Romney is credited with 2 delegates....
On Feb 13, 5:51 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I got no use for bible-thumpers in politics.
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Posted by Leon H. Wolf
> > Monday, February 13th at 1:51PM EST
>
> >http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2012/02/13/the-main-problem-with-...
>
> > *The [Main] Problem with Santorum*
>
> > As I have said here before, I like Rick Santorum. For being a Senator from
> > Pennsylvania, he was pretty darn good. He's undoubtedly a very strong
> > pro-lifer, which means that he and I are in tune on the most important
> > political issue to me. I still do not consider him to be a good nominee for
> > President whatsoever.
>
> > Let us grant for just a moment that executive experience is not as
> > important as I believe it is for Presidential nominees. Given that all the
> > momentum seems to be swinging his way, it would appear that most voters do
> > not indeed agree that executive experience is a necessary prerequisite for
> > the job or the nomination. Fine. I am still at a loss for what exactly in
> > Rick Santorum's record commends him to be the right candidate for this
> > place and time in American history.
>
> > Santorum likes to point to two particular episodes in his record as
> > evidence that he is a conservative crusader against spending: welfare
> > reform and social security reform. Santorum is right to accentuate his
> > involvement in these two efforts as he was effective in the welfare reform
> > fight and threw himself wholeheartedly into the social security reform
> > fight, despite the fact that it ultimately doomed his electoral prospects
> > in Pennsylvania. What this proves is that when Santorum is pointed in the
> > right direction by GOP leadership, he can be a loyal and sometimes
> > effective foot soldier.
>
> > However, the rest of Santorum's record – which Erick has recounted here on
> > numerous occasions – indicates that Rick Santorum has never been a leader
> > when it came to bucking the party leadership on anything – most especially
> > including spending. On every major spending issue – Medicare Part D,
> > earmarks, etc., Santorum was complicit with the worst aspects of the Bush
> > administration's fiscal profligacy.
>
> > I defy any of Rick Santorum's supporters to point out to me one instance –
> > even one – of Rick Santorum battling other Republicans on spending. Maybe
> > it happened and I missed it; I certainly don't pretend omniscience.
>
> > I don't suppose this would matter so much, except that the people who are
> > now flocking to Santorum are the same people I hear constantly telling me
> > that another go-along, get-along Republican is completely unacceptable, and
> > that they'll stay home if one is nominated. It isn't enough, I am
> > constantly told, for the nominee to oppose Democrats now and then – we must
> > have someone who will also oppose feckless Republicans. What good will it
> > do us to march toward socialism a little slower than the pace preferred by
> > the Democrats? It boggles that mind that, as an electorate, we rejected
> > Rick Perry because his voice sounded too much like George W. Bush's, and
> > yet we stand on the verge of nominating George W. Bush's true ideological
> > successor, Rick Santorum. Bush's fundamental problem was that he lost his
> > veto pen until the Democrats took control of the Congress and let the
> > Republicans run all over him on spending; who can say with a straight face
> > that Santorum would not have this exact same tendency?
>
> > On spending, Rick Santorum has spent his entire career as a follower
> > rather than a leader. In light of this, I am at a loss as to how he has
> > suddenly become the choice of so many who loudly proclaim that only a
> > crusader on spending issues will do.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment