« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Growing Opportunities on Earth Rather Than Colonies on the Moon

Promoted from the diaries.

“The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.” - Cicero. 106-43 B.C.

Our nation is in economic turmoil, and American families are focused on what matters the most: putting food on the table and keeping the lights on.With economic growth stagnating and over 13 million Americans still jobless, it is clear that our priorities now, more than ever, cannot be frivolous. Our government spending cannot grow further out of control, and our politicians cannot lose sight of what is most important to the hardworking American people.

Knowing this, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich chose to blatantly pander to a Florida crowd on the space coast (known for its support for NASA) when he told them that as President, he would use taxpayer dollars to expand the role of the federal government in manned space exploration, with the goal of building a colony on the moon by the end of his second term.

After this announcement, many Americans were left scratching their heads especially since Newt is more prone to quoting George Washington rather than George Jetson.  And when you factor in that our free enterprise system is at stake, how can we afford for anyone to lose sight of what matters most to the American people and heedlessly pursue more wasteful government programs?

Building a federally-funded moon colony would inevitably cost—at the very least—billions of dollars. In addition to our current overspending, this would ultimately saddle our children with the price tag for another one of Speaker Gingrich’s grandiose ideas.

The idea of a moon colony is purely pandering to a crowd for a few votes.  And it takes away from the more immediate, important, and realistic goals of the space program; encouraging partnerships between the space program and private businesses to grow the technology, engineering, and manufacturing sectors of our economy.

We can and should embrace the value of science and space exploration but we must maintain fiscal sanity by using tax dollars more strategically and leveraging them more effectively.  The pioneers of flight and space exploration are inspiring to millions and the advancements that result are beneficial to our quality of life and also critical to our national security – particularly as China ramps up aggressively in this area.  But I am less concerned about creating a government program to build a colony on the moon and more concerned about reducing government to build a strong economy here on earth.

Encouraging these private sectors to partner with the space program puts the focus on where we need it now, stimulating our economy and putting people back to work.  Quite frankly, it’s hard to take the Speaker seriously as a fiscal conservative when he puts these extravagant expensive ideas over the economic well being of the next generation.

Already, the debt of the U.S. federal government threatens to engulf the next generation of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. Each American citizen’s share of the United States’ public debt is over $48,000, but let’s be honest for a minute. This burden won’t fall on our shoulders: it will fall on our children’s.  There is over $200,000 in government debt for every American child. My goal is to shrink this number, and we can if we pursue policies that make life better for American households — unlike Speaker Gingrich’s moon colony.

Our children are far too precious to be saddled with growing debt for a government that doesn’t keep its promises. This money is better spent on earth – or kept in the pockets of American families, where it truly belongs.

Mr. Gingrich has a history and habit of pandering with hope of gaining instant inspiration – and not just on intergalactic relations either.  In a debate last month, he touted his plan for personal savings accounts for social security.  I’m a strong supporter of that when our nation can afford it, but Speaker Gingrich couldn’t give a credible answer as to how he could actually accomplish this. The American people know better – and they realize our country has reached record deficits.

Remember, we heard the same type of over-the-top costly promises from President Obama two speeches ago when he pledged a nation-wide train system.  A good sounding idea, but with where our finances are right now, not a practical one.  At least the President’s idea dealt with infrastructure on earth and not the moon.

As president, I would have my priorities in order and focus on the things that matter most for American households: creating jobs, economic growth, protecting the family, and ensuring a prosperous and free future for our most precious assets, our children.

I will work to ensure that every American has the chance to build his or her own dream – and that starts with fiscal sanity from the White House.

Our top priority should be ensuring the economic freedom and well being of all Americans, who already live in the greatest nation, on the greatest planet, Earth.

Rick Santorum, a former representative and senator from Pennsylvania, is a candidate for the Republican nomination for president.

 

COMMENTS

  • Common_Cents

    You seem like a nice guy Senator, but you are now, for all intents and purposes, an obvious Romney hack. Is this on purpose w/ Romney surrogate deal or are you just feeling entitled for some reason?

    You are being USED like a fool to fragment the non Romney vote. The media will coddle you until you are no longer needed and the long steely knives will take you out quickly. You are a useful idiot to Romney and the media, sir. With all due respect.

    Please lay out your rational path to victory. I would really love to see it.

    Senator Santorum, you have an opportunity to be a hero and give the country a chance to make a real choice between 2 candidates. You staying in will effectively force a Romney nomination.

    Congrats on that. Hope you can look your family in the eye and feel proud of that.

    Take a long look in the mirror, do you want to go out a hero, or a zero?

    • cheetah2

      I just do not think you have the necessary experience to qualify you to be our president.

    • Common_Cents

      And I’ll vote for you, not until then.

    • trickamsterdam

      Said he would pick Newt to be his VP (in response to a debate question) among all the candidates, and it was the full boat of them then (even Gov Pawlenty, I believe).

      I grew up in PA, and I would not vote for him until the General. Nor is it any lock that he’d win PA at all…I wonder if Newt would lose GA or Perry TX? What you’ve seen in this essay by him is why he lost by 18% last time…either incredibly bad strategy or political opportunism or both (everyone feel free to pick whichever you think is the most positive interpretation…although the latter is obviously the least).

      It’s like when he spent all that time attacking Ron Paul…was Ron Paul taking even one vote away from him.?

      It seems that his strategy is to eliminate Newt and become the only “not Romney” standing. Unfortunately, it’ll only weaken Newt and enable Romney to dominate the race…it won’t force Newt from the race.

      But is it that he knew Rep Paul would never win and therefore never be in a position to offer him a cabinet spot? Is the same calculation going on now w/ Newt and Romney?

      I’m afraid I think it is.

      Fight a two-front war against both Gov Romney and Speaker Gingrich, Sen Santroum…or please leave the race, sir, with all due respect.

      • mikelindell2

        You are not fooling anyone by staying in to help Romney and hurt Newt. Newt has been an advocate of a robust space program for years so I find you to be intentionally dishonest in your claim that he is pandering. On the other hand, you really did pander by voting against right-to-work legislation when you were a senator in PA. Also, Newt has a higher ACU rating than you, so your attempted claims of being the true conservative ring hollow. You claim to be good friends with Newt, you say you’d pick him as your VP, now is the time to find honor within and drop out and endorse him. Staying in and trying to help Romney will not help you in your future political endeavors because conservatives will remember what you did when the country needed you most. I’m sure there’s tremendous pressure from the establishment to stay in but I urge you to act with integrity and bow out.

        • krish

          Mr. Santorum – if you are truly conservative & say you are a Patriot, you should save the republic by stepping down & endorsing Newt! You are losing to the other three in every primary & I thought you will do the right thing after FL!

          Your attacks on Newt & Paul – it is becoming obivous that you are doing the job that Bachmann was doing for Romney! Other than the one Romneycare attack (Thank you for standing up!), you have been protecting Romney – if you think he is going to give you a position, you are mistaken! Last, if you accept any position from Romney or support him in the primary, you are the biggest traitor among the candidates!

    • reddog53

      I’ve not yet decided who I can support in my upcoming primary, but I am not in favor of Governor Romney for many reasons. I look to RS to be as source for dissenting views and insights to help make that choice–but this thread really doesn’t add a lot.

      These comments are poor examples of reasoned objections and counter positions.

      Are name calling and condescending jibes the best you all have?

      This is be particular viewpoint on one partucular tropic; I don’t see this as the only position Senator Santorum has, nor do I gather from what he has written that this is his most pressing priority.

      The fact that he isn’t attacking Governor Romney hardly makes him his Schiller–were you not listening to the Senator when he drove home several point on Romney care in the last couple of debates?

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        whose actual voting record in Congress supports the fact that he’s a big-government pro-lifer. He’s Bush on steroids.

        You believe anything he says at your own risk. At least Romney – who I have no particular use for – has executive experience, Santorum has less than the late Franz Price of Dogness.

        Specifically, this diary is Santorum’s campaign in a nutshell. He completely misrepresents – as in lies about – what Newt actually said. He then goes on to castigate a program that has the potential for real promise and would create jobs.

        • reddog53

          So I’ll consider whatnyou’ve said– but if we are using hypocrisy as the yardstick, there would be few survivors left to consider.

          To your other point, though, I’m curious– is “jobs” what we’re after, no matter the cost? I ought you were more on the side of less government and less “stimulus.”. The moon shot inevitably means both, because as long as government funds a large portion, there will be a large phalanx of bureaucrats, policy wonks and others in trail.

          • Ausonius

            “Punditpawn” above has already answered your objection !!!

            Quote:

            “Santorum, of course, left off the part where 80-90% of the moon program would be financed by the PRIVATE SECTOR. He also left out the fact that until Obama took office, this moon mission WAS US POLICY FOR YEARS BEFORE THAT.”

      • Ausonius

        Did you read everything carefully?

        See the comments e.g. by “Clowngirl” CarolSVaughn” MBecker908″ and “Renny” for some very well-thought-out comments.

        Let us know what you think after you (re-)read their mini-essays.

        • reddog53

          I think folks are dreaming if they truly believe that 80-90% will be privately funded. This idea has way more risk than solar or wind power, for example, and the government subsidies for those are pretty well known. Even if some is privately funded, there will still be an expanded role for Government in all of this– environmental impact, more “policy” and more international negotiations.

          With the geopolitical situation– both Russia and China actively involved in establishing moon missions, do you really think the government can remain on the sidelines?

          The notion that there’s deuterim and tritium on the moon is useful if we have the means to use it in large scale– but fusion is still eluding the R&D being spent for it.

          I have faith that aspects of space can and will be commercialized — but I think that the point that Newt was clearly playing to the space crowd is valid…and I think, as all of you have suggested, that Space isn’t our burning issue at this moment.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            may or may not come to pass, and if it does, private funding may account for less than 80%, the idea is not far-fetched, and is certainly worth serious discussion.

            It’s also one more idea than Rick Santorum has come up with in his entire public career.

            The former Senator is grasping at straws. He bought the Iowa caucuses at a cost of $1MM paid to the guy who calls the shots for the stupid evangelicals who were bussed in to vote for Santorum – and four years ago to vote for Huckabee – and the former Senator has sucked wind since. He’s a single issue robot who’s never had a conservative action in his entire public career.

          • nepanyrush

            You have been brilliant all campaign, the only adult in the room. While Gingrich and Romney go on a scorched-earth policy, you have exhibited true conservative ideals.

            Basically, you have to understand that if you are not Newt or Perry, you will get savagedly treated on redstate. Although you have been by far the most consistent conservative, both in your public and private life, and one of the most admirably people I ever met or knew, many redstaters seemed to be filled with the same hate-filled venom now being spewed by Gingrich.

            That Redstaters would express their hatred toward you in this forum suprised me. But not many people have the honor, integrity, and just common decency that you have. You are a true American hero. Thank you for your great service to our nation and by expressing so eloquently conservative principles.

            I feel so ashamed of Redstate now that I read some of the comments directed toward you. But I know that you have often been attacked by liberals in the same way, since I watched the attacks on you in Pennsylvania, and know that you put God and family first and that find your great strength in God.

            God bless you.

          • WillWong

            Not sure the rest wants you do so for them but for me the answer is no!

          • aesthete

            If I’d felt that a lack of support for a politician and a correction of fact were wrong, I would have proffered my own apology.

          • duramater

            Please do not apologize on my behalf either.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            The Senator has never held a real job in his life. In his political career he’s never met a problem the federal government couldn’t and shouldn’t solve. Now, all of a sudden, he get’s political religion and decides he’s a conservative. He’s not.

            He’s also a stark hypocrite, the only reason he did as well as he did in Iowa was because he bought Pantaloons off with a million dollars.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Actually, I find the former Senator’s campaign offensive and this diary is offensive.

            The only reason he’s in the race is because he bought the Iowa caucus. He was an afterthought for over a year in Iowa until he ponied up the cash.

            This diary is an offense to the community here for at least a couple of reasons. As has been noted, the central premise of the diary is either ignorance, misrepresentation or an out-and-out lie. Second, the Senator has the audacity, as was pointed out by another commenter, to include grandiose language about reducing the size of government, etc and has yet to address any of those issues with any level of specificity.

            The Senator is nothing more than your run of the mill cheap (or maybe not, a million dollar payoff isn’t cheap) politician. And a not too bright one at that.

          • Caleb Howe

            It’s possible to say what you want to say without being a jerk about it.
            - c

          • jakeofalltrades
          • Xasteius

            The only difference between Santorum and Obama is that Santorum really believes in God. Otherwise they would use the same big government methods to accomplish their ends.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            .
            .

          • clowngirl

            He writes that Newt wants a “federally funded” moon colony, it would cost billions, Newt’s arrogant, pandering, etc., etc., etc.

            But Speaker Gingich *isn’t* calling for a federally funded moon colony. He’s suggesting offering prizes to inspire private investors.

            Senator Santorum is either lying or dangerously careless about his facts.

            Neither scenario is good.

          • acat

            I see no reason for pulling punches. Sen. Santorum was a second-rate Senator, with no executive experience, and no discernible reason other than ego to seek the White House.

            I have no hatred for him, but I do think we, as a country, would be better served if he were to withdraw.

            Mew

          • jamesm

            Santorum should apologize for calling Gingrich a friend when he clearly doesnt mean it

          • WillWong

            You made it sound like you and Rick are the only two God fearing adults in the room and those other Red Staters who disagreed are simply pouring hatred. You have actually brought these outpouring of disgust against Santorum by your silly post and in a way I feel sorry for Santorum. You really owe Santorum a deep apology. If you noticed, the first several posts were quite respectful while disagreeing.

          • nepanyrush

            When Rick Perry posted on Redstate, I did not read one vicious, mean, or classless comment. Every comment, at the time I read the responses, was “Thank you, Gov. Perry, for posting here…” etc. it was very moving to read such uplifting comments.

            Now, a person of great character and conservative gets horribly, viciously attacked. It did not start when I defended Santorum, WillWong. That is idiotic. I posted after reading one after another statement of horrible disrespect and no class to a person that posted at RedState.

            Last night, I wondered if many of these posters might be hidden Obama supporters. Otherwise, it was hard to understand. WillyWong, for example, stated in another thread that Santorum cannot even be President because he has too many children and the conservative position should be to take care of the children. That was the position of liberals against Sarah.

            One reason some of the posters might be Obama supporters is because they recognize that Newt is by far the weakest GOP contender in years. On a personal level, he and his wife (who has not repented for her 6 year affair with a married man) would make Barack and Michelle look good. ON a professional level, Newt was such an unmitigated disaster as Speaker that he could not even last 4 years, ended up at 13% popularity, and now most of his own colleagues are strongly opposing his candidacy. A lot of his ideas are so off the wall, comedy writers will have a field day. Now, Newt is on a scorched-earth campaign. It is small wonder that millions were spent by Obama and unions supporter Newt in Florida.

            I suspect, as projected by William Kristol, that Santorum will be ahead of Newt in delegates by the end of February. Newt is only in this campaign to cause damage — if he cannot be the nominee, everyone else will bow to his ego and be destroyed.

            After a lifetime of standing up for conservative principles, I can understand that the gay activists and liberals hammer Santorum. but the only way I can fathom this level of mistreatment from Redstaters is if some of them are closet Obama supporters, who want a landslideable candidate. it seems very logical to me that the Obama minions would want to infiltrate this site and od their own scorched earth campaign.

          • WillWong

            Yes, i did wondered aloud about how a guy with 7 young kids with 1 special needs can have the time to fulfill the duty of the POTUS and be the dad the kids need. And i bet you did not read that the reason i wondered aloud is because as the father of two 7 year old autistic boys, we struggled to give both boys the best shot in life and had to put both of our career ambition on hold.

            And no, i am not a secret Obama supporter. And yes, i still believe Santorum should go back to his family as they need him as a husband and dad more than America needs him as a President because there is another person well groomed and ready for the noble task…Newton Leroy Gingrich.

            Finally, you seemed to be a genuine believer in Jesus and I wish you well.

          • DefendUSA

            With the fact that Santorum has seven kids, one disabled, and him running for Office. I get sick and tired of people getting on their high horses and questioning someone else’s life choices. It is none of your business, is it?
            You made your choices for your boys. And he made his. Perhaps his support system is different than yours.

            You know what I find really interesting…When 9/11 happened, I wanted to re-enlist but the Army had not changed the standards for age waivers. I really wanted to do it. Every single person I knew tried to lay the guilt trip on me about my four children and who would raise them! They have a great Dad, that’s who!! In the end, I did not make waiver, but the point is the same. No one gets to say what is better for my kids than me. Every job has risks and the family system can make or break how that turns out.

            Every media outlet on the planet lambasted Sarah Palin because of her boy. It’s not your business and I guarantee not one other Presidential candidate prior to this and Palin has ever been raked like this about the choice to run and how many kids there are or not and what THEY should be doing instead.

            Why you would judge Santorum based on what you think his family needs is stupid. Just say you are a Newt supporter and that should suffice, no?

          • WillWong

            Santorum’s kids is the least of the reason, if at all for not wanting him to be the POTUS!

          • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

            He should be apologizing to everyone for it, not the other way around.

    • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

      and we should be moving towards the free market doing more.

      • Ausonius

        For a nice history, see:

        http://www.allpar.com/history/military/moon.html

        Private companies were much in evidence back in the good ol’ days as the purveyors of components, and NASA was less bureaucratized.

      • joayn

        I don’t think talking about space exploration, the moon, etc. is frivolous at all. But I do think voting for the bridge to nowhere is.

    • littlehouse18

      nt

      • WillWong

        Santorum is on record saying Romney is the weakest of the candidates left against Obama.

        But imho, he is staying in just in case Newt implodes. I don’t think he really cares if by staying in, Romney gets nominated by virtue of the conservative vote being split between Newt and himself.

      • mikelindell2

        yesterday? Talk about pandering. I agree with Newt, I don’t think the US should cede the space race to China and Russia (who have openly proclaimed their intention to build a moon base) and fall back from our place of superiority.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        At least Ron Paul has been consistent in his stupidity for 30 years.

        Romney has executive experience in both the private and public sector.

        Newt is the only one of the lot who’s actually ever accomplished anything conservative as an elected official.

        The Senator was a second string Senator who spent his career supporting every big-government program that came along and doing what he was told by the leadership.

      • joayn

        out Newt and be the the last conservative standing, so conservatives will have a real choice, or some such nonsense.

      • joayn

        out Newt and be the the last conservative standing, so conservatives will have a real choice, or some such nonsense.

      • clowngirl

        I saw him at an event a few days ago and he said he thinks Romney is the weakest candidate.

        (I think it’s understood that he’s probably excluding Ron Paul)

        I agree with him about Romney.

    • anjinconsulting

      It would be helpfulif the Senator/candidate could provide some definitive objective evidence of his ability to balance the budget and reduce the public debt. But the most intriguing statement is his apparent desire to “control the arrogane of public officials”.

      Does that mean he will repeal ObamaCare since the congress, their staff and union minions are expempted? Does that mean he will abstain from voting for any congressional pay raises or COLA increases?

      But lets just accept his specious arguments at face value. In teh 60′s, Kennedy kick started the space race. Although it was not the prime mover, look what the economy did and try to envision all of the new companies that formed and all the people they employed in support of the effort. Not to mention all of the technology that came out or evolved from that effort.

      No Senator, I think that we could S^&tcan a few governement agencies and espcially quite a few government corporations (the Overseas Private Investment Corp. comes to mind) and turn around with that cash to put it to good use. “A rising tide floats all boats” except those with unseaworthy hulls.

      This article is just typical of the crap thrown out in a feeble attempt to mask a meeker form of liberalism as conservatism.

    • nabell87

      Wht are tou holding on to here? Did you sell out to Romney and accept a promise of a nice post election position if you stay in to play spoiler? You had a fluke win in Iowa because no one had time to destroy you right before the caucus. All the candidates voters really wanted to look at had been barraged and you were forgotten about. You will never get more than 15% of the vote. Are you going to let your ego and dream of becoming elected allow you to be duped by the establishment and media to take out Newt. If you drop out now maybe someone will still drop you a lifeline for a nice cabinet position!!!

  • txpat

    I think you are a covert Romney supporter.
    You may not think that you are, but it is obvious to me you have no path forward to win the nomination.
    When you are a factor to split the non-Romney votes, which would help pave the path to Mittens victory. It makes me wonder if you are serious in your convictions on Romneycare.
    Please take a hard look at your campaign, and ask yourself do you want to be remembered as the guy that helped Mittens get the GOP nomination, and failed the conservative movement?
    I pray that God gives you the wisdom to make the correct choices going forward.

