PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Santorum Surge


Chocolate Hog
02-13-2012, 05:07 PM
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/santorum-moves-ahead-in-michigan.html

Michigan:

Rick Santorum's taken a large lead in Michigan's upcoming Republican primary. He's at 39% to 24% for Mitt Romney, 12% for Ron Paul, and 11% for Newt Gingrich.


LMAO

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 05:18 PM
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/santorum-moves-ahead-in-michigan.html

Michigan:

Rick Santorum's taken a large lead in Michigan's upcoming Republican primary. He's at 39% to 24% for Mitt Romney, 12% for Ron Paul, and 11% for Newt Gingrich.


LMAO

WoW! Michigan loves some of that BIG govt conservatism. I think he just might win the nomination and cost the Republicans the election.
Trump says he'll run Third Party if the Republicans don't elect the right person. Will he do so if Santorum is the choice?

SNR
02-13-2012, 05:20 PM
Oh god... the froth... it's everywhere! Ewwwww!

Pioli Zombie
02-13-2012, 05:22 PM
Romney imploding would so enjoyable. I've watching that lying weasal since 1994. All he believes in is getting elected. Scumbag.

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 05:23 PM
Romney imploding would so enjoyable. I've watching that lying weasal since 1994. All he believes in is getting elected. Scumbag.

That part would be a moment of pleasure. It sticks it to Wall Street and Goldman Sachs too.

chiefzilla1501
02-13-2012, 09:27 PM
Romney imploding would so enjoyable. I've watching that lying weasal since 1994. All he believes in is getting elected. Scumbag.

I don't care about this. The system has become so fucked up that anyone with a brain has to change their views to even have a shot at running for President.

It's better to lie about having fucked up views and actually in reality have more normal views, than it is to tell the truth about fucked up views.

The only way to get elected is to agree with the fucked up philosophy that has become the Republican party. So good... I just hope Romney can lie long enough to fool the Republicans long enough before the election.

dirk digler
02-13-2012, 09:34 PM
Romney's super pac is putting up $640,000 dollars in TV advertising in Michigan during the next 2 weeks.

The guy is desperate.

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 09:35 PM
Romney's super pac is putting up $640,000 dollars in TV advertising in Michigan during the next 2 weeks.

The guy is desperate.

Most of the votes he actually does have, are due to having money mainly. Just not a lot of enthusiasm for him in the GOP grassroots.

Bewbies
02-13-2012, 10:22 PM
Romney sucks, him losing is a good thing.

Brock
02-13-2012, 10:38 PM
What an absolute garbage heap of candidates.

Amnorix
02-13-2012, 10:51 PM
Santorum is everything I dislike about the Republican Party in one nice, neat package. I could vote for Romney, probably would. I might even vote for Paul if I can somehow convince myself that he wouldn't damage the country's foreign affairs irreparably.

But it'd be a cold day in hell before I ever voted for Santorum.

alnorth
02-13-2012, 10:57 PM
Santorum is everything I dislike about the Republican Party in one nice, neat package. I could vote for Romney, probably would. I might even vote for Paul if I can somehow convince myself that he wouldn't damage the country's foreign affairs irreparably.

But it'd be a cold day in hell before I ever voted for Santorum.

F'ing this. I absolutely would vote for Ron Paul, and I might somehow, someway, maybe convince myself to vote for Romney if he doesn't go nuts, but Rick Santorum is the very embodiment of almost the opposite of everything I believe. There is no way in hell I'd vote for him, and since I'm in a swing state, I'd have to vote for Obama instead of 3rd party if Santorum was the nominee.

alnorth
02-13-2012, 11:02 PM
holy crap. New poll out, Santorum has almost tied Romney in CA, and if Gingrich fades to black, Mr. Frothy could win that state.

BucEyedPea
02-13-2012, 11:08 PM
holy crap. New poll out, Santorum has almost tied Romney in CA, and if Gingrich fades to black, Mr. Frothy could win that state.

If numbers of people voting in the GOP are down, as reported, sounds like it's up or the same since they're very involved, for Evangelicals and/or other religious conservatives.

FAX
02-13-2012, 11:11 PM
What an absolute garbage heap of candidates.

Amen to that.

If they were lying in a stairwell, I wouldn't pick them up.

FAX

Dave Lane
02-13-2012, 11:51 PM
holy crap. New poll out, Santorum has almost tied Romney in CA, and if Gingrich fades to black, Mr. Frothy could win that state.

Gingrich may as well drop, he's down to Ron Paul support levels.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-13-2012, 11:55 PM
holy crap. New poll out, Santorum has almost tied Romney in CA, and if Gingrich fades to black, Mr. Frothy could win that state.

Now i know this thing is rigged, Santorum in Cali? Absolute BS!

Dave Lane
02-13-2012, 11:57 PM
Holy shit Michigan is Romney's home state. If he can't hold serve here, he's in big trouble.

alnorth
02-14-2012, 12:27 AM
Now i know this thing is rigged, Santorum in Cali? Absolute BS!

I can't believe I'm saying this, given that you are the undisputed champion of bullcrap stories which are not fact-checked but... I halfway agree with you. I always thought Cally Republicans were mostly libertarian, and the thought they could support Santorum just feel fundamentally wrong and alien to me on many levels.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2012, 07:48 AM
I can't believe I'm saying this, given that you are the undisputed champion of bullcrap stories which are not fact-checked but... I halfway agree with you. I always thought Cally Republicans were mostly libertarian, and the thought they could support Santorum just feel fundamentally wrong and alien to me on many levels.

Plus Paul won that straw poll in Cali where there were many GOP officials that voted. On the other hand, Cali does have a plenty of conservatives. You just don't hear about them the often as the liberals get all the attention and news.

