« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Proudly Clinging to the Second Amendment

As President of the United States I would take an oath to defend the Constitution – the whole Constitution – and that includes the Second Amendment and the cherished “right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” Sadly, President Obama and his Administration have mocked, downplayed, and disregarded this right.

When I take office, I will restore our gun rights – in full.  I have been and always will be strongly committed to upholding this right that Americans rely on to defend themselves and their families, and for time-honored recreation like hunting and shooting sports.  I am a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association and I am proud to have earned an A+ rating from the NRA by working to protect Second Amendment rights in the Senate.  I will never distance myself from the NRA or from the millions of law-abiding, gun-owning American citizens represented by the NRA and other pro gun rights organizations.  Unlike President Obama, who mocks Americans for “clinging to their guns,” I applaud those who embrace their Second Amendment rights.

In the Senate, I worked to promote legislation that would further protect the rights of gun owners.   In 2005, I strongly supported S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”), to prevent the filing of frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding gun manufacturers due to the crimes of third parties. This guilt by association tactic would have devastated businesses and harmed the Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners.   I am grateful for the opportunity to support this bill, which was eventually signed into law.

I also fought attempts by anti-gun politicians to pass sweeping legislation that would harm the rights of gun owners.  I have voted against onerous background check language in bills that target private gun owners who sell from their personal collections at gun shows.

The Obama administration has expressed support for a U.N. arms trade treaty, in which terms are currently being negotiated behind closed doors.  I would oppose any treaty that would use the goal of eliminating illegal trafficking in arms as an excuse to trample on the Second Amendment rights of gun owners and subject the American people to regulation by unaccountable, international bureaucrats.

Furthermore, I would appoint federal judges who uphold the Second Amendment, unlike President Obama, who seeks to stack the federal judiciary with anti-gun judges.   Additionally, Obama appointed Caitlin Halligan to a prominent judgeship in the nation’s capital, despite her aggressive efforts as Solicitor General of New York to hold gun manufacturers liable for the crimes of third parties – the very danger that I helped guard against by passing the PLCAA.  Halligan’s wide-ranging efforts in this area were ultimately halted by the federal courts, of which she is now a member.

Lastly, I would pursue sensible, responsible approaches to enforcing our nation’s gun laws, and oppose any “gun walking” operations such as Fast and Furious.  Fast and Furious has most certainly brought disgrace to Attorney General Eric Holder and the administration – but more importantly and tragically cost the life of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, who was murdered by one of these very guns “walked” by the ATF.

Instead of protecting the Second Amendment from intrusive government, Governor Romney proposed raising taxes to own a gun from $25 to $75 in Massachusetts.  The legislature more than obliged by quadrupling them from $25 to $100, and Romney joined his liberal colleagues by signing the measure into law.   But that’s no surprise, it was Gov. Romney who said, “I don’t exactly line up with the NRA.”

In 1819 Daniel Webster from neighboring New Hampshire, and who represented Massachusetts in the Senate, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that “an unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy.”   Governor Romney appears to have ignored this wisdom and warning when it comes to burdening gun rights.   He also appointed mostly moderate and liberal judges in Massachusetts who modify or “moderate” the clear meaning of core constitutional protections like the Second Amendment.

As President Reagan famously said, “Trust, but verify.”  On this crucial issue, you can trust that I will do my utmost to protect Second Amendment rights because you can verify, that based on my record, I am a friend to gun owners nationwide and a staunch defender of the right to keep and to bear arms.  These are freedoms that we should cling to.

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

COMMENTS

  • APA Guy

    Obama hasn’t dropped 9 points (according to the latest CBS/NYT poll) because of his stance on the 2nd Amendment. He is sinking because gas prices are bankrupting American working families.

    Why can’t our candidates stay on a winning message JUST ONCE?

    I have rarely been this frustrated with GOP candidates as much as I am at this point in my life. We talk about birth control and guns when the economy and gas prices are what is on the minds of voters.

    • Viet71

      But after all, this is Redstate, not the Sunday talk shows.

    • westcoastpatriette

      Like the Second Amendment is really a top concern right now.

      And they wonder why we’re not excited.

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      It’s not surprising with B and C list candidates.

