Santorum: Let’s face it, Chris Christie’s not a conservative

posted at 8:05 pm on December 30, 2011 by Allahpundit

We should get him a Hot Air comment account. He’d fit right in!

“No, they don’t know,” Santorum said today on the Jack Riccardi radio show when asked if Iowa voters “know” that Christie is a “big liberal Republican,” as the guest host phrased it. “I like Chris, I’ve known Chris for years — he’s a fun guy and he’s an interesting guy, but he’s certainly not a conservative Republican,” he added.

Santorum used Christie’s stumping for Romney as an opportunity to attack the Iowa frontrunner. “And that’s the kind of folks that Mitt Romney’s attracting, that’s why he’s bringing them out here; he’s trying to get the establishment Republicans,” he added. Santorum said that he is targeting “real conservatives, Reagan conservatives.”

Does the Reagan Library typically invite non-conservatives to speak?

But maybe he’s right. It’s true that Christie has some conservative heresies to his record, and it’s also true that he’s backed at least one major RINO over a more right-wing candidate in a primary. By that standard, he is pretty liberal.

Good thing we won’t end up with a guy like that as our nominee.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

listens2glenn on December 31, 2011 at 1:38 AM

I think so to and then we wouldn’t have watched Spector make the ultimate stab in the back to Republicans.

Cindy Munford on December 31, 2011 at 1:52 AM

Big deal. Santorum is not an “establishment Republican” candidate, and he’s running a very grassroots campaign in Iowa. Naturally, he’s going to run against the establishment Republicans and point out their failings.

He’s also right on Christie. He’s more conservative than Democrats, but he’s hardly a very conservative Republican. If he ran for president, he would be too far left to win a primary.

With all of Mitt’s money pouring into the race, I still don’t think he can win the primary.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 31, 2011 at 2:56 AM

Mitch Daniels was right when he called for a truce on social issues this go round so we could focus on the fiscal catastrophe at hand, but the SoCons would have none of that… And here we are.

LOL–Yeah because I have seen all those changes that SoCons want to make. I have seen all the courtcases socons have brought/

melle1228 on December 31, 2011 at 3:12 AM

According to half the people on Hot Air, they are the only conservative people. If you have even a single heresy, off with your head.

andy85719 on December 30, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Don’t know about half, I’d say far fewer…the obnoxious exist on both sides of the political spectrum.

Christie gained a lot of points with many Conservatives for publicly berating public school teachers, and chewing on anybody labeled “public” is fair game it would seem. In my view, having a politician from either party talk down to a Citizen is backwards (we sure didn’t like the way some Dumocrats were talking to TEA Party adherents at public meetings a few years back)…a Citizen (even a public employee) has the right to call an elected official to task publicly. Politicians are supposed to be thick-skinned, and skilled at diplomacy and handling hecklers and irate members of the public.

These PEU members need to realize that their respective governments may not be able to give them squat in the way of retirement should municipal defaults start to domino, and work with their state-local employers. On the other hand, even as a Conservative I can see the anti-Democrat tactics (since PEUs almost exclusively fund Dumocrats) in publicly attacking public employee unions, and see how these tactics play to the Conservative base. As a TEA Party adherent, I want what is fiscally sound, not necessarily what most conservatives like in the way of social issues (they’re important, but our society is pretty screwed up, and to me it’s anti-Conservative to hope for political fixes for social issues).

I believe that how these matters are handled count especially with moderate voters, and that what changes are made concerning public employees should be obviously fair. Walker’s exclusion of police and firefighters was a bad move. Scott in Florida tried the same thing, but both police and firefighter unions took the 3% FRS tax hit along with the teachers and other public employees in solidarity.

As for Santorum, I’d have no problem voting for him, but the social conservative issues make me uneasy looking at the makeup of the electorate in the national elections. I’m pretty sure that’s a factor that made Huckabee sink pretty fast, even in the primaries. I doubt most Republican and independent voters have the same focus on social issues as the Evangelicals do.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 31, 2011 at 4:40 AM

Mitch Daniels was right when he called for a truce on social issues this go round so we could focus on the fiscal catastrophe at hand, but the SoCons would have none of that… And here we are.

It is simply foolishness not to realize that socially liberal policies are also expensive policies.

boone on December 31, 2011 at 4:44 AM

He’s a great public speaker and fiscally conservative but when it comes to illegal immigration and gun rights he fails miserably.

Jerry Bear on December 31, 2011 at 4:49 AM

From afar. She dated Bill Maher…

Gohawgs on December 30, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Who started this rumor? Firstly, Ann is about a foot taller than Maher. Secondly there is nothing on the Internet to substantiate this claim.

Jerry Bear on December 31, 2011 at 4:56 AM

It is simply foolishness not to realize that socially liberal policies are also expensive policies.

boone on December 31, 2011 at 4:44 AM

Yeah, but aren’t ALL liberal “policies” social in nature to begin with?

