« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Past Performance Indicates Future Results

Mitt Romney highlights his business experience in the private sector but tries to hide his economic record in the public sector. He was a failed one-term Governor of Massachusetts, and by any objective measure, he would receive an F for his faulty fiscal stewardship there. Indeed, his economic record would not put him in the ring as a featherweight — let alone a lightweight — in any contest.

As heavyweight champ Joe Lewis once said, “He can run, but he can’t hide.”  And in Mitt Romney’s case, past performance really does indicate future results. Here’s a start.

  • D in Spending when graded against other governors according to the 2005 Fiscal Policy Report Card produced by the non-partisan Cato Institute.
  • F in Job Creation as the Massachusetts state economy ground to a halt with Romney as its steward and ranked 47th out of 50 states.
  • F in Entitlements and Growing Government as Romney created a brand new entitlement (RomneyCare) and then mandated that all individuals purchase health insurance and all employers with 11 or more employees provide it.
  • F in Health Insurance Costs as, according to Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston, state health expenditures increased by $414 million, private health insurance costs increased by $4.311 billion, federal Medicaid for Massachusetts increased by $2.418 billion, and Medicare expenditures increased by $1.426 billion for a total increase of $8.569 billion in RomneyCare’s first 5 years.
  • F on Cap and Trade as he appointed litigation-happy environmentalists to key government jobs, flip-flopped on cap and trade, flip-flopped on carbon taxes, and made the following promise about a coal-fired plant:  “I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people, and that plant, that plant kills people.”
  • F on Wall Street Bailouts as he supported giving taxpayers the Wall Street bailout tab –even though they already paid dearly for the abuses and excesses with their retirement savings losses.
  • F for Raising Taxes as he increased fees and taxes by over $740 million in his only term as governor.

  • While Mitt Romney could legitimately argue that he should get an A for consistency, his record of economic irresponsibility clearly shows he cannot legitimately argue that he can fix the economy.

    As governor of Massachusetts, Romney supported major regulatory expansions in the healthcare environment almost identical to Obama’s unconstitutional overreach.

    Romney’s inability to advance economic freedom while Governor of Massachusetts gives little comfort that he will do so as President of the United States.

    However, I understand that healthy families and economic freedom go hand in hand, and each reinforces the other.  High taxes and massive overregulation hamper economic freedom.  Only Washington insiders and crony capitalists benefit from those policies.  That’s why as President, from day one I will focus on giving American families the opportunity to thrive in a vibrant economy.

    Each element of my vision is tied together by a focus on economic freedom.  Here are 5 of its pillars:

  • Help working families — don’t punish them — through the tax code:  I’ll immediately work with Congress to eliminate the marriage tax penalty and triple the personal deduction for children.  I’ll also reduce and simplify the system with just two marginal income tax rates of 10% and 28%.
  • Unleash America’s energy:  I’ll immediately approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.  It will provide Americans with thousands of truly shovel-ready jobs and transport ethical oil from our Canadian friends.  An American President should never again bow before Middle East interests.  I will also immediately rescind all Obama EPA regulations that burden the economy by more than $100 million per year.
  • Reinvigorate America’s competitiveness: I will eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturing activity and halve it to a flat rate of 17.5% for all others.  I will also purge the crony capitalists in Washington and ensure that every American plays on a level economic field.  Our Founding Fathers understood that markets should reward those who actually add value to society, not those who gain through political favoritism and back-room deals.  Our Republic depends on a fair market system where everyone has equal footing.
  • Get spending under control:  For the past 3 years, American families have been working hard and living with their means.  Is it too much to expect Washington to do the same?   I will balance the budget in my first term.  My budgets will spend less each year than prior years, and I’ll reduce the non-defense-related federal work force by at least10%.  I will also call on Congress to pass a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.
  • Repeal and replace ObamaCare:  I’ll submit legislation to repeal ObamaCare, and on day one issue an executive order ending related regulatory obligations on the states which was inspired by the freedom offending and health care cost raising RomneyCare.  Replacing ObamaCare with the previous system will not suffice.  As the father of a large family, I know the trials and tribulations so many undergo when a loved one enters the medical system.  I will work with all stakeholders to produce a healthcare system that prioritizes the patient, not the bureaucrats and the moneyed interests behind them.
  • America’s greatest days can be ahead —  if we work together to create an economic system where equal opportunity is provided for all, where everyone’s children can surpass their parents, and where traditional values are rewarded.

    We only need the courage to remain true to our Constitution and the principles of freedom and unleash the innovation and potential of the American people.

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

    Get Alerts

    COMMENTS

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

      Hell will freeze over before I vote for you in a primary election. And I’ll likely vomit before and after if forced to do so in a general.

      • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

        …the compilation of a problematic/arrogant record provided by myself and Guzzardi:

        http://www.redstate.com/rsklaroff/2012/02/07/santorum-redux/

        Then recall some of his more absurd quotes [Puerto Rico lingo-issue, prioritized attack on porn] and ask yourself whether, after he loses again in Illinois, The Newt can rise again [as the anti-Romney]!

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          …as Steele [the unmasked RINO] defends his opposition to Toomey [and support for Specter] as he “takes one for the team” [consistently].

          This tells us all we need to hear, namely, that they want to keep propping-up an inferior candidate for as long as possible [typical SCUM..."So-Called Unbiased-Media"...a coinage by Flagstaff] before they pirouette pro-Romney, and then pro-BHO.

          Only The Newt can go nose-to-nose with BHO!

      • geotan

        Sorry Rick. You’re a hypocrite. You endorsed Mitt in 2008 even though you tell us he is so terrible now and a failed Governor. Why did you endorse a failed Governor? Of course, you didn’t believe he was a failed Governor in 2008. What changed Rick? Oh, I know, you are desperate to be VP so you are needling Romney into a Brokered Convention which isn’t going to happen. You are also a Brutus back stabber who is trying to destroy the likely nominee with all your hyperbole which could be used by Obama in the general election. Who’s the desperate candidate Rick? Look in the mirror. I started off this primary with respect for you even though you criticized Romney on his healthcare and flips. But I have lost my admiration for you because of your hyperbole and hypocrisy. Character traits that so called Evangelicals should be looking at very closely as sins.

        • littlehouse18

          ..

          • geotan

            Please look up the defintion of hyperbole. Santorum is a proven hypocrite and backstabber because he supported Mitt Romney in 08 even though he supposedly thinks he is now a terrible Governor. I understand that he has to go after Romney but he should stick to the legitimate issues and stop whining that he doesn’t raise enough money, that Mitt keeps attacking etc.

      • MissouriConservative

        Let’s see, a candidate who goes down rabbit holes like English required for Puerto Rico and ticks off virtually an entire electorate. A candidate who goes after contraception. I get that you do not believe in it, but in accordance with Kennedy’s speech on religion, I do not want you pushing the Vatican’s teachings on me. A candidate that was named one of the most corrupt in Congress, behind Tom Delay and then his home state fired him with the worst defeat as an incumbent Senator in US history(lost by 18). If these are indicative, Obama will not only eat you alive, but he is probably trying to decide on a red or white wine.

        • texastaxpayer

          settle for a coke. I mean honestly Romney doesn’t even rate a meal to the great and powerful O. Everything you can say about Rick can be said of Romney only Romney still has Romneycare, utter failure leading a government and a list of lies and flip flops a mile long to serve as dessert.

          • garfieldjl

            Obama can go after Bain Capital all day and not have to worry about it backfiring. Romney can’t attack Obama on Obamacare.

            Santorum is harder for Obama to go after, because if he pushes too hard it plays into the idea that Obama is somehow anti-Christian (I believe he actually is anti-Christian but I’m talking public perception). Santorum has a clear shot to hit Obama over the head with Obamacare.

            That alone makes Santorum harder for Obama to face than Romney.

            Santorum’s novice mistakes where he keeps falling into the traps set by the media, is why I think he can’t beat Obama.

            • lindafrances

              Newt just handed Romney the win by hitting Rick instead of mitt. In louisiana if you get 25%, you take all delegates. Rick was there, mitt not far behind. If newt is successful, Romney will edge out Rick. Newt has sold out conservatives. He has joined the rinos. For what? Vp or sec of Ed….thanks a lot newt. I always said I won’t vote for Romney, but will vote Newt or Rick. Now if Rick doesn’t make it, I’m going third party or writing in a candidate. I’m tired of the GOP and their powerful friends controlling our nominating process. We always end up with a leftie and then always lose. I wondering if they are working for Obama.

    • Xasteius

      1) You use Romney’s past as a reason not to vote for him (disclaimer: I do not support Romney). You neglect to mention your votes for

      a) Allowing states to impose health care mandates that are stricter than proposed new Federal mandates, but not weaker.
      b) Allowing Federal mental health parity mandates in health insurance.
      c) against allowing consumers the option to purchase a plan outside the parity mandate.

      As far as taxes:

      Voted against a flat tax.
      Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for Medicare prescription drugs
      Voted to increase tobacco taxes to fund health insurance subsidies for small businesses.
      Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an $8 billion increase in child healh insurance.
      Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an increase in NIH funding.
      Voted twice for internet taxes.
      Voted to allow gas tax revenues to be used to subsidize Amtrak.
      Voted to strike marriage penalty tax relief and instead provide fines on tobacco companies.
      Voted against repealing the Clinton 4.3 cent gas tax increase.
      Voted to increase taxes by $2.3 billion to pay for an Amtrak trust fund.
      Voted to allow welfare to a minor who had a child out of wedlock and who resided with an adult who was on welfare within the previous two years.
      Voted to increase taxes by $9.4 billion to pay for a $9.4 billion increase in student loans.
      Voted to say that AMT patch is more important than capital gains and dividend relief.