Amnorix
02-14-2012, 07:55 AM
F'ing this. I absolutely would vote for Ron Paul, and I might somehow, someway, maybe convince myself to vote for Romney if he doesn't go nuts, but Rick Santorum is the very embodiment of almost the opposite of everything I believe. There is no way in hell I'd vote for him, and since I'm in a swing state, I'd have to vote for Obama instead of 3rd party if Santorum was the nominee.


Precisely how I feel about him. In both parties there is stuff I like and stuff I don't like. Santorum is ALL the stuff I don't like in one nice, neat package.

I'm also thinking he's fairly unelectable, but maybe I'm just projecting my own views onto a majority of voting Americans.

dirk digler
02-14-2012, 08:02 AM
Santorum is everything I dislike about the Republican Party in one nice, neat package. I could vote for Romney, probably would. I might even vote for Paul if I can somehow convince myself that he wouldn't damage the country's foreign affairs irreparably.

But it'd be a cold day in hell before I ever voted for Santorum.

I don't get how anyone could vote for Romney. I would vote for Santorum (which I won't) before I ever considered Romney again. The guy is a habitual liar and scumbag. At least with Santorum he is honest up front about who he is and doesn't try to hide it.

blaise
02-14-2012, 08:05 AM
I saw someone threw glitter at Santorum yesterday or the day before. That's like the 5th time someone's done that glitter-bomb thing. I don't see why that's acceptable behavior.

BigRichard
02-14-2012, 08:11 AM
Precisely how I feel about him. In both parties there is stuff I like and stuff I don't like. Santorum is ALL the stuff I don't like in one nice, neat package.

I'm also thinking he's fairly unelectable, but maybe I'm just projecting my own views onto a majority of voting Americans.

No I think you are projecting what most independents think. I am gonna laugh if Santorum is nominated. Might as well congratulate Obama at that point. He doesn't even need to run a tough campaign. Romney is the only one out there right now that could possibly win over Obama.

InChiefsHell
02-14-2012, 08:19 AM
I think you all are underestimating Santorum. Which is fine with me. I like the guy. Out of all the Rebublican candidates, he's the most conservative and seems to be the most decent one. He will not take us down the same road we are on now, regardless of what everyone says.

Keep f-ing doubting Rick Santorum.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2012, 08:21 AM
I think you all are underestimating Santorum. Which is fine with me. I like the guy. Out of all the Rebublican candidates, he's the most conservative and seems to be the most decent one. He will not take us down the same road we are on now, regardless of what everyone says.

Keep f-ing doubting Rick Santorum.

He's a pro-life warmonger though. Just listening to him I can see that. I see a war with Iran with him. He also voted for the Bush pork-fest.
If starting a war is now considered conservative, when we convicted Nazis for doing that at the Nuremberg trials, then I will no longer for any candidate that is conservative. He's drunk too much from the NeoCon pitcher of Kool-Aid to be a conservative anymore.

Cave Johnson
02-14-2012, 08:22 AM
I think you all are underestimating Santorum. Which is fine with me. I like the guy. Out of all the Rebublican candidates, he's the most conservative and seems to be the most decent one. He will not take us down the same road we are on now, regardless of what everyone says.

Keep f-ing doubting Rick Santorum.

By all means, please donate to his campaign. Keep his message of government intrusion in the bedroom going.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2012, 08:25 AM
By all means, please donate to his campaign. Keep his message of government intrusion in the bedroom going.

Issues like that really are not important compared to other issues to most voters. Besides, those issues are state issues.

InChiefsHell
02-14-2012, 08:25 AM
By all means, please donate to his campaign. Keep his message of government intrusion in the bedroom going.

:rolleyes:You guys really think that's the focus of a guy like Santorum?

Yeah...he's gonna stop you from doing whatever you want in the bedroom. Run...run away!!!

Amnorix
02-14-2012, 08:25 AM
I don't get how anyone could vote for Romney. I would vote for Santorum (which I won't) before I ever considered Romney again. The guy is a habitual liar and scumbag. At least with Santorum he is honest up front about who he is and doesn't try to hide it.


Yes, I respect that he honestly admits that he is in favor of everything I abhor in terms of policies that a politician can adopt. I appreciate that.

Romney is basically a moderate Republican. You call him a liar, which I understand, but I think politicians shifting position somewhat with the political wind isn't the worst thing in the world.

Scumbag? Please explain that to me. He's a very successful family man and business man. Don't see why he's a scumbag.

InChiefsHell
02-14-2012, 08:27 AM
He's a pro-life warmonger though. Just listening to him I can see that. I see a war with Iran with him. He also voted for the Bush pork-fest.
If starting a war is now considered conservative, when we convicted Nazis for doing that at the Nuremberg trials, then I will no longer for any candidate that is conservative. He's drunk too much from the NeoCon pitcher of Kool-Aid to be a conservative anymore.

I agree, he has a spotty past. Voting with Bush and he does seem a little more willing to shoot first and ask questions later, but since we don't live in a dictatorship, and with lessons learned from the past, I just don't see us going down the same road as with Bush.

I believe he will be extremely fiscally conservative on the economy and entitlements, starting with Obamacare. That alone is enough to make me happy to vote for him.

InChiefsHell
02-14-2012, 08:30 AM
Yes, I respect that he honestly admits that he is in favor of everything I abhor in terms of policies that a politician can adopt. I appreciate that.

Romney is basically a moderate Republican. You call him a liar, which I understand, but I think politicians shifting position somewhat with the political wind isn't the worst thing in the world.

Scumbag? Please explain that to me. He's a very successful family man and business man. Don't see why he's a scumbag.

Because he's a Republican. Keep up.

dirk digler
02-14-2012, 08:32 AM
Yes, I respect that he honestly admits that he is in favor of everything I abhor in terms of policies that a politician can adopt. I appreciate that.

Romney is basically a moderate Republican. You call him a liar, which I understand, but I think politicians shifting position somewhat with the political wind isn't the worst thing in the world.

