The Boston Globe and 2 local papers didn't give him a chance. He didn't win a single county in Massachussetts 4 days earlier. Did Cruz really win EVERY county in Maine?
The head of the Ted Cruz campaign has said Heidi is Ted's closest adviser. The FEC violations involve her current employer. No personal attacks, just a necessary professional evaluation of Heidi Cruz's role in the Cruz Crew.
As a self-described "constitutional expert" Canadian born Cruz could do us all a great service to stop illegal immigration by simply answer 4 teeny weeny questions...
Reagan was attacked by the Establishment, but people LIKED him. Cruz on the other hand is despised by mild mannered Huckabee and "sealed lips" George W. There is a reason. Here is an (almost) complete compendium of Cruz lies.
There is a lie being told that "Natural Born Citizen" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution. That's True. What's Not True is that it is NOT settled by the Supreme Court. (It has)
In honor of @pmbasse, a descendant of one of the original 300 Texas settlers, I want to tell you WHY I LOVE TEXAS. As they say, I wasn't born here but I got here as soon as I could. And for me that was 3 times.
When you see who REALLY is running Ted's campaign, you realize how "inside" this pretend outsider is. The top CIA, Goldman Sachs executives are LITERALLY running his campaign.
The most rewarding and frustrating experience on Twitter has to be the concept of Follow Friday. I have a solution. See where PolitiJim gets his news, and twinteraction from.
Those of us in the pro-life movement were (cautiously) thrilled this week at the escape of Chen Guangcheng from house prison in China. I say “cautiously” because now his family is in danger of being taken into WORSE captivity once he escaped. Even Obama hasn’t reached this level of thuggery although there are signs he has been on the fringes of it.
Let’s not forget Obama/Hillary’s statement in 2009 when she publicly declared that the Obama administration would not let U.S. concerns about China’s human rights record interfere with cooperation ‘on the global economic crisis [and] the global climate change crisis.’ ” Broken WaPo clock Rubin accidently points out truth that Romney has been incoherent since an original white paper challenge the administrations communist corruption for cash stance.
Not only does it seem that the administration has gotten worse by denying a Chinese defector safety, the demonic practices of the Chinese communists hasn’t stopped.
Gugangcheng is the blind activist who has embarrassed the Chinese government by bringing light to the abuse of women, families and forced abortions. Women’s Rights Without Frontiers reminds us:
SAN JOSE, Calif., April 29, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ -- In the astonishment surrounding Chen Guangcheng's extraordinary escape from house arrest, let us not forget why he was arrested: in 2006 Chen exposed the Chinese government's systematic, massive use of forced abortion and involuntary sterilization to enforce its "One Child Policy." WRWF obtained a copy of Chen's field notes and we released the first English translation of these notes at a Congressional Hearing on December 6, 2011. You can read The Chen Guangcheng Report here.
A member of Chen's team, human rights attorney Teng Biao, drafted this 2005 investigative report into coercive family planning in Linyi City, Shandong Province. The report contains extensive witness statements from cases Chen and his team were investigating before Chen was jailed. In the report are detailed accounts regarding:
a woman forcibly aborted and sterilized at seven months;
villagers sleeping in fields to evade Family Planning Officials;
Family Planning Officials who broke three brooms over the head of an elderly man;
Family Planning Officials who forced a grandmother and her brother to beat each other; and
The use of quota systems and the practice of "implication" – the detention, fining and torture of the extended family of One Child Policy "violators."
The Chen Guangcheng report makes clear: the spirit of the Red Guards lives on in China's Family Planning death machine. WRWF released the names of the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity, so that they can be held accountable before the world.
Chen may be safe for the moment, but the women for whom he risked everything are not. Forced abortion is not a choice. It is official government rape. Until women in China are free to exercise perhaps their most fundamental right -- the right to bear children -- the nation of China will not be free.
If A Blind Chinese Hero Can Fight Communists So Effectively as Obama Allows Economics Over Evil - We Can Too. And More.
This is what unfettered corruption in power brings. And don’t laugh that there are forces bringing this to the United States. PRAY for this saint and against tyranny everywhere.
Part 1 of “Pro-Life or Pro-Lie” caught Rick Santorum attending, applauding and endorsing Arlen Specter as he trashed the Pro-Life movement and religious conservatives.
Part 2 uses Rick Santorum’s OWN words, those of his family and previous campaign to demonstrate a continued pattern of habitual lying begun in NUTSS for Santorum Part 1. (Sources linked below.)
h/t SantorumExposed
This video doesn’t include the testimony of a former congressman who claims he had knowledge that Santorum campaigners were told to hide their pro-life symbols when canvassing in 1990.
Social conservatives have bought plug nickel made direct from the cow patties of Pennsylvania. Worse, the major Pro-Life leaders sell out their integrity by not only not acknowledging these lapses, but outright hiding them and perpetuating campaign lies to protect “their” chosen candidate. We should have known groups like NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE were no longer reliable when they endorsed Mitt Romney in 2008.
Rick Santorum STILL has a pretty good pro-life record on actual votes. But the continued deception used to cover over the “non-votes” and the errant missteps tells us that he can’t be fully trusted.
Santorum statement condemning vote for ANY type of Planned Parenthood funding.
Campaign direct quote from Santorum that “never held a pro-choice position” when confronted when 3 direct contradictions of Santorum from previous years.
Earned $125,000 from a federal funded organization affiliated with Planned Parenthood and would not help to stop it’s funding when approached by Pro-Life leaders.
How about we nominate someone who has led the conservative battle for over 30 years, expanding conservatives in Congress and in the broader population, who balanced the federal budget 4 times with a Democrat as President and who actually kept Bob Dole and Ronald Reagan from caving on liberal pressure?
Still no response (that I’m aware of) from Steve Ertelt at LifeNews after the expose’ of his attacks on a ProLife Mommy, and his hypocrisy in hiding the betrayals of Rick Santorum to the ProLife movement.
Someone sent us a video from a Romney site (complete video here), that is beyond astounding. PolitiJim has already documented the inordinate number of lies and betrayals in his short political career, but this is beyond anything I imagined.
Rick Santorum has consistently said he has “always” been ProLife and “consistently” ProLife as in this debate edited into the video below. It is astounding:
Social conservatives are buying rotten fruit here. The Pennsylvanians abandoned him in 2006 for this very reason as they discuss here and here and here.
It is time for true conservatives to get behind a guy who EXPANDED the Reagan Revolution, stood up to Bob Dole (and even Reagan himself) on taxes and led the largest conservative take over in modern history that included 4 balanced budgets with a Democrat President.
PolitiJim prayed about all night and this morning about whether to write this article. Unless you are blond or liberal you now know what I decided. I am going to attempt to write this with as little snark and sarcasm as possible for PolitiJim, but it is an important issue.
This particular article would not be necessary, if a certain prolife leader would have taken my invitation to cogently debate these issues – but every time I asked a specific question, he pulled a non-conservative tactic of accusing me of accusing him of not being Christian. Or something. His replies encompassed ANYTHING other than debating facts. So this particular piece is NOT to trash him, or to create more “Holy Wars,” but again to try and get down to OBJECTIVE truth. And I invite him to respond to each point and will even post his response on PolitiJim. (I’ll bet he won’t post this on LifeNews, however. Any takers? PolitiJim needs a new computer.)
We’ve already learned of Ann Coulter’s betrayal of the conservative movement in trying to make Mitt Romney and RomneyCare seem Bill Buckley-like, Matt Drudge’s sell out and now one of the leading Right To Life – Prolife advocates, Steve Ertelt. This GOP primary campaign has revealed more about character (and sadly) just how unprincipled many conservatives are.
Now Steven claims to “like” Jesus (I’m sure he really LOVES Him, but is incapacitated to say so in 160 characters). I, however hate the Steelers (except brother-in-Christ Troy Polamalu) and likely haven’t listened to “rock” music since a couple of years after being saved. But you would think Steven and I would basically have the same goals right?
In the heat of a Twitter “battle” (for lack of a better word), my Christian brother and head of the LifeNews organization tweeted this:
Here again, you would think we would agree, right? We hate people who CLAIM to pro-life (or claim to be consistently pro-life) but aren’t. We both also are TIRED of the misrepresentation. But here we differ. I claim the person misrepresenting their prolife view is Rick Santorum, and Steven Ertelt thinks it is PolitiJim.
But this head of a major publication for ProLifers (and former multi-state head of state Right To Life groups), has decided it is fair game to trash other prolife people who don’t support Rick Santorum, or who try to get him simply acknowledge inconsistencies about “his” candidate.
ProLifeMommy4Newt is a PolitiJim following friend and we are certainly birds of a feather. Both deeply committed Christians, trying to find respect in reason and – as you see from her Twitter name – Prolife like PolitiJim. And like PolitiJim, she is waging a war on an insidious development in the conservative movement. The ignorance or intentionally taciturn of truth.
Neither of us are looking to gloat, berate or be “right.” We simply want accuracy and balance. I tweeted out yesterday my true feeling. I said something to the effect of, “I would be much more willing to support Santorum if he wouldn’t pretend he wasn’t or had been wrong (or lied) about things he has.” Like the bible says, a man is known BY WHAT HE DOES, not but what he says. My concern is that not only does his pretense continue to make him unelectable reinforcing the hypocrite image he has in Pennsylvania, but that if he miraculously got elected he would actually betray the Prolife cause. Because he CONSISTENTLY has in the past.
So before PolitiJim was aware of the discussion, ProLifeMommy4Newt sent a Tweet and Ertelt responded in succession:
So notice a couple of things here. First, notice the “give me a break” comment to someone who is CLEARLY identified as a “prolife” mommy, - someone who Ertelt should see as an ally. There is no attempt to try and persuade her, just a defense (and somewhat arrogant) reply with a pat answer devoid of any actual “facts.” Not exactly “Like Jesus” moment, but I’ve had those too. So, ProLifeMommy attempts to bring up a “fact,” something (later) that Ertelt claims to be open to.
In fact she brings up FOUR facts. But look in the dismissive manner in which Ertelt answers. Condescension and arrogance and ACCUSING Prolife Mommy of making false claims and "Making stuff up.” Any chance he simply would ASK for proof? (We’ll address the actual facts below, but the Attack Count is now Ertelt SE=3, ProLifeMom PLM=0)
Ertelt never addresses Santorum’s enthusiastic (“a true conservative with principles like us”) endorsement of Romney in 2008, nor the campaigning (not just endorsement) for pro-partial birth abortion (and pro-cap and trade) candidate Christine Todd Whitman. We will take his other two assertions in order and see how they register on the PolitiJim Postulate Plumb line aka “PolitiPostulate”.
Sotomayor. Ertelt clarifies his error later that Santorum wasn’t in office when Sotomayor was “voted on” since indeed, Rick actually DID vote on her initial approval to the Federal judiciary in 1998. Unfortunately, he digs himself deeper:
Here is where I would like to ask Mr. Ertelt if his early snark to ProLifeMommy about giving him “a break on not being open to the facts” is appropriate. First, it is not only false that no one was focused on her in 1998 – it is BLATANTLY false. This was all covered in the Prolife NUTSS #2 article and sourced from ABC News which reported:
This was not a typical Circuit Court nomination. When Bill Clinton picked Sotomayor in June 1997, many conservatives believed her confirmation would put her in a fast track to the Supreme Court. The Wall Street Journal editorial called her a liberal judicial activist. Rush Limbaugh said Clinton was putting her on a rocket ship to the Supreme Court. A vote to confirm her to the Circuit Court, many Republicans believed, would make it hard to vote against her if she was nominated to the Supreme Court.
Republicans, led by Majority Leader Trent Lott, delayed Sotomayor’s confirmation vote for more than a year. When the vote finally happened, 29 Republicans — including most conservative stalwarts like Mitch McConnell, Phil Gramm, Jon Kyl and even John McCain — voted no.
Santorum joined every Democrat in the Senate and 24 other Republicans in voting yes. Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 67 to 29.
Perhaps Mr. Ertelt wouldn’t accept this publication. How about a ProLife source like… his own LifeNews? Not only does he reference EXTREME positions known at the time, Mr. Ertelt advocates:
Although the brief was written 20 years ago by someone other than Sotomayor and may have been done without her knowledge or consent, some abortion advocates appear to have their smoking gun to allow them to support Sotomayor with fewer reservations than they have thus far.
For pro-life organizations, the brief will likely be another piece of evidence leading to opposition of her nomination.
Not on anyone’s radar? Nothing to retract?
On her 2009 Supreme Court nomination, “Mr. Consistently Pro-Life” not only did he do NOTHING to stop her, or anything to express his displeasure at the nomination – HE TRIED TO SUBVERT THOSE CONSERVATIVES WHO WERE! (Sorry for the yelling.) He went on record saying (essentially) it wasn’t worth the effort and we needed to be “pure” on this. (And by pure he means roll over and play dead.)
PolitiPostulate Score: (PLM = +2, SE = –2). (You get negative points for asserting a falsehood, but I gave him a pass on the “research your facts” false accusation to ProLifeMommy).
Mr. Ertelt, please restore our faith in your integrity by acknowledging these fact.
Ertelt assertion on Planned Parenthood.
Being as gracious as I can, I’m willing to concede that Mr. Ertelt simply didn’t read ProLifeMommy’s tweet carefully. His first response that Santorum funded Planned Parenthood was that he consistently voted AGAINST it. BOTH of these are true. But then the guy who “Likes Jesus” doubles down.
Calling a prolife mommy, a “Mister” isn’t exactly staying above the fray. Claiming (in all caps) that Senator Santorum ALWAYS voted specifically against it simply being a bad journalist. Especially when PLM sends his VIDEO INTERVIEW where Rick Santorum ADMITS that he voted for funding via Title X that funded services (albeit not abortion) through Planned Parenthood. (Approximately at 4:30 mark).
PLM asks if SE has SEEN the video (which if he would, would at least get him to admit that Rick Santorum didn’t ALWAYS vote against Planned Parenthood, right?)
Ok – maybe my readers can find it but I can’t get the Bill Clinton legalese voice over out of my head on this one. (Whoops. Snark. Sorry!) Seriously though, Editor Ertelt completely whitewashes his earlier assertion. It turns out this is a SERIOUS problem for him by the way. Ertelt ran a story in LifeNews in February slamming Ron Paul’s ad for saying that Rick Santorum “supported Planned Parenthood.” There’s only one problem. The ad never says that.