      The above have been complied by Erick Erickson (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/) ,and these are a short list.

      2)

      I will eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturing activity and halve it to a flat rate of 17.5% for all others…..Our Republic depends on a fair market system where everyone has equal footing.

      Aren’t these 2 statements contradictory?

      3) Isn’t does regulating internet porn the same type of regulatory nonsense that Obama has imposed on us? I’m not in favor of it, I don’t look at it, but shouldn’t that be a local / personal moral issue?

      • littlehouse18

        Some in the list of EE’s complaints seem like petty items.

        In #2, Santorum feels that the manufacturers have been hit extra hard by foreign competition and regulation. He feels they have additional, externally driven struggles that other sectors (for example, retail) do not, and therefore do not have equal footing. I’m still contemplating this argument.

        #3. He just wants to enforce the laws that are already on the books. As I learned from a friend of mine, certain types of porn can cause profoundly negative psychological consequences.

        Here is his position from his website:

        “America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography. A wealth of research is now available demonstrating that pornography causes profound brain changes in both children and adults, resulting in widespread negative consequences. Addiction to pornography is now common for adults and even for some children. The average age of first exposure to hard-core, Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking. ….Current federal

        • Dave_A

          Pres Bush, like Santorum, was a social conservative – and his nominees in Justice and other areas did crack down on obscenity…

          There was never an attempt to ban porn, nor to ‘censor the internet’ wholesale – there were prosecutions of some rather extreme producers (one character who’s trade name was ‘Max Hardcore’ for example – no, I’ve never watched any of his ‘work’) based on existing obscenity legislation & precedent…. More recently, the same tactics have been used by state authorities to prosecute the producer of the ‘Pedophile’s Handbook’….

          In the end, it’s campaign-friendly enforcement action – no new legislation needs to be passed, no one actually loses access to ‘run-of-the-mill’ porn, and the desires of a specific constituency are met by the prosecution of pervasive of some universally offensive & obscene material… Playing the politics game, nothing more nothing less…

          • littlehouse18

            But, despite the media, it’s not the overriding focus of his campaign. No matter what he talks about, the only things that get reported are his comments on social issues (which are important, imho). If he said nothing on social issues, he probably wouldn’t get much coverage from ‘Izvestia’.

            • Dave_A

              Same for Bush & Ashcroft…. They both sincerely believed their appointees were doing the right thing…

              And it works – it rallies the religious right, while at the same time no one but the most radical liberals & libertarians sheds a tear for the likes of ‘Max Hardcore’ & his fellow travelers…

              Personally, I don’t see a problem with it – there need to be some edges to the ‘sandbox’, and reminding folks that ‘art’ and ‘expression’ don’t cover certain realms of abusive content is a valid role for government…. And to get out of the domain of ‘Supreme Court protected’ content, you have to be pretty extreme & abusive these days…

            • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

              …to apply Clinton’s [in]famous aphorism, “It’s the economy, stupid!”

              He keeps turning-off Indies with such quotes, and they cannot be relegated to the “quibbles” category.

            • acat

              Don’t give the media another sound bite to report, nothing for the media to go after him on .. let’s face it, an anchor sitting at a desk reading a web site is both *boring* television, and allows the audience to go look for themselves, eh?

              Santorum hasn’t done this. He gets a question, he answers it, vicious cycle.

              Contrast this with how Perry handled attempts to paint him with the same brush following the Texas prayer meeting just before the campaign launch. He didn’t deny anything, he politely turned the conversation back to the issues.

              Mew

            • Finrod

              He’s incapable of not talking about them when asked about them, which is why he’s exactly the wrong candidate to put the focus on Obama wrecking the economy and foisting ObamaCare on us all.

      • Car54

        If past performance predicts future results, that should mean that Santorum would lose to Obama by a truly historic margin.

        Rick seems to have selective memory when it comes to his performance in previous races. It’s as if his loss to Casey never happened.

      • Ventura Capitalist

        Show’s over. Get off the stage. Your 15 minutes are up.

      • MissouriConservative

        It would be the same as Obama picking winners and losers. The tax breaks to business need to be across the board to compete effectively in a world market. Stop picking winners and losers.

    • civil truth

      …but RedState is not another campaign stop. We know your campaign positions; reiterating campaign talking points is not going to help further in shaping our candidate preferences.

      The other observation I would make is that you seem to have a misunderstanding about blog sites, in that you evidently see them as a one-way communication. In actuality, a sites such as RedState is meant to be a community whose members interact with each other through comments as well as through their posts.

      It would be good if you could address some of the concerns that folks have raised here vis a vis your previous postings here specifically in comments or in a responsive post.

      Thanks for stopping by.

      • littlehouse18

        I don’t recall Mr. Perry, for example, sending in responses. So singling out Santorum for this is unfair. And do any of them have the time to hash out the issues with us, to monitor our postings?

        I still want to hear what these people have to say. And from some of the posts, it’s clear plenty of readers, especially newer ones, do not know Santorum’s positions. Why would we want to quash information? Why don’t you want him on here? Would the same hold for Romney, Gingrich, or Paul?

        That said, I wish he would respond, especially when ‘facts’ are shaded, to clarify them.

        • civil truth

          I wasn’t trying to quash the Senator from posting at RedState. He’s free to post what he wishes, just like anyone here.

          And it is a positive in my book that he chooses to consider us at RedState worth the effort to post something here.

          Rather I was trying to be helpful and educational in explaining that blogs like RedState are different than just places to send out campaign statements – but places to interact with each other. Most politicians don’t understand the new media.

          And so I was seeking to explain to him that RedState is meant for conversations, not monologues on his part. He might benefit too from the questioning.

          • carolina

            then got Santorum’s ‘approval’ – then the staffer posted it. I can assure you that Santorum is not doing this himself.
            Senator’s always have staff write everything for them. I know, because I have written position papers for a Senator myself, not to mention witness the rest of the staff write speeches and articles that were all published under the Senator’s name. That is SOP for all of the Senators.

          • carolina

            then got Santorum’s ‘approval’ – then the staffer posted it. I can assure you that Santorum is not doing this himself.
            Senator’s always have staff write everything for them. I know, because I have written position papers for a Senator myself, not to mention witness the rest of the staff write speeches and articles that were all published under the Senator’s name. That is SOP for all of the Senators.

            • littlehouse18

              Do you just write from what you know of the Senator, or do you ask him for his ideas first?

            • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

              …then the same campaign-staffer should handle the reaction.

              We know that his personnel monitor RedState and, thus, that they now have been aggressively invited to weigh-in on the reaction to his campaign-speech, herein.

          • littlehouse18

            nt

        • gracie

          on at least one diary if not two.

          But this is not the time to be talking about Perry althought I could give more and even personal examples (ask LA Patriette.)

          Whether these diaries are written by staffers or not they would be well advised to take the questions back to the Senator for discussion of where the base is at. We all have a lot of questions regarding specific issues as we are deciding who to for vote. So I totally agree with civil truth; it is an opportunity for important discourse!.

          In my view the Senator’s discussion of internet porn and contraception practices clouds the bigger issues of iobs, spending and Obamacare Although I would certainly make an exception re: the Obama administration’s requiring hosptals and doctors to perform abortion and give contraception…another issue entirely! I read they double downed on this on Friday.

          If we want to win this election we should not give the other side fodder for keeping us from making other much more salient points!

          BTW, tripling the child deduction?? I am a parent but I disagree with this. But yes, thanks for stopping by.

          • littlehouse18

            that if he did not give the other side fodder, that he would get much less coverage. Santorum took principled stands for life as a Senator and thus committed the unpardonable sin in the eyes of the media. So they will ignore all his other positions, which he has been speaking of a lot on the campaign trail.

            Santorum is the only candidate I trust to repeal Obamacare and prevent similar legislation. He knows from personal experience what that horrible bill means. If Romney gets the nod, I hope Rick gets VP or has a prominent place in the administration, because he is one of the few politicians that will hold Romney to his pledge. Rick will not be a ‘team-player’ when it comes to any sort of Obamacare-lite. If Romney does not do that, I will not trust him with healthcare.

            • gracie

              And I honestly don’t get it. Why give people sensational fodder instead of real answers to real questions? There is such a thing as getting known for the wrong things such that that is all anyone ever talks about.

              I also have no idea why you think Santorum can control Romney! I also fear Romney, especially on Obamacare! But I think he will do exactly as he pleases no matter what his VP says.

              Pesonally I haven’t figured out what I think of Santorum. I do not like his tax plan and otherwise do not know enough about him. But I certainly respect your decision to support the man you trust. I will vote fro him in the general and maybe in the Primary…depending on who the non Romney is in my state.

        • renl57

          All of Santorum’s proposals he listed here are just a regurgitation of the same material in the Issues section on his campaign website. Nothing new at all.

          A candidate should come to a major blog like RedState as a kind of Internet “town meeting.” He should be willing to respond to feedback from diarists and posters there.

          We don’t need canned talking-points from Santorum or any other candidate. If we’re Internet-savvy enough to participate on RedState.com, we’re also Internet-savvy enough to go to Santorum’s website and Google and find out what his positions on issues are.