Scumbag? Please explain that to me. He's a very successful family man and business man. Don't see why he's a scumbag.

I view him the same way I viewed John Edwards, a slimy used car salesman = scumbag.

InChiefsHell
02-14-2012, 08:34 AM
I view him the same way I viewed John Edwards, a slimy used car salesman = scumbag.

In all fairness, I don't like him much and I can't put my finger on why. I wouldn't call him a scumbag, I reserve such labels for people who are criminals and who hurt others. I don't think he's in that category.

He's a family man, has been successful, basically lived the American dream. But...maybe it's because he's TO perfect...I just don't really like the guy.

He's about 100% better than Barry, but that's setting the bar pretty low.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2012, 08:36 AM
I agree, he has a spotty past. Voting with Bush and he does seem a little more willing to shoot first and ask questions later, but since we don't live in a dictatorship, and with lessons learned from the past, I just don't see us going down the same road as with Bush.

I believe he will be extremely fiscally conservative on the economy and entitlements, starting with Obamacare. That alone is enough to make me happy to vote for him.


We don't live in a dictatorship? I could make an argument out of that. Look around at what's going on. So much is being centralized, even the police are being more militarize, and then there's the precedents by each president to abuse EO's.

dirk digler
02-14-2012, 08:40 AM
In all fairness, I don't like him much and I can't put my finger on why. I wouldn't call him a scumbag, I reserve such labels for people who are criminals and who hurt others. I don't think he's in that category.

He's a family man, has been successful, basically lived the American dream. But...maybe it's because he's TO perfect...I just don't really like the guy.

He's about 100% better than Barry, but that's setting the bar pretty low.

Maybe scumbag was too harsh but I agree with you there is something off-putting or wrong with him that people don't like. I wouldn't be surprised if something doesn't come out about him in the personal fashion sometime in the near future.

InChiefsHell
02-14-2012, 08:43 AM
We don't live in a dictatorship? I could make an argument out of that. Look around at what's going on. So much is being centralized, even the police are being more militarize, and then there's the precedents by each president to abuse EO's.

Well, we DON'T live in a dictatorship. We have been letting go of freedom and control over the government for decades, I'll agree. But we are still a long way away from a dictatorship. Much blood will be spilled in America before that happens.

But I really think that Santorum is more of a Tea Party guy and they will hold him to account. I also believe he's learned his lesson. People do change.

InChiefsHell
02-14-2012, 08:44 AM
Maybe scumbag was too harsh but I agree with you there is something off-putting or wrong with him that people don't like. I wouldn't be surprised if something doesn't come out about him in the personal fashion sometime in the near future.

Except we've been watching the dude run for the last 6 years. I think that everything that needs to be known about Romney is out there...but people still feel about the same for the guy. He doesn't surge or inspire people. He's...blah.

He's McCain 2.0.

Amnorix
02-14-2012, 08:58 AM
We don't live in a dictatorship? I could make an argument out of that. Look around at what's going on. So much is being centralized, even the police are being more militarize, and then there's the precedents by each president to abuse EO's.


Why don't you look up what a dictatorship is before you go all stupid on us (again).

Amnorix
02-14-2012, 09:01 AM
Except we've been watching the dude run for the last 6 years. I think that everything that needs to be known about Romney is out there...but people still feel about the same for the guy. He doesn't surge or inspire people. He's...blah.

He's McCain 2.0.


I think when you combine the blah-ness with the, let's be nice and call it "flexible" thinking on policies, you get a very un-inspired base.

But his worst feature is also his best. Unlike every other Republican candidate, he doesn't have much in the way of specific negatives that make him very UNlikeable. He may not inspire, but neither does he repulse.

Dave Lane
02-14-2012, 09:05 AM
I think you all are underestimating Santorum. Which is fine with me. I like the guy. Out of all the Rebublican candidates, he's the most conservative and seems to be the most decent one. He will not take us down the same road we are on now, regardless of what everyone says.

Keep f-ing doubting Rick Santorum.

I'm not surprised he appeals to you, given most of your takes I have read.

InChiefsHell
02-14-2012, 09:08 AM
I'm not surprised he appeals to you, given most of your takes I have read.

I'm not surprised he doesn't appeal to you, given most of your takes I have read.

alnorth
02-14-2012, 09:16 AM
Maybe scumbag was too harsh but I agree with you there is something off-putting or wrong with him that people don't like. I wouldn't be surprised if something doesn't come out about him in the personal fashion sometime in the near future.

I would. I'd be utterly gobsmacked and shocked if he had a personal scandal. The man is a squeaky-clean Mormon, he is who he is.

The off-putting part about him is probably related to his class and religion.

patteeu
02-14-2012, 09:26 AM
The biggest problem I have with Santorum (and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat if he were the nominee) is his lack of executive experience. I'd disagree with some of his social conservative positions too, but they are insignificant compared to the big issues of the day (e.g. the economy, the budget, foreign policy, judges, and spiraling health care costs that are choking most of the above).

The people who don't like Romney, like dirk, are having flashbacks to high school when they were consumed with jealousy of the all American QB who had all the pretty girls under his spell.

InChiefsHell
02-14-2012, 09:34 AM
The biggest problem I have with Santorum (and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat if he were the nominee) is his lack of executive experience. I'd disagree with some of his social conservative positions too, but they are insignificant compared to the big issues of the day (e.g. the economy, the budget, foreign policy, judges, and spiraling health care costs that are choking most of the above).

The people who don't like Romney, like dirk, are having flashbacks to high school when they were consumed with jealousy of the all American QB who had all the pretty girls under his spell.

OH, I'll vote for Romney if he's the nominee. I'd vote for Ron Paul if he was the nominee. That said, I just like Santorum and feel like he'll have more personal integrity.

