By The Right Scoop


Rush contends that Santorum is winning now because he is the last real conservative still standing and that if the establishment were right, Romney would be winning everything and the race would already be over.

To the question of whether Santorum has ‘broad appeal’, Rush reframes it to “Does conservatism, properly explained, cheerfully proclaimed, have broad appeal?” He says it does every time it’s tried, it’s just that it doesn’t get tried enough. But it is essential to paint the stark contrast to Obama’s policies and Santorum can do it:

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

Trending Now

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.

  • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

    Santorum in this election is the Conservatives “LAST STAND” Santorum is the continuation of the Tea Party 2010 revolt from the establishment. Without him, Romney will not excite the base and we will see 2008 all over again.

    • Anonymous

      I agree, Romeny does not excite the conservative base in any way. However…

      With 2008, we had ACORN – convicted of voter fraud in 15 battleground states, the New Black Panther’s performing voter intimidation, not to mention the black community intimidating any conservative votes, calls of racism, and general ballot stuffing… heavens, Al Franken’s ‘winning vote’ had more ballots recounted than registered voters – and it gave him a ‘win’.

      No offense, but we ARE going to see EXACTLY what we did in 2008, regardless of who the candidate is. The Dems, (and possibly republicans too), will stop at nothing to keep power.

      • Anonymous

        You make a good point. There are no guaratees and no depths that the hated demoncrats and progressives and unions won’t stoop.

        However, ACORN for the most part id defunct, disgraced, and dismantled. If the NBP try and pull the same crap as last time, Holder has already cashed those chips… frankly, violence will ensue this time. Legislation has been passed that will reduce voter fraud – specifically, voter picture ID’s.

        Everyone knows it’s a real issue this time around and we are ready to combat it. I hope and pray for the best.

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

          Acorn might be defunct, but it’s sprouting up in little seeds which are still being watered by our marxist in chief and the rest of the libs.

          • Anonymous

            Yes. They just give themselves a new name and address and keep growing. Voter fraud is still a very real industry in every major city.

            Do an internet search for Anita Moncrief. She’s the ex-Acorn whistleblower that knows exactly what the cheating machine consists of and it is well oiled. They have been building it for decades.

            The only thing that can save us is a focused voting public with strong, strong turnout. They can’t fudge landslide numbers.

          • Anonymous

            Obama is going to spend 60 million in North Carolina to try and win this battleground state. They are already planting seed here for Nov.

      • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

        Offense not taken, I was actually stating that the outcome of the Pres. race for 2012 will have the same outcome in 2008 if Romney is candidate.

        However, I do agree that we will have a very contentious election that we will probably ever see in our lifetime.

      • Anonymous

        Romney does not excite the conservative base because he is in no way a conservative.

        • Eric Simpson

          Yes, the base must be excited if we are to win. And it’s not that conservatives won’t vote for the wishy-washy candidate, it’s that they won’t donate $$$. And $ will be the key to beating O. I estimate Romney would raise $300 million. Not enough. Santorum will gain -huge- donations, a billion+ $, from everyday joes like you and me.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/QWLIOCNRWVH37MJZL4WB2E56WU Tim

      Rick Santorum’s “Real Concerns” About The Tea Party

    • Anonymous

      This is turely sad that we are down to calling Santorum the last best conservative remaining. If you look closely at his voting record…he is not conservative at all. Yes…to more conservative to Mitten’s…but thats about it. Santorum is more a pro-life statist than anything.

      Good grief…he voted for the bridge to no-where, to raise the debt ceiling five times, he even called himself “the king of pork”.

      If he is the nominee and beats Obama…we Americans will only continue to lose more slowly. He is anything but Tea Party…most of whom I know are supporting Paul.

      Crap…I hate it’s come down to these few sorry choices.

      • Anonymous

        Santorum is not the “ideal” Conservative. Maybe. But compared to Obama, he is a heck of a lot Conservative!

        • Anonymous

          Better than Obama? That’s pretty easy to do. Your standards are too low. RS cannot save the country, even with a compliant congress. He doesn’t get it. He gets lots of stuff, but not enough. I’ll vote for RS, maybe. He needs to convince me still.

          BS
          Don’t Tread On Me

      • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

        On balance, is he not against individual mandates? Was not Welfare reform positive? He has had many votes that he regrets. Are we going to allow our candidates room to admit error?

        He is the only one right now running a conservative campaign for what he is running on.

      • Anonymous

        Did he vote for the Bridge to No-Where, or was it buried in a bill and he didn’t know it was in there? Raised the debt ceiling 5 times? Well, that is true of just about every Congreeman.

        We aren’t going to like everything a candidate has done. We have to pick our battles.
        Santorum has seen the light on illegal immigration.

        Go to http://www.numbersusa.com to view the grades on the candidates.

        • Anonymous

          I see…let the excuses begin. I’m sure it was buried in a bill…but thats a good enough reason to not vote for the bill. Plus, I just believe deeply in my heart that anyone who has voted to raise the debt ceiling 5 times just does not get it and is unfit to lead us out of this financial hell hole we are in.

          If you just look at some of his votes in 2005 alone…a person of reason can only conclued he is a big government repubican. Santorum now wants us to believe he the real conservstive…I shall not drink this Lool-Aid.

          • Anonymous

            So who would you prefer? The senile one who blames America and defends Iran? The senile one says Islam is not a problem. Yeah, no thanks to RuPaul.

            • Anonymous

              I fear our finanicial stituation just as much as the threat to Western Civ by Islam. I do beleive Paul is naive about the threat of Islam…but, he will defend America and has said so. I also know Paul is the only one of four who will immediately attack our debt/fiscal problem. The others are just pretenders…status-quo repubicans…they will disappoint you greatly given the chance.

              Santorum is just another Baby Bush…a big spending statist. That’s all.

              • Anonymous

                Paul won’t defend us. He acts like we are the bad guys. He spouts the enemy’s propaganda. He won’t win and he needs to drop out so we don’t get Romney. I saw Paul say in one of the debates that he did not see himself getting rid of Obamacare. He said he did not see himself being president. He said this all about seeing how many delegates he can get!! Huh?? This is not a game!

                • shumok

                  Sigh. Ron Paul simply stated the fact that the motivations of the terrorists for the attacks is that they don’t like our foreign policy of intervention in their countries. This view is also supported by the CIA.

                  I guess people don’t want the truth. They want some kind of pseudo-patriotic mumbo-jumbo that America is incapable of doing wrong, or making mistakes, or in this case having foolish foreign policy that unnecessarily angers a bunch of radicals, but the world needs to love everything we do and ask for more…because darn it…were America…hooyaahh.

                  The total ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills of people that fall into the ‘he blames America’ camp, is so colossal that I almost have to think it’s just a bunch of political plants trying to denigrate Paul…..because no one could actually be stupid enough to not get what Paul is saying.

                • K-Bob

                  Speaking of stupid, it’s a truly stupid idea to make your first comments at a site be ones which insult and smear the vast majority of people who hang out here.

                  Doubling down to colorize a simple fact–specifically that the terrorists blame US policy (as the CIA reports)–as THE reason they have waged war with us is massively ignorant.

                  They wage war for a number of reasons; chief among them are the religious imperatives. Then follow all of the well-known reasons easily found by studying the matter, whether by using the CIA’s information, or any of a number of highly-regarded terrorism “watch” sites. The “US Foreign Policy” excuse isn’t even the main reason listed by Osama Bin Deadawhile’s stupid fatwas.

                  But you go ahead and assume we’re all stupid. That’s exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood wants from you.

                • shumok

                  I specifically said that you all couldn’t possibly be that stupid.

                • K-Bob

                  What you wrote is evident.

                • shumok

                  If the terrorists want to get us….I think the Mexican border will do just fine…in cooperation with drug lords empowered by illegal drug money enabled by the war on drugs. Won’t even need an early generation nuke from Iran (much too big)….just work something out with Pakistani military insiders or North Korea for a much smaller tactical nuke.

                  That will especially suck after we decided to pull all of our troops home because we can’t afford them anymore.

                • Anonymous

                  Please research the doctrine known as: TAQIYYA
                  Hint: It is basic islamic doctrine and it is considered a virtue in Islam.

                • shumok

                  Sigh. Ron Paul simply stated the fact that the motivations of the terrorists for the attacks is that they don’t like our foreign policy of intervention in their countries. This view is also supported by the CIA.

                  I guess people don’t want the truth. They want some kind of pseudo-patriotic mumbo-jumbo that America is incapable of doing wrong, or making mistakes, or in this case having foolish foreign policy that unnecessarily angers a bunch of radicals, but the world needs to love everything we do and ask for more…because darn it…were America…hooyaahh.

                  The total ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills of people that fall into the ‘he blames America’ camp, is so colossal that I almost have to think it’s just a bunch of political plants trying to denigrate Paul…..because no one could actually be stupid enough to not get what Paul is saying.

      • shawn S

        Ron Paul has nothing to do with the Tea Party.

        Hes a neo libertarian , not a conservative

        • Anonymous

          You are wrong my good man. Dr. Paul was Tea Party before the Tea Party. I have studied the voting records of all the candidates and NO ONE comes close to Paul in they voting record reguarding Liberty/Freedom, limited Constitutional government and sound fiscal spending. The others are pretenders.

          You say Paul is not conservative…that is only true if you are refering to conserving the status-quo. Which is what the others will do if elected.

          If I may ask…what are you conserving?

