The Right Scoop
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.
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.
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?
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?
"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.
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.
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.)
"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?
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.)
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!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Walker is governor, Santorum was a Senator. Big difference. One is essentially a CEO, the other is a representative.
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
So, you could say all of them at one time or another grappled with "big government"-I still say we stand a better chance of at least starting a recovery for this country with any of the current 4 candidates then another four years of Barack and Michelle!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Romney signals who he fears in Ohio with Newt attack ad:
If Newt wins in Ohio, Romney is in deep trouble.
Please, Lord, give Ohio Republicans the wisdom to vote against stealth liberal Romney.
Watch this and then tell me how great Santrorums speech was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NHL8a9BQQQ&feature=player_embedded
Ha. You are proving my point. Im suggesting you wouldnt know what a conservative was if it wasnt for Reagan, yet youre the expert.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Its a good thing this media wasnt available during the Reagan primary. You guys would destroy him.
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.