I have no evidence other than my gut for this.

dirk digler
02-14-2012, 09:36 AM
I would. I'd be utterly gobsmacked and shocked if he had a personal scandal. The man is a squeaky-clean Mormon, he is who he is.

The off-putting part about him is probably related to his class and religion.

It is always the squeaky clean ones you have to look out for ;)

Brock
02-14-2012, 09:36 AM
Santorum appeals to religious nuts.

dirk digler
02-14-2012, 09:40 AM
The biggest problem I have with Santorum (and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat if he were the nominee) is his lack of executive experience. I'd disagree with some of his social conservative positions too, but they are insignificant compared to the big issues of the day (e.g. the economy, the budget, foreign policy, judges, and spiraling health care costs that are choking most of the above).

The people who don't like Romney, like dirk, are having flashbacks to high school when they were consumed with jealousy of the all American QB who had all the pretty girls under his spell.

I am jealous of Mitt Romney like you are jealous of Obama

go bowe
02-14-2012, 10:29 AM
I am jealous of Mitt Romney like you are jealous of Obama

well, THAT explains it...

Cave Johnson
02-14-2012, 10:58 AM
:rolleyes:You guys really think that's the focus of a guy like Santorum?

Yeah...he's gonna stop you from doing whatever you want in the bedroom. Run...run away!!!

Santorum (and RP, for that matter) disagree with the Supreme Court's nearly 50 year old decision on contraception. Pretty sure he disagrees with <i>Lawrence v. Texas</i> (upholding the right to private gay sex) as well.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/ron-paul-birth-control

Good luck appealing to indies with government intrusion into your private lives. They eat that shit up. ;)

patteeu
02-14-2012, 11:29 AM
Good luck appealing to indies with government intrusion into your private lives. They eat that shit up. ;)

They were certainly all over it in 2008.

Cave Johnson
02-14-2012, 11:32 AM
They were certainly all over it in 2008.

Understandable, given that the economy was in freefall.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2012, 11:34 AM
Santorum (and RP, for that matter) disagree with the Supreme Court's nearly 50 year old decision on contraception. Pretty sure he disagrees with <i>Lawrence v. Texas</i> (upholding the right to private gay sex) as well.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/ron-paul-birth-control

Good luck appealing to indies with government intrusion into your private lives. They eat that shit up. ;)

You don't understand Paul's positions very well or the original Constitution. I always note that the left just can't process certain ideas well. Even if you disagree with their interpretation—at least understand it correctly.

I disagree with LvT as well for the same reasons as Paul—the incorporation doctrine using the BoRs is bogus under originalist construction. That is a state issue. Even paleo-libertarians like Rockwell would disagree with that law as a state law but say it's not a Federal issue. So within that state is where they'd be libertarian about it by seeking to repeal that law. Paul, as well as Rockwell, do not believe such a law will make a person more moral...in terms of their values. In Santorum's case, he'd keep the law in place at the state level if he lived there.

Same is true for the Conn contraception case, which btw, over time would have eventually been repealed as attitudes and values would have changed as it should be. This was inevitable as medical technology developed in that area. Paul accepts the Tenth Amendment which is also part of the Bill of Rights.

You can't have it both ways: as in allowing a state supreme court justice to overrule the people of their state on gay marriage by saying it's unconstitutional and celebrate that too. Or to never incorporate the right to bear arms while incorporating everything else.

You guys just continue to centralize social issues. For over a hundred years such issues were dealt with by states. It's a mistake to federalize all of these social issues.

Cave Johnson
02-14-2012, 11:37 AM
You don't understand Paul's positions very well or the original Constitution. I always note that the left just can't process certain ideas well. Even if you disagree with their interpretation—at least understand it.

I disagree with LvT as well for the same reasons as Paul, the incorporation doctrine using the BoRs is bogus under originalist construction. That is a state issue. Even pale-libertarians like Rockwell would disagree with that law as a state law but say it's not a Federal issue. So within that state is where they'd be libertarian about it by seeking to repeal that law. In Santorum's case, he'd keep the law in place at the state level if he lived there.

You can't have it both ways: as in allowing a state supreme court justice to overrule the people of their state on gay marriage by saying it's unconstitutional and celebrate that too.

You guys just continue to centralize social issues. It's a mistake.

No, I understand RP's position. Return to a pre-14th Amendment interpretation of rights, and all that jazz.

I just don't agree with it.

KC native
02-14-2012, 11:45 AM
Rick "man dog sex" santorum. ROFL. Patty and hcf are going to stroke out when Obama is re-elected

patteeu
02-14-2012, 11:47 AM
No, I understand RP's position. Return to a pre-14th Amendment interpretation of rights, and all that jazz.

I just don't agree with it.

Not pre-14th. He rejects the post-constitutional interpretations of the constitution and it's amendments.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2012, 11:48 AM
Well, we DON'T live in a dictatorship. We have been letting go of freedom and control over the government for decades, I'll agree. But we are still a long way away from a dictatorship. Much blood will be spilled in America before that happens.
Then you're not keeping up...we are clearly on the road to fascism and dictatorship. It can happen without a single shot being fired. One way to halt it is to be better informed.

But I really think that Santorum is more of a Tea Party guy and they will hold him to account. I also believe he's learned his lesson. People do change.

Santorum is not at all a Tea Party guy. He's just a hijacker like Bachmann. The Tea Party was started by Paul's Campaign for Liberty. Santorum thinks Ron Paul is "disgusting." That's not the opinion of a real member of the Tea Party. That's the first sign he's not one.

Santorum is for BIG govt—just with a conservative overtone. He even voted to expand the DoE which is VERY unconservative and very UN- Tea Party. Voted to raise the debt limit 8 times per my sources per Perry it was 5 times. I think you should check his record out more. In fact, I think I'll go look it up again.