    • SemperLibertas

      Santorum is a “continuation of the Tea Party”? Well, if you consider favoring massive deficit spending (Santorum voted for those budgets in the 2000s), favoring bailouts of corporations (Santorum supported bailouts for Big Steel and airlines), and favoring expanding entitlements (Santorum voted for expansion of Medicare), then sure, Santorum is a Tea Party kinda guy.

  • Anonymous

    I guess now we know who Rush is supporting. UGH !

    • Anonymous

      The whole point is to support the truth, not some person or even his big ideas. I think he’s doing that here. Leave the left to their hero worship.

  • Anonymous

    Santorum IS the last real conservative standing, running as a conservative.

    Conservatives don’t put forward ‘new’ or ‘flashy’ ideas… they ARE tried and true, working ideals.

    Santorum is not a libertarian, and has his flaws… but he is the only Conservative running. I hope people hold him to the fire, and I hope that we thoroughly vet him so conservatism can be truly voted on in the next election.

    I’m still not sure the conservative base knows what they want. That much is more than obvious through the last few primaries and caucuses.

    • Anonymous

      All these frogs have warts… but perhaps Santorum is really a prince. :)

      • Anonymous

        We can hope. Conservatives really do need a good candidate and the base is obviously divided and dissatisfied with the current field… though this is the first time they are seriously looking at Santorum.

        At this point, I’d settle for a prince with a few warts… but I don’t want any frogs, even if they are wart-free.

    • Anonymous

      You keep asserting that Santorum is “conservative” but is he really? What in his record suggests that he is “conservative” to you?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6KRHXVK5ZCSWJ5GJQ5Z6GIJICA Dax

        Its a good thing this media wasnt available during the Reagan primary. You guys would destroy him.

        • Anonymous

          Are you suggesting Reagan was conservative?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6KRHXVK5ZCSWJ5GJQ5Z6GIJICA Dax

            Ha. You are proving my point. Im suggesting you wouldnt know what a conservative was if it wasnt for Reagan, yet youre the expert.

            • Anonymous

              Not claiming to be an expert. I know Reagan is widely regarded to have been a conservative, but why exactly? I think he was an influential and inspirational man…but does his record reflect that of a true conservative?

              • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6KRHXVK5ZCSWJ5GJQ5Z6GIJICA Dax

                Conservatism grows in proportion to liberalism. In his day he was truly conservative. His record, although great, has to be viewed with respect to what he was correcting and who he had to work with to pass legislation. Why don’t you turn on Mark Levin who worked with Reagan and maybe give him a call and ask him. He was there.

      • Anonymous

        I’ve answered this question about five times in other stories. I am not campaigning for Santorum, if you want to know, go to his site, check his record, and compare it to both Romney and Newt. Heck, Santorum has even clearly stated the differences between him and NewtRomney.

        You obviously aren’t looking for yourself, which means you aren’t going to listen to me or him. So we’ll leave it at, God bless you my friend.

        • Anonymous

          Actually, I am well aware of his record. I looked into it extensively, and it didn’t take long to confirm that Mr. Santorum, while personally quite socially conservative, has a record in Congress that can only be accurately described as statist. His support of the massive unfunded federal entitlement that is Medicare Part D alone should disqualify him as a conservative. He is as much a part of our deficit and debt crisis as Barack Obama.

    • shumok

      Oh yeah sure…he is a real conservative. Watch this video.

      • Anonymous

        Ugh.

        Yes, Paul. I’ve looked at Paul. I’ve also read Paul, studied Paul, and remembered what I studied. I am done looking. Thank you very much.

        No. Paul is not ‘conservative’, he’s libertarian to the point that he is borderline anarchist. He is not all for the constitution or the founding intent of this nation. I’m sorry, he isn’t. He is for the U.S. confederation, (The pre-constitution government,

        • shumok

          I disagree that he is not for the constitution. Even if he was a radical anarchist like you suggest….he is not going to eliminate all government overnight, but may at least move us a big step in the right direction.

          You say “Conservatives” are for small government but do you have any examples other than Paul who haven’t helped grow government? I am sick of Republican candidates saying they are for small government and yet they ‘always’ increase spending. Always.

          Until Obama, Democrats have had a better history of not increasing deficit spending than Republicans. At least in the last few decades. Republicans like to lower taxes but then they always increase spending and deficits.

          Strong defense? If you overspend on defense to the point where your economy can’t sustain it…then you will ultimately lose that defense when the economy fails. Look at Russia, and yet we will just keep on spending until it’s going to happen to us to…and then what?

          I also disagree on your characterization of Paul’s foreign policy. This should not be about pride…yes, we shouldn’t remove our troops just because the terrorists want us to BUT we also shouldn’t keep our troops overseas just because the terrorists want us to leave. The blowback problem is completely ignored by the new conservatives……why?

          Closing bases overseas might allow us to invest in more and more sophisticated nuclear carrier battlegroups and submarines. I am not sure this would hurt our ability to project power at all, but might help it. Maybe just not from a foot on the ground standpoint.

          Your statement about we ARE connected and ARE responsible for world peace? Why? The European Union has a bigger collective economy than we do…why can’t they police the middle east which is right next door to them? How is this conservative? Google George Washington and his farewell address about entangling alliances….I am sure you will find some hits.

          As to morality….what do you think a bigger mandate from God is: Feed the poor or defend the world? And yet, a lot of ‘conservatives’ don’t like liberals taking other people’s money for their own charitable causes, and yet these same so called ‘conservatives’ are more than happy to take other people’s money to ‘defend the world’. I am pro-life and believe we should protect people from hurting each other, but beyond that I don’t think the central government should protect people from bad morals/values.

          I also happen to be a Christian. I believe in the literal death and resurrection of Christ and that the Bible is the word of God. I also happened to serve in the active Army in a combat type position for 4 years…and was discharged honorably after my time was up. No big deal, but if it adds any credibility to what I say than cool. I know it is important to a lot of people.

          • bbitter

            I’ve really debated about even replying to you, since you took my post way out of proportion, and didn’t even address Paul’s stances in several of my criticisms, and then attacked my ideal of conservative to boot – it shows you aren’t willing to really consider any other side. Why waste time on each other then? I’ll try to keep myself brief – which means that I will not address some of your points. (I doubt we’d ‘convince’ each other anyway.)

            …First and foremost, please go stand in front of a mirror and repeat this phrase:
            “There’s nothing wrong with being libertarian, the founding fathers were. I’m a libertarian and I’m proud of that.”

            Just because I believe Paul is not “all for” the constitution, doesn’t mean he is all against it. The confederate US LED to the federal US and those motivations and intent were followed in the constitution’s crafting. The difference is that the Federal constitution has MORE federal government control and power. That does not make Paul an anti-constitutionalist in any sense of the ideal… but his push does go a bit further in reducing federal power than the constitution grants. I am not for that simply because …well… even the founders were forced to admit that the federal government needs a certain amount of power: the confederate constitution didn’t work.

            I salute you in Christ and have joy in all followers of the Savior. I never intended to imply that anyone who is not ‘conservative’ is not Christian, absolutely not. I just stated that ‘conservatives’ like hearing about and having faith be a part of policy decisions. With that, could we please not confuse Christ’s teachings for individuals with government mandates? Charity is up to the individual, and government protecting US interests is very different from a religious mandate. (I am NOT for foreign aid in general, and categorically against any aid to nations which we cannot work with or violate our ideals – that’s not ‘aid’, that’s ‘enabling’.)

            The US is a unique nation with unique situations and is in a position that no other nation with our traits has ever been in; no historical comparison can be effectively made as to the nation’s world politics, (military and economic policy, however, can). That being said, it is naive to assume that the rest of the world, which DOES have historical bearing, comparisons, and significance, will simply ‘leave us alone’ if we do the same to them. Sorry. That’s what WE would do… not them. The ‘blow-back’ is an excuse, not a cause. While it may be provocation, it is not the reason for their actions. Invoking George Washington really has no meaning because we already HAVE entangling alliances. His warnings were not heeded, and I mourn that. But the world is different now, we are a global power and have vital national interests abroad which effect national security, and we have to deal with our current situation.

            One thing is certain, with the intentions, declarations, and political situation in the middle east, currently removing US support and involvement there is a tacit acceptance of racial genocide. It is no secret that US support is the reason that Israel exists… Removing it and allowing Israel, the most stable, free, and humane nation in the middle east, is acceptance of it’s inevitable destruction.

            Are you alright with that?

            • shumok

              Talk about an overreaction. I apologize for not addressing your post exactly as you would like. It wasn’t all about you, it was also about my disagreement with other ‘conservatives’ in connection with points you brought up….and as to : “and didn’t even address Paul’s stances in several of my criticisms, and then attacked my ideal of conservative to boot”…..I really did answer some criticisms but I’ll try again :

              “he is borderline anarchist” -no he’s not, you elaborate and maybe I will
              “He is for the U.S. confederation” -no he’s not…see above
              “Paul’s foreign policy is essentially -no it’s not…it’s dictated by what keeps us safe
              dictated by other nations”
              “Paul would neuter the US ability to respond -no he wouldn’t neuter, would close
              around the world to threats through a
              complete closure of our overseas bases”

              (destroying our economy through reckless spending (military included) is what will prevent our ability to respond around the world to threats)

              “Removing the US influence from the globe is -less isolationist, and less naive
              an isolationist and naive understanding and
              foreign policy from where we currently stand”

              (The United States helped overthrow Iran’s democratically elected leader in 1953. The U.S. also gave Iran their first nuclear reactor)

              “but his push does go a bit further in reducing -could you be more specific?
              federal power than the constitution grants”

              The ‘blow-back’ is an excuse, not a cause. -why give thugs an excuse?
              While it may be provocation, it is not the reason
              for their actions.