    • Stricia

      More than once I have seen candidates post a diary and a comment maker was disrespectful and immediately banned for that behavior. And here, not a peep.

      • http://MichaelHarrington.org Michael Harrington

        As a Candidate myself if that was the tone of my opponents I would think they were being very fair.

        This is directed conversations based on facts, not obscene opinions.

        The question I have for you is… why do you see this as hateful, hurtful, untruthful, bigoted, and/or trolling? I see none of that here.

      • demsaresatanic

        what do lying cowards know about it.

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

        off as a conservative of any strip is anything but disrespectful.

        • Finrod

          .

      • acat

        The only time I’ve seen anything similar here is when there’s a violation of posting rules, not just pointing out the obvious.

        Mew

      • littlehouse18

        there certainly is a lot of hostility and rather sickening language being bandied about now, with nothing substantive added to the debate.

        I think the definition of “respectful” has changed and I missed the notice.

        I don’t know if “Be respectful, or be banned. No Profanity” has meaning anymore.

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          …and replete with facts.

          Therefore, rather than functioning as human-shields, perhaps you should encourage your candidate to reply [@ stricia & littlehouse].

          • littlehouse18

            The first one left such a lovely image in my mind …. can you honestly call that presenting facts? At least some of his subsequent posts do not leave me ill.

            I would love it if my selected candidate would reply! Then he could counter some of these assertions.

            How is it that if I argue for my preferred candidate, Santorum, that I am a human shield. Only those who support Newt or Romney are objective, I suppose. And do those candidates ever post here? Perhaps, but I’ve not seen it. Do they reply to critiques? I don’t know, but I haven’t seen that either. It cannot be much, because I peruse this site fairly well, and I think something like that would stick in my memory. It’s a false argument to say the Santorum campaign needs to reply but not hold the others to the same standard.

            By the way, I share a mutual friend with Santorum, and he is such a good man. He deserves to be addressed with respect in addition to *constructive* criticism. There is plenty of this here, but it’s the invective to which I object.

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

              It’s nice that he’s a “good man”. I believe he probably is. And I hope after the election he moves into your neighborhood. He’s just totally unqualified to be President – just as the current occupant of the WH is, and for the same reasons – and he’s lying about being a conservative, hoping that people will hate Mitt so much they’ll ignore the facts.

            • littlehouse18

              Debate his positions all you want, just please be civil.

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

              Take it up with Erick, take it up with the guys at Powerline (who certainly are not rabid right wingers). Santorum is a big-government worshiper, cut from the same bolt of cloth as Obama, they just want to control different things with the government.

            • acat

              but very, very few I’d want to rule over me.

              Mew

            • littlehouse18

              They’re supposed to serve. “We the People” are supposed to be self-governing. I know you know this, I’m just sayin…

              As far as being a good guy, it goes without saying that this should be a necessary, but far from sufficient, qualification for the office.
              All I’m asking for is civility.

            • acat

              where we, in effect, elect a king every four years.

              The chief executive does rule; not in a “his word is law” way, although executive orders come darn close to exactly that… This is because ruling is *necessary* in the course of human events. The buck has to stop somewhere.

              It’d be great if We The People were able to individually self-govern, but .. the founding fathers didn’t have that illusion. They knew men for what we are, and designed a system of government that would limit how much damage any one duly elected king could cause.

              As for civility, I would ask whether Newt Gingrich’s response to this diary is uncivil.

              Mew

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

              “How is it that if I argue for my preferred candidate, Santorum, that I am a human shield. Only those who support Newt or Romney are objective, I suppose.”

              I’m not surprised you’d pull a victim routine like that, cheap as it is. Romney posters routinely get ripped to shreds and Newt’s don’t fare particularly well either. Frankly, Newt supporters tend to make out better then the others ONLY because they acknowledge Newt’s got some warts, but he also happen to be the only one of the three who actually can point to conservative accomplishments that HE brought about when he was an elected official.

              With respect to Santorum replying and the others not being held to the same standard, if they responded in the same manner they’d get treated exactly the same. The point is, they don’t. Newt and Romney can address these issues as legitimate reasons to downsize government or, in the case of porn, something that can be looked at. Santorum addresses them as THE issue, and positions himself as the guy who is going to restore the moral underpinnings of the nation.

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

          He ws absolutely right on with his well documented description of Santorum as a big-government pro-lifer. Listening to Santorum talk about how he’s a conservative is the equivalent of listening to Ron Paul talk about how he’s not a bigot and racist.

    • jamesm

      Him and his Pac have spent $26 per vote. But of course he won’t post here.

    • aesthete

      but not quite. What we need to do is stop using the tax code to further policymakers’ ends. Why should we triple the child tax credit? Is there any logical reason to do so related to incentives, or is this just another way for government to pick winners (those with children over single people).

      Additionally, while you say that you will “purge the crony capitalists in Washington and ensure that every American plays on a level economic field”, your tax plan does just the opposite, by encouraging companies to get on the right side of the manufacturing/non-manufacturing divide that you would establish.

      The assertion that you will “balance the budget” within a year is sheer fantasy. Of the comprehensive plans out there, none of them balances the budget in a single year. You have already ruled out tax increases and contended that you will dramatically increase military spending — there is no chance that your completed budget plan (at this point it is not even a proposal) will be more radical than Ron Paul’s (which balances the budget in three years).

      “America

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

        and even the Tea Party Senators plan that came out recently takes five years. Of course it has the benefit of a significant level of detail, of which the Senator is bereft.

        I’d be more than a tad interested in just which departments the Senator is planning on shutting down. Education? Energy? Commerce? Oh, and how about those entitlement thingys? The TP Senators proposal actually details those things.

        I guess the Senator just figures we’re not smart enough to understand, after all there were some fools defending his tax stupidity.

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          [as per yesterday's interview], but Santorum’s stance is unknown [by me].

          • Ausonius

            And in fact, the bureaucracy of the Federal government grew by c. 250,000 between 1980 and 1988.

            Reagan campaigned on cutting government, and ended up compromising that he at least cut the rate of growth of government.

            • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

              …but I believe he has averred on his radio-show that it can be accomplished.

            • Ausonius

              can indeed be accomplished, but only under certain conditions.

              You would need a Conservative (not a Republican) Congress with large majorities, and a Conservative president (e.g. somebody other than the potential nominees out there now).

              Education, Energy, Veterans Affairs, and several others can be either eliminated entirely (Education) or replaced with much smaller levels of bureaucrats as subsidiaries in other departments (Energy, Veterans Affairs).

        • ghostship

          Here’s a video of Santorum being interviewed in 2008 saying that republicans have to their credit moved away from the idea of smaller government.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-WezrKqUBQ&feature=player_embedded

          We not be able to declare a clear winner for the Republican nomination yet but with it down to Romney vs Santorum it’s clear that the Tea Party has lost.

      • littlehouse18

        Santorum makes a persuasive argument in his book that having children is a benefit to society and chould be encouraged. Historically, societies which embrace families and the raising of children have continue to prosper, while those with shrinking populations, such as Europe, decline. We can see the effects right here with the social security problem. An increasingly heavy burden is falling on the shrinking working-age population.

        I’m guessing this is part of the reasoning behind the tax credit. It is currently $1000, but is slated to revert to $500 in 2013.

        I encourage people to read Santorum’s book, “It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good,” written, I believe, in 2005. It is a very thoughtful, detailed exposition of Santorum’s philosophy and comprehensively addresses fundamental issues facing our country. Very impressive, from my perspective. I’m sure there will be parts Libertarians do not like.

        • acat

          First, the “baby boom” – a very high number of children born after WWII. I don’t see how encouraging larger families *now* solves a problem created almost half a century back .. unless you mean by increasing the number of workers … and then you need jobs.

          Second, Al Gore’s “lock box” is empty… and again, that problem was created quite a while ago, and is not solved by making babies.

          I’ve nothing against large families, but arguing “be fruitful and multiply now to solve the failures of the past” doesn’t seem like a good solution.

          Mew

          • littlehouse18

            But the general principle of raising families, and the promotion of family still has merit. They’re not even replacing themselves over in Europe. Then there’s the dimension of families being the bedrock of society, where virtue and civic responsibility are nurtured, and where an authority arises that is separate from the state. Santorum is all about the ‘bottom-up’ society that is not shaped and controlled by the government. It’s the central theme of his book.

            • aesthete

              The decision of how many kids a family should have? Should be up to the family — the lowest and most appropriate decision-making unit for such a task. From what I can gather, Santorum wants government policy (through tax credits and the like) to “nudge” families (or single mothers) to make their families bigger. This isn’t an example of bottom-up thinking: it’s an example of top-down engineering in attempts to do what Santorum’s government wants me to do.

              If this stuff were being suggested as a replacement for welfare — it would be a step in the right direction. As is, it’s a step towards government telling people to have more kids, and rewarding them for it — regardless of whether it makes sense for them, whether it’s good for the kid or not, or even whether it’s good for society or not.

            • littlehouse18

              and keep the money in their hands, not the govt. Now whether there are unintended consequences to that is a worthy debate topic.

              I think Santorum does indeed see this as movement away from welfare. He did have a big role in welfare reform, as, obviously, did Newt. I recall him saying that he wanted reform to go further, but it wasn’t politically possible at the time. Still trying to find that reference.

            • aesthete

              in a bill that also modifies WIC, food stamps, EITC, etc so as to mitigate the problems that lineholder alludes to below. This would have the added bonus of being a net reduction in government.

              The incentives in play, and further jiggering of the tax code, are such that I can’t support the idea as a standalone policy, regardless of intentions.

            • lineholder

              Most of them have become rather badly outdated. The manner in which many of our social programs are designed is such to keep people in the system long-term when they get there. This badly needs to change.

              Also, we’ve seen significant advancement in technology since these programs were implemented that could be used far more productively than they have been as a way of ensuring that taxpayer-contributed social funds are being used wisely.

              The Dems won’t touch these tasks…ever!!!

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

              use the power of the federal government to support social engineering.

            • tnguy

              ….it isn’t the government’s responsibility to “support families” in this context.

              In the name of supporting families, you can justify any number of wealth redistribution schemes. Which is all that tax credits, deductions, savings plans, child care credits, etc etc etc really are. They are just welfare programs with nice, tidy names that make them sound pro-family and not so handout-ish.

        • aesthete

          First, on how important a tax credit is in the decision for parents to have children.

          Second, which groups will find it most in their self-interest to have children, given the above? Probably those who are poorest: the less money you have, the more you value it. It brings to mind the fact that making welfare more generous based on the number of children had effects such that being a “welfare mom” entered the cultural lexicon — could a similar phenomena transpire with an increase in the child tax credit? My thought is that if you’re the sort of person for whom a mere $1500 completely changes your mind on whether or not to have another child, you’re probably not the sort of parent who will raise socially-beneficial children. The marginal benefits Santorum no doubt describes in his book are not fungible between children of different income and upbringing; quite the contrary. It’s politically incorrect to say it, but an upper-class suburban kid raised in a two-parent household is statistically more likely to improve society than a kid being raised in the Bronx by a single mother. Once one makes a data-based argument, one should be prepared to back it with data. What kind of children are more likely to result from an increase in the child tax credit? Has Santorum thought about this?

          My guess (and it’s only that, since I have not read the book) is that it follows the pattern of “this is a good thing socially, therefore let us subsidize”. This guess is based on the tendency of many advocacy pieces to be written in this way. Unfortunately, perverse incentives are always and everywhere a market-distorting phenomena (to paraphrase Milt Friedman), and they can’t be ignored in reality as easily as in rhetoric.

          • lineholder

            I was very sad about it in some ways (pitying the child) and angry about it in others. But, yeah, this woman said that she and her husband had figured it out…$X amount in food stamps, $X amount in WIC, $X amount on EITC, $X amount in other welfare programs…she was getting a “raise”. That’s how she expressed it.

            It does happen. We do have people who think this way. Not many that I personally know of, but they do exist.

            It’s the most ignorant reason for having a child that I’ve ever heard in my life.

            • aesthete

              that did the same thing — they’re both unemployed, and have four kids. It’s incredible that people like that actually exist, but they do.

            • cbartlett

              It is a well-known fact around here – I have heard young women (teenagers) actually say they “just can’t wait to have a baby”. In their mind “have a baby – get a check” is their way of growing up and leaving home. It is the only way of life they know – they watched their mothers, their grandmothers, their aunts and their sisters do the same thing. Getting a job to pay for housing or food is a completely foreign idea to them. We’re raising a third or fourth generation that sees having children as a ticket to survival because we have enabled a system that supports it. Another child gives them more housing allowance credits and and more food stamps. The only thing an increased child tax credit accomplishes is to allow these people to file a tax return and get my money back as a refund. No way are they actually paying something into the system that they “deserve” to get some of it back. Mr. Santorum needs to re-think the unintended consequences and get some help on this issue.

          • littlehouse18

            He’s not saying that the tax credit will cause people to have more children to get the credit, but he does say that having children is a positive for society, and that at least a replacement birth rate is good as well. The credit is to help with raising the children.

            Now I’m looking right at the book:

            “If we really value strong, healthy families and the foundation of our society, that fact should be reflected in the tax code. First, we should not penalize two people when they get married, as until recently we did: we need to repeal permanently the marriage penalty. We should be supporting the vital work of raising families with higher deductions for children, as well as further increase in and indexing of the child tax credit, with a slower phase-out of the credit for bigger families. Strong families are the basis of the common good; all Americans have an interest in recognizing the contributions families make by giving them a fair break on their taxes.” (Chapter XIII)

            I don’t know if Santorum has thought about low income moms’ having more kids to get the credit; I confess I would never think that way about a child and expected most people to feel the same.

            My personal supposition is that Santorum sees all children as gifts from God and does not think in terms of “what kind of children.” I’m very uncomfortable with that phrase, and not from some sort of political correctness. I just cringe when there is an implied differential value to human beings. Still, as a conservative I must be racist to the left.

            • lineholder

              our tax code is already being used for a certain amount of wealth redistribution. The way Santorum is presenting this makes it sound like he supports usage of the tax code as a wealth redistribution mechanism for social reasons as long as it falls in line with supporting traditional values, like family structure.

              Maybe that isn’t exactly what he means, but that is what it sounds like he’s doing.

            • acat

              I don’t doubt the Senator is well-intentioned, but .. his understanding of conservatism is either dubious or incomplete.

              The federal tax code should not be used to tinker with society, either for the Left or the Right. Even if it’s well-intended, there will be unintended consequences.

              Think of government as a rock dropping into a still pond. The more government we have, the larger the rock… the larger the rock, the larger the ripples of its’ dropping.

              Some ripples are good, some ripples are bad. Reducing the total ripples (by reducing the size of government) reduces the bad, while the good can be achieved – more efficiently – through private (churches or other non-government organizations*) means.

              Sometimes, the best answer to a social problem is to get the government out of the way. The senator does not appear to recognize this.

              Mew

              * my gay communist friend volunteers at a soup kitchen every couple weeks…

            • lineholder

              I do believe that he has good intentions, and I can’t fault him for that. There are plenty of ideas he presents that I do agree with in principle. It’s the methodologies that he proposes that I usually find a bit disturbing.

              I’ve gotten to the point where I question the idea of using our tax code as a way of resolving social problems, far more so than I would have in the past, acat. I do think the possible outcomes, both positive and negative, have to be taken into consideration.

              I would prefer to see the American people take a step up in providing more assistance to our own people as well, via channels that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with government. We are a generous people at heart, acat. I don’t believe that we’ve lost this spirit of generosity in our society…at least, not entirely.

            • lineholder

              We have a couple of issues coming up in Jan 2013 that will have to be addressed, i.e. expiration of Bush tax cuts, expiration of payroll tax cuts, and suspension of extended unemployment benefits. I don’t know that the current Congress will address these, other than to try to find a way to “kick the can down the road”, so to speak. It is an election year, after all.

              Our government just keeps implementing supposedly well-intentioned short-term resolutions via our tax code (among other things) while kicking the can down the road economically, and we’re getting into that category where it’s doing us more harm than good, or at least that’s my opinion anyway.

              I’m more interested in long-term problem resolution ideas, not short term ones.

            • acat

              put the postscript on my previous post.

              We Americans are a generous people – when we feel that it’s up to us to help one another. When we feel it’s the government’s problem, or something that our tax dollars cover .. not so much.

              Hint – take a look at the percentage of charitable donations from high-tax states vs. low-tax states; absolutely fascinating what happens when someone believes they “gave at the office”.

              Mew

            • lineholder

              If it is, Mayor Bloomberg just put down his nanny-statist foot and dictated that private food contributions to homeless shelters are hereby banned. For failing to meet nutritional guidelines.

              Homeless shelters will have to use DHS approved institutional vendors (wonder if they’re unionized???)

              http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2012/03/19/food_police_bloomberg_bans_homecooked_meals_for_the_homeless

            • Stricia

              The one you are so chummy with here is the Chicago guy masquerading as a cat who hangs out in alleys with a homosexual communist. Wonder is cats are allowed into Man’s Country?

            • civil truth

              or perhaps it’s more like the sting of a scorpion’s tail in your writings.

            • Stricia

              Are you in training for modship?

            • civil truth

              But I’m not in any mod training program, just a long-time community member who is interested in healthy process in the way people here interact with each other as well as imperfectly trying to live out my screen name. You have a unique style in your communications.

            • aesthete

              However, as someone who has studied economics, I’m also not comfortable with blanket statements being used to encourage subsidy.

              I am glad that at your view isn’t based on some sort of bizarre utilitarian calculus; however, I’m still not inclined to fiddle with the tax code in a way that implicitly encourages people to have children for the wrong reason. Additionally, once we go down the track of finding “right”-minded behaviors and subsidizing them, the people stuck with the bill are the people who are ascertained not to belong to these “right”-thinking folk. That works for only as long as you have people in government who share your views on who the “right”-minded or actioned folks are: after that, it becomes problematic. Whether one wants it to be or not, a system set up by government to give money to people they deem as good, and to take from those deemed less virtuous, sets up an enormously powerful system which can be abused in the future. While Santorum didn’t create the complex tax code in Washington (he helped expand it, but didn’t create it), his plan does help to perpetuate it, and is the wrong direction to go in. Strong, vibrant families aren’t created through the tax code, they happen when the individuals in the family are strong, have respect for one another, and love one another. Government doesn’t have any say in creating these outcomes in a positive way; it can only diminish these interactions.

