Top donor: You just watch, Santorum will be frontrunner “very soon”
posted at 5:00 pm on January 27, 2012 by Tina Korbe
The foremost funder of Rick Santorum’s Super PAC, says Santorum will be in or near the lead of the GOP primary “very soon.”
“I believe Rick Santorum will become one of the front-runners very soon,” Foster Friess, a major donor to the Red White and Blue Fund, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television.
True, that’s not a particularly daring prediction: At this point, any one of the GOP Final Four could claim to be an overall “frontrunner.” Even the last-place finisher in Florida could claim to be “near” the lead. But that’s obviously not what Friess meant.
The businessman has donated $700,000 to Santorum’s political campaigns over the years and now says he has an “open checkbook” from which he’s willing to draw continually for the sake of Santorum’s presidential bid. At the same time, though, he’s prepared to donate in the general election to whoever becomes the GOP nominee. He just prefers Santorum, he said, because he has known him for more than 15 years on a personal basis.
Meantime, even though Rick Santorum won Iowa and performs better and better in debates, the former Pennsylvania senator hasn’t received the kind of media scrutiny to which Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are routinely subjected. For a brief period of time after his win in Iowa, a number of critics accused him of “big government conservatism,” but, since then, Santorum-specific news has been fairly scarce.
Yesterday, though, someone called my attention to this 1994 article, which seems to suggest that Santorum at one time did favor requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. That’s important because, in recent days, Santorum has made a point to draw a contrast between himself and his competitors on this issue, saying that he has never supported an individual health care mandate. You’d think his competitors’ opposition researchers would have said something if Santorum did, in fact, support a mandate in the past — but, then again, you’d also think Santorum’s then-staff wouldn’t have let this article go at the time without asking for a correction if, in fact, it falsely portrayed Santorum’s positions. I’ve reached out to the Santorum campaign to see what Santorum’s response to that long-ago story is, and will let you know what I find out.
Update: Thanks for all the comments and especially for the link to the video at The Right Scoop. The article appears to be a one-off misinterpretation of Santorum’s positions and, according to an initial quick response from Santorum’s campaign, has a number of holes in it. That was my hunch, but I wanted to verify. Again, I appreciate your responses.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Almost everybody outside of Obama and John Kerry are more conservative than Romney.
That’s why there is a lot of anger out there at the GOP and the “conservative” media for being in the tank for Romney.
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 6:53 PM
30 posts so far by the spammer on this page. Someone please tell his meth dealer to cut him off.
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 6:53 PM
Thanks. The president-Clintoln excepted- dosen’t drive the culture. Remember Gore’s campaign against offensive song lyrics?Unless I can see some way for Santorum to do damage with his SoCon beliefs then he’s the guy.
Obamacare is coming up. It either gets repealed or it exists forever. It get’s repealed if it is in the minds of the electorate leading up to the elections. If Obamacare is not a central theme in the general election then ObamaCare will not be repealed.
BoxHead1 on January 27, 2012 at 6:54 PM
Madisonconservative,
You seem to have a big problem with the Workplace Religious Freedom Act and what it forces on employers. Do you have the same problem with laws which force employers to recognize gay unions as marriage and treat them as such with regards to benefits despite the wishes of the employer?
Rocks on January 27, 2012 at 6:54 PM
WHy don’t you ban me, they don’t give you that power? That’s what you want to happen to me. Do it big boy, ban me. Show these other people what happens when you disagree with MadCon. :)
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 6:55 PM
Tempting, but that’s all right. I’ve dealt with nitwits like him on this site for years. Eventually, they go away.
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 6:55 PM
I tend to think the core issues in this election cycle are the economy and RomneyCare.
Madcon thinks it’s teaching intelligent design in schools and gay rights.
It’s just two intelligent people disagreeing on what our priorities should be.
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 6:56 PM
I am against all workplace discrimination laws, actually. I think private companies should be able to discriminate in any way they like. If they want to fire all black people, all white people, all men, all women, all homosexuals, all Christians, whatever…they should be free to do so.
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 6:57 PM
I concur that many acts now are indeed unconstitutional. There are a couple of ways you can deal with this. The first is to throw out and eradicate all laws running contrary to the Constitution. The second is to amend the Constitution in such a way that you eliminate the legal contradiction. I don’t necessarily favor one method or the other (since again, I judge programs on the merits), but I do agree that we need to eradicate the contradictions.
I’d agree with you on SOPA and PIPA as being bad ideas. I agree with the idea of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act in principle, but concede it may need to be amended to narrow its scope due to the potential for abuse. I don’t mind the amendment Santorum introduced to No Child Left Behind since secular educators often conflate natural selection with evolution, and busily treat evolution as an origins hypothesis when in fact it’s a transformational hypothesis.
Stoic Patriot on January 27, 2012 at 6:59 PM
MadCon, you don’t have to say liberal things in Madison to get dates? I wouldn’t blame you if you did. :)
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 7:00 PM
Santorum should be the frontrunner after last night’s debate, but, unfortunately, there are too many people who go by looks and see Santorum’s ticked off, dour face at the debates.
