a conservative (Life, 2nd amendment, taxes, immigration, foreign policy, spending ) when he maintains high ratings as a conservative Senator in spite of his state.

      just because he makes individual judgments about the sphere of government. No one candidate is going to be agreed with on every conservative issue.. All I see is he is not a pedantic politician.

      Whether you agree with a position here or there or not.

      Constitutional Amendment on Gay Marriage is important , and has a “valid” proposal. Because you have to pay attention to the end game of the leftist gays ramming legislation against hte will of the people through the state congresses or courts.
      Without DOMA, they could challenge the courts to make Gay marriage recognized federally, just like Roe v Wade.

      • aquaviva

        I didn’t say he was a statist. Of course he’s not a statist.

        • http://punditpawn.wordpress.com PunditPawn

          They said that about Obama.

    • BMinPA

      I picked up on those points too but what if there is no free market? I don’t remember now but what makes all these foreign car companies set up shop here? What is the secret and why can’t it be applied elsewhere?

  • SpikeT

    Very Impressive Rick. Lot’s of gotcha attempts from Mr. Mouse-stash on that panel, but you kept your cool, your smile and the content in your answers. I can’t help but think of the Tortoise and The Hare…”Once upon a time there was a hare that boasted…..” Rick is not the hare…Romney is the Hair. Rick has been moving along like an excellent distance runner. I particularly like his stand on Israel, home schooling, minimum wage.

    It’s a good Hare day for Rick ’cause he’s got the other HAIR in his rearview mirror.

    • http://punditpawn.wordpress.com PunditPawn

      Yes, Scooby is a putz with that faux-interest look he tries to keep on his face when he really want’s to scream out at Santorum, “You’re a God Da_n Republican Bastage!”

    • 911Infidel

      Damn dude, you’re reading my mind.

  • 911Infidel

    Well now…Rick got everything thrown at him but the kitchen sink. And he did real well. Rather impressive. His grasp of a wide range of issues and his ability to field tough questions without the aid of a teleprompter or a sympathetic propaganda mouth piece is rather astounding. He’s getting stronger… Mittens best be checking his rear view mirror.

    “I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.” (Ecclesiastes 9:11)

    Don’t be counting your chickens Establishment Repubiks. The fat lady ain’t singimg yet.

  • http://twitter.com/cfallon57 Cheryl Fallon

    That was a very good interview-though I am somewhat confused about the homeschooling issue-but I was surprised to hear that these candidates are not near as unfriendly as the people that comment about them on the blogs-they seem more willing to work together than those that have such strong feelings about each! Good job Rick!

    • K-Bob

      Michigan, for all of it’s purple-state demeanor (I blame Detroit), is a very good state in which to homeschool your kids. There’s no paperwork involved, other than the usual hassles homeschoolers face when trying to help get their kids into college.

  • odin147

    smart bloke

  • Mensaman62

    I was impressed with his responses. Just curious if Mittens has sat down with a panel such as this.

    Scoop, if he has I would like to compare the two even though I am a Rick supporter.

    Rick 2012!

    • Reckoner_3

      Mitt can’t even sit in a room with Brett Baier

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

        with his pathetic awkwardly obvious fake laugh

  • mjs_pa

    Thanks Scoop. Another great find!

    • c4pfan

      Hey, I found it. Hee.

  • Reckoner_3

    Kick butt and take names, Rick!

    Keep on keeping on, keep reaching out your message is resonating….

    lol, “Does God want you to be president? ”

    Rick laughs,

  • http://punditpawn.wordpress.com PunditPawn

    I’m waiting for Newt to be asked those same questions so I can see why Santorum is so great or unique. No wait… that’s sarcasm. I’m not really waiting. I just don’t see what is so appealing about him that Newt’s far superior experience doesn’t overshadow. Santorum is less attackable, but that’s it. I’m still voting for Batman, you guys can keep Robin.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/MJFJ7TFEB76QRDY3OZM6BGGLDI Chuck you Shoomer

      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.

      • Constance

        I hope that whoever the GOP candidate is on election day, that you will vote for him. Please do not throw the country under Obama’s bus because your specific candidate did not win the nomination. We will all lose if you do. If Romney or even Paul is the GOP candidate, I will reluctantly vote for them, because I cannot stomach another Obama term. If Gingrich or Santorum is the nominee, I will happily vote for either of them. Whether reluctantly, or happily – the GOP candidate gets my vote. It’s way too important.

        • capelady

          Hopefully everyone will pull together to unseat Obama – we must send the right leader to Washington to make the massive changes necessary to turn this country around… and not somebody who will just manage the decline. We cannot afford four more years of Obama, nor can we afford another RINO who will hang out with John Boehner and accept the status quo in Washington!

          • http://twitter.com/cfallon57 Cheryl Fallon

            I agree with you that I want to see the same thing happen as you said but I will settle for getting Obama out and putting some sort of brake on this free fall that this country is doing…even if that means that all the things that I would like to see accomplished aren’t, we need to halt this wild wild train ride!

        • keyesforpres

          Amen!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      If Robin can beat Romney I’m all for it but I think of Rick being more like Captain America

      • http://punditpawn.wordpress.com PunditPawn

        Hey, Santorum seems like an upstanding citizen. However, Washington is an absolute swamp pit that requires tactics that to the bleeding heart might seem unseemly.

        I think Santorum (or Rambo should it come to that) will try to fight the opposition party whereas Gingrich will actually bring the fight to the opposition party.

        For example, if Santorum were elected I think Pelosi and Reid (aka. ‘the wrong stuff’) will stay in Congress to see how they can mess with the boy. If Newt were President I think they’ll pack their bags because they know they are toast.

        • StandingGround

          I see your point, PunditPawn – Washington is a swamp pit. I have the same thoughts about Santorum vs Gingrich. I like them both but think Gingrich may be more of a pit bull and bring the fight to the opposition. I think we have to have that this time around.

          I need to decide soon. I’m up on March 6th.

          • Gtrjag

            I disagree. I think the Santorum’s convictions are stronger than Newt’s. Newt will cave on his principles if it politically advantageous. I don’t think Santorum will. You can’t vote for someone just because he kicks butt in the debates or is great at combatting media. Character and consistency matter. George Washington wasn’t the greatest speaker, neither was Calvin Coolidge. Both men were great Presidents, both men stood on the strength of their convictions. That is what we need, not allot of hot air.

            • StandingGround

              I guess you thought by my comment I was only interested in Gingrich because of his aggressiveness. I was trying to respond to that part of the discussion when I answered PunditPawn.

              I’m definitely not won over by speeches and media battles. I want to hear what a candidate wants to do to make a change. Personally I like to hear their plans – points 1-10 – and how they will go about implementing them. I think Newt presents his plans well and I believe he will fight hard to get them done.

              As I mentioned before, to me both men would be good choices. But, I still agree with PunditPawn on the points he made of how one may be more successful than the other.

            • capelady

              It took Newt 16 years to create the first Republican majority in the House in 50 years… and he led a conservative revolution at great personal cost. Those 84 ethics charges that the Democrats filed were frivolous and vengeful (just as they did with Sarah Palin) – they all failed and he was exonerated but it took several years and almost bankrupted him. He was able to balance the budget and reform welfare for the first time with Bill Clinton in the White House…. do not underestimate Newt’s commitment to conservatism or America!

              We need somebody who can communicate conservatism to those who don’t understand it and inspire people to hope for America and their futures again, just as Reagan did. That is the value in Newt’s communication skills because he can do that. Santorum has the conviction of his beliefs, but I have never seen him say anything that was especially inspiring.

              Santorum is great for conservatives because they agree with his right-wing social values, but we need the votes of people who are not particularly conservative to beat Obama – and I am not sure Santorum can do that. Santorum says, very freely, many things that a lot of voters do not want to hear.
              Newt stands up for religious freedom and is against abortion, but he is politically astute and avoids the topics that are divisive to focus on the things most Americans agree on. That is how a conservative can get elected!

          • capelady

            One perfect example… Santorum says he will appoint conservative judges… but Newt has a plan to bring the judiciary back under the Constitution! He sees the big picture and has the solutions! He takes everything a step farther because he has imagination. Newt can also inspire people about what it means to be an American, when too many have forgotten. Check this out if you haven’t seen it:

            http://www.newt.org/news/video-newt-explains-american-dream

            This is the most important election since 1860 – and we need a unique candidate to meet the demands of the situation. Just as Winston Churchill was the right man at the right time in history to save England in an existential crisis – Newt is that man for America today!

            He is uniquely qualified by not just his intellect, but his vast knowledge of American and world history and his experience in government. He created a Republican majority when nobody thought it was possible, and he led a conservative revolution with a Democrat-controlled Senate and Bill Clinton in the White House. That great economy people credit Clinton with was largely made possible by Newt Gingrich.

            He is politically astute and knows how to make Congress work, which will be especially important in view of the intransigence we have seen since Obama was elected.

            The reason so many in our political establishment don’t like him is because he rejected their pork projects so he could balance the budget! He insists he is not going there to make friends… he is going to turn Washington DC upside down and fix it because it is broken! THAT is why the establishment in Congress and the media have fought so hard against him. They are comfortable with the way DC is…. and they know if Newt is elected, major changes are coming!!!

            Santorum is a good man, but I do not believe he is the right man for 2012. I am also concerned that his little Bella is so ill and I am not sure he can put his family first, as he should, and fulfill the duties of the presidency. He is still very young, his time may be a few years down the road.

          • keyesforpres

            Newt support amnesty. That happens and our country is gone.
            Go to NUMBERSUSA to view their grades.

        • capelady

          Amen! That is why the political establishment is terrified by the idea of Newt being elected!

          • StandingGround

            Good points, capelady. Thanks.

            • xymbaline

              Let me join in the applause.

              The best situation would be to get Romney out, then make the rest of the campaign a contest between two conservative visions of America.

              May the best man win.

    • Asian_chic

      You can keep Batman, and I’ll keep the next President of the United States! By the way, I’ll throw in Robin :)
      Santorum 2012!

    • wodiej

      Santorum’s support is derived from people who care more about his social values and judging others than what is best for the country-period. If you put these two side by side asking the same questions, there would be no question that Gingrich would be much better to guide us out of this mess.

      • Constance

        Excuse me, but I support Santorum, and not because I care more about his social values and judging others than what is best for my country. Do not presume how people like me think, or what my reasons are for supporting Santorum. I also like Gingrich. I would support either of these candidates. Making a statement and ending it with – period, does not make your point. You are incorrect. Stop lumping everybody into your narrow view of who we are.

        • keyesforpres

          Well said. I am sick and tired of supporters of other candidates saying that about us.

      • K-Bob

        This also is an example of telling people what they think. In this particular example, you just insulted millions of principled conservatives, and a lot of people on this site, just to cheerlead for your preferred candidate.

        • xymbaline

          Millions of principled conservatives don’t get ‘insulted’ because someone differed from them.

          I say let’s find out …

          Get Romney out, then let Newt and Rick debate the same questions and give their answers.

          May the best man win.

          • K-Bob

            It’s not about “differing.” Whatever that means.

            It’s about avoiding flame-generating comments, which are against policy here.

            One sure way to get people angry is to tell THEM what it is that THEY think. So don’t do it here if you want to comment here.

    • capelady

      I agree… Newt is vastly more experienced, and that experience is reflected in the fact that Newt has the wisdom not to focus on social issues. He has defended religious liberty with outrage, and is anti-abortion… but he does not speak freely about marriage, divorce and the other social issues that Santorum is focused on. Obama is already using these culture war issues as a distraction from his record of failure, and if he succeeds in changing that focus in November, Santorum will lose. Conservatives agree with him, but many voters will not and we need more than conservatives to defeat Obama.

      What Santorum insists about the impact of these social issues (marriage, divorce, etc.) is true – but many people don’t want to hear it and right now, it is a welcome distraction for Obama to campaign against.

      They asked Newt how a conservative can win in the general election and he is politically astute because he said you have to do what Ronald Reagan did… you find a handful of issues that at least 75% of Americans agree on… securing our border, using our own energy resources to become energy independent, repealing Obamacare, policies that will grow the economy-encourage employment-restore home values… these are the things a conservative can win with. You have to focus on the things most people agree with and on Obama’s terrible record — that will win the election. If you get bogged down in divisive issues you give Obama the upper hand when he has nothing on his own to run on! He can’t get the upper hand any other way!!