As you see the ad merely points out NOT that Rick Santorum is for funding Planned Parenthood, but that his supposed steely resolve to be the principled prolife candidate isn’t all that ….well, consistent.
The journalistic integrity of LifeNews is important. It is arguing statistics and facts about the horrors of taking unborn lives (or in the case of Obama “just born” infanticide). If a media outlet can’t get this right, how do we use it as a reference for FAR MORE important issues to defend our views to those that already skeptical? As of this publishing, LifeNews still has no retraction or clarification EITHER in the misleading title, or in the misleading portrayal of the Paul ad.
In fact, the article goes on to wax eloquent about how strong of prolife record Rick Santorum has. And you know what – HE DOES!. It’s nothing to be ashamed of. But LifeNews becomes more propaganda than principle when it says he “frequently” has a 100% prolife record, without just saying what it is. NOT a 100% lifetime prolife record. It’s not so hard to tell the truth, really. On Title X it also parses words saying that Santorum “has joined the effort to revoke all funding for Planned Parenthood via Title X.”
Again, technically true but not accurate. On two counts. First, this misleads the fact that Santorum’s positions have radically changed. As the Washington Post gleefully points out the hypocrisy by documenting Santorum saying in the Arizona debate: “I’ve always opposed Title X funding,” and then in 2006 saying, “I support, you know, Title X.” Again, LifeNews is NOT presenting accurate information to it’s readers to make an informed opinion. They essentially are falsely accusing Ron Paul of saying something he hasn’t, trying to “puff up” Santorum to look like a 100% prolife candidate and never giving the facts how often he has digressed on abortion issues. That’s not to say he is NOT an overall prolife advocate. He still clearly is. But we prolife conservatives would expect a Jesus-liking journalist to just give us the juice WITH pulp and let us strain it – rather than being spoon fed some campaign line from the Santorum camp.
The story STILL isn’t completely told until you realize that Rick Santorum HIMSELF has laid the standard on how we should judge him. In Santorum’s own words:
“I can’t imagine any other organization with its roots as poisonous as the roots of Planned Parenthood getting federal funding of any kind.” April 2011
I guarantee someone will object to VIDEO evidence of Santorum’s lie because it happens to have been caught and linked by HuffPo.
Note that this was LAST APRIL. So if he “can’t imagine” Planned Parenthood getting funding “of any kind,” wouldn’t it be fair to say that he disagrees with Mr. Ertelt’s own defense that the mere ProLifeMommy is simply too stupid to understand Title X?
The “non-zombie” ProLifers who actually like to think for themselves are quite at a loss what is so hard with Santorum supporters like Ertelt who can’t simply acknowledge that truth. As I’ve written before, it isn’t Rick’s lack of a completely perfect record that bothers me. It is his habitual lying and political maneuvering around it that first made me wary of him.
Running PolitiPostulate Score: PLM = +4, SE = –4. Running Attack Count is now SE=4, ProLifeMom PLM=0 for the “Mr.” without any apology.
Mr. Ertelt, please restore our faith in your character by apologizing to ProLifeMommy for trying to attack her documented facts that Rick has NOT “always” voted against Planned Parenthood or even Title X.
CATCHING UP ON POLITIIM
Now, PolitiJim was oblivious to this until I read the FIRST PJM tweet referencing Mr. Ertelt. My first response? (@GintheGin and @MsJeffDesigns you should have been proud of me!)
And now we come back to the initial tweet of Mr.E saying that he was losing respect for prolife people who mischaracterize. Not an especially thankful acknowledgement of my praise to him –but whatever. As I read through the back-tweets and realize that the Editor of LifeNews is backhanding a fellow prolife advocate and Christian, I’m trying to remain objective. I ESPECIALLY holding down my extreme displeasure of Mr. Ertelt’s utter lack of these facts or – as a supposed journalist – attitude in not even acknowledging basic truths.
I’m a little less charitable – but TRYING to keep it civil.
This whole discussion could have STRENGTHENED the ProLifers together (and helped Mr. Santorum’s image by the way), had he only said something like:
Yes, I’m disappointed that Mr. Santorum voted for Sotomayor in 1998, but he has a strong enough stance on prolife issues that I’m choosing to overlook it.
But he didn’t. Instead he turns to page 13 of the James Carville political maneuvers manual and responds:
Frankly, I’m more than a little shocked at this point because I just got done saying “I appreciated” Mr. Ertelt and that he was a “warrior” for prolife causes. Even the girls who turned me down for the first 7 high school dances weren’t this cruel. (Ok, one of them was but my therapist tells me “hose nose” could be considered an affectionate term and I’m going with that.) And yet I digress.
Can someone show me how asking a fellow Christian to admit that “truth” and “honesty” are paramount is attacking his faith in Jesus Christ? Or moreover, what it has to do WITH THE ARGUMENT and facts at issue?