      • Scope

        and the increasing calls from Congressmen/women that Eric Holder step down, mainly because of his dishonesty and evasion of the Fast and Furious operation, is not an issue to be concerned with. Funny but I think I remember many here arguing that Fast and Furious was an attempt by the liberals and Obama to try attempting to restrict gun ownership. The Obama administration has been relegating the US Constitution to the dust bin, and has been moving us in the direction of citizens of the world via the UN apparatus, which Santorum rightfully points out. According to Panetta, we now have to get international approval before we can act to protect ourselves and our position as a sovereign exceptional nation, should we come under attack.

        Having heard the rumor before that the Republicans really can’t walk and chew gum at the same time is proven by these comments. God forbid any candidate talk about anything other than the economy and gas prices. It seems quite obvious that Santorum has been hitting on the table kitchen, bread and butter economic issues, or he wouldn’t keep gaining the votes of the blue collar workers who are suffering from Obamanomics. Thank God his vocabulary is a little more extensive, and he isn’t sitting back and allowing Obama and the liberals to run roughshod over every single one of our rights as American citizens. What the heck good will it do the nation to have large surpluses, but the Americans to be held down in government chains. If this was a post by Newt Gingrich he would be being held on a pedestal because of his great ideas and visions about our freedoms.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          I’d say the same thing if Newt wrote it. I’ve been critical here of all the candidates, including Newt. I’d say I’ve been one of the more objective posters on the Presidential race thus far.

        • http://thethinkingvoter.blogspot.com abierubin

          Not only do the people who yell when anything but the economy is mentioned prove that they are unable to -as you said- walk and chew gum the same time, they are also usually clueless to Santorum’s economic plans.

          Santorum speaks often of the steps he’ll take to remove unnecessary regulation which stifle the economy etc. He released an online lengthy video prior to Hawaii last week in which he spoke almost entirely of the economy.

          However, there’s a lot more at stake during this election than just the economy. If the economy makes a massive turnaround somehow until November, will these people vote for Obama? If gas becomes 2.50 will they vote for Obama?

          The economy is important but far from everything.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Who knew?

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            His plan is to eliminate taxes for companies that hire his union buddies. I almost forgot.

          • JSobieski

            It is often stated, but neve done.

            Kind of like when Romney suggests eliminating “redundant programs that don’t work”.

            Would it kill our candidates to actually build a specific platform to establish a mandate for action after November?

          • lineholder

            I made a comment months ago that Repubs needed something along the lines of a “vision, mission and action statement”…something that defines very clearly not only what they are making commitments to do going forward but also explains enough of it to the general public that they can get “buy in”, i.e. our support. At the time I made that comment, the person I was responding to essentially laughed at the idea.

            But it is badly needed. The lack of a cohesive platform is leaving us wide open for the left to read things into the intentions and motivations of Repubs that is far from being the truth. A greater number of people in the general public, particularly on our end of the political spectrum, have been making a genuine effort to become more informed not only on the issues but also on methodologies. If our so-called Repub leaders had a lick of sense they would be utilizing this in a positive way that could be to their benefit, our benefit, and our nation’s benefit.

            It hasn’t happened. And I’ve come to the conclusion that they just don’t want to make any type of commitments, because there is the chance they will be called on it if they don’t make an honest effort to follow through with it.

            So they just continue to allow the left to define the “rules of engagement” for this battle we’re facing, which is dumber than dirt in my opinion.

          • JSobieski

            Just having a candidate talk about the fraud of baseline budgeting. How things that are called “cuts” are actually increases in spending.

            Go on TV and talk about how the Republicans haven’t been trying to “cut” anything. Cause a stir. Have MSM zombies question you about it. EDUCATE the public to blunt a future D attack about “draconian spending cuts”.

            Lay the groundwork now. Or . . . talk about Snookie’s pregnancy.

            If our guys can’t discuss the problems of the country in a Presidential campaign, we have given up on self-government and we should close down sites like RS.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            (Mayan end of time). The election may not matter at all. LOL.

          • lineholder

            define not only the context but also the content of conversations blows my mind! OTOH, JSobieski, I think Repubs may be afraid that if they speak the honest truth, it could trigger an economic crisis.