      If Newt is not the nominee – and Santorum is, I will vote for him, but I have serious concerns about his ability to win (as I do with Romney). I think he has surged because so far he has managed to remain above the fray and stay out of the Romney vs Gingrich mud-fest… that won’t last now that Romney sees him as a threat. So we will see how it all plays out…. Santorum is VERY thin-skinned, another weakness in politics… if Romney’s machine goes after him the way he did Newt, he may implode.

      I still support Newt and I am hoping that with his new infusion of financial support, Super Tuesday will help him to recoup. The fact that Romney and Santorum pulled out of the Georgia debate shows what cowards they are. If they are afraid to debate Newt and give him the microphone… why should we believe they can stand up to Obama?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Baba/1109317395 Matt Baba

    I wonder what does Greta thinks about this show?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

    Yuck, I don’t like his answer in the Online Exclusive clip, he said he would consider Mitt Romney as a running mate! I sort of think it would hurt him some attacking Obamacare with Romneycare standing behind him. I hope this isn’t a Reagan/Bush situation with Rick/Mitt ticket.

    • Reckoner_3

      I think Rick answers those questions now, with contingencies in mind….. he doesn’t want to go overboard

      It would hurt the Party. He doesn’t want to give Obama an advantage….

      Strategically Mitt would be a horrible VP. Rick was just being polite. Romneycare is a factor …. and Rick would know this..

      The only reason why Mitt said he’d consider Rick is to pander to Rick’s supporters …. and Mitt trying to pull that “he endorsed me” to the base encourage the conspiracy theories.

      Both a Mitt Rick, Rick Mitt does not even equal strategic advantages for either one.

      Rick is better off with a Susan Martinez or West
      and
      Mitt I think is thinking about Christie or Rubio

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

        Good point ;)

      • Mtncougar

        Sure hope you’re right – that Rick was just being polite about Mitt possibly making VP. I was liking things a lot until that point. REALLY can’t stand Mitt anymore. I just saw a story on Human Events where Mitt’s Super Pac is trying to run another lie-ad about Newt that is so utterly untrue, television stations who run the ad could face libel. No one else is running this story – it should be headlined that Romney is lying again but … that would be a dream.

        ps. I often like to read what others refer to in their posts, so here’s the link if you want to:

        http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/GingrichlawsuitChina-one-child-TVRomney/2012/02/17/id/429823

        Oh – I still support Newt over Santorum, although I wouldn’t have to hold my nose to vote for Santorum. Newt was a mentor to Santorum, and is ready to be President on day one. Well, and maybe I’d rather a bulldog than sanctimony. But I”ll take sanctimony over ickyMitt any day. Easily. Just don’t make him your VP, Rick.

        • Major914

          A president Gingrich’s scope of vision and command of historical knowledge really would be a tremendous asset to the country. I think he’d be a powerful president, and would make a significant positive impact on the country at a crucial time.

          I really think Santorum would end up being a much better president than his detractors suggest. He has enough significant experience in the senate to understand how things get done in Washington and what needs to be changed. He’s no slouch on foreign policy, and he is a conservative culture warrior–I’d be happy to have a president like that. From what I’ve heard, his economic plan compares favorably to Romney’s.

          BTW: Accusing Santorum of being sanctimonious seems far wide of the mark to me. Sanctimony is “affected or hypocritical holiness” according to Merriam-Webster. I don’t see any such thing when I look at Santorum–what exactly is the complaint?

          • Mtncougar

            He didn’t have that “sanctimonious” air in this interview, credit for that. It’s something many of us (my family and friends) can’t pinpoint but makes us feel uneasy. I suspect it’s also the thing that allows him to handle the press so well. So maybe it’s not all bad, whatever it is. I do see that he’s getting better with less of that now. And I like it.

            I tried to describe it for my sister – it’s that feeling of someone being so sure that they’re right – they’ve never questioned it. Of rigidity rather than a developing maturity of insight.

            Whatever.

            Santorum may handle a hostile press better but Gingrich still in my book would be a better President.

            • wodiej

              I agree-he acts arrogant and self righteous most of the time.

              • Gtrjag

                Santorum lives his beliefs; Newt Gingrich does not. So for this you want to label Santorum as self-righteous and hold up Gingrich as an alternative?

                • xymbaline

                  You guys have got to stop this sniping and back-biting. You sound like Liberals, all ad hominem and whiny. Conservatives are better than this

                  You don’t know Newt Gingrich personally. You’ve never spoken to him and I doubt that you’ve read even one of his books. I doubt that you’ve read the original Contract With America or what it took to get any of those items passed in the first 100 days of the 104th congress. I doubt that you’ve read his 54 page proposal for reforming the Judiciary. And on and on.

                  Nor do you know Rick Santorum personally. You’re echoing empty sentiments that the media has put into your heads.

                  Be a real American and *think*. Do some real research.

                  Then, let the best man win.

            • FreeManWalking

              Santorum may be good at hindsight, but other than seeing the danger of IRAN, I am not so sure he is a forward thinker. Newt has always been a forward thinker, and planner, how many people would be planning and orchestrating 14 years in advance of a take over of the house, and doing with the confidence that is was going to happen.

            • Major914

              If I understand what you are saying, my response would be that there is a real element of ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ here. On the one hand conservatism itself hinges on settled questions about the fixed nature of man, and numerous implications thereof–it is liberalism that wants to maintain a perpetual state of questioning, or an ‘open mind’. My surmise would be that Santorum has spent a lot of time carefully considering social issues (not that he’s never questioned his conclusions), and thus he is confident and passionate–admirable traits in my mind.

              Though he did come across as peevish in a few of the debates (I assume he was irritated at being marginalized), overall I don’t see him as haughty or dismissive at all–I tend to see him as particularly straightforward, considerate, and fairminded for a politician.

              • Mtncougar

                Yeeaah… it’s something that hits me (and many others) as disquieting and oddly disturbing. I really hope there’s LOTS more who react differently – like you do – if Santorum gets the nomination.

  • Gabriel Caron

    every time i hear Rick speak, he has been sounding more and more presidential. he is articulating the conservative position more confidently than any of the other candidates including Next

    • MLCBLOG

      Sarah’s right again. The process sharpens them up.

      • cabensg

        It aint’ the process. It’s who’s in it. Santorum again had to channel Gingrich with his answer on Syria. Lets’ hope he actually has some ideas of his own, you know ones that can actually be implemented. Its all well and good to say what you’d do in an interview but what past experience does he have to implement anything he talks about…none.

        You can fool some of the people all the time.

        • MLCBLOG

          Exactly what I said. Sharpen up means culling ideas from those around you, studying up, thinking, and improving your presentation. He is what I want to hear right now.

    • MLCBLOG

      Sarah’s right again. The process sharpens them up.

  • Right_Wingnut

    Ladies and gentleman, this interview is an example of why Romney declined to participate in the Georgia debate.

    • cabensg

      Santorum also declined. He and Romney knew they couldn’t give Gingrich a platform to out shine them both again.

      • xymbaline

        Well, none of know what is the minds of these people, so we really shouldn’t speculate.

        However, in the American tradition, it’s not very manly to turn down a challenge.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MJFJ7TFEB76QRDY3OZM6BGGLDI Chuck you Shoomer

    Every single website is saturating their news post attempting to downplay Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign. This all-out effort is proof positive that this man is at the right time in the right place. We need somebody like Newt Gingrich that can go into Washington and go to work on day one. All the other presidential candidates is a mere learn on the job apprentice compared to Newt Gingrich.

    • Reckoner_3

      It’s not a conspiracy. Gingrich was going bankrupt and performed poorly in Florida Nevada, Minnesota and Colorado…. No conspiracy there. He said in Nevada he owed it to “voters supporters” to keep running in spite of the fact that he’s received around 30 million dollars from Adelson , someone willing to support Romney, but not support Rick because of Rick’s pro life views.

      Gingrich spent less time campaigning and more time in California visiting places like San diego and wineries.. That’s “PEOPLE based”
      So who does Gingrich owe again? I guess he meant guys like Adelson.

      All the other presidential candidates is a mere learn on the job apprentice compared to Newt Gingrich.

      No. Gingrich has only experience running in a RED District, not in any state wide….he only had 4 years as House Speaker and flamed out.

      Santorum will be prepared to account and lead on Foreign Policy issues on day one. Unlike Gingrich he also knows how to work with BOTH CHAMBERS of the house and motivate people to get bills passed.

      He would know how to help other people running in a general election, to win house and senate seats, because he’s ran and kicked out incumbents in PA.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/MJFJ7TFEB76QRDY3OZM6BGGLDI Chuck you Shoomer

        nice try seminar blogger. Tell your manager to go to hell

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/MJFJ7TFEB76QRDY3OZM6BGGLDI Chuck you Shoomer

        It’s remarkable out of all these commentators on this page, Reckoner_3 chooses to reply to my comment only. These Rino Republicans know without a doubt that Newt Gingrich represents one thing and one thing only for them…. the end of their corrupt rino Republican ways

      • MLCBLOG

        My favorite part of what he said is that he is so clear and well-spoken about repealing Obamacare, and remember over 60% of Americans were in that camp at one point.

    • geez louweez

      Hi again, I’ve noticed that to.

    • cabensg

      I don’t know if it’s a conspiracy or not but it’s obvious real world experience on how to do the job have taken a back seat to popularity…again.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

    LOL Rick Santorum in Online Exclusive at the 11:20 mark: “I like beer”

    • Reckoner_3

      “I like beer”

      the final minute of the online exclusive. Santorum can win probably 90 percent of the Americans respect. How classy he answered when they tried to get a sound byte of him. With “silver spoon” rhetoric.

  • Reckoner_3

    Santorum responds with humility when they ask him “you’re better at connecting to people than Mitt right? ”

    and Rick can’t answer those questions, “whose better” it’s like making a judgment of yourself….

    People would want to have a beer with you!

  • http://no-apologies-round2.blogspot.com/ AmericanborninCanada

    Wow! That was great! Thanks Scoop! He had a good answer or comeback for everything there, and didn’t have any problem articulating his views on any of them either. I’m glad too that he explained the issue that people have been making about him schooling his kids. He is totally correct that this is a non issue- political issue. Thanks C4Pfan for the online tip, that was a great one.

  • http://twitter.com/CharlieZangelQQ DaMz

    Just finished watching and I loved it. Finally I get to see a candidate (my PickRick especially) speak other than in sound bites.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MJFJ7TFEB76QRDY3OZM6BGGLDI Chuck you Shoomer

    It was foolish for Santorum to run for President at the same time as Gingrich did. It is as simple as that.

    Newt 2012
    Santorum 2020

    • Right_Wingnut

      I kind of like Newt too, but he has a 25% approval rating. He’s unelectable for the same reason Mitt Romney is unelectable. Too many people can’t stand the guy. I don’t know how he could possibly turn that around in time.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/MJFJ7TFEB76QRDY3OZM6BGGLDI Chuck you Shoomer

        look in the mirror

        • Asian_chic

          Testy tonight aren’t we?

        • Right_Wingnut

          I just did, but it doesn’t matter. I’m not running for President!

          I’m not ripping Newt…I actually like him, but I don’t want 4 more years of Obama.

          We’ll have to agree to disagree.

      • MLCBLOG

        I agree. Call me a girl (I am) but any man who treats women the way he did is questionable in my book. Hopefully, he has seen the light with his recent embracing of his new wife’s religion.

        • http://punditpawn.wordpress.com PunditPawn

          Since you are a ‘girl’, then you are also aware that the sugar and spice thing didn’t make it into all the boxes. I think Newt got a couple bad ones.

    • geez louweez

      I feel the same way. Your spot on.

  • Right_Wingnut

    Mitt Romney at a rally in Michigan….

    “A little history. I was born and raised here. I love this state. It seems right here. The trees are the right height. I like seeing the lakes. I love the lakes. There’s something very special here. The Great Lakes, but also all the little inland lakes that dot the parts of Michigan. I love cars. I dunno, I mean, I grew up totally in love with cars. It used to be in the 50s and 60s, if you showed me one square foot of almost any part of a car, I could tell you what brand it was — the model and so forth. Now, with all the Japanese cars I’m not quite so good at it. But I still know the American cars pretty well. And, uh, drive a Mustang. I love cars. I love American cars. And long may they rule the world, let me tell you. I want to do well.”

    Out of respect for Scoop, I won’t post the link to another blog. You can Google any part of the above quote and find the video.