As PolitiJim readers know, I am QUICK to correct ANYTHING factually in error but it might take me a few days to apologize for my errors. But eventually do. Steven (we are told he doesn’t want to be called “Steve” in his bio), claims to have totally debunked EVERY one of my “false charges” in tweets to ProLifeMommy. I’m encouraged by this since he seems to immediately be familiar with the very well researched and documented PolitiJim article in question. I nicely ask for links so I can double check my facts (wait, isn’t HE supposed to be the journalist here?), but you won’t believe his response:
It appears to me that he is hiding behind some fake offense (didn’t Jesus say TAKE NO OFFENSE?) in order to actually debate ideas. In the middle of this I also tweeted:
Response from Steven Ertelt?
(crickets).
He DID actually tweet PLM a link to support his supposition that Santorum had NEVER voted for Planned Parenthood. But it was already debunked LifeNews article that falsely portrayed the Paul ad. In terms of REAL dialogue, REAL give and take of ideas and REAL debate it was bupkis. Even mild mannered @GintheGin who is NOT taking sides and just observing the timeline adds:
Response from Steven Ertelt?
(crickets).
Actually – I responded to a number of tweets that now have disappeared off of his timeline. At one point he DOES seem like he’s open to debate – and then runs away. (You can read MY SIDE of them in my timeline or here, showing me responding to his comments – but his are gone. Next time I’ll copy them faster.) Here is one that he scrubbed:
But I try to get him back on track after he is then FURTHER offended by pointing out that he is not answer the questions, but attacking my portrayal of his Alinsky tactics.
So PolitiJim reels off a series of questions (all documented) with his usual response:
(crickets.)
Just in case you supposed he was offline, he did suddenly respond to a well meaning tweet from
So suddenly Steven sees the need to not “trash” each other like he did ProLifeMommy. This is great news to me. However, I never saw the apologetic tweet to her.
What this means.
This is important to me for a couple of reasons. We have chastised liberals for years for playing the Clinton game. It goes something like this:
Liberal correctly accused of error by inquisitor.
Liberal asked to clarify, admit or apologize.
Liberal accuses inquisitor of exactly same, parses or diminishes it’s importance.
Inquisitor now points out BOTH factual error AND obfuscating behavior of liberal.
Liberal declares inquisitor is ….(fill in the blank, racist, sexist, homophobe, hypocrite, demeaning toward others, insensitive, ignorant, trying to play games, blah, blah blah) – ANYTHING other than answering the charge.
Liberal then declares that we should all get along and all this “animus” isn’t healthy for the (country, party, issue, blah, blah, blah), and “can’t we all get along.”
Liberal suddenly declares themselves the winner and the truth NEVER gets out. Worse, it demonstrates to others that the truth doesn’t matter.
You saw this play out here with a LEADER of what is supposed to be the BEDROCK of the social conservative movement – the Prolife movement. He pulled EVERY ONE of these tricks without ever truly DEBATING THE ACTUAL ISSUE. Then, when someone stepped in to say “play nice” he was all over that – but still unwilling to debate facts.
Worse, he attempted to get away with lying. (Yes, lying.). From earlier in the conversation, he asked (by various people actually) why he is one sided on Santorum:
He mentions that he has defended Gingrich on his site and Twitter column so I have no explanation for the COMPLETE ABSENCE of any negative tweets on Santorum (despite vulgarity, accusations of voter fraud, likely ineligibility, etc.) and yet he not only retweets the Gingrich layoff news but also this:
So Prolife Publisher is all principle and balance, right? Completely neutral EXCEPT any pro-life candidate, correct?
Well, that is so good to hear that you journalistic integrity is completely intact. And I totally understand that you as an American citizen are different from your role as Editor of LifeNews and wouldn’t let any bias creep in. We appreciate you for that. Like all other mainstream reporters and editors, you SPECIFICALLY do not endorse anyone publically so that bias is not called into question right?
Hmmmm. According to the Santorum site they saw your personal declaration to cast your vote for Rick Santorum as endorsement. In fact, you call it “the highlight of your precinct.”
Journalists should not reveal their political views, Twitter or no Twitter.
In pre-Twitter days, what he did would have been akin to standing up at a public meeting to express his views, which would have been a firing offense at any decent newspaper… So, no, the emergence of social networking has not changed the rules on how journalists should interact with the public. …to reach out to readers, to engage them in discussions about its mission and what it might do better to serve readers, nothing about the new venues changes the old rules about a reporter's obligation to be, and appear to be, neutral. From that flows credibility, and credibility is the basic reason for a newspaper's business success.
Mr. Ertelt, let’s dispense with the running score of who is documenting these issues correctly and who is not. And just as a sweetener, I’ll throw away the score on “personal attacks.”
