Chuck Norris, a supporter of Gov. Mike Huckabee in 2008 and now a backer of former Speaker Newt Gingrich, launched an extensive attack on Sen. Rick Santorum and his less-than-conservative credentials:
- Santorum was a serial earmarker, requesting billions of dollars during his time in the Senate, and not reversing his position on earmarks until he was out of Congress in 2010. As recently as 2009, Rick said, “I’m not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.”
- Santorum voted for H J Res 47 Debt Limit Increase Resolution
- Santorum voted to raise the national debt ceiling five times
- Santorum voted for the 2005 highway bill that included thousands and thousands of wasteful earmarks, including the Bridge to Nowhere. In fact, according to Club for Growth, “in a separate vote, Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.”
- Santorum voted for CAFTA, which removes duties on textile and apparel goods traded among participating nations, resulting in nearly ALL textile companies leaving the South.
- Santorum voted for Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (though he now says he will repeal it), which imposes job-killing federal regulations on businesses.
- Santorum voted against the National Right to Work Act of 1995, which would have repealed provisions of federal law that “require employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment.”
- Santorum voted for taxes in the Internet Access Tax Bill
- Santorum voted for HR 3448 – Minimum Wage Increase bill, which allows punitive damages for injury or illness to be taxed, allows damages for emotional distress to be taxed and repeals the diesel fuel tax rebate to purchasers of diesel-powered automobiles and light trucks.
- Santorum voted to confirm President Bill Clinton’s nomination of Alan Greenspan to be chairman of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System for a fourth four-year term.
- Santorum voted for Medicare prescription drug benefit known as Medicare Part D, though critical of it now. It is the largest expansion of entitlement spending since President Lyndon Johnson, which now costs taxpayers more than $60 billion a year and has almost $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities, according to Club for Growth.
- Santorum voted in 1997 to support the Lautenberg Gun Ban, “which stripped law-abiding gun owners of their Second Amendment rights for life, simply because they spanked their children or did nothing more than grab a spouse’s wrist,” according to a press release from Dudley Brown, executive director of the National Association for Gun Rights.
- Santorum voted in 1999 for a bill “disguised as an attempt to increase penalties on drug traffickers with guns … but it also included a provision to require federal background checks at gun shows,” again according to Dudley Brown’s release.
- Santorum “came to anti-gun Arlen Specter’s defense in 2004 when he was down in the polls against pro-gun Republican Pat Toomey. Specter won and continued to push for gun control during his years in the Senate,” per Brown.
- Santorum voted with Barbara Boxer in 2005 on the Gun Lock Requirement Amendment
- Santorum voted for the Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill and then flip-flopped and voted against it in S 1805 – Firearms Manufacturers Protection Bill
- Santorum voted against HR 2356 – Campaign Reform Act of 2001
- Santorum voted for an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934 that requires television broadcast providers to give their lowest rates to political candidates.
- Santorum voted for HR 1 – No Child Left Behind Act
- Santorum sponsored legislation to force companies to pay laid off workers benefits.
- Santorum worked for an increase in funding big government programs like Head Start.
- Santorum voted for taxpayer money to go to Pennsylvania families for their heating bills.
- Santorum introduced and co-sponsored big government health-care bills.
- Santorum voted for HR 796 – the protection of abortion clinics
- Santorum actively supports the Global Fund, which was created by the United Nations to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, but also “channels a large portion of its funds through Planned Parenthood’s affiliates around the world and through a British group Marie Stopes International (the largest chain of abortion mills in the UK, with 66,000 abortions a year.)… to operate in Cambodia, Fiji, Bangladesh, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Burma, Kenya, Tanzania, and other countries,” according to the pro-life Gerard Health Foundation that provides millions of dollars to pro-life groups.
- Santorum boasted of teaming up with Joe Lieberman, Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton in his 2006 political ad for re-election to the U.S. Senate, which he lost to Democrat Bob Casey Jr. by the largest margin of victory ever for a Democratic Senate nominee in Pennsylvania and the largest margin of victory for a Senate challenger in the 2006 elections.
- Santorum opposed the tea party and its reforms in the Republican Party and conservative movement just a couple years ago saying, “I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican party … to sort of refashion conservatism. And I will vocally and publicly oppose it.”
Now, I disagree with his conclusion that the answer is Newt Gingrich, but I can’t help but love the fact that one of the Tea Party’s favorite pretend tough guys is now karate chopping their newest “savior”.
February 13th, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Norris and I are both Hucknuts AND Newtnuts.
Go So-Cons!
Santorum/Newt
or
Santorum/Huck
and
Willard never gets near the White House EVER!
Win/Win/Win
February 13th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
1
What? You’re happy about BOTH Chuck Norris, AND Santorum?
How does that work?
That’s akin to rooting for both teams in the Super Bowl.
February 13th, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Chuck Norris don’t use can openers.
He just stares at that can until it gives.
February 13th, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Race42012 Axiom:
The longer the Max Twain FPP, the more FREAKED out he is about us So-Cons.
Good times
February 13th, 2012 at 6:56 pm
Chuck Norris doesn’t sleep.
He waits.
February 13th, 2012 at 6:57 pm
When Chuck Norris does pushups, the EARTH goes down.
February 13th, 2012 at 6:58 pm
Chuck Norris’ tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
Chuck Norris counted to infinity – twice.
If you can see Chuck Norris, he can see you. If you can’t see Chuck Norris you may be only seconds away from death.
February 13th, 2012 at 6:59 pm
True story:
Chuck Norris sold his soul to the devil for his rugged good looks and unparalleled martial arts ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Chuck roundhouse kicked the devil in the face and took his soul back. The devil, who appreciates irony, couldn’t stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.
February 13th, 2012 at 6:59 pm
I heard another of his reasons was that Santorum endorsed Romney in 2008. If that’s true it feeds my theory that he’s a bihot. But if by t, I only hold my suspicion.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:00 pm
This is gonna be a productive comments section, clearly.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Way to go Chuck.
Finally someone with the guts to tell the truth.
Max you any relation to Mark?
Give em severe hell Mitt!
February 13th, 2012 at 7:02 pm
1. Nostradamus, just for you:
Chuck Norris built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Chuck Norris met all three bullets with his beard, deflecting them. JFK’s head exploded out of sheer amazement.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:03 pm
9.
What the hell is a bihot?
February 13th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Every internet comment Chuck Norris has ever made is instantly FTW worthy.
A blogger once mistakenly deleted a Chuck Norris comment. It roundhouse kicked the internet and reposted itself.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
..Chuck will roundhouse kick you if it’s a bad word
February 13th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
I like Chuck Norris as an action movie star. And his support of Huckabee in ’08 is what got me interested in Huck. And I also like he’s been to Iraq and helped support the troops. But, I do question his support of Newt. I’d rather he stuck with Ron Paul.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:07 pm
14.
LOL!
Send that over to Chuck’s site. (Newsmax.com)
February 13th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
When it rains, Chuck Norris doesn’t get wet…
The water gets Chucked.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
Well, Gingrich is not the answer, but gatta love how Norris lists his reasons.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
12.
Good one but I predicted the School depository.
Give em severe hell Mitt!
February 13th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
About time someone lit a fire under Santorum’s backside.
Now watch his bubble go up in smoke.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
Wait! Santorum voted with my senator Barbra Bo-toxer? Well, he is certainly convincing me that he cannot be the nominee.
Sorry, I am not an “anybody but Obama” guy, so if this gets pushed enough and he is the nominee……. See where I’m going with this?
February 13th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
..make that @Chuck Norris World Net Daily
February 13th, 2012 at 7:12 pm
22.
You’re voting for Obama?
February 13th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
24.
No, not really. I’m a Libertarian at heart, so I actually consider Obama and Santorum equally threatening to what I stand for.. So I may vote for Gary Johnson.
I see the “You’re helping Obama” argument now, but….I don’t see why I chose between two evils i see as “equally” bad.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
Chuck Norris is 1/8th Cherokee. This has nothing to do with ancestry, the man ate an Indian.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
So the Santorum vetting starts
February 13th, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Kris,
No problem then.
I like Gary Johnson much better than Ron Paul.
Better weed in the Land of Enchantment.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
some catnip for you maxy:
http://drewmusings.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/sorry-social-conservatives-america-isnt-going-to-elect-someone-president-who-wants-to-talk-about-how-sex-out-of-wedlock-is-bad/
February 13th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
27.
Check the date at Newsmax..
Chuck Norris Endorses Newt Gingrich
Friday, 20 Jan 2012 06:56 PM
Read more on Newsmax.com: Chuck Norris Endorses Newt Gingrich
February 13th, 2012 at 7:22 pm
By the way, that UN abortion business is bogus.
The Hyde Amendment and Mexico City protocol prohibited US taxpayer funding for abortions, and no legislation passed through Congress to the contrary, to this day I believe.
I agree the babykillers slip through cash where they can, domestically and foreign policy wise, but the black letter of the law prohibits such, even now. Remember, Bush got lit up over that, and he held firm.
This is a bogus charge on Santorum. Not that I’m in love with Santorum, but he’s as pro life as it gets, and even more so than Gingrich. Hyde had to club Gingrich over the head not to push certain relaxations of his amendment, back in the day.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Santorum voted against HR 2356 – Campaign Reform Act of 2001
.
And if this is McCain-Feingold, then Santorum took the proper vote. M-F was and is a fustercluck.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
2.
MassCon,
I’m a Newt guy. But VP’s fine, too. Although I prefer Huck as VP.
And off course:
Extreme So-Con Santorum > Mass Moderate Romney
February 13th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
If Newt wants to have any chance, he needs to take down Santy. Maybe Romney will catch a break and these guys will roll it out in the mud. Romney can play the Santorum roll and just sit back and play the nice guy.
I highly doubt it will be that easy though.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Since this is negative on Ricky, I know it’s all Romney’s fault. I just can’t prove it.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
Santorum is gonna have to get rid of Gingrich the old fashioned way, by buying him out.
The Newtster knows Santo has recently come into a wad of dough, and some of that is gonna have to be used to retire Newt’s campaign debt.
Sorta like Willard picked up Pawlenty’s campaign debt to help speed him out of the picture a while back.
God bless America.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
And if Santo doesn’t want to retire the Newtster’s campaign debt… I’m sure Willard’s cash is available to help Newt limp along.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
Ironically, Max trashed Huck & Norris relentlessly on FPP’s and through comments last cycle — Using every piece of mudslinging he could make up.
But NOW he wants us to take Chuck’s word as gospel.
Ok.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:39 pm
I would give Santorum a slight edge over Romney and Gingrich in terms of conservatism only because Santorum has not backed a mandate and has not flip-flopped on global warming. Other than that, they are pretty much the same peas in a pod. Compare their conservatism to someone like Jim DeMint and they are not even in the same universe.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCyU5I43_Hc&feature=youtu.be
F’ing DC insider career politicians.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:41 pm
Haol,
Willard phoning Newt pleading for him to stay in sounds about right. “How much money you need, Speaker?”
And Newt taping that call sounds right, TOO.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:43 pm
*Haol = Harold ..the R & D didn’t take.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:43 pm
Extreme So-Con Santorum
You are indeed a gullible man, aren’t you Craig.
This guy tells you what you want to hear then goes and stamps his name proudly on every ignorant liberal program in the book from Medicare Part D to support for the mortgage bubble fraud, to enthusiastic support for every possible way to blow money abroad there is.
He’s a liberal, along with the prostitute Gingrich. His brand of “extreme social conservatism” is to leave the future of the country deeply indebted and in crisis and a far less appealing place for young people looking to start off. Admit he’s a closet liberal now and it’ll be less painful for you down the road. Conservatives get their just rewards if they keep supporting people like this – leaders who demonstrate by their actions a belief that you can apparently do whatever you want, and nothing bad will happen.
There is no fiscal or social conservatism, just conservatism. Santorum fails at it.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Great. All we need is another one of these BIG-SPENDING, “compassionate” conservatives. Roundhouse to the head, Rick.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:44 pm
The Future GOP 2012 Nominee Rick Santorum’s Schedule for Tuesday, February:
Tuesday, February 14:
12:00 PST: Senator Santorum will host a rally for supporters in Coeur D’Alene, ID.
Location:
Hagadone Event Center
900 Floating Green Drive
Couer D’Alene, ID
7:00pm PT: Senator Santorum will hold a rally in Boise, ID.
Location:
Capital High School Auditorium
8055 Goddard
Boise, ID
It looks like Santorum is going to try to steal some those 32 Idaho delegates on March 6th. As long as he doesn’t keep his eyes off the real prize of Michigan. Idaho has more delegates up for grab than Michigan, but Michigan is the real political prize because a Santorum victory opens a door for a possible Midwest/Rustbelt sweep.
.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:44 pm
39.
Franky,
What about TARP? Who gets the edge there?
February 13th, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Harold! Back on OWS duty! They’re starting mic check without you!
February 13th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
43.
Is he not an extreme SO-Con?
February 13th, 2012 at 7:46 pm
The above is not Norris’ opinion. I believe it is just a list of simple facts to be considered.
After it’s all said and done, who do you truly imagine sitting behind the desk on the Oval Office, leading the nation with honor, intelligence and sound judgment?
Crazy, erratic Newt? The never-held-an-executive-position Rick? Or the proven executive Mitt?
February 13th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
43.
You really took the time to type all that and not mention Romney?
Hmmmmm….. I think you just got busted.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
Craig,
I think you mean an extreme so-CON
February 13th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Not a huge fan of Chuck Norris, but you know… he can be a useful tool!
February 13th, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Smack’s on to Santorum now.
Who knew he had such little respect for Tim Pawlenty, who wisely supported our only hope, Mitt Romney.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:51 pm
My bro will be at the boise gig for Santy. Just look for the sign that says ‘Release your tax returns’.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Smack
Is Santorum going to discuss making premarital sex illegal at that rally?
Or we he stick to his bread and butter, rape-victims-must-have-the-baby-or-else script?
February 13th, 2012 at 7:53 pm
KG,
For dissing his Newt so hard…Chuck is going to roundhouse kick you up and down downtown Salt Lake City.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:53 pm
And who does the Club for Growth believe is the best candidate? Rick Santorum. The Club for Growth isn’t sure about Romney. They are afraid of what Newt would do. And they think Ron Paul, while a man of integrity, would never get anything done.
“Earmarks” is a great buzz word, but earmarks are a tiny part of the budget. Entitlements are where the largest amount of waste occurs. And noone was stronger on entitlement reform than Rick Santorum. No, not even Newt Gingrich.
While The Club for Growth has plenty of criticisms of Rick Santorum’s record, his positives outweigh his negatives.
You can read the full Club For Growth whitepapers for each of the remaining candidates here: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/
Below is the summary of each candidate as written by The Club for Growth:
Rick Santorum:
On the whole, Rick Santorum’s record on economic issues in the U.S. Senate was above average. More precisely, it was quite strong in some areas and quite weak in others. He has a strong record on taxes, and his leadership on welfare reform and Social Security was exemplary. But his record also contains several very weak spots, including his active support of wasteful spending earmarks, his penchant for trade protectionism, and his willingness to support large government expansions like the Medicare prescription drug bill and the 2005 Highway Bill.
As president, Santorum would most likely lead the country in a pro-growth direction, but his record contains more than a few weak spots that make us question if he would resist political expediency when it comes to economic issues.
Mitt Romney:
Because of his long tenure in public life, especially his presidential run in 2008, Mitt Romney is considered a well-vetted candidate by now. Perhaps to his consternation, he has developed an unshakeable reputation as a flip-flopper. He has changed his position on several economic issues, including taxes, education, political free speech, and climate change. And yet the one issue that he doesn’t flip on – RomneyCare – is the one that is causing him the most problems with conservative voters. Nevertheless, he labels himself as a pro-growth fiscal conservative, and we have no doubt that Romney would move the country in a pro-growth direction. He would promote the unwinding of Obama’s bad economic policies, but we also think that Romney is somewhat of a technocrat. After a career in business, quickly finding a “solution” seems to be his goal, even if it means more government intrusion as a means to an end. To this day, Romney supports big government solutions to health care and opposes pro-growth tax code reform – positions that are simply opposite to those supported by true economic conservatives. How much Romney’s philosophy of governance will affect his policy goals if elected, we leave for the voters to decide.
Newt Gingrich:
As a historical figure, it is undeniable that Newt Gingrich has played leading roles in some of the most important battles on behalf of economic growth and limited government in the last quarter century.
His opposition and momentary defeat of the 1990 Bush tax increase, his leadership of the 1994 Republican Revolution, and his spearheading of the provisions of the Contract With America are major league achievements. His consistent support for pro-growth tax reform, free trade, Social Security reform, tort reform, and political free speech also evidence a clear and impressive understanding of the fundamentals that underlie the free enterprise system that has made America prosperous.
Unfortunately, the problems in Speaker Gingrich’s record are frequent enough and serious enough to give pause. On two of the most important recent issues that confronted limited government conservatives (creating the new budget busting Medicare drug entitlement, and the Wall Street bailout), Gingrich was on the wrong side. His advocacy of an individual health care mandate is problematic. His penchant for tinkering with rewards for favored industries and outcomes shows a troubling willingness to use federal power to coerce taxpayers into his preferred direction. And his occasional hostility toward conservatives who do not share his desire to support liberal Republicans or to compromise on matters of principle is worrisome.
The totality leads one to be rather unsure what kind of president Newt Gingrich would be. Past is often prologue, and in Gingrich’s case there is an enormous volume of past on which to base a judgment. One could reasonably expect a President Gingrich to lead America in a pro-growth and limited government direction generally, possibly with flashes of real brilliance and accomplishment, but also likely with some serious disappointments and unevenness.
Ron Paul:
When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Representative Ron Paul. In the House of Representatives, he plays a very useful role constantly challenging the status quo and reminding his colleagues, despite their frequent indifference, that our Constitution was meant to limit the power of government. On taxes, regulation, and political free speech his record is outstanding. While his recent pork votes are troubling, the vast majority of his anti-spending votes reflect a longstanding desire to cut government down to size.
But Ron Paul is a purist, too often at the cost of real accomplishments on free trade, school choice, entitlement reform, and tort reform. It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact vital, that think tanks, free-market groups, and individual members of Congress develop and propose idealized solutions. But presidents have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul opposes progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect. In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation.
Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth, limited government policies. But his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
What is the realistic end of this contest? It is not going to the convention. After Super Tuesday?
February 13th, 2012 at 7:55 pm
55.
Oh boy, here we go again with Max and his CONSTANT sex talk.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:57 pm
59
Strange that you never label it Santorum’s constant sex talk, since I’m simply responding to the publicly stated positions of Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum.
February 13th, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Chris Miller Says:
February 13th, 2012 at 7:53 pm
And who does the Club for Growth believe is the best candidate? Rick Santorum. The Club for Growth isn’t sure about Romney. They are afraid of what Newt would do. And they think Ron Paul, while a man of integrity, would never get anything done.
===
And they are dead right about the FINAL FOUR if you read between the lines
February 13th, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Good grief. I’m a Romney supporter, so I suppose anything that’s going to start taking away from Santorum’s support is fine by me… But this list gets ridiculous pretty quick. The real kicker is that a 10x longer list could be put together for Newt Gingrich.
The fact that Chuck Norris has any relevance whatsoever in conservative politics is proof that we’re doomed. Also, this line of thinking — that every small perceived violation of some arbitrary Tea Party definition of conservative purity automatically disqualifies a candidate — is going to make it absolutely impossible for us to nominate a candidate who’s achieved anything of significance in their political career. And people wonder why the field was so weak this time around…
February 13th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
58
If Rick doesn’t slide, it goes to the convention. He can’t mathematically defeat Mitt, not with states like NY, MJ, CA winner take all. Either Rick slides and Mitt wins it on Super Tuesday, or we go to the convention with either Rick or Mitt ahead and everyone scrambling for a new candidate.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
60.
I’m sure you get a thrill up the leg each time you type man on dog.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
61
Maybe we should ask the former head of the CFG, Pat Toomey, what he thinks of Snarlin Arlen’s best pal Rick Santorum.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
That’s all very interesting, and I’m sure that much of it is correct and that some of it is twisted a bit. But here is my fundamental problem with Santorum and why I cannot support him, because it gets to the very heart of the fundamental issue of man vs the state and/or the proper relationship between government and the individual in a free Republic such as the US:
Judge Napolitano of Fox Business Network’s Freedom Watch aired a video (see below) on his television program which revealed Rick Santorum making the following statement: “One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a Libertarianish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.”
People being left alone to pursue their own lives as they see fit, government not confiscating the fruits of their labor nor supervising their bedrooms is equated with or labeled “radical individualism!” All I can say is that Mr. Santorum and I have a very fundamental difference of opinion as to the proper relationship between the individual and the state, and for me, that issue is about as basic and fundamental as it gets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gwwmm-cQxU&feature=youtu.be
What I find appalling is that Santorum’s views on traditional American Constitutional government, on individual freedom and responsibility, is not being debated by many of the conservative pundits and publications. They ought to be sharply questioning his definitive statements on these matters, especially his apparent suggestion that government should supervise the bedroom, even of married couples!
February 13th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
64
Aren’t you a little weirded out that your guy actually said that? He had that thought and said it in public. He thought that would be a GOOD idea.
You like some weird candidates Craig. Ones that free cop-killers, ones that talk about man on dog, man on child crap. WEIRD candidates man.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
California is going for Santorum over Romney if it’s one-on-one.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:02 pm
67.
I’m a Newt guy!
February 13th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
So just to rehash:
The Tea Bag Brigade has gone from former Nelson Rockefeller staffer and adulterer Newt Gingrich to Bush rubber stamp, anti-Right to work, and openly anti-Tea Party Rick Santorum.
Jumping the shark does not begin to describe this failed movement.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
68
Sure it is Craig. And the Rapture is coming. Any day now. I promise.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
58
My opinion. It needs to end by June at the latest. Anyone how supports this going past June when all primaries are over, is just an undercover Obamaphile. There is no way we can have a strong candidate no matter who it is if there is infighting and chaos all summer. The nominee needs to get a national campaign up and raise lots of dough. The candidates should all agree and any unbound candidate should agree to support the candidate with the most delegates at the end of June. I support Romney, but if Sant has a clear lead in the delegates after June, I say get behind him and let him have it.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Ouch!
February 13th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Craig,
We can mention Romney plenty if you like. I said earlier today that I think he has “the spine of a wet washcloth” and I stand by that statement. I don’t doubt Romney’s desire to turn things around, and he’s a good manager and a good guy. That being said, I don’t really see him volunteering to go down to defeat rather than cede ground. Now some give and take is necessary. I think he’ll do it with good intentions, but he’ll give too much. I think he gave too much in Massachusetts. I think he tries too hard to appease. Romney people can disagree but that’s my honest feelings on the guy.
Your faux conservative twins on the other hand would lead us to believe they are so saintly in comparison when they voted for and supported so much of the nonsense that we are now paying for and will continue to pay for. They have been liberals in the past, why should they not be so in the future?
February 13th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
72
Won’t happen. The primary ends in June in Utah, where Romney will win. Even if he’s behind he’ll claim momentum and head to the convention. The party will encourage him to stay in to get through the first ballot so Santorum delegates can ditch him for a real candidate.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Craig,
Yes, extremists like Ron Paul vote against good albeit imperfect legislation. It’s a real shame.
Santorum and Gingrich on the other hand support legislation that is important albeit imperfect. Like liberally funded entitlements and giveaways. It’s a good thing they don’t have principles, otherwise none of this stuff would ever get passed!
February 13th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
“I think he gave too much in Massachusetts.”
He. Had. An. 85%. Democratic. Legislature.
====
Romney is a practical, pragmatic person. He will choose getting something done over getting nothing done. But his opportunities to get something done will be far more Conservative as President than they ever were as governor. At absolute worst, maybe he ends up with a Senate that is 60% Democratic again. But more likely than that, is that he’ll have a Congress where both houses are controlled by the GOP, and the House by a large margin.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
62. Hunter: Completely, totally, 100% dead on! Awesome post.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Whether you realize it or not, you’re taking the moderate line you’re so eager to slap on others. It’s not perfect. You have to read the bill to find out what’s in it. It’s the best we can do. It’s better than doing nothing. It’s conservative enough.
Sure these bad bills might have consequences in the future. Sure they might deeply indebt us. But they are important today!
Craig I think you’re a closet moderate. You are attacking Ron Paul for being too conservative for your tastes
February 13th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
Club for Growth likes Santo best, huh. Hmmmmmm…..
Little recent Michigan political history for you. The Tea Party’s FIRST philosophical origins, imo, were right here in Michigan, in 2006.
Everybody was down on Bushism and out of control government in 2006. Recall that Joe Schwartz was an R congressman in Michigan’s 7th district, a lying scumsucking RINO hack, and the Club for Growth targeted his sorry butt in the primary.
It was a glorious night, when he went down. Cyber high fives all around. RINOs make the best burgers.
That scumsucking RINO hack Schwarts is now one of Willard’s head guys here in Michigan. He ain’t climbing out of his hole these days either, I notice, it’s all smoky back room.
The Tea Party types are gonna destroy Willard here. Just like Sununu is destroying Willard nationally, guys like Schwartz will destroy him in Michigan.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:19 pm
Mitt Romney hosts a clambake in Mesa, Arizona:
https://twitter.com/#!/andreamsaul/status/169229637946310658/photo/1
February 13th, 2012 at 8:20 pm
So Santorum wants to take away our second amendment RIGHTS!
February 13th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Our Country, is under SIEGE my friends! Politicians want to take away your Constitutional RIGHTS! And GIRLFRIENDS, are telling people Rick still lives in a VAN!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MHpvTj86f0
February 13th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Craig for loser, yes, for loser, so, santorum……………………
February 13th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
You got FIRE in you grammaw.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Norris’ arguments are irrational particularly given his support for Gingrich.
He attacks Santorum for earmarking when Gingrich started the process of the overuse of earmarks. Santorum supported Medicare Part D, so does Gingrich.
It’s just silly.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Santorum is Romney-lite. So far is a false conservative or he is no conservative aat all ! An hypocrite with no honer ! Just blaming others ! He is a big liar !
February 13th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
That’s what I was thinking, but didn’t want to take the time to post it..
February 13th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
If your going to be a hypocrite, you want to have a honer. Or you’ll be a very dull hypocrite.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:26 pm
It may come to the point where I vote for Obama over any of the non-Romneys, to at least ensure that the party gets what it deserves for choosing an ideologue over an experienced leader.
There are four people who have at least a somewhat serious shot at being elected in November: Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, and Obama. Romney is the only one of those with a proven record of executive leadership. He’s the only one with significant experience in the private sector. He’s the only one who was a governor. He’s the only one I trust to be able to reverse the direction of this country.
Santorum is a nice guy, to anyone he isn’t running again. And, I agree with him on a lot. But personally, he’s unimpressive. And politically, he’s underqualified. He seems like he would be a President like Bush – a good man, with mostly good ideas, who isn’t terribly effective on the domestic side. He is the only guy I would trust to elect, and then be able to let him get to work without constantly having to look over my shoulder and make sure he’s doing the right thing.
For the last thirty years, Republicans, at any level of government, have been able to claim Reaganism as their guide. That won’t last forever. The generation that really knew Reagan is aging. Romney is the only guy running – and quite frankly, the only Republican I can see at the moment – who I could see, thirty years from now, people trying to emmulate. People aren’t going to run for office in two decades saying “I’m like Santorum” or “I’m like Gingrich” or even, if we were to lose this year, “I’m like Daniels” or “I’m like Christie”.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Santorum is an exercise in cattiness. Let’s see how catty Michigan feels.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
“Norris’ arguments are irrational particularly given his support for Gingrich.”
You want irrational/hypocritical? I had someone tell me today they’re voting for Santorum because “Romney is a career politician.”
Yes, teledude, this is the irrational electorate I keep talking about.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
69.Real (I’m talkin’ SEVERELY!) Conservative Says:
February 13th, 2012 at 8:02 pm
67.
I’m a Newt guy!
BS…You’re just anti-Romney.
What happened up there at Ricks anyway?…
February 13th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Instead of going negative on Santorum in Michigan, Romney should just cut a deal with Huckabee right now to make him the running mate. The socons would fall in line with Romney, problem solved. Romney could then focus on running a positive campaign until November.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Response to the Gun Rights Bullet Points:
1. NAGR is not an organization you want to associate yourselves with. Trust me.
2. NRA gives Santorum an A+ rating. Mitt had a B rating before he signed the gun ban in MA in 2004 which was a severely conservative action.
3. Did I mention the Rick Santorum is credited with saving the American gun manufacturing industry. Just a small thing.
“He [Rick Santorum] was the most effective advocate of bringing it [legislation to protect gun companies from frivolous lawsuits] to the floor and getting a vote scheduled. He used his influence to get it to the floor. Without that, we would have lost every American gun company.”
– Wayne LaPierre, CEO – National Rifle Association, October 25, 2006
4. We need instant checks at gun shows, because someone who couldn’t buy a gun in a gun store could go and buy one from a gun show. Yes that includes felons convicted of gun crimes.
5. Only nuts are against heightened sentences for drug traffickers.
6. Arlen Specter. Hmmn. Oh yeah he’s the liberal Santorum endorsed in exchange for a promise from the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Specter) to push hard to get two conservatives by the names of Alito and Roberts confirmed as Justices of the Supreme Court. Did I mention that Alito delivered the majority opinion in the McDonald case which for the first time established the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right necessary for the ordered liberty of our society. You can thank Rick Santorum for that.
How am I doing so far?
February 13th, 2012 at 8:31 pm
I am ready for a debate. No more BS questions like who would make a better first lady. Taxes, entitlement reform, Iran/Syria, healthcare. With an emphasis on who would have the advantage or disadvantage in the Fall.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:31 pm
February 13th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
#92:
I think hypocritical is one word that’s overused.
I’ll agree that Mitt Romney isn’t a career politician. His style just includes all the elements that people hate most in career politicians.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
I think Santorum’s problem is that he lacks cajones. I’m afraid that Obama and the Left wing power sturcture (media, Hollywood, academia, unions, Soros) would eat him alive. He would be painted as anti-woman, anti-rape victim, anti gay zealot. He has never run anything and would be on the job training. The thing about Romney is that he has been in a position of leadership and delegating large numbers of people for decades. He went to Salt Lake and put a smile on his face when the cameras were around, but busted balls when they were off. That’s Mitt and unfortunately too many people don’t know that side of him. Maybe that is something his campaign needs to work on.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:40 pm
This is the downside to CongressCritters. Every vote is like a statement that can be pulled out of context. Sometimes votes are hard compromises. Sometimes they have poison pills. Sometimes something good is attached to something bad.
The burden of the executives is that they’re responsible for every job lost. The burden of the legislator is that he’s responsible for every obscure point of order that he ever made.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Heh.
Most of this is either bogus or relatively minor stuff. And, seriously, Chuck Norris? If Chuck’s word is now gospel, maybe Max feels like supporting Huckabee now?
I mean, seriously. “Santorum voted to confirm President Bill Clinton’s nomination of Alan Greenspan to be chairman of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System for a fourth four-year term.” Dude, the vote was 89-4, and the only ones who voted nay were Democrats Harry Reid, Byron Dorgan, Paul Wellstone, and Tom Harkin. So Santorum is bad because he didn’t vote with Harry Reid and Paul Wellstone? LOL!
“Santorum voted against HR 2356 – Campaign Reform Act of 2001″ – Dude, that was McCain-Feingold; conservatives are SUPPOSED to be against it. Santorum was supposed to vote with Senators McCain and Feingold? LOL!
And yes, I think everyone knows this abortion stuff is bogus. Santorum’s passion for the pro-life cause is well-known. Just look at OnTheIssues.com.
The last item is a downright lie. Here is a transcript. Some people need to study up on basic comprehension skills. Santorum did not express concern about the Tea Party, he expressed concerns about libertarian efforts to reshape conservatism in the Republican Party and the Tea Party. (We see Max Twain trying to do that here – yanking out the third leg of the stool and telling SoCons to go fly a kite). The funny thing is, Santorum was responding to the following question: “Should the Public Accommodations Section of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill be open for revision?” His reply: “No.” And he went on to talk about libertarianism, which is behind the objections to the Act. So now Max expects people to be upset because Santorum objected to the ideology which questions a nearly 50-year-old civil rights act.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
HOLY RAPTURE!
The fat lady is warming up in Cali…
California Republican Presidential Primary SurveyUSA
Romney 33, Santorum 31, Gingrich 17, Paul 9
February 13th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Heh.
Most of this is either bogus or relatively minor stuff. And, seriously, Chuck Norris? If Chuck’s word is now gospel, maybe Max feels like supporting Huckabee now?
I mean, seriously. “Santorum voted to confirm President Bill Clinton’s nomination of Alan Greenspan to be chairman of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System for a fourth four-year term.” Dude, the vote was 89-4, and the only ones who voted nay were Democrats Harry Reid, Byron Dorgan, Paul Wellstone, and Tom Harkin. So Santorum is bad because he didn’t vote with Harry Reid and Paul Wellstone? LOL!
“Santorum voted against HR 2356 – Campaign Reform Act of 2001″ – Dude, that was McCain-Feingold; conservatives are SUPPOSED to be against it. Santorum was supposed to vote with Senators McCain and Feingold? LOL!
And yes, I think everyone knows this abortion stuff is bogus. Santorum’s passion for the pro-life cause is well-known. Just look at <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Rick_Santorum_Abortion.htm"OnTheIssues.com.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
The last item is a downright lie. Here is a transcript. Some people need to study up on basic comprehension skills. Santorum did not express concern about the Tea Party, he expressed concerns about libertarian efforts to reshape conservatism in the Republican Party and the Tea Party. (We see Max Twain trying to do that here – yanking out the third leg of the stool and telling SoCons to go fly a kite). The funny thing is, Santorum was responding to the following question: “Should the Public Accommodations Section of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill be open for revision?” His reply: “No.” And he went on to talk about libertarianism, which is behind the objections to the Act. So now Max expects people to be upset because Santorum objected to the ideology which questions a nearly 50-year-old civil rights act.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
100.
And you give Willard an inch….
He then slams that Republican a mile with tens of millions in attack ads.
And he wants to lead our party. LOL!
February 13th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Matthew,
If you want to see the future look at the age voting patterns. The 20-30 year olds will be running things, and Ron Paul has been winning them in every contest, many in landslides.
It’s going to be Paul whose idealism conservatives look back on as a guiding light, he having been almost completely isolated in the political arena while warning the country of the consequences of its choices. He was the lone conservative when nearly everyone else believed that we could do whatever we wanted and spend whatever we wanted. History has proven and will prove him right.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
In truth, legislators pretty much have to choose between making votes like we see in this list, or people completely ignored and ineffectual, like Michele Bachmann.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Attn: Jerald, be so good, change your record on the other side, before scretching my ears ! No more absurd repetitions with no intelectual value !!If you have some proofs against Chuck , do it right ! No more chattering in vaine !You have to recognize Chuck Norris is a Master of Arts !
February 13th, 2012 at 8:47 pm
I had to break up my comment, so unfortunately I will have two comments with multiple links that get posted later. Sorry.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:47 pm
The anti roms are gonna be confused, maybe time for them to start drinking.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:47 pm
103.
And 70% of the Repubs (i.e. So-Cons) may not feel like flying a kite at Romney’s request either.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
MPC,
People also change as they age. They tend to get more cynical, and less idealistic.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
I’m a Romney guy, and when I hear the worst that can be said about Rick Santorum, I just shrug and think, well, not really all that bad. Two things I don’t like:
He’s a clodhopper. If you are a SoCon you gotta love the guy for being such an eager beaver for your priorities, and you gotta cringe at the thought that he will become the chief spokesman for them. Huck is ten times as smooth. Ten times.
The second thing I don’t like is that he comes across as a scold. Not a whiner, he reaches beyond whining and achieves scold. Rick knows what’s right and wrong, and what’s important to Rick is that you get scolded if you’re wrong.
In a giant democracy where rule of law makes my opinions equal to your opinions, I don’t know how you craft laws after the image of Rick, but he gives the impression it’s already been done, and you, YOU are in violation! I think he’d lose the general by something like 53/45 if Obama doesn’t advertise. And I think he’ll advertise.
One of the mistakes our dear “base” is making is believing it is larger and more attractive than it really is, a mistake the MSM will allow you to make until it’s too late. Then watch what happens to a scold in the general election.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Willard’s lying butt would be sitting in the US Senate today, if his attempted out-lefting of Ted Kennedy had worked.
Anybody saying this guy ain’t a career politician needs to be roundhouse kicked.
Chuck Norris practices his own brand of “term limits”. He goes up and down the halls of Congress roundhouse kicking everybody in sight.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
“If you want to see the future look at the age voting patterns. The 20-30 year olds will be running things, and Ron Paul has been winning them in every contest, many in landslides.”
Great, so we’re going to be a country strung out on drugs, worshiping golden idols, relying on social darwinism to thin out this country – god forbid you ever have to contribute a dime to someone else, all while we look the other way as the rest of the world burns.
That sounds a lot more like hell than any country people should want to live in.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
MWS,
True, but that doesn’t stop conservatives from idealizing Goldwater as a visionary even though he too, was pretty much unelectable and very much an idealist.
Craig,
Why are you dividing conservatism again, when it cannot be divided? Are you trying to suggest “spend away and let our kids pay” ala Santorum and Gingrich is an attitude perfectly acceptable with so-called social conservatives? If it is, they aren’t conservative, fiscal or social.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Yeah, Santorum is a scold.
And Willard is a happy puppy, eager to please (the Left).
February 13th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
113 – Harold,
Running for office ONCE doesn’t make one a career poltician. That’s a dumb ass statement cling to.
Romney had an entire new a successful chapter to his life between running against Ted and being elected Governor.
Only a fool can’t see that.
Looks like its time for you to get some glasses.
BTW, what girl are going to get to roundhouse kick someone, because surely a pissant lettle dweeb like yourself wouldn’t be able to.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
We complain that our taxes are too high.
We send our hard-earned money to Washington instead of keeping more of it in our own states to help our own communities (which is really what the Founders intended).
Most of us think that the large entitlement programs to which most of our money goes are nothing short of criminal.
So how come when a Representative or Senator begs to get some of that money back in an effort help the people he’s elected to represent, we get angry.
Now you understand earmarks. So the real question is did Rick Santorum abuse earmarks, not did he propose earmarks. A bullet point above suggests that Santorum helped folks heat their homes in the winter which seems like a reasonable earmark to me.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:57 pm
95 Chris Miller,
Thank you, you’re doing very well.
This is a total hatchet job, and it isn’t even a good one. I keep coming back to his complaint that Santorum voted against HR 2356 – McCain/Feingold. That’s bad all of a sudden? Ha!
And the complaint about Santorum voting for HR 796 – the protection of abortion clinics – is a failure of reading and comprehending VoteSmart. What Santorum voted for (see the check mark down the page) was a motion to send the bill back to the committee, which is a vote to effectively kill it. If you click the link “See the Voting Record”, you’ll find that the “yea” votes, including Santorum’s, Kasich’s, DeLay’s, etc., came from pro-life Republicans; “nay” votes came from liberal Democrats. This is a particularly sleazy line of attack if used by any campaign, or by a supporter who understands the process.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
I have said this once and I’ll say it again,
If it wasn’t for the Right to Life Issue, most SoCons would be Democrats. Blue Dogs, REagan, Scoop Jackson or any other right of center name, but Democrats none the less.
They have that cloyingly sickly sweet Populist/Class Resentment gene which makes Pulpit Populists the most annoying charahcters on the political landscape.
February 13th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
The Democrats aren’t all that thrilled with Obama. They wanted single-payer, Guantanamo closed, free beer on weekends, and weekends to start on Thursdays. They didn’t get what they hoped for.
But if we nominate a SoCon scold, a clodhopper with two right feet, they will get motivated, especially the young people who really launched Obama over McCain. November will come and go without suspense, and Obama will continue to preside over America’s future.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
121 – Spot on.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
MPC,
Unfortunately, using that logic most those 20-30 yo support Obama and other Leftists much more than Paul. They are freshly brain-washed and a small but vocal subgroup are rebelling against their zombie peers and fight the brain washers. The Obama youth will change when they get a job some day (or not) and the Paulites will learn when they enter the real world and realize that not everything fits in a nice perfect box.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
94.
Mac,
Huck ain’t hitchin’ a ride on the Titanic.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
95.
Way to go, Christopher!
More, please……..
February 13th, 2012 at 9:07 pm
117.
Woo hoo! Doug the New York troll is here!
February 13th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Running for office ONCE doesn’t make one a career poltician.
.
Sure it does. This hack failed in out-Lefting Teddy, and just bided his time waiting for his next chance to take his obviously richly deserved station in high office. Then he fled when his political career was about to be terminated, to keep further office viable.
Oh yeah, he’s a careerist political hack alright.
Take some Ritalin, willardbot.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
115.
Huck: “Most all So-Cons are Fi-Cons. Too bad most Fi-Cons are not So-Cons!”
February 13th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
MPC,
SoCons: “Respect our Authority!”
February 13th, 2012 at 9:11 pm
“This hack failed in out-Lefting Teddy”
Wow are you an idiot. Half the pleasure of seeing Romney win the nomination is going to be watching the emotional irritation and distress is causes asshats like yourself.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:12 pm
123.James from TX Says:
February 13th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
MPC,
The Obama youth will change when they get a job some day (or not) and the Paulites will learn when they enter the real world and realize that not everything fits in a nice perfect box.
====
Bingo, TEX!
February 13th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
That was Gingrich’s best line of the debates… when he called out Willard as a loser forever yipping like a Yorkie to be what it was he claims not to be.
A good roundhouse kicking. The willardbots yammering this guy’s not a carerist political hack need a good roundhouse kicking.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
mac,
Good to see you!
How is life?
February 13th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
Harold,
Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked Capitol Hill. It’s now called Capitol Valley.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
You better not count those Willard nom chickens before they peck your eyes out, willardbot.
15 days from now, the Willard inevitability meme just may get roundhouse kicked into orbit.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Great, so we’re going to be a country strung out on drugs, worshiping golden idols, relying on social darwinism to thin out this country – god forbid you ever have to contribute a dime to someone else, all while we look the other way as the rest of the world burns.
Oh Matthew, if we believed all the prophecies about your generation this country would have already degenerated into something far worse. It’s definitely headed there though!
But hey, if you can accuse us all of being potsmokers, can I call you guys all bunch of entitlement leeches who are bankrupting this country? After all, the potsmokers aren’t running these deficits up. That’s you guys
And the gold – that’s all we’ll have left after we have to either inflate or default away the debts you leave behind, after you guys were worshiping your houses, big pickup trucks, and silly materialistic lifestyles filled with cheap Chinese goods and central American labor and leaving us with the tab. I don’t want to see the world fall apart. I want to rebuild it. But you guys are in the way so long as you all remain collectively ignorant as to the consequences of your demands on the country. You are taking us down the path of all other great empires to our collapse and impoverishment, then you’ll get the social darwinism you feared.
See how I can paint such a lovely picture as you can, and tar everyone with the same brush?
February 13th, 2012 at 9:19 pm
66.
Finding out Santorum made that statement is exactly what killed any chance of me ever voting for him….even if he is the nominee. Being Libertarian minded, I cannot vote for someone who is anti-Libertarian. But I certainly will not vote for Obama either.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Paulites will learn when they enter the real world and realize that not everything fits in a nice perfect box.
Or that we’ve started screwed from square one because both parties insisted on every piece of trash liberal program and delusion in the book and now we have to pay for them?
February 13th, 2012 at 9:19 pm
MPC,
you realize I’m 20, right?
February 13th, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Our Founding Fathers saw a need to make the Golden Rule more important than any other rules our righteous or wicked citizens could come up with. Everyone’s opinions and beliefs matter. The Constitution enshrines the Golden Rule in every inspired word.
Rick Santorum doesn’t speak Golden Rule. He speaks morality rules. It’s reflexive with him, and he’s not a good salesman for the unattractive notion of government directed bedroom behavior. Even though I can agree with sentiments Rick expresses, they seem so out of place in the public square politicized to advance his ambition. Like a Rick Perry Prayer event, there’s something so unseemly about Biblical politics as a cheap substitute for Biblical people.
If Evangelists were good at evangelizing, we could leave it to them to pack the Churches, and the votes would take care of themselves. Rick Santorum is of that class of politicians who rightly worry about their country’s morals, and then wrongly believe religious politics should lead the charge. They are alienating potential converts by substituting cheap political power for genuine spiritual influence.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Below is the summary of each candidate as written by The Club for Growth:
Rick Santorum:
On the whole, Rick Santorum’s record on economic issues in the U.S. Senate was above average. More precisely, it was quite strong in some areas and quite weak in others. He has a strong record on taxes, and his leadership on welfare reform and Social Security was exemplary. But his record also contains several very weak spots, including his active support of wasteful spending earmarks, his penchant for trade protectionism, and his willingness to support large government expansions like the Medicare prescription drug bill and the 2005 Highway Bill.
As president, Santorum would most likely lead the country in a pro-growth direction, but his record contains more than a few weak spots that make us question if he would resist political expediency when it comes to economic issues.
Mitt Romney:
Because of his long tenure in public life, especially his presidential run in 2008, Mitt Romney is considered a well-vetted candidate by now. Perhaps to his consternation, he has developed an unshakeable reputation as a flip-flopper. He has changed his position on several economic issues, including taxes, education, political free speech, and climate change. And yet the one issue that he doesn’t flip on – RomneyCare – is the one that is causing him the most problems with conservative voters. Nevertheless, he labels himself as a pro-growth fiscal conservative, and we have no doubt that Romney would move the country in a pro-growth direction. He would promote the unwinding of Obama’s bad economic policies, but we also think that Romney is somewhat of a technocrat. After a career in business, quickly finding a “solution” seems to be his goal, even if it means more government intrusion as a means to an end. To this day, Romney supports big government solutions to health care and opposes pro-growth tax code reform – positions that are simply opposite to those supported by true economic conservatives. How much Romney’s philosophy of governance will affect his policy goals if elected, we leave for the voters to decide.
Newt Gingrich:
As a historical figure, it is undeniable that Newt Gingrich has played leading roles in some of the most important battles on behalf of economic growth and limited government in the last quarter century.
His opposition and momentary defeat of the 1990 Bush tax increase, his leadership of the 1994 Republican Revolution, and his spearheading of the provisions of the Contract With America are major league achievements. His consistent support for pro-growth tax reform, free trade, Social Security reform, tort reform, and political free speech also evidence a clear and impressive understanding of the fundamentals that underlie the free enterprise system that has made America prosperous.
Unfortunately, the problems in Speaker Gingrich’s record are frequent enough and serious enough to give pause. On two of the most important recent issues that confronted limited government conservatives (creating the new budget busting Medicare drug entitlement, and the Wall Street bailout), Gingrich was on the wrong side. His advocacy of an individual health care mandate is problematic. His penchant for tinkering with rewards for favored industries and outcomes shows a troubling willingness to use federal power to coerce taxpayers into his preferred direction. And his occasional hostility toward conservatives who do not share his desire to support liberal Republicans or to compromise on matters of principle is worrisome.
The totality leads one to be rather unsure what kind of president Newt Gingrich would be. Past is often prologue, and in Gingrich’s case there is an enormous volume of past on which to base a judgment. One could reasonably expect a President Gingrich to lead America in a pro-growth and limited government direction generally, possibly with flashes of real brilliance and accomplishment, but also likely with some serious disappointments and unevenness.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
But what if we nominate a plastic robot, an aloof rich guy with two right feet?
I’m not convinced Romney’s all that much more electable than Santorum, especially if this is a populist sort of year.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
141.
Oops, did not mean to repost that HERE. Sorry.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:28 pm
Craig,
I’m sorry, but since you seem to want the label of liberal, we’re just going to have to stick it to you. You don’t seem to like fiscal conservatism or support candidates that believe in it, and either you are conservative or you aren’t. There’s no fiscal/social division.
You can be a morally conscious liberal.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:28 pm
So you don’t care about beating Obama or stopping what he is doing to this country. It’s well known that conservatism has various different groups under its tent. So now it’s not enough to never vote for a liberal; you can’t even vote for a different type of conservative?
February 13th, 2012 at 9:31 pm
…I’m still waiting for an answer on #139, MPC. lol. I think you’re laying quite a bit at my feet that doesn’t belong to me.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:31 pm
CLUB For Growth (and Greed) Conclusions
Newt Gingrich:
One could reasonably expect a President Gingrich to lead America in a pro-growth and limited government direction generally, possibly with flashes of real brilliance and accomplishment, but also likely with some serious disappointments and unevenness.
Rick Santorum:
As president, Santorum would most likely lead the country in a pro-growth direction, but his record contains more than a few weak spots that make us question if he would resist political expediency when it comes to economic issues.
Mitt Romney:
To this day, Romney supports big government solutions to health care and opposes pro-growth tax code reform positions that are simply opposite to those supported by true economic conservatives.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:33 pm
#147 -
Spamming with duplicate posts is considered bad form.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
MPC,
147 is for you, too!
I rest my case.
Back to the Clipper/Maverick game. See ya.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
145/
I would love Obama to lose, but since Santorum is just as bad as Obama (albeit in different ways), why should I vote for Santorum? Santorum stands against my Libertarian values….as he said himself.
I can vote for a lesser of two evils. But there is no “lesser” evil between Obama and Santorum. Not in my opinion.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Matthew,
Oh really? I guess in theory that entitles me to preach to you as one of your elders then, that’s fun.
You know our generation as well as I do. A lot of aimless kids more than anything, which is sad. I think a lot of us just want to shirk responsibility and watch things burn and enjoy the ride.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Chuck Norris does not have to go directly to jail, and he still gets $200.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
I’m a conservative. I want conservative solutions and processes and results. I’m not a Pharisee about it. Look at how our Party is swiftly becoming Pharsaical about everything to the exclusion of all common sense. The search for political purity is currently divorced from results based criterion. Down on Romney for MassCare? What about the longitudinal studies now possible in an American environment? Don’t know what I just asked? You’re part of the problem, not the solution.
We deserve to be crushed in November if what we offer an intelligent populace is a thrice-strained, five times squeezed dogmatic straitjacketed Pharisee to lead a government specifically designed for the scientific/spiritual journey to “prove all things, hold fast that which is good”.
Republicans look like we want to purify all things, hold back creativity, suspend opposition.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Watch,
The very real danger is, without demanding some measure of principles, the party will do what it did in the last decade. Talk about principles, then do a wholesale embrace of liberalism in all its abominable forms.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:46 pm
Chuck Norris can do a wheelie on a unicycle
February 13th, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Chuck Norris can cut through a hot knife with butter
February 13th, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Chuck Norris doesn’t flush the toilet, he scares the sh*t out of it
February 13th, 2012 at 9:50 pm
142. I get the sense that Rick Santorum cannot stand it that fellow citizens differ from him in matters of morality, and he believes it is the government’s place to regulate bedroom behavior, or why does he even bother to mention these kind of things in speeches and interviews?
Calling Romney a robot is a criticism of his unflappable nature, is it not? His ability to avoid emotion surfing is admirable in a leader in my opinion. George Washington had that quality in spades. Can Romney feel your pain? Ahhh. If he does, should he open the taxpayer wallet a little wider?
February 13th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
154. I like that. I agree. Where’s the balance? What do you think? How do have principles and advance them w/o becoming the Pharisee Party?
February 13th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Chuck Norris was once shot. The bullet died.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Matthew,
On what we were talking, you don’t really see all the Ron Paul support coming from types that are all about potsmoking, do you? If so you’ve ran across a very different group than I have.
All the ones I know are deeply interested in politics, far moreso than the average Romney supporter I know (though both groups are good kids), and are focused primarily on the debt and foreign wars. All of them are pretty aware about the direction of the country, and all of them pretty untrusting of politicians in both parties. Paul’s the guy we feel is honest and actually cares.
February 13th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
MPC,
“You don’t seem to like fiscal conservatism or support candidates that believe in it, and either you are conservative or you aren’t. There’s no fiscal/social division.”
You realize that the old world, old school conservatives of the 19th century across the pond often supported social welfare, protectionism, and labor rights, correct? Many of them were so socially conservative, they opposed universal suffrage and supported the Church running the “public” schools.
Don’t assume modern American conservatism (which is a blend of social conservatism and classical liberalism) is the only philosophically coherent school of conservatism.
But I do like your earlier comment, wedding balanced budgets to social conservatism.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:00 pm
Watch,
“why does he even bother to mention these kind of things in speeches and interviews?”
Same reason I’ve argued for the Trinity, and transubstantiation, and against sola scriptura.
It’s a matter of principle, not policy.
I will concede that Rick is easily lead down rabbit trails that have nothing directly to do with the Presidency. And I think he spent some of his post-Senate career working the Conservative Catholic circuit (hence, some of those quotes on contraception, etc….) but people are wrong when they look at those statements, and assume he’s going to try to ban condoms or sodomy.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:00 pm
I remember when Craig hated the Club for Growth, and called them very nasty things.
The morally conscious liberal has absolutely no shame.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:00 pm
My memory of 2000 is that GWB was the SoCon darling, with just enough of his father’s financial advisors to not be fiscally dangerous, and nobody saw him as a Foreign policy expert.
Did you ever get the sense that GWB was going to rigorously examine problems? Or would you say he was more of a go by the gut guy?
Can you tell me, if principles are in place, what the right policy ought to be without a rigorous process?
Romney’s world has been guided by rigor. Newt’s by fleeting inspiration, Rick’s? I don’t know. He seems more dogmatic and less rigorous to me. His campaign reflects his personality. Energetic, hard working, not full-spectrum, very little collegial support. Does he play nicely with others? I don’t like some things, I like others. Mitt I trust. Rick isn’t my cup of tea, and I don’t know if he can become an acquired taste.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:05 pm
165.
I highly doubt Santorum can be an “acquired taste” as well. He rubbed me the wrong way in the first debates since he started whining about not getting enough questions…..a valid view, but still in a way that did no fly.
He reminded me of someone though. Rememberthat annoying, tattling, whiney kid that always raises his hand in class in elementary school? That’s Santorum.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:06 pm
100. MWS…I would tend to believe that is true but then how do you explain this???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCyU5I43_Hc&feature=youtu.be
February 13th, 2012 at 10:07 pm
Watch,
I agree that you do have to give and take in politics. Anything that will pervert the basic standards and values of our society, indebt the future of the country needlessly to finance unproductive purchases (ie mortgage bubbles and entitlements and the like), and increase the scope and power of the government must never be on the table. Those are things we cannot compromise on, that conservatives have always been sold out on.
I believe that conservatism is primarily concerned with consequences, and a free man is he who understands the consequences of his choices. Liberalism is primarily concerned with freedom and ignores consequences. Using history and tradition as a guide, we must embrace that which will result beneficial as a whole for society, and eliminate that which does not.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:08 pm
168. In regards to Santorum making some tough votes that is. Why would you then make a commercial about how stupid you were?
February 13th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
168.
Thanks for posting that.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
147,
Is a Mike Huckabee supporter (at heart) really quoting the Club for Growth? What irony
153: I agree. Compromise has become a dirty word among the dyed in the wool. But it’s how you get things done in real life, with people everywhere who do not believe exactly as you do. I want someone who can work with people, not someone who is good at scoring political points and who has a record that the supposed media leaders of our party can get behind. And that person would not be Santorum. Unless you think big spending is a good idea
February 13th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
165.
Reread my bold post. I called them Club for Greed as I ALWAYS will
February 13th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
167.
Oops. my 167 comment was intended for 166, NOT for 165. Sorry.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
172.
Club For Greed, baby!
February 13th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
#99 James:
No, i don’t think he lacks “cajones” (Spanish for “boxes”) or even the word you are thinking of, “cojones.” I believe that if Rick were the nominee, he would continue to uphold his social conservative stands no matter how much pressure the media put on him to back down. But then …
Exactly. He would do well with the conservative Republican base, but he would be so mocked and derided that hardly any independents would vote for him. Remember what Christine O’Donnell’s Senate campaign was like? It would be like that except without the “I’m not a witch” commercial.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
167,
This is argued against as being superficial, but in politics it’s really not. To some extent for better or worse it’s a beauty contest. And Santorum is about as ugly as it gets, with no political skills at all. I actually agree with him about a lot, but Obama being beaten is my top priority, and Santorum is not going to be able to do that. Maybe nobody can, but I’m pretty sure he can’t.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
173 – Threading the needle as always. Craig also said at one time back in 2008, that they had no credibility, they were liars, etc.
No shame, morally conscious liberal.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
163. Is it wise, prudent, discrete, productive for Rick Santorum to compare Gay sex with man on dog sex? Was he at a pulpit when he spoke out this way? That seems inappropriate too.
Respect for the healthy limits of spiritualizing the political, or politicizing the spiritual is something we might want in a President. I don’t get the sense that Rick has mastered this boundary in a way that qualifies him to be our party’s chief spokesperson.
Have the courage of your convictions. Speak truth. Have some policy in mind that actually is being advanced by your effort, and don’t take random shots at your opponent to score cheap political points with your supporters at the expense of advancing public policy.
That doesn’t seem too much to ask. Who is going to carry more weight in an argument to advance public policy where a socially conservative issue needs to be advanced, Rick or Mitt? I would argue Mitt by a long ways because of Rick’s intemperateness in discussing these issues.
I think choosing the better advocate matters.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:18 pm
Watch,
“My memory of 2000 is that GWB was the SoCon darling”
No. Many SoCons didn’t trust him, because of a) his father b) he was the overwhelming “establishment pick” and c) he didn’t have much history working for SoCon priorities.
No, SoCons had to settle for Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer. Keyes stayed in until the end, I think, getting 10-20% like Paul does now, as I recall.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:20 pm
Romney’s world has been guided by rigor. – Watchini
Yeah, like running to the left of Ted Kennedy and then going along with the libs to get along with mandates, exchanges, subsidies, public options, monstrous fees on everything, huge raising of business taxes, gay marriages, guns laws, and mandated $50 abortions under his watch.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
169. I will tweek what you’ve said slightly and see if you agree:
Conservatism is focused on individual freedom and responsibility.
Liberalism is focused on community responsibility and individual well-being.
Neither is evil or good. A balance is best. We are not a better country without that balance.
And we are losing sight of the magic this balance has created by becoming more and more dogmatic and less admiring of the virtues possessed by our opposition, as if we are in some sort of zero-sum game.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
So if Santorum has no political skills and would be so terrible, how did he win election to Congress twice in a majority-Democrat steel district, and then won statewide in PA in two Senate elections, including, in 2000, against a pro-life Democratic Congressman who won the primary on the basis of his electability? How did he outperform Bush that year, winning by 7 points while Bush lost by 5?
February 13th, 2012 at 10:22 pm
..oh and liberal judges approved by Planned Parenthood.
Rigor!
February 13th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
William Wallace,
I don’t see that ad as a big deal. He’s selling himself as a can do guy in a bad year for Republicans.
Doesn’t Mitt brag about his ability to work with Democrats?
February 13th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
180. Good points. I will add that he was from the South. For a lot of SoCons, that seems to cover a multitude of sins.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
UpChuck needs a Fact Checker!
* Newt ALSO voted for HR 796 – the Abortion Clinic Access Bill
* Newt ALSO ran the House when HR 3448 – the Minimum Wage Increase bill – passed with unanimous Republican support, so the idea that Newt opposed it is ludicrous.
At least get your facts straight…
February 13th, 2012 at 10:27 pm
181. Isn’t there an unregurgitated poll somewhere that hasn’t been fully exploited and expounded by you to unsuspecting casual R42012 visitors who don’t know you better?
Honestly, the number of people who read what you wrote in 181, (or pick a post) and think of you as anything but a cheap shill would shock you, it is so low.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:28 pm
185. My point is that Santorum bashes Romney for the very things he has done himself.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:28 pm
183,
I’m speaking pure politics, and given what I’ve seen of him this cycle I’m not really sure. But the question of today is, how is he not able to take advantage of an environment where there is clearly a lot of people who would do anything to stop Romney, but have brought themselves to Santorum only after exhausting every alternative possible (including people I feel are considerably less impressive than Santorum)?
February 13th, 2012 at 10:29 pm
Matt,
I believe a basic provision of social welfare, obligation to your neighbor, protectionism when appropriate, etc are part of fiscal conservatism just as much as they are a part of social conservatism. Our trade deficits with China and other nations for example are definitely overstimulating consumption here, which has led us no place good. To say nothing of the decay which has gripped the working classes. I’m not a libertarian as I once considered myself because libertarianism doesn’t really understand that man does not exist and cannot exist as some Ayn Rand-ian hyperindividualist utopia, while I do agree with some of its ideas.
I trust the provisions of traditional society best. I don’t believe in large federal pipe dreams with altruistic motives but that are ignorant of the ultimate consequences, like the present entitlement programs.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:31 pm
181. I find no evidence that you’ve ever been interested in a give and take on this site where you had to let down your cheap shill persona long enough to give any consideration or thought to anything you didn’t spam. You’re the least interesting contributor I’ve ever read.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:41 pm
164. MWS. By the way, your intemperate advocacy for the Hapsburg empire has probably DQ’d you from holding really high office, . . . unless you’ve maintained your anonymity.
I know. Convictions.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:49 pm
[...] Chuck Norris Trashes Rick Santorum – I will simply post a few issues, you can click the link to read the rest: [...]
February 13th, 2012 at 10:51 pm
William,
“My point is that Santorum bashes Romney for the very things he has done himself.”
Oh. Fair enough then. ‘Course, Mitt does that too.
Come to think of it, pretty much all politicians do that.
Even most real humans do that.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:53 pm
Watch,
I’ll be waiting for my post as liaison between the Church and Department of Education when the time comes.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:54 pm
I’m going to have to learn to spell emissary.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:55 pm
MPC,
I’m glad to see you move away from godless libertarianism.
I compulsively spit every time I see or hear the name of Ayn Rand. If the devil has a gospel, she wrote it.
February 13th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
Watch,
I’ll get you some cush position you’ll barely have to show up for, like “Emissary for Religious Minority Window Dressing.”
I’ll remember my friends.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:03 pm
MWS just remember my two professional ambitions:
Over-paid and under-supervised.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:19 pm
LOL! I hear that.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:29 pm
Norris is obviously being paid by Romney.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:31 pm
1.- Uh Oh. that is the kiss of death. Obviously, Craig is also on Romney’s payroll.
February 13th, 2012 at 11:32 pm
Santorum on Contraception:
“One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea … Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay … contraception’s okay.”
It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal … but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.”
This is the nonsense we’re going to have to deal with if Santorum is the nominee. Even the Bible Belt thinks this kind of stuff is crazy.
February 14th, 2012 at 12:20 am
Real( I mean PITA)Conservative.
Crawl back under your rock. When Mitt takes down Little Ricky in AZ and Mich, it will be curtains for Ricky boy on Super Tues.
Have your fun now cause your gonna do a lot of cryin’ by the end of the month.
February 14th, 2012 at 12:22 am
Aside from being pro-life there is *nothing about Rick Santorum that is conservative. N O T H I N G.
February 14th, 2012 at 12:23 am
205. ROTFLMAO!
February 14th, 2012 at 12:24 am
206.
CLUB For Growth (and Greed) Conclusions
Newt Gingrich:
One could reasonably expect a President Gingrich to lead America in a pro-growth and limited government direction generally, possibly with flashes of real brilliance and accomplishment, but also likely with some serious disappointments and unevenness.
Rick Santorum:
As president, Santorum would most likely lead the country in a pro-growth direction, but his record contains more than a few weak spots that make us question if he would resist political expediency when it comes to economic issues.
Mitt Romney:
To this day, Romney supports big government solutions to health care and opposes pro-growth tax code reform positions that are simply opposite to those supported by true economic conservatives.
February 14th, 2012 at 12:28 am
192.
Watchini the Rombot,
And you bore me to death, so I read about one out of 10 of your CHILDISH posts that scream, “look at me, I’m so clever!”
February 14th, 2012 at 12:32 am
#204 I believe that Rick’s rather inarticulate thoughts here are basic Catholic doctrine. It’s just that we don’t hear it much anymore.
But you’re right; this would not play well in a general election. And maybe not in the primary. Sadly this week we’ve become the anti-birth control party thanks to Barack Obama and a bunch of people who can’t think too clearly.
And now Santorum will become the anti-birth control candidate with strange views of conjugal sex.–even those his views would have been pretty common place several years ago. However, I’ve never known of a presidential candidate who got this far out into the tall grass.
February 14th, 2012 at 6:26 am
Santorum has been critical of Norris’ execution of the crescent kick and the rear-naked choke, right? No. Actually, he hasn’t bothered to comment on these since he has no authority in his knowledge of martial arts. Perhaps as much authority as Chuck Norris has in his political commentary on Santorum. I admire Chuck’s greatly as a martial artist, but who cares about his political opinions.
February 14th, 2012 at 6:38 am
210.
I wouldn’t have a problem if he made statements like this as a private Catholic, but he’s prefacing these remarks as ““One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about…” Meaning, he sees this as a public policy goal as President.
Look, this is the kind of stuff that could tar the GOP for a generation as the crazy Theocrat Party. What’s even worse is, most evangelicals will be REALLY weirded out by this stuff, which is really the base of social conservatives. If they think this stuff is in wacko territory, how do you think more secular-minded people will react?
February 14th, 2012 at 6:45 am
#212 I don’t know how the evangelicals, who are giving increasing support to Santorum, will feel about it if and when they learn about it. Santorum’s not Romney and appears to be an acceptable candidate, so it probably won’t better one whit with the “base.”
The left will make a big deal of it and that could dissuade the hated but needed middle and commonsense conservatives.
February 14th, 2012 at 7:16 am
When I’m scanning through a thread, I’ll look for Watch’s comments, because he’s clever.
February 14th, 2012 at 7:21 am
KG,
Interesting how eager you are to discuss Rick’s religious views. I think you’ve shown more enthusiasm for them than anyone here but Max.
I do find it a bit…… incongruous…… how much you fret over what leftists and Indies will think of our possible nominee’s religious beliefs.
February 14th, 2012 at 9:29 am
Aside from being pro-life there is *nothing about Rick Santorum that is conservative. N O T H I N G.
.
And Willard is pro abortion, and has nothing about him that is conservative.
Willard is a true progressive.<——————PERIOD
February 14th, 2012 at 9:34 am
And let’s be clear. The big conservative tent has plenty of room for the libertarian philosophy (arguably including Ayn Rand). Yes, atheists and funny underwear wearers who are social conservative, fiscal conservative and limited government conservative, or at minimum one or two of those, have a place with us.
We conservatives will accept those who don’t buy into the whole program. Just as they’ll have to accept who’s driving this bus… and that would be us.
But we have ZERO room for those who are none of the above, the progressives like Willard. That’s over with the left. We’ll draw you a map so you can find them, gang.
February 14th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Max,
I take issue with you calling Chuck Norris a “pretend” tough guy. He is a martial arts expert. You might as well call Jet Li or Jackie Chan “pretend” tough guys. In order to be a TV actor that round house kicks people, you have to be good enough at it to make sure that you really don’t kick people… but rest assured that he could put a boot in somebody’s face anytime he wanted.
I’m not lock step with him on politics, but don’t disrespect the guy.
February 14th, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Most Independents don’t like but far right conservatism whether it comes from tea baggers or the self righteous religious fanatics. We like more moderate candidates, we also will not vote for candidates that can’t get elected(Gingrich,Santorum,Paul unless he runs third party). If he ran on a third party that would change the whole game. Dem’s, Republicans, Independents, Ron Paul’s Republicans, and those who just want to stir the pot. He would only need 37 to 39%to win the election.A lot of Dem’s and Independents don’t like his stand on social issues but do like his military and foreign plan.It the nuts in the Republican party were to nominate either Gingrich/Santorum standby and watch the Independents reelect Obama and help the Dem’s take back the House and Senate, they will just pull the Democrat lever, they want to end the tea bagger blight anyway.
February 15th, 2012 at 12:14 pm
[...] that this means anything. This is just FYI everybody….but it looks like Santorum is Anti-gun! Chuck Norris Trashes Rick Santorum Chuck Norris, a supporter of Gov. Mike Huckabee in 2008 and now a backer of former Speaker Newt [...]
February 15th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
[...] the way the game works these days. That’s not to single out Romney supporters. Look at Chuck Norris. Here’s a guy whose greatest contributions to the GOP are being famous, supporting [...]
February 23rd, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Chuck Norris is a Douche!
March 13th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
I am sorry, but this time Chuck Norris is WRONG.I know that Santorum is NOT PERFECT, and neither is Newt or Paul, or Romney. However, when I hear a man speaking…I am rather looking at his past actions who support his talking that at his promises for what he is going to do in the future. Most of the bills are listed, that Santorum is said to be voted for…where “PACKAGED” along with other Bills which had GOOD THINGS in it that Santorum Supported. Very few bills comes along on the floor to vote for. Look at the Obama-Care Bill. There are more than 2000 things in it. Most are bad but some of them “may be” good. Most conservatives will vote “NO” on such a Bill. Yet…most Democrats will hold Conservatives accountable because they rejected the “Few good things in the “Health-Care Bill” on which they voted “NO.”
So…don’t give me this voting record…Mr. Chuck Norris…
When I am looking in the past, at Newt’s own actions and the way he choose to live his life…Obama came along like a “SAINT” compared with Newt…
If Newt is the Best Conservative we can come up with…Maybe It’s Time Foe Me to switch to Independents. Sen. Santorum has been consistently living out his main Conservative principles, even though (as I already said), he was/is NOT perfect.
Besides…if we are entirely relying on “Newt’s debating skills” in defeating Obama, we are deceiving ourselves big time…