    • Asian_chic

      I saw that video this afternoon and he looks so pathetic! He can’t even connect with the voters. I had a good laugh though :)

      • Right_Wingnut

        Someone posted this quote at HA, and I didn’t believe it was real, until I Googled it, and found the video.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez
      • Cindy09

        Waow! Thanks for the link Steven!!! I couldn’t believe my ears. He just reminded me of a child in front of a Christmas tree!! Then came the line “I drive a Mustang”. Yeah!!! And this was a Presidential Candidate speech!! And that’s his best for Michigan??

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

          yes you have to hear to get the full effect.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MJFJ7TFEB76QRDY3OZM6BGGLDI Chuck you Shoomer

    Right_Wingnut typical SpongeBob presidential poll dependent voting saboteur

    • Right_Wingnut

      I actually hope Newt stays in the race. A four way split makes a brokered convention much more likely. If that happens, I don’t see how any of these guys gets nominated. Right now, my preference is Santorum…but after Mitt gets done carpet bombing him, we’ll probably be left with four candidates with approval ratings between 25-35%. Do you envision one of them leaving the convention with the nomination? I don’t.

      • M_J_S

        Maybe, but who else would it be? Jeb Bush? Mitch Daniels? The party would go ballistic.

        To bring the Party together, the VP has to be one of the other candidates.

    • K-Bob

      You failed to heed the warning. Adios.

      • http://twitter.com/shelly99032 Shelly Sands

        Thank you!

  • Cindy09

    I hope he doesn’t use them to pick his nose or his ears!! That would be awful and well, quite liberal!

    • SpikeT

      LOL LOUDLY!

      How about a health mandate for all liberals to wear contact lenses……… and toss in a chew toy from Petco?

  • Cindy09

    We have to give honor where it is due, the man is humble even with high pollings!!

    • cabensg

      Yep that’s what we need humble, good answers (finally) and a little bit of charisma.
      Just what we need to actually turn the country around.

      Sorry folks but this dog don’t hunt!!!!

  • geez louweez

    cool video

  • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

    This interview should settle the question of who is the best to represent the conservative position….Santorum. Let’s start pulling our resources together and help this man get to the finish line with enough delegates and then to the WH.

    • wodiej

      you’ve not been paying attention. That person is Gingrich.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000679899592 John Bohler

        you don’t understand, Gingrich is going down and the polls and is losing steam fast. Too many people have bad memories of the guy (just ask my Mom, boy does she have good memories) any race between Newt and Obama will all be about Newts Record, he just has too much baggage.

        • FreeManWalking

          I don’t know your Mom.
          but
          Repeating that Newt has baggage does not make it so. Neither does the negative attacks by the MSM / LSM/ liberal democrat machine or the liberal moderate GOP establishment for that matter. Newt has his share of the problems, but if you think the MACHINE is not going to smear who ever the nominee is you have a rude awaking coming.
          (Go ask Sarah, she has a good memory too) or does she have too much baggage for you?

      • K-Bob

        Don’t tell people what they’ve been doing or thinking. That sort of flaming is low-heat, but still annoying.

      • NHConservative0221

        Yeah, it’s a shame that Santorum doesn’t have any ties to Freddie Mac!

    • puma_for_life

      Well, Ronald Reagan might have an different opinion:

      http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/why-santorums-anti-libertarianism-problem/377111

      …As Cato’s Gene Healy noted in his Washington Examiner column on the topic this week, Santorum explicitly declared, “I am not a libertarian, and I fight very strongly against libertarian influence within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.”

      This is a stark departure from Ronald Reagan, who had this to say to the libertarian Reason magazine in a 1975 interview:

      If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

  • M_J_S

    This was a very well done interview. Someone else here said it, “he cannot be stumped”. The difference between Santorum and Romney is that you can tell when Romney is giving an interview the wheels are turning, the front is on, so to speak. Rick seems very natural and genuine.

    In this interview he mentioned it was about “you can trust me”, this is very true. How cliche is it to say we don’t trust our politicians (not that we ever should, but damn 10% Congressional approval?). After Obama this is a crucial issue. We obviously can’t trust Romney.

    I’m still a Newt guy, but I am more impressed with Santorum with every debate/interview. I’d be happy to vote for him if he’s the nominee and he bend Obama into bookends.

  • c4pfan

    I just wish all interviews with all of them were like this one. Got to give props to the interviewers too.

  • M_J_S

    Also, wondering what anyone else thinks on Santorum/Romney? I’m a Newt guy, but just thinking that would be a pretty solid ticket.

    • Right_Wingnut

      No Romney on the ticket.

      • M_J_S

        I’m talking in terms of uniting the party

        • K-Bob

          IF that’s what it takes, then I’d be done caucusing with any aspect of the Republican party.

          • M_J_S

            Point taken. I read, I reported, I got feedback!

          • K-Bob

            After 2012, I mean.

    • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

      It is an interesting question. It would be similar to the Reagan/Bush ticket. However, I do think that having two from the North East would be problematic. There are many better candidates than Romney if the desire is for unity. I think Pawlenty would be better than Romney.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      I have concerns if having a romneycare shadow diminishes Santorum’s fierceness of going after Obama on Obamacare.

      • M_J_S

        Good point

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

          I was hoping for another conservative guy/girl but if we have to pick an establishment guy to unite the party I could live with Daniels.

      • M_J_S

        Good point

    • K-Bob

      Only if nobody else would take the job.

      I don’t want Romney being groomed for office, when we have folks like West, Palin, Perry, Rubio, etc.

      • M_J_S

        I like all except Rubio. I have big beef with him defending Romney as “Conservative”.

        I think you make a solid point, I was just curious.

        • K-Bob

          Yeah. He and Victor Davis Hanson both surprised me. Although in VDH’s case, it probably comes from hanging out with Hugh Hewitt (who’s brilliant, but squishy).

  • Debra Chamberlin

    Apart from Sen. Santorum’s comments on Martin Luther King, Jr., which reveal either ignorance or pandering (I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say ignorance), I come away with the attitude that we should be mighty grateful that Santorum is still in the race — given our options.

    Better than Obama? By a LONG shot. Therefore he will be crucified by the liberal media. Get ready.

  • MLCBLOG

    OMG! He has become suddenly not just fairly bright but Brilliant!!

  • MLCBLOG

    Furthermore, now that I am liking him, I salute his ability to keep his sanity when having to work with that Arlen Specter thing. I get it now. They are both from the same state and AS was the senior senator.

  • ellebb

    Kiss.. kiss.. kiss Romney.

    Santorum is boring.

    He inferred that the temperance movement was a good thing?

    “I’ve voted for the minimum wage and against it” ?????????????????

    “I think the minimum wage should be a minimum wage” ????????????????????

    “I’ve increase the debt ceiling many times in the past but I would not have voted for it now” ????????????????

    “I think you should give tax breaks to married couples but the government should not pick winners and losers”??????????/

    “I think civil disobedience is a good thing as long as you do it peacefully”?????????????

    This guy is in W-A-Y over his head.

    • Asian_chic

      Yep. I like trees. I like cars. I like lakes.

      • K-Bob

        He just needed to say it with conviction. Like say, Robert Duvall.

      • K-Bob

        I had a bad joke reply. I deleted it. Brane not workin gud.

        • Asian_chic

          Maybe it’s about him liking dogs…the one he left on the top of his car. lol

          • K-Bob

            “If you go on vacation, with your mother in law or yer dog on the roof of your station wagon… youuuu might be a redneck.”

            –Not Really Jeff Foxworthy

    • cabensg

      Over his head and out in left field but what does it matter he gave a good interview.
      That’s all that matters apparently. It looks like another American Idol election. I’ve never been so disappointed that so many could be so short sighted and we still wonder how Obama got elected. Wonder no more substance has given way to appearance and the ability to be likeable. To hell with actually governing or the ability to do so. God help America because it looks like the voters won’t.

    • K-Bob

      If those are examples of things you think are bad, then I think you’re in over your head dealing with these issues. Perhaps you’d be more comfortable at some other website where there aren’t any conservatives to ruin your day.

  • Constance

    RS – I have to post this. I used to start out my days by going to Drudge. Now, I start out my days going here first… Great site, great posts, great moderating to keep the loons at bay. I still go to Drudge, but you guys are number one for me. A sincere thank you for an outstanding site.

    • Mtncougar

      Here here! Only in this forum can I come for additional insight comfortably. Keep the loons at bay – there’s plenty in other places. I was thinking this morning that (for those of us buried deep in liberal-land) how nice it is to come here to discuss – and disagree – on things appropriately, like one would around coffee with intelligent friends.

  • ryanomaniac

    Rick has huge problems. Not AS many as Romney but pretty big none the less. He is barely a conservative other than social issues which I applaud. He a big spender and a union Guy. Those aren’t conservative by any stretch. I will vote for him over the fellow losers we have at the moment.

    http://biggovernment.com/bshapiro/2012/02/17/the-santorum-surge-two-problems-for-conservatives/#more-428360

    • PhillyCon

      Check out RS’s Weekly Standard post on Santorum’s voting record.

      • ryanomaniac

        Thanks for the info.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000679899592 John Bohler

      come on in the senate he was in the top 5 most fiscally conservative. so please read this and weep. http://www.therightscoop.com/dear-santorum-bashers-read-this-and-weep/

      • ryanomaniac

        Thank you. I appreciate it.

    • K-Bob

      Santorum isn’t really much of a conservative.
      The sun really isn’t very bright.
      Water isn’t really very wet.
      The Internet isn’t very handy for sending messages.
      Claims like this aren’t really very annoying.

      • ryanomaniac

        I wasn’t being sarcastic in my comment. I like to point out candidates faults because we should know the whole story to make a better decision. I’m not anti santorum by the way. I do as much as I can not to be a person who refuses to look at the negatives of someone. Like Obama supporters. Maybe that strategy works for some conservatives. It shouldn’t though.

        • K-Bob

          Well, I was being sarcastic, so that makes one of us. <emoticon goes here> I’m just really tired of people making those sorts of declarations.

          • ryanomaniac

            I just wanted someone to address those issues. I would like to know for myself if the accusations are valid. Will you do that or make fun of me? I’m not going to blindly follow someone without knowing the truth about them whether I like it or not. I am a Santorum supporter if that makes any difference too you. I don’t know why trash talk has to be involved.

            • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

              He has addressed those issues and I’ve posted it here.

              You are the one who isn’t paying attention. Don’t blame us for that.

              • ryanomaniac

                My bad, I haven’t seen where he addressed that. I cant read here everyday so I might have missed some of the articles you say you have posted here. I’ve read articles and watched interviews. I actually have been paying attention and I haven’t blamed anyone for anything. I’ve read over my comments two or three times and cant figure out what I did wrong here. I followed the comment rules. I didn’t personally attack anyone and stuck to an issue and didn’t respond in an inflammatory way to the sarcasm that was thrown my way which was surprisingly the moderator. Am I allowed to constructively disagree with someone?

                • K-Bob

                  Disagreement isn’t a problem in these comment sections. The reason I dropped in a sarcastic response was because assertions of such magnitude call for some extra work on the part of the person making the assertion. The sarcasm was more about my frustration with it in general, and less about your comment in particular.

                  Besides, you need to assume the usual emoticons. I’m harmless.

                  It’s one thing to write something like, “I just don’t trust the guy,” and an entirely different thing to declare “The guy is totally untrustworthy” (Not quoting anyone here, just examples).

                  This has nothing to do with whether you’ve “kept up” or flamed. It’s just that a simple review of this thread and (any recent Santorum thread, really) shows a bunch of folks dropping these declarative bombs without making any arguments to support them. (Sometimes they include a list of links nobody will look at because they don’t bother to explain why they put the link there.) It gets tiresome, and doesn’t really contribute anything (other than to the overall level of “yay my guy!/boo your guy!” cheering). A thread full of that kind of stuff is really uninteresting, and uninteresting doesn’t make the place as cool to hang out in.

                  So go ahead and make your best argument. You’ll find it helps crystallize your own thinking, anyway, and will make it easier to deflect the occasional thrown elbow.

                  (I’m as guilty of long-form rants as anyone, but try your best to keep it short–you usually do, of course. You don’t have to put your entire argument in one comment. You can add to it as people respond, and that’s what makes things interesting.)