I’m pretty sure that there is a sizable chunk of the Liberal electorate out there that own their own businesses, or earn a living from private industry and “get it”. Conservative candidates should appeal to these more moderate Liberals and show them how crooked this administration is, how much has been wasted under Obama’s and Pelosi/Reid’s watch, and given the economic situation have to decide which Federal social initiatives they want to save, because they all can’t.

They need to be shown repeatedly that the top 1% simply can’t bail us out, no matter how high the tax rate, and in fact currently pay more than their fair share. They also need to be constantly reminded how many ex-bankers are/have been in the Obama Administration, the Petro-Brazil deal and other things which would have been headline scandals under a Republican president.

They have to be hit with cold hard figures and asked repeatedly if they’re better off now than they were four years ago.

Can a Republican fix all this stuff? No. But, I can’t see how they could possibly make it any worse.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 31, 2011 at 5:21 AM

Jerry Bear on December 31, 2011 at 4:56 AM

I understand she does currently have a “personal male romantic interest”, but if it were Bill Maher today, that would be all over the tabloids, and political blogs.

listens2glenn on December 31, 2011 at 6:12 AM

Romney bringing Christie in as VP would not do it for me. Been there, done that with Palin. Christie would resonate with one only one section of the country. It would be two northeasters pretending to be conservative. I live in the West, but originally from the Midwest, having some guy with a New Jersey accent screaming at you acting tough would be laughable.

lea on December 31, 2011 at 7:33 AM

Did he say this before or after he apologized for all the earmarking he did in congress.

20 point loser.

rubberneck on December 31, 2011 at 7:40 AM

Why do we keep allowing big government Social Conservatives like Santorum – a staunch supporter of Bush’s socialist agenda – to dictate what a conservative is or not?

Look at Chris Christie record. Then look at Santorum’s.

Heresies?

Mitch Daniels was absolutely right. Heck, he didn’t say enough.

joana on December 31, 2011 at 7:50 AM

It is simply foolishness not to realize that socially liberal policies are also expensive policies.

boone on December 31, 2011 at 4:44 AM

What exactly are those “expensive socially liberal policies” that Christie has enacted or defends?

Why isn’t Christie a conservative according to some?

A) He isn’t a southern.
B) He doesn’t talk about God and religion often/doesn’t pander to religious people.
C) He nominated a Muslim to the judiciary (even though said Muslim judge is pretty conservative).

joana on December 31, 2011 at 7:59 AM

Did he say this before or after he apologized for all the earmarking he did in congress.

20 point loser.

rubberneck on December 31, 2011 at 7:40 AM

What about Mittens still supporting the mandate. Saying let’s keep the good parts and repeal the bad parts of Obamacare? Having John HOldren as advisor on carbon caps in MA? Supporting ethanol subsibies while Santorum told Iowans he would not in IOwa.

MA being 49th in job creation under Mittens?

Mittens refusing to call Maobama a socialist and getting rattled by Bret Bair? In contrast Santorum said he’s all for income inequality unlike Maobama.

And Mittens lost by 19 to Teddy Kennedy in a GOP year.

Mittens is a pathetic wimp.

LevinFan on December 31, 2011 at 8:24 AM

joana on December 31, 2011 at 7:59 AM

The Judge is a sharia law sympathizer.

And the main issue is that Christie would NOT join 26 other states to sue to federal govt over Obamacare. He tried to say it was about money, but it’d only cost 10K.

If you won’t fight over Obamacare, you’re no conservative.

He’s bad on gun control, global warming, and illegal immigration.

Nice try at trying to pretend that just because he’s not a stereotypical southerner is why he’s not conservative card.

LevinFan on December 31, 2011 at 8:27 AM

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 31, 2011 at 2:56 AM

The video right in front of your face shows you Santorum is an experienced “Establishment” Republican.

Elizabetty on December 31, 2011 at 8:39 AM

Rick is right. Christie/Romney NE liberals.

IndeCon on December 31, 2011 at 8:45 AM

LevinFan on December 31, 2011 at 8:27 AM

The Judge is a sharia law sympathizer? Do you have anything to back up that claim? Or you’re saying that because he’s a Muslim? He’s one of the most prestigious judges in the country. The fuzz about him is basically racism and bigotry.

Fighting Obamacare politically is conservative. Using taxpayers money to fight it via judicial activism is socialism (or “talk-radio conservatism” which is more or less the same).

Christie was the first governor in the country that pulled his tate out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas initiative. How the heck is he liberal on global warming? That’s basically making up stuff.

Why is he bad on immigration? Because he doesn’t think mass deportation is a reasonable solution? Well, it isn’t. There’s nothing conservative about being unreasonable, quite the contrary.

This is about religion, red-meat and being a southern. Just admit it already.

joana on December 31, 2011 at 8:48 AM

Good thing we won’t end up with a guy like that as our nominee.