Decoski on January 27, 2012 at 7:02 PM
Evolution was a viable theory in science before Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace proposed the theory of Natural Selection as the driver of Evolution (see Erasmus Darwin). Gregor Mendel’s work with trait inheritance was folded into Evolutionary theory, which resulted in neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Surprisingly all are theories, which by definition are unproved. The scientific method requires that we conduct experiments to disprove theory. Neo-darwinian evolution as understood in today’s scientific circles is a conundrum in that it is very difficult if not impossible to test because of the temporal scale needed for experimental results. The fruit fly not withstanding, we have been unable to support evolution by natural selection through experimentation. Rather we use it as a model to explain fossils and opine as to how they fit the model. Teaching an alternative in schools should not be a issue as long as they are taught as theories rather than fact.
Robbin Hood on January 27, 2012 at 7:02 PM
But such a thing is never likely to happen. So you then would probably say if we are going to give “rights” to certain people we should do the same for gays, correct?
Rocks on January 27, 2012 at 7:02 PM
I do remember the battle against offensive lyrics. And the battle against video games. As I mentioned earlier, I see those as just another couple of bricks in the wall of statism – legislators banning behavior not because it truly is a detriment to the rights of citizens, but because they personally disapprove of it.
I completely agree with you about the ObamaCare focus of this election. However, given my belief that Santorum is a statist, I’m afraid that even in the best case scenario where ObamaCare is dismantled, Santorum will simply sign other high-spending legislation that offsets the repeal.
Trust me, I take no joy in the fact that I can’t support nor vote for any of the candidates we have, but the price of compromise is telling the GOP that this pathetic batch is “good enough”. That’s not a price I’m prepared to pay.
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 7:02 PM
I’d disagree with you there. If you believe in equal opportunity, then people should have an equal opportunity for employment, and be judged on the merits of their work, not irrelevant identities. That means you look at productivity/output, quality of worksmanship, knowledge, education, years of experience, etceteras.
You can allow for some exceptions in so far as they are relevant to the part (i.e. you can insist on hiring only a white male to play the part of Huckleberry Finn if the movie role requires a white male actor). But to permit discrimination where it is completely irrelevant to the job is anathema to the American ethic of a meritocracy.
Stoic Patriot on January 27, 2012 at 7:03 PM
It’s nothing against you personally, but uninteresting comment after uninteresting comment from you just isn’t worth my time. My javascript program will be made available at userscript.org, and so other people can avoid those that they find uninteresting.
I surprised a script like this hasn’t been done already. Maybe I should search around userscript.org a little more.
thuja on January 27, 2012 at 7:03 PM
We all will be voting for Romney come election day. We don’t like to think we are Republican robots but we are. They know it too or they would have gone nuclear on Romney long ago. :)
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 7:05 PM
That’s the way it works. They keep re-floating lil ‘Mitch D.
It dosen’t takea PoliSci degree to see that he’s short and bald and therefore he can’t win.
BoxHead1 on January 27, 2012 at 7:05 PM
I’m all for teaching “intelligent design” in school.
“Gay rights” need to be detailed, because it means different things to different people.
listens2glenn on January 27, 2012 at 7:05 PM
I’m not sure what “rights” you’re referring to, but I don’t consider marriage a right, if that is what you mean. You’re trying to corner me into saying I’m in favor of gay marriage or of government forcing people to recognize gay marriage. I’m not. I’m in favor of removing marriage from government power, reducing it to civil unions, and letting the churches decide, free from government interference, what is or is not “marriage” under their roof. I’m also against those who sue to force businesses to transact business with them, regardless of the reason.
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 7:06 PM
the Poli Sci guys think Mitch Daniels is the perfect candidate. He’s bland, he doesnt’ pander to his own voters but rather to his opponent’s voters, etc.
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 7:06 PM
And I believe in unicorns and wood fairies.
jan3 on January 27, 2012 at 7:08 PM
I don’t have any dog in the hunt in the evolution vs. ID debate, other than the fact that ID is religion, not science, and therefore should not be taught as a part of science class. I think evolution should be emphasized as theory, not as fact, however.
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 7:08 PM
Why must it be taught in science class if you think it’s just a theory? Your own logic falls in on you.
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 7:09 PM
My issue isn’t whether it’s presented as “theory” or “fact,” but rather the over-extended claims that accompany it. I grew up in the highly secular Northeast (and I happen to be an atheist), but my BS-detector immediately went off when the teachers started telling me that evolution explained how life began. Mutation of a lifeform, resulting in the transition from one species to another new species is fine. Claiming that it explains the origin of life is completely absurd.
If they want to teach both as hypotheses regarding the “origin of life,” be it in a science class, philosophy class, or theology class, fine. But educators also shouldn’t exaggerate what their findings allow one to conclude.
Stoic Patriot on January 27, 2012 at 7:11 PM
I don’t believe in equal opportunity, as you state it. If I want to start a business, I should be free to hire and fire as I see fit. I should be free to accept and refuse business as I see fit. Why? Because if I act like a complete and total f**ktard while conducting business, word will get around, and people will stop doing business with me. I trust the community, rather than the government, to determine which businesses succeed and which fail. I think those businesses that practice egregious discrimination will tank fairly quickly. In contrast, I think those who do hire and fire based on merit will not only have the most successful business due to their logical thinking, but will attract more customers and employees through that thinking. To me, that is far closer to the American spirit than government forcing you not to be an a*shole.