              “Invoking George Washington really has no meaning because we already HAVE entangling alliances. His warnings were not heeded, and I mourn that. But the world is different now, we are a global power and have vital national interests abroad which effect national security, and we have to deal with our current situation.”

              -George Washington’s warnings are all the more relevant, so I disagree in the way in which we are dealing with our national interests…not that we have none

              “The US is a unique nation with unique situations and is in a position that no other nation with our traits has ever been in; no historical comparison can be effectively made as to the nation’s world politics, (military and economic policy, however, can). That being said, it is naive to assume that the rest of the world, which DOES have historical bearing, comparisons, and significance, will simply ‘leave us alone’ if we do the same to them. Sorry. That’s what WE would do… not them.”

              -WOW is all I can say to this. Sounds to me like you are essentially saying: “we have to interfere in other nations business, because we know if we don’t, they will interfere into our business”

              “It is no secret that US support is the reason that Israel exists… Removing it and abandoning Israel, the most stable, free, and humane nation in the middle east, is acceptance of its inevitable destruction.”

              WOW again. God’s support is the reason Israel exists and HE does not need the United States at all. We are making things worse in the middle east and are virtually guaranteeing that we will be in no position to help defend Israel if it came down to that.

              (Ron Paul was one of the few in Congress that voted against condemning the actions of Israel when they bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the eighties.)

              • bbitter

                I started my last post with… “- it shows you aren’t willing to really consider any other side. Why waste time on each other then?” And you continued to prove my point.

                “It wasn’t all about you, it was also about my disagreement with other ‘conservatives’ in connection with points you brought up”
                Yeah, you kinda just made it about me.

                I really don’t want to waste time. My job does take me away from things for fairly large chunks of time, which means that I don’t get much done at home for a week or so… but let me take a moment to try and explain myself a bit better.

                “-could you be more specific?”
                Case in point. I did. You missed it. Either due to your perspective or a disagreement on how the issue effects the United States.
                Here’s a question for you in return, is there any level of evidence that I could show you which would convince you? Honestly convince you?

                “God’s support is the reason Israel exists and HE does not need the United States at all.”
                Agreed, completely. But I’d rather be used by the Lord and working on his side than be trying to sit on the sidelines. I believe the Lord ‘spews’ anyone who is trying to sit on the fence. “But as for me and my house…”
                “We are making things worse in the middle east and are virtually guaranteeing that we will be in no position to help defend Israel if it came down to that.”
                Agreed. There are plenty of our actions in the middle east I wouldn’t mind stopping. So… what are you advocating? Should we pull out all our troops which are in strategic positions that would allow us to support Israel? – As Osama Bin Laden demanded? Or should we simply pull ALL troops from ALL our foreign bases back to the US, crippling our response ability in the entire world, – as Iran and Russia and China (and Paul) wants? (They’ll give us fair trade deals, fair diplomatic treatment if we do… right? What benefit do you think this will lead to?) What about our bases and support in the Pacific? What will the other democratic nations, which literally cannot support their own defense and rely on ours, do when China, or Russia, or Iran, or N. Korea come calling with their million+ man armies? But that’s ‘their problem’, right? I mean, no nation or people ever attacked a smaller, more vulnerable nation without provocation in world history… right?

                To what fate do you leave them standing alone? I’m not sure I can stop what is coming, but I am willing to stand with them wherever we can.

                This question ties to this assumption here: “Sounds to me like you are essentially saying: “we have to interfere in other nations business, because we know if we don’t, they will interfere into our business”” – yeah. Yes I am. History has proved that time after time after time. You acknowledged my side without giving it any consideration. I applaud you for actually trying.

                Do you believe that totalitarian regimes will simply ‘leave us alone’ if we ‘leave them alone?’ (With global economics and corporate holdings/resource needs, CAN we?) That’s what Paul’s foreign policy is based on; the assumption that other nations will not want to plunder/control/conquer our interests or assets here at home or abroad. Do you honestly believe that?

                Oh, and by the way – “why give thugs an excuse?”
                “Thugs”, as you call them, will find an excuse regardless of whether you do anything or not. We should act in our best interest without regard to who will use it as an ‘excuse’. (I do, however, see a difference between provocative cause, insult, and ‘excuse’, and I think they should be considered when making decisions. ‘Excuses’ are fights that are already coming, regardless of your actions.)

                • shumok

                  “I started my last post with… “- it shows you aren’t willing to really consider any other side. Why waste time on each other then?” And you continued to prove my point. ”

                  You sure you are not applying some kind of double standard here?

                  “”-could you be more specific?”
                  Case in point. I did. You missed it. Either due to your perspective or a disagreement on how the issue effects the United States.
                  Here’s a question for you in return, is there any level of evidence that I could show you which would convince you? Honestly convince you? ”

                  I looked…yeah not sure what I missed…maybe you could remind me…I think if the evidence were there, I could be convinced…..so far though it seems that just about every problem we have comes from previous interventionist policies.

                  -Iran had a democratically elected leader in 1953…we ousted him and set up a dictator
                  -we gave Iran their first nuclear reactor
                  -we armed and equipped the Taliban in Afghanistan
                  -we backed Saddam Hussein in the eighties
                  -with China…it looks to me like we have enabled their rise…by moving most manufacturing over there

                  I can see lots of bad results from interventionist/globalist policies but when I think about the good……I am having trouble. Maybe cheaper goods for a couple decades but just until our dollar loses value.

                  Seems to me that we have to break the cycle of fixing problems that we have created when we tried to fix problems. How…by quit trying to fix problems.

                  “So… what are you advocating? Should we pull out all our troops which are in strategic positions that would allow us to support Israel? – As Osama Bin Laden demanded? Or should we simply pull ALL troops from ALL our foreign bases back to the US, crippling our response ability in the entire world, – as Iran and Russia and China (and Paul) wants? (They’ll give us fair trade deals, fair diplomatic treatment if we do… right? What benefit do you think this will lead to?) What about our bases and support in the Pacific? What will the other democratic nations, which literally cannot support their own defense and rely on ours, do when China, or Russia, or Iran, or N. Korea come calling with their million+ man armies? ”

                  Yes I believe in pulling all troops from all bases around the world. I think it provides too little benefit to hold troops continuously in multiple places for all of these ‘hypothetical attacks’ that may happen. I feel it spreads us too thin and costs us money that could be better spent elsewhere…research and technology, space..etc. Doesn’t having thousands of troops in Europe and the middle east hurt our ability to respond if China attacks Japan? Doesn’t having troops in Japan and Korea lessen our ability to respond if Russia and China launches a massive attack in Europe? Isn’t the point moot though…since in your next post you admitted everything will come crashing down? Won’t that mean no troops anywhere?

                  “This question ties to this assumption here: “Sounds to me like you are essentially saying: “we have to interfere in other nations business, because we know if we don’t, they will interfere into our business”” – yeah. Yes I am. History has proved that time after time after time. You acknowledged my side without giving it any consideration. I applaud you for actually trying.”

                  Don’t you see the immorality of this position? Do unto others before they do unto you? How are they any worse than us if we hold this position? Where is the shining city on a hill? Our example to other nations should be…get us before we get them?

            • shumok

              I just have to ask…how do you just ignore the debt? 5 trillion to start under Bush and now 16 trillion before Obama’s 1st term is over. Triple the debt in just 12 years! How long do you think we can maintain that?

              All I hear from the hawks is we have to keep up the military spending no matter what. Well how long do you think we have before the what comes? It’s like you have this massive threat looming and we are like little kids asking mommy and daddy for more toys and no understanding that it costs money.

              Do you think that God is going to say…”well done good and faithful servants…you tried to defend Israel by intervening in the middle east to make it safer, …so I will forgive you all of your debt because your motives were good, despite the fact that I don’t need your help and you killed hundreds of thousands of innocent middle eastern children that might have turned to me one day?

              • bbitter

                Debt. Yes… the debt.

                Anyone who can count beans can tell you that what the Government is trying to do is inflate it’s way out of the debt… essentially, make the debt worth much less than it actually is through inflation – yes, that’s right, they are defacto-taxing their own debt.

                At the end of the day, I don’t believe we are going to get out of this one. The FED admitted to 16+ Trillion in ‘stimulus’ and ‘TARP’ spending… all that cash will at some point make it into our economy. Before 2008, the actual number of american dollars in the world were ~ 800 Billion – hard cash. I don’t know the digital number, but together they totaled somewhere around 2 trillion or so. You do the math, but a kind inflation we can expect is somewhere around 200-400%. (you know, a quarter is worth now what $100 will be worth when it is done. -Yes, I know my math is imperfect.) I would not be surprised if the true total, to date, of how much the FED has pumped into society is closer to 28+ trillion, and that includes Obama spending.

                You think a President is going to fix that? You think they can? I don’t. Because I don’t believe they can, I am more interested in a candidate who is in favor of social and governmental standards which will help lead a nation to civility when this all crashes – as I believe it will. That does mean faith, and frankly, Paul has not shown the balls to stand on faith in the political realm. There is a place for Ron Paul, but this is not it, neither is it the time IMO.