            • littlehouse18

              But what can be done with the devastation left behind and perpetuated by Great Society policies? It’s an enormous problem. Ideally civic groups would undertake this themselves, with private programs, ad campaigns, etc. But the task just seems overwhelming, and the forces that created the problem are still vigorously at work trying to destroy independence, faith, parental authority, etc. It impacts all of us who hope to live in a civil society and who care about our fellow man.

              Santorum has provided examples of public-private partnerships that have made a difference, and where eventually the ‘public’ part fades and the community itself takes ownership. The book was written before the recession so I don’t know how the results have held up. I admit I’m not 100% comfortable with governmental intervention in the social sphere. But what to do?

            • acat

              ‘s what I do with my time and money, ‘s what my gay communist friend does too .. and I know catholics who run a food bank, evangelicals who cook and serve meals for the homeless, etc.

              You don’t have to clean up the whole world, but you are responsible for your own corner of it .. just as I am responsible for mine. It’s the shifting of responsibility onto the government that leads to problems.

              Mew

            • littlehouse18

              What you describe is still just treating the symptoms – serving meals to the homeless, etc. Santorum describes some solutions to helping people come out of homelessness, poverty, crime,drugs, etc., and yes, some involve govt in public-private partnerships. They are geared to helping people find self-respect and a sense of civic responsibility, with a little help to get started. He very clearly distinguishes these sorts of efforts from “urban renewal”, welfare, and other liberal projects of the past that actually tear apart the social fabric. I’m thinking Newt would be on board with a lot of this too, but I don’t get a sense of this from Romney.

              Focusing solely on fiscal conservatism and not on the foundational aspects of our society is not going to lead it back to greatness. Social issues, and I mean this broadly in terms of the character of our citizenry, are indeed important for a free country. Full-spectrum conservatism is what is needed.

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

              in attempting to deliver a “solution” you won’t see improvement.

              And Santorum’s idea of programs won’t make anything any different.

              By the way, which part of the constitution authorizes the federal government to take part in this stuff? State and local governments, sure, at least per the US constitution. Please point out the clause for us.

            • aesthete

              is about creating redistributionist, top-down policy in an attempt to change an unquantifiable metric, and which will undoubtedly leave behind agencies that will outlive whatever limited usefulness they once provided…

              I’m happy not to be a full-spectrum conservative. My spectrum was filled to the brim with this ersatz conservatism during the Bush administration, and it didn’t go so hot. I don’t think redoubling our efforts on a losing hands is either good politics or good policy.

            • acat

              I agree no one sub-group of conservatism can solve all the problems – a social-conservative with no fiscal sense may mean well, but will not be an improvement.

              I agree that Gingrich is likely to be on board with a lot of this. If you look at his historical voting record, he was more social-conservative than Santorum.

              Gingrich’s history isn’t notably one of small-government, although his time in the House was a high note. That said, at this point, I think anyone who doesn’t want to shrink government isn’t a conservative – period. (note – that includes Romney)

              Mew

            • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

              … singing “Jesus Bids Us Shine”?

              … Like a little candle
              Burning in the night.
              In this world of darkness
              So let us shine

            • lineholder

              anyone is suggesting that it will be. But I do think there are things that can be done to begin moving back in the direction of greater independence from government where social programs are concerned. Updating the programs in such a way that it makes it easier for people to leave them is one mechanism that could be considered. Modernizing them is another. We have cross-over laps between programs that could be eliminated. Government doesn’t operate on the basis of productivity or efficiency, but this is one area in particular where it genuinely needs to take place.

              But we’re going to run into opposition, primarily because we’ve now reached a point where there are so many jobs involved behind the scenes in keeping these social welfare programs operational. We’re talking federal jobs with high pay scales, much higher than is warranted by job requirements, along with federal benefits and pensions and the like. There’s a lot of money that goes into keeping these programs operational.

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

              is going to be any sort of improvement on what we’ve seen for fifty years. It will be yet another ill-conceived government program run by people picking up a pay check and designed by people whose only concern is solidifying power and budget in their agency. And it will wreck more lives.

              Small – not smaller – government, addressing these issues at the lowest possible level will make a difference. Another monolithic government program won’t.

              Oh, and it will probably take another fifty years to fix the mess.

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

              much of anything, save for the ways to make government more intrusive.

              Want to build strong families? Down size the government and stop income transfer mechanisms.

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          …read how he would create a bank for the socio-economically disadantaged, into which MATCHING FUNDS would be provided by the GOVERNMENT [as per legislation co-sponsored by Joe Lieberman].

          Then ask yourself if he’s also an income-redistributionist.

          [pages 151 et seq.]

          • littlehouse18

            where I wrote “Nanny State?” in the margin to myself. I freely admit that I do not like this idea. To be fair, he says that for at least the ‘KIDS’ Accounts, the federal contributions must be paid back after 18 years. But it’s misguided. I’ll forgive him this mistake, it does not sum him up.

            • acat

              either “a pattern” or “enemy action” depending on which source you look at – the latter is Ian Fleming.

              As with Perry ‘s Gardasil issue, a one-time error is forgivable, provided there’s a recognition of error and a changing of attitude.

              Unlike that, this is not the first, nor second, nor third time Sen. Santorum has gone to the big-government nanny-state well.
              He voted for Medicare Part D
              He voted for No Child Left Behind
              He voted against repealing Davis-Bacon
              He voted for Sarbanes-Oxley.

              Each of those votes, were it in isolation, would be forgivable .. but taken together they reveal an unpleasant pattern.

              Mew

            • littlehouse18

              How about the illegals’ tuition thing. You know there’s more than just one or two slip-ups in his background and Newt’s too. But Perry would have still made a good president, and without the debate problems, a great candidate (my original first choice).

              Now with Romney’s past … where do we start???

            • acat

              This diary covers most of it.

              The illegals-tuition thing bugs me most because it’s a case where the truth is more complicated… in short, it’s not a free ride, it’s the in-state rate, and to qualify, the illegal must have lived in Texas for 3 years, had the grades to get into the college, graduate from a Texas high school, and apply for citizenship. It’s very different from the California version or the Senate version that got voted down.

              Once the details are unpacked and we’re discussing the same bill, it’s not as conservative as I’d like, but .. it’s the kind of pragmatic approach to a problem that only the federal government can solve that I’m willing to accept.

              Mew

              Mew

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

              was happening. One, he was planning on running for President and thought this would ingratiate himself to the big-government right. Two, he things this is what we should be doing to “help” people. Kinda like when GWB said, “if people are hurting we should be there to help.”

              Want to really help people, get the government out of their lives, beyond what the constitution mandates the federal government to do. None of the stuff Santorum is pushing is any more constitutional than Obama’s line and it’s certainly not conservative. Hence, neither is he.

            • littlehouse18

              My printing is 2007. My close source supports his statement that he began to consider running after Obamacare was passed.

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

              And does he say which part of the constitution gives the federal government the authority to involve themselves in social engineering?

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

          or the amendments giving the government the power to collect income tax indicate that it’s supposed to be a tool to implement social policy.

          The Senator has his head where the sun doesn’t shine on this, just as on his pathetic tax proposal for manufacturing. And by the way, you can expect that book to be stuffed next to his head if by some misbegotten miracle he does get the nomination.

          The problem with social security is NOT that there aren’t enough kids, the problem is that the program should be privatized because the federal government has no more business running a retirement program or a health care program than it does setting social policy on the number of kids you should have – or at least rewarding you for having them.

          • littlehouse18

            I guess I was just brought up in a more civil time.

        • 10ab

          The Duggards “19 and counting” mentality will not get the country back on track.

          • civil truth

            With some anti-religious bigotry thrown in just for kicks. I see you like trying to push buttons around here, don’t you.

            http://www.redstate.com/kowalski/2012/03/18/guns-and-civility-in-the-united-states/#comment-1233

            Hope you enjoyed you time slumming in the conservative neighborhood. Send our greetings to your misogynist buddies.

    • dajeeps

      You don’t have to talk about Romney, just come here sounding like Milton Friedman on economic matters and you’ll have my support. It’s that easy because I’m quite sure Romney would never say such things. Win the customers with an unexplored area of the market and you win the day.

      • jamesm

        Romney would give him plenty of material

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

          pathetic screed.

        • jamesm

          Romney’s delegate counter is shy and retiring. He is going be 100 votes shy. That’s why he is retiring.

          • rsgp

            A lady told him she has 7 kids.

            Groucho: Why do you have so many kids?

            Lady: Well, I love my husband.

            Groucho: Well, I love my cigar, but I take it out once in a while.

    • winning2012

      The fact that you believe a worker should not legally be allowed to voluntarily opt out of a Union is the worst sort of mandate possible.

    • Filibuster Keaton

      I don’t see anyone disputing Sen. Santorum’s points, just changing the subject to try to make him look as bad as Gov. Romney.

      • lineholder

        The first question is what has been stated about EPA regs.

        “I will also immediately rescind all Obama EPA regulations that burden the economy by more than $100 million per year” Why set a dollar value on that? Why not just go after eliminating any and all unnecessary EPA regs, regardless of the amount that it burdens the economy?

        Second question: Eliminating the marriage tax penalty and tripling the personal deduction for a child…how does he plan to limit that to working families?

        On repeal and replace of O-care, what does he have in mind for replacement measures? Which health care issues would be placed as highest priority? Would he be pursuing free-market options? If so, what kind and in what way?