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 7:11 PM
Evolution believers are like the global warming alarmists.
They don’t want people debating it. No skepticism, curiousity allowed.
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 7:13 PM
I have the same skepticism when it comes to evolution, though I am agnostic rather than atheist. I completely agree with you on the bias of educators in our public school system, without hesitation. However, I feel that the answer doesn’t lie in mixing religion into state-funded science classes. Being a child of private Catholic school, I think more of the answer lies in the promotion of private schools, particularly through the School Choice and other voucher programs.
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 7:15 PM
I don’t think that holds up in the real world though. The South remained economically viable prior to the forcible institution of the Civl Rights Act by the Federal government. As such, you might have black patrons or workers unable to find work or get service merely due to their race, and the mistreatment of those individuals continues in perpetuity due to the local custom and sufficiently concentrated demographic factors.
Stoic Patriot on January 27, 2012 at 7:15 PM
I wish I could invent a medication that would “cure” homosexuality because I’ve had my fill of hearing about this trivial issue.
We are in a tough spot right now as a country but people want to put gay issues up there in the top 3 issues we need to deal with.
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 7:16 PM
And outside of church roofs…will individual employers be allowed to practice their religious beliefs in their workplace with regard to civil unions between gays? People don’t just practice religion in churches. Or will they be forced by law to treat same sex civil unions as opposite sex civil unions?
Rocks on January 27, 2012 at 7:17 PM
I wonder what Madison Conservative majored in. I’m confident he’s didn’t major in engineering or the hard sciences. :)
We have so many political science types trying to tell us what should be taught in science class. That’s a problem.
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 7:17 PM
That’s a familiar refrain among conservatives, but one that leaves me unsatisfied because it doesn’t get to the heart of the issue: the truth of what evolution is all about. Basically what that does is it says “Let’s avoid a conflict and just go off and do our own thing” rather than insist that the presentation of information be accurate.
Why should families have to go send their kids off to some private institution when there’s a public institution that could serve them just as well, which is designed to serve them, if we’d just fix it?
I’d much rather have a head-on confrontation with the teachers’ unions and colleges about the matter than simply have us do our own thing. If we’re going to have public services, then they better serve the public interest.
Stoic Patriot on January 27, 2012 at 7:19 PM
The thing is, the country has changed enormously over the last 50 years. I think the CRA was necessary at the time, but I think it’s time to try being a society without the training wheels. Why should the government continue to tell us we’re too racist to operate without their watchful eye?
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 7:19 PM
Computer science and business administration.
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 7:20 PM
I’m sorry, I thought I made that clear in my posts. I’m opposed to any legislation preventing employers from practicing discrimination. Is that not all-encompassing enough to answer your question?
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 7:21 PM
That’s the whole problem, right there. Evil Evangelicals (such as myself) believe that the Bible is THE most scientific document there is.
And you saying “it should not be taught as part of science class” takes the ‘science’ out of science.
This means I absolutely am for the overturning of McCollum v. Board of Education (1948).
listens2glenn on January 27, 2012 at 7:22 PM
Public institutions cannot serve people as well as private institutions, particularly when it comes to education. There’s a reason people pay a fortune to attend private universities. Though, frankly, people are paying a fortune just to attend the public ones, these days.
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 7:23 PM
I’d certainly favor repealing the Voting Rights Act, since it isn’t applied equally across all of the states. However, I wouldn’t want to see the CRA repealed. If the law coincides with what’s right, then there’s little to no reason to remove it. Is it possible that society might function just fine without it? Sure. But in the event that discrimination does occur, it’d be nice to have some means of legal redress to confront that with. Hence, I’d favor keeping it.
Stoic Patriot on January 27, 2012 at 7:25 PM
I KNEW we had some ‘common ground’ somewhere. : )
listens2glenn on January 27, 2012 at 7:26 PM
That’s fine, but, with all due respect, it’s not. It’s a religious text. Science and religion are distinct.
With that, I’m not continuing any discussion of science vs. religion, evolution vs. ID, etc. Those posts become enormous on this site, and I don’t want to hijack this post too far from the primary topic: Rick Santorum.
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 7:26 PM
It was perfectly clear. But espousing a solution that is never likely to happen is not a way out of explaining expanding government to protect gay unions. Your calling everything civil unions is just a dodge. The end result is an expansion of government to force individuals to treat same sex unions the same as opposite sex unions as per the Social Liberals you suggest you don’t like earlier.
Rocks on January 27, 2012 at 7:28 PM
I’d probably disagree there, and use China as my example. Chinese students consistently score better in science and math than American students. Education costs significantly less in China, and is run by the public, not private, sector.
When it comes to educational reform, I worry about a few factors:
1.) Teacher competence
2.) Relevance of curriculum
3.) Rigor of curriculum
4.) Classroom discipline
I don’t see any of these as being particularly “private/public” sector issues, but issues involving the culture of the teachers colleges who seem more inclined to teach “soft skills” and “socialization” while pushing an agenda rather than teach anything real. I think we need to purge that culture, not give up on public education.