                “Do you think that God is going to say…”well done good and faithful servants…you tried to defend Israel by intervening in the middle east to make it safer, …so I will forgive you all of your debt because…”

                No need to be snarky. Of course God isn’t going to commend us on spending more than we had, nor will He insulate us from our choices; I fully believe we will, as a nation, pay for that – and we should. I just don’t believe it will be in any dollar amount.
                As for trying to help Israel… I don’t think the Lord cares about dollar amounts, He owns everything; everything is His. I think we agree on this. However, I also don’t think the Lord would have us abandon the Jews, Israel, God’s chosen people, to their enemies if we can still do anything.

                And, btw, I refuse your premise that everything we do in the middle east is done in an effort to help Israel. There are plenty of things we can change. Absolutely.

                As much as there are ‘no sacred cows’ when it comes to spending cuts, Defense is the one place we should not be afraid to maintain a sane amount of spending in. (‘Sane’ does not mean we keep it at the current level – it can take cuts too.) But it is insane that we are talking about defense spending, when entitlement spending in the Federal budget is more than the entire rest of the budget combined. We could eliminate all spending except entitlement spending and we’d still be running a deficit. Entitlements…

                How about we start cutting there?

                I don’t think we disagree on that.

                • shumok

                  “You think a President is going to fix that? You think they can? I don’t. Because I don’t believe they can, I am more interested in a candidate who is in favor of social and governmental standards which will help lead a nation to civility when this all crashes – as I believe it will. That does mean faith, and frankly, Paul has not shown the balls to stand on faith in the political realm. There is a place for Ron Paul, but this is not it, neither is it the time IMO.”

                  OK. So what do have…5 years, 10 years? Then what happens to the troop presence overseas? Doesn’t this undercut everything you have been saying about keeping troops deployed all over the world? I want us to be able to project power when we need to….not keep it projected it all over the world until we crash in a few years and can’t defend anything.

                  Anyways, I’m not even that pessimistic that it’s all over for sure. I think if we get the right guy in now or maybe 2016 at the latest…we may have a chance.

                  As to faith, I think you know them by their fruits. I think Paul has acted faithfully, especially when you consider he has frequently been standing alone against the herd. I think his actions reflect faith. I like how the Bible talks about praying where people can’t see, rather than so everyone can see.

                  I do agree we need to cut entitlements.

  • B. W. Wright

    Rush knows his stuff and I agree with him. Three states have gotten it right! All this stuff being said about Santorum is not exactly true. The People can decide who is “electible” by listening to candidates and making their own determination. Santorum needs to be listened to carefully because he carries the Conservative message. He talks TO the People, not AT them. He has admitted and apologized for his mistakes. How can you get any better than that?

    • http://punditpawn.wordpress.com PunditPawn

      Unfortunately, Washington doesn’t play by the rules or use the high road. While Santorum might win a values contest, we need someone who can get results. Only Newt provides the proper balance of leadership and swamp navigation skills to get things done, which he has. Santorum talks a good game, but where is it?

      • Anonymous

        Newt is indeed qualified to be the nominee. However, I agree more with B.W. and Support Santorum.

        Rick also has game and skills. His swamp was Penn and he’s done alright overall (he’s far from perfect) – plus he’s been involved with some good initiatives in Washington. I think he’s our best candidate if for no other reason than he contrasts very well with Maobama. Newt remains a close number 2 in my book.

        • http://punditpawn.wordpress.com PunditPawn

          Well, I’ll support Santorum if I have to, but I would prefer to see these candidates all go past April and see where they are at with a bunch of States behind us.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, me too. :)

    • MD_Archer

      How is voting for No Child Left Behind, earmarks, and the Prescription Drug Bill conservative? If Santorum had any clue, he would have tried to cut spending while he was in office instead of contributing to the problem. Santorum is just another DC insider who will keep on spending. There’s only one candidate that is serious about a return to the Constitution, cutting spending, and reining in the mammoth, out of control federal government. Unfortunately, guys like Rush and Sean have dismissed this candidate.

  • http://punditpawn.wordpress.com PunditPawn

    And yet the media, politicians, pundits and others unloaded a beltway holy war onto Gingrich for some reason. That surely means they were deathly afraid of Santorum, right?

    Anyone think Santorum’s CPAC speech will be better than Newt’s? Anyone think Coulter will lay off Newt any time soon? Anyone think the media will layoff Newt any time soon? Anyone think Santorum can out-debate Obama vs. Gingrich?

    Who is the electable one, again?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000152902441 Jeremy Volkens

      “Anyone think Santorum’s CPAC speech will be better than Newt’s?”
      Why not? Santorum (like Newt) is good speaker who articulates conservatism very well. You probably won’t hear any federally funded space colonization pipe dreams in a time of necessary spending contraction from Rick though.

      “Anyone think Coulter will lay off Newt any time soon?”
      Who cares what Ann Coulter thinks about anything these days. She’s soiled her reputation with her hypocritical Romney/Christie fellating.

      “Anyone think the media will layoff Newt any time soon?”
      They will target all of them and will focus on whoever the perceived frontrunner is. It is what it is.

      “Anyone think Santorum can out-debate Obama vs. Gingrich?”
      Yes, Santorum can out-debate Obama… WITH EASE.

      “Who is the electable one, again?”
      Rick Santorum

      • Anonymous

        Couldn’t have said it better. Excellent response!

      • Anonymous

        I’m a Newt supporter, but I certainly could get behind Santorum. My big problem is that Santorum does not understand the Left. Gingrich does and has a plan to remove them come January. Santorum talks a mildly OK game about Obama’s radicalism, but Newt knows it inside out. I have not confidence that Rick understands it much less can articulate it. Why is understanding the Left important? Because hard Leftist Cultural Marxist ideology underpins Obama and America’s major institutions where social policy most counts. It’s the overwhelming default political philosophy of the elite and chattering classes.

        The great opportunity for someone conversant is to educate Americans on the philosophical winds blowing through. It’s necessary to know the enemy. Santorum has not demonstrated that he knows the enemy. Newt has. While Santorum can identify at least one enemy (Iran), he has still yet to identify the Islamic underpinnings of that enemy. Newt has. And Newt is targeting the Marxist enemy within as well. Santorum hasn’t.

        • Anonymous

          Las:
          Santorum has represented a blue liberal state for 12 years, and Dems in Pittsburgh for 6 years. In 06, many Soros fronts “popped up” in PA to defeat him. He is very well versed in the Leftist way of things. He’s been attacked for awhile now, and if you listen to how he addresses his critics (in these various interviews RS has posted), he knows whats coming at him.

          • Anonymous

            Philly… I have not seen him address these issues, certainly not with the understanding and articulation of Newt. You see Newt has expressed on several occasions that the rot is so deep that it will take a few generations to remove it. So Newt gets it. I may have missed some from Scoop on Santorum expressing the same things. If you know of some, please send them my way… because I would certainly love to comfort myself that he gets it and has a plan to deal with it.

        • Anonymous

          You’re right. Newt is the best at definitional philosophy. But Santorum does speak about the current threat to liberty. And he makes the point across an emotional, if solemn, delivery.

          • cabensg

            Yeh he finally figured it out after 3 or 4 debates and listening to Newt’s speeches. Sorry but this guy doesn’t have any ideas or plans that don’t come from someone else.

            Just like Romney he’s being pushed to the right but that wasn’t his starting place.

      • http://twitter.com/politiJim PolitiJim

        Wow. I missed all those standing ovations Santorum got in the debates so far. All I saw was a petulant opportunist – who distorted other’s candidates records and who won…. hmmm. ZERO debates. He has good arguments and forcefulness on foreign policy.

        But I don’t know ANYONE who thinks he inspires them. Especially independents who will only know him (for the first time) through the MSM eyes and $1 Billion of negative ads.

        But keep your faith in a personality! I’m sure that is a great way to choose someone who will have to recruit manage and run the largest influencing government in the free world.

        I think he ran a law firm once. he’s got that going for him.

        • K-Bob

          Confirmation bias and a claim that people are supporting a “personality.” Pretty good formula for argument-by-irritation.

    • Anonymous

      Both.

    • Anonymous

      I actually do think Santorum gives much better speeches than Newt. Just do a comparison yourself on the post-vote speeches from each of the primary states. Santorum has regularly out-shined Newt. Different strokes…I guess.

    • cabensg

      The only way Santorum can come up with a good speech is just like he’s done all along channel Newt.

  • Anonymous

    Pass me some of that conservatism and freedom, please.
    The rest of you can share some CAKE.

  • Anonymous

    Sounds like an endorsement to me. Rush is right and he’s supporting the right horse.

    Malkin, Levin, Beck, Limbaugh, Evangelicals… they all support Rick.

    I’m also a fan of Newt… but to me, Santorum remains the best overall choice.

    • Anonymous

      He is a BIG GUBMENT SOCIAL CON
      http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Hey-Big-Spender-A-Look-at-Santorum-s-Voting-Record
      Newt hasnt done anything different in the past 4 weeks for Rush to say HEYYYYYYYYY, hes no longer a conservative ! Hate to say it, but RUSH is PLAYING GUTLESS frontrunner in this situation..

      • Anonymous

        You seem angry by what he said. Rush made a great point in this… Santorum is running on values and conservative principles. Not on money. Not on establishment endorsements. But on shear message and guts and values. And for what it’s worth, Newt would be a fine candidate for the GOP also (imo). But Rick is a stark contrast against Maobama – that is imperitive in this upcoming election.

        I’m guilty of it too, but why must we all fling our poo at our heroes if they don’t support “our guy”? I think that is the thing that is really killing conservatives. Rush is backing the frontrunner… Levin likes Santorum so I can’t listen to him anymore… Beck loves Romney (not true)…

        We must all back whomever the nominee is so we can kick BO’s sorry butt out of office. And of course, we have to elect Tea Party conservatives to the Senate, House, Judiciary and state legislations. Then whoever wins, America will have a chance.

        • Anonymous

          Not angry at him backing Santorum-the timing is oh so convenient… Santorum has been running the same message since day 1.. But, all of a sudden–Rush is in !
          AND Santorum aint tellin the truth… Like I said
          Until 10 am this morning I liked Santorum as a candidate. But, it didnt take a lot of homework time to realize that this guy is kinda “OUT THERE’.. Hes constantly pro-union, against right to work. voted to fund humpteen gov. run spending bills..

          oh yeah, hes talking a good game, SO IS NEWT. Wait til Romneys oppos get him !
          Hes going to lambasted… This guy spent more government tax payer funded money than anyone in congress… Just sayin… If it only takes talking a good game, and being so sanctamonious about it, but not walking the walking> well, then he should be a Democrat, like Romney

          • Anonymous

            Well, as I’ve said, all these frogs have warts.

            One of my top 3 hot buttons for this election is dealing with the damned unions and making ALL states right-to-work. In some of the earlier debates (two that I can remember specifically), Rick proposed just that – a national right-to-work policy.

            I also hate big government and side more with Ron Paul on agencies to cut and how to deal with the Fed. I don’t think I can defend Rick on some of his history… but what I’ve seen on his website and what I’ve heard him say have allayed those fears somewhat for me. Just last night he was talking about getting back to constitutional governing… so, I’m hoping he has seen the light and believes in what he’s selling.

            None of these guys is perfect – I originally supported Bachman… now Rick’s my guy and Newt is a close 2nd.

    • Anonymous

      Back before he lost his last senate race, I was appreciative of Santorum. Republicans under GWB did grow government (as did everybody else for a couple of generations), but he was a real fighter.

      This exchange with Barbara ‘you-can-call-me-senator’ Boxer on the senate floor regarding the partial birth abortion ban bill (of which Rick was the chief sponsor) is absolutely classic.

      http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL1199/boxsan.html

      Santorum: So you would accept the fact that once the baby is separated from the mother, that baby cannot be killed?
      …..

      Boxer: And what defines “separation”? Define “separation.” You answer that question. You define it.

      Santorum: Well, let’s define that. Okay, let’s say the baby is completely separated. In other words, no part of the baby is inside of the mother.
      …..

      Santorum: Well, I don’t know if it’s necessarily in its mother’s arms. Let’s say in the obstetrician’s hands.

      Boxer: I had two babies, and within seconds of their birth – –

      Santorum: We’ve had six.

      Boxer: Well, you didn’t have any.

      Santorum: My wife and I had babies together. That’s the way we do things in our family.

      Boxer: Your wife gave birth. I gave birth. I can tell you, I know when the baby was born.

      Santorum: Good! All I am asking you is, once the baby leaves the mother’s birth canal and is through the vaginal orifice and is in the hands of the obstetrician, you would agree that you cannot abort, kill the baby?

      Boxer: I would say when the baby is born, the baby is born, and would then have every right of every other human being living in this country. And I don’t know why this would even be a question, to be honest with you.

      Santorum: Because we are talking about a situation here where the baby is almost born. So I ask the question of the senator from California, if the baby was born except for the baby’s foot, if the baby’s foot was inside the mother but the rest of the baby was outside, could that baby be killed?

      Boxer: The baby is born when the baby is born. That is the answer to the question.

      Santorum: I am asking for you to define for me what that is.
      …..

      Santorum: What we are talking about here with partial birth, as the senator from California knows, is a baby is in the process of being born – –

      Boxer: “The process of being born.” This is why this conversation makes no sense, because to me it is obvious when a baby is born. To you it isn’t obvious.

      Santorum: Maybe you can make it obvious to me. So what you are suggesting is if the baby’s foot is still inside of the mother, that baby can then still be killed.
      …..

      Santorum: But, again, what you are suggesting is if the baby’s toe is inside the mother, you can, in fact, kill that baby.

      Boxer: Absolutely not.

      Santorum: OK. So if the baby’s toe is in, you can’t kill the baby. How about if the baby’s foot is in?

      Boxer: You are the one who is making these statements.

      Santorum: We are trying to draw a line here.

      Boxer: I am not answering these questions! I am not answering these questions.

      • Anonymous

        Awesome

      • Anonymous

        Great post. I have a lot of contempt for Barabara Boxer… funny because now she’s a prominant and vocal supporter of this new law forcing religious entities to support contraception and abortion…

        She’s a horrible human being.

        Go Rick!

    • Anonymous

      I think Rush will have a hard time explaining away Santorum’s defense of the Unions, considering Walker is in the fight of his political life right now dealing with the same thing. Santorum had a great night and he is a stalwart social conservative, but he is not perfect and has had many questionable things he has to answer for too. Don’t forget, when things were not testy between Newt and Rick, Rick said so many complimentary things about Newt, more or less calling him his mentor. That says to me, Newt is the one that can lead the best, and Santorum could be his right-hand guy or have another important role in the admin. Having said that, if it is between Sanke Romney and Santy…he has whatever support I can give him..since I can’t vote!

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000152902441 Jeremy Volkens

        “I think Rush will have a hard time explaining away Santorum’s defense of the Unions, considering Walker is in the fight of his political life right now dealing with the same thing.”

        Why? Santorum was doing his job as a representative of the people and state of Pennsylvania who happen to be very much pro-union. If he were to go against the will of his constituents he would no longer be a ‘representative’. Sound more to me like a guy who understands the Constitution and the proper role of Congress.

        “Santorum had a great night and he is a stalwart social conservative, but he is not perfect and has had many questionable things he has to answer for too.”

        Sure, nobody is perfect. But one has to lay out all of the positives and negatives of the remaining four candidates and assess not only quantity, but more importantly how important each one is and weigh them against one another. It appears to me that using that metric Santorum comes out on top.

        “Don’t forget, when things were not testy between Newt and Rick, Rick said so many complimentary things about Newt, more or less calling him his mentor. That says to me, Newt is the one that can lead the best, and Santorum could be his right-hand guy or have another important role in the admin.”

        Interesting logic. Being a mentor does not equate to being superior. Students often surpass their teacher.

        • Anonymous

          Walker went against the unions..and it was not poular, but he did what was right. unions suck the life out of States..so I am not buying it. I have looked at both Newt and Santorum, and I stand by what I said..he will have a lot to answer for on some of his positions. I like Newt’s economical positions better, I like his big ideas, and his kick-ass way of saying things. Does that mean I don’t think Santorum is a great conservative, no I do, I just prefer Newt. That is my opinion, you have yours..let’s leave it at that shall we?

          • http://twitter.com/JTVolkens Jeremy Volkens

            Walker is governor, Santorum was a Senator. Big difference. One is essentially a CEO, the other is a representative.

            • Anonymous

              Point taken, but I know Romney will use it and spin it and it won’t be good. Some of the stuff he spun on Newt had good explantions too, but once you put out the bad, and you don’t have the money to deflect it..it stays with the average voter. Check out how Romney does this by looking at some recent articles Byron York has written on how Romney lied about Newt.

  • Anonymous

    You make a good point. There are no guaratees and no depths that the hated demoncrats and progressives and unions won’t stoop.

    However, ACORN for the most part id defunct, disgraced, and dismantled. If the NBP try and pull the same crap as last time, Holder has already cashed those chips… frankly, violence will ensue this time. Legislation has been passed that will reduce voter fraud – specifically, voter picture ID’s.

    Everyone knows it’s a real issue this time around and we are ready to combat it. I hope and pray for the best.

    • Anonymous

      Santorum is an intrusive Big Government social COn. He constantly voted pro-Union. voted against right to work, endorsed Arlen Spector and said He loved earmarks and WAS no longer going to be a deficit hawk..
      Its amazing… I liked this guys positions based on his stump, but after researching this guy, he seems to be somewhat sanctimonious… He might BE A PHONY. NOT SURE YET

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/QWLIOCNRWVH37MJZL4WB2E56WU Tim

        You are right.

        Santorum on Deficit, 2003

        Rick Santorum On Small Government

      • Anonymous

        You should really take a more open minded approach. same dribble on all your posts with no substance.

      • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

        Really, it took you two hours to be convinced of such when all these “concerns” come to the forefront? I have yet to run into a Santorum support who has blinders on not knowing what you have raised.

        However, I also know that this “baggage” that seems to trip you up has been answered by Santorum. You may not like his explanations, but he has stood firm on his beliefs and why he believes the way he does. He is no Romney phony.

        He has answered the questions of why he supported Spector, RTW, and support for proper usage of earmarks, so if you have nothing new, then you are regurgitating these things over and over again. If his answers do not convince you, there is not much more that can be done.

        • Anonymous

          He has addressed his past ‘sins’ like Newt has and they both should be given another chance, as they both have said they were wrong in their individual cases. Santorum is not perfect and neither is Newt.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6KRHXVK5ZCSWJ5GJQ5Z6GIJICA Dax

    I think it’s safe to assume who Rush and I will vote for.

    • Anonymous

      Dont let Rush do your homework for you..

      • Anonymous

        don’t let him do your homework, but he’s a decent tutor! :)

      • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

        It would seem that you do need him to do it for you….your homework seems to be lacking

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6KRHXVK5ZCSWJ5GJQ5Z6GIJICA Dax

        FYI Ive been hoping Santorum would take hold for quiet some time. Im just glad Rush is being a little more forward about him.

  • Anonymous

    Ouch!

