So, Tell Me One More Time About Rick…

So as a matter purely of intellectual curiosity – Newt is a “progressive”, Romney is a “progressive” and we know that “progressives” favor bigger government, right?

So, tell me how Santorum is the “one true conservative” when he voted for Medicare Part D, he voted to increase funding to the Department of Education and while in state government, voted for a tax increase specifically to create public funding for a special private interest, sports stadiums in the state of Pennsylvania – private businesses that charge $75 a ticket to get in to see them.

He was a solid Bush Compassionate Conservative. That makes him a big government guy just like Bush was. He endorsed Snarlin’ Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey – a true conservative. Wait…didn’t Specter thank conservatives for their support by switching to the Democratic party to run in 2010? Thanks, Rick..

How can a candidate who lost his Senate re-election bid with such a large margin be a viable national candidate?

Or are we just supposed to overlook these little trivialities because he is socially conservative? We aren’t overlooking stuff like this in other candidates.

The only draw that Santorum has is social conservatism in an election that will turn on economic policy. Not a good match. As much as conservatives would like to make this an eleection on Constitutional government, it isn’t. People are hopeless in the age of Hope and Change. When you are hungry, your principles begin and end with what is going to happen when the sun comes up in the morning and how will I get my family by until the next sunrise. It is hard for parents with kids to feed to be concerned about how “progressives” got them there or what Jefferson said about the separation of church and state. This is an ecconomic election and that is where Obama is without defense because he is a SCOAMF (Stuttering Clusterf*ck of a Miserable Failure).

Santorum is a career politician, even his law “career” revolved around political activity. His tax plans and economic plans are not scored very well by the Tax Foundation, no worse than Romney’s. You won’t find a more socially conservative, family first ideal than Mormonism, so Romney and Santorum should be roughly equal there…

Here’s what it boils down to for me:

You want pure Constitutional government with a twist of isolationism and radical libertarian beliefs – vote for Ron Paul.

You want Ron Paul Lite, with Roman Catholic conservative beliefs dusted on top – vote for Santorum.

You want passion and fight with strong debating skills, a talent for pissing off pretty much everybody, even his supporters with a side order of an  oversized ego and a taste for “progressivism” – vote for Newt.

If you want economic savvy, at least a chance to cut spending, hold the House and maybe take the Senate, in short, you wnat a Candidate that can beat Obama where the other’s will not, vote for Romney.

What was one of the arguments against Obama? No executive experience? Only one candidate has that and it isn’t Paul, Santorum or Newt.

Again, I understand the argument about bending one’s principles to vote for a certain candidate. I get it. I also hear the logic in “if we don’t vote conservative, we can’t call ourselves conservatives” and I don’t like the situational logic that brings me to this point – but it is what it is. To have a chance to change, we have to defeat Obama. Just him out of office is a win no matter what, even if he is replaced by a “progressive” Republican.

What is sickening to me is sitting here and watching an easily winnable election become competitive (or maybe lost) becuase we can’t get past a conservative penis measuring contest. It isn’t like we are in a situation that we are going to win and we are just determining how conservative we want to be. We have to defeat liberalism and if that sword for this election is in the form of a “progressive” Republican, then I’m ready to pay that price.

Republican “progressives” may not be ideal but they ARE NOT EQUIVALENT to the Marxist “progressives” in the Democratic Party. There is no doubt that any of our so called “progressives” would do less damage to the country than the current Marxist in Chief.

My God, people – the Democrats are proposing a “Reasonable Profits Board” to regulate oil company profits…how much more Atlas Shrugged can it get? Do you think this kind of stuff can be stopped if he gets another 4 years?

So I’ll ask again because the election rests on this choice – is Rick a “true conservative” or not?

39 thoughts on “So, Tell Me One More Time About Rick…

  1. Just a note – I’ll vote Republican no matter who the nominee is but my point is that what is sauce for the goose is sauce also for the gander.

    If you are going to make excuses for a candidate, make them for the one who can actually win because any of these folks, even Ron Paul, woud be better for the country than Comrade Obama and his merry band of politburo members.

  2. im a grower, not a show-er. and i enjoyed this article quite a bit, even if it is biased towards mitt. i worry that if newt or mitt are elected, that they will be an ultimate failure (maybe not as bad as obama, but not much better) and the conservative battle is lost in the long run.