Also, I just read that he was against bombing Iran before he ran for President. That would be more in line with him being a Catholic by subscribing to the Just War doctrine and his Pope's stand on it. Since, he ran for president he's now for bombing Iran. Sounds to be like someone got ahold of him from the progressive wing of the party. Ya' know the NeoCons. The GOP is currently under control of international Fabian socialists. The left has been having them do their work for them. If you're outside of this paradigm....you're out or they will take you out. I think Santorum has signs and a voting record whereby he can be counted on to do some of their bidding, while they allow a bone to be thrown to the social conservatives to keep them happy.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2012, 12:04 PM
Santorum adopted the big-spending habits of Republicans during the Bush years of 2001-2006.

Spending Record:

• No Child Left Behind in 2001

This expanded the federal government’s role in education.

• Massive new Medicare drug entitlement in 2003

Costing taxpayers over $60 billion a year while having $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

• 2005 highway bill including the Bridge to Nowhere.

In a separate vote, Santorum voted to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina

• Sponsored a bill to extend milk subsidies in 2005 to save dairy farmers
• While his earlier record in the 90's was better, his 2003-2004 session in Congress, shows that he sponsored or cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending
• In 2003-04 Santorum failed to sponsor or co-sponsor just one spending cut proposal
• Supported raising congressional pay three times:2001, 2002, and 2003.


Regulation

• Voted YES on Sarbanes-Oxley
This is an overreaching bill that tried to tighten accounting regulations following the Enron scandal but which harms more than it helps

• Flip-Flopped on role of federal govt in the housing market:
In late 2000, Santorum wrote an op-ed encouraging more home ownership, particularly for low-income families, with the help of government assistance, whether it was through the Federal Housing Administration, or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

This was part of the Bush push to create an "Ownership Society". Sound progressive? It is. This push contributed to the housing market bubble which collapsed.

However he did change his tune in 2005 and pushed for reform of F&F. So his record is at best mixed on this.


• Before, in 1997, Santorum offered a campaign finance reform bill as an alternative to an earlier version of McCain-Feingold which was declared unConstitutional.

Education

• Thinks the Federal govt can be involved in education with his pro-choice bills, when there is NO Constitutional authority for it because there is no enumerated power for it. Although, he seems to have switched his position, he undermines that with support for too much federal government control. See No Child Left Behind.

• He hasn't called for getting rid of Dept of Ed

Trade

• To his credit he voted against one "Managed Trade" agreement that is more crony capitalism and corporatist called Nafta. However he supported these:
[INDENT]Voted YES on the Oman Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
Voted YES on CAFTA
Voted YES on the Morocco FTA
Voted YES on the Australia FTA
Voted YES on the Chile FTA
Voted YES on the Singapore FTA
Voted YES to Trade Promotion Authority

These are unnecessary for free-trade.
So much for his wanting to bring manufacturing back here.

On January 2, 2012 Steve Forbes was on Liberal Morning Joe on MSNBC and mentioned this about Santorum: He supported the liberal, pro-abortion, big-spending Arlen Specter for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania in opposition to a man Forbes called "a genuine conservative."

Specter then went on to vote for Obamacare, bailouts, etc.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2012, 12:08 PM
No, I understand RP's position. Return to a pre-14th Amendment interpretation of rights, and all that jazz.

I just don't agree with it.

Uh, no you wouldn't even have to return to pre-14th Amendment either. That amendment was originally written for black people and those pushing promised it wouldn't expand into other areas. Over time, it morphed and expanded beyond it's own original intent.

It was also ratified at the point of a gun. So I say duress invalidates it altogether but that's another argument.

However, what still remains is that the left refuses to apply it to guns.

Calcountry
02-14-2012, 01:12 PM
Plus Paul won that straw poll in Cali where there were many GOP officials that voted. On the other hand, Cali does have a plenty of conservatives. You just don't hear about them the often as the liberals get all the attention and news.NAAAAAAAAAAw, what conservatives? There are no conservatives out here. ;)

Calcountry
02-14-2012, 01:15 PM
:rolleyes:You guys really think that's the focus of a guy like Santorum?

Yeah...he's gonna stop you from doing whatever you want in the bedroom. Run...run away!!!If they can say that, then can I call Obama a Muslim?

Calcountry
02-14-2012, 01:17 PM
We don't live in a dictatorship? Yes we do.

Calcountry
02-14-2012, 01:19 PM
Why don't you look up what a dictatorship is before you go all stupid on us (again).Let's see, ummm, appoint recess appointments because I deem congress to be in recess.

Deem Obamacare passed, even though it hadn't at the time.

Oh yes, and most recently, "Thou shalt pay for a womens birth control pills, thus sayeth Obama unto the Catholic church."

suzzer99
02-14-2012, 01:28 PM
I saw someone threw glitter at Santorum yesterday or the day before. That's like the 5th time someone's done that glitter-bomb thing. I don't see why that's acceptable behavior.

It's not. Happy?

blaise
02-14-2012, 02:33 PM
It's not. Happy?

No, not really. Not unless those words you posted were powerful enough to stop it from happening again.

alnorth
02-14-2012, 02:37 PM
NAAAAAAAAAAw, what conservatives? There are no conservatives out here. ;)

If there are, why the hell haven't they fled yet? CA is owned by the labor unions and they can't afford those pensions. That state is going to explode soon.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2012, 04:30 PM
Not pre-14th. He rejects the post-constitutional interpretations of the constitution and it's amendments.