    In the interview, Santorum calls Romney a “true conservative” and says he “is someone we can trust.”

    http://tinyurl.com/82f7lk3

    • Anonymous

      By the time Romneys oppo gets through with him, it will be Newts turn again.
      as I said, I liked Santorum, just did 2 hours of research and Santorum aint who portrays

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

      if you compare him to McCain he was, lesser of two evils lesser of two evils remember to choose the lesser of two evils……

      • Anonymous

        The interview did a little more than say Romney was the lesser of evils. If Santorum believed Romney was a true conservative back then, does he think Romney has gone left since then?

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

          Yeah because Romney supported TARP

  • Anonymous

    Honestly Santorum will not energize the base once they take a look at what his past policies (authored and supported) were. This guy is just as fiscally liberal as Romney and Obama. The only thing conservative about Santorum is he is Pro Family. Before you consider him, do some digging and take a look at his voting records and authored policies, it’s shockingly unconservative.

    • Anonymous

      You are CORRECT/ and it wont take long. TOOK me 2 hours..
      And RICK has a tendency to throw little temper tantrums when he gets anxious..
      He is easy to like right now.. Like I said.. He smells like the rose right now, but when you start digging, you can smell the compost rapidly

      • Anonymous

        2 hours? And you dare to warn others about doing their homework? puh-leez

        • Anonymous

          Oh, I get you now.. Hey, once concrete is dry, its dry.. If it takes 30 minutes or 5 days.. UHHHHHHHHH, You gather facts, check them out, see if they corroborate and wala.. You gather info, it takes time to gather info..If it took 3 minutes to gather the info, its still more than you knew 3 minutes prior.. So,let me try again>>In 2 hours, I gathered enough concrete information on his ACTUAL voTing records, ACTUAL statements and comments to deem that he aint who he is cracked up to be.
          So, I know 2 hours more about him than you do. DIDNT take long and 10 hours from now, those facts wont change ! The only reason people dont do their own homework is because they dont want to find anything wrong with their candidate,

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6KRHXVK5ZCSWJ5GJQ5Z6GIJICA Dax

            Defensive are you?

          • Anonymous

            You can’t even get a sliver of context in 2 hours my friend. That was my point. I’m not attacking you…just reminding you that you should eat your own dog food and do your own homework like you admonish everyone else to do.

      • Anonymous

        Thank-you for saying that, I have been reminding people here who are so thrilled with him right now, that they think he can’t and hasn’t done anything wrong as a conservative. He has, and he is no better than Newt in a lot of ways for some of his positions(they differ, but still alarming) like the Union thing and pork-barrel spending..we have to be happy ‘enough’ with what we get instead of pinning all of our hopes on a clean and pure conservative…which doesn’t exsist.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6KRHXVK5ZCSWJ5GJQ5Z6GIJICA Dax

        We can do that with anyone jostvandyke. I would submit that Santorum has less baggage than the others. Relax and stop being the anti Santorum. Its fine if you dont support him.

    • cabensg

      Yeh! but he just won big. What’s not to like. As president he’ll do what?

      The only reason Rush is supporting Santorum is because he hates Gingrich, it’s been apparent from the start and nothings changed.

      I do not now nor will I ever depend on a radio host, no matter how well informed, to form or influence my decisions. I’ll do my own research, gather different opinions and facts and decide.

      I’m not looking at today I’m looking at what I expect from a nominee against Obama and after their elected. Santorum ain’t it. Gingrich is.

  • Anonymous

    Rush is almost always right because he agrees with me 99.7% of the time.

    • Anonymous

      A person’s intelligence is judged by how much they agree with you.

    • Anonymous

      I’m glad you brought this topic up…
      Rush’s accuracy points are not weighted!!

      For example, when Gennifer Flowers hit the tabloids during the 1992 Presidential campaign, Rush said very enthusiastically on his radio program… “Stick a fork in him. Bill Clinton is DONE!” (Paraphrased but I know he used the fork reference.)

      Rush was not only wrong, he was wrong BIG TIME! Eight (8) long years of wrong, btw.

      Rush also stated on his radio program a month or so before Desert Storm, that we WOULD NOT go to war or invade Kuwait. Wrong again and wrong, BIG TIME!

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6KRHXVK5ZCSWJ5GJQ5Z6GIJICA Dax

        Wow great job there secondadamrules. Clinton was on a path of extreme progressivism and once he lost some popularity, for many reasons, he moved to the center. It was the only reason he was re-elected. If your gonna bash Rush then go to media matters. This is not the place for your jealousy and ignorance and might I say trolling.

        • Anonymous

          I’m not jealous and I’m not ignorant. I’ve listened to Rush since September ’88, subscribed to his newsletter for a year, attended a Rush to Excellence Tour date in Jacksonville, Florida, January 1990, bought 2 of his books and have drank one bottle of his Two If By Tea.

          I love Rush, but I don’t owe my understanding of Conservatism or Free Market Economy to Rush or Levin or Hannity even though I have learned from them.

          I made a very VALID point that you obviously could not debate and the reason you resort to name calling (jealous & ignorant) and isolationism ie. “You don’t belong here. You need to leave!”

          In my opinion you have violated The Right Scoop Commenting Rules, but that doesn’t mean a whole lot since I don’t pay the bills:

          “Any comments that fall within the following categories will most likely be deleted:

          1. Abusive, Ad Hominem, Overly Mean-Spirited.

          Attack arguments and ideas, not people. … Ad hominem arguments (in which one attacks a speaker to try and disqualify an argument’s validity) are not appreciated.”

  • http://black-avenger-1.livejournal.com/profile VirusX

    I’m really disturbed by this enthusiasm gap.

    Obots support Obama, blindly. He can do no wrong, and to them, wrong is right.

    With this crop of Republican candidates, we’re seriously lacking. They critically fall short of being the “best and brightest” as far as Conservative luminaries are concerned. I liked Cain, but he’s gone, and I’m not impressed with the rest. A potted plant that has virtually no ability to get me excited, two guys utterly lacking in character and notorious liars, and a the KKK’s candidate of choice. You don’t generate excitement through a VP pick, either. VP is a useless position; you’re nothing but a fallback when the president’s getting a tooth pulled, or killed. Until then, you’re a bench warmer, living in a Navy base, where the clock is more valuable than you are, and more people want to know what it has to say. Back when FRED! Thompson failed out, the GOP lost me, and they’re been pushing me further and further away, ever since, toward another political party. I’m looking at another John McCain in Gingrich, WILLARD and Santorum. [If Rumpelstiltskin wins, I'm either not voting, or voting for Obama, plain and simple. I will not hand the presidency to the Ku Klux Klan/Stomfront/Nazi Party candiate.] My support for him was the most bloodless I can remember. I’m sick of candidate that I have to support, just because they’re the last ones standing. O-bots are supporting Obama, because they genuinely WANT him back in office. I can’t say that about ANY of these candidates. I, really, don’t want ANY of them in office. They range from flat out piss-poor to downright lame.

    I’m sick of having to support candidates, because they’re the lesser of the evils.

    • Anonymous

      Exactly.

    • Anonymous

      I wouldn’t look at caucus numbers in an individual state primary a thermometer on actual turnout capability. They are organized far differently than a general election…not wide open.

      • http://black-avenger-1.livejournal.com/profile VirusX

        I’m not talking about caucuses. I thought I was very plain. I am flat-out not impressed by this current crop of Republicans claiming they should be president, just as I wasn’t impressed by that last, after a point. The last election was the worst I’d ever experienced; this one has surpassed that in the bottom falling out of it. Since you’re saying I’m talking about something I’m not, I’ll be DIRECT: I do not like Santorum, I do not like Gingrich, I do not like WILLARD, and I personally hate and detest Rumpelstiltskin. I don’t think ANY of them would be good presidents, and they are not the “best & brightest” of anything. I don’t care who wins what caucus; I don’t like ANY of them. These have been the worst elections I can remember, and the GOP has become something I’m really not liking, anymore. This is why, this year, the decision has to be made as to whether I stay with, or leave, the GOP.

        • Anonymous

          I’m sure the Dems are recruiting.

          I guess my point is that you won’t find a purist out there. There’s garbage on all of them, including Reagan at the time.

          • http://black-avenger-1.livejournal.com/profile VirusX

            Strawman. I never said anything about “perfection”, and, quite frankly, Reagan walked the talk. None of these guys ever have. Furthermore, maybe if you’d’ve used your brain, you would’ve ASKED me what other political party I was referring to, as opposed to making yourself look like an ass, and ASSUME I was talking about going to the DNC. I think they’d have more use for you, than for me, quite frankly.

            • K-Bob

              VX, I agree with a lot of your comments, but I gotta say it’s time to stop responding to everyone as though they just jumped on your toes. I know you didn’t “start it” but you can respond without taking it to eleven.

              When we had a smaller group here, it didn’t matter as much, but now with more people coming here, we’re trying to keep it civil. Since you’re one of the “regulars,” Scoop has let a lot of your more intense rhetoric slide, while flat out banning new people for the same sorts of infraction. Time to dial it down.

              And that goes for everyone.

            • Anonymous

              We are talking past each other. My apologies for engaging you in the first place. Carry on.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6KRHXVK5ZCSWJ5GJQ5Z6GIJICA Dax

      Its so funny and sad at the same time how we do more to hurt our own party than the democrats. As soon as there is a front runner we, the conservatives, start bashing them and destroying them. Disagree with the candidates, Pick the candidate who who dislike the least, hope he wins, and support whoever the nominees is. Or we can be known as the stubborn generation who, because of our own selfishness ,perfectionism and unrighteous judgement, help Obama get re-elected and thus destroy our country and help bring about armageddon.

