***UPDATED – Santorum supported the individual mandate?

***UPDATED: More context shows no support for individual mandate***

As the primary drags on, the Conservative purity tests get more and more ridiculous.  Truth is, none of the candidates are Conservative, they’re simply Republican (and one lonely little Libertarian). Sure they may have engaged in Conservative behavior on occasion, but what Conservative would ever support  the individual mandate? Apparently, every single candidate (save Ron Paul) has touted their support for the anathema of government controlled health care, even Rick Santorum. The Washington Examiner reports:

Rick Santorum supported the idea of “requir[ing] individuals to buy health insurance” when he ran for U.S. Senate in 1994, according to a local feature article comparing the candidates during that election cycle.

“Santorum and [his opponent] would require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for employee benefits,” The Morning Call (Pa.) reported in 1994. The Morning Call noted that Santorum had also called for a MediSave account and had opposed so-called “sin” taxes.

If true, the distinction between requiring people to buy health insurance and an individual mandate might be lost on the voters who have heard Santorum excoriate Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich for their support of the individual mandate — which, in Gingrich’s case, dates back to the early 90s.

The Morning Call does not quote Santorum making comments supportive of an individual mandate, or quote any other candidates in the piece, which attempts to summarize several candidates’ positions on health care.

So which Republican (or Libertarian) will you choose?

***



UPDATE (TRS): I added a question mark to the title primarily because I don’t believe that Santorum supported the individual mandate at all. In regards to the merits of the article that has been quoted by the Washington Examiner, it is only one source and it doesn’t even quote Santorum as supporting the individual mandate. It is just a third party characterization of his policy and one that is in direct conflict with his own words that he has never supported the individual mandate. I just don’t find it to be all that credible.

Dan Riehl dug into this about a month ago and posted a more full summary of Santorum’s policy that was in opposition to HillaryCare, and it mentions no individual mandate. It’s from the same source, but has much more detail:

Wofford campaigned successfully on the health care issue in 1991, and yesterday Santorum took aim at Democratic ideas for health care reform, particularly the plan proposed by President Clinton.

Under the Clinton plan, all employers would be required to provide health insurance for their workers and to pick up most of the cost. That plan would also place caps on how much could be spent on health care each year.
Santorum charged that Clinton’s proposal to administer its system through regionalized health alliances essentially shuts medical professionals out of the process and puts it in the hands of political appointees.

The policy of placing caps on spending could create a horror scene similar to that which has occurred in Canada, where hospitals were shut down for periods of time for everything except emergencies because the money ran out, he said.
He suggested that instead of mandating that employers provide insurance, they should be required to join an insurance network, which would enable their employees to obtain coverage at group rates.

Access is also important in a good health care system, he said. Access could be improved by eliminating restrictions placed on coverage because of pre-existing conditions, by ensuring the right of renewal and through tax credits and vouchers, he said.

On responsibility, he said a Medisave plan will encourage employees to become more responsible health-care consumers.

Medisave calls for lower premiums from employers and higher deductibles from employees, with the savings on the premiums transferred into an interest-bearing, tax-free account that would be used by employees for routine health care. If an employee sought to use the money for anything other than health, the money would become taxable and a penalty would be charged, he said.

With such a plan, people would be motivated to shop for the best deal in an attempt to keep as much money in the account as they can, he said.

Santorum also proposed reforming malpractice suits by putting a cap on money given for pain and suffering.

Bottom line is this: If Santorum really did support the individual mandate, then there should be more than one original source claiming it and if we find this to be true, we’ll post it here. But for now, I find no credible evidence proving that he supported it.

Comment Policy: Please read our 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.
newest oldest most voted
Chris Dias
Guest
Chris Dias

I’m sick of all these guys. Can we start over? I’m not voting. What a joke!! We’re all going to hell. Thanks for the link “Winghunter”. I’m sticking with Santorum: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenatorialDebat/start/677/stop/798

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

If I can get out from under the seemingly endless repair bills that keep burying me, hopefully early this spring, I will buy at least an emergency-room insurance policy, for the first time in my life. Why? Because I support requiring people to buy at least emergency medical insurance. Why? For the same reason we require people to buy auto insurance: there is a high probability that we’ll need it at some time in our lives, and if we don’t have it, other people will be required to pay for us. That’s not acceptable to me, if I can possibly avoid it. I’d never given this any thought until it came up in relation to obamacare. The objection has been raised that if you can force people to buy “a product”, then you can force them to buy, say, GM autos. That’s apples and oranges, folks, assuming that the free… Read more »

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

So we need to have mandates, because we have mandates. Seems like a perpetual cycle of force that only diminishes our liberty and prosperity.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Your reply is a straw man argument. We need to have mandates to prevent some from taking advantage of others, either deliberately or through carelessness, and here (auto insurance) is another situation where we realized that only a “mandate” will meet the need.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

So government mandates auto insurance, and the insurance companies get guaranteed business and rates go up. Meanwhile mandated health insurance coverage causes rates to go up, which causes auto insurance rates to go up as well. Seems to me that the insurance companies are the ones who really benefit. Meanwhile, the insured is just the sucker going to work every day to keep up all of his mandated insurances. Heaven forbid that you get a traffic ticket, or have health issues, because insurance companies don’t have to cover you, but you have to get the insurance or be fined in one way or the other. If government mandates the insurance companies to cover anyone, rates will go so high that we will literally work to pay insurances. Why doesn’t government just take over all housing, transportation, municipalities, health care, etc, and just take all of our money? Then instead of… Read more »

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

“Why doesn’t government just take over all housing, transportation, municipalities, health care, etc, and just take all of our money? Then instead of mandating us to buy everything on our own, they can just provide it, and we can simply live in our little government communes.” Aristotelian two-value fallacy. Logical fallacies seem to be your specialty. You understand, in a debate you lose points for logical fallacies. If you build your life on logical fallacies, you can lose a lot more. It’s not all or nothing. Almost nothing in life is all or nothing. And there never was any live and let live. Google “Whiskey Rebellion of 1794”. The taxes the whiskey distillers refused to pay were for the purpose of paying off the war debts of the newly minted nation. Even the process of writing the Constitution was an ongoing argument about **how much** control there would be, not… Read more »

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

The alternative to individual mandates is personal risk acceptance by individuals. It is a desire by the people to have someone else take care of their problems, and the desire of politicians to take care of people’s problems, that creates the nanny state, and the social welfare state. Though we live in a more technologically advanced world, risk is still risk. As risks become greater, the answer inevitably becomes legalized, or made illegal. Either that, or liability is simply transferred to another party. In a welfare state, anyone with more wealth ends up being targeted. Thereby creating class warfare. If all people accept personal responsibility for risk, then it is just a matter of the courts working out who caused harm to another person or their property, and what the penalty or fine would be to pay back the other party. If a person has a highly valued item, they… Read more »

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

“The alternative to individual mandates is personal risk acceptance by individuals.” That’s your alternative? In light of the cost of medical care, that’s your alternative? “Just accept it”? In other words, you do not have an alternative. A decision to “accept it” does not magically create the vast amount of money to pay medical bills. What would the hospitals and doctors do when they can’t pay their employees or buy / repair / improve their equipment? When they can’t buy medicines? They’re already doing it: they close down or they cut back on hours of service, or they choose another career. One of the problems caused by illegal aliens is that they have no insurance, and in some places they have so burdened hospitals that these things have happened. Your “alternative” doesn’t work. “It is a desire by the people to have someone else take care of their problems, and… Read more »

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

It is clear that your “real world” includes forced-shared risk as the only option. This shared risk expands throughout a society in such a way that it consumes the lives and freedoms of the citizens. This is communism. We may use socialism with a financial base afforded by quasi capitalism, but it is still a communist idea that everyone is responsible for everyone else, and all should be on equal ground. You don’t consider the financial system that is supposed to support this socialist/communist network of services. Wealth is finite, and a society which attempts what you suggest has to produce wealth in order to maintain it. This wealth can be generated within the nation, but this would require the nation to be isolated for the currency to not matter. All resources would have to come from within, or be traded by government controlled industry with other nations. Capitalism and… Read more »

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

“It is clear that your ‘real world’ includes forced-shared risk as the only option.” It is clear that you don’t have an alternative. “This shared risk expands throughout a society in such a way that it consumes the lives and freedoms of the citizens.” Only if you let it. In the meantime, what’s your REALISTIC alternative? “This is communism.” What is your alternative? Instead of calling names. “…it is still a communist idea that everyone is responsible for everyone else, and all should be on equal ground.” No one said everyone is responsible for everyone else. No one said all should be on equal ground. Sharing risk for a predictable disaster is not even close to “From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.” “You don’t consider the financial system that is supposed to support this socialist/communist network of services. Wealth is finite, and a society… Read more »

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

I was giving the solution. A free country is the solution. A very small government is the solution. Competition is the solution. Free trade is the solution. A sound currency is the solution.

Sorry it took me so long to say it.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

There is no alternative if you think that everyone in society should take care of everyone else. Just realize that this is not freedom. It is socialism at best, and communism at worst. Socialism leads to communism or totalitarianism.

Sentinel
Member
Sentinel

I’ve heard this complaint by several posters here… that RS supports the Individual Mandate. This article by Scoop does little if anything to validate those claims. With that being said, I would be stunned that he’s beating up Newt and especially Mittens on this if he was guilty of it himself. He’s innocent until found guilty.

And even if found guilty (which would be a huge Red Flag), he still (for now) remains the guy who I will place my faith in.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

This story is already a day old. It was printed in a no-name paper in Penn. The “journalist” does not offer any direct quotes but what seems to be their opinion which we now call NEWS. Folks, I hear you always complaining how the media paints our candidates so why do you constantly fall for their gimmicks again and again. If you stop falling for it, maybe they will stop printing it….just saying.

This story has already been debunked. BTW, isn’t the Washington Examiner in Romney’s pocket!!!

PhillyCon
Member
PhillyCon

Rush just mentioned this “article” and said there’s no direct quote from Santorum, and in fact he supports MSA’s.

He pretty much poo-pooed it.

Steven Valdez
Guest
Steven Valdez

Who cares, there are only two people that signed individual mandates into law, Obamney

klaffner
Member
klaffner

The Santorum’s argument rests entrirely on insisting that Romney is completely insincere in his position to repeal ObamaCare. Romney could easily shoot him down completely. But he doesn’t because he wants to keep Santorum in the race. The reality is that RomneyCare will help Romney in the general. Romney knows this. Lots of lunatics on our side don’t. Along these lines, Limbaugh is leading off his program with an extremely useful commentary. It is pumping up Santorum. Way to go Rush. Romney and his team are giggling as I write this. The way things are going, it looks like a fairly convincing Romney victory. Santorum will effectively compete for second. Might even come in second with the way Newt is imploding. Given how things have gone in this thing, anything could happen, but I sure hope it comes out that way.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Romneycare is the albatross that will sink Romney. He has chosen to go down with this thing and it will take him down.

You should rewatch the debate.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

See… Who cares. He is human. Humans have a tendency to “change their mind”. Is this a bad thing? This story means nothing to me. His character and his history is good enough for me as a rebuttal to this post. Rick Santorum is a stand up guy and is Presidential material. Everyone has changed their minds on different subject over the years it is called reason. As humans we are all given the gift of Reason to make decisions. That does not mean that all decisions we make are the right ones.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

If these are in fact untruths…please dispose of this post…it’s just propagating BS.

Jeremy Volkens
Guest
Jeremy Volkens

Seems as though far too many commenters on this board are buying into yet ANOTHER illegitimate smear campaign. Sad really…

PhillyCon
Member
PhillyCon

Until I see an actual quote of Santorum saying what he supposedly said, then I will believe it.

The Leftist press in PA was on a mission to discredit to Santorum. So, call me skeptical.

PhillyCon
Member
PhillyCon

Thanks RS, for adding some sanity here. Also, using Leftist sources like Think Progress and various Soros outfits to attack a candidate you may not agree with, do no good. Its plays right into the Alinsky attacks.

Thanks for the through research. One thing I do not like about this cycle are the attacks from the a Leftist vantage point. Isn’t this what we will see from Obama and company? Why must our side immolate them? I don’t get it.

FishyGov
Guest
FishyGov

ANN WLAZELEK is the original article reporter of record and is therefore the second source we have been looking for. She is semi-retired living in the Allentown PA area and no longer works at The Morning Call but is listed on:
Facebook http://www.facebook.com/annwaz
Linkedin http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ann-wlazelek/9/93/89b

And
http://uppermacungie.patch.com/users/ann-wlazelek

I couldn’t find a current email address for her.

kim
Guest
kim

Rick didn’t support individual mandate but he DID support Medicare Part D which is basically a mafia-styled persuasion to buy in.

I believe this is how they will get around the individual mandate if the Supremes strike it down.

Six of one or half dozen of the other. The elites are going to ram this down our throats one way or the other. We see just how responsive the 2010 crowd has been to its constituency. NOT.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

Santorum has stated that vote was a mistake http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Pennsylvania/Rick_Santorum/Views/Health_Care/ I think we can put this to rest.

He supports Congressman Ryan’s plan on reforming it.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Is this surprising to anyone? The idea of the individual mandate originated from a Republican think tank and teaches individual responsibility, or at least that was the slogan that came with it then. Fast forward to now, when signed into law by a democratic president and everyone cries unconstitutional…

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

As a lifetime PA resident and someone who opposed HillaryCare and Heritage’s call for an individual mandate at the time, I can assure you I would not have supported Santorum if he too supported the individual mandate.

Since Erick Erickson started this rumor, I have searched for any other corroborating news stories, and I can find none.

The individual mandate flies in the face of the MediSave accounts that Santorum was advocating. He was pushing for individual’s to become more responsible for their own healthcare….actually becoming consumers who would act like consumers–bringing free market forces to bear on the health care sector. Mandating someone to purchase something is not free market and would have further distorted the market.

kim
Guest
kim

Erick Erickson has no cred.

ERdocspouse
Guest
ERdocspouse

Sorry to disappoint most of you, but in all honesty, my impression is that Dr. Paul has remained the most composed (of the remaining batch of candidates) when it comes to character. He is known as “Dr No” in congress for his stand in favor of ONLY voting for constitutionally permitted legislation. After watching every debate so far, and after swinging back and forth in my mind in support of other so called “viable” candidates, I have decided I will cast my ballot for Ron Paul in Florida. I can’t stand the mudslinging between candidates anymore! I was surprised to hear other friends, neighbors and family say the exact same thing. I know one thing for sure, Ron Paul is a doctor first and he knows first hand the dangers of “Obamacare” and the loss of freedoms not only of medicine in that centralized bill, but also all of the… Read more »

DaMz
Guest
DaMz

This is why I’m diggin TRS these days , discerning fact from fiction, luv it!
I stop here every day , thank you .
Big ups to The Right Scoop!

PhillyCon
Member
PhillyCon

Yeah, RS is awesome. He’s doing the work that used to be done in the mainstream media.

Joshua
Guest
Joshua

There is a flaw in this article.

I’m not entirely sure about Newt, but the problem with Romney is he STILL supports what he’s done, mandate and all. Heck, he told us it’s “nothing to be angry about”. To suggest this only goes back to the 90’s for him is dishonest. Santorum completely disavows the mandate now. Cmon, Right Scoop.

FishyGov
Guest
FishyGov

Read the 1994 source article for yourselves.

This link is for page two of a three page article:
http://articles.mcall.com/1994-05-02/news/2979474_1_cooper-grandy-health-reform-employees-premiums/2

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Scoop,
FG’s link is your second source. Seems pretty clear to me.

FishyGov
Guest
FishyGov

The link I posted was the Washington Examiner’s source.

Still looking for that second source Mike.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

I don’t believe it. If there was a quote, where is the video? Where is the actual quote? Sorry Morning Call, aren’t you the ones who call the Tea Party Terrorists? Aren’t you the guys who in the Kill the Bill rally SPREAD THE LIE that the Tea Party hurled racial epithats at Georgia’s Rep John Lewis?

Come on everyone, do you actually believe these jokers? Where’s the beef?

rjcylon
Member
rjcylon

But… but… he’s the only REAL conservative in the race! At least everyone keeps telling me that! So I guess Santorum’s supporters are now backing Ron Paul, because he’ll be the next only REAL conservative in the race.

The funny thing is they all go after each other for being just like Obama, we go after them for being just like Obama, and the reality is none of them are even remotely close to Obama.

I don’t think Newt caused the housing crisis, I don’t think Romneycare and Obamacare are the same thing OR come from the same ideology, the race should be between them and Obama.

But I do think the guys who don’t have a realistic chance of winning should get out.

Sentinel
Member
Sentinel

No, we’re still backing Santorum.

They all have warts… I still believe that any of the main three in this race, has a chance to win this thing. And frankly, though I don’t support him, Ron Paul is making sense on a few of his conservative points – especially with regard to government size and the economy. He’s unlikely to win the GOP nomination, but in a sense, he’s already won because everyone is listening to and understanding his economic points.

Is_Sense_Common
Member
Is_Sense_Common

Just further proves my point on Santorum – if we would just explore his record, Santorum is Conservative socially but has some real warts on spending & such while he was in Office. We can’t be a single-issue voter. All these candidates are flawed & we’ll have to drag whoever it is across the finish line. I think we Conservatives are going to have to suck it up again and get our Tea Parties reorganized & reenergized & hope for the best. We really are a nation of Davids against some elite Goliaths (the media & the political class). I just don’t see the massive Conservative movement winning like it did in 2010. We’re gonna be stuck with mediocrity – again.

rjcylon
Member
rjcylon

Often social conservatism is what people mean when they say “conservative” and they support any and all government intervention and growth and regulation in order to ensure their “conservatism” is the law of the land.

Being a social conservative is not an issue for me, I’ll vote for one because we can agree on other things. I’m not a one issue voter. But just being religious and socially conservative, in my opinion, is not the be all and end all. It’s about size and scope of government.

hemultipliedus
Member
hemultipliedus

There were conservative candidates who did not support the mandates. Unfortunately, none of them are in the race any more. The GOP went with the least conservative candidates.

Isn’t this an old story? I remember we on RS found that Morning Call article many weeks ago. Santorum supporters refused to believe it and questioned its authenticity.

B-Funk
Member
B-Funk

The good one’s were pushed out by various dirty tactics. It’s kinda sad, really, that a principled person gets the shaft.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

This kind Dirty dealing and underhanded maneuvers by “The Elites”. is why I’ll never just “hold my nose” and vote their way again, from now on it’s “STICK IT TO THE MAN”,(THE ELITES) and anybody they support and I’m for who they hate!

Rshill7
Member
Rshill7

There was seating for approximately 1,200 people at the debate last night. 900 of the tickets were given to Romney supporters.

Does that seem proper? Does it seem fair? 900 out of 1,200?
I want the GOP to explain this. This I’ve got to hear!

Perhaps GOP should be changed to SOB. I got this information, this morning, from the chair of the Republican party in our county.

(The statewide chair of the Republican party in Florida should change their name to Goebbels Jr.)

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

If that’s the case though, the boos mittens got is that much sweeter then. But yeah, mittens has been playing dirty down here. I hope Floridians don’t fall for it.

Rshill7
Member
Rshill7

In our area, (North Michigan) I saw anti-Newt ads on Fox News alone at least 6 times yesterday! I guess some of the Romney ad buys, go National, automatically.
It must be insane down there in Florida right now sad

American Duckie
Member
American Duckie

Ask my son if I kept my word when I finally yelled “If I hear one more of these ads, I’m gonna scream!” wink Yesterday was horrible for nothing but mittens and Newt ads back and forth- but mittens were worse.

Is_Sense_Common
Member
Is_Sense_Common

What’s your sense of how the election will go down there AbC? The way the media reports it, Mittens is packing for the White House, but I never believe that they have any idea what the heck people really think.

hemultipliedus
Member
hemultipliedus

Seen this before. When I was in Iowa, a political consultant told me about how Romney is using millions to shape the nomination. One example is during the debates. This was particularly true at the Las Vegas debate. The sponsors of the debates sell tickets for the audience. These tickets are fairly expensive. Romney’s campaign, or PAC, or whoever, bought a majority of the tickets and packed the house with hecklers for Romney. Do you remember the crowd’s reaction, its fawning applause, to everything Romney said in Vegas? The audience was stacked against Perry and all of the others. The debate’s results were shaped by inaccurate reporting on the part of the media as to what really transpired. News media outlets reported that Perry’s attack against Romney about Romney’s hiring of illegal immigrants to perform his yard work was ineffective, because no one clapped. They didn’t clap because they were… Read more »

Rshill7
Member
Rshill7

People need to realize this and fling the proverbial deck, into a tornado.
I want to yell and curse, but it wouldn’t help.

Ok, I have one mystery curse: &$%#!

Brian Jones
Guest
Brian Jones

hmmmmm…5 letters, starting with “&”…can I buy a vowel? grin

Rshill7
Member
Rshill7

Nope.

The last “letter” is an exclamation point smile

Brian Jones
Guest
Brian Jones
Sentinel
Member
Sentinel

I’d love to see this sort of rotten debate tactic brought to light in a national debate.

Americans should know they are being played…

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Well. That’s interesting. That would explain a lot of things.

That is a leftist tactic if I ever heard one.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Yes it is a leftist tactic, right out of the 0bama playbook,not surprising he and 0bama get along so well.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Let’s not forget that even George Soros says there is no difference between Maobama and Romney.

Rshill7
Member
Rshill7

I don’t believe a single syllable of what Soros says sir. Nothing. If he said it was daytime, and my watch confirmed it, I would have my watch checked.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

“‘Tis the moon.” LOL
I agree with him on this particular subject. Romney is Maobama’s long lost twin.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

“‘Tis the moon.” LOL
I agree with him on this particular subject. Romney is Maobama’s long lost twin.

sDee
Member
sDee

We may agree with Soros on this but it sure does not mean we have the same reason for exposing it.

sDee
Member
sDee

The cheering and clapping last night backs that up for sure.

We are being screwed by the political class. Makes no difference if they wear a donkey suit or an elephant suit.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Newt is under fire, no doubt about it. But that’s what happens when you are a front-runner, and you’ve gone dirty yourself. Half of Newt’s attacks on Romney are completely leftist. (‘no humanity for illegals, Bain capital attacks, tax-brackets, etc…) Newt seems to be squealing a lot about his treatment. Sure, it is dirty that the audience is biased. Sure the MSM isn’t giving you fair treatment, and Sure you’ve been trying to make out with the MSM while they attack you. Do you think any of that is going to change in a general? Newt, stop squealing and put up, or shut up and get out of the kitchen if it is too hot. I am not for Newt, but if he is going to be a candidate, all the complaining will completely disenfranchise the conservative base, (even more than it already is), and make him look unqualified and… Read more »

Jaynie59
Member
Jaynie59

As far as I’m concerned any Republican who espoused the individual mandate in opposition to HillaryCare gets a pass. Anything they could say or do to shoot down the Clinton version of socialized medicine worked and they stopped it. More importantly, none of them did anything about it once they had control so it’s all a moot point. You know, one of the things that annoys the hell out of me about conservatives is that they refuse to play the liberal game of lying thru their teeth to get elected. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. But that’s why liberals always win in the end. They lie. Their supporters know they’re lying, and they love them for it. That’s why we have a radical leftist in the White House who says he’s against gay marriage, is all for oil drilling, and loves capitalism. So what if Rick and Newt said they… Read more »

PhillyCon
Member
PhillyCon

Also note, the mantra to get rid of Obamacare is “repeal and replace”, not just repeal. B/c in this day and age, the government always has to “do something.” Not just get out of the way … its really a major PR challenge when anyone of substance is trying to tackle a DC created problem.

Another example, you just can’t say “get rid of Dept. of Ed.” then it means you are against children and their schools.

Amy
Guest
Amy

Yes, they are all big gov Republicans. It’s a personality contest now.

If the Executive branch goes (R), we still have to stay focused on weeding out those in the legislative branch that just want the power. If we don’t get the Executive branch back, we have to stay focused on weeding out those in all branches that just want the power. Either way, it’s not over and our fight is just starting.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

In this case, the most important thing is to defeat Obama. So, who is most likely to do this? I’m not sure yet, but it kind of looks like Romney right now.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

wow. Someone who actually pays attention to polls and data. Of the four candidates, Paul and Newt are statistically the least likely to be elected, with a near-certainty that they cannot be. Romney is the only candidate that has polled ahead of Obama. The only one. Santorum simply doesn’t have enough name recognition reliably poll high or low; no one knows where he would really land, but that is not good for a Presidential race. (Name recognition is NOT Newt’s or Paul’s problem, however.)

I don’t know if that is because the establishment is behind Romney, and is ‘fixing’ the polls or not… I just don’t know. But I don’t like the choices at this point.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

If you are talking about national polls, Romney and Paul are ahead of the others in beating Obama. I believe that logic dictates that Gingrich and Santorum cannot compete for swing voters, such as independents. Paul has many dems coming over to vote for him now.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Completely agree!

Not to nag, but read Schweizer’s “Throw Them All Out” if you want to get the “right scoop” (and get fired up at the same time). De Mint’s “Now Or Never” and, of course, Levin’s “Ameritopia” are both must reads.

Knowledge IS power.

Kenneth
Member
Kenneth

All Federal power originates with Congress, so that is where the focus needs to be. Everyone is so focused on the White House and who’s going to be occupying the Oval Office that they lose track of the fact that Congress is always going to be leaps and bounds more important, especially the Senate with their advice and consent power.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Congress has been giving up its power for a long time. Primarily to the executive branch, but also to the central bank since 1913. Congress will be insignificant before too long, if they don’t get their act together. I don’t expect that they will.

PuritanD71
Guest
PuritanD71

So, all I have to do is get a newspaper to make a headline, throw in a few 3rd party descriptions and you will buy it hook, line and sinker. Wow!! we are definitely in trouble with such gullibility within the conserv. movement

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

consider this deleted

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Me!

ARTHUR STEINBERG
Guest
ARTHUR STEINBERG

Go Newt and Get Palin or Go Rmoneycare and Get Obama

Newt 2012

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Bad all they around.

Warpmine 2012! I’ll turn America around and set conditions allowing her to prosper once again.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

non-sequiter.

A Santorum vid, and you don’t even acknowledge that he’s an option? Classy.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

There are several fatal insane demands from Santorum but, I believe he escapes this one:

1994 Pennsylvania Senatorial Debate: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenatorialDebat/start/677/stop/798

Scott Larrison
Guest
Scott Larrison

This video states very well Rick’s position as far back as 1994. His message is consistent with what he is saying today. Rick does not support an individual mandate.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

I concur.

hemultipliedus
Member
hemultipliedus

That’s a pretty good video. I noticed it was recorded 10/31. The newspaper article is 5/2. What happened between May and October? If the height of Hillycare resistance was in those months, I can see Santorum swinging back right on this.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

Good research Winghunter. Way to nip this in the bud quickly.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous

So Santorum’s understanding is of the Constitution is the same as Maobama’s. That the constitution means nothing.

Back to Top of Comments