                • xymbaline

                  Let’s get more to the point .. Instead of a long rant justifying why you chose to be sarcastic when you don’t like people being sarcastic, How about addressing the following items:

                  Newt gave a talk with a powerful Jewish contingent in California recently. He spoke for 10 minutes on what the obligations of the head of the State of Israel would be in relation to a nuclear threat fro Iran, and what he considered a proper US response. Any comments?

                  He just put out a 28 minute video on how America can realistically achieve Energy Independence. The whole plan is out there. What is your response?

                  Newt has a 54 page paper on his site showing how to reform the Judiciary. Have you read it. Any comments?

                  If you want this site to be about substance, then show some substance.

                • K-Bob

                  Where did you read that I was justifying anything? I explained my response to ryanomaniac so he/she knows why I responded that way. Why anyone would see a need to explain that bit of obviousness to you is a mystery.

                  As to the rest of your points: How does asking someone to comment on something show “substance?”

                  You clearly missed the entire point of both my initial response to ryanomaniac, and the comment to which you just replied. I suggest you drop it.

                  Your last line shows contempt. It’s especially lame, given that you ignore the substance going on all around you here in this site, but I’ll let that slide, since that’s your burden to bear, not mine.

                  However, if you feel some need to show contempt for the site, you’ll find your stay here quite short.

          • REHLV

            Getting a little testy here. It sounds like flaming to me. For the record, I know you are a moderator on this sight, and I hold the standard a little higher for you than others, but there is no reason to put ryanomaniac down for his sincere opinions.

            You should know better. He did not attack anyone, and was truly sincere in his comments.

            Maybe it is time for you to take a break.

            PS. For those who do not know, moderators have the power to shut you down.

            • http://www.therightscoop.com/ The Right Scoop

              He didn’t put him down. He’s simply pointing out that even though we have posted proof otherwise, people are still making these claims.

              Also, you sound a little jaded/sensitive or something. If this offends you, perhaps you need to take a break.

              Also, not smart to challenge a moderator, just fyi.

            • K-Bob

              We also have other mysterious powers. For example, I can tell you where you got your shoes.

          • xymbaline

            I get it, K-Bob … you don’t like people being sarcastic, so you post sarcastic statements to show us how much you don’t like people being sarcastic.

            • Nukeman60

              If he didn’t like people being sarcastic, half of us would be banned by now. I think you missed the point. Just my humble opinion. No sarcasm this time.

              • xymbaline

                None taken.

                I just saw a contradiction, and it seemed quite ironic to me.

                I’m new here and have no idea who K-Bob is. Nor did it matter.

                I have a live-and-let-live attitude about Rick Santorum. I want to see the race come down to Rick and Newt, and let the American People judge between two visions of Conservatism.

                As you get to know me, you’ll find I’m pretty consistent about it.

              • K-Bob

                I’d even have to ban myself.

            • K-Bob

              Where are you getting this “you don’t like people being sarcastic” nonsense?

              • xymbaline

                Let’s drop it and bring out white flags.

                There’s too much else to talk about.

    • NHConservative0221
  • PhillyCon

    RS:
    Thanks for posting this. I was only able to catch the second portion of it. I’ll go back and listen to the first segment later.

    I hope Santorum is still kicking for the PA primary. I would be kind of cool to vote for him again.

    Anyway, to those who have to come constantly to Santorum threads in order to prop up your guy and bash Santorum, it really says something.

    • wodiej

      yes, it says he’s not qualified. Next.

      • PhillyCon

        Doth protest too much. Stalking again, I see?

  • Constance

    I am woefully short on funds these days, but I still manage to send Santorum’s campaign $5 a month. It is so little, but I hope that if a whole bunch of other people send their few dollars in a month, it adds up to a huge chunk! Even sending just $1 matters.

  • FreeManWalking

    Rick your still a solid # 2 in my book.

    I have a lot of reservations about his tax plan which is another Big Government oversight picking winners and losers. It will encourage manufactures to put more funds into the lobbyist pockets to spread around and game the system so their companies to be classified as Manufacturers and receive the 0 corporate tax. In the end his plan just adds more regulations into an already over burdensome tax system. But hey, he is smart he is lawyer.

    If he is as consistent as a lot of supporters tout, I could see him picking Rinomeny, he thought he was the Man in 08 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu50Hb61jVQ

  • wodiej

    Answering questions doesn’t equal results or leadership.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000679899592 John Bohler

      no, but it is telling on how he would lead if he got into the leadership.

    • Linky1

      You’re right. Look at who is in the White House now. He answers questions (with the aid of a teleprompter) but provides no answers, just more questions.

      Santorum answers questions and while some may not like the answers, he is open and honest with them. There’s more leadership shown in this short interview than has been shown since Obama took office.

  • Sober_Thinking

    This was his best interview imo… he rolls with their questions and answers well from the heart – and he’s spot on in most of his responses.

    He is who he is and he makes no apologies. Every time he speaks, he seems to get better.

  • cabensg

    Minus the teleprompters, Greek columns and a radical socialist agenda Santorum has the same credentials to be president Obama had.

    Lawyer, Congressman, Senator and a vision.

    So now we have an articulate white conservative instead of a black socialist who liberals call articulate.

    Does anyone see a pattern here.

    If this seems harsh it’s because the truth often is.

    Old white men who know how to govern, have done it successfully and have the knowledge, experience and plans to actually bring the country back from the brink, need not apply.

    I think Simon Cowell would agree.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000679899592 John Bohler

      ummm Santorum spent 4 years in the house, 12 years in the Senate and got stuff done like getting Partial Birth Aborton banned, helped do some of the heavy lifting to get the welfare reform act passed, brought the balanced budget amendment to to a vote (if he had gotten one more vote it would have passed) and what’s Obama’s record? ………… elected to Senate and started to campaign for president….. please don’t try to compare Santorum’s record to Obama. Its insulting to the 16 years of hard work that Santorum put in to getting the good stuff done.

    • NHConservative0221

      One is a radical Marxist while the other believes in free market capitalism.

      Think before you post.

      • cabensg

        I already address ideology for both of them. One is a conservative on some issues and the other is a socialist. Yes Santorum put in years in the Senate. Obama not. The comparison is about leadership experience. Even Romney as governor, running a successful business and turning around the Olympics shows the kind of leadership qualities we need in a president. Unfortunately his leadership qualities are overshadowed by his liberal ideology.

        Santorum’s experience in the Senate no matter what he championed or supported is not real world experience or leadership like being in charge and responsible for the outcome is. If he wasn’t running for president I’d certainly support him strongly for Senator.

        • Asian_chic

          He did turn the Olympics around by costing us over a billion dollars of our tax money. Romney and his supporters have NEVER touted Romneycare, which we the taxpayers is left holding the bag. If I can spend other people’s money the way he can, I guess I am qualified to run for office. You mentioned ideology…Romney is a liberal, calling himself a Conservative. He does not know what Conservatism is. It needs to be written out to him and even then, he gets it wrong. People who call themselves Conservative are for limited government, lower taxes, less regulations, strong defense, individualism among other things. Romneycare has stomped on Conservatism because the outcome is opposite of the things I mentioned. Our rights are taken away. Force by the state is no different then force by the federal government.

      • grizzlybear71

        If Rick Santorum truly believed in free market capitalism, he would advocate ending the Federal Reserve System and their government-granted monopoly on our money.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

          he’s for auditing the federal reserve… it’s a good step in the right direction.

  • NHConservative0221

    What did Santorum say about the payroll tax cut?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      It’s addressed at the 1:25 mark.

      He said he was not a supporter of the temporary tax cut in the social security tax, it’s running a deficit in SS, called the payroll tax cut it’s just politics. He said if we want to do a tax cut lets do something that’s permanent, stimulative, to create growth.

      • NHConservative0221

        Thanks for the feedback. I’m liking Santorum more and more.

        I’m going to do everything I can to help him win the nomination and the presidency.

  • http://profiles.google.com/ajtelles Art Telles

    Santorum said…

    At 14min. 58sec. – video 1 –

    … and you can’t force people to do things they don’t want to do, or are irresponsible.

    And, we shouldn’t have government there to force people to cover things and do things that cost everybody more just because there may be some irresponsible people who don’t do what the right thing is.

    Guess what.

    There are people who don’t get their oil changes. They end up with higher bills, and they pay the consequences for it.

    That’s how America works.

    – – – – – – – – – –

    Yes.

    THAT is how America works in a “FREE to be you and me” Republic where the “property of rights” and the “right of property” are honored, respected and protected by a limited government that, ipso facto, expands the liberty of the individual.

    No.

    THAT is NOT how America works in a “FREE from inequality” dependency commune that ridicules FREEDOM to own private property, aka the “property of rights” and the “right of property,” and individual freedom is limited because, again, ipso facto, the government MUST expand to pay for the minor health care items such as contraceptives… the ideological kissin’ cousin of Santorum’s rhetorical “oil change” payments.

    Santorum is engaged.

    Art

  • StNikao

    Debate cancellation response: http://twitpic.com/8ljlsb

  • denbren52

    I just shared this post on Facebook. Thanks for posting these 2 videos. The more I listen to Rick speak from the heart, without notes or teleprompter, and give detailed responses rather than politically correct platitudes, it warms my heart. This is the leader that we need now.

    He may not be the most charismatic politician but remember that Obama IS and see where that led us?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=715251609 Pete Gardner

    Every time Santorum opens his mouth, I like him more and more. Gone are my first impressions of him as a “Dobie Gillis” type character.

    I love how they tried to stump him on matters of faith. “I don’t hear voices, if that’s what you’re asking.” Priceless!

  • K-Bob

    This is way off topic, but the photoshop at Doug Ross’ place is hilarious. Also the next two articles. (No, I’m not spamming for him, he’s doing fine, and you’ll have to google for it because I ain’t putting up a link.)

    On the topic of Rick Santorum, I just read a few disturbing threads about Rick at FR. Probably the conservatives are at work, so haven’t joined the fray yet. They were disturbing because they seemed to indicate a totally defeatist attitude. Defeatists need to get out of the way.

    This “unelectable” concept needs to be beaten down, hard. Romney is the only one who might have trouble against Obama. If it weren’t for Romneycare, all four of these guys would be thoroughly electable, as you can see by looking at the graphs Scoop put up yesterday. Obama is a loser of the first magnitude.

    • PhillyCon

      K-Bob:
      Check out Dan Riehl’s post on the “unelectable” stuff and not fighting. Its pretty good. He came out with it yesterday.

      • K-Bob

        That’s a strongly written piece by Dan. He’s correct, too. I just wish he’d been less dismissive of Palin’s chances back when she was still “mulling it over.”

        I could be happy with either Newt or Rick, really. I can see people wanting one more than the other. But all these comments about one of them being really bad and the other really good are just silly.

        • PhillyCon

          I thought he “came around” on Palin. He was writing some positive stuff on her, maybe I missed it.

          • K-Bob

            Oh, he did the usual lauding of Palin, and slamming the PDS folks. But he seemed to simply wander away when it got close to her deciding. It even got to where he was slamming her for taking so long, and agreeing with people who called her unserious.

            What’s “unserious” is people wanting this process to be decided at the beginning, rather than the end.

            • PhillyCon

              OK, thanks for clarifying. At least, he didn’t approach Erick Erickson territory.

              • K-Bob

                Heh! Not Dan Riehl. He’s a bit more “rottweiler” about conservative principles.

                Ericson?
                .
                .
                .
                Chihuaha.

  • Sparky5253

    Still not liking Santorum. He does NOT have a commanding presence nor does he inspire confidence that he is more than just political rhetoric.

    Santorum cannot hit the ground running, which is critical on the first day. He will have a huge learning curve. Santorum will also NOT be respected and will eventually be sabatoged by the Republican establishment and the Old Boys Club.

    Newt is experienced, has a commanding presence, has proven leadership capabilities has the cojones to implement his plan immediately. This is why the Republican elite and Old Boys on the Hill are afraid of him.

    Newt has done all this before. He does not require a learning curve. Newt WILL make the critical changes and turn around the bureaucratic behemoth. Newt WILL upset the applecart of the crony capitalists. And, Newt will remain steadfast against the onslaught from the naysayers.

    Santorum is the flavor of the week. He is being elevated by the media to steal voters from Gingrich, because the Republican elite think Santorum is weak and will be crushed by Romney, their Anointed One!

    They must get Gingrich out of the way, and Santorum is the patsy. So are all those who follow him!

    Voting Santorum will ensure a Romney victory….which is music to Obama’s ears!

    • K-Bob

      Cheer, cheer, cheer! Boo, boo, boo!