        • aesthete

          that he limits himself to a) only Obama’s regs, and b) only those Obama regs that cost > $100 mil/year.

          Because Republican regulation is best regulation!

      • Finrod

        Just go back and read Erick’s list of the unconservative votes that Senator Santorum made during his career in Congress.

    • sandollar

      That’s why my family & I will be voting for Newt in the primary.

    • mikelindell2

      You are doing tremendous damage to the Republican party. The Democrats’ concoction of the Republicans’ “war on women” was created simply because you are in the race, have some prominence in the field, and have some extremely fringe statements on long-settled issues like contraception. When you talk about “past performance,” you conveniently leave out how you constantly fought against right-to-work legislation and sided with your Big Labor buddies. You were part of the Republican party that conservatives wish to forget, the big government, massive spending part. Also, why do you keep stealing Speaker Gingrich’s lines??? You talk about not bowing before Middle East interests when Gingrich has been using that line for months. Your tax plan is a joke and would create massive fraud (National Review’s words). Newt is the most accomplished conservative alive today and you are just a “team player,” often playing for the wrong team. You even supported Arlen Specter for PRESIDENT in 1996. As far as a general election, your platform would easily be defined as wanting to ban contraception, internet pornography, and separation of church and state. All of this while cracking down on college. These are such detrimental positions to the party that I hope you will somehow find the courage to bow out of the race now. You have far exceeded expectations. Please move on in your career, at least for now. The amount of damage you are inflicting on the party is rapidly growing. Speaker Gingrich is the only person in this race with the record, knowledge, proposals, and intelligence to beat Obama and put this country on a positive track again.

      • trickamsterdam

        The fact that even you know it sounds silly is a major breakthrough in your treatment, “mikelindell2″.

        You still think it’s an intelligent statement but are allowing the feelings of your peers to “resonate” with you and are learning to “connect”.

        It’s similar to when someone in a madhouse who thinks he’s Napoleon realizes it’s not actually 1813. He still believes he’s Napoleon of course but has moved into this century and in some remarkable cases and with much hard work can even be taught the use of a cellphone.

        Of course the first person they usually try to call is the Duke of Wellington and so that of course results in a major backslide.

        Your full recovery “mikelindell2″ is possible if you work at it and if you BELIEVE. It will of course require you to never go on the Internet ever again but it will be worth it (sorry the World of Warcraft account must be closed too).

        • mikelindell2

          Concentrate really hard on reminding yourself that everything is okay, maybe not in your life, but generally speaking.

          • trickamsterdam

            Coming from the guy who didn’t even use paragraphs in the post I was responding to and who acknowledges his own ridiculous ideas of political strategy “might sound silly” to other people this response by you is fail from its toes to its hair yet still manages to be lol (at you not w/ you).

            Sorry if I was cruel but the hour is too late for delusional candibots.

            • mike57

              If we continue to tear each other up, we will in turn be torn up by the DNC in November.

              Let’s be civil to each other.

        • Finrod

          I’m with mikelindell2 on this, and you can take your snark and choke on it. Santorum would lose 40 states if he was our nominee.

          • trickamsterdam

            You wouldn’t want to bet on that would you?

            I’ll even sweeten the pot by doubling the number of States you think he’ll win from ten to 20.

            So if Santorum wins more than 20 States what I want is for you to never post on this site again.

            If it’s 19 or less you win and can demand something that’s equivalent (your choice). If he wins 20 on the nose it’s a push.

            Since you said he’ll only win ten and I’m doubling that number if you won’t take my bet I think it’s safe to assume you’re…um….pulling things out from “where the sun don’t shine”?

            Is that place you’re talking about Alaska btw during the winter lol? You never know when someone’s making a cryptic Palin reference.

            Take your time thinking about what you want your part of the bet to be. I’m going to be busy for quite a few hours but will check back in later today or tonight.

            Don’t disappoint me by not responding. I’m excited to either hear about our bet or to hear you admit that you just say things that you don’t actually believe are true (i.e. Santorum will only win ten States) and are a liar.

            • Finrod

              No, I won’t take your silly ‘never post on this site again’ bet, but I will bet you $20 straight up that Santorum will not win 20 states in the 2012 presidential election if he’s the nominee.

              Put up or shut up.

            • trickamsterdam

              I have no idea why it’s silly. I wanted to make something that would really hurt if one or the other of us lost. And that also would be public.

              $20? I don’t think so. That’s popcorn and a movie. If the postage is 5% of my winnings it’s a dummy bet.

              I’m going to let it speak for itself that even though you said he’d only win ten States and I doubled that to 20 you were unwilling to risk your posting privileges.

              You are wise. No point in betting something you care about to someone you don’t know about a result you have no control over.

              However…let it be said that if you really believed he’d only take ten states you’d bet your house when I offered you 20.

              You think Santorum can win or at least compete. You just don’t like him.

            • Filibuster Keaton

              This sounded too weird to say over the weekend, but I was disappointed to determine you’re a guy. I’d like to believe somewhere out there is a single woman who makes posts like yours.

            • trickamsterdam

              This is probably the best complement I’ve ever been given on the Internet except by female posters who did know I was a guy.

              Since I’m among the straightest dudes in the World and assume you are too this is a meeting of the minds at a time when the World is quiet (Tuesday morning is mucho more quiet than the weekend…Sarah Silverman’s chihuahua told me that…well it didn’t tell me that but it looked at me and in a brain-dead way seemed to suggest it).

              As to Romney…I just sense that he’s not going to close this deal. Yeah he’s going to win in Illinois today…ACAT DO THE RIGHT THING and vote for Santo the Inquisitor & Corrector even if you find it distasteful. I’m relying on you acat.

              Unless Santo is completely out of the margin of error in which case vote for Newt lol. I don’t want people calling on Newt to drop out unless it hurts Romney.

              PS – Filibuster Keaton is your name a homage to Buster?

            • Filibuster Keaton

              For what it’s worth, I’m also in Illinois and voted this afternoon for Santorum and for Gingrich’s delegates because Santorum doesn’t have any on the ballot in my district. I hope you’re right about Romney not closing the deal; I’ve spent four or five years saying I could never defend him.

              Filibuster Keaton isn’t so much an homage to Buster as the lack of anything better with political relevance.

              In any event, I look forward to more of your observations.

          • naraht

            Even if he insults the Mormons ten times worse than Huckabee ever did, Santorum will still take at minimum SC, AL, MS, TN, KY, LA, AR, OK, KS, NE, & WY. Care to give an argument on which of these 11 states he will lose? (or are you counting there as being 57 states. :) )

      • renl57

        The Dems didn’t just happen to invent this alleged “GOP War on Women” after Santorum declared his candidacy.

        It’s been going on for a very long time. It’s the Dems’ euphemism for the GOP being against abortion rights.

        One of the nice things about the Google News Archive is that it enables you to actually CHECK recent history.

        The phrase “Republican War on Women” was actually invented long ago–by a former Republican!

        Tanya Melich is a feminist activist. She really used to be a Republican. In 1996, having failed (along with other moderate Republicans) to move the GOP in a pro-choice direction, she left the party and wrote the book “The Republican War Against Women.”

        But this Dem ploy did receive a new lease on life with some of Santorum’s statements and some of Rush Limbaugh’s statements.

        • mikelindell2

          Once Senator “one of the things I’ll talk about as president is contraception…it’s not ok” became somewhat prominent. Senator “states have the right to ban contraception” gave them a huge opening to employ this tactic against Republicans. While every other Republican says that they are concerned about government infringing on religious rights and government mandates on individuals, Santorum was talking about the evils of contraception.

      • garfieldjl

        How about Romney drops out and Newt and Santorum go 1 on 1.

        People yell about how destructive Santorum is (particularly Mitt supporters), however he isn’t the one that hasn’t been so toxic with his smear fest that I actually would have to flip a coin as to whether or not to vote for Mitt or for Obama.

        Yeah, Mitt Romney has ticked me off so much that I really will not give a penny to his campaign if he is the nominee, I won’t put up a single sign for Mitt, period.

        Santorum has annoyed me with his attacks on Newt, that said, he hasn’t stooped to Mitts level and used Saul Alinski style attacks.

        With Romney out of this, we can get back to actually talking about issues instead of having a smear fest that benefits no one but Obama.

        So if anyone needs to get out of this it’s Romney.

        • nepanyrush

          Garfieldjl, it is quite possible that Romney will be the nominee. You have stated that that you “actually would have to flip a coin as to whether or not to vote for Mitt or for Obama.”

          So you have now gone beyond just not supporting the GOP nominee to actually have a 50-50 chance of pulling the lever for Obama? Why stop there. Go ahead and donate to Obama and post on Daily Kos and put Obama signs in your yard.

          What percentage of Newt supporters do you think are so petty they would vote for Obama if their choice doesn’t get the nod.

          • garfieldjl

            Romney, has alienated Conservatives big time, he has pulled dishonest attacks I would have expected from Obama, not another Republican attacking a fellow Republican.

            I want Obama out of office, let me be quite clear, actually I’d like him impeached and thrown out of office.

            I don’t want Romney to become the next President, let me be quite clear on that.

            Therefore I want someone other than Romney to be be the Republican nominee.

            Now, it’s entirely possible Romney will shape up and stop acting like Obama in campaign mode, at which point I will revise my opinion on Romney.

            It’s also possible that Obama will pull a stunt that Romney wouldn’t even stoop to.

            However as it stands right now, I’m trying to make people the people that claim Romney is “Mr. Inevitable” understand that he’s not only not inevitable, he’s very possibly unelectable.

            A lot of people here say that they had to hold their noses to support McCain because they didn’t like him.

            Well Romney reminds me too much of a dishonest used car salesman. He has pulled stunts that have me so disgusted, that I’m trying to figure out if there is even a difference between the Saul Alinski radical in the White House, and the Republican version of a Saul Alinski Radical (Romney).

            • garfieldjl

              If someone is critical of Obama they are often called racists.

              If someone is critical of Romney they are often called anti-mormon bigots.

              If someone has to accuse people of being bigots simply cause they don’t support that person, then quite frankly they don’t deserve to even be in elected office, let alone President of the United States.

              That goes for both Romney and Obama.

      • Xasteius

    • mikelindell2

      How could you ever debate Obama when you are scared to debate someone in your own party?

      How can you criticize Romney or Gingrich? You endorsed Romney in 08, and if you say you didn’t know as much about him then, that really speaks to your level of preparedness and your decision-making skills. As for Newt, you said you wanted him as your VP and have rightly credited him with your career.

      Why do you constantly refer to Speaker Gingrich as “Congressman Gingrich?” Are you jealous that he was 2nd in line to be president and your career didn’t amount to much? Your greatest legacy is the record defeat you suffered in PA.

      How can you allow your team to ask him to drop out when you got enraged when anyone asked you that same question when you were coming in dead last in every race? Newt remaining in the race is probably best for you. I am a strong Newt supporter that would rather Romney, despite all of his liberal positions, over you.

      • trickamsterdam

        This is very lol and I honestly don’t think it’s a typo. I think he really doesn’t know the VP is second in line.

        “How can you allow your team to ask him to drop out when you got enraged when anyone asked you that same question when you were coming in dead last in every race?” – mikelindell2

        No Newt asked Santo to drop out during SC when Santo had won Iowa and out-performed Newt in NH. So you’re entirely right other than the fact that you have everything wrong.

        “I am a strong Newt supporter that would rather Romney, despite all of his liberal positions, over you.” – mikelindell2

        And the gentleman has a hat-trick. You end your ridiculous post by letting him know that you’ll never vote for him in the Primary under any circumstances…giving him (or whoever he assigns to read this) every reason to pretend that you don’t exist.

        But then there’s one last piece mind-blowingly bad and self-contradictory logic:

        “Newt remaining in the race is probably best for you.” – mikelindell2

        This is after in your previous post calling on Santorum to drop out. But if Newt remaining in helps Santorum and you prefer Romney to Santorum….shouldn’t you be calling on Newt to drop out?

        I know what I just wrote makes no sense to you. Go online to a Chess Club and find someone at at least Master level.

        Then read or copy and paste what I wrote to you to him or her and if the person has time and is generous they will patiently explain what I meant and why nothing you’ve written on this thread makes a dog’s lick of sense.

        • Finrod

          What do you have, a community college learner’s permit?

        • http://MichaelHarrington.org Michael Harrington

          Seems someone who is ignorant of basic math is trying to call somone else ignorant?

          Please cease your attacks.

          A good saying for you would be “Keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, rather than open it and remove all doubt.” And yes I was paraphrasing.

          • trickamsterdam

            Very good…but it’s not math it’s language. I envisioned a chain of authority where the President was still alive so he was number one VP two Speaker three etc.

            Nevertheless you’re certainly right.

            “Please cease your attacks”. – michael harrington

            See here’s where you kinda failed to take your own advice (Better to keep you mouth shut and be thought a fool etc).

            They’re coming onto Santorum’s thread and attacking him. And the attacks are quite ridiculous as I very clearly showed.

            So I’m afraid that just like I don’t know basic math you are unfortunately unable to read. Or if you can read you are unable to think.

            • http://MichaelHarrington.org Michael Harrington

              As is evidence by the math.

              All I see is emotional responses and attacks on all who post against Santorum.

              I am a not-Romney.

              I called you on a math portion you went overboard trying to rake someone on the coals for. I gave you a chance to chill and you attack me back.

              And yet… behold I am a candidate who speaks to people, including his attackers…

              So show some respect please, as I could have done a larger raking over the coals but refrained earlier.

            • trickamsterdam

              Do so then (raking over coals).

              I think it’s clear from both our posting histories that we won’t start screaming the F word or stalk each other around this site.

              Well it’s clear to me from yours. If it’s not clear to you from mine then I give you my word it’ll never be anything more than the wit and the wit will never be anything more than cutting.

              It’s nothing personal. It’s just that Romney needs to be taken down and since Sen Santorum can do that I fully intend to defend him…because he has few defenders on this site.

              “[...] as I could have done a larger raking over the coals but refrained earlier.” – m. harrington

              Have at it squire. I can’t see any other mistakes I’ve made. But I’m always willing to learn.

            • trickamsterdam

              I wanna post yet more evidence that Mitt Michigan sucks and thought I’d do it here to tie up loose ends and it also points out why Santorum’s more electable than Romney on Santorum’s thread.

              But at the end of the post I’m going to send you a $20 campaign contribution, Harrington (I’m not kidding) since someone else on the thread wanted to bet me that amount that Santorum couldn’t win ten States. I’ll explain why I’m going to do that for you presently.

              First, here’s the link of why Romney basically can’t do anything but sneeze out of his —–. And is the doom of the R Party and may permanently damage the American Conservative Movement if he is the nominee:

              http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/19/is-mitt-romney-the-most-unpopular-presidential-nominee-ever.html

              It’s some kinda world when a man who may be the most unpopular Presidential candidate of all time (literally) is running on an “electability” platform. Next thing you know it’s going to start raining meat and the cows will give blood instead of milk and a wolf will give birth to a hare.

              Now to you M. Harrington:

              “I am a not-Romney.” – M. Harrington

              Well technically so is everyone else in the World. But I despise Romney so much this is actually a major point in your favor as far as considering you for elective office. Still if you’re going to call people on their use of language you must learn before you teach, young sir.

              “I called you on a math portion you went overboard trying to rake someone on the coals for.” – M. Harrington

              Again it’s not math which would mean I couldn’t add or subtract it’s language. I didn’t think about M. Lindell’s use of the phrase “in line” and so made an unforced error. So if you’re going to rake someone over the coals on a technicality make sure you are technically correct.

              Nevertheless I want to get to the part about why I want to give you money. It’s this quote by you that caught my attention:

              “I gave you a chance to chill and you attack me back. And yet

            • trickamsterdam

              I’m not trying to be funny I clicked on his site before typing the previous post to him but not the donate button until just now.

              So I have to say:

              “And yet, Behold…Michael you are disorganized”.

              Even when it’s finally up you’re only using paypal? What are you wikileaks?

              And yet, Behold…I’ll come through for you.

              I’m going to either send you an actually $20 bill w/ “trickamsterdam” written on the front in red ink or a check w/ “trickamsterdam” written in the part where you can write the “memo”.

              I’d prefer to send the bill because I don’t want someone who uses the phrase “And yet, behold…” knowing my information.

              But and yet behold you’re so disorganized I don’t want whoever is helping you to pocket the bill.

              Post a response to this w/in 24 hours on which you’d prefer or I guess and yet behold I’ll probably send the check not the bill.

              And remember to “and yet, behold” that if it wasn’t for Sen Santorum and this thread you wouldn’t be getting it. So be nicer to Santo pronto.

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

              Senator that his stated policies, tax for instance, are not conservative. It takes a complete idiot to believe that Santorum’s tax policies are anything but a gift to the Congress to write another couple of thousand pages into the tax code so he can do nothing for manufacturing – and quill etal are absolute loons on matters economic relating to tax policy – and engineer some social policy along the way.

              And then there’s his record in the Senate. In fact, his Senate voting record puts him on the left of the then Republican members of the Senate.

              The problem is, the Senator is bouncing in here and flat out misrepresenting himself and his record and his proposals. If any other candidate pulled that crap they’d get called out too.

        • mikelindell2

          Hmmm, you come across as obsessed and scary so I will not insult your blatant ignorance. I would only ask you to take your abundant free time and try to figure out that VP is 1st in line to be president, speaker is 2nd. The president is president, he’s not “in line” to be president. It has to be pretty embarrassing that every time you make an emotional response to something I write you make a tremendous fool of yourself. Remember,all of the troubles you’ve had in your life aren’t my fault. Hope things in the future go better for you, brave internet warrior.

          • trickamsterdam

            Mike you’re a guy who just asked a candidate who’s way out in front of Newt to drop out in a childlike way because basically it would make you happy. Don’t get cocky.

            Someone stood up for you and nailed me but it turns out in the end even he couldn’t read or if he could read he couldn’t think.

            I don’t care about you very much. In fact even w/ the people whose posts I find interesting (e.g. aesthete acat scope) half the time I’m actually talking to lurkers when I’m talking to them.

            That is, this is my way of going door to door and shilling for my candidate or in this case against a candidate (Romney).

            You’re on Santorum’s thread, Mike. And I need Santorum to beat or help beat Romney. So that’s why I’m addressing your “concerns”. To defend Santorum. But as long as you wanna act like Newton (no not that Newton!) address this statement:

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

              isn’t about to beat Mitt. I’m no fan of Mitt, but he’s head and shoulders not-worse than this guy.

