« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Santorum’s ‘My Way’ encores best Obama’s original ‘Happy Days are Here Again’

Republicans say “x”; the media reports they meant “y”; and the best way to be sued for defamation is to accurately quote a Democrat

President Barack Obama has faced the nation often the past three years declaring his debt-exploding policies to be Biblically-based, in the national interest and necessary to remedy the economic crisis he inherited from his GOP predecessor. When addressing the persistence of continuing economic ills in the fourth year of his presidency he asserts that Republicans impede solutions because they put party politics above what’s best for the country or that  he didn’t realize just how bad the crisis was. Finally, when addressing follow up questions from the media reminding him of his original contradictory claims and suggesting that he is attributing nefarious non-Christian motives to Republicans in Congress, he…oh, wait a minute, we don’t actually remember hearing such follow ups when Obama meets the press.

By contrast, the man currently leading polls to be Obama’s Republican opponent on Election Day faced the nation yesterday for a CBS cross-examination that consisted of Bob Schieffer’s serial cognitive dissonance-laced mis-characterizations of past statements of Senator Santorum on education, birth control and Obama’s professions of faith:

  • Santorum has long stood for getting the federal government out education, citing the nation’s abysmal dropout record over the past 30 years. Sheiffer accuses him of wanting to eliminate public education.
  • Santorum, a Roman Catholic, is personally against the use of medicinal birth control, thinks Supreme Court precedents removing its regulation from state control was wrongly decided but explicitly believes it should be legal. Yet, Schieffer accuses him of being for denying women access to birth control.
  • Santorum disagrees with President Obama’s recent claim that his health care, economic, financial regulation and foreign policies are consistent with the teachings of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible in general and, specifically those of Jesus Christ. Yet, despite the fact that Santorum explicietly stated that he believes Obama is a Christian, Scheiffer accuses Santorum of questioning Obama’s faith.

Finally, the “revered” CBS anchor of the network’s longest running show descended into the depths of depravity with a fast one about  the death of one of Santorum’s children designed to perpetuate the liberal line that he is a weird and extremist Christian because he followed the advice of counselors with a family wake. Schieffer refers to the deceased child as having been “stillborn” in passing. But the former Pennsylvania senator wouldn’t let the remark pass despite the “reporter’s” best attempts to move on, and corrected him, as the child actually lived for two hours after birth. Schieffer ended up having to deliver a red-faced apology (see link above for the entire sad exchange).

Santorum can effectively defend Judeo-Christian values, conservatism and himself

Many in the Republican Party are concerned that Santorum can be discredited by the media and the Obama campaign machine by resort to such tactics as those used yesterday on Face the Nation. Of course, the drive-by media and every Democratic Party campaign tries to do the same with every GOP candidate. I remember the amiable dunce that won 49 states.

Yesterday’s performance by Rick Santorum should calm their fears.

Santorum has religious beliefs, but he favors tolerance and stresses the denial of economic liberty that contraceptive and ObamaCare mandates pose. Obama also has religious beliefs, but he favors having the Secretary of Health and Human Services impose those values by deciding what insurance policies must be offered for sale by private companies.

Santorum has a sterling conservative voting record that helped implement the successful economic policies that extended the Reagan Recovery into the mid-2000s, reformed welfare and defeated al Qaeda after 911; during which time Obama opposed legislation that would have required that babies who survive abortions receive life-saving treatment, voted against funding for the War on Terror, voted for the Democrats’ last two budgets and TARP before he his Inauguration and advanced policies as President that have failed to produce an economic recovery in the United States  worthy of the name recovery.

Yes, after winning four elections to Congress from a Democratic state, he lost to a pro-life son of a Keystone State legend in the 2006 semi-Democrat landslide, thanks mainly to the failure of President George W. Bush to publicly defend the Iraq War. Yes, he voted with most of his GOP colleagues for their party’s pre-tea partier/post-911 president’s NCLB education accountability and Medicare Rx Drug policies. He now regrets those two votes. I’m not going to dignify complaints about puny McCain-losing earmark issues.

Santorum has also been a prominent advocate of conservative values and policies in the media for over 15 years and doesn’t carry the baggage of having been for Romney/ObamaCare-style mandates like his main opponents for the GOP nomination. His character is unblemished.

Yes, he will be attacked as an extremist by the Left. Reagan and Dubya were as well, and both were elected and re-elected. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich would also be attacked. In fact, despite Obama’s National Prayer Breakfast speech, if either Jesus Christ or Moses were the GOP nominee, they would also be targeted for libel and slander of the Democrats and the media for accurately quoting them or citing their records.

Santorum has sung conservatism his way, much as did The Gipper, and he can defend that record with flip-side encores.

By contrast, Obama’s Hope and Change tune has been no  end-of-Prohibition-inspired “Happy Days are Here Again” that became the anthem of the New Deal coalition Democratic Party.

We think Santorum’s cover of Sinatra and Elvis trumps  Obama’s envious crooning come November.

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern ConservativeUnified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.


COMMENTS

  • Dave_A

    Get the GOP ‘machine’ behind this guy, and he will be a much better candidate than Romney…

    Hell, even ‘on his own’, he polls just-above or just-below Romney in head-to-heads with Obama (and consistently better than Gingrich).

    I had my doubts a while back, but I’ve come to the conclusion (before this diary – the FTN situation just strengthens it) that Rick is the best of the remaining candidates, to face Obama.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    later

  • jdaman

    Santorum did very well here! I loved what he said about about amniocentesis being a procedure that leads to more abortions, as he is correct. But what really struck home with me in that interview was what he was saying about Public Schools. He is absolutely correct, the current school system is terrible. it is a one size fits all system with a number of borderline useless electives or “personal health” classes that get students nowhere unless they want to become dietitian, in which case the “green health” classes shouldn’t be general requirements for all students.
    Santorum did very well indeed, he showed that he can withstand the Liberal mud slinging. Now, if he can survive the Romney mud slinging in the debate tonight, than he will have shown everyone that he can withstand what’s going to be thrown at the Republican Nominee.

  • Viet71

    The media report y because that’s all the media dummies are tuned to hear — x just doesn’t register.

    Sounds like a great interview by Santorum.

    Continue to believe he scores LOTS of points for appearing to be genuine.

    Maybe Arlen Specter and big government are behind him.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    justified

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/why-did-santorum-endorse-specter-2004/287596

    Bush’s support of Specter was not.

  • Dave_A

    No one really thought the 04 race was going to fall so heavily Republican…

    Rove was following the ‘Lombardi Rule’: Winning isn’t everything – it’s the ONLY thing…

    Expecting a nail-biter, the GOP closed ranks around anyone who was a lock for re-election – which Arlen Specter was.

    Of course, as it turned out, Kerry’s candidacy imploded and the GOP picked up seats in Congress for the 3rd straight election – but no one expected that during the Primaries….

    It’s tempting to allow what we know now to skew our view of decisions made without that knowledge – but that’s not the right way to look at things…

  • redmymind

    Not only is Santorum a sharp, gutsy, “quick-on-your-feet” counter-puncher, but he actually means what he says and is deeply rooted in principle and an exemplary personal life. This is what we need!

  • http://thethinkingvoter.blogspot.com abierubin

    Love the way you clearly exposed Schieffer’s hypocrisy. Not too surprised, he’s had Newt on for five weeks straight prior to now taking Santorum.

    I’ve tried to recommend it and will continue to try, but it came up as “unrecommend” as though recommended already yet my name not showing up.

  • kowalski

    Rick Santorum? I “quick-on-your-feet” counter-puncher? Everything the man says is followed by an apology for his mistakes. Nothing he says or has said recently has made much sense, except that mainline Protestantism is falling apart (actually it has fallen apart). But that’s about it. He should leave the campaign trail and get back to work for the Catholic Protestants in a much more productive way than he is doing now. He’s really frankly embarrassing people.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    to stay out of the Catholic vs. Protestant issues in my political discussions, but this makes it really hard. I’m still going to keep quiet about it, because it’ll only make it worse, but wow….

  • kowalski

    Rick Santorum is the worst possible choice we have right now. I don’t count Ron Paul as a choice but Rick is the worst one.

    The Protestants (and other Catholics) have done all of this to themselves. They have spent so much time and money aligning themselves with the Democrat party in the past 30 years that there is no reversing it. They’re completely OWNED by the Democrat party – abortion provisions and all. All the people I know who graduated from Loyola want abortion on demand, and the Protestants in this country all died when that guy committed suicide a few years ago. There is no core to their belief system, it’s all just influence and happenstance. Why bother?

  • kowalski

    Protestantism Committed Suicide here in the Northeast half a dozen years ago. Don’t worry, you won’t be offending anyone too badly. They’re all dead.

  • acat

    Can he articulate fiscal conservatism in front of a hostile press with 1/4 of the fervor he defends his son?

    Mew

  • kowalski

    And every time he opens his mouth, more minor-league baloney comes rolling out of it that he has to apologize for. Just yesterday it was alienating the entire NATION of the Netherlands. He doesn’t even know what he’s TALKING about. The people he puts up on television with Andrea Mitchell are complete idiots who think they’re living in 1955.

    Making a campaign against this guy is perhaps the easiest task anyone in the world has ever been faced with.

    But what’s worse about the people who support him is that Evangelicals really believe on the one hand that they’re a grassroots movement who nevertheless live every second of their lives in the hope of having an All Powerful President who will reverse the culture they find themselves so disgusted with – from the TOP DOWN. They actually believe that what they want is a MORAL DEMAGOGUE in the highest office in this country who will ENFORCE their long-suffering demands. Unbelievable.

  • acat

    I’d be tempted to let ‘em have at it…. just to see what happens.

    Theocracies never end well for the common folk…

    Mew

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    hint: I’m not Roman Catholic.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    *no*text**

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Southern Baptists are BY far the largest protestant sect in America and we have not committed suicide, not have Evangelicals and nor have 50-60%? of Catholics.

    A long campaign will allow Americans to understand what POLICIES Obama favors and those that Santorum favors, no matter what myths they believe in the eyes of agnostics. Obama imposes his belief in Keynesianism, global warming and paternal big government. That coupled with their flat wallets will win the day.

    And if it doesn’t, then we couldn’t have fooled a decrepit America into voting for us anyway.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    clean out your ears

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    next

  • acat

    Seriously.

    Show me he’s got some serious fiscal conservative stones that weren’t grafted on after 2006.

    Mew

  • jamesm

    Do you believe what you write?

  • jamesm

    I saw Santorum on CBS. He was really good.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    The Devil of ObamaCare be damned vs Obama’s Rev Wright G-d Damned America.

    Santorum’s served in Congress for many years with others and has a record that is rated by conservatives as in the top 5%. Case closed.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    that they prefer the former going forward.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Bring on the open secularists and the fake Obama and Clinton-like winkers that sit in pews to fool people and then let;s look at the policies they prefer and I am confident that Americans will choose the policies of Bible-Believers over the Keyensian religion acolytes.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Newt is a Catholic. I have his religious book. Want some quotes from it? eh?

  • aesthete

    We’ve told you, time and again, using specifics from his record, what we dislike about Santorum and why his record indicates that he’ll make a bad President on size of government issues. Furthermore, all of us libertarian-leaning folk have at one time or other supported a social conservative in the race, or are currently supporting a social conservative (i.e., anyone who’s last name is not “Paul” or “Johnson”). It’s dishonest to pretend that the objections raised have been about religion thus far, given the above.

  • honoraryintern

    bonus points for the rant though… My daily laugh out loud moment on redstate

  • Xasteius

    The only difference between Obama and Santorum are belief system (I happen to agree with Santorum socially) . They will, however, use the same means to implement their policies. Santorum is the direct polar opposite of Obama; he will use the big government to establish the domestic policies of Bush II. This is not limited government.

    I (as a Christian) want a US that will implement the following policy (to paraphrase the words of my fifth grade teacher)

    “To worship as we please (or don’t) as long as we do not infringe on the rights of others and public decency”.

    America is not a Christian nation. The culture is not Christian. It is up to the individual Christians / Christian church to evangelize the culture. Santorum is out to use the government to evangelize America. This is wrong ,and not conservativism.

  • JSobieski

    and I would classify myself as being socially conservative (a characterization that some might argue with), I agree with your implicit point that all R candidates worth a lick will almost certainly have strong religious views and will have commented on those views.Rick’s comments about Satan are in fact theologically sound and I wish more priests spoke that way.

    I also disagree with this theocracy talk re: Santorum. To the extent that I have criticized Santorum it is limited to the following:

    (1) A focus on social issues, not econ issues (i.e. his heart and energies have not been primarily focused on the primary problems before us)

    (2) Concerns about how a general election campaign will play out if Rick is the nominee.

    I hope for his sake and ours that Rick becomes a bit more adept and willing to manage his media interactions so that social issues and even worse theological issues, do not become the focus of 50% or more of the media stories.

    If I though Romney would actually be a strong general election candidate, I would have buckled and jointed the Romney train on the basis of “electability”. However, I think Romney may be a hopeless candidate. I would like to see Santorum show signs of being a far stronger general election candidate than Romney rather than just being a bit stronger than Romney.

    If Santorum can play up the blue color midwestern econ perspective (yes I know its populist) and avoid getting involved in lengthy discussions about Satan and birth control, I think he would be a better general election candidate than Romney. However, if he can’t—then he isn’t.

    There is no doubt that Santorum could play well in the midwest, but I am concerned about his candidate skills…. just as I am with Romney and Newt.

  • Xasteius

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/

  • acat

    It’s about Santorum’s demonstrated inability to vote against big-government programs.

    It’s about Santorum’s union ties, and how that will hamstring him dealing with the SEIU.

    It’s about how Santorum seems unable to redirect an interview back to issues that voters are looking for answers on.

    Note, Gamecock, that the voters will seek answers from other sources if Santorum’s too busy bloviating about how Satan’s a Presbyterian, or how condoms are destroying families, or making a confused point about public schools being problematic without pointing fingers at the Teachers Unions.

    Mew

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Libertarians aren’t pleased that Santorum is against government planning of insurance policies and contraception law?

    Bad compared to whom? Got any Newt anecdotes? and mine are recent: Pelosi couch, still favors Medicare Rx bill and was for individual mandate a few or just 2 yrs ago?

    Also has a religious book with quotes that indicate he is a Bible-Believing Christian.

    The non-religious objections to Santorum are puny and without merit as compared to Newt and Mitt and 95% of those that were in Congress over the past two decades.

    Grover Cleveland did veto non-enumerated powers bills but he was a Democrat and is dead.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I am confident based upon past history and Santorum’s improved campaign skills that over the long campaign he will meet your tests. Of course, none of us know.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    We can pick mites from others eyes while ignoring those of others and the logs in our own.

    Top 5% voting record. Case closed on that. Are Evangelical Christians the only ones left that use reason? do all the rest resort only to anecdotes?

    Earmarks? “pork”?

    McCain puniness returns…

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Top 5%. Case closed on that.

  • acat

    Case lost on appeal.

    Mew

  • jamesm

    All candidates have faults. We have 3 choices. (Not counting Paul)
    We can pick issue with any candidate. As a whole Romney is the worst-bar none

  • aesthete

    The case has been made — repeatedly — for why ratings need to be looked at with a jaundiced eye. In the case of the NTU rating — an organization which I am confident 95% of Santorum supporters had never heard of until they had need of a straw to grasp — there are several reasons to believe that it is not an accurate measure of big government predilections. Since there is no rubric or internals to show which votes were tallied (and how they were weighed), a top 5% rating (during the Bush years, no less) has about as much pull for me and others as the Kosher and Hallal Rankings for SS Officers did in WWII. I’ve looked at his record myself, and have not come away impressed. Naturally, people are free to differ with my assessment, which I have recounted time and again on this site, to you and others. What you’re not so free to do is wave around a meaningless statistic to close discussion on a problem with has characterized Santorum’s record, and which many have commented on.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    that implemented contract w/ America’s promise,
    and Newt lobbied for Medicare Part D and supported NCLB.

  • lapert

    Come on, Newt was very publicly in favor of Medicare Part D and also supported NCLB – the only reason he didn’t vote for them is because he wasn’t in elected office at the time.

  • honoraryintern

    Great post GC.

    You have Ricks word, Because of his personal mores it’s worth more than another candidate. Cut to 2008 numbers now/Cut increases for 5 years/ balance budget/

    Mitt is talking about the height of trees. How do you think that will play with the Ohio Reagan dems?

    Newt has self destructed. Great Ideas, but do you believe he can implement? He was a pariah when he lost the Speaker, on the cover of every news mag.Do you think they fired all their rounds?

    Paul’s fiscal conservative proposals are talking about the responsibilities of the congress not the president. How does he convince the Congress and Senate to implement? He gets less than 10% of the public to agree with him.. If his international proposals went trough the results are the end of the only democracy in the Middle East… which means radioactive glass out in one of those deserts.

  • aesthete

    Instead, you are like Bronze Age societies, uncritically worshipping a number that you know nothing about.

    Why is Zoroaster great? Because we have all these ziggurats!

    Why is Santorum great? 5%!!

  • aesthete

    Clearly, you did not read my account, as I say nothing about earmarks.

  • Xasteius

    no text

  • Flagstaff

    stems from his feistiness. He’s been giving it back to the press as good as he gets. (Newt’s rise was founded on the same sand.) As long as the questioner is a Bob Schieffer, obviously not even understanding what he was asking about, Rick sounds good.

    There are a couple of problems with this situation, alluded to by those above.

    First, he’s scoring points and getting face time on TV from topics that are not significant issues in the coming election. He shouldn’t even be talking about this stuff. There is a reason that the issues “aren’t talked about much,” to paraphrase the candidate. The reason is that he isn’t going to convert as many of those who are now against him or neutral as he is going to alienate those who right now don’t even care.

    Second, even when he’s right, he has to explain it, and not enough listeners stick around to hear the explanation.

    Third, the reason he is being forced to talk about these issues is because he brought them into the campaign by previous statements and he is still making them. It gives him a chance to sound strong to those of us who already agree with him, and that seems to give him a leg up on the other three candidates. But the fact is that the press loves to bring up “controversial” positions that all of the candidates have taken, hoping to embarrass them. With Romney it’s Romneycare; with Newt it’s his marital strife; with Santorum it’s his personal religious beliefs. For the most part, none of these things are important to how the man would act as President. They are all distractions.

    If I’m right, what is the big difference between the three? Romneycare is a legitimate campaign issue. Every time Romney has to talk about it, he gets to talk about a question of decision making and of compromise. He gets to try to make a point that he wants to make; one that will help him against Obama (although few around here recognize that).

    Newt’s marriages are marginally fair game, but he’d rather not be talking about them. They are an essentially one-dimensional issue.

    Santorum’s religious beliefs are multi-faceted. If he gets questioned about every nuance of past statements (and the MSM will try to do so), he won’t get a chance to talk about anything else. Consider the FTN interview. The entire conversation was taken up by Schieffer’s ridiculous questions and Santorum’s attempts to both set him straight and explain what he “really” meant. He didn’t get a word in about anything else, and for a lot of us, “anything else” is what he should have been discussing. And his distraction is still what we’re talking about.

    Even worse, Santorum’s distraction is self-made. He really didn’t have to express most of his opinions the way he has, a way that requires more than just a perfunctory “It’s obvious that wasn’t what I meant.” It’s the same problem that Rick Perry had, just not quite so sudden, made in the glare of the debate lights.

    I was starting to be more open to Santorum, but seeing him spin his wheels on non-issues, I’m not so sure. He did do well with Schieffer, and he was able to get in some shots at Obama’s past positions supporting partial-birth abortion and post-abortion survivor killing. If that’s his strategy, it’s a very convoluted one.

    I’m also not convinced that Santorum’s explanation for his position on right-to-work holds water. In fact, it’s similar to, but far weaker than Romney’s explanation for working with his legislature to create Romneycare.

  • acat

    but didn’t think it was generous enough with government money.

    You have to actually look at the details. When you do, the difference is stark.

    Gingrich moved power out of D.C. under the Contract, his reform proposals to Medicare at the time were to change it to a block-grant to the States.

    Santorum moved power back to D.C. with Medicare Part D. No block grants.

    Mew

  • lapert

    I’m not going to argue that Santorum is for smaller government – but I think the argument that Newt is is not much better and choosing to look at him through rose colored glasses today because you think he is the best hope yet doesn’t make it so. He openly and enthusiastically supported medicare part D as it was presented as well – no block grants.

  • joeydavis

    were core Republican positions and cornerstones in the Republican presidential campaign. To attack a member of the Republican leadership for doing what the Republican leader was elected to do is just plain stupid.

    If you want to talk about his support of Specter over Toomey, by all means have at it. You would prove yourself politically inept, but it would be a fair argument.

    If you want to about his proUnion votes, it’s fair game. Again it would show a complete lack of political understanding, but make your case.

    But attacking the elected Republican for being the elected Republican is patently foolish.

    Romney and Gingrich would have made every vote Santorum made in regards to medicare, no child left behind and the debt ceiling. Saying otherwise is out and out fraud.

  • acat

    of moving power out of D.C. … but Santorum doesn’t.

    Gingrich also has a good handle on incrementalism, i.e. accept Medicare part D as written today, and then work to make it a block grant program.

    Santorum has never shown that he gets this.

    You’re not allowed to make this about what I believe – the question is whether Santorum or Gingrich is more likely to be “small government”, based on available evidence. I conclude Gingrich.

    If you think I’m wrong, prove it.

    Mew

  • acat

    I will note, by the way, that by your logic the members of the House and Senate elected under Tea Party banners, are “patently foolish”… because they go against Republican leadership.

    You are clearly not arguing from facts. Try again.

    Mew

  • joeydavis

    It was a 58-41 vote. His vote DID NOT MATTER!!!

    There was absolutely no reason for the Republican Senator from a heavily unionized Blue State to burn political equity without cause.

    He’s not really “spinning wheels on nonissues”. He’s constantly using the little point to make the bigger point.

    The attack on Rick Santorum is that he’s an out of the mainstream religious zealot. The more time he gets in front of the American people to nuance his positions, the more mainstream he appears and the less a pariah he becomes.

    This is exactly the kind of interview Santorum needs to be having. They make him real and trustworthy. If voters trust him, they will support him.

  • acat

    Santorum’s reliably been on the wrong side of that one .. and it’s impossible to square his support for Davis-Bacon with his newfound fiscal conservatism.

    Mew

  • lapert

    I don’t think either, based on available evidence, is going to be ‘small government’. Will one be closer than the other? Maybe but so marginally different as to be essentially irrelevant.

    If you look at Gingrich’s statements advocating for Medicare Part D he never once said that it was a necessary first step before block grants. He said it was the most important reorganization of health care since the original medicare. I think you are projecting the incremental hope onto him .

    What I see in his record is someone who typically backs the small government avenue when the rest of his party does or he thinks it is the politically advantageous move but has a strong tendency to look to government-based solutions for his pet projects (like the tax credit idea for long distance flyers after 9/11 or his longstanding support of funding renewable energy or space mining). As president, I see it far more likely that he would put his bully pulpit behind his pet ideas even when that requires increasing government involvement than behind small government as a goal.

    Like I said, I don’t think Santorum would be much different, just a different set of pet ideas, so I would not want to pretend he is some small government politician – but I see no advantage in pretending that is part of Gingrich’s core either.

  • rightland1111

    get back to the economy. Notice how Obama is raising the tax percentage? No…well, that is because we are all talking about religion. Yes…this country is down the tubes because of a value deficit. There it is said. It is going to take a monumental effort to get the teachings of the Left out of our schools and higher education institutes. Meanwhile…Obama is now into taxing dividends AT 44.8%. How many people live off of that…plenty. So, he took that away, while we were all focused on Santorum’s beliefs. I believe in what Santorum does…for the most part…I’m Catholic…but it is time to fix first things first.

    Newt is going to have a 30 minute time spot about how we can fix the energy crisis. Don’t think we have one????…When the bell rang this AM, oil was at $106. No XL Pipeline. Oh…let’s see, Obama did away with law enforcement being able to arrest Illegals. Oh…here is a wake up call. “tax revenues plunge in UK after 50% rate implemented”. Uh oh…No more Medicare, No more SS, no more of much of anything if we continue to follow the European model.

    I can’t even comment on the news in the e-mails…because they are all about who is teaching our children about religion and it is not Judeo-Christian. So now. What do you think that Santorum should be talking about. If this country goes down and the way he is implementing procedures…we might be cooked by election day…we won’t have to worry about religion, except to pray to our God to help us to live or eat. Yes…and it is getting that bad. No…unemployment has not gone down except in two states.

    So, when we run out of our money…our stuff….what is the next step. We all know the answer…look at Greece. In fact, look at what they did to the UK…want to watch riots there…it’s coming.

    Do you all remember how Reagan did in the Soviet Union….we out spent them to make them out spend what they did not have and they went bankrupt. Who is spending our money…who…can you say this administration? Where do you think we are going. The deficit is $15 trillion and counting and we are talking about Satan. I posted the original meaning of Satan on another thread…short and sweet…the opposer. Now, who do you suppose that is?

    It will take an two entire generations to change morality in this country and the end of the Federal Government in the education system…and perhaps leaving those States that believe in radical beliefs to fend for themselves. However, right now, we have an financial alvalanche ready to hit us and we are debating Satan. We know who that is. November…Anybody but Obama.

  • acat

    and just looking at their records.

    I find that the “fog of politics” mostly emanates from the mouths of politicians .. much better to watch their feet.

    Mew

  • lapert

    How can you compare their records when looking at different eras? You can’t say Gingrich wouldn’t have voted for Medicare Part D and NCLB (all indications are he would have but you certainly can’t prove he wouldn’t) so how can you hold that against Santorum?

    Looking solely at their shared votes, can you point to time when they voted on opposite sides? Otherwise, watching their feet all you will find is whatever you want to see.

  • acat

    Did Santorum ever vote for or author or try to get a vote on a bill that would shrink power in D.C.?

    Gingrich did.

    End of story.

    Mew

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    that fiscal and other conservatives can rightly object to, but the notion that Newt has a better, much less significantly better record so as to justify you and acat and Xas’ et al’s attacks on Santorum is not supported by the facts of their respective overall records nor by many specific transgressions by Newt.

    Aside: I wanted to pre-empt an attack re earmarks that I got a heads up was coming, which did come and was already refuted in my comment to you, which saves me time…I am a very busy DeVine Gamecock lawyer these days…smile

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    go visit my archives and in fact
    It would be a good idea to make such visits on a regular basis…smile

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I know everything about all the candidates, as you know. I have weighed the factors thru the DeVine Law smart pill machine and voila!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    te

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    the American people get to know the candidates quite well and I am confident that Santorum will win after the process is complete by Election Day.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Newt and Mitt have soundbites ready to be used to divert attention from the main issues and if they become frontrunners we can then all have a teethgnashing session over that and pray for that perfect candidate that planned a presidential run while in the womb in Hawaii…

  • acat

    My complaints are not about Santorum’s religion, so comparing his statements to Gingrich and Romney are not germane.

    My complaint is that Santorum seems unable to talk about anything but social issues .. except when he’s taking about increasing government. I watched a debate or two, GC .. even now, after Santorum’s supposed “road to damascus” on fiscal issues, he still doesn’t see the problem with the statement “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you.”

    That you keep bobbing and weaving to dodge the question, Gamecock, speaks well of your skills as a debater, but not of Santorum as a candidate.

    Mew

  • acat

    I would choose Santorum. We have not, however, reached that point.

    Mew

  • joeydavis

    Tea party Republicans were elected on a “stop Obama” agenda. They were not in office with a Republican President elected on a Republican agenda. So it is impossible to say what they might do.

    Opposing the party leadership in a bargaining session with the enemy is very different than opposing your own sitting President. Government has to function and standing against the agenda your side is elected on is, I say again, patently foolish.

  • lineholder

    On social issues, I have no major disagreements with his positions. Minor one, perhaps.

    I’m not a single issue voter. I do genuinely care about social issues, but I know that this particular election is about a lot more than just that. The fiscal issues DO matter, particularly where the futures of my children and grandchildren are concerned.

    Social issues alone won’t win me over. It has to be balanced between the two. And I’m looking for the most fiscally Conservative that we can get. I wonder how many other people see it that way???

  • lapert

    As I recall Santorum did author the initial welfare reform bill and was the floor general for the Senate debate – which is a decent amount of leadership for his tenure at the time.

    Did he do anything during the years of the Bush administration on that front, not that I recall but Gingrich wasn’t even a cheerleader for smaller government from the sidelines then – though he was an active one for bigger government when it came to Medicare.

    You can choose to end your story with whatever selective data you choose but the universe of evidence is broader. If you want to ignore his strong advocacy of Medicare Part D because it doesn’t fit what you need him to be that is your prerogative – but to simultaneously do that and blame Santorum for his vote on it is at the very least disingenuous.

  • joeydavis

    They will tell you very very quickly that Rick Santorum has never been a friend of labor. They’ll say Santorum voted with them a lot, but only when it didn’t matter.

    I’m perfectly happy with Santorum’s explanation, which is that he repesented a state where right to work was not the law.

    When it comes to politics I’m not looking for virginity. I understand the game and how it’s played. I think Rick Santorum plays pretty well.

    And I do like Newt Gingrich. I have no problem supporting him either. But he’s every bit as politically minded as Santorum is. The difference is his Georgia district didn’t look like Santorum’s Pennsylvania.

    In the big picture they are the same AND Santorum isn’t carrying Newt’s baggage.

    My opinion is Santorum is electable in Obama states Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina and Virginia. That is enough turnover to win the White House and still leaves Florida and Colorado on the map. It is our best, easiest path to victory in November.

    Gingrich meanwhile is only electable in Obama states Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia and Florida. That is not enough to win the White House

    Just for argument’s sake Romney is only electable in Obama states Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine and maybe New Jersey and he could end up losing Missouri and Georgia. That does not produce an electoral college win

  • acat

    Many of the folks who are very excitable about Santorum’s chances today are the same folks who were pushing – hard – for people to support McCain in the general back in 2008.

    In other words, the choir appears to be singing to itself.

    Mew

  • honoraryintern

    … and comment on the likelihood of its nightmare scenario? Are we are driving the bus right into a Romney-Paul ticket?

  • rightland1111

    The Media is steering this entire conversation into the religious realm. Meanwhile…the next story…this guy is a religious, right wing nut job and he is going to take away our right to choose. In fact…that is already happening…read the papers…listen to the MSM…that’s already there.

    So…we have another faction going on…The Independents. They are sick and tired of Obama…but they are sick and tired about hearing about Satan. What do you think they are going to do…they won’t go to the polls. What will happen next with 49.5 % of the population on government assistance…The Progressive will go to the polls to keep their government income, the Independent, who is sick of hearing all of this will stay home. The Base will go to the polls. Now…use the percentages and see who wins…OBAMA.

    Santorum has to change the conversation back to subject that are all inclusive of everyone and I can tell you this….all this talk is turning off the voting block we really need…Indies..because that is the group that elected BHO.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    The conversation changes every day and there are many possible scenarios…

  • joeydavis

    The Santorum supporters are most certainly not McCain supporters. In fact we stayed home when McCain was the candidate. I can honestly say 2008 was the first election in my lifetime where I didn’t lift a finger for the Republican party.

    If Mitt Romney is the 2012 nominee, I won’t lift a finger this year either.

    Quite honestly I’m sick and tired of “we win elections by finding a candidate that appeals to independent voters”

    No we don’t!! We have never won an election in the middle. There are conservatives and there are Democrats. We win elections by getting more conservatives to the polls than Democrats.

    The way you win elections is really simple. You analyze the previous turnout data and determine the likely number of voters. You then analyze the demographics and determine which blocks are for you and which blocks are against you. Then you start counting your voters, locking them in and making sure they make it to the polls on election day.

    If you have the lead and you know you have the lead you start pounding the air with negativity. The purpose of that is twofold. One it galvanizes your vote and makes them want it more. Two it depresses independent voter turnout.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    look forward to it

  • jamesm

    McCain was establishment choice in 2008. I opposed him. It seems to me that Romney is a worse candidate than McCain. At least McCain had the sense to pick Palin.

  • acat

    both spoke and had a record of success on social and non-social issues.

    Santorum’s record is lacking.

    Please quit trying to change the subject and actually address the record, with something more than a survey of cherry-picked votes.

    Mew

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Did someone throw a cat in the swimming pool?

  • acat

    and his voting record in the House is both much longer, and superior to Santorum’s.

    Santorum’s record in the Senate is not significantly conservative on fiscal or defense issues, and is notably pro-Union.

    Mew

  • honoraryintern

    ‘ I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.’

    What, he has 20 years to go? I’m thinking you one of those cats that hides in the corner and hisses when someone gets close.

    Give Rick a chance. Cutting the budget to 2008 levels not good enough? what is?

    Map a plan that gets you what you want if Rick is the worst candidate, how do you feel about a Romney-Paul ticket. No social issues (except pot) ever.

    Held Sydney away this time

  • littlehouse18

    I’ve been praying about this debate tonight. Until now I felt Santorum should refuse to answer a social issues question. But then I thought, ‘how can I ask a man of faith to hide it under a bushel?’. How can I ask him to push God aside for a moment of expediency?
    The Lord must have placed him in this position for a purpose, be it the presidency or something else.

    I hope and believe that Santorum has his priorities right – God first and then Country above winning the election. If he is steadfast it can only lead those willing to hear to the right way. If he falters and tries to deflect from his beliefs, he declares his belief to be shallow.

    So Rick, I say reassure folks who fear you’d be a theocrat. Spend as much time as you can on the issues germane to this election, such as the economy and national security. But wear your faith proudly.

  • honoraryintern

    …I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it and see it still.

  • rightland1111

    he has to steer the subject towards to majority of the electorate. That means that he will have to say…nicely, of course, the people like Shieffer (sp) cannot dictate the subject.

    That is what a leader does…and if Santorum wants to show leadership…he needs to demonstrate it.

    Gingrich know how…but the MSM and press have blocked him out…also Drudge….a supposed News Reporting Agency.

  • acat

    I don’t think he had the legs for the uniform….

    Voting for is significantly better than voting present .. but it’s not at the level of actually taking action. Did Santorum visit PA troops in theater? Did he visit them in the V.A. hospitals? Merely banging a war drum does not a defense conservative make.

    Mew

  • acat

    would also be patently foolish.

    From memory, this includes Coburn and DeMint. Do you want me to go do a Google News search for you, or are you prepared to admit that you may be arguing nonsense?

    Mew

  • acat

    Fool

    Mew

  • acat

    Did you oppose McCain in the primary? Good.

    Did you oppose McCain in the general? Bad.

    Mew

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    smile

  • jamesm

    What kind of orc question is that?

    I opposed Obama, doesn’t mean I like McCain and his wishy washy voting record. Now you have Romney using McCain’s playbook for the primaries.

  • honoraryintern

    http://www.redstate.com/honoraryintern/2012/02/22/mitts-not-stupid-or-hey-have-you-seen-my-new-aluminium-foil-cap/

  • acat

    No orcs here, just a cat and a guy using imprecise terms.

    Yes, Romney is using McCain’s playbook, but he lacks the Maverick’s charm, so is stuck under 30%. (this is a Good Thing, by the way)

    While I’m happy to see the Santorum supporters involved, I’m pretty convinced they won’t be able to win him the nomination. He needs to win delegates – and his “hat trick” netted him zero, zip, and zilch respectively.

    Mew

  • jamesm

    Newt is best but he can’t win Mich. Santorum can. Both of these are better than Romney. Romney can’t win because he doesn’t connect. He is an out of touch elite. Obama will carpet bomb him.

  • acat

    Santorum can hurt Romney badly in Michigan in the primary .. and his pro-union views might swing it in the general.

    Gingrich won’t *need* Michigan in the general as he can swing Florida.. which is a much bigger prize.

    Imprecise language, eh?

    Mew

  • jamesm

    ..Voted for Palin in GE. Would never ever want to consider my vote for McCain. Both Santorum or Gingrich are better then Romney in the primary. Romney will not make it out of the primary.

  • acat

    Fool.

    Mew

  • jamesm

    Are you dumb or what?

  • acat

    You wrote:

    Opposed in McCain in primary ..Voted for Palin in GE

    This can be interpreted as spoiling your ballot and writing in Palin, in which case you contributed to Obama’s election, and are a fool.

    This can also be interpreted as you voting for McCain for the sake of Palin.

    I chose the former because this is not the first time you’ve chosen to be imprecise in this conversation.

    Mew

  • demsaresatanic

    was really bad.

  • sulmak

    and when asked for his thoughts on Solyndra, he thought it was a terrible decision for the administration to shut down the pipeline project.

    Seriously, he didn’t know what Solyndra was.

  • Creedo

    We’re driving this bus into a brokered convention, and here’s the problem: Paul has elected a ton of delegates. The media isn’t reporting it for whatever reason, and apparently the vibe is that if we just ignore Paul, he will go away. That isn’t working – he’s got a stranglehold on the narrative and that showed tonight when he shot live rounds at Santorum and may have given Romney the momentum needed to win in Michigan. But what people don’t seem to be coming to grips with is that Paul’s campaign is organized around electing delegates, not winning beauty contests. I know this first hand here in Washington state. Santorum is going to win the state here, but Paul’s organization is going to clean up the county delegates, and get their delegates elected at state. We’re going to try to contest every one that we can, but it’s hard to get people involved.

    This is happening all over. Erick posted something about it in January, and then dropped the story and never picked up on it again. Pauls’ people say that they have the most delegates right now elected at local levels. I don’t know if this is true – nobody is polling the delegates, and nobody is really covering this aspect of the election. They’re just reporting raw delegate numbers as if those mean anything. Here’s the kicker: at the national convention, if it is brokered and nobody wins the first vote, the second vote is unbound. Talk to your local Paulite – they’ll tell you that there wont be a third vote. They’re convinced that they have elected enough delegates in both bound and unbound states to make Paul the nominee in Tampa if this thing goes brokered.

    You get the idea of why I am so upset that Newt is wasting our time and prolonging this thing to being a brokered convention. He’s a loser with no honor and needs to take the advice he gave Santorum and drop out of the race. See here is the thing about Newt – if Newt drops out of the race, nearly all of his votes go to Santorum. But it doesn’t work the other way around. If Santorum drops out of the race, you won’t catch people like me voting for a creep like Newt. I’d sooner resign myself to the inevitable and vote for Romney – or worse Paul before giving my vote to a man with no honor or principles like Newt Gingrich. Newt is a disgrace, he should drop out, take both Romney and Paul with him, and give us our guy to rally around. Newt could end this limbo tomorrow if he had any honor.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    debate…

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    good job

  • kowalski

    And I’ve never believed it either. And still don’t. They’re not New England Protestants and they aren’t Roman Catholics, either. But saying that just because they interpret scripture differently doesn’t make them Protestants. It makes them….depending on who you talk to, either confused or apostates, or the most interesting people in the world. But they ain’t Protestants, at least not the ones I know.

  • kowalski

    There was a little mischief involved in doing that but let’s face it folks: go back two years. Rewind to 2010. Ask yourself whether you thought at the time Rick Santorum was the candidate you’d like to see run in 2012. Nothing significant has happened to Rick Santorum since that time. He’s still the same Rick Santorum. There’s nothing different about him except that he has, by some amazing surfeit of weirdness in this weak primary field of ours, floated to near the top.

    Social Conservatives get angry with me but it’s hard to see how I’m so much different from them: I’m adamantly pro-life. The difference is that I don’t believe the President creates the culture. I believe the culture creates the culture, and if you want to stop abortion, you have to stop it at the individual level, the level at which it’s culturally acceptable, not through some edict issued by the President. You have to change the culture even though you don’t feel as though you’re in control of it.

    But what that requires is a lot more presence of mind and presence of body and spirit. To be unafraid to talk with your friends and neighbors about your belief in life and supporting life. Otherwise the government will do whatever it is going to do. It isn’t reading something on a blog or because of a government program that a woman has an abortion: it’s because the culture has failed to prevent it, to change their options, to help them when they have made mistakes and are most frightened. That means all of us.

    I have no shortage of antipathy for some of the nominally Catholic organizations I’ve worked for. To me, they all abandoned that because they wanted government money in so many other ways. They are down to their core principles now and maybe it will force some of them to think about what they’re doing.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    was pretty much along the lines of definition #1 below.

    From an online dictionary here

    Prot?es?tant? ?/?pr?t?st?nt or, for 4, 6, pr??t?st?nt/ Show Spelled[prot-uh-stuhnt or, for 4, 6, pruh-tes-tuhnt] noun
    1. any Western Christian who is not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church.
    2. an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them.
    3. (originally) any of the German princes who protested against the decision of the Diet of Speyer in 1529, which had denounced the Reformation.
    4. ( lowercase ) a person who protests.

    I’m guessing that the majority of folks define it this way as well.

  • kowalski

    But made choices in which they’ve created a life, and it happens all the time. I’m much more supportive of contraception than I am abortion. If you really think about it, there’s no reason for anyone to have an abortion in this country except in really tragic medical or criminal cases. We have more contraceptive options available than at any other time in history – and they work!

    If you don’t want to have the responsibility of ending a life, don’t start one. If you’re going to have sex, your family should be talking to you about contraceptive options, or talking to you about not having sex. But if you look at reality, very few families do this well. And then we have all of the heart wrenching consequences.

    For a long time as a Roman Catholic I wondered whether my views on Contraception would serve me well when I finally wind up being Judged. I still don’t know, but I know that I personally can say that I’ve never ended a life that began at conception. Maybe that will give me something to talk about then. God will judge me and indeed God will judge us all. In the meantime my view of contraception is this: If you don’t intend to have a child, you should be using it.

  • westcoastpatriette

    is now completely outdated as there is no longer any need to protest the Catholic church’s doctrines.

    Just for the record, I have always fellowshipped in something closer to non-denominational, evangelical, charismatic churches. It’s just second nature to me to avoid large “establishment” type churches as they have a tendency to (eventually) place their loyalty toward the establishment rather than Christ himself. This, by the way, is one of the reasons we see so much defection from the traditional “Protestant” denominations IM0. And why so many of them are allowing leftist doctrine supercede scriptural doctrine. Not good.

    Just some food for thought.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    The Particular Baptists were Protestants.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    The split between Rome and Luther after his 95 theses protests and a later split with who became Eastern Orthodox. Baptists of all types have long been identified with the first split but there is no hierarchial authority within even the Southern Baptist Church denomination.

    The differences between Catholics and Baptists are quite puny with respect to essentials or what CS Lewis calls “Mere Christianity”.

    The fact of being Christian is paramount. But yes, Baptists are Protestants.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    nt

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    But yes, you identify current labels that better inform..

  • kowalski

    Believe me. ‘ll tell you something really simple: a lot of guys don’t use contraception, won’t buy it (as cheap as it is) and refuse to use it – but expect their female partners to use it, by taking pills – hormones. Hormones that change their body chemistry and stop their menstrual cycle. Amazing, I’m using the words “menstrual cycle” here on a Conservative blog. So listen up:

    Men don’t have to take a pill, they can put on some latex, but they don’t want to do it, for reasons porn producers are only too happy to explain to you. They’re selfish.

    But if I was a woman and someone told me to take a hormone pill so someone could have sex with me all the time, I wouldn’t be very happy about it. And a lot of them aren’t. So if you really want to reduce abortions…wear the jimmy, Jimmy. Or learn about the clock, or do the mucus thing, and understand what you’re doing. But don’t sit here and complain to me that you can’t figure this out.

  • lapert

    It should be noted that the Eastern Orthodox church split with the Roman Catholic church centuries before Luther.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    In any event, not to get into a theological discussion (which I don’t have time to do now anyway since I’m just on a short break from work), but I would disagree there’s no longer a need to protest the Catholic church’s doctrine. While I agree with many Catholics regarding the moral aspects of family, abortion, charity, etc., there’s very little, if any, Catholic doctrine with which I agree, and accordingly, I would protest it (and by that I mean adhere to scripture and teach the same). And I intend no offense to any Catholics here. Maybe I’m reading too much into your comment.

    As mentioned before, I’m a member of the church of Christ which is considered non-denominational. Congregations tend to be smaller and are autonomous. Having grown up in a very small congregation, I’ve never felt comfortable worshipping at a large church (current one is around 200). The Bible is our doctrine, and we follow the example of the N.T. church in our worship.

    I’ve been very encouraged the last several years by the uptick in our membership of young families. They are faithful, involved and most have 2+ children. I see that as a good sign.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    nt.

  • westcoastpatriette

    the Catholic church’s doctrine. For me maybe the better-fitting word would be to reject some of their teaching. But in terms of “protest”, I was thinking along the lines of the power the Catholic church had to persecute Luther and the others who broke free (and imperiled their lives as a result) from the church during the true Reformation period.

    Today, the Catholic church does not present the same threat to those of us who choose not to be a member so I don’t see myself as actively protesting them in any way.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    . .

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    It was an edict of 5+ lawyers with robes that issued an unconstitutional edict that legalized abortion and the only way to change that law is via appointments to the Supreme Court by a President via the Rule of Law. And if you think that abortion should only be addressed via some amorphous “individual cultural level” then you are pro-choice, obviously. The “culture” can’t stop rogue judges. BTW, do you also think the killing of 25-year olds should only be dealt with on a “individual basis” if judges decide that;s OK, or would it be OK if a President tried to get judges appointed that would reverse such a decision that “culture” didn’t prevent? Just wondering.

    More later below and btw, as you know, I love long threads and so do you. After all your name means long threads! smile

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    smile nt

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2012/02/20/santorums-my-way-encores-best-obamas-original-happy-days-are-here-again/#comment-12857

  • demsaresatanic

    introduce an impeachment resolution; not that I think it would be successful but the debate would be useful. Why sit around and wait?

  • nutbjobstea
    Nominate Santorum. It only will he win at least three states, he will successfully prove that the Republican Party is just that much smarter than an actual elephant.

    Just THAT much.

    I love you guys! You are making this year so much fun for Democrats!

    You say infanticide.

    We say jobs.

    You say socialist Kenyan.

    We say, hw can we help you.

    You say kill the bill.

    We say, help the middle class.

    Just keep following your leaders, boys, they are leading you straight to where you wanna be…heaven.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Not sure what your point is but yes, many dems are satanic…many openly

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    pleeeeassee…

  • demsaresatanic

    it has nothing to do with teams, just a little joke that fell flat I see. The point of my post was about fighting back against leftist judges.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    t

  • Flagstaff

    I wish there was a way I could highlight it to others. Link to facebook, I guess.

    The key phrase:

    Do you all remember how Reagan did in the Soviet Union?.we out spent them to make them out spend what they did not have and they went bankrupt. Who is spending our money?who?can you say this administration? Where do you think we are going. The deficit is $15 trillion and counting….

    If we step back and look at the situation dispassionately, we see that every policy decision The Big O has made was one that made the United States weaker, ever weaker.

    We must either believe that he is the unluckiest, most error-prone President ever, or that his personal plan for the country is progressing on schedule. I pick the latter.

    Now, I would rather have a candidate who will be able to bring the debate back to the topic of America’s future than one who gets distracted by phony hypotheticals of any kind. That, of course, is the attraction of Newt.

  • Flagstaff

    Sorry I didn’t see it sooner.

  • Flagstaff

    But so were 52% after the 2008 election. (^:^)

    Now, I want CHANGE. I’ve reached the point where I think Romney is best equipped to (first) get elected, and (second) carry out the changes we need once in office. I’d rather have his best attributes combined with those of all the others, wrapped up in one package, but it doesn’t exist.

    One thing Mitt has shown during the campaign is the ability to modify his approach to approve it. (Hiring a new debate adviser.) He needs to get a new campaign staffer (me) to get him in touch with the “common” man.

    He has at least read my blogs or comments. Quoted me pretty straight about Romneycare being only 70 pages and Obamacare being 2700. They can’t be equivalent.