      What is this, sports?

      Both of these guys could handle the job just fine. Anyone saying otherwise has got to make a serious case for it to be taken seriously.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      the republican elite in the media didn’t even see Rick coming when he swept those 3 states, their jaws dropped. That means Rick support was mostly a grassroots because we know the elite are out of touch with the people..

      • Sparky5253

        The media was already leading the surge for Santorum the day after Florida…Fox News, Drudge Report, Hot Air….even before polling showed any increase in numbers for Santorum.

    • librtifirst

      Either one of them could carry on the status quo just fine.

  • johnos2112

    Not tough to explain minimum wage. When a wage is increased that means the costs of goods and services, that we all want and need, go up too. Is that what you want? I don’t!

  • johnos2112

    If people can’t afford pre natal care then apply for Medicaid. Why the hell is this so hard to understand? I know because liberals have their collective heads up their a$$es!

    • Amy

      Or pay out of pocket like we did for a couple of ours? We didn’t have insurance that covered prenatal care, so we paid for it ourselves. Yes, it was expensive. Yes, we were broke for awhile when we decided to have children. It’s called personal responsiblity…

  • ApplePie101

    Right now, the ApplePie fantasy team is:

    Rick Santorum, President
    Newt Gingrich, Vice President
    Jim Demint, Majority Leader of the Senate
    Michele Bachmann, Speaker of the House
    Ron Paul, Secretary of the Treasury

    • StNikao

      Reverse the top two and you are on…

      AND – add Sarah Palin in there somewhere.

      • REHLV

        Secretary of energy

        • grizzlybear71

          The Department of Energy should be eliminated immediately.

          • librtifirst

            All federal regulatory agencies need to go. Let the feds only help with disputes between the states. I hope I am not sounding freakishly constitutional.

            • ApplePie101

              There is no such thing as freakishly constitutional. You can never be too rich, thin, or constitutional.

      • ApplePie101

        Sarah Palin, Chairman of the RNC. She would resurrect the party.

    • 911Infidel

      You forgot a few other posts:

      Defense: Lt.Col. Alan West (Ret)
      State: John Bolton
      Homeland Security – Brigitte Gabriel
      CIA: Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (Ret)
      UN – Ayan Hirsi Ali
      FBI: J. Christian Adams
      Director of National Inteligence – Gen James Conway – USMC (Ret)

    • grizzlybear71

      That is certainly a fantasy. Ron Paul would never be Santorum’s Treasury Secretary.

  • NeonSnake

    If this guy gets the ticket… he will be a special present for all leftists everywhere. This guy represents 19th century ideals, and will end up turning off everyone but the craziest in the Republican party. I have a ton of examples, but I’ll post them later if I get attacked enough.

    • Sparky5253

      I wholeheartedly agree! Santorum has some pretty archaic social notions and they will NOT go over well with female voters.

    • Asian_chic

      When you file tax, being married is better than being single. The government is promoting the family. On the other side of the spectrum, welfare for single moms promotes a single family home where the dad is not around. Why should he be when the government is their dad. Santorum is promoting family values and you think that’s extreme? Don’t answer, that was rhetorical.

      • NeonSnake

        I believe by family values, you mean his anti-gay, anti-sex and anti-choice views which are all pretty extreme. Why don’t these guys stay out bed rooms? How does these guys become the spokemen for God anyway? Jesus was a liberal.

        • K-Bob

          You don’t want them to be able to enter a bedroom? What are you, some sort of sleep deprivation activist?

          • NeonSnake

            I’ll give you that. I dropped two words. Since you didn’t get that and probably sat there for a bit trying to figure it out… Here it is: “Why don’t these guys stay out of OUR bed rooms”. I hoped that helped you get my point. I’ll work on the word dropping.

            • K-Bob

              You could try closing the door. It seem to keep people out of my bedroom.

          • PhillyCon

            I’d also like liberals to stay out of my food choices, the type of car I drive, the appliances I buy for my home, the amount of gas my car consumes, the temperature setting on home etc. Liberals also want to invade our bathrooms and regulate our toilets and how much toiler paper we use.

            • K-Bob

              When I move out of my house, I’m taking the toilets with me. I’ll be darned if I’ll be stuck with some modern six-flusher in the next house, just because of the EPA.

              • RosiesSeeingRed

                And that is how San Francisco ended up with the big rotton egg smell debacle — regulating toilets!

                “As a remedy, the city plans to buy $14 million of concentrated bleach—a 3-year supply—to disinfect wastewater before it goes into the bay. That’s on top of a $100 million investment to upgrade plants over 5 years to cut down on the stink. ”

                http://www.newser.com/story/113124/san-francisco-low-flow-toilets-city-investing-in-14-million-of-bleach-to-fight-smell.html

                Another case of unintentional consequences from a government that thinks it knows best!

                • K-Bob

                  Oh, yeah, that came up on a TV show recently, too. (I forget what it was.)

            • librtifirst

              Our government actually causes many cars to get less gas mileage than the countries they are manufactured in.

              http://sparrowchat.com/2008/01/smart-car-but-no-smart-gas-mileage-in-us/

              Government is not there to help us get any advantages over the rest of the world. they make sure that US companies cannot produce them either.

        • Asian_chic

          Nobody gives a rats @ss what you want to do in your bedroom but when it comes to the church, you want them to pay for your condoms. You liberal hacks are all the same!

        • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie

          Why don’t these guys stay out bed rooms?

          You mean like the gays that parade half nude in the streets and want to force courts, States, and the church to re-define marriage? Anti-choice, huh? He doesn’t want women to be able to execute their living babies….which takes place in a hospital, not in a bedroom.

          Anti-sex? Now I know you’re trolling. The guy has a ton of kids (that his wife with her power of “choice” was kind enough not to kill), all of which I’m sure he supports on his own with his wife- not with the government’s (other taxpayers’) money.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

          Is he anti-gay because he’s opposes gay-marriage? I agree with him, I don’t want to redefine marriage as he does, it’s between a man and woman. I’m not against Civil Unions for Gays. Trying to discourage promiscuity isn’t crazy, he doesn’t want make a law against it, but he’s right, it isn’t healthy physically and emotionally, so in that way it is dangerous and that’s his point, get it? Anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves. Yes your an adult and you have the right to do whoever you want but can you honestly admit it’s a healthy way to live? c’mon now, don’t be ridiculous with those lame media talking points about Rick Santorum, belief is one thing, policy is another.

          • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie

            belief is one thing, policy is another.

            Which reminds me of the interview and the aged Ron Burgundy double trying to play the MSM game for a sound bite about Santorum and whether or not he talks to the big guy.

          • librtifirst

            I don’t want government to define it at all. I don’t believe that he hates gays, he just wants to limit their ability to have equal justice under the law. If government didn’t manipulate it to start with, it wouldn’t be a problem.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Tom-Camp/1608442478 Tom Camp

          What, exactly, can you do in your bedroom now that you will not be able to do if Santorum becomes President? The answer, as you well know, is not a thing.

          The hang up that a lot of social liberals have with Santorum and other social cons is not that they are advocating restricting what you can do by law, but rather that they are ‘preaching’ a lifestyle that is at odds with their (the social liberals) own lifestyle. People prefer to have others validate their lifestyle, not tell them that there is something wrong with it.

          But a good case can be made that there IS something wrong with it. Promiscuity, both gay and straight, is neither physically nor emotionally healthy, in general. It isn’t good for stable families either, yet stable families are much better for children and society than unstable ones.

          If you don’t like hearing that, fine. If you can make a case that the social cons are wrong, that is fine too. But to say that social cons are telling you what you can and cannot do in the bedroom, you are simply wrong. They may be stating what they would prefer people in general be doing or not doing, but that is an entirely different thing.

          • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie

            I can’t remember who else has said this, but I’m sure we all know it to be true-

            It’s the acknowledgement of a moral standard that is troubling to those without morals….that’s not to say that all liberals don’t have morals, but most follow the group-think from those in leadership and argue for those without morals, their immoral position.

          • librtifirst

            The social cons are not wrong about the moral implications of homosexuality. They are just wrong about giving more financial opportunity through regulatory manipulation of the tax code and insurance rules. The liberals are often bashed for this, but the conservatives support it as well. Take away government intervention in insurance, inheritance, and income tax advantages, and the gay wouldn’t give a crap if they were married or not. Conservatives create the problem, and then milk it with their base for political browny points. They never actually change anything.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

        Yeah promoting the family is some crazy out-dated social experiment, in a liberal mind.

        • librtifirst

          The government has never influenced how I raised my children, or how I acted in my marriage. I have actually spanked my child in public under threat of having the cops called. I gave the person my phone number and address, and told them to send them my way, when they called the police. Didn’t stop me. (California)

          If you give government the right to manipulate our lives on the level that they want to, you will end up regretting it. This used to be a liberal problem, but is now just as much on the conservative side. They only argue about what to restrict us with, not whether or not to restrict us.

      • grizzlybear71

        I have nothing against families (I have one of my own), but by what authority should the federal government “promote the family”?

        • K-Bob

          They don’t need to actually go out an engage in a promotions campaign. That’s not what is meant by most people when they use that phrase, “to promote the family,” or “family values,” or similar.

          But legislation ought to be sure to preserve and protect the family as a first duty under the preamble to The Constitution, and as a limited view on the General Welfare clause of Section 8.

          Why? Because the family unit is the primogenitor of the vast majority of born citizens.

          Yes, there are other significant aspects of the citizenry that rise to importance when discussing protecting “the people,” but it’s undeniable that families make up the most significant part of the population of citizens. That’s still true today, even though the left has tried its best to destroy the family.

    • Nukeman60

      I have a ton of examples, but I’ll post them later if I get attacked enough‘ -NS

      Wow, you sound like Pelosi – “One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi said. “I know a lot about him… A thousand pages of his stuff. Not right here, though,” Pelosi joked. “When the time’s right.

      Usually, the ‘stuff’ people have is unfounded tripe and rebutted quite easily when finally drawn out. Rumors and innuendo don’t go as far as they used to.

    • Major914

      Malarkey. Rick Santorum appears to hold values and ideals very similar to a significant portion of the voting public–a combined 40% of Americans are either Catholic or Evangelical Protestant, and there are also still some real conservatives within several mainline denominations.

      Of which party are you among the craziest?

      True ideals are, by definition, timeless.

      The unexamined life is not worth living. Socrates 430 BC

      • NeonSnake

        “Malarkey. Rick Santorum appears to hold values and ideals very similar to a significant portion of the voting public–a combined 40% of Americans are either Catholic or Evangelical Protestant, and there are also still some real conservatives within several mainline denominations.”

        Appears to who? You? Why should we take your word for it?

      • librtifirst

        If 100% of the population was conservative christian, would they have a consensus on the best way to promote their values? There are ways that can backfire and have the opposite effect of what you desire. People are funny that way. They tend to rebel when backed into a corner.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      Oh yeah? Who you batting for? Mitt, Newt, Paul?

      • Asian_chic

        He’s either a liberal or a Paulbot…one and the same :)

        • librtifirst

          You don’t know much about Paul’s history, or his philosophy, do you? He is hardly a liberal.

    • ApplePie101

      If you can’t be bothered to post examples, I can’t be bothered to allow you credibility.

  • http://www.noneedforastinkingwebsite.com dow daytrader

    these Lib reporters were constantly trying to create “gotcha” quotes for the network news shows…..they came away empty. Well done Santorum!

  • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

    Your daddy’s libertarianism is not that of today’s

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

    Santorum also went after one of Romney’s most promoted achievements — his leadership at the 2002 Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City.

    “One of Mitt Romney’s greatest accomplishments, one of the things he talks about most is how he heroically showed up on the scene and bailed out and resolved the problems of the Salt Lake City Olympic Games,” Santorum said. “He heroically bailed out the Salt Lake City Olympic Games by heroically going to Congress and asking them for tens of millions of dollars to bail out the Salt Lake games — in an earmark, in an earmark for the Salt Lake Olympic games.” http://news.yahoo.com/rick-santorum-questions-obamas-christian-values-173855929.html

    An earmark Rick Santorum voted for, nonetheless, earmarks is something Mitt Romney is attacking Rick on. I think Rick just slapped this right back in Mitt’s face and that’s why I like him and is winning me over! GO RICK!