            • mikelindell2

              Gallup has 40% of Gingrich’s voters going to Romney, 39% to Santorum, 12% to Paul. That means that Romney would come much closer to getting the 50% of remaining delegates that he needs to reach 1144, hurting Santorum. However, I want Newt over Romney or Santorum, that’s why I don’t want Newt to get out. If Romney is prevented from reaching 1144, anything can happen at the convention. By that time I would hope conservatives see the fraud that Santorum is and reach the conclusion there is only one small government conservative in this race and his name is Newt Gingrich.

      • garfieldjl

        I’m not a Santorum supporter, but that criticism of Santorum is invalid.

        He’s already had a 1 on 1 debate with Newt, granted I don’t like how he’s not debating Newt now, but he has gone 1 on 1 with Newt.

        The candidate that has been too chicken to go 1 on 1 against Newt in a debate is Romney.

    • Ender

      on your impressive performance in Puerto Rico, and the upcoming great job in Romney’s home state of Illinois.

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …reading these comments on RedState.com.

      Except for a few outliers, he should appreciate that most-everyone agrees he has a lot of work to do with the Constitutional Conservative branch of the GOP that he assumes he dominates.

      • acat

        null set

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          n/t

          • acat

            the Moral Majority voters who are put off by his messy personal life, but who likely haven’t heard of his better-than-Santorum voting record in the House.

            Mew

            • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

              …and they will be more attentive after 4/24, when Romney wins in PA.

            • acat

              That’s over a month away .. how many delegates (erm, primaries) that Gingrich can win will remain at that point?

              Mew

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

        Hell, I doubt he writes the diaries.

    • tnguy

      …would be far better positioned to lay claim to the mantle of the conservative candidate were it not for his senatorial record.

      That’s a lesson to every senator who has aspirations to a higher office: what you vote for matters. Blindly following Dole/Frist/ McConnell & Co will come back to haunt you.

      • adampm

        I really don’t see either Santorum or Romney being the cure for what ails the country. Both of them have significant problems in their records.

        The really sad thing is ousting Obama in the fall should be a no-brainer. Instead we are getting candidates that have very little appeal to anyone.

        2012, another year to hold your nose while voting.

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      We’re all very well acquainted with his record and rhetoric. We’re also well acquainted with yours, Senator.

    • tngal

      the opening graph pretty much lays it out..
      ____________

      “The Romney and Santorum campaigns reached a deal in January to drop challenges that could have kept both candidates from winning delegates in Illinois, according to a report from the Daily Herald of Arlington Heights. ”
      __________

      In essence, both romney and you had trouble with your signatures. You both cut a deal to drop your challenges and get on the ballot. The phrase “a traditional Illinois don

    • Change Jar Conservative

      I get it… you aren’t Mitt Romney.

      However, a lot of what you’re proposing isn’t conservative either.

      Thank you though for trying to focus on jobs.

    • tngal

      All the candidates have made these trips and falls, and here’s the latest from Mr. Santorum..
      _________

      “We need a candidate who’s going to be a fighter for freedom. Who’s going to get up and make that the central theme in this race because it is the central theme in this race. I don’t care what the unemployment rate’s going to be. Doesn’t matter to me. My campaign doesn’t hinge on unemployment rates and growth rates.

      __________

      He tried to fix it later but man did he stick his foot in it this time.Tell me Newt and romney and Paul aren’t going to have a field day with htis. Oh yeah, and the O too.

      http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/03/santorum-steps-in-it-on-unemployment-117934.html

      • acat

        (null)

        • lineholder

          Comes in handy with politicians suffering from foot-in-mouth syndrome!

          • civil truth

            A caput-in-recto extractor.

            • acat

              I will gleefully donate to ensure every voter in Iowa has access to a caput-in-recto-extractor.

              Mew

            • civil truth

              >:)

            • acat

              (grin)

      • clintonformccain

        He’s still living in the 90s, pandering his pitch to Jerry Falwell and Ralph Reed.

      • aesthete

        There are inside words, and there are outside words. Santorum doesn’t appear to have learned the difference.

      • littlehouse18

        Seconds later he correctly said,

        “We conservatives generally think that government doesn’t create jobs. That what government does is create an atmosphere for jobs to be created in the private sector.”

        Just … darn.

        • acat

          Cheshire grin

    • jc230

      Rick, I don’t see you as POTUS. You’ve had a nice run, but you won’t make it to the finnish line. I like Newt, but he has the same delimna, not enough delegates to beat Romney. I’m not a Romney fan, but he’s the best shot the GOP has to taking back the WH. Here is what is positive about Romney — he’s wildly successful in everything he’s sought after, every thing. He’s demonstrated leadership in every facet of his life, both for profit and government. Obama lowered the bar on leadership and worldly experience when he took office. Romney will restore integrity, leadership and a genuine desire to do well by the American people. It’s time for the primary game to end. Rick, you, Newt and Paul should step aside. You’re not going to have enough delegates. If there is a brokered convention, Romney will be the victor. It won’t be you or Newt. That’s the reality. Respectfully.

      • trickamsterdam

        No. Not successful at “every single thing”.

        He was a failed one-term Governor. I’m not talking about his liberalism he was a failure by any standard.

        His approval rating w/the people of MA dropped over 30 points while he was in office. By the time he left it was 33% and there was no chance of re-election.

        Of course Romney lied about it during a debate and said he didn’t run for a second term because that would have made it “all about him” (get it? he didn’t want it to be all about him so he decided to run for the position of most powerful person in the world).

        So not only is Romney a pathological liar he’s quite a bad liar as well.

        Nor did his unending failure (well it ended when the people of MA showed him the door) have anything to do w/ being a R in a Blue State.

        The two previous governors to him were both Rs.

        The truth is there is nothing positive about Romney. Literally nothing.

        He fails the tests of:

        -conservatism
        -electability
        -basic competence
        -being a uniter not a divider
        -personal integrity

        But I’ll admit that other than being absolutely horrendous he’s just great.

        Note: I think this is my favorite post that I’ve ever written on RS. I’ve written anti-Romney posts before…many, many of them. But never have I taken him down this cleanly, simply, and supplely. This is the one I want to be remembered for. :)

        • acat

          Romney has a terrible win/loss record when it comes to elections ..

          To be fair, Abraham Lincoln compiled a similarly awful record .. and I think history has misjudged old Abe better than he really was, in part because he was assassinated. (insert historical parallels to JFK here)

          Mew

    • salemst

      I live in Massachusetts and am one of the few staunch across the board conservatives here.

      I’ll just say this once. Santorum either is completely ignorant of the political landscape in Massachusetts Romney dealt with including a 145-15 Democrat majority House, 35-5 Democrat majority Senate, too few Republicans to sustain his 844 vetoes in 4 years, liberal majority state Supreme Court,a long time liberal political climate with mandates predating his arrival as Governor he had to adhere to, and a registered citizenry of 42% Democrat, 42% Independent, and 14% Republican, or he’s deliberately lying to win the nomination.

      What Mitt could control–he was absolutely superb–best governor by far in my lifetime here. So, again, either Santorum is downright ignorant and not bright enough to be nominated, or he’s ethically challenged to the point where he doesn’t deserve to be nominated.

      I’ll let the readers here decide for themselves.

    • bobbie227

      amongst “supposed” Conservatives? I personally was in attendance at one of Rick Santorum’s speeches. So here are some facts:

      He spoke a lot about limited government!
      He spoke a lot about our freedoms!
      He talked about core values and principles as they relate to limited government and our liberty and freedom.
      He is very personable.
      He has learned some lessons from when he was a Senator.
      He is MUCH MORE conservative than Romney who will have to continually be “nudged” toward conservatism.
      He spoke about NOTHING being done about IRAN at this time that is of national importance!

      I’ve learned what first impressions mean in that my first impression of Obama in ’08 was, “If this guy wins, we’re in huge trouble!” I was right. My first impression of Rick Santorum was that he was an honest and principled man who loves America, and that his words were spoken very sincerely. I’m sticking to my first impression.

      My question is this: After the last 3-1/2 yrs. of being absolutely petrified of what is going to happen to our Country, would you really want to elect a Moderate? Just doesn’t make sense to me.

      People are NOT going to agree completely about everything or truly anything much. All I DO KNOW is that WE’D BETTER GET THIS ONE RIGHT!!

      • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

        I heard Santorum and Gingrich both speak last week, and I appreciate the Senator’s love of God, family and country. No doubt at all that his speech was rousing, but compared to Newt’s, it was light on solutions. Below is a link to my take on both speeches. As noted therein, I like Santorum and I enjoyed his speech, but talk isn’t enough.

        Speeches

        As for “bickering,” one thing I’ve learned during this primary season is that you’d better develop a thick skin. Better to air everything out now rather than later. Most of us realize that we’ll get back together after the convention.

      • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

        Let me tell you what’s wrong with this:

        He spoke… (words, not actions)
        He spoke… (words, not actions)
        He talked… (words, not actions)
        He is… (personality)
        He has learned… (has he? based on what? his words?)
        He is… (how do we know? his words?)
        He spoke… (words, not actions)

        Santorum’s actions as Senator speak louder than his words over the past year.

        Prove your words by your deeds. Santorum doesn’t measure up.

    • Pingback: Prince Hayner

    • Pingback: Leonardo Isiordia