(chuckle)
Who? Romney, Christie, Huntsman?
None of them are conservatives, they just play one occasionally at election time. Phhhhhhhhhht

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on December 31, 2011 at 8:56 AM

Christie is absolutely not a conservative. And he’s a gun grabber. He’s also decidedly ‘whatever’ on abortion.

He’s firmly in the ‘it was the best we cold do’ camp. And that’s ok. He’s certainly better than the alternative.

CorporatePiggy on December 31, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Crispy Cream Christie needs to relax. I think we’re all sick oc his “bully” song and dance. Not to mention that he still hasn’t made the simple effort to sign onto the Obamacare battle, yet supports someone who is vowing to repeal it. Santorum is the most conservative candidate besides Bachmann and it looks like she’s phasing out. We MUST get behind the conservative! Anyone is better than Obama, but that’s not the point.

TruLevinian on December 31, 2011 at 9:51 AM

Ah, so this is where we are supposed to start dumping on another candidate that rises up in the polls to try and get people to dislike him, right?

robertlbryant on December 31, 2011 at 10:01 AM

And this was in 1994. The year of the red tsunami. Well it was MA and no Republicans ever win in MA, right? Wrong. On the same day when Willard lost by 20% to Kennedy, Bill Weld, a Republican, won the governorship with 70%.

angryed on December 30, 2011 at 9:05 PM

The Kennedy name is so sacrosanct in Massachusetts that Teddy could probably have killed someone and got reelected easily.

oh wait …

PackerBronco on December 31, 2011 at 10:20 AM

Serious about winning? Try building a team of others who may not agree with you. Ron Paul to Romney – build it. Christie to Evangelicals – build it. One team. Except John Sunnunu, he crossed the line.

Tom McDonald on December 31, 2011 at 10:24 AM

Sometimes I think people here want a parlimentary form of government where you can vote for an ideological pure party and then watch that party join a coalition with other ideologically pure parties to form a government.

Essentially because of a unitary executive we have resolved into a two-party system in which each party in order to be a majority needs to form a coalition within itself of diverse interests and viewpoints. The idea is not to create a party of single interests but to find common ground across a wide enough spectrum to win a governing mandate for the principles we hold in common.

PackerBronco on December 31, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Ah, so this is where we are supposed to start dumping on another candidate that rises up in the polls to try and get people to dislike him, right?

robertlbryant on December 31, 2011 at 10:01 AM

Seriously?? Like Romney’s gotten his ANNAL exam yet?
Oh..it’s coming…and sooner than you think.

Santorum is 100% right…..as much as I like Christie’s boldness…..his RINO approach is just a bold.
Recently….his newly appointed Liberal “judges” is a prime example. He is NO WAY shape or form a “conservative”.

coach1228 on December 31, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Other than Scott Walker, there is no conservative in recent memory that has done more to stick daggers in the heart of liberals.

Like others have noted, the regionalism and Bible Thumping that permeated the GOP is just sad.

the most important issue of the day is the size and scope and role of government. Not only has Christie excelled, he is still working with a Democratic legislature. He’s gotten more done than many Republican governors with Republicans legislatures in red states.

swamp_yankee on December 31, 2011 at 10:35 AM

What about Mittens still supporting the mandate.

LevinFan on December 31, 2011 at 8:24 AM

Why do the anit-mitt trolls take every single opportunity to change the subject?

rubberneck on December 31, 2011 at 10:37 AM

As a NJ voter I admit that Chris Christie may be as close to a conservative as the state is likely to elect but at best he’s a moderate. He may be a fiscal conservative but being personally a social conservative doesn”t equate to being a full fledged Conservative. I have no doubt that when push comes to shove Christie is not going to fight for ANY socially conservative issues – he’ll play the Libertarian card of being personally opposed to abortion but doesn’t want to force his beliefs on the public. I wish people would stop trying to sell him as a conservative just to appeal to the part of the base you disdain.

katiejane on December 31, 2011 at 10:40 AM

So people that oppose Mitt’s campaign to continue the DC culture of corruption and fat cat lobbyists are now “trolls’

Yeah, OK, whatever you say, after all you Romney supporters are either not knowledgeable about policy or you want the continuation of the Wall Street control of DC, so I guess trolls are people that want capitalism and free markets and the Constitution vs crony capitalism and lobbyist control of government…I guess that makes us trolls.

georgealbert on December 31, 2011 at 10:42 AM

At first I thought Christie was our fat Reagan….

nooooo….he’s just fat.

Green eyed Lady on December 30, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Wow, you are a jerk. Please post a pic of yourself so we can judge you as well.

rubberneck on December 31, 2011 at 10:44 AM

I don’t think that Christie is a conservative, but he has a record on some issues that I can support. Same goes for Rudy Giuliani. Can’t think of any major policy that Romney implemented as MA governor that I agree with.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Santorum illustrates what’s wrong with much of the hostility generated by social conservatives. He is ignoring political reality for the sake of purist social principles–just as the social conservatives did four years ago. If we follow Santorum this time around, we’d end up with Obama all over again–since so many of the so-called “conservative” candidates would be far weaker than Romney in a general election. He would do to Romney what the soc cons did to Rudy four years ago.