How about we debate REAL issues about abortion among the candidates. In the old William Buckley, Jr. spirit I submit:
Resolved: Rick Santorum has not been consistently pro-life and, in fact, has betrayed his pro-life views an uncomfortable number of times.
The Specter vote is killing unborn babies in Pennsylvania. Today.
He also dumped TRUE prolife candidate Mike Huckabee overboard for Mitt Romney who not only promised pro-abortionists he would be a “stealth” GOP candidate, but his RomneyCare facilitated the involvement of Planned Parenthood in the program. BY NAME.
He took campaign money from Asian sweatshop concerns where that industry had documented cases of forced abortions. It also seems he actually CHANGED legislation for cash, but that is another story.
If you refuse to SERIOUSLY investigate these issues, or if you attempt to downplay their importance because of a bias for Santorum, please don’t bother.
I simply can’t take another dishonest conservative media person who is unwilling to put truth first, and politics second.
I came across this great article today regarding Rick Santorum, entitled "Is Rick Santorum the logical conservative alternative?" The article is a great review over the election results after Gingrich lost to Romney in Florida,but also explains why Santorum is a more logical candidate than both Romney&Newt. Here is a summary:
After watching Newt Gingrich lose two debates and suffer a steep reversal of fortunes in Florida, some look to Rick Santorum, such as Andrew Malcolm...
It’s not just the numbers, either. The debates in Florida last week showed that Gingrich’s claim to mastery of the format simply don’t hold up. He lost both of those debates, and spent the rest of the week attacking Romney on religious freedom and proposing a lunar base that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars in an era where Republicans are arguing for reduced spending. If Gingrich was actually making the conservative case against Romney, I could see Sarah Palin’s point, but he’s not. He’s making a case for “big ideas” that involve a huge amount of spending, attacking Romney on any basis that happens to be handy, and he’s attacking the media.
The candidate actually making the conservative case on the campaign trail is Rick Santorum. Santorum scored points off of Romney in both Florida debates, especially the last one, because Santorum hasn’t ever backed an individual mandate as a health-care solution and doesn’t have to defend that position. He’s never backed TARP, either. That doesn’t make Santorum a perfect conservative candidate, but he seems to be the only one who’s focusing on the actual conservative agenda. Even if the motivation is to back a conservative alternative to Romney to “sharpen his steel” and force him to follow the conservative agenda, it’s Santorum who is most effective at making that the agenda.
Plus, there is one more thing to consider, and that is the quality of leadership. Both of the frontrunners and their allies have engaged in disappointing attacks on free market enterprise in an attempt to exploit each others’ weaknesses, but Santorum has refrained from doing so, even though he has specifically targeted blue-collar voters who might respond to those attacks. Santorum has maintained a high level of integrity in his campaigning, and that’s something to consider when choosing the man who will represent the party in the 2012 elections.
While the commentary made by Ed Morissey of Hot Air&Andrew Malcolm of Investors.com makes a strong case for supporting Santorum, the following remarks in the comments section are what really impressed me. Someone by the username of 'FeFe' summed up several reasons why Santorum is the logical choice for President, while comparing Newt, Romney and Paul. And again, as we all know,nobody is going to be the perfect candidate but Santorum is the one standing up for the principles of our founders, along with the values of the majority of conservatives,thus his rise in the polls. Santorum supports the opportunity to pursue happiness and live free of government entitlements and over-regulation. These are the things that allow us to have access to opportunity and to live in a free society where we are free to live, succeed or fail, but what we put into it depends ultimately on us. Take a look and consider what 'FeFe' has to say:
“Is Rick Santorum the logical conservative alternative?”
Yes. It’s elementary, my dear, Watson. Observe how raaaaacist it clearly is to choose a thin-skinned Obama or one of the three fair-skinned opponents over an Italian.
[Little Bytes News:I thought this was funny so I included it here, but the rest of what 'FeFe' has to say makes a lot of sense as well,regardless of who you support, I think you can agree these are some strong reasons to consider Santorum¬ fear a Santorum Presidency.]
“Newt Gingrich, I perceive. Here is a gentleman of grandiose type, but with the air of an elite professor who attacks success. Clearly an entrenched congressman then whose post-speaker career was largely public-policy profiteering. He has just come from the tropics, for his face is as dark as his mood, and that is not the natural tint of his skin, for his wrists are fair. He has undergone hardships and scandals as his forced grinning face says clearly. His girth has been expanding. Where in the tropics could a ham Ameritopian mastermind afraid of his own product catalog have seen much nostalgia hardship in the sun and got his ego wounded? Clearly in Florida.” -Sherlock Holmes
“Ron Paul, I perceive. Here is a gentleman of diminishing stature, but with the air of a rebel without a cause. Clearly an entrenched congressmanthen who repudiates American Exceptionalism. He has just come from the desert, for his face is dark, and that is not the natural tint of his skin, for his wrists are fair. He has undergone hardships and aging as his haggard face says clearly. His dowager’s hump bends him as injured. Where in the desert could a self-applauding lone wolf congressman have seen much sunlight upon his revisionist history and bigoted newsletters and got his weasel earmarks record wounded? Clearly in Nevada.” -Sherlock Holmes
“Mitt Romney, I perceive. Here is a gentleman born of generational presidential single purpose, but with the air of a tribal businessman. Clearly a leapfrogging politician then who sees voters as the product, not the consumer. He has just come from the tanning bed, for his face is evenly dark, and that is not the natural tint of his skin, for his wrists are fair. He has undergone no hardships or sickness as his rehearsed face says clearly. His financial security or social status has never been injured. Where in the poseur, rock star tour bus could a shorter shape-shifter have seen much record rationalizing in the spray tan booth of managed decline and got his conservative pose wounded? Clearly outside of Massachusetts.” -Sherlock Holmes
“Rick Santorum, I perceive. Here is a gentleman of wonkish type, but with the air of a clarion call, constitutional conservative. Clearly a whistle-blower congressman then who attained higher office and party leadership. He has just come from the heartland, for his face is bright, beyond the natural tint of his olive skin, for our Founders’ God Given Rights vision is reawakening. He has undergone hardships and held fast with our military in the field as his Lincoln face says clearly. His principled leadership, unafraid to take political risks, remains intact. Where from tilled soil to Made in USA shop floors could a grandson of an Italian immigrant coal miner hold aloft the Reagan-model beacon of melding social, fiscal and national defense conservatives into a winning coalition from articulating the conservative cause; the interrelation of limited government and the economy, morality and liberty — have seen much hardship to ensure America’s cultural inheritance with Justices Alito and Roberts win in the political marketplace? Clearly with patriots demanding no truce to decline but a bold vision for more principled conservative, enduring public policy.” -Sherlock Holmes
The depth of the hatred toward Santorum is not over social positions Obama himself holds but knowing this monstrous centralization of power in Obamacare will not stand. The “inevitability” the opposition craves is not in Mitt Romney as the nominee but enshrining health care as a “right.” Can the Romney enacted Mass. Cap & Trade be far behind? “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,” no sooner spoken than forgotten by another moderate leader assuming office, Julia Gillard. “Iron clad” election promise on an EU referendum from Tory David Cameron and no less promised by the LiberalDems and Labour parties too only to meet casual disregard once in office. Mr Romneycare will repeal Obamacare? More fool us.
Santorum is right, Newt and Mitt wont exhaust all administrative remedies, let alone lead congress, to repeal Obamacare.
The TEA Party is told we must submit to working within the Republican party to gain influence. By the same reasoning, if we can’t have influence, surely we must stop submitting to their rules. “Don’t look at the polls. . . Don’t pay attention to what the national media are saying, what the pundits are saying. Listen to your heart. Lead. Don’t follow.” –Rick Santorum
There’s been a healthy focus on political legacies, the big picture while we too look forward in need of a statesman to lead the nation safely from enemies foreign and domestic. I happen to believe that no one person holds the Reagan torch; it is in all of us throughout the world. Sorry, Newt. All men are fallen but I don’t want your Redemption Tour and constant pleas for pity are beneath the Office of the President. I respect Newt’s legacy for the conservative cause but what are its Remains of the Day? I know he claims welfare reform regardless of the fact Rick Santorum co-authored and worked it in the House and then the Senate floor but allowances must be made for Uncle Newtie, right? Stop Me If You’ve Heard This One, but as Jack Benny once quipped, “When you take a joke away from Milton Berle, it’s not stealing, it’s repossessing.” Sure, Newt’s Mr. Contract With America, and if we had a Conservatives Hall of Fame, he would no doubt be one of the first people inducted, but repeated aping of Santorum’s “clear contrast” and Bachmann’s Frank-Dodd lines among others are not inspiring confidence in your vision or statesmanship. Does America really need a kinescope Uncle Newtie in Groundhog Day?
As Mark Levin said 16 years ago, how does trickle-down-government help the poor? Let Ann Coulter count the ways in her “Three Cheers for Romneycare” column. How prescient of her to point out the “Democrats 2009 Stimulus bill dismantled the welfare reform passed in the 1990s.” (The Welfare Reform Act of 1996.) Who didn’t see that old scab getting picked off with a Democrat controlled House, Senate and White House? (The entrenched political class is for more than dieing in office, they define “status quo.”) Ms. Coulter may continue to sneer at Rick Santorum’s “boasted” entitlement reform but as the only one to date, no matter how short-lived, it stands as the standard bearer. For all Newt’s influence, paid and otherwise, in D.C., did he see it coming or have a hand in these dependence induced changes?
I’m not talking about Newt’s product catalog. We all know he could turn around and pull from the shelves any number of books, videos, DVDs, white papers, glossy brochures, coloring books, etc. and find either side of a position past to parse. Therefore, the question remains, what specific conservative (so Endangered Species Act doesn’t count) legislation may Newt claim as his very own “big idea” still going strong?