    IE if we cant tell a difference between newt/mitt and obama that we will lose the house, senate and presidency in 2016. then we will be much worse off than if obama gets re-elected, fails the US in the most awesome fashion since………..his first term and we are able to sweep the senate, house and presidency in 2016.

    now, Utah, you are much more well versed than i am in these political struggles, i am interested to know what your thoughts are on that scenario.

    • Tony – you give me waaaay too much credit. I’m just another asshole with an opinion and a blog to show how stupid I am.

      I have long posited that the key to all of this is not the presidency, it is the Congress and without control of it, we cannot backstop a Republican president or stop another 4 years of BHO.

      I believe that we (conseratives) have a shot at control of Congress because these races are local and the Democrats do not have an issue that they can use to nationalize them like they did under Bush and Clinton. Obama has been such a disaster that only hard core leftists like Debbie Wasserman Shultz are defending him in public – and even then just because they fear that a Republican in the White House will unwrap all the sweet, sweet socialism that they have cooked up.

      It is much, much easier for a conservative to win a local election than a national one in the current poliical climate. Given the mood of the country today, I’m not convinced that a true conservative could win after the image of conservative was damaged by Bush’s version of conservative-lite.

      This is a president that just killed an oil pipeline that would have created union jobs. This is a prresident who killed oil imports from a friendly country, Canada, and has kept the deepwater industry shut down in the Gulf of Mexico for two years while gas prices at the pump have doublled since his election. This is a guy who had poured billions of taxpayer dollars, all of them borrowed, into “green” projects that have failed.

      Any Republican running on a pro-energy/free enterprise platform could defeat this incompetent – but what are we doing – we are attacking a candidate who actually has free market experience for what? He had the temerity to actually make money doing it.

      I’ve met Romney. I worked in the 2002 Salt Lake Games – he is an impressive guy. He may nott be a certified “conservative” but I believe that he will correctly read his mandate and do what the people are asking him to do. That’s what he did in Mass. with MassCare – I wouldn’t support it but then I don’t live there. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, then you have to believe that they have the right to do what they want in their own state and Romney delivered what the majority asked for. That is part of what a politician is supposed to do.

      I am biased toward Mitt but only because I think that he can beat Obama. I’m not happy about the choice but I have made peace with it.

  3. Just read your link. Sounds unconstitutional to me, but hey; what’s new with this crew? Did Carter do this in the 70’s? Can’t remember….

    The only problem I have with making excuses for Romney and jumping on that bandwagon from the get-go is that I feel like he is beatable in a race against Obama. I know your polls show differently, but don’t you find it curious that he hasn’t been attacked from the left…..yet? Maybe they’re thinking like I am. That said, even though my preference is Paul, I would vote for Romney, Newt, or Santorum.

    Tony, that’s an interesting theory. But by 2016, he may likely have turned this nation into a warped reality of America.

    • I can’t buy that Romney hasn’t been attacked from the left. Most of the attacks so far have just been indirect. The left promoted Newt’s anti-capitalism attacks and have been pumping Newt up in SC specifically to weaken Romney going into Florida where Romney has a 20 point lead.

      Now we have the ginned up controversy of Romney’s tax returns, the Cayman Islands and his general wealth – this from a leftist media that didn’t care about Kerry’s riches or John Edwards screwing around on a wife with cancer or can’t seem to find Obama’s college transcripts.

      • The attacks against Romney have been soft punches, but in the debates he becomes flustered.(at least that’s how it appears to me) Ron Paul may seem like a stutterer, but he comes across as very confident and doesn’t get flustered by an attack.

        Romney with a 20 point lead in FL? The buzz around the Panhandle of FL is Paul and Newt.

          • There is another part of the problem. We should STOP looking at polls and START looking at the agenda these candidates are advocating to see if it is best for the nation and their records to see if there is any reason to trust them. We are playing a game and the goal of this game is “ABO” – NOT “what is best for America.”

            The two are NOT necessarily the same thing.

        • They had a shot at him in 2008…and they have the Mormon thing all queued up and ready to roll… it is comimng. Nancy Pelosi claiming that Mitt is what they wanted tells me that he is exactly what they don’t want.

  4. OK< fine, if I am wrong to compromise on Sanotrum, and now I am supposed to vote "conservative" (assuming it REALLY means what those on the RNL claim it means), then OK, I'll switch my vote.

    RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT! (God save the USA because Paul sure won't defend it 😦 )

    • First of all – how thin is the air up on that high horse of yours?

      All I asked is how do you support Santorum as a “conservative” (using your definition) with the things that I pointed out?

      That’s all. You want me to explain all of Romney’s failings as a “conservative”, I can’t – becuase he doesn’t fit the exact mold. Sure, he does favor bigger government – but apparently Rick does, too but both to a far lesser extent than BHO.

      I think that the recent issues with Newt (and Perry) going all Occupy Wall Street on Romney made Newtie unelectable and Perry dropped out. Santorum will be portrayed as a rigid Catholic prude and Paul is/has/always will be unelectable on the national stage…so who is left – the Mittster.

      It is bad when your slogan is “Vote Mitt – Because It Could Be So Much Worse!” – but that is where we are for 2012. To get what we want, the primary process muct be reformed and the culture must be changed…period. End of story.

      I’m not trying to re-define anything, especially conservatism. The truth is – like I pointed out a month ago when I endorsed Romney – there isn’t a conservative in the race…but there will be an election, there will be a winner and there will be consequences one way or the other. There are no anti-“progressives” running, there are only Republican “progressive lite” and a Democrat Marxist “progressive”. We will have to choose one of them.

      • LOL Not bad: scram jets work better in the thinner atmosphere 😉

        Second, I did NOT claim Santorum was a “conservative,” I said he was the best compromise as he is NOT a declared PROGRESSIVE!

        I have also repeatedly said I am well aware of the problems with this race. I guess I am just trying to fix things where they MUST be fixed – AT HOME! I am looking at the man in the mirror and telling him to stop voting for Party and issue and start voting principle. If we ALL did this, and voted for the best interest of the NATION – not our Party or special interest/issue – “maybe” we could effect some sort of meaningful change. But more of the same is only going to give us more of the same. I’m so tired of that.

        • You have eloquently framed the correct debate. It isn’t about Republicans or Democrats, it is about true liberals (in the European sense of the word) vs. “progressives” (or as they would have been called in the post WWII era, communists).

          The encouraging sign is that at least this is beginning to be a topic of serious conversation when people like Jonah Goldberg, Mark Steyn and Mark Levin can have best selling books on the subject and Beck can have an entire TV and media empire based on defeating it.

          Sure, we are close to the end and maybe we are living in a post-Constitutional America as Levin says – but I think the tide may be turing and the 2012 election may well mark the time that the “progressive” oceans started to recede, the ice caps started to re-freeze and the air was cleaner to breathe.

          • There is no doubt about Levin’s claim that the Constitution is dead. It has been for decades. In truth, Lincoln killed it (but that is a different discussion).

            I also agree that the tide may be stemming, but I do not believe it has started to turn the other way – yet. For that to happen, we need to focus on the evil of Progressivism and rekindle the fire of liberty in the hearts of every American. Here again, the founders can provide wisdom and guidance as they told us such an endeavor would take generations of concentrated and dedicated effort – mostly through “proper” education.

            Which brings us to where I am beginning to understand our true efforts need to be focused: LOCALLY! If we send TEA Party types tot he House and then hold their feet to the fire – even to the extent of recalling them when they waver on the crucial aspects of national debt and defense (border more than foreign), we don’t need to worry about a rogue President: such a Congress would impeach the SOB like this Congress should have done a long time ago.

            By focusing on the local, we can also re-take the State govt. and County control of the schools. As difficult as it may be, we could do a great deal of good by retaking our schools and telling the State and Fed govt. “NO THANKS” to your money and then set our own curriculum.

            But ALL of this and more requires a clear, coherent and consistent ideology. The founders had one, they wrote it in to the Declaration and that is what guided the writing of the COnstitution. We can either go about the hard work of creating our own, or re-learn what the founders REALLY believed and why. I quote them often, but it is out of a true sense of respect and agreement for the singular greatest collection of Human wisdom I believe God even graced man with in one place and time. If we look past the flaws and apply the lessons of history to what they started, then we can justify Jefferson’s faith in us. If we do not…

            Well, if we refuse to do that, maybe the Progressives should be allowed to take over. Just pray you are not among the 4-5 BILLION they believe need to be killed to create a “sustainable population and economy.”

          • I think he eloquently framed my argument in voting for Paul.

            M., sure would like to have your optimistic attitude (from your last sentence) but I’m not holding my breath.