    • Anonymous

      I agree that Newt and Rick are not my first choice. But they are all we have to beat Obama and that is priority number one! What will really tick me off is if Romney wins the nomination becuase then I will have to vote for Mitt. But whatever you do, DO NOT vote for Obama!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000152902441 Jeremy Volkens

    So is the attack by Romney/Paul supporters on Santorum seriously going to be accusations of him not really being a conservative? Seriously??? From supporters of a liberal RINO and a libertarian??? Good luck with that one…

    • Anonymous

      What is your definition of conservative?

    • Anonymous

      Santorum is as far away from a fiscal conservativ as there is.. Big SocialCON, but, man his fiscal house SUCKS

  • Anonymous

    It is a good feeling to know that conservatism is alive and kicking.
    Congratulations to Sen. Santorum.

  • Anonymous

    Well then, you must not like Newt either, b/c he lobbied for everything you just listed.

    He even told the Republican Conference, that they don’t deserve to govern if they don’t pass Medicare Part D.

    • Anonymous

      I think you should read MD_Archer’s post again and you will realize who he/she likes.

      • Anonymous

        Sorry, I don’t read minds.

        • Anonymous

          :)

    • cabensg

      Do you even know what Medicare Part D was about? Go look it up.

      • Anonymous

        No, I have absolutely no clue what Medicare Part D is … that’s why I’m posting about it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kingofthehokies Jim Land

    You’ve got to be kidding. Santorum is a conservative in the same way that GWB was conservative.

    • Anonymous

      He must be very “compassionate” then.

  • Anonymous

    This is exciting. Santorum was my favorite from the beginning but I didn’t think he would make it.

    I feel like I know him better than the others from his time hosting Bill Bennett’s radio show on Fridays.

  • http://twitter.com/PuritanD71 PuritanD71

    Yet, RP is just in love with earmarks as Santorum so what is your point.

  • Anonymous

    Rush blows like the wind. The field is weak and we have to deal with the fact that the nominee has to be ABR. At this point, Santorum will not be able to gain enough delegates to be nominate and neither will Newt. Perhaps this is why Palin has continued to say that she wants the race to go on so Romney cannot gain the majority but rather a plurality. The wild card are the Paul supporters who are very loyal to his candidacy. Does he endorse Romney (will his supporters back Romney?) or none of the candidates at all? I just want a convention where Romney isn’t nominated and conservatives can gather around a single candidate, perhaps one that isn’t in the field yet?

    • Anonymous

      Agreed, BG. Rush may feel that Santorum is the last conservative in the race, but you and I know that the last REAL conservative hasn’t announced, YET. Wonder what she’ll say at CPAC this weekend?

      • Paul Zummo

        Margaret Thatcher is speaking at CPAC this weekend?

    • Anonymous

      Ron Paul will not endorse Romney. He would only endorse someone with a strict Constitutional limited government background and platform, and that is not Romney.

      Once Romney is not nominated on the first ballot it will get really interesting.

      It may be hard for many of you to accept, but right now Ron Paul is your ally if you dont want Romney to get the nomination. Anybody taking delegates away to prevent him from reaching 1144 is your friend.

      • Anonymous

        I’m all for him staying in the race. Anything to suck votes away from Romney. I’m interested in a compromise candidate. If Romney doesn’t have the majority, do you move toward a TRUE Tea Party candidate such as Palin, Daniels etc.? Paul supporters dictate majority of domestic policy (economics.

        • Anonymous

          I honestly don’t know how this is going to work out. Most Ron Paul supporters don’t regard Palin and Daniels highly. That is down the road though. The objective for conservatives and libertarians alike right now must be stopping Romney, as he is neither.

          Everyone should rejoice this weekend if Ron Paul can pull off an upset of Romney in Maine.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6KRHXVK5ZCSWJ5GJQ5Z6GIJICA Dax

      Ugh… you blow. Who’s more conservative than Santorum is this race?

      • puma_for_life

        Ron Paul.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6KRHXVK5ZCSWJ5GJQ5Z6GIJICA Dax

          I said conservative, not libertarian. And his foreign policy is more liberal than anything else.

          • puma_for_life

            No, his foreign policy is more Christian, as he uses St. Augustine’s just war philosophy as the basis of his foreign policy.

      • Anonymous

        A bit of decorum may get you a little more respect and people more willing to take you seriously.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6KRHXVK5ZCSWJ5GJQ5Z6GIJICA Dax

          You said Rush blows like the wind. I say you blow. Sorry I will always take up for Rush.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ricardo-Galvan/100001729378103 Ricardo Galvan

        Newt. Well, they’re equal, but Newt has better ideas.

        Rush is out of touch. He didn’t do much to counter the lies put out by Romney’s camp which were dumped by Drudge. He simply isn’t fighting, and now he’s telling people that Newt isn’t conservative in favor of Santorum.

        It simply doesn’t make much sense.

        My issue with Santorum isn’t his record, but his willingness to trash the other conservatives in the race. No one cares about the deception he has showed in this.

        • Anonymous

          That has always been my issue with him, everytime he is asked a question he always trashes the others to make his point. In fact the night he won that debate, I was thrilled for him until he had his end remarks..then it just fizzled. He has to stop doing that!

  • Anonymous

    Rush, how is the echo in there? Conservative media echo chamber.

    NRO has Romney and Santorum on their viable candidates list. NRO is establishment conservative media. What say Rush?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6KRHXVK5ZCSWJ5GJQ5Z6GIJICA Dax

      So you think Newt and Paul are more conservative? Not

      • puma_for_life

        Sarah Palin thinks Ron Paul is.

  • Anonymous

    Romney an ‘odd messenger’

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/BirthControl-WhiteHouse-Romney/2012/02/08/id/428857

    This had me laughing the moment I saw it. ‘Our contraceptive plan is… just like Romney’s.’ If Mittens somehow ends up as the nominee (which I think is less likely now with each passing day), I can just hear Obama’s voice–about 70% of all his policies will be, in one way or another, ‘Just like Romney’s.’

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

      Heard this on Rush today too.

  • puma_for_life

    Even Sarah Palin has stated that Ron Paul is the most conservative candidate left standing. Rush is part of the Ron Paul black-out; he has gone MSM; same tactics.

    • K-Bob

      Where and when did she say that?

      • puma_for_life

        She said it in her last interview with Greta, which was posted on this site. http://www.therightscoop.com/sarah-palin-gop-needs-to-focus-on-obama/ around the 4:30 mark…fiscal conservative. Praises “all four” of the candidates,later (unlike most people on this site who ignore Paul or ridicule him); at 8:40 mark once again talks about Paul cutting $1 trillion and that is what we should be talking about. Of course, no one commented about these remarks on this site. Seems that Palin likes Paul more than the people on this site. Actually, Alaska is one of the states he is expected to do quite well in.

        • K-Bob

          You are way overstating her praise for Ron Paul, and way overstating the lack of commentary here about Palin’s evaluation of the candidates.

          I watched it again, and Sarah Palin said the same sorts of things Mark Levin has been saying, what Scoop has been writing here, and what a huge number of people are saying: All four candidates are better than Obama (I disagree), Romney is very shaky and hasn’t sold many on his conservative identity, Newt is good, Santorum is good, and half of Ron Paul is good (the other half, not so much).

          All four of these gentlemen are qualified to be President. I personally will never vote for Romney or Paul. That’s just my position, though.

  • cabensg

    Who folded on conservative issues when the chips were down? Not Romney of course he wouldn’t know a conservative issue if it hit him in the a$$. Santorum folded on many occasions. Gingrich under all the pressure from Democrats, Republicans and the press never folded. He not only didn’t fold he actually accomplished the goals set out in the “Contract with America”, ushered in the first Republican majority in 40 years, balanced the budget four years in a row. There’s more can’t remember all of them. These are actual accomplishments and this was only while he was in government. This doesn’t even begin to cover what he’s studied the books he’s written the symposiums he’s held on education, etc.

    As far as actual real time accomplishment even Romney has more to show than Santorum.

    I want a president that knows what the He!! he’s doing, didn’t have to be told by someone else who our enemies are or what to say and has the knowledge and courage to actually accomplish what needs to be done.

    It doesn’t matter how Santorum looks, how well his speeches have finally become or what he says he’ll do. He has no governing record as a governor or any experience that would prepare him to be president of the United States. We do not need another novice in the White House with what we’re facing nationally and internationally.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HU45BLBCROTOIVK4Q56XO2N5VU MSGT

    I will take Santorum over Mittens any day but one thing that backs me away from Santorum is that he’ll change nothing. If he gets to be POTUS he will only manage the decline of America. He is probably too weak to go against Obama.

    Newt 2012

  • cabensg

    Watch this and then tell me how great Santrorums speech was.

    • Anonymous

      Newt just rocks in front of a crowd!

  • Trust1TG

    Romney signals who he fears in Ohio with Newt attack ad:
    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/02/romney-tells-us-who-he-fears-launches-attack-ad-against-newt-in-ohio/

    If Newt wins in Ohio, Romney is in deep trouble.

    Please, Lord, give Ohio Republicans the wisdom to vote against stealth liberal Romney.