  • quill67

    too much of what liberals were saying in the 80s “How can be go to the stars when people under them are starving”

    See, don’t you believe your own policies will work? With a growing economy we can make good choices that keep our national security strong and boost scientific development.

    This line of attack is not going to go anywhere.

    Keep on RomneyCare. OR if you need to take on Newt then go after him on how your 0% tax on manufacturers will be a boom and help the poor more than Romney or Newt’s plans.

    • Ausonius

      I am neither amused nor convinced by your essay!

      I wrote a little essay about this a week ago under another topic: I was responding to a writer upset by Mitt Romney’s mocking of Newt Gingrich’s moon colony idea, saying he would “fix housing” instead.

      allow me to quote myself!

      “You are right to be disturbed: the loss of desire to be #1 in everything, including outer space, is the hallmark of BIG BRObama.

      His is the Triumph of the Mediocre Man.

      • quill67

        nt

  • carolsvaughn

    Where would we be without hopes and dreams? Americans have been able to accomplish great things through the years because they were able to dream big. Right now the economy has destroyed those hopes and dreams. But if the economy could have life infused in it once again and allow us to hope and dream big again, we would soar to unimagined heights whether it be here on earth or up in space. Gingrich was helping to light the fuse of dreams. Why kill it? Let us dream.

    • darkstar58

      just put those hopes and dreams away!

      Time to get back in line for business as usual and safety-nets for the uninspired. THATs the true American Way…

      /s

  • WillWong

    It is time for a conservative revolution or 2010 Part Two! Newt was pretty much missing in part One but he will lead us to victory in Part Two!

    • tngal

      that’s all it would take to show some support. As poll numbers drop he needs cash if he’s going to make an effective push in the upcoming states. If the money dries up it signals to the campaign the support is drying up. Emails and tweets don’t buy tv time, mailers and the like. How about sending 5 bucks, it’ll take about five minutes of your time.

      I would say this works well for Santorum supporters too.

      Mitt probably couldn’t conceive of the term money bomb.

      And Ron Paul doesn’t like bombs.

      • WillWong

        Yes, i will take up the challenge with $50 for 5 minutes.

        • tngal

          There’s no way he can compete against Mitt in places like Florida without an influx of cash. That 5 -1 spending ratio of Mitt v Newt was just obscene.
          He doesn’t need to be managing which states he should campaign in and which states he’ll let go by the wayside. He needs to have a decent ad campaign in all of them.

          • http://MichaelHarrington.org creinstein

            Excluding what I donated to my own campaign of course.

            I see a future with 40% real unemployment, and 40% lacking full time employment… and I see my party satisfied they tried to get a liberal into the White House.

            I won’t allow that future if I can avoid it.

            The vision of no businesses open, no cars on the streets of Portland scares me.

            Please do not vote a Massachussetts liberal for the Primary!

        • WillWong

          Just completed!

          Newt…..hang tough! Go get’ em!

          More help is on the way!

  • pantera

    Your job is to run interference for romney,that’s all.
    You’re doing a great job so no need to use small non-issues as justification.
    Stay focused,make sure Newt doesn’t get in the way of another status quo nominee.

  • Locked and Loaded

    In my opinion (reinforced by the comments above), you have brought the tradition of public officials posting on RedState to a new low.

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      He’s like every other cheap glory hound who’s posted at Redstate. They don’t actually come back and read the comments, they simply throw [stuff] against the wall.

  • Tbone

    real world experience. We already have the least qualified person in the world stinking up the White House, we don’t need Number 2 on that list.

    Do us all a favor, go away.

  • reddog53

    N/t

  • deVere

    So why are you over here attacking Newt Gingrich for a bold and slightly impractical proposal? Don’t you care most about winning against Romney in Missouri? Apparently that isn’t your main preoccupation.

    I’m loathe to categorize any candidate as a “stalking horse”. But frankly you are arousing even my suspicions.

    You are a personable and attractive candidate with good foreign policy ideas, but I think that your extreme anti-abortion stance would cause you to lose a national election. Abortion is a 10th amendment, not a 14th amendment issue, and nominating someone with your extreme viewpoint would in my judgement be a very big mistake for the Republican Party.

    While Newt Gingrich is a cad with an unacceptably sleazy marital history, his foreign policy ideas are as good as yours, and his ideas on economics and the judiciary are a level above both yourself and Mitt Romney. I retain hope in a compromise nominee who embraces Gingrich’s superior ideas without suffering from his baggage. Because of your extreme anti-abortion position, I hope it will not be you.

  • johnnyd

    I have not researched the Helium 3 much but this video is very interesting Mr Santorum.

    Scientist are saying 1 Shuttle load of Helium 3 could supply enough clean nuclear fusion energy for our entire country for a year.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94rEqHP9dOQ&feature=related

    • snowshooze

      Sounds like a long shot.

  • redmymind

    and let the Chinese and the Russians beat us to it. End of story.

    • pttx333

      you have no idea how glad I am to finally see you, my friend! I’ve been out of pocket for a while with some sort of flu bug and my hands/wrists, plus apt. hunting, etc., since I will be moving to another Houston bedroom community in about 3 weeks.

      Then there was the gut-wrenching period when Perry dropped out, leaving me desolate indeed. I am resigned now, and I do know that he will remain a force to be dealt with down the road. He hasn’t given up any of his ideas and will continue to put them forward wherever/whenever he can.

      So GOOD to see you, red. Was talking to wcpatriette today about you and wondering where you were!

      Later, sweet Mr. Texan!

      • redmymind

        Why, I was out celebrating my 44th birthday today, of course! Took the family out to a champagne buffet brunch, came back stuffed, am still stuffed, and have “wisely” decided to skip dinner! Did go for two chilled cokes, though, to help with the slow-w-w-w-wing digestion at 44!!! My six-year-old Elliott just burns up food. Wish I could do that!!!

        Speaking of transitions, my friend, looks like they’ve decided to bunch up all at once over on your end, what with the flu bug, the arthritis, and now this move to another community. That’s a lot to handle, and I can only imagine the hardship that you are experiencing. You must be one tough Texan!

        I have been praying for you at every Mass and have included you in my rosaries, and will continue doing so. The Lord has blessed me with a wonderful 44 years and has sent me wonderful friends, such as yourself. Your sweet message has put a truly heart-warming cheer to the conlusion of this wonderful birthday, and I extend to you and indeed share with you all the blessings that came on this day!!!

        Stephen . . . Mr. Texan!!!

        • pttx333

          Woo hoo! I’ll take a very large Mimosa, please and thank you! What a very nice day for you.

          Yes, I looked through RS at various times (without posting) to see if I could locate you and didn’t. Was fearful that you might have thought I’d kicked the bucket or something … no siree, I’m too ornery for that, kind sir. BTW, if you ever want to contact me outside of RS, I’ve created a little email account just for my RS friends … pttx333@gmail.com … so feel free to do so.

          Thanks for the prayers, my dear friend … I truly do not want to lose contact with you. Just know that you and your little family are in my prayers as well … always.

          Pat

          • redmymind

            One Mimosa coming up!

            I must confess, . . . not seeing you for a while slowed me down as far as frequenting RS. Your presence here just makes this place come alive. But for its negative connotation, I’d even refer to you as our ring-leader!!!

            I even inquired with avagreen at one point if she knew anything about you. She was good about discreetly relaying how you were doing overall.

            Thank you for keeping me and my family in your prayers. It means a great deal to me, as I truly believe in the power of prayer–especially when offered by others. We Christians are indeed freely willing individuals, but what true consolation it is that we are also a loving community whose members pray for one another. Thanks for the gift of your e-mail address. I do not want to lose contact with you either, big sister!!!

            A warm birthday embrace for you!!!!!!!!!

          • pttx333

            mentioned “some others” were inquiring about me, but I didn’t know who. The only one now that I can’t seem to locate is my “son” (he refers to me as “Mom” – a lovely name) gekster. I haven’t seen him and hope he is okay. If you see him before me, would you mind to let him know my info … it isn’t a secret (guess not since I’ve posted it here for the world to see! ;-) ).

            One other thing that is coming up is that I’m going to be busy organizing/packing, etc. for a move to another part of the Houston area around the end of this month. I think I’ve told you that I’ve been house sitting for a former boss, but that is FINALLY coming to an end. It is NOT what one would think. I want my own little “hidey-hole” and have located a small apt. in a small community where I’ve lived before. It is somewhat closer to my son, too, and he went to high school where I’ll be living. He was a pitcher and Nolan Ryan (hometown boy) used to come out and work with them – we were delighted, he’s such a spectacular and fine man. Anyway, it will be a joy for me and, hopefully, will be the last move I’ll ever have to make. But I’ll let you know – of course, my ‘puter will be down for a few days during the transition period, hook-ups and all that jazz.

            Anyway, yes, prayer is a powerful thing and God does answer … in His own way and in His own time. And sometimes His way isn’t exactly what we prayed for ( ;-) ), but he knows what is best for us.

            Yep, keep that email address, dear one. Should be fairly easy to remember, at any rate.

            Later, dear little bro!!!

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    in fact, I think it is you who are now pandering to try and make what Newt said sound stupid and unachievable. I know our budget is in trouble, but it is important to remember that we have a space program for a reason. Rather than acting like Obama and abandoning it and allowing the Russians and Chinese move beyond us. We should be finding ways to use the free market to help use out resources better.

    • lineholder

      It’s also a rejection of utilizing free-market principles as means of resolving our problems.

      I’m not saying that is what Sen Santorum meant. I’m only considering the reality that so much of our society has become acclimated to having government “provide” so many things for us that they no longer possess the creativity to think “outside the box” and use free-market principles as a problem-solving tool.

    • demsaresatanic

      such things for years, and he has a better understanding of science and technology than the rest of the candidates combined. Just a one-sided cheap shot, worthy of Romney, not Santorum.

  • caryedward

    I voted for Mr. Santorum in the Florida Primary. I do not understand why he is not doing better. He has a lot less baggage then Romney or Newt and as far asI I can tell is a good conservative.

    • deVere

      He really doesn’t seem to understand and support the 10th amendment.

      • lineholder

        yours just isn’t strongly Conservative.

        Other than that, I agree with you about favoring big government proposals and his lack of emphasis on 10A.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          probably different reasons than deVere. Last I heard the Senator was pushing some variety of Constitutional Amendment or another to stop abortion. THAT is extreme. Actually, it’s extremely stupid.

          There is no way a CA is going to happen and anybody who favorably discusses it as a solution is ether totally ignorant about the process to amend the constitution or abusing the ignorance of voters on the issue.

          • lineholder

            I was thinking more in the context of “abortion under such-and-such circumstances”. Maybe I missed something in a translation, becker, LOL

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            deVere’s bloggy horse. If I’m wrong, I’ll apologize right now.

            I don’t really have an issue with “government banning abortion” and actually, I think it can be done. And since this will be a serious threadjack, I will not comment beyond this.

            1. SCOTUS overturns Roe.

            2. The issue returns to the states.

            3. Some state outlaws abortion and criminalizes it based on the legal theory (and medical fact) that an unborn baby is entitled to fourth amendment rights of due process.

            5. A “doctor” performs an abortion and is charged with murder.

            6. S/he is convicted.

            7. S/he appeals on the basis that life does not begin at conception and the byproduct of the sexual encounter does not have a right to due process.

            8. Case goes to SCOTUS. SCOTUS finds against the “doctor”.

            9. Precedent is set that an unborn baby has Constitutional rights.

            Abortion is legally done. And obviously I’ve only top-lined the very complicated and complex legal issues, but that’s the overview.

          • littlehouse18

            I’m ok with it being banned,

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            how that’s going to happen under a Santorum Administration with some detail. And be on notice, if you even think about mentioning a Constitutional Amendment, you’re going to be shown to have made a complete ignorant fool of yourself.

            Have at it.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            nt

        • deVere

          By implication he endorses the Supreme Court’s practice of amending the constitution by decree. He just wants different justices to decide the matter the way he likes.

          I hold the standard conservative view that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided because under the 10th amendment the federal government as a whole has no power over abortion laws (except for DC and territories). Roe should be overruled as soon as possible by Congress restricting the jurisdiction of the federal courts over state abortion laws. As Article III of the constitution says, says, “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” It is doable, not in the next generation, but maybe next year, as both “crazy” Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich (or Rick Perry) will tell you. Santorum on his campaign web site goes out of his way to criticize Ron Paul’s 10th amendment argument against Roe v Wade. He is very much mistaken.

          By implication a 14th amendment prohibition of abortion that Santorum favors would prohibit all abortions in all cases, including rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother. This position has already been rejected by the voters of South Dakota, when their legislature passed such a statute, to take effect in case Roe is overruled. I don’t think the electorate of any of the 50 states would support Rick Santorum’s extreme abortion position.

      • mcpa1776

        I don’t think you truly understand the 10th or 14th Amendments. I’ve seen you make this argument dozens of times about abortion being a 10th Amendment issue, not a 14th Amendment issue. That may be a more popular position, but it is not a logical position.

        Do you recall WHY the 14th Amendment was passed? Though many claimed (and some still do) that the 14th Amendment was a violation of states rights, it was passed after the Civil War to ensure that the protections in the Constitution applied to the States. The 14th Amendment guaranteed equal protection under the law.

        Many strict Constitutionalists and Libertarians don’t like the 14th Amendment. While I have some concerns about the way it has increased Federal Power, overall, I think it has made out nation stronger and more free. Like I point out to my Libertarian friends, if you’re not a fan of the 14th Amendment, then you can’t say state and local gun laws are unconstitutional?

        Thus, on the abortion issue there is really only one question: Does life begin at conception?

        If “Yes”, then the 14th Amendment DOES apply. That’s not a radical position – it’s logical. In fact, this is the exact type of situation the 14th Amendment was designed to protect against. A person (which I believe a fetus is) deserves equal protection under the law. I’m a huge 10th Amendment fan, but I believe there are certain things a state cannot do. Deciding that one persons rights are above another persons rights happens to be one of those things.

        • deVere

          The subject of abortion and rights of the unborn did not come up in 1866 when the amendment was proposed.

          Under English common law abortion was a misdemeanor in the first trimester and a felony after that. By 1865 some states also had statutes prohibiting abortion, but no one at that time interpreted the 14th amendment as meaning that all states must prohibit all abortions as murder.

          The 14th amendm,ent position of yourself and Senator Santorum on abortion is indeed “logical”, but it has the following defects:

          It accepts the Liberal argument that the constitution is a “living document” that will be reinterpreted to have a different meaning than the intentions of the founders, or the drafters of amendments. I believe that the constitution means what the original drafters intended it to mean, not what future generations want it to mean.

          It also advocates a political position that is manifestly unacceptable to a large majority of the American electorate. If adopted by the Republican Party, that position may guarantee that we lose every national election for the forseeable future.

          I am reminded of the saying “the perfect is the enemy of the good”. This “logical” political position of Senator Santorum and yourself would also prevent the speedy return of abortion laws to their pre-1973 status.

          • Dave_A

            Just a literalistic one…

            Eg, ‘This is what they wrote – it doesn’t matter that it was written *because* of the slavery issue, it applies to all issues literally as-written’….

            If US law ever reaches the point of holding that ‘life begins at conception’ then it’s a logical movement to hold that a fetus is entitled to equal protection, just like anyone else….

            That said, it’s unlikely that said issue will ever be decided by the courts, as any ‘movement’ on abortion will likely focus on the fact that Roe & Griswald were fiat rulings (We of the Supreme Court declare this to be so, because we want to) completely disconnected from the Constitution.

            Overturning Roe on that basis would release the abortion issue back to the states… Any federal legislation on the subject would likely come by-way of the commerce clause, not the 14th… As long as Wickard v Filburn stands, essentially everything the Feds do will be based on commerce…. Of course, even without Wickard, the Feds could still prohibit the provision of abortion across state lines, or traveling across state lines to get an abortion… They could also, without invoking Wickard, deny federal funds to any state that did not prohibit it…

            The Constitution, as enacted, has always favored a strong central govt over the states – hence Article 6. The convoluted mess we have now in terms of precedent & ‘interpretation’ largely came from trying to compromise around civil war – and then creating continuity between the ‘compromise’ era and the post-war era, once the inevitable happened (vis-a-vis the 1861 rebellion)…

        • trickamsterdam

          If around 50% of the people are pro-choice and even many pro-life people favor an exception for rape and incest (e.g. S. Hannity), you can imagine what people would think of a ruling where both the pregnant woman and doctor would have to be charged with Murder One for aborting the rapist’s baby (unavoidable once the unborn are covered under the Equal Protection Clause…it’d be the same as smothering a month-old baby, or shooting a 60 year old adult, legally).

          I would think even certain accidental miscarriages would have to result in negligent homicide. That’s not going to go over well either…w/virtually anybody.

          So even if you think it’s a great idea, it still meets the definition of “radical”. “Radical” does not always imply a moral judgment.

          It’s also legislating from the bench.

          It was clearly written to apply to freed slaves, who were still being discriminated against. Your view is just the mirror-version of Roe v Wade…taking your own opinion and using an amendment that was not written w/anything like what you’re going to use it for in mind, to bypass the Congress, President, and States.

          You can’t beat liberals by using their methods. It’s like trying to kill someone else by drinking poison yourself. I’m still waiting for the SC to legislate Cap and Trade or Medicare for All from the bench if they ever get a fifth liberal, by using the Equal Protection Clause…because we all have an “equal right” to clean air since we all own the air.

          And an “equal right” to healthcare, because if it’s given to those over 65 it should be equally given to those under.

          When/if they do this…no complaints from you.

          • deVere

            Apart from the previously stated constitutional and political consequences, trying to constitutionally enforce the opinion that human life begins at conception would effectively outlaw both in-vitro fertilization, and also many forms of birth control, which function by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg. If the Republican party insists on that, it will turn itself into a permanent minority party,

            Fortunately our founders gave us a tool to deal with difficult problems like this one: the 10th amendment. Let the 50 states work out solutions through their democratic processes, which they were busy doing when the atrocious Roe v Wade decision stopped them..

          • mcpa1776

            I think we’d all agree there is no Federal “right” to Healthcare, or a certain CO2 content in the air we breathe.

            I’d like to think there is a unalienable Right to life.

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      He never entertained a conservative thought in his life until he realized that he needed to sound like a conservative to keep a public sector job.

      Newt, while he’s got lots of baggage, is the only one of the three who has actually ever accomplished anything that is actually conservative.

      You wasted your vote.

      • lineholder

        good to see ya’ around again. Missed you for a bit there. Hope you’re doing well.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          It’s a combination of being busy as a one armed paperhanger and being lazy.

          There’s also lots of really good folk to take up any slack, you, kitty and a raft of others. Keep up the good work.

    • davesinsanantonio

      the least “baggage”. We should be looking for the candidate with the best record of following the best policies. PERIOD!!!

  • duramater

    I’ve no doubt that you are sincere in your articulated family values. But the truth is that the narrowness of your platform and the evidence of your record in the senate limit your viability as a candidate in this race.

    Though you have enjoyed the ardent support of many, a significant majority of the electorate recognizes your unsuitability for the office of POTUS . Many have wondered aloud if you are not intentionally splitting the conservative “non-Romney” vote in the primaries to facilitate Gov. Romney’s nomination, along with any secondary gain which might come your way.

    Had you withdrawn prior to Florida, you would have given the appearance of possessing both honor and personal insight. If you continue, surely it will remove doubt in the minds of many more that you are lacking in both these noble characteristics.

    Go home, Senator. You have a beautiful family who needs you far more than American voters right now and certainly more than one man’s ego gratification should allow to go untended.

    • WillWong

      Your last line is priceless! I have two 7-year old autistic twin boys and my wife and I have been struggling for the last 5 years to give these two lovely boys the best shot in life and we have put our career and ambition on hold. She is an attorney and I am an engineer. I simply cannot fathom how a person with 7 kids and one with special needs can be the POTUS and still be a good dad to those kids. Someone said that with money, you can always hire a good nurse. That is not the same is it?

      • duramater

        could not purchase a replacement for your or your wife, much less you AND your wife working lovingly together with your precious little ones.

        Many years ago, I was a young mother of twin boys. So many days I felt overwhelmed and inadequate. My Lord knew I needed much patience and guidance during that time, I guess, because he sent into my life some very special folks . You and your wife sound VERY, VERY much like the family from whom I derived so much inspiration and perspective just being around them during that time.

        I, too, had to make some difficult choices in regards to my professional life back then, but I’ve never looked back with a shred of regret. I now realize that I’ve had more blessings in my life than I can count or ever repay.

        Please know that as you nurture and spill your love onto your sons, that there is a very strong probability that you are touching more lives with grace than you may realize. May He, who is able to do all things hold you and your wife and those twin boys in His hands each day.

        • duramater

          ….should have said the previous post was in response to willwong.

        • WillWong

          I was starting to second guess myself when a couple of folks here thought I was using some left wing attack on the senator that he should stay home with his kids than seek the highest office of the land.

          The truth of the matter is that God never lies. We can make up excuses to subordinate parenting to other more noble mission but there is no other mission more noble than parenting.

          Having said that Santorum’s 7 kids is no reason not to vote for him. It is ultimately his choice. I will not vote for him because I do not see him having the vision, experience, or tools to turn this mighty ship around.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    You are absolutely incorrect regarding this matter.

    Even if the Federal Government paid the tab in full, which the proposal was not for, the payback to the nation and the world and all of mankind would be on a scale similar to what we gained from the space race to get there in the first place. There are so many potential benefits I won’t start listing them here for you – a simple google search should turn up plenty for you.

    If we concede the realm of space, near or far, to potentially hostile powers then nothing good can come from that. Ever.

    I suggest you research the benefits, direct and spinoff, of the Apollo program and consider that in the light that we still will need technical advancement to put a fairly safe livable permanent colony on the Moon. Who knows, we *might* get a cheaper heavy lift capability out of the deal along with who knows what other things that might be developed. How many lives have been saved since the Apollo program just with the medical technology developed for taking three men to the Moon?

    On this matter we should be leading the world, instead we are letting the treasury be looted by out of control nanny programs that pay us nothing and encourage what – a tenth to a fifth of our active adult population to drop out of being productive members of society? We cannot keep going deeper into paying everyone for nothing. It has to stop. The payback for a Lunar program is tremendous if you consider all factors in a historic light.

    I am deeply disappointed in reading this stance and hope you have both the acumen to reconsider it and the guts to explain why you were wrong in taking it.

  • nepanyrush

    I have know Rick Santorum since his first state-wide campaign. He has attended my events and I have followed him closely. He is an amazing individual and a great conservative, who stood up for conservative values when it would have been good politics to go the other way.

    But he also is an great candidate. He first beat a seven-term Democratic congressman, and then won again against another congressman when his district was redrawn to have a 3-1 democratic margin. He twice won statewide office in Pennsylvania, including beating an incumbent Democrat, in a state with one million more democrats than Republicans. He became the third-highest ranking Republican in the Senate.

    I cannot fathom the hatred being leveled against Rick Santorum on Redstate. Newt is the answer? People want to trash Santorum in order to support the ethically challenged Newt because they think Newt is more electable. Because of Newt people are willing to trash such an honorable conservative as Santorum? Gingrich never even won a statewide election. People would be putting a bag over their head rather than admit they are supporting Gingrich, who will be back at about 13% popularity again and has the highest negatives already. On the other hand, conservates will openly and enthusiastically support Rick Santorum.

    Even a recent Rasmussen poll showed the Rick was the best candidate of the four in a face to face with Obama. He won Iowa, beat Gingrich in New Hampshire, and wisely did not compete in Florida, which was winner take all, nor Nevada, where Gingrich spend all his money and ended up with TWO delegates (same as Ron Paul).

    Rick Santorum is one of the most decent, honorable people I have ever known. He is accomplished, articulate, and consistently conservative. To see him trashed in order support Newt Gingrich is mind boggling.

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      is that he could actually come up with $1MM to buy off Pantaloons in Iowa to bus in enough votes to fix the caucus result.

      • acat

        He “lost” by 6 votes, then \”won” by 26 votes .. except that some of the caucuses were unable to confirm their counts.

        Strange place, Iowa.

        Mew

    • littlehouse18

      ..

    • Michael Dugas

      have a conservative record to fall back on while a Senator for Pennsylvania. He is a renowned porker. He voted against The National Right to Work Act of 1995 which was basically a vote for continued union corruption. He threw his support behind Arlen Specter and against Conservative Republican Pat Toomey. He voted for taxes voted for taxes in the Internet Access Tax Bill. He voted for and supported HR 1

  • mediaproofyourvote

    Our current REPUBLICAN CONGRESSPEOPLE ARE HEROES! By stopping stimulus II. They have given business owners a slimmer of hope as proven by recent job numbers. While Obama and his “Protective Shield Media” try and spin voters into the delusion that Obama deserves credit, even journalists know this is exact same scenario happen during the Clinton years.

    SAY THIS ROMNEY and see the exponential support push you to Reagan status – say it not and you will lose like McCain.

    Politics as usual are out this year – the Liberal media knows it can never let another Reagan happen, pull out the patriotism stick and start swinging.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    to offer up a diary outlining exactly how you would go about “creating jobs, economic growth, protecting the family, and ensuring a prosperous and free future for our most precious assets, our children.”

    If you’re going to come here and criticize another candidate, at least be honest enough to be equally critical of Romney the entitled moderate and Paul the ____ (fill in your favorite description).

    As for Speaker Gingrich, the moon colony idea may be a little far out, but he has outlined very specifically, especially on his website, how he would approach the issues we are facing. And despite his personal baggage, he has a record of conservative governance. In fact, the most conservative record that includes actual legislation of all candidates left in the game.

  • Leon H. Wolf

    a) I would personally place Santorum far, far behind either Romney or Gingrich on my personal preference pole. I am at a loss as to how anyone would vote for him for President. That having been said,

    B) Anyone who says there is no functional difference between him and Obama is a moron. This is getting to be a cliche – something that is said by all supporters of Candidate X about Candidate Y where Cnadidate Y poses the greatest electoral threat to Candidate X. You people are beclowning yourselves.

    C) You can disagree with anyone who posts here all you want but several folks have fallen below the level of respect we want to give to gues posters. Just something to keep in mind.

    • jamesm

      I see you just posted that ” ..obama is a moron” LoL

      Just a little lightheartedness.

      But seriously I could find no post that said there was no functional difference between Santorum and Obama.

    • clowngirl

      First off, if I was one of the people you were referring to as being disrespectful, I certainly apologize. I actually made a conscious effort to try and be respectful but, in rereading my comments, realized they might not have come across that way.

      But the main thing that brought me back to the computer at 12:25 am is that I – along with others who have posted in this thread – believe this post to contain significant factual errors – or at least a very poor and misleading word choice.

      Specifically, Mr. Santorum talks about “Building a federally funded moon colony” and the context would imply this is what Speaker Gingrich is advocating –but it is my understanding (as well as the understanding of others here) that that is not what the Speaker is advocating at all.

      It has been my impression (perhaps just because I’ve never come across a factual error in a front page article) that RedState doesn’t necessarily check the diaries but is rigorous about the accuracy of articles that appear on the front page so RedState will never become a platform for misinformation.

      As an extension to this commitment to accuracy perhaps a note of clarification could be placed at the top explaining that though Senator Santorum discusses the cost of a federally funded moon colony – the plan that Speaker Gingrich currently advocates is something very different.

      Or perhaps Speaker Gingrich could be contacted to clarify his position and a note could be added at the top ( While Senator Santorum’s article remains intact)

      Perhaps, out of respect to Mr. Santorum, he too could be asked to clarify what he means by “federally funded moon colony”, whether he would like to amend his phrasing to prevent misunderstanding, and/or how he reconciles his interpretation with Mr. Gingrich’s stated position.

      • WillWong

        Go to www.ricksantorum.com. I found that same Op Ed in there!

        • http://MichaelHarrington.org creinstein

          You show respect for your voters as well as the State/Nation.

          It is not an easy thing to balance…

          Now on to other aspects here.

          A moon base is an inspirational goal with a public and a private element. Here what I see is the real issue.

          You did not think of it first.

          You peck away on Newt… drop it. And ignore the useless Ron Paul.

          Focus on the true liberal, one Mitt Romney.

          And if you want to stand out betwween yourself and Newt you only need to swear on your eternal soul, or may you burn in hell, that you shall actively fight to reduce the size of the Government your entire term if elected. You may indicate a ‘finishing point’ if you wish to get technical.

          But to show a true difference, one that will win me on the spot you have to have a lot of skin in the game for my values.

        • WillWong

          Not exactly the same word for word.

      • clowngirl

        and that he is looking to spur private investment.

  • http://www.writeinryan.com ragnarthepirate

    You have higher likeability ratings than Newt. As such, you’re a much better vehicle for getting us to a brokered convention. The sooner the newt-tards here figure that out, the better off we’ll be. Godspeed Senator.

    Write in Paul Ryan for President

    • bs61

      I contributed to him and the DeMints fund today.

      I love that Newt is unafraid, however, he is a Progressive as is Romney. And I imagine how it will look to have old pudgy white haired Gingrich next to Obama when most American’s don’t follow politics at all!

      • davesinsanantonio

        NT

  • Renascent

    I am grateful for the extensive number of cogent comments on this thread. I too am tired of the systematic distortion of Gingrich’s carefully thought through policy positions.

    As others have noted, his space goals are designed to use government money to attract a much larger amount of private investment. It is a program he has articulated for decades. The jobs of such a program would be created on EARTH! Senator Santorum either knows these facts (and has decided to engage in cheap shots), or he hasn’t done his homework.

    What I have summarized above has been previously stated by others in this thread. I appreciate the coherence of the discussions provided here!

  • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/republican587/ Elizabeth Christian

    Just look up pandering in the dictionary & it won’t be Newt you see there but Santorum surely will be there.

    I thought it was just me thinking Santorum seemed like he was doing Romney’s dirty work (with the exception of the one time he went after Romney on Romneycare, quite well I have to admit). But now I read this & realize there may be something to that hunch that I’ve had for a while now.

    Santorum since you post here perhaps you can read this & answer this for us…

    How productive is it for you to attack the other two non-Romneys? Everytime I see you in a debate you have this angry Michelle Obama type look in your eye & targeting the other two non-Romneys. If you really want to be POTUS then you would stick to attacking Romney on Romneycare & stop worrying about Newt or Ron Paul which will continue to do better than you I predict. So either try & take some of Romney’s voters or get out! I would not vote for you for a variety of reasons – many are listed above.

    Here is a thought since you are fixated on outer space perhaps ask Romney to explain Kolob to you. It is even farther out of the mainstream than moon exploration or even colonies (as far as lunar colonies and space exploration which I actually think is a great idea if funded privately as Newt has said!). At least one day it is possible to live on the moon – perhaps to escape big government politicians like you! And as far as Kolob – well – just ask Romney about that one!

  • Rudy

    Dear Rick,

    I appreciate that you are not as Moderate as Romney. I appreciate that you don’t have any personal baggage like Newt. I even appreciate that your foreign policy is not isolationist like Ron Paul. However, I don’t think people want to support a candidate because he ISN’T someone else. Granted!… This is the year where in the General election that might actually work. After all you aren’t OBAMA either.

    My point is… I believe… at least for ME… I want someone who will FIGHT for conservative values. I have no idea why every time Newt’s Campaign gets ahead in the polls his team decides they need to become the Get Along Gang and play nice when he got ahead by being the Conservative “fighter.” But I digress.

    Rick, your answer in the debates as to why you voted against a National Right to Work law made my stomach turn. Seriously… Pennsylvania didn’t want it so you voted against it. COME ON! Give me a break. So as our PRESIDENT then it would be OK to sign it into law if it came up again. It baffles my mind. This is YOUR Romney-Care. If you would say, “it was a mistake. I wanted to get re-elected and not crucified by our state unions.” Then I would have some respect for how you voted. Being a Conservative is not just for when it’s convenient.

    So Perry drops out and he is considered a “Primaries Political War Hero” You stay in and you will always be remembered as a Romney Hack.

    It’s a free country. Do what you want. But you aren’t helping the conservative cause by staying in and you aren’t going to be remembered fondly when it’s all said and done. I wouldn’t expect too many Tea Party speeches. Don’t expect to sell many future books to Pennsylvania Union Members either.

    Just sayin’
    .
    .
    .
    .

  • joayn

    Wow. Where to start. Well, first of all, I think you are a decent guy and I know you love your country. However, after your first paragraph, you lose me.

    I like Newt’s grandiose ideas. And you know why? Because I believe Americans are grandiose thinkers and achievers. When Newt speaks of the greatness of America and what we, as Americans together can accomplish, I know it’s true. Based on this country’s history, there’s almost nothing we can’t accomplish together.

    This is the year that we start the renewal of America. Newt will be the person who begins it with us. So, you can either be for us or against us. It’s your choice. I respectfully ask that you join us and support Newt Gingrich.

    P.S. Don’t ever, ever, ever say that Obama’s ideas are better or make more sense than Newt’s. It’s not true and makes you look stupid.

  • radicalrighty

    If they can be that snide, and hateful to a former US Senator, I can’t wait to see what awaits me . . .

    • Bill S

      …by twice accusing Rep. Gingrich of “pandering”. However, this doesn’t excuse the commenters here from being civil to a former Senator and Presidential candidate.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        absolutely misrepresented what Speaker Gingrich said on the subject.

        • clowngirl

          IMO, it was highly disrespectful of Senator Santorum to ( by all appearances) use RedState as a platform to spread misinformation.

          I’ve already put in my 2 cents in saying I’d like to see a disclaimer at the top of this diary for casual readers who take for granted that RedState is a credible source and don’t read the comments or do their own fact checking – and was informed all we could do was respond with comments.

          I’ve not commented several times – mentioning in the subject line that what Senator Santorum wrote was untrue in the hopes that people glancing on the site might happen to see it and not be taken in by his diary.

          Bill S,
          what is the civil way to respond in a situation like this?

          Whatever way you put it, it just doesn’t seem nice to say “Excuse me sir, but what you wrote is totally untrue. Let me serve as your informal fact checker.”

          But you have made it clear it’s our right (and responsibility) to point out the inaccuracies.

          • Bill S

            the way you phrased it is pretty darned close.

            “Excuse me, Senator, but that’s not exactly correct. …. ”

            No name calling, no dripping sarcasm, etc. Straight, to-the-point facts. It’s just as effective to drown someone in kindness.

            Romans 12:20

  • Waderic

    The level of these comments are amazing. I usually enjoy reading comments here at RS, because people actually take into account what the article/diary is about, rather than the same easy responses parroted over and over.

    It seems to me that a Presidential election has turned some of us into exactly what we despised so much about the Obama election – Personality over principles.

    It seems that to attack the ideas of at least 2 of the 4 remaining candidates now is seen as a personal attack. If we can’t be critical of their ideas, what are we left with? The equivalent of Obama supporters

  • ehspicer

    I watched Mitt slam Newt for suggesting the moon colony, he said he’d fire anyone who came to him with that idea. Santorum obviously feels the same. Newt did not say that Government would be the solution to this. He said entrepeneurs would be. Satorum/Romney illustrates the problem with people with business degrees and law degrees. Every solution they see is from “within the box.” If they never heard it before, it can’t be done. Would Thomas Edison have been fired? Would Marconi have been fired? Would the Wright brothers have been fired? Where would the world be with such closed minds. Newt consistently looks for NEW horizons. The only way we can engage our next generations in solutions is to offer them the opportunity to explore new horizons. The young don’t want to be just appendages to the old. They will not pursue advanced degrees in math or science or technologies if the solutions for problems are always ‘inside the box”.

    • Juggernaut

      just to name a few. Most forget which product were created or spawned during and after the 1960′s due to R&D…..Romney and Santorum lack the depth and education to discern the importance of R&D successes from space research and exploration.

      Today private industry is bankrolling space vehicles as well as the technology incorporated into satellites. Burt Rutan produced SpaceshipOne that went to the edge of space without big love from big gov and it came down slow and safe rather than like a meteor.

      Industry wants to mine the moon, so let them come forward with ideas and cost projections couple with interested investors. Gov doesn’t have to fund the majority if there’s a payoff from moon mining and tourism.

      http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/1283056
      Small quantities of helium-3 previously discovered on Earth intrigued the scientific community. The unique atomic structure of helium-3 promised to make it possible to use it as fuel for nuclear fusion, the process that powers the sun, to generate vast amounts of electrical power without creating the troublesome radioactive byproducts produced in conventional nuclear reactors. Extracting helium-3 from the moon and returning it to Earth would, of course, be difficult, but the potential rewards would be staggering for those who embarked upon this venture. Helium-3 could help free the United States–and the world–from dependence on fossil fuels.

      Samples collected in 1969 by Neil Armstrong during the first lunar landing showed that helium-3 concentrations in lunar soil are at least 13 parts per billion (ppb) by weight. Levels may range from 20 to 30 ppb in undisturbed soils. Quantities as small as 20 ppb may seem too trivial to consider. But at a projected value of $40,000 per ounce, 220 pounds of helium-3 would be worth about $141 million.

      Because the concentration of helium-3 is extremely low, it would be necessary to process large amounts of rock and soil to isolate the material. Digging a patch of lunar surface roughly three-quarters of a square mile to a depth of about 9 ft. should yield about 220 pounds of helium-3–enough to power a city the size of Dallas or Detroit for a year.

      Although considerable lunar soil would have to be processed, the mining costs would not be high by terrestrial standards. Automated machines might perform the work. Extracting the isotope would not be particularly difficult. Heating and agitation release gases trapped in the soil. As the vapors are cooled to absolute zero, the various gases present sequentially separate out of the mix. In the final step, special membranes would separate helium-3 from ordinary helium.

      The total estimated cost for fusion development, rocket development and starting lunar operations would be about $15 billion. The International Thermonuclear Reactor Project, with a current estimated cost of $10 billion for a proof-of-concept reactor, is just a small part of the necessary development of tritium-based fusion and does not include the problems of commercialization and waste disposal.

      Perhaps the most daunting challenge to mining the moon is designing the spacecraft to carry the hardware and crew to the lunar surface. The Apollo Saturn V spacecraft remains the benchmark for a reliable, heavy-lift moon rocket. Capable of lifting 50 tons to the moon, Saturn V’s remain the largest spacecraft ever used. In the 40 years since the spacecraft’s development, vast improvements in spacecraft technology have occurred. For an investment of about $5 billion it should be possible to develop a modernized Saturn capable of delivering 100-ton payloads to the lunar surface for less than $1500 per pound.

      • aleena

        I’m a senior citizen. I have watched the space program over the years. When we had our initial space program, I heard so many people say that we should use that money to help people on earth. From what I have observed, the space program was worth every penny. Based many years of observation , it is my belief that the country which that leads in space will lead and be successful in the future. The country that doesn’t will be marginalized and essentially left in the dust heap of history.

  • Common_Cents

    Think of your kids when you watch this video. You are a social conservative and you are worried about a space program?

    What planet are YOU on? Planet Romney?

  • nepanyrush

    Larry Sabato’s analysis is that if Santorum were to drop out, his voters are as likely to go to Romney or drop out as to go to Gingrich. So this push to villify and push out the one good conservative in the race, Santorum, in lieu of supporting the vastly flawed and widely despised Gingrich is just the selling of one’s principles for a false dream.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/5/gop-voters-belie-gingrichs-claim-to-conservative-m/?page=all#pagebreak

    “Larry Sabato, of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, predicted that if Mr. Santorum pulls out of the race, most of his supporters will split between Mr. Romney and Mr. Gingrich

    • jamesm

      poll after poll has shows that Santorum benefits from the attacks on Gingrich. No one is silly enough to say every voter would go to Gingrich.

  • nepanyrush

    Read it and weep, all you so-called conservatives (or secret Obama supporters) who are pushing the tremendously flawed, inconsistent conservative Gingrinch on us, while villifying viciously the principled conservative Santorum.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290132/again-why-not-santorum-quin-hillyer

    A few quotes:

    “Rick Santorum can win the Republican nomination. Rick Santorum can indeed beat Barack Obama in the fall. And Rick Santorum can and would govern at least as conservatively as Ronald Reagan did.”

    “Very few public officials in American history, for instance, have as longstanding a record of horribly unfavorable poll numbers as Newt Gingrich has had for 17 years now. (His particularly dreadful polling problems among women, for instance, seem flat-out insurmountable.) Santorum, on the other hand, is far less well known, so he has a greater chance to move polls in either direction as voters get to know him better. The interesting thing to note here is that he continues to do better in polls the more he is known to the general public. That

    • tnguy

      That’s what you’ve got. Wow.

      What you’re referring to is a concerted effort by republican establishment media to oust Gingrich from the race. Very little of it is based in fact or is even really in support of Santorum. Hilyer puts little in the way of facts into his artice, well, because, apart from social issues, there are no facts to support the notion that Santorum is a conservative.

      EE’s post on him a few weeks ago exposes Santorum for what he is: a big-government “conservative”.

      Gingrich has a 1,000 warts, but unlike the other 2, his record suggests he’s a limited government conservative, while Romney and Santorum’s records say anything but.

      Electability is a non-issue. It’s a disgrace that conservatives would use this as a qualifier.I guess we’ve given up trying to win people to our side and have reduced the election to nothing more than a beauty pageant. Principles are what matters. I’d vote for the time to make the donuts guy if he were the only candidate that held to principles similar to mine.

      And in this cycle, the only case to be made at this point is for someone to hold their nose and vote for Gingrich, or not at all. I won’t sell my soul to vote for someone like Santorum or Romney who have repeatedly shown they believe big government is the answer.

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      First of all, Obama has been basically out of the news for three months, other than when he steps in it on his own – like the contraception/National Prayer Breakfast thing. Even when he does, the media gets the stories off the front page in a hurry. They’re focusing on a jiggered 8.3% unemployment rate, that’s really 11.5%, and ignoring everything else.

      OTOH, the Republicans have been committing hari-keri on a daily basis and getting nothing but bad headlines for their trouble.

      Head-to-head polling doesn’t start meaning much until after the conventions are over and the “convention bounce” wears off. Today we don’t even know what the issues and the spin will be come August/September. It looks like Greece is going to implode and get out of the Euro, what’s going to happen to the ECB, what’s going to happen to Italy, et al because all of that will effect US banking. Again.

      What will the economy look like in six months? All of this, and more, are what will drive the election, not some mental masturbation about who’s up or down on Obama today.

      And Santorum hasn’t even begun to be vetted by the media. And given that he’s got the thinnest skin of the lot, that will really be ugly.

    • jamesm

      Really? Santorum has gotten a pass so far. He would be totally destroyed by the Romney or Obama attach machines. Pie in the sky

    • demsaresatanic

      over the “polarizer” Reagan, and look what happened. In 80 the “polarizer” Reagan started out 30 points behind Carter, look what happened. As has been pointed out time and time again here on RS, polls regarding the general at this stage are worthless distractions at best, and are more likely to point in the wrong direction than the correct one. As I recall, in 76 the polls at this stage showed Ford doing better than Reagan in the general; same in 80, the early polls showed Bush 1 doing better than Reagan in the general.

  • jamesm

    Santorum essentially pasted a negative ad attack on Gingrich which was innaccurate to say the least. It’s not a personality thing or lack thereof

  • steeltube

    Isn’t Santorum’s bashing of Gingrich not unlike Wendys running attack commercials against Burger King?

    I thought the strategy in politics was to “punch up”.

  • avgjo

    is that you both appear (through your rhetoric) to put limits on what the American people are capable of. Where Gingrich gives us as a people enough credit to think that we can both solve our debt crisis and show the world we’re #1 in technology, you guys seem to want us to accept that we can only handle (possibly) managing our debt. To be honest, a future where all I can admire about my country is that I might be able to have a Mcmansion and get in debt to ‘own’ 2 vehicles is not much of a future. To you and the Ma. Gov. that seems like the gold standard. Kinda falls in line with the whole ‘decline’ narrative.

    Count me out.

  • http://www.RightFace.us dkolonia

    Senator, your view on the space program is the most short sighted and ignorant thing I have ever heard. Do you think you were writing to a bunch of liberals who don’t get it or are stupid? The space program is one of the very best returns on investment (2nd to national defense) this country can make. Technology is our only hope to staying the most powerful nation in the world and funding space exploration keeps our technology at the forefront. You don’t know that? Stupid Rick, stupid.

    Doug
    http://www.RightFace.us

  • mediaproofyourvote

    By stopping STIMULUS II Republican Congress responsible for improving job numbers – why won’t any candidate say this? Afraid of polling numbers – this is wear leadership comes in a leader can move polling numbers. The media has been so effective at branding Republican congress negatively, our candidates seem to speak to the liberal agenda talking points – stop – lead -say: Republican Congresspeople are HEROES!

    • demsaresatanic

      I have wondered about that also. One possible reason is that to take credit for improvement is to concede improvement. The fact is that people giving up and dropping out of the workforce distorts the unemployment figures downward, take that distortion away and you see a 12% plus unemployment rate according to what I have read about it.

  • mediaproofyourvote

    Ever wonder why a large portion of voters have ignored complaints of media bias for the past 40 years? I did, and finally figured it out. They have been conditioned to ignore any frustrated partisan accusations, and they simply don’t know how to spot it. Here is an example: Imagine the average good-hearted daytime TV Oprah voter, many won’t even listen to political positions if not presented in soft friendly soothing voices, the type you hear on public radio or the “C” networks. This is so frustrating that no other conservative has picked up on this – there is a type of media censorship going on that never lets conservative positions make it on air when presented in kind soothing voices, if we are ever to persuade these voters we need to speak the way they listen or at least calmly, kindly, show them what manipulative media techniques look like.

  • Pingback: breast cancer uae

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Yep, that’s a splinter in his eye all right. Of course, your record in Congress just happens to be a redwood tree in your eye Senator. And then there’s the utter hypocrisy of your conservative pronouncements of late.

    Go get a real job.

  • lineholder

    I’m not sure who led the Not-Romney candidates in this race to believe that they needed to attack each other in order to have a chance to win in Nov., but it isn’t the best of choices, all things considered.

    We’d be better off to have the Republican candidate farthest to the left of the political spectrum (in this case, Mitt Romney) out of the way, leaving us with greater options and opportunity to move this nation back to the right in the long run.

  • Vegas_Rick

    social con. Thank’s for stopping by Senator. Say hi to Arlen for us.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    in fact there is evidence that the moon could be an excellent source for rare minerals which are critical to our national defense and currently are available only through China. Oh, and China is reducing – and will likely stop – those exports.

    I would certainly rather see the US spending money on this type of lunar research – given that national defense is actually a Constitutional responsibility of the US government – than spending a nickel on welfare payments, or any outlays of the US Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce or Housing & Urban Development just for starters.

    And, on that note, which Cabinet level departments are you going to eliminate?

  • http://punditpawn.wordpress.com punditpawn

    Santorum, of course, left off the part where 80-90% of the moon program would be financed by the PRIVATE SECTOR. He also left out the fact that until Obama took office, this moon mission WAS US POLICY FOR YEARS BEFORE THAT.

    Now drop out Santorum and quit screwing the American People.

  • aesthete

    is probably not authentic. It has not been traced back to any of Cicero’s known speeches, or as any sort of quote from one of his contemporaries. It is most likely a recent fabrication.

    Also: “Americans, who already live in the greatest nation, on the greatest planet, Earth.”

    Way to rub in in Pluto’s face like that.

  • txpat

    We have a shortage of helium, and this is used in lab testing, not just balloons.

  • deniser55

    If Santorum was honest, he’d understand he it is he who is in the way. i don’t think it is pandering at all when Net is speaking to those people whose jobs have been lost because of the lack of funds for a space program. Why can’t the Federally funded space program be opened up to private investors? If the issue IS jobs then the stimulus money would have best been spend on keeping the existing space program going then putting 1/2 billion into Solydra, which is already out of business. So who pandered who.

  • civildebate

    It may not be in the Confederate Constitution but it is in the US Constitution.

  • WillWong

    Senator, please stop attacking Newt! With all due respect he is in a different class above you. If you must, go ahead and attack Romney for you had said over and over thst Romney is the weakest candidate we can send against Obama.

    Even if we factor in Newt’s gaffes which are numerous, he is still a greater statesman than you will ever be. Consider yourself fortunate to have the privilege to be a part of the Republican Revolution led by Newt in 1994 and try to learn something from him.

    If you really love the country as you repeatedly said you do, please consider dropping out so that we can have a straight fight between a Reagan conservative and a Massachusetts Moderate.

  • Ausonius

    You are quite right: I will not pretend to claim I know all of Cicero’s speeches well, but I know enough of them to make me suspect that this one was born on the Internet.

    I can find no reference to it anywhere, and one source says it appeared on the Internet in 2008: possibly it is based on something from Cicero’s speech “Against Verres.” Verres was a corrupt governor of various provinces who seemed to suffer kleptomania or just old-fashioned greed, since he had a habit of stealing riches, including statuary, from provinces he governed.

    Cicero makes a comment that corrupt arrogant officials must be prosecuted. Nothing about budgets at all, however.

    Cicero would have checked the sources of quotes before he used them in an essay. :)

  • reggie182

    What an uninspiring and cheap criticism of Newt’s space proposal. While China is aiming toward the moon the former Senator would rather us cede to other nations one of the things that has made the United States great. A willingness to take risks in order to reach great goals.

    It really is demoralizing to see one of the top candidates for President eschew boldness and ambition in order to convince people that he can put a chicken in every pot.

  • trickamsterdam

    LOL, at least that lets us know the Senator penned the essay himself. Taking the precious time to give us the glorious news that we not only live in the greatest country in the world, but also “on the greatest planet, Earth” is pure Rick Santorum….it completely matches his speech/thought patterns during his many, many (you could almost say endless) interviews.

    This is part of what I mean when I say you have had to grow up in PA, and listened to him for 12 years, to fully appreciate his chances of being POTUS (or even VP…whatever Romney is, he’s no fool…he doesn’t need to be told we live on the greatest planet either…and after watching Obama and Joe B for the last three years, I don’t think whoever the R nominee is, is going to want to spend more time talking about “what Rick really meant to say is…” than his own ideas.

    I’ll put this on his greatest hits CD…it’s up there w/ “man on dog” and telling Pres Obama he should agree w/ him on his abortion policy because “as a black man, he should know what it’s like to not be considered a person”.

  • Michael M. Keohane

    that Cicero quote is not authentic. A little fact checking would be helpful, Senator Santorum.

  • demsaresatanic

    Is this the real Rick Santorum here, sounding like a Romneybot, trashing Newt and giving Romney a pass?

  • deniser55

    IT WAS ROMNEY who placed the first attack ad in Iowa against Newt.
    THE MEDIA keeps saying Newt is attacking Mitt without referring to Mitts attacks on Newt.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    He’s spending lots of money trying to convince people that it’s a “fact” that he’s a conservative.

    Unfortunately, some people have bought into it, including some front pagers here at Redstate. Hotair, who was in the tank for Palin forever is now coming out for Santorum. Michelle Malkin, who was drinking the Gardasil Kool-Aid while ranting about Perry came out for Santorum a week or so ago. Obviously, she forgotten what a conservative is.

  • renny

    I do not want China or Iran peppering the stratosphere with satellites that can bomb us or interrupt our electrical grid while we cower in our over-mortgaged hovels.

    Also, the question of origins of the solar system and the universe are relevant to science, philosophy, and religion, and we should be in the competition with the rest of the big dogs in examining those mysteries.

    It was a Newt idea, but still good.

    After all, it is just one more loss for the US in canceling space travel that accrues to the “o” accomplishments along with our credit downgrade and soon-to-be gutted military facing a nuclear Iran.

  • WillWong

    Send this link to Santorum’s campaign and see how he respond. I suspect nothing!

  • WillWong

    It is him!

  • Bill S

    .

  • jamesm

    With all the big concerns for the county? You are attacking Gingrich on this? This sounds like the same small attacks by Romney? This line of attack seems very small in light of all the problems with this country. We have heard big ideas from Perry, Cain and Gingrich. We have heard you throw hard balls at these conservatives but have barely laid a mitten on mittens. Your actions are consistent with someone angling for a position in Romney adminstration. It seems like many will come in the name of conservatism but will attempt to bring their so called friends down instead of lifting them up. Wow

  • tnguy

    Gov. Perry had the class to bow out. Santorum obviously relishes his role as Romney’s lapdog. What is arrogant are the actions of men like Santorum who have repeatedly insisted that they can spend our $$$ better than we can. The sooner we never hear of him again, the better.

  • renl57

    The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 prohibits the orbiting of nuclear weapons in space.

    Both Low Earth Orbit and geosynchronous orbit are already exploited by both governments and commercial companies. (I subscribe to DirecTV myself.)

  • darkstar58

    Companies encouraged to accomplish such a feat will create jobs

    Companies needing supplies to accomplish such feats would need to purchase supplies from other Companies, creating more jobs.

    Companies supplying Companies with such supplies will need to buy materials to make said supplies from other Companies – again, creating more jobs.

    …I see zero wrong with Government trying to spur on the advancement of the Private Sector by promoting competition with result-based incentives towards a Country-benefiting goal.

    But maybe private sector competition and job creation isn’t the actual goal, and instead we should have a government advancing the ever growing safety-net…

  • clowngirl

    Speaker Gingrich never called for a “federally funded” moon colony. He suggested offering prizes in the hopes of spurring private investors to finance a moon mission.

    So that’s some real egg on your face there. Especially because I think you just ran an ad that also misrepresents the Speaker’s view on this issue.

    (shudder)

    I’m sure you’re very embarrassed by your campaigns lack of fact checking — but RedStaters are pretty fair all in all and I’m sure if you immediately correct the error and stop saying Newt wants a federally financed moon colony, you’ll regain a measure of credibility. (Granted it’s a major screw up on your part — but there’s something to be said for someone who can admit they made a mistake)

    Also, you should look into Newt’s long standing interest in the space program and apologize for accusing him of pandering.

    On a personal note, I just want to add that I’m genuinely disappointed by this diary. I expect this kind of thing from Governor Romney, not from you.

    My impression of you is that, while you might not be the most exciting or qualified candidate – at least you were someone who is honest, serious about living a Christian life, and who has integrity.

    That’s why I’m bending over backwards to give you the benefit of the doubt.

    This diary isn’t worthy of you, Senator.

  • clowngirl

    by “you” I was addressing Senator Santorum . not you, pundit pawn.

    Meant to make that clear but tend to not proofread when I’m agitated. :(

    Need to work on that.

  • darkstar58

    Mittens wants to raise taxes on the poor, give a tax break on capital gains that will benefit almost no one and otherwise “tweak” and “fix” all the massive job-killing bills and regulations which have this country in a stranglehold.

    So clearly you can see that Romney is just on the right track, and any real Conservative should get behind that…

    /s

    Realistically though, people have just got this idiotic idea that “winning” is better then “loosing”, even if you are “winning” by electing a loser who will likely do everything you dont want him to do, and almost nothing you desire – while most likely not doing a damn thing to fix our problem. Its choosing the status-qou over actual advancement, because doing nothing is apparently easier. Was with McCain and Bush2 and Dole (and on and on) anyway; and we all know they each turned out oh so well…

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    He’s not bound by “facts”.

  • clowngirl

    Just shows that even very smart people can make bad choices and support a candidate who is actually less conservative and more flawed, but whose history is less dramatic and who’s flaws are less well known.

  • aesthete

    and what it entails? Hint: any definition which makes the other enumerated powers redundant is not acceptable.

  • davesinsanantonio

    is in Articles 1 and 2. There is a difference.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Mr. Google can help you find since you’ve obviously not bothered to actually read it, and check out “enumerated powers”.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    and so is lineholder. Her point is that the Not Romney candidates should go after Romney instead of each other. Her posting record shows she’s not a Romney fan. Neither am I.

  • Dave_A

    I’m not saying ‘what is the point of space exploration?’ – I get that…

    But what do we gain by building a colony on the moon – especially, what do we gain that we cannot also get from a space station, beyond ‘cool factor’ of a few Americans taking turns living on the moon?

    If there was something on the moon that had economic value – something to drill, mine or otherwise extract… It would make sense…

    So far I haven’t heard of anything like that…

    If we were testing equipment for use on Mars… That might make sense… But that would be more a case for mission(s) to the moon, not a permanent base…

    And pretty much anything we could build on the moon & launch elsewhere, would be easier/cheaper to just build in orbit… You know, using that space-station that so much time has been spent building…

    This leaves the only ‘rationale’ for a moon base at ‘It’s cool’ and ‘It’s the one sort of pork/’stimulus’ that GOP voters won’t shout down’….

  • renl57

    95% of the fury I see from posters here toward Santorum can be summed up as:

    “Santorum, get out of Newt’s way!”

    Perhaps it would help if you looked at the polls that show who Republicans’ second choice is.

    It’s NOT true that if Santorum dropped out, all his supporters would switch to Gingrich. Many would switch to Romney. The GOP can’t win the general election if the evangelicals and social conservatives who back Santorum are just thrust aside forcibly.

    In any event, this kind of over-the-top fury only shows how desperate the anti-Romney people here have become. Telling a viable candidate (he won Iowa, remember?) to “Get out of our candidate’s way!”

    Evidently Santorum is just too nice a fellow to respond to that kind of mailed-fist stuff the way I would respond to it.

  • rkaley

    Newt will ever be elected, and, sadly, I fear that Romney nor Rick are electable either. How we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot defies logic. After Romney attacked Newt in Iowa the dialog has descended into name calling when they should have been talking about out real problem, Obama. We give lip-service to the “politics of personal destruction” but we continue to do it. When the Obama machine begins there will be no corner of our candidate’s personal or public life that will escape scrutiny. I will vote for our nominee regardless.

  • davesinsanantonio

    it isn’t worth even the paper it is printed on!

  • Rudy

    Can you remember a time not so long ago when Newt was leading in Iowa. A time when Newt said he would NOT go negative and a time when Santorum had 3% polling. If you remember that time you would remember that Santorum came OUT OF NOWHERE to win Iowa. The Truth is Romney destroyed Newt with Negative attacks and the only candidate that was left to be the Non-Romney candidate (If for no other reason than not having baggage and not committing debate suicide) was Santorum. Romney’s negative adds and Newt’s nice guy Reagan 11th Commandment position is what created the Santorum win. It’s not because he is a charismatic amazing conservative. He was polling VERY poorly. THAT is the truth. The fact he is still in the race is a testament to Negative ads and Bandwagon voters.

    That’s ok… in 2 weeks he will run out of support AND money and we can stop talking about him.

    There’s no need to get angry about it Rick. ;)

  • WillWong

    the GOP establishment who time and again wants to shove a moderate down our throat and to get Newt to clear the way and to Santorum for being a willing pawn in their scheme. The other 5% is directed towards Santorum for his audacity to believe that he really is the Evangelical and social conservative candidate of choice when the results so far show that he is not even close.

  • clowngirl

    Yes, after leaving a message with Santorum’s campaign and pointing out how inaccurate his post here was and seeing no change – I’m through trying to convince myself that he may just have misunderstood Newt’s position (which was a long shot to begin with.)

    IMO, it’s a real mistake for Santorum to start lying. (or, if you want to split hairs being misleading and omitting key details — looking carefully at this post, Santorum doesn’t actually write the words “Newt Gingrich supports a federally funded moon colony” It’s just very, very strongly implied. )

    Mitt Romney can get away with lying (misleading, whatever) because it goes right along with his image — the guy who will say anything to get elected, whose “principles”conveniently change based on politically expediency, his sincerity is widely doubted.

    People don’t generally support Romney because they’re looking for the guy with the deepest convictions. They think he can win (for reasons that make no sense) and that once he’s President he’ll be beholden to the people that got him there.

    Santorum’s appeal is different and seems to be based on a perception that he’s morally superior to the other candidates.

    He’s supposed to be the guy whose principles run deep — so deep that after 12 years he couldn’t win re-election because he was too red and his state was just too darn purple. (I’m speaking not of reality, but of what I presume Santorum would like you to think) He’s the guy who is the most over the top pro-life and who has (presumably) paid a political price for it.

    He’s billing himself as the most consistent conservative with the most integrity.The guy you can count on.

    But see, all that goes out the window if he’s caught lying, misleading, etc. Then suddenly instead of a moral crusader, he’s just another politician who isn’t as effective as Newt and who has no executive experience.

  • nabell87

    They just didn’t get to him yet in Iowa. He hadn’t been agit ten yet and just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Not to mention he basically lived in Iowa and will NEVER have the time to do that again. He just doesnt resonate!!

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    To put something together in low Earth orbit it has to be lifted there first and that’s just plain expensive.

    A few machines to build machines from local materials and we could potentially build manufacturing and mining facilities on the Moon.

    Launch from the Moon or lunar orbit could be far cheaper and safer than lifting components to low Earth orbit.

    Once a mining/manufacturing operation is in place it could be far cheaper to build/launch in low gravity than launch the same tonnage from the ground here.

  • clowngirl

    Kinda hope he’s out by Super Tuesday — but for now it will be helpful if he wins Missouri and if either he or Newt can win Minnesota.

    Wouldn’t be good if Romney swept all of tomorrow’s caucuses.

    And now Romney’s starting to attack Santorum just a little bit.

    Nothing serious – just a little spat.

    Still don’t think Romney perceives Santorum as a mortal threat – if he ever does – putting his energy into attacking Santorum would likely be very helpful to Newt.

    I tend to take the view of letting things play themselves out.

    Governor Perry stepped aside at the perfect moment (and showed a lot of class) I’m sure that when Santorum steps aside it will be the perfect time too.