            Did you see the CBO’s general budget report? Especially the “revenues” page of the Excel file? Note the increases in individual income taxes, social insurance taxes, corporate taxes, off-budget SS tax increases? It’s an ugly thing. It is such an ugly thing! I spent a few hours yesterday evening reviewing the General Budget report and the ACA (Obamacare) report. Talk about a mess! They have SOOO dug us into a hole, and they still want to treat us like “mushrooms”?

            Somebody better step up and start being straight with the American people and soon!

    • JimmyGee

      You need to do two things Mr. Santorum:
      1. Tell us YOUR plan for the economy, taxes, debt, jobs.
      2. Compare your plan to what Obummer has done, and what he will do IF he gets a second term!
      Don’t be afraid if the truth scares people because it will. And you will be called all sort of names by the MSM. But SOMEONE has to start telling people the truth. That is leadership!

    • littlehouse18

      I had not heard of it before Sen. Santorum mentioned it.

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

    You’ve successfully run away from your record after buying the Iowa caucus vote but that doesn’t make you anything but a pathetic populist in a cheap sweater. Huey P Long would love you.

    Excuse me, I have to go vomit.

  • Duke

    While I appreciate Mr. Santorum’s candor in regard to 2nd Amendment issues, I also agree that the majority of gun owners are very much like the majority of Conservatives – we’re holding our breath and hoping someone takes charge of the GOP presidential race and gives us the assurance they’ll beat Odumbo next November.

    So far the GOP candidates have allowed the liberal media to lead them around by the nose into issues like “women’s health.” The so-called debates are little more than lefty issue traps that mire the ankle-biters into issues that far removed from the real issues: Obonehead’s responsibility for the poor economy; his wasteful spending of our tax money on failed greenie boondogles that did nothing but funnel money to his buds, and his unconstitutional takeover of a private car company to funnel money to his UAW buds.

    Now we’ve got the candidates themselves steering off the road to the White House by going after fringe issues in forums where preaching to the choir is an understatement.

    • renl57

      …he wasn’t speaking to the lefty media.

      He was being interviewed by Caffeinated Thoughts, a conservative Christian blog.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBTLnO7FQM8

      Santorum doesn’t need to be baited by the liberal MSM into blurting out something on birth control.

      Santorum *likes* to talk about the alleged dangers of birth control leading to what he considers to be unnatural sex lives.

      Santorum even pledged that as President, he would lecture the nation on those alleged dangers.

      Imagine that: A prime-time televised Presidential address from the Oval Office about how birth control leads to “a license to do things in the sexual arena that are not how things are supposed to be.”

      • naraht

        If I were Obama,I’d *PAY* for the TV time for Rick Santorum to do exactly that during the campaign.

        • Duke

          This election isn’t about emotional socio-poltical issues, unless we are in it to lose our holier-than-thou asses! If it isn’t about the unqualified, overrated and irresponsible thugs now ruining our country we lose!

          As long as the election is about anything other than Oblowhard, he wins and we lose. Get used to it, tatoo it on your chest. If he gets a pass on answering for what he’s done, he wins.

  • macbookben

    n/t

    • JimmyGee

      It would be time to get the BBQ sauce out and fire up the grill….”Eattin’ good in the neighborhood!”

    • Scope

      If Romney ever posted here, doubtful as he knows how EE feels about his candidacy, he would find the same, if not bigger, onslaught of negative campaigning against him, just as Santorum is met with regularly when he posts. The difference is that Santorum is not afraid to enter the enemy camp of the few that support other candidates.

  • redmymind

    Looks like the de facto Rombots are at it again. LOL. But, the more they get mouthy and contentious with you here, the more they show their utter desperation and fragile ego (that desperate need to get in the “last word,” if you will). I’d say let’em go on and on with their petty diatribe. It sorta makes’em feel important being Romney’s unpaid lapdogs. Anyway, it’s good entertainment, don’t you think?

    • Scope

      that some here post as though they speak for the majority of voting Americans, and that it is only them that have the last say in what candidate should be supported or not. Out of the millions that have actually voted so far, I would bet that not even one percent of them read RS, nor rely on the comments of a few in making their choices.

  • steeltube

    for Santorum to say “When I take office, I will restore our gun rights

    • Scope

      pompous. Every one of them have talked about what they will do when they are president. Every single one of them.

    • JSobieski

      Yielding everything to the courts to lord over us like a super-legisature is hardly conservative. Courts are a last line of defense—not the first line of defense . . . for conservatives.

      • Scope

        at all whatsoever. I was making the observation that every one of the candidates, Republicans in this election season, and including Democrats in the 08 election season, have all talked as though there is no other choice of president other than them. You are trying too hard to find excuses Jsob.

        • JSobieski

          You are trying too hard to create disagreements. :)

        • JSobieski

          I was clearly being criticial of the “Supreme Court is King” position.

          Since that wasn’t your position, why assume I am arguing with you?

          • Scope

            it happens regularly.

          • aesthete

            in determining what the intent of a person’s postings are, and in responding in kind.

            Just a thought.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Well, we’ve heard enough of how you are the anti-Romney, need to stop Romney, etc., etc. Now we finally get to hear that you stand for something. Plus, one would have thought it is about stopping Mr. Obama- but I digress.

    Nonetheless, you can’t change the gun laws all by yourself as President. But it is a nice dream and populist appeal to us rubes.

    The main problem is, this election’s about jobs and the economy. Your plan? Maybe a national campaign against Right to Work?

    Sincerely,
    One of the thousands employed on Wall Street that you seem to believe are evil capitalists.

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Truth to power!

      Do you feel better now, having lashed out at that man?

      • Marcus_Traianus

        Ya know, because I am a kooky, conspiratorial, biased, unaccomplished, truth-to-power internet maven. Oh, and what I’ve mentioned above is of course patently false- right?

        If anything is “gutsy” it would be the patronizing, populist nature of this post. But then, that’s par for the course.

        And funny- right before Missouri and Louisiana primaries who coincidentally are probably still in the top 20 gun ownership states.

    • Scope

      have had no influence in pushing for liberal gun control measures? According to you, absolutely none, right? Fast and Furious was all just our imagination, correct? The president’s chosen Atty. Gen. had nothing to do with that, correct?

      • kelp

        Sure, Fast and Furious was a debacle but other than a few memos what gun control measures have been implemented or even attempted? Have there been any increased federal restrictions on gun ownership since Obama took office? It seems to me that if anything, they’ve only gotten looser.

    • JSobieski

      No fiscal matter can be changed by the President alone.

      Does that make a discussion about taxes inappropriate?
      Spending?

      Do we want an even more substantively trivial presidential campaign than what we already have?

    • aesthete

      A good AG, an official position in favor of gun rights, and good SC appointments go a long way, as do good (or at least, less bad) appointments in ATF, vetoing of federal gun regulations, revisiting additional gun charges when it comes to prosecution of federal crimes, and policy regarding firearms on military and federally-owned property.

      Santorum’s actually been pretty decent on gun rights — I loathe the man and his candidacy, but credit where credit is due.

  • helenaf

    You could says 4 years ago that Obama was coming for your guns but he hasn’t so this is a mute point.

    And Obama’s statemnt was very accurate.

    “You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      “So it

      • funwithknives

        As one of The Anointed, she’s got powers far beyond those of mere mortals.

        Want proof? She’s apparently clairvoyant and here it goes….
        Hey Helen, I’m thinking of a finger. I know, that you know which one it is. On three, ….One,Two …..
        {But now I’ll never find out, ’cause she went Buh-Bye. Darn!}

    • streiff

      Mute is what you are from this point out.

      • Scope

        Good one streiff.

        • msbaa641

          Joey: All right, Rach. The big question is, “does he like you?” All right? Because if he doesn’t like you, this is all a moo point.

          Rachel: Huh. A moo point?

          Joey: Yeah, it’s like a cow’s opinion. It just doesn’t matter. It’s moo.