  • Anonymous

    Circular reasoning; Mr Limbaugh presupposes that being a ‘conservative’ is consistent with the establishment definition, which is big gov. pro-intervention, and dishonest currency. Mr Santorum is proudly pro-war, which is a violation of the constitution, but is acceptable by the establishment. All the candidates, except Mr Paul, are avidly big gov. establishment types. Mr Limbaugh has been saying essentially the same thing all along, but he hasn’t ever deduced the fundamental errors that are responsible for the condition that the country is in; he is too busy entertaining people. Mr Paul has protested for quite some time, based on the principle of adhering to the law of the land. Both sides of the establishment, will justify lawlessness, when it is deemed to be in thier best interest. The current system is spiraling downward, and must come to an end. This is fairly common knowledge, but most act as if the status quo can continue for a while while they play around with social engineering, or foreign entaglements. Critical changes are not going to take place with any of the establishment candidates, but the changes will be forced upon the country nonetheless. The country in general is deeply captivated with the sound bite entertainment media; they don’t think critically about serious issues; not when the have a Rush, Hannity, Levin, Malkin, Beck, Coulter, Palin, etc., to ‘advise’ them.

    • K-Bob

      This reads like the usual litany of accusations we see in every case of demonizing “the other”. Whether it’s Jews, Blacks, Irish, homosexuals, Christians, Conservatives, …doesn’t matter which group. The demonizing always looks the same.

      First comes the sick-minded accusation: greedy, war-mongering, uncaring, etc.

      Then the “need to do something” about “them.”

      It’s no surprise at all that Ron Paul garnered a following among the most blatantly racist elements of society. Whatever good points Ron Paul has to offer, he will always be known primarily for the twisted accusations promulgated under his name.

      • Anonymous

        Really now? Can’t you see that you’re doing the SAME EXACT THING you are accusing Judefour of?

        The right loves to use tactics of the left when it suits them, let me tell ya.

        Please spare me with the altruistic “holier then thou” mumbo jumbo. And this goes to everyone… I’d like to say, talk about being totally disconnected from actual reality and ignorance MUST BE bliss. Do you have any idea what people say, kids, teens, AND young & old adults, in online video games and on forums/chat rooms and in conversations with each other in “the real world” by the MILLIONS? Set aside your perfection for a moment and let’s talk about actions, voting records, and FACTS…

        • K-Bob

          What I see is your failure to discriminate crucial differences.

          Most conservatives, classical liberals, and libertarians deal in facts. We reason with them, we state them up front and invite inspection of them, then we give our opinion about them. What honest and honorable people do not do is decide on which group to vilify, and then set up a list of groundless accusations in a weak attempt to justify such a targeting.

          You can support Judefour’s lame aspersions if you want. But don’t expect to find any friends among conservatives when you do.

    • Anonymous

      Observe “Paulism” in action: Apparently even Mark Levin isn’t equipped to advise us on the Constitution.

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

      I think everyone is looking for that “saviour” for America-and saving America is really about individual responsibility, respect for life and the nuclear family-I don’t believe getting a particular candidate in the White House will “save” America-but whoever becomes president could start turning the wheels around of this doomed ship…but the society will only be as good as the families that thrive in it and our families have been falling apart for many years.

      The strength of a nation derives from the integrity of the home.
      Confucius (BC 551-BC 479) Chinese philosopher

      • Anonymous

        To be clear; Mr Paul is no ‘savior’, nor is any other political leader. A few of the principles, that he is uncompromising on, are essentially biblical in their essence;

        1. Strict adherence to the law (the consititution). Although it isn’t perfect in the same way that scripture is, it is the law of this society, and should be followed, or ammended. This includes the use of deadly force.

        2. Honest currency. Scripture says that “unjust weights and measures are an abomination to God.” The paper system we currently use, is just such an abomination. It overvalues things that are non-essential, and undervalues many essentials. It also allows for preferential treatment of some, and the defrauding of others. Mr Paul seems to understand this principle, and is the only one that continues to warn of the inevitable dangers.

        3. Personal accountability. Most seem to agree on this point, but the methods differ. Mr Paul doesn’t see the federal gov. as the primary tool of compliance to moral principles. He sees the states as having this responsibility, which is consistent with the const. When he speaks about de-criminalization,

  • Anonymous

    My carefully reasoned commentary:
    “DITTO!”

  • Anonymous

    Disagree with Rush !

    Santorum is no more conservative than Romney. Just look at his record and I mean do not take the fan club version, but look deep into the big government, pro union, and his endorsement of Arlen Spector ( who ended up being the 60th vote on ObamaCare). Let’s celebrate the deaths of all the babies being killed today because of this vote and endorse Arlen Spector. His rational for this endorsement is pathetic if not a lie. He claims he made the endorsement based on a promise that Spector would not vote for a pro-abortion Supreme Court Nominee.

    What happen to Santorum’s hard core christian principles. He was willing to trade them off for a vote from a person who turned on the republican party when we needed him most. OMG

    How about his vote against the right to work act. He claims that he had to support his people in pa. However, in one of the debates he said he would sign the bill as president if it came across his desk. OMG The tail wagged the dog. No principles.

    There is more:
    Fair Cair Act
    Savings for working families Act of 2005
    Gasoline Affordablilty and Security Act of 2005
    Clean energy project
    Pet animal welfare. (PAWS) (He now gets support from peta)

    Romeny & Santorum are basically the same. I hope the voters see this before it is too late.

    Do your home work. I just kept searching on the internet until I found more than I wanted.

    Big Government. Big Spender, Pro Union, More government regulations.
    Sound like what we have now.

  • Anonymous

    Rush is right….at least this time.

  • fernando arce

    LOve El Rushbo…faith,family and freedom GO RICk!

  • Anonymous

    Dittos!

  • http://twitter.com/TO_New_York Tony

    I dunno, Santorium says what we all believe…….he just needs to have some teeth.

    • Anonymous

      Ya just gotta love politicians who say what people want to hear, but have a record that says otherwise. Ain’t that America?

  • bobemakk

    I am now inclined to agree, but still favor Gingrich. Santorum has been my second choice ever since the debates started.

    Now if Gingrich and Romney/RINO can stop trashing each other and ruining the image of the republican party, we will be able to defeat Obama.

  • Anonymous

    Rush reads stories from DRUDGE and the like, and talks about them… Wow he is so awesome and all knowing… God you people are stupid.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4UX5IMCQLMMNCCKQUWML6KN6NA Mark

    Newt is a bit more conservative than Santorum as their lifetime Conservative Union Ratings show (Newt 90%, Santorum 88%) and Newt is light years ahead of Santorum in intellectual capabilities. Newt is a true visionary and statesman like America’s founders. Santorum will side with big labor and the unions. Santorum will not solve the problem of activist judges. Not only is Newt smarter than Santorum, Newt is more conservative.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t understand how Santorum is at all conservative.

    He voted to raise the debt ceiling (5) times.

    He voted YES on No Child Left Behind, doubling the size of the Dept. of Education.

    He voted YES on Medicare Part D entitlement, which has $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

    He encouraged expanded roles for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHA.

    He backed Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in 2004. Specter later switched to (D) and gave Obama the 60th vote for Obamacare.

    He voted against the 1995 Right-to-Work Act.

    He voted YES on Sarbanes-Oxley, the small business-killing regulatory expansion of 2002.

    He voted YES on $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea, and for hundreds of millions in foreign aid to enemies of Israel.

    He voted to subsidize abortion and Planned Parenthood.

    Rush says Santorum is the last real conservative? Really?

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

      Because they are desperate for a leader to fit what they believe is correct!

      They are playing on local conservative radio here the comment by Santorum that he wanted to get rid of all libertarian thought as he sees it as incompatible with the Constitution.

      All of them are flawed but I don’t believe they are near as harmful to the country as Obama and 4 more years…but I suppose I can be wrong but I would much rather chance it on one of these 4 candidates than with O!

      • Anonymous

        That is more than flawed. That video should disqualify Santorum from consideration by any sane American. Santorum demonstrates tremendous ignorance in that video. Libertarians do not advocate anarchy. Libertarians believe in the founding principle of individual liberty in accordance with the rule of law.

  • shumok

    Let me add this…..that all that ‘nuance’ you are saying exists…doesn’t change any of the mischaracterization that ‘he blames America’ represents. Our foreign policy is a recruiting tool for radical leaders……it’s foolish and ridiculously expensive and doesn’t make us more safe. The terrorists are to blame for being vicious evil thugs who kill innocent people, and our foreign policy is to blame for being foolishly expensive and ineffective.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rhondaleensb Rhonda Welsch

    I remember what you said when our Tea Party Congress voted to raise the Debt ceiling-you told us they were all traitors to conservatism so to speak.
    Santorum said he was going to work to balance the budget, but Voted 5 times to raise the debt Ceiling- voted to double the size of Dept. of Education and Medicare,& against the right to work- in favor of big Unions/ big government … how can you say this is conservative??? This is Corporate cronyism!
    Are you now a traitor too Rush? Ron Paul has the most conservative record- most principled platform and stands on the Truth and Law of the US Constitution- how is that not the most conservative of all. Were George Washington. James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson a danger to America’s National Security too? Stop the hyperbole, tell the truth or join the ranks of the Neo-Cons who would usher in a Fascist state unbeknownst to them because they do not understand the true principles of Liberty which have established the Surest Foundation for personal responsibility and individual freedom the world has ever known. Nazi Germany is the example we must learn from… or we will go over the same slippery slope and total destruction will come upon America. Please get out of you self righteous box and seek the TRUTH even if it makes you uncomfortable! PLEASE!!!!

  • shumok

    Unfortunately, I did not format that last response well….I’ll trust you can glean what you need to from it….let me know if you need clarification.