          • Kells – I do think that people are getting it. I hear more people this time talking like Black3 than ever before – that Republicans will f*ck you and not even buy you a nice dinner – and we know the Democrats will.

            How long will it take to overcome? I don’t know…but Obama is showing the country the true face of unconstrained “progressivism” and I think that there are a large number of people (maybe not a majority yet because of the mushy moderates) that had the bejeebus scared out of them by it.

            If I’m wrong, it doesn’t matter – BHO goes another 4 years and we are toast.

            I’m having a whole line of thought around the relationship of post-modernism, deconstruction and “progressivism” for some reason right now – may have to regurgitate some electrons on these pages about that…

            I’ve been stuck in our hotel in Chamonix today due to 2 feet of snow last night and 120Km winds today – all the ski lifts were closed – nothing to do but to soak up the French quisine and the wine…and I’ve been basking in it.

    • Well, Scotland isn’t well known for its wines, so I did go a little crazy but my real weakness is pulled pork BBQ from Westside BBQ in New Albany, Mississippi and a 5 pound chocolate pie from Sugaree’s Bakery of the same town…washed down with an ice cold Budweiser.

      I’m leaving the land of cheese eating surrender monkeys tomorrow. Sure have great skiing – second only to my adopted home town of Park City, Utah…and we went to the top of Europe yesterday – Mont Blanc at 4810 meters (15,777 feet) and I skiied down a glacier…to hell with global warming, it ain’t got to Chamonix, France yet…

  5. I suppose there will be people who think this is a strike against the man:

    I happen to count it as a big point in his favor. After all, the only thing he has done here is acknowledge and support the very same things the founders believed and said with their own mouths and quills. If we are going to attack him for trying to hold this line, I happen to think it says more about us than it does about him.

    (Incidentally, while Christians and Jews worship the same God, Islam only claims to do so. The Qur’an represents a negation of God’s word.)

  6. This article in the Blaze was a bit depressing. I must back Santorum on this one. The radical (and I emphasize radical) Muslims are dangerous and proliferate. I still don’t believe that can be said about the entire population of the religion. Many local Muslims here decry this B.S. and actually do beautiful things in and for the community. It’s these thugs that warp and twist and take the context of passages of the religion and turn them into something evil.

    The irony of this article does not escape me. Senator Santorum himself has some radical beliefs. Wonder if I can find that comment he made during the debate……

    • Yea, saying you do not want to trample the internet but you STILL want to protect individual rights and liberty is a disheartening notion. I mean, it’s only the central message of Ron Paul, so I can see why you would have a problem with what Santorum says in this clip – IF you have a problem with Ron Paul.

      HOWEVER, if you support Paul, then you should support Santorum here, as he is basically echoing what the founders said is the LEGITIMATE role of just govt.

      But, if we’re going to be honest here, the people booing him are probably Paul supporters. which is yet another knock on Paul as it shows he goes too far to the right. Santorum is right: we cannot do whatever we want, and we cannot trample the rights of others. This is precisely the idea that this nation was founded upon.

  7. How far do you go if you police the internet? Are we to become like China or Iran? Also, what role will lawyers and the govt. get to play? These are the things that frighten me. It just seems that when you give govt. an inch it takes a mile…

    • Isn’t that what Congress is SUPPOSED to do: debate the issue until they arrive at a PROPER solution? Taking things to an extreme to argue against them is fallacious. It’s a reductio argument.

      But then, I suppose you’re correct: we should be allowed to do WHATEVER we want – anywhere and everywhere. Right? I mean, there’s no worry about protecting your rights in that because people are angles.

  8. And Congess is doing a mighty fine job! Yeah, they actually had a small group of them get together and try to do the job for them. That didn’t turn out so well……

    So where is the line drawn? No more porn for Kells?

  9. Wow! Obvioisly having a black man as President has turned the author into a vile, hateful racist! As far as “vile” groups are concerned, one need look no further than a blog wherein the term “SCOAMF” is used in reference to the President of the United States ignorantly used by Dog Fellaters and Retarded racist bigots scumbag hicks!

    • Questionman,

      The author of this piece is NOT a racist, but we can see by YOUR ACTIONS that you view everything according to the color of a person’s skin and not their actions or character. Dr. King tells us this makes YOU a racist and we would appreciate it if you took your vile hatred somewhere else. You are welcome here, but ONLY so long as you behave as a civilized human being and use reason to state your case, not the same old hatreds of the past turned around to serve their former victims.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.