In 2008 they rejected Giuliani, whose mayorality Gary Jason of American Thinker just called one of the three examples of masterful governance he had witnessed in his lifetime (Reagan’s presidency and Thatcher’s prime-ministership being the other two). Rudy had exactly what it took to turn this country around fiscally. But he wasn’t pure enough. So we got a much weaker McCain–who was correctly pro-life and therefore acceptable, but who was fiscally ignorant and unacceptable to a nation in crisis.

We’re still doing it–demanding an irrational purity in the face of calamity. Nothing would be worse than another Obama term. We need to nominate our strongest candidate–not the purest.

writeblock on December 31, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Before he endorsed Romney, people sang a different tune:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4u62YwQ5cc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxi6AE5LhjI

swamp_yankee on December 31, 2011 at 10:53 AM

So people that oppose Mitt’s campaign to continue the DC culture of corruption and fat cat lobbyists are now “trolls’

georgealbert on December 31, 2011 at 10:42 AM

Give the Romney supporters a break. The guy is so devoid of any actual selling point that the only tool in their toolbox is the insult.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 10:54 AM

It’s amazing that a socialist like Santorum who enthusiastically supported every item of Bush’s socialist agenda can call himself a conservative, cast doubts about how conservative is Chris Christie – a guy who’s been of the most conservative governors in America, his record is more conservative than, say, Perry’s – and a majority of posters here seems to agree.

joana on December 31, 2011 at 10:59 AM

I am not sure Americans even know what a Conservative is!

Compare the policies of Romney and Christie to those of Sarah Palin.

Only true Conservative beliefs like Palin’s will get America off its knees.

Sparky5253 on December 31, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Well the latest flavor of the month candidate for the unprincipled wing of the GOP has begun to ensure that he will not get the nomination.

csdeven on December 31, 2011 at 11:06 AM

swamp_yankee on December 31, 2011 at 10:53 AM

That’s gonna leave a mark! lol

csdeven on December 31, 2011 at 11:07 AM

So people that oppose Mitt’s campaign to continue the DC culture of corruption and fat cat lobbyists are now “trolls’

georgealbert on December 31, 2011 at 10:42 AM

No. You can oppose Romney, just tell the truth. Be accurate about his record. Your lies, half truths, and distortions make you a troll, not your opposition to him.

csdeven on December 31, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Compare the policies of Romney and Christie to those of Sarah Palin.

Only true Conservative beliefs like Palin’s will get America off its knees.

Sparky5253 on December 31, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Christie has governed the liberal state of New Jersey more conservatively than Palin governed the conservative state of Alaska.

joana on December 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM

What about Mittens still supporting the mandate.

He supports the totally constitutional mandate in MA. He opposes the totally unconstitutional federal mandate and will do his part to weaken, waive, defund, and then repeal it.

Saying let’s keep the good parts and repeal the bad parts of Obamacare?

LevinFan on December 31, 2011 at 8:24 AM

There are good parts of Obamacare. Cutting fraud and waste etc. Why are you in favor of fraud and waste?

csdeven on December 31, 2011 at 11:15 AM

I don’t think that Christie is a conservative, but he has a record on some issues that I can support. Same goes for Rudy Giuliani. Can’t think of any major policy that Romney implemented as MA governor that I agree with.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 10:52 AM

How about the fact that he balanced the budget without raising taxes? …but I guess you can’t agree with that.

Once again, the anit-mitt crowd proves themselves to be uniformed dopes.

rubberneck on December 31, 2011 at 11:16 AM

Give the Romney supporters a break. The guy is so devoid of any actual selling point that the only tool in their toolbox is the insult.

He’s articulate. He’s smart. He’s center-right, which is where most Americans are politically. He’s got business and executive experience. He polls well in swing states, especially in the Rust Belt, but also in FL and NV. He polls ahead of Obama nationally by six points. He’s a good family man with no personal baggage. He’s organized. He’s a good campaigner. He even looks presidential.

That’s just for a start–and I haven’t insulted anybody.

writeblock on December 31, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Just in case, we need reminding …

Bob Casey 59%
Santorum 41%

Yeah, that’s the guy we need at the head of the ticket.

PackerBronco on December 30, 2011 at 8:48 PM

Kennedy won re-election by a 58 percent to 41 percent margin over Romney

Looks about even to me.

they lie on December 30, 2011 at 9:01 PM

So Pa is as liberal as Mass and Casey is to Pa as Kennedy is to Mass? And it’s they who lie?

Basilsbest on December 31, 2011 at 11:26 AM

He supports the totally constitutional mandate in MA. He opposes the totally unconstitutional federal mandate and will do his part to weaken, waive, defund, and then repeal it.

csdeven on December 31, 2011 at 11:15 AM

constitutional =/= conservative

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:26 AM

How about the fact that he balanced the budget without raising taxes? …but I guess you can’t agree with that.

Once again, the anit-mitt crowd proves themselves to be uniformed dopes.

rubberneck on December 31, 2011 at 11:16 AM

He did raise taxes. And fees.

But glad you got the insult in there. Where would a Romney supporter’s argument be without one?!

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:28 AM

constitutional =/= conservative
besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Please elaborate.

Akzed on December 31, 2011 at 11:28 AM

There are good parts of Obamacare. Cutting fraud and waste etc. Why are you in favor of fraud and waste?

csdeven on December 31, 2011 at 11:15 AM

hahahah.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Please elaborate.

Akzed on December 31, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Just because something is constitutional doesn’t mean that it is conservative.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Thanks Capt. Obvious. I already knew that.

stenwin77 on December 31, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Just because something is constitutional doesn’t mean that it is conservative. besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:30 AM

So what are conservatives trying to conserve?

Akzed on December 31, 2011 at 11:31 AM

He’s articulate. He’s smart. He’s center-right, which is where most Americans are politically. He’s got business and executive experience. He polls well in swing states, especially in the Rust Belt, but also in FL and NV. He polls ahead of Obama nationally by six points. He’s a good family man with no personal baggage. He’s organized. He’s a good campaigner. He even looks presidential.

That’s just for a start–and I haven’t insulted anybody.

writeblock on December 31, 2011 at 11:17 AM

I agree with you on everything except the center-right bit, which is why I can’t support him. The rest just mean that he is a good man, which I don’t dispute. And electability doesn’t matter much to me if we are going to replace a statist with a D after his name with a statist with an R after his name.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:33 AM

So what are conservatives trying to conserve?

Akzed on December 31, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Individualism and free market principles.

Do you think that anything that is constitutional is conservative?

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Individualism and free market principles. Do you think that anything that is constitutional is conservative? besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Give an example of something that is constitutional yet not conservative.

Akzed on December 31, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Give an example of something that is constitutional yet not conservative.

Akzed on December 31, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Answer my question first.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:39 AM

I am so sick of this mentality of a single “heresy” and a Republican suddenly becomes a liberal. I actually wouldn’t mind if these people started a 3rd Party and let the grown ups actually govern. They can just opine how things “ought to be” while we actually field candidates that can win elections and change public policy.

Chris Christie has done FAR more to actually shrink government and take on the liberals that are destroying this country than supposed “true” conservatives like Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum that seem to only really care about what goes on in a woman’s uterus.

BradTank on December 31, 2011 at 11:43 AM

constitutional =/= conservative

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:26 AM

So you want a pure conservative that will adhere to the constitution 100%. It’s waaaaaay too early in the TEA Party movement to expect a candidate with that platform to gain popular support.

Now that I have established that you need to relax your expectations, the only question is: How rigid are you willing to be and not permanently damage the TEA Party movement by being viewed as extremist?

csdeven on December 31, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Santorum is dead on.

The most you could say about Christie is that he’s a fiscal conservative but on pretty much all the social issues hes left of center, and when the metal meets the meat its the social issues that count.

Just one example: He supports NJ’s draconian gun laws which are simply insane.

DR1579 on December 31, 2011 at 11:44 AM

So you want a pure conservative that will adhere to the constitution 100%.

csdeven on December 31, 2011 at 11:43 AM

What are you talking about? I hope any President, whether liberal or conservative would adhere to the constitution. They swear an oath to do so! Complying with an oath makes you a “pure conservative”?!

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:46 AM

There are no “true conservertives” in the top tier! So bascelly we conservetives have to pick the lesser of two evils!

lisa fox on December 31, 2011 at 11:47 AM

I actually wouldn’t mind if these people started a 3rd Party and let the grown ups actually govern.

BradTank on December 31, 2011 at 11:43 AM

That is the problem. they are too cowardly to start their own party because they know it would fail. So they latch onto the GOP coattails for credibility and then try to highjack the primary by threatening to run a non existent third party candidate.

csdeven on December 31, 2011 at 11:48 AM

I am so sick of this mentality of a single “heresy” and a Republican suddenly becomes a liberal.

BradTank on December 31, 2011 at 11:43 AM

I think that this kind of stuff is why people (including me) are turned off by Santorum. Christie has done some great conservative things and has done a lot for the conservative movement.

On the other hand, Romney’s record is one that involves implementing a long list of liberal/left policies, with nary a conservative policy thrown in there. So, I’d support either Santorum or Christie over Romney in a second.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:49 AM

What are you talking about?

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:46 AM

All you do is complain that you want a pure conservative. While constructing Romneycare, Romney followed the constitution in MA and has committed to do so as POTUS by repealing Obamacare to the extent that he has the power and authority to do so.

That isn’t good enough for you. Exactly what part of the constitution that Romney will follow is not conservative?

csdeven on December 31, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Why is it classified as “hate” if you are critical of Romney and accurately label him a moderate at best?

There’s nothing hateful or nutty about calling Romney and Christie what they are. They are both moderate Republicans.

You can whine about that all you want but I got their records and statements to back it up.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 1:09 AM

It’s not. At least if that happens on this site it’s very rare. The typical anti-Romney comment isn’t as restrained as calling him a moderate. It’s unhinged.

Basilsbest on December 31, 2011 at 11:53 AM

I could almost vote for Christie. He comes from a long line of “liberal Republicans” in New Jersey like Tom Kean and Christie Todd Whitman. He’s a little conservative for my taste but doesn’t have a visceral loathing of gays, unions, schoolteachers and Social Security. It’s unfortunate that he could never be a serious candidate for the Republican nomination.

urban elitist on December 31, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Do you think that anything that is constitutional is conservative?

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Following the constitution IS conservatism even if some of the values are progressive. Accepting that no one gets their way all the time is called being fair. And since when is being fair not a conservative value?

csdeven on December 31, 2011 at 11:57 AM

All you do is complain that you want a pure conservative.

csdeven on December 31, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Find me a single quote where I have said that. I think that the terms “pure conservative” and “true conservative” are stupid beyond belief and I cringe whenever I see one of the candidates (Bachmann) say it.

All I want is someone that I think will tackle problems from an individualist/non-statist position and not be afraid to back up and sell individual and free market principles. That is not Romney – his record in MA shows the exact opposite. He won’t even admit that the mandate is not “inherently conservative”. I’d happily support any of the other candidates, with all of their flaws (other than, perhaps, Paul).

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:58 AM

with nary a conservative policy thrown in there.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:49 AM

That is simply not true.

csdeven on December 31, 2011 at 11:58 AM

I agree with you on everything except the center-right bit, which is why I can’t support him. The rest just mean that he is a good man, which I don’t dispute. And electability doesn’t matter much to me if we are going to replace a statist with a D after his name with a statist with an R after his name.
besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:33 AM

Is there some reason you who can’t distinguish between a socialist and a free enterprise capitalist? The socialist runs 1.5 trillion dollar deficits. The capitalist ran surpluses in the most liberal state in the nation.

Basilsbest on December 31, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Following the constitution IS conservatism even if some of the values are progressive. Accepting that no one gets their way all the time is called being fair. And since when is being fair not a conservative value?

csdeven on December 31, 2011 at 11:57 AM

I have no idea what your statement means. Followng the constitution is the law. It is what all federal officers are sworn to do. Saying that something is constitutional and is, therefore, conservative demonstrates an inherent lack of understanding of American politics and policy preferences.

But, I will say that “fairness” is used in implementing every statist and progressive policy that the left throws at us. I cringe at its use almost as much as at the use of “true conservative”.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Do you think that anything that is constitutional is conservative?

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Sorry for the delay. Uh, yes. Isn’t that the point?

Akzed on December 31, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Is there some reason you who can’t distinguish between a socialist and a free enterprise capitalist? The socialist runs 1.5 trillion dollar deficits. The capitalist ran surpluses in the most liberal state in the nation.

Basilsbest on December 31, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Romney may have been a free enterprise capitalist while at Bain; he was not one as governor. That is his problem. And as I said previously, Romney balanced the budget in the same way that Obama wants to – by raising taxes and fees. You know what he also did? Raised spending. Sure, he may be a statist on a smaller scale than Obama, but his policies indicate that the government is the solution, not the problem.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 12:04 PM

sell individual and free market principles. That is not Romney – his record in MA shows the exact opposite. He won’t even admit that the mandate is not “inherently conservative”. I’d happily support any of the other candidates, with all of their flaws (other than, perhaps, Paul).

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Then you need to study up on what Romnneycare is based on. It has no elements of social engineering for the sake of social engineering. It is a free market approach to a social program forced onto the state by Reagan. Inherently conservative is spin. What he did was force people to be responsible for their own healthcare. Being responsible for ones healthcare is conservatism. Forcing people to be responsible is socialism. The problem is that these people were already steeped in socialism. Romneycare used socialism to force them toward the conservative principled of being responsible for oneself. LOL It is a clever spin on Romney’s part. But I would prefer to do away with forcing us to pay for those who wont pay for themselves. But Reagan imposed EMTALA on all states. Romneycare was a response to that. It was as conservative as possible but used socialist tactics to achieve it.

I don’t collect comments, but I do glean from current comments what a person wants. If you don’t want a pure conservative, you sure sounded like you did.

csdeven on December 31, 2011 at 12:07 PM

There are no “true conservertives” in the top tier! So bascelly we conservetives have to pick the lesser of two evils!

lisa fox on December 31, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Because “conservative” is an infallible guide to what is right, true, proper and effective. It’s a magical word that when bestowed on some one imbues them with super hero powers.

When are people going to learn to think for themselves? Must politics to so many be a football game? Must life be reduced to tribalism ad infinitum? When looking at candidates, to a great many on both sides, it’s a mechanical process of looking at what the “conservative” position is and putting check marks next each square the candidate fulfills. It’s no different on the unthinking left. Most people on both sides lack a single thought that wasn’t put there by some “trusted” advocate. And that’s how we end up with Cowboys vs Redskins politics.

Life is not black and white. Neither side has all the answers and even if they did, there is no avoiding working with the other side to put any plan in to action. When we don’t, we end up with ObamaCare type crap, that is the product of one side cramming their partisan cluster-fark down the nation’s throat. And don’t think for a second that the conservatives don’t have their own analogs to ObamaCare that they would love to impose on us all.

Here’s a clue. Being more “conservative” says nothing about a candidate’s ability to succeed either in an election or as a leader. It doesn’t make the stupid any smarter, the reckless any wiser, the stubborn any more thoughtful or the inarticulate any clearer. It is simply a device to make one feel righteous about choosing a side without having to use their own thinking apparatus.

I’m speaking up in a “conservative” clan’s site. I know that and expect the inevitable howls of tribal retribution for it. See if I care.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 12:08 PM

I gotta go. There is more to conservatism than the Constitution, but one cannot be conservative and countenance anti-constitutional spending, programs, and limitations of rights as enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Akzed on December 31, 2011 at 12:09 PM

There isn’t a complete conservative in this field?

Do they even exist anymore? In the political arena, that is.

predator on December 30, 2011 at 8:09 PM

Michele Bachmann is about as close as you can get.

Dasher on December 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM

I have no idea what your statement means.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 12:02 PM

I’ll try to explain by following your logic…..

You say that not all constitutional values are conservative. By extrapolation, does that mean that you are willing to support conservative legislation that is unconstitutional?

csdeven on December 31, 2011 at 12:13 PM

I’ll try to explain by following your logic…..

You say that not all constitutional values are conservative. By extrapolation, does that mean that you are willing to support conservative legislation that is unconstitutional?

csdeven on December 31, 2011 at 12:13 PM

That is certainly not my logic. I don’t think that if x must be y, then y must be x.

And there are certainly conservative positions that under current case law are considered unconstitutional, such as laws upholding an individual’s right to life.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Inherently conservative is spin. What he did was force people to be responsible for their own healthcare. Being responsible for ones healthcare is conservatism. Forcing people to be responsible is socialism. The problem is that these people were already steeped in socialism. Romneycare used socialism to force them toward the conservative principled of being responsible for oneself.

csdeven on December 31, 2011 at 12:07 PM

That may be so; but his solution was more government. That is a statist position. Obviously the limited government, free market position would be to decrease the government’s footprint in the health care arena, not increase it. Maybe he didn’t have that option, but he didn’t have to increase the size of the state in response to the problem (doing nothing would have been better than advancing the statist agenda). He did; he didn’t try to sell the non-statist solution. He went along with operating from presuming a statist policy outcome, and that’s what he got. I don’t like politicians who operate from a starting point that the state is the answer.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 12:36 PM

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Tell us what part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to pass a “Defense of Marriage Act?”

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 12:37 PM

True conservatives can’t win.

No, Reagen does not be the litmus test that most of you hold today. Oh, yeah, Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his presidency and grew the government. Guys like Grover Norquist would and the rest of you would be referring him as a RINO. I laugh at you so called purists. Especially when you start bowing to Reagan.

All Romney did was close loop holes, which did create more revenue for his state…and Reagan did the same damn thing. However, Romney did balance the budget, which is one of the more important issues today.

rubberneck on December 31, 2011 at 12:44 PM

having some guy with a New Jersey accent screaming at you acting tough would be laughable.

lea

The fact that you think Christie has a noticeable Jersey accent is laughable. As is the idea that he “screams” at anyone.

Chris might have some occasional Jersey inflections but there’s no “accent” there.

BTW, I’m not a fan of Christie as the VP nominee – just making fun of your characterization.

InVinoVeritas on December 31, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Teh gunz!!11!! Chris Fattie gonna grab teh gunz!!1!!11

John the Libertarian on December 31, 2011 at 12:51 PM

rubberneck on December 31, 2011 at 12:44 PM

I wish that Romney had Reagan’s eloquence. I think that that’s what is most lacking in him. Like RR, Mitt is a pragmatist who knows how to get things done. He just doesn’t posses the prosaic voice of the great one. Like Reagan, Mitt understands that compromise is inevitable but more importantly he knows what ground he can cede for the sake of gaining something of much greater value to our nation.

Compromise has become a dirty word in politics. To be fair, there is no doubt that the GOP has done a lousy job of learning the lessons of Reagan. That is learning what issues to set aside for the sake of items of much greater priority. The result is a populist backlash against all manner of compromise. This my way or the highway politics has produced the terribly damaging chicken or brinksmanship politics. It results in what both sides agree to be the most necessary and unavoidable decisions being deferred until the 60th minute of the 11th hour in an attempt to make the other side blink to score points.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 12:54 PM

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 12:54 PM

While you are correct that Reagan was not unwilling to compromise, his political career on average was more conservative than Romney’s has been to this point. Of course, you will counter that Reagan was more liberal in California and Mitt was forced to be more liberal in Massachusetts, but the point is that we know what Reagan ended up doing. Mitt’s future is unknown, so all we can do is make educated guesses. So far, it is safe to say that Reagan was significantly to the right of Romney.

With regard to eloquence and style and all that, you are right that Reagan was eloquent, but the bigger difference comes down to charisma. Romney has corporate charisma. It works for the financial and business environments, but doesn’t always work well in the political realm. Reagan’s more Hollywood version of charisma seems to work well in politics. Several of our most recent presidents have had it.

Anyway, it probably sounds like I’m making a big deal out of small differences. I don’t mean to do so. Just offering my .02.

McDuck on December 31, 2011 at 1:23 PM

I am so very glad that someone had the guts to tell the truth about Christie. He isn’t a conservative, a gentlemen or even a good republican.He is a rino. I cant believe that he was able to pull the wool over Ann Coulters eyes or maybe she is just a rino that is good at throwing conservative platitudes and is more interested in self promotion then country

pwb on December 31, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Just in case, we need reminding …

Bob Casey 59%
Santorum 41%

Yeah, that’s the guy we need at the head of the ticket.

PackerBronco on December 30, 2011 at 8:48 PM

Kennedy won re-election by a 58 percent to 41 percent margin over Romney

Looks about even to me. Santorum managed to win twice before he lost, Mitt, just lost.

they lie on December 30, 2011 at 9:01 PM
Fixed.

Lighthorse on December 31, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Tell us what part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to pass a “Defense of Marriage Act?”
MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 12:37 PM

What? Why would I do that? When did I say that I thought that it was constitutional or not?

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 1:59 PM

I wish that Romney had Reagan’s eloquence. I think that that’s what is most lacking in him. Like RR, Mitt is a pragmatist who knows how to get things done.

Romney’s pragmatism always seems to involve statist solutions; RR’s did not. And Romey doesn’t isn’t as eloquent because he has no policy preference, so cannot express himself with any conviction or persuasion.

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 2:03 PM

I could almost vote for Christie. He comes from a long line of “liberal Republicans” in New Jersey like Tom Kean and Christie Todd Whitman.

This is a mistake some conservatives make when they talk about NE politicians. Christie is not at all like Kean or Whitman who are country club Republicans from the Rockefeller wing of the party. Both Christie and Giuliani are a different breed. They both have working class roots and they both look to Reagan as their mentor.

writeblock on December 31, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Christie is a conservative. Look at the progress he has made in a very blue New Jersey.

Redford on December 31, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Trying to say Romney is in the same league as Reagan is absurd.

Reagan was a conservative ideologue who had conservative accomplishments as govenor in California.

Romney is a man who danced for liberals in Mass for 4 years, implemented government run healthcare in his state, supported a ban on semi-automatic weapons, raises taxes and fees, etc.

There’s no comparison to b/t Romney and Reagan.

Moderates love to use Reagan as their prop but Romney is more like Bush Sr., who Reagan defeated in their primary.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 3:02 PM

What progress has Christie really made in NJ? It’s still as liberal as ever, and I don’t think he’s balanced the budget there yet.

He’s not a conservative outside of budget issues. That’s why he will never be a player on the national scene.

Just b/c the big guy is a camera whore doesn’t mean conservatives are going to vote for him.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM

besser tot als rot on December 31, 2011 at 1:59 PM

You equated conservationism with Constitutionalism. I cited an example where they diverge.

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM

MJBrutus is so full of himself.

He wants to recreate conservativism is his own moderate image. That’s “thinking for yourself”.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 3:06 PM

MJBrutus wants to wage war on conservatives.

He’s a whiner because he’s a minority within the Republican party.

His hero Romney couldn’t win a primary with a run-off.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 3:07 PM

The Consitution allows Congress to add additional admendments.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 3:09 PM

How the f— did all the other ones get added if it’s not constitutional?

Come on, Brutus, for a man who thinks for himself, you sure don’t seem to think much at all.

Dr. Tesla on December 31, 2011 at 3:09 PM

McDuck on December 31, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Thanks for a thoughtful answer. I would suggest that the key quality possessed by both men is pragmatism. Reagan governed pragmatically both in CA and at the national level. I think that Romney will do the same. Neither men are (or were) ideologues. They were men who understood that the good of the nation is far more important than proving some philosophical point. They are more interested in doing what it takes to improve our lives than in winning the next race. America loved Reagan for it and I believe we will love Romney for it when he becomes our next POTUS.

If you recall, PBHO convinced a great many voters that he would be a pragmatic healer. That he would not himself be governed by blue/red divides. He lied, shamelessly and people now know that. Romney can make that case credibly because he did exactly that in MA. In many ways, the scorn coming from the hard liners is both evidence of that fact and a recommendation that money cannot buy!

MJBrutus on December 31, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4