Stoic Patriot on January 27, 2012 at 7:28 PM
I’ve got lots of common ground with most people on this site…but too many people define me based on our disagreements.
Here, I think, is where we part company, ideologically. It all comes back to the notion that just because something is deemed “right” by society, that its opposite should be illegal. I despise adultery, and generally those who engage in it(with exceptions, of course). That doesn’t mean that the government should prevent people from engaging in it. Smoking cigarettes, with all we know about them, is insanity, in my opinion. Doesn’t mean the government should prevent people from doing so, either through laws preventing business owners from allowing smoking in their establishments, or through heavy taxes that make cigarettes financially unattainable to those with lower incomes. I despise racism, misogyny, religious discrimination, etc…but that doesn’t mean that government should stop people from engaging in things I despise.
I consider it my responsibility to combat those behaviors through my right to free speech and expression. I consider it my responsibility to try to convince my family and friends not to engage in those behaviors. Why? Because this is a government OF the people. I am the government, as are you, and the rest of us. If a behavior is not infringing on our rights, I believe it is up to us to police that behavior through our expressed approval and disapproval.
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 7:33 PM
Oh, alright (mumble grumble).
listens2glenn on January 27, 2012 at 7:33 PM
Nothing I said indicates anything like that. Once again, I advocate the government reducing all government-recognized marriages to civil unions, so that no discrimination is practiced by the federal government. I also advocate legislation ensuring the protection of the freedom of religion of all spiritual organizations to define marriage the way they wish. One church doesn’t want to marry a gay couple? Perfectly fine. Another does? Perfectly fine. Your church doesn’t jive with what you believe? Find another church.
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 7:35 PM
With all due respect, did you really just cite China as a model for any government activity? That might work for some people, but not for me. You’re talking about a government that kills political prisoners, harvests their organs, and sells them on the global organ market. You’re talking about a government with a one-child policy. You’re talking about a Communist dictatorship.
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 7:39 PM
There’s a significant difference between smoking and adultery though.
With adultery, you have a man and woman make vows including to be there for their spouse in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, and to forsake all others (i.e. sexual exclusivity). When adultery is committed, you have the explicit breach of that vow. I find it curious that we live in a society where if you breach a contract regarding property, we sometimes go so far as to even send people to jail, but adultery is given a “free ride” (pun intended). Additionally with adultery, you have the treatment of a person as a means to an end rather than an end in and of himself.
Compare that to smoking, where you have no abuse of another person by degrading their dignity, nor do you have any violation of a vow. You have self-inflicted harm that, second-hand smoke aside, doesn’t extend beyond that. With adultery, you have the betrayal of a spouse. Consequently, I’d say there’s a role for government involvement when it comes to adultery, but not for smoking (with a possible secondhand smoke exception).
I happen to think that there’s a moral equivalent of Gresham’s law though. Gresham’s law is an economic concept remarking how the presence of “lemons” (bad cars) in a market tends to reduce the price of a generic car when one can’t tell the difference between good and bad, thereby forcing the good cars out of the market since they no longer recover cost.
Personal behavior is similar. If you can do something that’s abusive and self-serving, it will tend to force decent people and decent behavior out by essentially ensuring that acting decently ends up punishing oneself. That’s one reason I diverge from the libertarian standpoint.
Stoic Patriot on January 27, 2012 at 7:40 PM
MadCOn is comparing Rick Santorum to China’s government when he calls Santy a statist.
This is what passes for reasonable punditry these days.
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 7:41 PM
Very true, but I’m not talking about the atrocities they engage in. I’m talking about the quality of their educational system there. There’s no way I would endorse communism or the one-child policy, the slaying of political prisoners or the harvesting of organs. Rather, I’m examining their educational system apart from the rest of their society.
Stoic Patriot on January 27, 2012 at 7:43 PM
I don’t, and I don’t think there will be a meeting of the minds on this point. Some people look at adultery with personal disapproval. Others look at adultery and believe the government should provide punishment. I am of the former, not the latter. It’s none of the government’s business.
Selling lemons, however, ultimately results in theft. There, you have a breach of someone’s rights. I’m not sure exactly what you mean in your second paragraph. How does abusive and self-serving behavior on my part force you or someone else to stop acting decently? Most people I knew in college slept around, drunk to unconsciousness, and generally acted like s**theads. I didn’t, and I didn’t need the government to prevent them from doing so in order to choose not to do so. With respect, if you need government to stop people doing things, because the lack of that restriction might tempt you to do the same, you’re a weak individual. In a free nation, why should I be prevented from doing something just because you don’t have self-control?
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 7:50 PM
Everything you said indicates that which is why you keep throwing out this dodge about spiritual organizations. Individuals have the right to religious freedom. Not just churches or only in church. No legislation is needed to protect freedom of religion for a church or an individual. It is already guaranteed by the Constitution. The reason you would support such legislation for spiritual organizations is because you are advocating such protection be removed everywhere else with your civil union dodge. By the government. It’s further evidenced by your suggestion the Federal Government is discriminating now by not recognizing gay unions.