And what has Mitt Romney ever done to advance the conservative cause? He quit his reelection campaign as governor to splash his personal cash about to the tune of $35 million to run for president in the 2008 cycle as if Romneycare was a big enough down-payment to the Liberal Lion of the Senate Teddy Kennedy to leapfrog over the conservative cause and into the Oval Office. Of course, now Romney is the next in line heir splashing Wall Street, financial status quo cash about — “At that speed, they could run right over my daughter’s stereo and not hear it.” — and appearing in two shows a night with the new Liberal Lion of the Senate 2.0 John McCain. Dear voter, the Romney campaign has had six years to paryroll-up every political consultant and donate to every political operative or politician of note nationwide — “They’re pinging away with their active sonar like they’re looking for something but nobody’s listening” to you; voters are the product, not the consumer — the Facebook-model just like the Democrats 2008 playbook. Also, aping Donald Trump on China does not a foreign policy legacy make. Next.
Ron Paul has no legislative accomplishments save “one” I heard mention but it must be of such diminished stature, not unlike himself, that no one bothers to tout what it was. Paul did say (Fox News Center Seat segment) if elected president he would not shut down the Fed for it wouldn’t be prudent, and his choice for Fed chairman was Jim Grant. Great. Thanks for that most gracious concession on your campaign sloganeering, but it seems none of your supporters know it as you build a better volunteer mouse trap with your “legalize drugs” college campus money bombs (leading to wasted human capital). Covet your hipster son as Kentucky’s senator to lend seriousness of purpose to your legacy, Paul, for now.
As far as legacies go, Rick Santorum’s got several Aces. There’s the standard bearer of entitlement reform mentioned above, HSAs and he’s a Risk alumni, to name but a few.
I’ve learned a lot from watching 19 debates, and most illuminating was how the sausage that is legislation gets made. One example, watch Rick’s Oct. 1994 C-Span video of his senate seat debate where he kills HillaryCare and mandates in the first 5 minutes. Further along, he stresses “You can’t force every American to do something they don’t want to do,” without fundamentally changing America. Talk about being consistent. Rick’s push for “Medisave” is what became today’s Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), and the vouchers are today’s Medicare Advantage (MA) and Medicare competing private sector “premium support” health plan subsidies in the Ryan/Wyden Plan.
Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) surpassed $12.4 billion in assets in almost 6.8 million accounts by year-end 2011, a year over year increase of almost 20% for accounts and a 26% increase in assets for the period from December 31st, 2010 to December 31st, 2011.
Outside of any market use or benefit, for families with chronically ill or disabled members HSAs are a blessing. While it has become fashionable to denounce the very notion of a “compassionate conservative,” some steps were taken in the right direction for future limited government reform while focusing on individual relief or protection from deadpan corporatists or unions within the Great Society behemoth we all currently navigate. Something that gets lost in the shallow, ideology purity test for government reform today, it is no mistake that the millions who have availed themselves of any “big” government legislation like HSAs, NCLB, IDEA, etc., are best informed on the centralized power drag on our economy. In between swapping prescription drug nightmares with Mark Steyn, don’t you find, Ed? You’re primed and ready to kill this 4th estate behemoth of regulation. A positive built-in, conservative building block for future limited government social cohesion. Now we need to elect Rick Santorum to lead the congress on reform. However, on behalf of the most vulnerable in our society, I thank you for HSAs.
On the USS Yorktown in Charleston harbor, South Carolina native, war hero and CAIR antagonizer, three-star General Jerry Boykin endorsed Rick Santorum for president. A natural fit for both men are outspoken against radical jihad as Santorum has called for a change to the Rules of Engagement and Gen. Boykin, as a Christian evangelist, was pressured by the Obama administration led U.S. Military Academy at West Point to withdraw recently from their prayer breakfast after opposition surfaced from Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR). With eight years on the Senate Armed Services committee, Rick Santorum’s historical foreign policy experience overlaps well with Gen. Boykin’s in battle as part of America’s most elite fighting force; then rising to command those troops as a general, and also served in the CIA and Pentagon on the strategic planning and management side of counter-insurgency. If, a Delta Force hero who has served as the tip of the spear at the highest ranks (commander memorialized in the movie “Black Hawk Down”), who is also a man of profoundly deep faith, sees his patriotism mirrored by endorsing Rick Santorum for Commander In Chief, then who are we to disagree? The phone would go dead and there would be no survivors.
Rick Santorum’s servant’s heart legacy is as the proven consistent conservative holding fast against political winds for individual sovereignty when the loyal opposition calls — no individual mandate, no carbon dioxide tax, no Wall Street bailouts socializing losses and privatizing profits — unlike Mitt and Newton. “Judgment matters. When the winds are blowing what we’ve seen is Romney and Gingrich, they put their sails up and go.” -Rick Santorum