He does not disagree with the amendments stated as a generality here. That's a fabrication. Just two (16& 17th) and how one is applied (14th). The abuses of the 14th can be handled easily enough through the powers of congress by refusing to allow certain types of issues being heard by the SC. He said this in the debate and I've seen this idea elsewhere too. I have never seen Paul criticize, nor call for repeal of 13th or the 19th.

patteeu
02-14-2012, 04:33 PM
He does not disagree with the amendments stated as a generality here. That's a fabrication. Just two (16& 17th) and how one is applied (14th). The abuses of the 14th can be handled easily enough through the powers of congress by refusing to allow certain types of issues being heard by the SC. He said this in the debate and I've seen this idea elsewhere too. I have never seen Paul criticize, nor call for repeal of 13th or the 19th.

:rolleyes: I didn't say he disagrees with the amendments. He disagrees with the post-constitutional interpretations, meaning that he doesn't approve of the way courts who are generations removed from the ratification of the document like to reinterpret it in ways that the ratifiers couldn't have imagined.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2012, 04:38 PM
:rolleyes: I didn't say he disagrees with the amendments. He disagrees with the post-constitutional interpretations, meaning that he doesn't approve of the way courts who are generations removed from the ratification of the document like to reinterpret it in ways that the ratifiers couldn't have imagined.

:rolleyes::rolleyes: That's two for you because I did not mention the part of your post where you said "interpretations of the constitution." And because I only took up what you added with "and its amendments." ( I did not type it as "it's amendments" here either intentionally because that is incorrect too. So don't mind the partial misquote, in the event you falsely charge me with fabricating something.)

Not pre-14th. He rejects the post-constitutional interpretations of the constitution and it's amendments.

"it" is a pronoun referring to the Constitution here, not "interpretations" since those aren't amendments.

patteeu
02-14-2012, 05:16 PM
:rolleyes::rolleyes: That's two for you because I did not mention the part of your post where you said "interpretations of the constitution." And because I only took up what you added with "and its amendments." ( I did not type it as "it's amendments" here either intentionally because that is incorrect too. So don't mind the partial misquote, in the event you falsely charge me with fabricating something.)



"it" is a pronoun referring to the Constitution here, not "interpretations" since those aren't amendments.

You're a moron. While my post is a little ambiguous, once it's been explained to you, there's no excuse for continued confusion. Furthermore, if you understand Ron Paul's position, the right way to resolve the ambiguity in the first place is in the way that fits his stance not by contorting to understand it in a way that fails to describe him. No wonder you're so often confused by the things you read.

patteeu
02-14-2012, 05:22 PM
"it" is a pronoun referring to the Constitution here, not "interpretations" since those aren't amendments.

No shit, mental cripple. Interpretations of the constitution and interpretations of it's (the constitution's) amendments.

Dave Lane
02-14-2012, 05:58 PM
No shit, mental cripple. Interpretations of the constitution and interpretations of it's (the constitution's) amendments.

Holy shit Patty is calling people names. BEP has ron pauled him into the madness the rest of us suffer from.

SNR
02-14-2012, 06:51 PM
I must say, I like this aggressive version of patteeu much better.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2012, 07:08 PM
You're a moron. While my post is a little ambiguous, once it's been explained to you, there's no excuse for continued confusion.

Nice accusation—but there's no confusion. You can admit you didn't write the way you meant it.

Furthermore, if you understand Ron Paul's position, the right way to resolve the ambiguity in the first place is in the way that fits his stance not by contorting to understand it in a way that fails to describe him. No wonder you're so often confused by the things you read.
What ambiguity? It says what it says on it's face. Seems to me like your contorting what you actually wrote. More projection by patty.

patteeu
02-14-2012, 07:16 PM
Nice accusation—but there's no confusion. You can admit you didn't write the way you meant it.


What ambiguity? It says what it says on it's face. Seems to me like your contorting what you actually wrote. More projection by patty.

You're just making a fool out of yourself by sticking to your guns on this. Not that that's anything new, of course. You realize that these are publicly posted comments, right?

dirk digler
02-14-2012, 07:16 PM
I just read that the Michigan primary is open to anyone which may lead to a perfect setup to really screw Mitt and get Dems to vote for Rick.

patteeu
02-14-2012, 07:19 PM
I just read that the Michigan primary is open to anyone which may lead to a perfect setup to really screw Mitt and get Dems to vote for Rick.

Why do you think dems are so afraid of Romney? Last time they voted in open primaries to help McCain and this time you think they'll be out to help the 2012 version of not-Mitt.

alnorth
02-14-2012, 07:21 PM
Why do you think dems are so afraid of Romney? Last time they voted in open primaries to help McCain and this time you think they'll be out to help the 2012 version of not-Mitt.

I don't think they are "afraid" of him, but under simple game theory it still makes sense to increase their odds from 70% or whatever we think it is, up to a near-certainty by causing him to lose the nomination.

dirk digler
02-14-2012, 07:23 PM
Why do you think dems are so afraid of Romney? Last time they voted in open primaries to help McCain and this time you think they'll be out to help the 2012 version of not-Mitt.

I would think the motivation is to keep the contested primary going. Just like Rush tried to do in 2008 when he told Reps to vote for Hillary.

dirk digler
02-14-2012, 07:24 PM
I don't think they are "afraid" of him, but under simple game theory it still makes sense to increase their odds from 70% or whatever we think it is, up to a near-certainty by causing him to lose the nomination.

Then again losing Michigan might be the kill shot to Mittens.

patteeu
02-14-2012, 07:34 PM
I don't think they are "afraid" of him, but under simple game theory it still makes sense to increase their odds from 70% or whatever we think it is, up to a near-certainty by causing him to lose the nomination.

Was that the same calculation they made last time around when they helped the more moderate candidate, John McCain get the nomination? Because it seems backward by comparison.

Chocolate Hog
02-14-2012, 07:41 PM
I might vote for Santorum in the caucus here just to help destroy the Republican party.

alnorth
02-14-2012, 07:44 PM
Was that the same calculation they made last time around when they helped the more moderate candidate, John McCain get the nomination? Because it seems backward by comparison.