Rocks on January 27, 2012 at 7:50 PM
In a communist dictatorship, can you truly separate any government program from the central administration? If anything, education is probably only a couple rungs down from their military in terms of their ideology. I note also that you cited the very real problem of agendas being pushed in teacher’s colleges. Do you really think that isn’t ten times as bad in Chinese teacher’s colleges?
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 7:52 PM
What the hell do civil unions have to do with religion, or protection of religious freedom?
Again, I’m done with this. The post was almost derailed over evolution vs. ID, and now you’re trying to derail it with gay marriage. Not biting, especially with someone who has the balls to keep falsely telling me what my views are.
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 7:56 PM
I’ll let the first point go since you’ve indicated we won’t agree. That’s fine. But I’ll continue on the second point.
In selling lemons, you don’t actually have a breach of rights. You buy an item, not knowing what quality or condition it’s in. It’s a “caveat emptor” scenario. The point on relating it to personal behavior is to show that it has a deleterious societal effect.
Consider a soft-spoken, shy, considerate individual, and someone who’s loud, brash, and obnoxious. A person who’s loud, brash, and obnoxious is someone likely to complain frequently, be it at a business or about government services, regarding who gets served first or how much they get, and be accommodated for stating his objections vociferously out of a desire to keep him quiet and calm, regardless of the merits of any objections he may have. Likewise, the soft-spoken person may go completely overlooked, not receiving even the basic services they request.
Consequently, the second person, even though they may have better character and be more deserving of a given service, then has every incentive to imitate the behavior of the first person, competing for resources by engaging in bratty behavior. As such, the obnoxious person has essentially forced decent behavior out by making selfish and obnoxious behavior necessary for survival.
Stoic Patriot on January 27, 2012 at 8:00 PM
What do they have to do with it? You think not using a certain word just magically changes everything for people who are religious? The net effect of what you suggest is individuals will be forced to treat a same sex civil union the same as an opposite sex one in every public interaction they have outside of their church. And you are going to go on about Rick Santorum and social engineering?
Rocks on January 27, 2012 at 8:05 PM
I don’t know about you, but in nearly every business I’ve worked in over the last 15 years of my working life, loud, brash, obnoxious behavior gets you thrown out, chastised publicly, or served somewhere between bare minimum and intentional sabotage. Those who are served optimally are the polite, respectful, upstanding customers. And let me tell you…the people I work with remember both the good and bad when they come around.
It seems to me that we have very different estimations of the character of the average American. By no means do I assert that my paradigm is more correct than yours. It can be heavily affected by many factors, depending on where you live. I imagine the reactions of business owners in Baltimore will be distinctly different from those in Kennesaw, Georgia. However, I have lived in both small towns and large metropolitan areas, and in general, I have found people to bristle at douchebags, and embrace those who display dignity.
MadisonConservative on January 27, 2012 at 8:09 PM
My impression of most people in the business world is they are loud, brash, and obnoxious. They all think they have people skills when they don’t.
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 8:16 PM
Screw Santorum. I can see myself waking from a drunk stupor to vote for Mitt or Newt. I can probably vote for Ron Paul if he has a VP pick who is solid on conservative foreign policy. But I’ll vote for, nay, I’ll donate to Obama before I support another pious compassionate-conservative jackass.
Archivarix on January 27, 2012 at 9:47 PM
You seem to have a lot of free time if you are developing javascript programs to avoid somebody not brown nosing Romney on the internet. What isn’t a waste of your time is the real question.
What makes you interesting? Drop a personality bomb on me.
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 10:32 PM
It would take a miracle for Santorum to win at this point.
Actually at this point it will take a miracle FOR AMERICA TO SURVIVE!!
BTW, nice of the Bushes to give Obama his “independent voter appeal” photo op in the Oval office today.
Bush was Reagan’s biggest mistake.
PappyD61 on January 27, 2012 at 10:40 PM
This is a ridiculous statement. In fact, Newt has been demonstrably more liberal than Romney on a host of issues, including the individual mandate. Romney has never supported an individual federal mandate as Newt has–which is clearly unconstitutional whereas a state mandate would not be under the Tenth Amendment. Newt supported embryonic stem cell research (which Romney vetoed as governor), he supported amnesty for illegals (which Romney opposes), he supported Cap and Trade and the Brady Bill. To cast him as the true conservative when he’s actually to the left of Romney on a host of issues is ludicrous. On family values he is light years away from Romney insofar as he never practiced what he now preaches whereas Romney’s example has been impeccable. How does all this then make Newt more conservative than Romney? He even launched a Michael-Moore-like attack on Romney’s career at Bain Capital which Rush Limbaugh himself characterized as an attack coming from the left. So how does this make Romney the liberal while Newt is a true conservative in your book? It’s Newt who has deep-rooted liberal reflexes, not Romney who’s clearly what he is–a pragmatic politician and a successful businessman–exactly the qualities needed to turn this country around. What’s not needed is another trillion-dollar big government program to colonize the moon. Your position is irrational and unfair. It’s high time you admitted it.
writeblock on January 27, 2012 at 11:01 PM
Santorum is the constitutional conservative in the race.
Santorum is the one with the least baggage who can go toe to toe with Obama.
Santorum:
* was against TARP
* was against bail-outs
* was against Obamacare and has no baggage on this issue
* is against the individual mandate
The others can’t say that!