  • explodinghead

    For those of you who immediately attack Santorums post, ask yourself if he wasn’t running against “your guy” (be it Romney or Gingrich or Paul) would you actually be attacking a diary that supports the Second Amendment?
    This President has undermined our First Amendment rights on an almost daily basis and Santorum is correct that what cannot be won at the ballot box will be negated by Obama appointed Federal judges in the courts. We need a nominee who will appoint strict constructionist judges. We cannot cede the Supreme Court to another Souter.
    This is one post about gun rights and I hope that he will post again on economic issues. But do not forget that it is the Constitution that enables us to be the most economically free nation.
    Disclaimer: I vote anti-Obama,anti-Romney in that order. Paul is a non-factor and I want one of the two remaining non-Romneys to win the nomination (but neither of them were my first or second choice).

    • Christine

      Many of us (myself included) are sick to death that no one will talk about the ECONOMY. Gas prices just jumped another 15 cents here and no end in sight. Lord knows what the true unemployment number is. But yet Rick Santorum has a golden opportunity to speak to a Conservative crowd about what he stands for, and he chooses GUNS?????

      I don’t give a flying flip at this moment who wins. All three of the frontrunners are baggage at this point. What I do want is for them to start talking ECONOMY. Refuse questions on stupid topics that don’t have relevance to November 2012 (tell em to ask you again in January 2013). Talk about the damage that has been done to the USA with the stimulus, Obamacare, etc.

      I’m sick of this. Even if you care deeply about the 2nd amendment, the 10th amendment, birth control, abortion or any of the hundreds of legitimate political topics, the fact is that the ECONOMY is what will will the day for the GOP. HARP ON IT FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

    • lynnotting

      Sen. Santorum, an article discussing how you will defend the first amendment and win the argument with general electorate against this administration would have been a better topic. Although, this is not about the economy, it will be an issue in the general election.

  • honoraryintern

    First, congrats Senator. You and the team’s performance in Newt country were moments to savor and be proud of. Counters at RCP showed you ahead start to finish. Still haven’t silenced the Mitt Stream Media but your workman like approach will get you there.

    On to your point. Mitt is no conservative. Seems a large part of the Republican party has forgotten the first part of the maxim, ‘vote for the most conservative candidate, that can win’. Mitt’s newly minted ‘conservative’ credentials were rusting in the face of the southern humidity.

    At the campaign event in MS he said he wanted to go hunting, but, wasn’t sure which end…. Help us. Silver earplugs. That’s the kind of people that get other people hurt and dogs killed. Not a chance in the world any real hunter would take him out.

    We will have a photo op on a paid plantation, Mitt holding the right end. The day will have cost $30k and he will look puppy dogish and ask, ‘what’s wrong?’

    I’m proud to support someone the knows ‘the right end’!

    • redmymind

      n/t

  • quill67

    Senator Santorum,

    You were on a roll talking about health care and manufacturing. Keep at it.

    Introduce non-controversial free market health care proposals to emphasize the difference between you and Romney (and Obama) I would like to see 90% all medical transcations not involve an insurance company or government agency. It is a worthwhile goal. Less than 10% of insurance claims are so signifcant (catastrophic) that they could not be handled by the indiviudal (using their own health savings accounts that you helped create!) Imagine going into a doctor’s office and seeing more doctors/nurses than claims specialists.

    Emphasize your Made in America plan.

    Regardless what is happening with jobs, Americans are concerned about losing our ability to produce. As Americans it is not just the job, it is the spirit of creating—Americans build things and innovate. It is part of what makes Americans Americans.

  • quill67

    Senator Santorum,

    You were on a roll talking about health care and manufacturing. Keep at it.

    Introduce non-controversial free market health care proposals to emphasize the difference between you and Romney (and Obama) I would like to see 90% all medical transcations not involve an insurance company or government agency. It is a worthwhile goal. Less than 10% of insurance claims are so signifcant (catastrophic) that they could not be handled by the indiviudal (using their own health savings accounts that you helped create!) Imagine going into a doctor

    • acat

      is conservative while favoring one company isn’t.

      Mew

      • vastrightwingconspiracy

        …cat. It’s conservative only because the Senator says it is.

        We conservatives are just supposed to lap it up like dogs because he’s pro-life, anti-contraceptive and really, really hates Romneycare,

      • honoraryintern

        How about all our manufacturing jobs walking away because ‘made in the USA’ has a 20% tax bracket disadvantage to the rest of the world. The good ole USA charges more. Do you want jobs to stay here?

        You knew that answer without me saying. We can all work towards a 15% across the board corp tax rate. Would that moderate the frustration?

      • quill67

        Acat, what I’ve described is my understanding of what Santorum is proposing. I am simply providing some of the economic insight into why his plan makes sense. There are two economic issues here that are well known in economics:

        1) Misallocation of resources–this is your concern when you say “favoring one sector of the economy (over another)”

        2) Tax distortions. Taxes change peoples behavior. However, every market/firm/industry is harmed to different degrees by high taxes. Taxes on some markets may cause little change in the behavior of those markets. The result is few lost jobs, little output lost, and consumers harmed very little. In these markets, the government obtains the revenue it seeks to collect with little harm to the economy.

        However, not every market is so unaffected. Some markets are very sensitive to tax policy and taxes in these markets can cause significant job losses (or transfer of jobs/firms/industries to other locations)

        For example, one city whose travel market is made up mostly of business people flying for business meetings might find that it is able to collect significant revenue with little damage by taxing air travel. While another city’s travel market might be made up mostly of people traveling for pleasure. A tax on airline travel in the pleasure seeking travel market might cause serious reductions in air travel by budget conscious vacationers— causing layoffs, reduced airline travel, and reduced happiness among city residents.

        In the latter case, the city might choose to reduce or even eliminate taxes on air travel–not to pick winners or losers but simply recognizing that in their particular market, taxing airfare is a poor method of collecting tax revenue.

        Santorum is simply arguing that manufacturing is an industry that is sensitive to high corporate tax rates–thus causing firms to relocate outside the country.

        Here is my earlier post which explains the economics behind Santorum’s thinking.

        Re-industrialization 101: “Get Government Out of the Way”

        Allowing people to keep more of what they earn is a fundamental principle of conservatives. Manufacturing is a very competitive business. High taxation can cause companies to leave the country unlike other types of businesses. So simply allowing them to keep more of what they earn will promote the re-industrialization. From an economic viewpoint goods that are cheaper to produce, ship and deliver here in the US are instead being produced overseas because of our high taxation and paperwork intensive/ time consuming EPA regulations. This is not subsidizing or preventing competition like others have proposed. This is getting government out of the way.

        This is sensible tax policy. The same way I support Gingrich supporting lower taxes on capital gain (some think this is unfair) but it is smart economic policy to encourage people to invest in the creation of new businesses. Santorum simply applies this logic to the manufacturing business. Not a subside..simply a recognition that our economic performance might be enhanced.

        Do I know how many jobs will come from this? No. But I know many companies have been looking to locate here in the US and I know there are 7 million more people not working today than 4 years ago that could be utilized by companies to produce goods. If they can do so profitably, companies will come. In fact, the more profitable they are, the more likely they are to come. Therefore, it is likely that these will be high paying jobs. Because while many people think of industry as low skill, this is not true. As you correctly point out, many manufacturing jobs are now done with more automation and these require very high skill / high wage workers.

  • 10ab

    Thank you for reminding me the reasons I will NEVER vote for you!
    Jeez…gun rughts really? I have lost no sleep over that hot bed issue…and contraception really? You are a divisive right wing pandering candidate…more SUBSTANCE needed!!!!

    • vastrightwingconspiracy

      …hold my breath for more substance from the Senator.

      There isn’t any.

      He’s a social conservative who knows what he believes and wants to push his beliefs on everyone else. Apparently he believes the economy will be fixed by “fixing” the culture. Why else would he divert to social issues all the time?

  • vastrightwingconspiracy

    …irrelevant red-meat to celebrate the primary victories yesterday.

    Ugh. Can this guy stand success?

    • generica

      A ‘Jobs and Economy’ message is a slam dunk on a six-foot rim. Guns, gays and Planned Parenthood is an unnecessarily complicated bank shot from half-court.

      Romney should talk about fixing Obama’s economic mess. Every single day, every single speech, he should make his selling point how he has a lifetime of experience cleaning up other people’s mistakes and making the tough decisions. Instead he’s easily distracted into responding to attacks and the daily pander and we forget why he had any appeal in the first place.