I'm gonna need to see where the Dems did anything, or had an opportunity to do much of anything, to help McCain, because he had it pretty well wrapped up early.

edit: I'm also not saying the Dems WILL cross over and try to help Santorum in Michigan. I'm saying it would make a lot of sense for them to do so, but if they don't, and/or if they helped McCain, it would be under the "oh God, one of those fruitcakes could be president, better pick someone who is sane" theory. I think that theory is mistaken. Barring a dead body and a bloody knife in the president's hands, Santorum would be destroyed in November, while Romney is definitely a credible candidate.

dirk digler
02-14-2012, 07:51 PM
lol

Santorum's benefiting from the open nature of Michigan's primary as well. He's only up by 12 points with actual Republican voters, but he has a 40-21 advantage with the Democrats and independents planning to vote that pushes his overall lead up to 15 points.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2012, 08:07 PM
I might vote for Santorum in the caucus here just to help destroy the Republican party.

There were Paul supporters that voted for Mitt in Florida to knock out Newt. He polled much higher than he placed. But there was NO direct mail, commercial or calls for him. I volunteered and they didn't even use me. Some odd stuff going on.

go bowe
02-14-2012, 09:18 PM
There were Paul supporters that voted for Mitt in Florida to knock out Newt. He polled much higher than he placed. But there was direct mail, commercial or calls for him. I volunteered and they didn't even use me. Some odd stuff going on.

looks like they already know you... LMAO LMAO LMAO

Taco John
02-14-2012, 09:30 PM
Was that the same calculation they made last time around when they helped the more moderate candidate, John McCain get the nomination? Because it seems backward by comparison.

I think they know that a Santorum nomination means 4 more years of Barry.

patteeu
02-14-2012, 09:33 PM
I think they know that a Santorum nomination means 4 more years of Barry.

I think they're afraid that a Romney nomination means that Obama is a one term president.

go bowe
02-14-2012, 09:40 PM
I think they're afraid that a Romney nomination means that Obama is a one term president.

gee, no surprises there...

but it looks like santorum may take this thing away from mitt...

the obots will love it...

alnorth
02-14-2012, 09:53 PM
I think they're afraid that a Romney nomination means that Obama is a one term president.

Wishful thinking. Could Romney win? Yes, he could, and that is not in a "well, what the hell, anything's possible I guess" sense, Romney is a real credible candidate who could win.

Is it likely? At this point, no.

Taco John
02-14-2012, 09:55 PM
I think they're afraid that a Romney nomination means that Obama is a one term president.

I think the polls are right that it's about 50-50 at this point between Romney-Obama. It's going to take a re-roll of the paradigm dice to change the gridlock that our nation faces right now.

dirk digler
02-15-2012, 08:30 AM
I think they're afraid that a Romney nomination means that Obama is a one term president.

If you would have said that a few months ago you would have been right. Now Mittens favorability has dropped almost 30 points and he is almost unlikable as Newt.

He is a damaged candidate that no one really likes and wants to support so my guess is if he is the nominee he will lose by 8-10 pts depending on how the economy shakes out.

patteeu
02-15-2012, 08:42 AM
If you would have said that a few months ago you would have been right. Now Mittens favorability has dropped almost 30 points and he is almost unlikable as Newt.

He is a damaged candidate that no one really likes and wants to support so my guess is if he is the nominee he will lose by 8-10 pts depending on how the economy shakes out.

A lot will change once the GOP settles on Romney as it's nominee and closes ranks around him.

Chiefshrink
02-15-2012, 09:26 AM
gee, no surprises there...

but it looks like santorum may take this thing away from mitt...

the obots will love it...

No, the Obots won't love this because it is Mitt who they want to run against. The assault by the Marxist Media on Santorum has already begun. They know Mitt won't fight(like good little RINOs always do) and the HUGE REASON they want Mitt is that it takes Obamacare off the table for debate.

Bottomline: If Obamacare is not repealed, "GAME OVER, CHECKMATE" for America as we knew it. Regardless of what you think about Santorum's social conservative values or his periodic big government brain fart votes(he has learned his lesson IMHO), Santorum is the only one who is consistently attacking Obama's horrible economical record, only one attacking Obamacare, and the only one attacking Obama's attack on Christianity in this country(contraceptive issue). Santorum's passion is resonating with the "silent majority"(a la Tea Party-majority of America) and you can't fake passion and Romney is proof of that.

Trust me the OMarxist re-election campaign wants nothing to do with facing Santorum because he will expose Obama big time and will not let up.

Santorum/Rubio ticket is "lethal" in 2012:thumb:

Brock
02-15-2012, 09:35 AM
Santorum/Rubio ticket is "lethal" in 2012:thumb:

Lethal for the republicans.

Chiefshrink
02-15-2012, 09:39 AM
Lethal for the republicans.

Wanna bet?

dirk digler
02-15-2012, 09:46 AM
A lot will change once the GOP settles on Romney as it's nominee and closes ranks around him.

True but they will still have a candidate problem who isn't likeable. It is not like he can go out and buy himself a personality.

patteeu
02-15-2012, 09:57 AM
True but they will still have a candidate problem who isn't likeable. It is not like he can go out and buy himself a personality.

I think you're underestimating his likability.

chiefzilla1501
02-15-2012, 11:32 AM
No, the Obots won't love this because it is Mitt who they want to run against. The assault by the Marxist Media on Santorum has already begun. They know Mitt won't fight(like good little RINOs always do) and the HUGE REASON they want Mitt is that it takes Obamacare off the table for debate.

Bottomline: If Obamacare is not repealed, "GAME OVER, CHECKMATE" for America as we knew it. Regardless of what you think about Santorum's social conservative values or his periodic big government brain fart votes(he has learned his lesson IMHO), Santorum is the only one who is consistently attacking Obama's horrible economical record, only one attacking Obamacare, and the only one attacking Obama's attack on Christianity in this country(contraceptive issue). Santorum's passion is resonating with the "silent majority"(a la Tea Party-majority of America) and you can't fake passion and Romney is proof of that.