Santorum all the way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Mark7788 on January 27, 2012 at 11:27 PM
I don’t believe Rick Santorum is a “compassionate conservative” as the term was ‘coined’ by G.W. Bush.
If that’s not what you meant, then you’ll have to explain it.
I just can’t believe any of us here, would pick Obama over ANY of the Republican primary candidates.
But suit yourself.
listens2glenn on January 27, 2012 at 11:32 PM
It really is heartbreaking. The left is intent on performing the same triangulation strategy that left us with McCain in 2008, and so many of you pretend conservatives are dead set on doing it for them. Every one of you that began a comment with something like “Santorum is a nice guy but”, are useful idiots to the progs.
I began saying it in 2007, and I just wish a few others would choose to do the same, support the candidate or potential candidate who is most closely aligned with your personal ideology during primary season. Period. Don’t let the buffoons tell you who is and isn’t electable, and then compromise your principles on the false premise of settling.
Vote your conscience! If you don’t do that during the primary, you can NEVER get the candidate you want. You will always get who is foisted upon you. It’s happening again. It can be stopped, but it is in the hands of the voters to stand on principle. The strongest conservative available stayed away because of your lack of spines, and the most conservative candidate is in the weakest position because of your lack of spines. Do the right thing.
Freelancer on January 28, 2012 at 12:05 AM
Santorum voted against Right to Work while in the Senate “because his state was against it.” Sounds like a Big Labor fan boy.
scotash on January 28, 2012 at 12:39 AM
Totally disagree. Character counts. Ability to articulate ideas counts. Gravitas and experience counts. Electability counts–think Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell.
Why is electability important? Because weak candidates do violence to the very ideologies we favor, despite their apparent ideological purity. McCain was acceptable in 2008 because he was strong on defense and was pro-life. But he wasn’t our best candidate. He never polled strongly in the swing states, for instance, and was inarticulate as well as illiterate on fiscal issues. But he was acceptable to Dr. Dobson.
Giuliani, in fact, was our best candidate. He was ahead in all the polls, ahead of both Obama and Hillary by double digits, and ahead in all the swing states and even in some blue states like NJ and for a while CT. But he was pro-choice and although he was a strict constructionist who promised to nominate strict constructionists to the SC if elected, he was unacceptable to ideological purists like yourself. The result was he was decisively rejected and we ultimately lost to Obama, the most pro-abortion president in history.
So social conservatives demanded purity–and got Obama instead. Had they been more flexible and accommodating to political realities, we might now have had two more conservative SC justices on the bench instead of the two liberals Obama has appointed. And that’s only one loss. The greater loss has been to the country which might have had a true fiscal conservative and proven reformer at the helm to guide us through rough times instead of a socialist pushing us ever closer to the precipice.
writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 12:41 AM
Romney has tons of money, Gingrich has Adelsons millions, Paul has plenty of cash, if no one coughs up some money for Santorum and he has to drop out then the do nothing people have picked the other guys by default. Doing nothing is a choice, please forever hold your peace if you do not like the result.
dunce on January 28, 2012 at 12:53 AM
I agree with the top donor, Santorum is pulling support in the unlikeliest of places.
motionview on January 28, 2012 at 12:56 AM
For being so electable, Romney has lost a lot of elections.
To say you are electable, you ought to be able to have demonstrated you win elections. Romney doesn’t do that.
I got to believe an electable candidate could beat Ted Kennedy, even in Mass, on the fact he was a womanizer and was DUI and killed a woman he was cheating on his wife with. Even in Mass, Romney should have been able to beat Ted Kennedy. He didn’t, b/c he’s not that great of a candidate.
Dr. Tesla on January 28, 2012 at 12:58 AM
Santorum has no significant executive experience as an elected official.
john.frank on January 28, 2012 at 2:30 AM
Madcon has always had a blind spot on “social conservatives.”
There Goes The Neighborhood on January 28, 2012 at 2:49 AM
Big government is a misnomer anyway. When Reagan became president, he ramped up the spending on national defense. If your metric was the rate of spending, then Reagan was a big government kind of guy.
What I want is limited government. Defense spending is not a problem, because that is one of the actual powers the government really has. The War on Poverty, on the other hand, was a huge assumption of power that the government was never supposed to have. Even if the defense budget and the food stamp budget are identical, the food stamp budget is offensive because the government should not be demanding taxes from some citizens only to give them to others.
On the other hand, if the government raises the pay of the military and offers bonuses for re-enlistment, that’s not redistribution of wealth at all. The difference is that the soldiers are actually working for their money.
Madcon, unfortunately, thinks the government’s job is to keep all religions at arms-length. The actual First Amendment is intended to prevent any churches from having institutional control of the government, and to keep the government from restricting the free exercise of religion.
If Santorum’s proposed legislation doesn’t cross those lines, then it’s absurd to label him a theocrat.
All legislation is based on morality to one degree or another. Any Christian’s view on morality will be informed by his faith. This does not make him a theocrat, no matter how you cherry-pick your dictionary definitions.
And calling him a statist is doubly absurd.
Madcon is right that he was invited to be a green room participant. As I recall, though, he wasn’t invited at first. He had to lobby for that invitation.