      Santorum should talk about the people affected by the paralyzed economy. He’s a populist without any popular messages. Here’s an easy one: government involvement in industry is a stifling, inefficient, counter-productive attempt to grow the economy and we’d all be better off if the federal govt was less arrogant about its ability to change lives. If he could refrain from wandering off and talking about issues where he feels he has more credibility he could hurt Obama’s chances, even if a comeback in the delegates for him is unlikely.

      • vastrightwingconspiracy

        …that’s why he lost AL and MS.

        He could pander like the Senator, but he focuses on the economy.

        Not taking away the victories from the Senator because he did well last night. That being said, it’s 2 states out of 50.

        Big picture.

  • joecollins

    Welcome to RedState. I applaud your reach-out to the conservative base here at RedState and look forward to other diaries in the near future.

    I want to hear more from you. I want to hear about energy independence, jobs, border security, the war on terrorism, the failed housing market (Fannie/Freddie), Supreme Court justice selections, paying down our debt, and balancing our budget. Keep ‘em coming.

    I am considering switching from supporting Newt to supporting you. So, tell me more . . .

    • generica

      nt

    • vastrightwingconspiracy

      …red meat around here regularly.

      If you want a candidate to talk about those things, you are barking up the wrong tree, amigo.

  • Ann2012

    http://www.redstate.com/rjsantorum/

    Iran at a Crossroads Thursday, January 19th at 10:02AM EDT

    Now is Not the Time for

  • aesthete
    • aesthete

      I really do, but in candor? Gun rights right now are well-defended both in Congress and by the NRA and others. Economic rights? Not so much. Unfortunately, while you were not among those who attempted to dismantle our rights to self-defense (and for that I applaud you), you were definitely among the worst offenders in the Republican party in charting a course away from prudent fiscal policy and small government, and towards the exponential growth of the federal government in size and scope during the Bush administration.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    You’re preaching to the choir here about the 2nd Amendment.

    Suggestion: a bit more brevity, a little more than a soundbite but not a dissertation*, more to the point and more relevant to things that are actual election issues will gain you more traction here.

    How about hitting these topics:

    Economy – how will you make life better for business so they can hire more and invest with less worry than under the O.

    Energy – how will you fundamentally change the US energy policy that currently is punishing anything they can under the fraud of global warming**…

    Thanks.

    *link to dissertations, those who want all the details will go read them, the rest will go off the short version.

    **but leave the fraud part of global warming as a separate topic for another day.

  • Ned Reck

    Obviously… are a bunch of elitist.

    If it does not concern them… they don’t give a damn.

    Unlike the over-jerkers who posted above… I suspect that this is not Mr. Santorum’s last post regarding his foundational plan. But you have to start somewhere.

    You must shore up the foundation of:
    1st Amendment rights
    2nd Amendment rights
    etc.

    Is this so hard… or all of you so ignorant of the fundamental foundation of this country’s founding… that all you care about is your mental concept of what is important?

    You all better go back and review… everything you said above… will one day be against…

    OBAMALAW.

    You self-righteous… ignorant retches who posted above… against this good man.

    (Let me give you a hint… I am in the right. And all of you Mitt folks… are gonna suck eggs… )

    Ned

    • vastrightwingconspiracy

      …call people “self-righteous” from atop your soap-box.

      Please define “conservative.”

      • Ned Reck

        You ought to love it….

        Ned

      • Ned Reck

        I love ya, Pal…

        You mean well. But… ya know… McCain… Dole…

        Do you want to keep feedin’ quarters into a losin’ machine?

        Ned

  • Ned Reck

    Please show rhe rest of us… all of Mitt’s posts on this forum… all of you Mitt-sle-toe-suckers.

    Seein’ as how conservative he is… I want to read ALL of those Reaganest-posts.

    But… what? This is SUPPOSED to be a “conservative” site… “redstate”? Am I missing something?

    Am I expecting too much from this site?

    Good grief… please help me out here.

    Ned

  • http://nobletimes.com Franklin Brown

    … Who needs Democrats?

    Where are the posts from all of the other candidates? I’d like to leave snarky, sarcastic remarks on Ron Paul’s blog.