  • c4pfan

    Anything out there about his Ohio Tea Party thing today?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001358570743 Maury Kay

    Boy oh boy, he is piggy backing off of Newt big time. He said Newt was his mentor, he takes it even further than that…

    He does not want to let Israel handle Iran, he wants to do it with his own little hand on the button. If is funny when his face gets from the anger he has.

    He is a war monger.

    Not a flip flopper, he did so on minimum wage. Controlled by the fed.

    Santorum was a progressive when he started out..funny how he and Mittwit are so much alike. PA..did not want him.

    Can’t stand Santorum!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000679899592 John Bohler

      What are you doing here? i think you’ve gotten your left and right confused Mr. Maury. this is TheRIGHTScoop not theLeftscoop. so why don’t you go back to Ron central and go back to spamming online polls. Thank you

  • Major914

    Here is a worthwhile Wall Street Journal article on social conservatism vis-a-vis electoral politics–and Santorum in 2012 specifically:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577227694132901090.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

  • rw16651

    whoever says: ‘we’ll drill wherever we have oil, enforce e-check (illegals will self-deport),
    repeal FuBar Ack’s “healthScare” ‘- that gets all the needed votes.
    YES!!!

  • http://twitter.com/WilliamKronert William Kronert

    Some of you may want to drink the Santorum Kool-Aid but some of us refuse to do so:

    Santorum: Mainline Protestants Are Not Christians

    Santorum Excommunicates 45 Million Christians: Mainline Protestants Are ‘Gone From The World Of Christianity’
    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/02/18/427529/santorum-excommunicates-45-million-christians-mainline-protestants-are-gone-from-the-world-of-christianity/

    Santorum to Mainline Protestants: You Are Satan’s Spawn
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_02/santorum_to_mainline_protestan035489.php

    • Major914

      Pretty simple and straightforward stuff…

      While there are definitely some conservatives left within the old mainline denominations, hence, for example, the fight over ecclesiastical control and property between conservatives and liberal within the Episcopal Church, etc.

      But with, among other things, gay marriages taking place in mainline churches, and such satanic claptrap as lesbians in the role of pastor, it is obvious that mainline denominations have left true Christianity far behind in their self-directed quest for ‘whatever was right in their own eyes’ (Judges 21:25)

      http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-gaymarriage-presbyteriantre81g0tx-20120217,0,3464187.story

      So, on this issue, Rick is right.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000679899592 John Bohler

      i’ve dunken the kool-Aid and i boy do i LOOOOOOVE that good old fashion traditionalist taste!

      • http://twitter.com/ozziecastillo Ozzie

        Amen- I was a liberal before I came to any conclusions on my own.

      • c4pfan

        LOL.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      nice george soros funded smear links you got right there…

    • KenInMontana

      Firstly, Santorum cannot excommunicate anybody, if you knew anything about Catholicism you would realize that.
      Secondly, consider the source, Think Progress. Really?

    • KenInMontana

      Firstly, Santorum cannot excommunicate anybody, if you knew anything about Catholicism you would realize that.
      Secondly, consider the source, Think Progress. Really?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez
    • K-Bob

      Here’s the truth about the stupid, “Satan’s Spawn” lie you are propagating.

      Here’s a hint: If it’s something that seems really crazy, do some homework on it first and save some embarrassment.

      • http://twitter.com/CharlieZangelQQ DaMz

        its amazing how many people with out hesitation regurgitate utter nonsense over and over again with any fear of making themselves look like total asses .

        Thanks for linking THE TRUTH ABOUT THAT ISSUE.

        I hope if people are interested in the truth they will read it.

        • K-Bob

          I can see Protestants getting a little upset over what Santorum was saying, since it can be viewed as a little “interfaith rivalry” kind of thing, if you squint at it hard enough. And that’s exactly the flame the Washington Monthly writer was attempting to fan.

          But a LOT of Protestants agree with Rick Santorum on the comments he made.

  • KenInMontana

    Looks like Rick Santorum has picked up a key endorsement, from of all people……wait for it…..Dave Mustaine, guitarist for Megadeth!
    Check it out, he covers each of the candidates giving his reasoning on each, if nothing else it makes for an entertaining read.

    http://www.somethingawful.com/d/feature-articles/mustaine-picks-president.php

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      =) thanks for sharing that, from your link: “Santorum is a bad ass when it comes to spiritual warfare. He is armored by faith, just like we’re supposed to be. He is a god-blessing Psychotron conditioned for warfare on a soul scale. Also, I would trust him around a child. I would not trust Ron Paul with a child. Just gut instinct on that, dudes.” -Dave Mustaine

      • grizzlybear71

        He would not trust a doctor who has delivered over 4,000 babies (and has 18 grandchildren of his own) with a child?

        Why do you guys give a crap what Mustaine thinks again?

        • KenInMontana

          Frankly, I don’t much care what any of those endorsing any candidate think, particularly what those shilling for candidates think. It’s a tongue-in-cheek piece, that I found a nice humorous break from politics as usual. If you don’t like it, don’t read it.

          • grizzlybear71

            I read it, didn’t really like it. He’s entitled to his own opinion of course, and at least he recognizes that Obama is just God-awful. But he strikes me as someone who has a bit more learnin’ to do. At least he seems to grasp that a return to sound money is vital to our country’s survival.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

          maybe he thinks Ron would be a non-interventionist if he sees a child in danger

      • librtifirst

        I was surprised that Mustaine had endorsed Santorum. He seemed to be getting to an understanding of how it all works. Now, I realize that his Christian conversion has not gone very deep, and he is just operating on the skirts of the issues.

    • kamiller42

      Santorum endorsement by Dave Mustaine of Megadeth? Not quite.

      DDR Global HQ staff and management have been informed that the legendary metal front man isn’t quite ready to go Full-Santo. As it turns out, he was just saying, “Anybody but Obama . . . but, I kinda like that Santorum dude.” And that is absolutely not an endorsement, which Dave pointed out by issuing the following statement:

      Contrary to how some people have interpreted my words, I have not endorsed any presidential candidate. What I did say was that I hope to see a Republican in the White House. I’ve seen good qualities in all the candidates but by no means have made my choice yet. I respect the fact that Santorum took time off from his campaign to be with his sick daughter, but I never used the word “endorse.”
      http://www.damndirtyrino.com/2012/02/16/the-megadeth-primary/

      • KenInMontana

        Perhaps he should have worded his post more carefully then, save embarrassing yourself with awkward retractions later on. No matter, I found the piece humorous none the less. Although sounds like he has had some coaching from some other pundits on how to backpedal.

  • Nukeman60

    I finally got to sit down and listen to the entire half hour interview, and I have to say Santorum did a fantastic job. These people tried their darnedest to find gotcha moments and it just made them look stupid.

    Thanks, Scoop, for giving us this. I used to check in with Drudge, the Blaze, Fox and others, but now it’s down to just Rushbo, Levine and TRS. Don’t go away on us or I’m lost.

    After listening to Newt’s 30 minute interview and Rick’s 30 minute interview, I have to ask myself, ‘Would Romney and/or Obama have faired as well for 30 minutes, like these two guys did?’ Romney, with his stuttering talking points list, and Obama, with his short quips and partisan class warfare, would have come out looking rather sheepish.

    I haven’t even seen an interview with Obama where there were any gotcha questions, let alone 30 minutes worth by a ‘parole board’ style panel. Just one time would be nice.

  • c4pfan

    O/T, but Sarah is going to be in Indiana. Is Track being deployed? Anyone have any information about it?

  • Trust1TG

    I’m not ready to jump into the Santorum boat yet.

    He is a smart Christian guy, and all but….

    Santorum isn’t going to go deep enough to make a longterm difference. His plans are to limited: rebuild manufacturing, small business, protect mid-income families, institute modest tax reform, but he is not planning to do the large-scale overall political and economic reform that is needed to set the US back to a Constitutional stable nation.

    Santorum is not planning to audit, reform the FED or deal with the World Bank/big banks, Wall Street, back currency with gold/precious metals, stop currency manipulations, in order to stabilize US economy.

    Santorum is not planning to go back to supply-side economics, protective trade policies.

    Santorum is not planning to reform Washington politics, deal with establishment corruption, insider trading, establish term limits, deal with election fraud, SuperPACs, etc., drain the DC jacuzzi as Sarah said.

    Santorum is not planning to reform Entitlements, institute training programs, etc..

    Santorum is not planning to reform existing health care, deal with Medicare/Medicaid fraud.

    It would be better for him to be VP this time around and President in 4-8 years after the big reforms are instituted.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000679899592 John Bohler

      Actually if you go to his site part of his plan is to audit the FED and make so that the only thing they do is to handle inflation. He will Support a National Right to Work law. He is going to repeal Obama care and let the health care market become marketable again He is going to implement Medicare Reforms and Innovation proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan and speed up their implementation to control healthcare costs and improve quality, and Freeze spending levels for social programs for 5 years such as Medicaid, Housing, Education, Job Training, and Food Stamps, time limit restrictions, and block grant to the States like in Welfare Reform. Agreed that he should be talking about this kind of stuff more often instead of contraception, but i blame the MSM for keep asking those types of questions where ever he goes.

      • Nukeman60

        It’s the LSM that is trying to direct his campaign. They push very hard for him to be the ‘social candidate’. I, too, wish he would push harder for other issues in his interviews and stop the LSM from redirecting him back to the old ‘why are you against women’ crap.

        I know he tries and it must be frustrating for him. I, for one, would tell them to take a flying leap, but then I wouldn’t be a candidate for very long after that.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      Your view of Santorum is way off!

    • http://twitter.com/CharlieZangelQQ DaMz

      WHAT ? where do you get your info? Good grief
      you couldnt be more wrong

    • PhillyCon

      Curious: have you even tried going to his web site where his economic plan is posted? Or even watching the speech at the Detroit economic that RS posted?

  • Kordane

    There’s no way that I’m voting for another “compassionate conservative”, especially one who is on the record as having expressed hostility towards libertarianism.

  • K-Bob

    I’ve figured out why the Freepers have been peddling the anti-Santorum stuff. Evidently after Newt’s South Carolina win, Jim Robinson endorsed Newt (In a post dated 19-Jan-2012).

    A few folks there are defending Santorum when the hit pieces come up, but a lot of folks are just piling on.

    I like Newt, but it’s just not necessary to trash Santorum just to help your guy across the finish line. Romney’s attack machine provides all the trash anyone could possibly need.

    • http://twitter.com/CharlieZangelQQ DaMz

      AMEN

  • http://twitter.com/politiJim PolitiJim

    the Tax Foundation gives Santorum’s Ecomonic plan a “D+”. American Enterprise Institute calls it “Social Engineering”.

    I am afraid Santorum supporters are doing what Obama supporters did in 2008. Projecting unto him what they WANT to see – instead of what he truly is.

    http://www.politijim.com/2012/02/government-gaming-microcosm-of-santorum.html
    (links to those articles here)

    The biggest problem Santorum has is that he is not only unattractive to the other 75% of the electorate who don’t share his idea that government is a tool of social engineering – he is downright scary to them. Remember WE conservatives didn’t even want him until no one else was left. (Why do they think they will want him when they don’t even share his conservative views?)

    Santorum has a great explanation for every “liberal” vote he had. For instance – he “HAD” to vote to deprive employers from firing union workers because he lived in Pennsylvania. And yet, after knowing him for 17 years, the PA electorate rejected him my historic margins while 3 OTHER GOP candidates in blue states still won. But never mind that – he tells us that he can persuade “blue state” democratic electorates because he “boldly” talks about conservative values. Like not just endorsing radical proabortion Arlene Specter but also campaigning for him. And Christine Todd Whitman. And stopping conservatives from filibustering Sotomayor.

    But yeah – he’s a really compelling candidate isn’t he?

    • K-Bob

      Another hit piece. And not very well-researched.

      Here’s an in depth look at the bizarre accusations that Santorum has been for “Big Labor” (warning: link goes to the ultra-right-wing, warmongering, neocon “ABC News” blog). Meanwhile, his vote as a Senator was on federal legislation that attempted to deal with unions. I don’t see that power in the Constitution, do you? No, you don’t.

      Union related law is the purview of the states. Remarkably, this “Big Government” guy voted to protect that power.

    • http://twitter.com/CharlieZangelQQ DaMz

      he’s a really compelling candidate isn’t he?

      YES HE IS!
      Go Rick 2012

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      what are you talking about that is scary? the thing he is campaigning the most is strengthening the family in society. That’s your idea of social engineering?

  • Kordane

    In the first video Santorum says there should be a minimum wage. How exactly is that a “conservative” stance? I was under the impression that conservatives wanted the minimum wage completely abolished.

    He talks about the government trampling on “economic rights” – even though there is no such thing as economic rights; there are only the individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. The last time “economic rights” was used was when FDR tried to pass the “economic bill of rights”, so what the heck, Santorum?!

    Santorum @ 16:00: “Should government encourage things that are best for society? – And the answer is that I think they should

    That right there is horrifying, because liberals say the exact same thing when they advocate marxist, socialist and communist things, whether it be social programs, redistributive policies, what light bulb you should use, etc.

    Libertarians will hear that Santorum quote and they will be disgusted because it’s that exact mindset of “government knows best” which is why we are where we are today, facing tyranny head on.

    • Major914

      Your post points up a few of the fundamental problems with Libertarianism.

      My general response would be: Liberty yes. Libertarianism no.

      Libertarianism obviously has its own version of what it considers best for society, which it wishes to promote and institute–and libertarianism’s vision is inadequate and mistaken. The individuals who make up any society are not primarily the rational beings Libertarianism presupposes (if they were, there’d be no need for a Libertarian Party to attempt to promote its form of rationalism in the first place).

      Libertarianism is essentially utopian and rationalistic. It starts with the view that mankind is, or should be, a rational actor; and that human reason, as the ultimate source of knowledge, can construct a system of goverment and society that will function on rational principles–and under that system, individuals will adapt in such a way as to reach a utopian condition.

      Anarchy, State, and Utopia, a treatise on Libertarian philosophy by Robert Nozick was the winner of the 1975 National Book Award. It has been translated into 11 languages and was named one of the “100 most influential books since the war” by the Times Literary Supplement.

      The utopia mentioned in the title of Nozick’s first book is a meta-utopia, a framework for voluntary migration between utopias tending towards worlds in which everybody benefits from everybody else’s presence. This is meant to be the Lockean “night-watchman state” writ large. The state protects individual rights and makes sure that contracts and other market transactions are voluntary. The meta-utopian framework reveals what is inspiring and noble in this night-watchman function. They both contain the only form of social union that is possible for the atomistic rational agents of Anarchy, State and Utopia, fully voluntary associations of mutual benefit.

      Libertariansm, whether overtly or covertly, puts man, the sovereign individual, at the center. Conservatism puts God the Creator at the center, and recognizes firstly that man is made in God’s image, but is and will be a fallen creature as long as this world lasts. Libertarianism is a rationalistic program to realize, via the the reason and government of man, the allegedly rightful condition and potential of the sovereign individual. Conservatism is, not a positive program, but a response to the unfortunate and untidy truth of a sinful mankind, created by God for an ultimate purpose beyond this world, and forced by necessity to live in society. Liberty is necessary to remove the conflict that exists when moral responsibility to God is vitiated by some types of monarchical or state coercion (economic productivity is a very happy side-benefit).

      Moral responsibility to God is the foundational justification for liberty–not the supposedly inherently perfectable reason of the ‘sovereign individual’ imagined by Libertarianism.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000679899592 John Bohler

        Bravo Major! i think i’m going to steal some of those talking points if you don’t mind!

        • Major914

          OK. Hope it does some good. God willing there’ll be more where that came from.

      • Kordane

        Firstly, I’ll point out that I’m no libertarian. I’m actually an objectivist. There’s a lot about libertarianism that I don’t like, but I think that I understand them well enough to defend them against conservatives, republicans and so on… at least on things which I consider worth defending.

        Quote: “Libertarianism obviously has its own version of what it considers best for society

        Libertarians don’t advocate using the government’s legal use of force to force people to accept anyone’s view. Instead, libertarians advocate that individuals choose what is best for themselves – That is radically different from the view that Santorum (and liberals) has, which is that government should choose what is best for individuals. Do you see the difference?

        Quote: “Libertarianism is essentially utopian and rationalistic. It starts with the view that mankind is, or should be, a rational actor; and that human reason, as the ultimate source of knowledge, can construct a system of goverment and society that will function on rational principles–and under that system, individuals will adapt in such a way as to reach a utopian condition

        There is no utopian vision in libertarianism. No libertarian is out there saying that “things will be perfect in libertarian world” or something. Libertarians are often the first ones to admit that free market laissez faire capitalism is not “perfect” – What they say is that it’s simply “the best possible system” for individual freedom, for the creation of wealth/prosperity, the advancement of science/technology, and for individuals to achieve happiness. Free market laissez faire capitalism is simply the best that can be achieved in reality.

        Quote: “Libertariansm, whether overtly or covertly, puts man, the sovereign individual, at the center. Conservatism puts God the Creator at the center, and recognizes firstly that man is made in God’s image, but is and will be a fallen creature as long as this world lasts

        We can perceive the former, but we can’t perceive the latter. The former advocates objective reality and the other advocates mysticism. We do not live in pre-renaissance Europe, where people exclusively accepted mystic claims as a valid explanation for the nature and origin of the universe. Today, mysticism as an intellectual power is dying out, and objective reality is taking its place as a metaphysical primary.

        Quote: “Moral responsibility to God is the foundational justification for liberty–not the supposedly inherently perfectable reason of the ‘sovereign individual’ imagined by Libertarianism

        Yes well you’ll alienate everyone who doesn’t believe in “God”, and you’ll drive them straight to the Democrats – Which is precisely what has happened for most of them who are sickened by all the mumbo-jumbo perpetuated by the republicans and conservatives. And since atheism is a quickly growing demographic, I think you’re throwing away a lot of support, and with each election you’ll throw away a bit more each time.

        Your whole justification for “conservatism” as a “response to the unfortunate and untidy truth of a sinful mankind” is like saying “you’re all a bunch of evil people, so vote for us!”, yeah…. great job on telling everyone they SUCK and that they should vote for the same people who told them they suck -_-

        I think you’re using what Ayn Rand called “The argument from depravity”, see here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/conservatives.html#order_4

        This is perhaps the worst of the three arguments that conservatives give for people to vote for them. It boils down to the concession “that socialism is the ideal, but human nature is unworthy of it; after which, they invite men to crusade for capitalism—a crusade one would have to start by spitting in one’s own face.”

        • Major914

          Libertarians don’t advocate using the government’s legal use of force to force people to accept anyone’s view.

          Oh yes they most certainly do…Libertarians advocate laws that would force individuals who hold the view that society should not allow, for example, homosexual unions or moral equivalence, and should not allow drug use, to accept, as a consequence of law, the views of those who hold the opposite and mutually exclusive view, and the prevailing societal conditions that would be created thereby.

          Libertarians presuppose the correctness of a view of man as a sovereign individual, therefore they consider their political veiwpoint, and all its ramifications, to be essentially neutral. They avoid acknowledging that their characterization of the individual is only one way among several of defining what we actually are as individuals. Armed with this willful ignorance about his particular view of the nature of the individual, the Libertarian says, “We, by passing laws you disagree with, aren’t forcing you to accept anything–it is only you forcing us to accept what we disagree with.” To which a conservative just laughs, and shakes his head…

          We can perceive the former, but we can’t perceive the latter (that man is made in God’s image).

          So now the Libertarians are going to start by telling me what I can and can’t percieve. And then they are going to start passing laws to effectuate their agenda, all the while smilingly telling me that they aren’t forcing me to accept anybody else’s views……

          If I am the sovereign individual Libertarianism posits, then nobody can tell me what I can and can’t percieve, and nobody can possibly tell me that their view of society and the individual is somehow better than mine.

          The view that the individual is comparitively an atomistic being, who can only perceive this way and not that way, etc., etc., is itself a unique personal view–the view Libertarianism wishes to institutionalize and enforce on society. Many of us have an entirely different, and mutually exclusive, view of man and society altogether, and do not wish to be saddled with the limitations and consequences of Libertarian view.

          Today, mysticism as an intellectual power is dying out, and objective reality is taking its place as a metaphysical primary.

          There you go again. I’m not concerned with what you ‘perceive’ as ‘intellectual power’, or as ‘mysticism’–I hold deeply a very different, and, again, mutually exclusive, formulation regarding the nature of reality, truth, God, the individual, society, and right on down the line. I do not want the Libertarian view imposed upon the society in which I live–how is it that the view I am espousing here is in a lesser category than the Libertarian view?. Hint: It isn’t.

          Libertarianism is obviously rationalistic; and like all other rationalisms (such as secular liberalism), falls into the trap of seeing its own view as ‘neutral’ on the fundamentals–thus it wants to avoid the ongoing political debate regarding its underlying presuppositions about the nature of reality, God, man, and society, and merely proclaim that history has oh-so-naturally brought the scientific and objective cream to the top where it ultimately belongs. The extension of this approach is also utopian–“The new system, imagined by our new party, founded in 1971, will when implemented result in the acheivement of happiness.”

          simply “the best possible system” for individual freedom, for the creation of wealth/prosperity, the advancement of science/technology, and for individuals to achieve happiness.

          Conservativism doesn’t assume that any system will make it possible to achieve happiness, nor that material ends are the ultimate ends of society around which it can be organized, nor that its own views of God, man, and society are the ‘natural’ or the only ‘objective’ views.

          • Kordane

            Quote: “Libertarians advocate laws that would force individuals who hold the view that society should not allow, for example, homosexual unions or moral equivalence, and should not allow drug use, to accept, as a consequence of law, the views of those who hold the opposite and mutually exclusive view, and the prevailing societal conditions that would be created thereby

            I initially responded to you by saying that “Libertarians don’t advocate using the government’s legal use of force to force people to accept anyone’s view“, and you basically retorted that they are using government force, because they refuse to use government force. Don’t you understand that you’re making a completely illogical argument? It reminds me of the illogical argument put forth by liberals who claim that “to not engage in commerce means that you are engaging in commerce”. You’re essentially making the same mistake as they are, but on a different topic.

            Quote: “Libertarians presuppose the correctness of a view of man as a sovereign individual

            Even Mark Levin, the “great one” of the conservative movement, recognizes “individual sovereignty”. It’s not just a “libertarian” idea. I wouldn’t doubt it if this view was articulated by some of the founders and/or their philosophical inspirators.

            Are you implying that conservativism declares that Man is NOT a sovereign individual?

            I’d like you to clarify your view.

            Quote: “So now the Libertarians are going to start by telling me what I can and can’t perceive. And then they are going to start passing laws to effectuate their agenda, all the while smilingly telling me that they aren’t forcing me to accept anybody else’s views

            They can tell you what the science of biology says about what you can and can’t perceive, based upon what we objectively know about human perception. If you want to claim some extra perception that no other human beings have, then you alone have to prove to others that you have it.

            Libertarians are ideologically inclined to not favor “passing laws to effectuate their agenda” (that’s what conservatives and liberals do) – Instead, they’re ideologically inclined to favor “abolishing any laws that violate the individual rights of Man, until we only have laws that protect the individual rights of Man”.

            Quote: “If I am the sovereign individual Libertarianism posits, then nobody can tell me what I can and can’t percieve

            Reality can do that, and all it takes is for human beings to perceive the objective truths of reality. You can prove that you have the five senses, and if you had genuinely gained some sixth sense, then you’d be able to prove that too – but the fact is that after millennia of claims of people with a “sixth sense”, NONE have been proven to possess it.

            Go ahead and prove your sixth sense. Until then, your assertions regarding the existence of any “God” are without substance, and I shall treat them as such.

            Quote: “Many of us have an entirely different, and mutually exclusive, view of man and society altogether, and do not wish to be saddled with the limitations and consequences of the Libertarian view

            I understand exactly what you want. You want to fake reality. You want to fake the existence of an “unreality” because you don’t like reality as it is, even though you may be miserable for your entire life because you’re waiting for the so-called “afterlife”.

            Well you know what happens to people who defy reality? – They do harm to their lives.

            I’ve seen so many people lead wasted and miserable lives just because they’ve been fooled by religion into “waiting for the afterlife”. They could have led fulfilling and happy lives if they acknowledged that reality is all there is, and that one should therefore make one’s life the best life that it can be, since life is so short and it might as well be a good one. Their defiance of reality cost them dearly. I consider it sad, so very very sad indeed. All those lives wasted… :/

            Quote: “I do not want the Libertarian view imposed upon the society in which I live

            The only way to ever “impose” views on society is by violating individual rights, and the only way to violate individual rights is by “initiating” force against others.

            Both the conservatives and the liberals advocate the initiation of force against othes (albeit the latter is far far worse).

            Libertarians, in contrast, want to banish the initiation of force, and therefore banish the violation of individual rights.

            Quote: “Conservativism doesn’t assume that any system will make it possible to achieve happiness, nor that material ends are the ultimate ends of society

            You would if you truly advocated capitalism. The sad fact is that conservatives do not truly advocate capitalism; they advocate a mixed economy, but merely a much more reduced one than we have now. I don’t accept the mixed economy at all. I only accept capitalism, since only capitalism is consistent with America’s founding and with the inalienable individual rights of Man.

      • librtifirst

        Your version of conservatism has a specific definition, yet you use it as if there is only one kind. “Conservatism”, in and of itself, is not a philosophy. You need to be a little more specific if you want to debate philosophical differences. Search wikipedia and pick one, then there can be a debate.

        Your picture painting of libertarianism is a white wash, which seeks to black out all of the morally relative points that it offers to the Christian perspective of governance by using a conclusive utopian outcome as the basis for the positions of libertarians.

        It is quite evident that you would likely include the word “utopian” to any alternative to your view of conservatism. Many statements like this will likely be accepted by those who don’t understand the philosophies of other people who advocate for an alternate to the status quo governance that everyone rails against.

        If you like what you have, and think that it will produce change, then consider what Einstein said: (paraphrased) “one definition of insanity is doing the same thing, and expecting a different result”. American political conservatism hasn’t changed anything for the better. Maybe we should find an alternate type of conservatism that would work to our benefit, such as libertarian republicanism, or libertarian constitutionalism. The modern “conservatism” is not individual liberty minded, which is what this country was founded on. If you appreciate the liberty aspects of our society, then you might consider a marked change in what you view as functional conservatism.

        • K-Bob

          “Conservatism” is a shortening of the word “Conservativism,” which is the philosophy of the Conservative school of philosophers and theorists (Burke, Kirk, Buckley, etc). It represents their thinking on a system of economics, liberty, national defense, and social mores. It is definitely “a philosophy” just as much as any other labeled philosophy can be called such.

          It also has its variants, just as any other so-called philosophy does.

        • K-Bob

          “The modern “conservatism” is not individual liberty minded”

          And that’s just flat out incorrect.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

      uh you can’t see there’s a difference between liberals and santorum? Liberals want to use our tax dollars to advocate their marxist, socialist things. Santorum wants to cut our taxes and encourage with a message of a stable strong family. Really, how it is horrifying encouraging the family? Where is freedom/liberty lost? You are way off base comparing Rick to what liberals are trying to do to our society.

      • Kordane

        When someone follows the principle that “government knows best”, then there is nothing to stop them from taking it to its logical conclusion, as liberals do. Santorum shouldn’t be going around saying “government knows best” – He should be going around saying that “individuals know best how to run their own lives, and government should stay out of our lives” – That is consistent with individual rights (life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness). What Santorum is advocating utterly contradicts individual rights, because it implies that government will intervene in people’s lives and that people will be prevented from pursuing their happiness.

        Government has one job and one job only, and that is to protect individual rights. Anything that goes beyond that fundamental role is necessarily tyrannical because it will have to involve the violation of those rights.

        The founders never intended for the government “to encourage families”; they intended for the government to protect individual rights. I go by that fundamental principle, and that’s how I know Santorum and yourself are wrong.

        To be quite honest, if Santorum advocated the government that the founders intended, then families would get all the encouragement that the free market and capitalism determine that they deserve. I cannot abide by a view that fights government against the will of the free market and capitalism, and I cannot abide by a view that contradicts the founding of America and its most fundamental principle of individual rights.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

          “government knows best” there’s a difference from a government forcing you do to something they think is best and a president encouraging the family, something that is good and right in society. If you don’t want a family, you don’t need to have one, no one is violating your individual rights, life, liberty, property or your pursuit of happiness. You can stand on principle, good luck whatever you make of it. I will stand on what I believe is right and good, and family is that for me. Nothing tyrannical about that to me.

          • Kordane

            Government has no other instrument to “encourage the family” than to use its “legal use of force”. What you have to understand is that “government IS force”, it has no tools, it has no resources, it only has GUNS, and when you talk about using government to do something, you necessarily speak of using government force (guns) to achieve some end.

            I don’t know how Santorum aims to “encourage the family”, but what I do know is that whatever means he chooses to do it will necessarily involve the use of force. There is no way around that.

            Anything government does which goes beyond “protecting individual rights” will be involve the “violation of individual rights”. The fact that he speaks of a “group” (families), rather than individuals, consequently means that whatever he wants to do will be at the expense of people who aren’t in families. Now, he might think that “everyone should have a family” and that government should encourage people (ie. use FORCE) to become a family – This necessarily means that anyone who doesn’t want to be in a family must be punished, even if their pursuit of happiness dicates that they remain single. I can see this as one big punishment for not being married, not having children, and who knows what else.

            I’d obviously comment in depth on this topic, if I had more information on what his “encourage the family” policy actually means.

            But I’d like to point out that authentic roles of government (which protect individual rights) such as the army, police and court system, actually benefit everyone in society – Not just benefit one group (eg. families) at the expense of another group (eg. single people).

            When you’re guided by individual rights, then you can know exactly what is wrong and right for government to do; you can know what policies to advocate and what policies to oppose.

            • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

              SMH, your principle has your head stuck up your ass and is disconnected from reality of the government we live in today. Sorry for the disrespect but you comment is just absurd.

              A Santorum administration isn’t going to put a GUN to your head and force you to have a family. You are not going to be punished if you don’t have a wife and children. You don’t have support them, you just support yourself, and if you can’t handle that by yourself, you should punish yourself. No one is stopping you to purse your happiness without a family. Santorum is talking about how government is encouraging families to be broken for welfare benefits that’s a problem. Rick has seen in America that the decay of broken families have been the decay of our society.

              “Rick Santorum is committed to celebrating the family by reviving our economy and creating jobs in America again with a smarter and simpler tax code. Santorum will roll back job-killing regulations, force the federal government to shrink and live within its means by passing a Balanced Budget Amendment and reinvigorate our domestic manufacturing and energy potential.” http://www.ricksantorum.com/made-america

              • KenInMontana

                Let’s avoid descending to that level shall we?

                • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Valdez/1806887704 Steven Valdez

                  Yea you’re right.

        • KenInMontana

          You seem to be making quite an intellectual leap from “encouraging” to “government knows best”. Santorum really does not expound on what he means by “encouraging”, so for myself I would have to withhold any judgement on that lacking any evidence of precisely what he means by encouragement. As far as the phrase “economic rights” goes, well one could easily quantify the rights to property and the pursuit of happiness as “economic rights”. Once again these are both slightly vague terms, and without further explanation from Santorum on how he is defining those terms is nothing more than simply jumping to conclusions. I have other concerns about Santorum, however at this time I am still researching some views he expressed and at this point I am not quite prepared to raise them until I have a bit more information.

          • Kordane

            Quote: “You seem to be making quite an intellectual leap from “encouraging” to “government knows best”

            It’s implied, because for government to “encourage” anything necessarily means that “government knows best”. If the view was held that “government doesn’t know best; that individuals know best how to run their own lives”, then there would be no justification for government to encourage any individual activity, since individuals would decide what activities they participate in themselves.

            Quote: “one could easily quantify the rights to property and the pursuit of happiness as “economic rights”

            Calling property rights and the pursuit of happiness “economic rights” suggests that there is no non-economic right to property and that there is no non-economic right to the pursuit of happiness. They’re called “individual rights” for a very good reason, since they apply to everyone and cannot be broken down any further. I think that Santorum does harm to the cause of individual rights by giving air to liberals to come in and argue “If there’s no economic basis for your right to this property, then you have no right to it!” or “If there’s no economic basis for your right to pursue your happiness by (some action), then you have no right to do it!”. Don’t tell me that liberals wouldn’t find some way to exploit it like that.

            • KenInMontana

              It’s implied, because for government to “encourage” anything necessarily means that “government knows best”.

              Actually it is not implied in the statement, it is you who is making that implication. Case in point, for years now the government has “encouraged” a balanced diet, ie the four food groups. But has really never gone as far as to tell you what you can or cannot consume or purchase, in the sense that they have not passed prohibitions on food items, this current administration has attempted to take steps in that direction, granted. But for the most part for years it has amounted to nothing more than suggestions, a few labeling requirements (which I have no issue with), an ad campaign, but I have yet to see the “food police” in supermarkets confiscating twinkies from shopping carts.

              Calling property rights and the pursuit of happiness “economic rights” suggests that there is no non-economic right to property and that there is no non-economic right to the pursuit of happiness. They’re called “individual rights” for a very good reason, since they apply to everyone and cannot be broken down any further.

              First off “property rights” are not actually addressed in the Declaration or the US Constitution, they are addressed in primarily civil laws at various levels. We do not have a “right” to property in the sense of that we are “entitled” to it, we do have the freedom to advance ourselves economically and acquire it, once acquired we have “rights” in what we do with it and on it, provided we comply with a myriad of federal, state and local regulations and codes. The subject of “Individual Rights” is a complex one at best, primarily due to the fact that it is full of generalities and there really exists no definitive list of these rights out side of a mention in the opening of the Declaration, “that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;…” (I see no mention of an “individual right to property”) and those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The use of the term “economic rights”, in my opinion, is a general term describing how those rights may be achieved, not a hard defining term, as for extrapolation, well I think it is quite obvious that anything may be extrapolated from anything. As I could posit that due to the fact that there is no list of rights beyond those mentioned in the aforementioned documents, those “perceived” rights are nonexistent. However I would not make such an argument, because I do not believe that to be the case as I could posit just the opposite by arguing that just because they are not listed, it does not preclude their existence. It makes for a good intellectual exercise “around the table” in the evening. What I would point out here is that by including the unmentioned “right to property” you are engaging in the same exercise of extrapolation you fear the liberals would. In a society of precedents, the exercise of claiming rights that are not specifically enumerated, listed, mentioned or established, leaves open the door to a multitude of claims of “rights” whether they be labeled individual, economic, collective, inherent, human or however we choose to label them (all of these are merely quantifiers and qualifiers and serve to limit the exercise of said rights). We draw our rights from many sources, from God himself to those documents we cherish, from philosophers and the nature of man’s intellect. In the end, I choose to call them simply “rights” and I see the necessity to temper their exercise with responsibility and respect. Nor would I choose to use “qualifiers” to limit them. At the same time I can let the use of descriptors slide in the attempt to explain a facet or nature of right, without “picking nits”.

  • c4pfan

    Scoop,

    Are you going to put up Santorum’s and Gingrich’s Sunday Morning news interviews today?

    Rick’s was on CBS and Newt on FOX.

  • Dan

    for those who need to know our history…our Christian History……

    http://www.wallbuilders.com/downloads/newsletter/H.Res.888.pdf

  • StNikao

    Several times in these two videos, Rick Santorum was complementary of Romney and sounded like he was positioning himself to be Romney’s running mate.

    Scary.

    Especially considering he is not interested in promoting Right to Work or dealing with the Big Bank/Money entities, currency and for sure Romney. who is in thick with the Bush family and other B.I.G. money B.I.G. politics people.

    • c4pfan

      I don’t think so. He was slamming Romney in speeches.

  • B. W. Wright

    Truly great interview! Santorum seemed to be coming from the heart and not just trying to please everyone. He does prove here that he does believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility. He sure gets my vote!!

    • WordsFailMe

      But I’m still looking for a guy who’ll go for the throat.

      • KenInMontana

        Sadly, the only one I have seen that is not afraid to “go for the throat” isn’t running and has resisted all attempts at being urged to do so.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mary-Fischer-Cheslock/100000420558247 Mary Fischer-Cheslock

    America is in need of a President and politicians who will give the USA back her freedoms … Abortion took the right to life, and since many of our rights have been limited or taken most recently our Right to Religious Freedom. Rick is on track on all these issues and getting our ability to live within our means by having a budget that will not exceed what we can pay for. JOBS are vital in this endeavor. Rick is right about the sanctity of family life kids need both parents. Single parents will need more tax payer assistance just as simple as that. GO RICK to the White HOUSE! Praying and fasting for you…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mary-Fischer-Cheslock/100000420558247 Mary Fischer-Cheslock

    Rick is 100% pro USA, pro family. Mitt is not pro family he is staunchly pro abortion in a 2002 video on YOUTUBE…