There Goes The Neighborhood on January 28, 2012 at 3:31 AM
This is a valid criticism. Gingrich has somewhat more, by virtue of being Speaker of the House before and having his own business.
Romney trumps them on executive experience. At least, he would if he had accomplished anything conservative with his executive experience. Instead, he pandered to the left. Instead of providing leadership, he gave in to the rest. The only leadership he actually provided was in getting Romneycare passed.
So Romney has neutralized the “executive experience” argument already.
While I’d certainly prefer someone who had been an effective conservative governor, no such person is running now. So even though I agree with your basic statement, it’s meaningless in deciding who to support in this instance.
There Goes The Neighborhood on January 28, 2012 at 3:57 AM
Calling Santorum a statist and a theocrat is so stupid a lie nobody that is fair and objective is going to believe anything you say after you make that loaded accusation.
There are imperfections in Santorums’ voting record, especially on trade and right to work, but he was in PA and that is a very unionized state built on steel manufacturing. You are probably not going to win up there as a anti-union and free trade guy.
We are supposed to let Romney slide on RomneyCare and a host of other issues b/c he was governor of Mass, but Santy is to be tarred and feathered b/c he wasn’t perfectly concservative on free trade and right to work in PA, a very liberal state as well?
And trust me on this, the attacks on Santy being a statist has more to do with his positions on social issues like gay marriage and abortion and teaching intelligent design along with evolution in the classroom. None of that is statism but that’s how social libs see it.
Dr. Tesla on January 28, 2012 at 3:58 AM
Santorum was senator for 12 yeaRS and in the House for awhile.
I think he has a lot more knowledge and experience at a national level than Romney, who was just a 1 term governor, does. He gernally seems to know more about foreign policy than the other candidates including Newt.
I don’t see why conservatives are so in love with govenors, as governors deal with a lot of trivial local issues, like waiting lines at the local DMV.
Dr. Tesla on January 28, 2012 at 4:01 AM
Lot of the commentators on Hotair seem to be self promoting themselves shamelessly. Their screennames hyperlink to their own little blogs. I’m not a big fan of that. They should be paying Hotair a fee to promote themselves on here, in my view.
Dr. Tesla on January 28, 2012 at 4:03 AM
I prefer Santy b/c he’s clean on healthcare and he’s run a decent honorable campaign on the issues rather this sniping at fellow candidates on stuff that doesn’t matter to voters.
If he looked and talked like Reagan, he would be winning this thing easily.
Dr. Tesla on January 28, 2012 at 4:08 AM
Um, yes, I was invited at first, and no, there was no lobbying. It was out of the blue. Congratulations, though, on going for the blue ribbon in pettiness.
MadisonConservative on January 28, 2012 at 4:46 AM
I just hope we Texans get a chance to vote before everything is completely wrapped up. Those liberal activist judges (2 of the 3 judges, anyway) that recently got B-slapped by the Supreme Court have caused our election date to remain in question…If Santorum is still on the ballot, he’ll get my vote.
golfer1 on January 28, 2012 at 8:27 AM
Tina Korbe, Regarding Santorum’s supposed support for an individual mandate the paper doing the reporting is the Lehigh Valley’s Morning Call. They have a reputation for consistent mistakes and lousy reporting.
There is no quote, video or audio associated with Santorum. You are right, if true this is something oppo researchers would have pounced on. Also NO other paper or reporter in PA reported this.
Santorum has been consistent. Just watch the first 5 minutes of his 1994 debate to see where he stood on the individual mandate.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/61219-1
Utica681 on January 28, 2012 at 8:48 AM
He looks good, he sounds good, but he hasn’t been around. That could either work for him or against?!
All i know is BO must be defeated in order to save this republic.
mmcnamer1 on January 28, 2012 at 8:50 AM
I like Santorum but sadly I think all he is doing now is being the spoiler. Florida is a winner take all state and I fear that Santorum’s 10% along with the 10% of so actual repub voters that follow Paul will be more than enough to push Romney over the line.
We conservative need some organization and discipline. This will be what the 2nd race in a row we have allowed a establishment who’s moderate blue bloods struggle to pull 30% pull a victory because we split our 75% into so many pieces.
We also need to seriously consider adjustment to a arcane primary system. Really why is New Hampshire a bell weather for picking Repub candidates when the state hasn’t been red in a election since what the 80′s. Shouldn’t the bell weathers be battle ground states say Florida, Ohio, then maybe Penn, Colorado?
C-Low on January 28, 2012 at 9:06 AM
C-Low, I respect your opinion, but you could also make the argument that Gingrich is the spoiler. Santorum won Iowa and and edged him out in New Hampshire.
Polls show Gingrich beating Romney in a 2 man race but the same goes for Santorum. Just look at the PPP polling from Missouri where Gingrich isnt on the ballot… Santorum wins.
Also PPP has released a poll showing that if Gingrich is the nominee then we LOSE Texas in the general election. That doesnt happen with Romney or Santorum.
I personally dont think anyone should drop out unless its truly their decision.
Utica681 on January 28, 2012 at 9:35 AM
Oh, love this argument….let’s look at Romney’s accomplishments shall we….he lost his senate campaign, he has lost the nomination for pres already, he did not even give any effort to running for reelection as gov with a 34% approval rating…a sure winner that’s for sure. How many elections did this guy win verses loses again?