Trust me the OMarxist re-election campaign wants nothing to do with facing Santorum because he will expose Obama big time and will not let up.

Santorum/Rubio ticket is "lethal" in 2012:thumb:

If you actually believe this, then you're part of everything that's wrong with the Republican party. No Presidential candidate is going to win on extreme views on social issues. And true tea party members know that he's full of crap when he acts like he's any kind of fiscal conservative. He's the same kind of ridiculous Bush politician who believes he can cut taxes and dramatically increase spending all at the same time. Santorum only has a dog in the fight because of his 1950's views on social issues. Period.

Obama is begging for Santorum. I promise you that. Because Santorum actually believes the crazy shit he's selling. I can't stand Obama, but I would absolutely vote for Obama over Santorum. It moves the entire Republican party backwards, and it moves the country backwards on social issues when we're finally starting to make some common sense.

go bowe
02-15-2012, 11:37 AM
If you actually believe this, then you're part of everything that's wrong with the Republican party. No Presidential candidate is going to win on extreme views on social issues. And true tea party members know that he's full of crap when he acts like he's any kind of fiscal conservative. He's the same kind of ridiculous Bush politician who believes he can cut taxes and dramatically increase spending all at the same time. Santorum only has a dog in the fight because of his 1950's views on social issues. Period.

Obama is begging for Santorum. I promise you that. Because Santorum actually believes the crazy shit he's selling. I can't stand Obama, but I would absolutely vote for Obama over Santorum. It moves the entire Republican party backwards, and it moves the country backwards on social issues when we're finally starting to make some common sense.

hell, if i was obama, i'd send some campaign contributions to buttfoam...

(heehee, i haven't referred to him as buttfoam until now but it is kinda fun to say it - buttfoam)

chiefzilla1501
02-15-2012, 11:37 AM
True but they will still have a candidate problem who isn't likeable. It is not like he can go out and buy himself a personality.

As an independent myself (leaning more toward conservative), Romney's the only candidate (outside of Huntsman) who appealed to me. He is not likeable to the base because he doesn't peddle the ridiculous social bullshit that wins you primaries. I'm very curious to see how he attacks a general election. I think he is going to do everything he can to win the moderate vote, and I think he could very easily do that. I think the very fact that Republicans are tentative to back him is a testament to his independent appeal.

I think there are a lot of independents out there who would gladly accept strict fiscal discipline + an unalarming social agenda.

go bowe
02-15-2012, 11:42 AM
depends on whose strict fiscal is being disciplined...

Brock
02-15-2012, 02:46 PM
Wanna bet?

BINGO!!!!!!!!!

Dave Lane
02-15-2012, 02:56 PM
Wanna bet?

How much money have you got?

FishingRod
02-15-2012, 03:22 PM
I’m Libertarian minded person for the most part. As such Paul most closely follows my beliefs. I don’t agree with everything he says but, philosophically we are on the same page. I see him as far more honest and honorable than the rest of the field. I also know he will not now, nor will he ever receive the nomination so it really does not matter. For the past few elections I just could not stomach voting for either of the two major party’s candidates. I saw them as a choice between genital warts and syphilis. Not exactly something I care to line up and receive voluntarily. Having said that and realizing my initial view of this POTUS started off in a negative light, my view of the current administration is one of an entirely new category of ineptitude. I had decided much like the anyone but Bush crowd from the last election, that no matter the choice it would have to be an improvement. The Republicans are doing what they can to change my mind. While I see the appeal to the Christian Right to life voter of Mr. Santorum, he is just far too much of that to mesh with my Libertarian keep the government out of my business attitude. Mitt and Newt certainly don’t excite me but I could see them as more effective less damaging President than the current one but, I would probably have to go 3rd candidate again if it comes down to Rick and Barry. Just MHO as a side note, Santorum is seems more honest about his views than Mitt, Newt or Barry and for that, I do hold a certain degree of respect for the man.

Taco John
02-15-2012, 03:28 PM
Pretty good ad. Romney shoots santorum at Santorum:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OtOcrS6axnE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

BucEyedPea
02-15-2012, 03:29 PM
No, the Obots won't love this because it is Mitt who they want to run against. The assault by the Marxist Media on Santorum has already begun. They know Mitt won't fight(like good little RINOs always do) and the HUGE REASON they want Mitt is that it takes Obamacare off the table for debate.

Bottomline: If Obamacare is not repealed, "GAME OVER, CHECKMATE" for America as we knew it. Regardless of what you think about Santorum's social conservative values or his periodic big government brain fart votes(he has learned his lesson IMHO), Santorum is the only one who is consistently attacking Obama's horrible economical record, only one attacking Obamacare, and the only one attacking Obama's attack on Christianity in this country(contraceptive issue). Santorum's passion is resonating with the "silent majority"(a la Tea Party-majority of America) and you can't fake passion and Romney is proof of that.

Trust me the OMarxist re-election campaign wants nothing to do with facing Santorum because he will expose Obama big time and will not let up.

Santorum/Rubio ticket is "lethal" in 2012:thumb:

Santorum is a BIG govt conservative, voted for the Bush pork-fest and is clueless about economics which is needed to assist an economic turnaround. That, and he 's a pro-life warmonger who promotes pre-emptive war—something the we convicted the Nazis for in the Nuremberg trials.

Rubio is another warmonger, a NeoCon who uses the words "American Exceptionalism" as if we're the Master Culture.

The people are SICK of these endless WARS by 73%. This has something to do with why the Republicans were tossed out and Obama was voted in. Santorum is lethal for the Republicans. If not true, he'd only win because he's "Anybody but Obama" which is the same way we got Obama, a worse president than Bush.