Hey, if you want to ignore history fine, but remember that Santorum was running in an anti-Bush election cycle, down ticket and his sad loyalty to the GOP cost him his re-election.
PuritanD71 on January 28, 2012 at 10:17 AM
You’re right…get on the phone with Newt, tell him to drop out and all will be well.
PuritanD71 on January 28, 2012 at 10:19 AM
writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 12:41 AM
Electabilty? What makes one electable when no votes have been cast? A poll by an organization that may/may not be biased against certain candidates? How about past performances?
Of course, the argument is that Romney is electable but for what reason? He could not win the nomination last time so that makes him electable this time?
Electability is the most useless, subjective category I have ever heard. I am glad that Ronald Reagan did not believe it when running in the primaries against Bush; and no candidate should believe such a stupid, unproven, subjective argument.
PuritanD71 on January 28, 2012 at 10:29 AM
Mark Levin and David Limbaugh are both openly supporting Santorum. I would bet that Rush will vote for him as well.
Santorum truly is a grassroots. non establishment candidate. Romney is being supported by the RINO establishment and Newt by the TP establishment who just wants to stick it to the RINO’s by supporting the biggest insider of them all. It is all rather bizarre, really.
Santorum is also a very smart guy. He knows that eventually people will see that the moon emperor Newt is wearing no clothes and that Romney is not the right person to take on Obama.
I really don’t want my choice to be between the Wall Street silver spoon insider and the crazy Washington Insider pretending to be outside the club that he built.
Hang in there Rick. We need you.
fight like a girl on January 28, 2012 at 12:07 PM
Utica681 on January 28, 2012 at 9:35 AM
But Santorum needs to sacrifice himself for the good of Newt. Don’t you get it? s/
fight like a girl on January 28, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Lots of uneducated people here harping on the evolution topic. Most have an extremely loose definition of “theory” as well.
antisense on January 28, 2012 at 12:52 PM
At this point, Newt needs to sacrifice himself for the good of conservatism. ABR
Norky on January 28, 2012 at 2:06 PM
I’m in FL and I voted for Santorum.
I hope he does well here. I think a lot of people are sick of the vicious cat fight between the top two and Santorum has stayed out of it.
Snowbird on January 28, 2012 at 3:11 PM
Dr. Teste hasn’t accepted the fact that he is just a poorly evolved mammal.
Bandit13 on January 28, 2012 at 3:31 PM
He also opposed AGW legislation and Shamnesty.
Santorum’s record isn’t perfect, but it is pretty good.
One way to think about it, when Santorum was going along with the rest of the Republican Senate in voting for NCLB and Medicare D, Romney was giving us Obamacare v1.0 and Newt was sitting on San Fran Nan’s couch.
Is there any question who conservatives should support out of these three?
18-1 on January 28, 2012 at 3:47 PM
I seem to be doing ok regardless of my poorly evolved mamalness.
And I don’t engage in mindless hyperbole like Santorum is a statist/theocrat like Madison Conservative does, or self promote myself with links to my own little website like Madison Conservative does.
Dr. Tesla on January 28, 2012 at 4:14 PM
Utica681 on January 28, 2012 at 9:35 AM
Either way until us Conservatives realize that standing divided and against a solidified minority moderate wing we are doomed to hold our nose for the big show and beating our heads against the wall during “our” candidates term.
I am really fed up with having to choose the lesser evil fully knowing Romney or McCain or even Bush while good on foreign policy will humiliate me on the domestic and affirm my enemies foundations by their “my version of big gov socialism is better than yours” crap against the dems/big gov socialist.
This is not the 80′s or 90′s we are on the edge of collapse. If drastic change ROLLBACK is not done in the next 10-20yrs their will be more dependent than working voters. Once that line is crossed which we currently hover in the 40vs60 range of gov benefited its over. The only way to turn it after that will be by the sword.
My delima is looking to be choose a lesser evil with Romeny and watch our few rock ribs be destroyed and compromised over the never ending compromise our version of your plan crap or just say f*ck it and vote O. Maybe another four years of fast track socialism will rile whats left of the productive people enough to force the issue next election. At least then our few rock ribs will be in a better position to fight rater than be forced into a “for the party and our president” moral compromise.
We are being out gamed from both sides.
C-Low on January 28, 2012 at 4:34 PM
My website is this website, you sniveling dolt.
MadisonConservative on January 28, 2012 at 6:27 PM
MadCon,
I sneer, smirk, snark, scoff, but I never snivel. It’s a core value.
I counted up your posts and you have about 43 posts on this thread but you were calling me a “spammer” last night for 30 posts. And I’m not the guy making wild accusations such as “Santorum is a statist theocrat”.
Dr. Tesla on January 28, 2012 at 8:21 PM
I called you a spammer because you had 30 posts on one page. I believe you topped 75 for the entire post.
And whether you like it or not, Santorum is a statist theocrat, and I find it absolutely mind-melting that you actually said you hate moralists in another thread yet continue to defend that guy.
MadisonConservative on January 28, 2012 at 9:36 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »