Rick Santorum Announces Presidential Run

[Sy_Noe]

Fine - forget about Hispanic, substitute Latino instead. Not all Latinos vote the same or believe the same on this issues, including immigration.

Ishii

Never said all Latinos did either. So again something we agree on. In a bipartisan sort of way.

 

[ishii]

Never said all Latinos did either. So again something we agree on. In a bipartisan sort of way.

Isn’t that what you said when you referred to the GOP being at odds with the Latino vote ? As if Latinos all agree on immigration ?

 

[RACJ]

Liberals like me everywhere.

It’s getting crazy out there! Ted Cruz was quoted as saying that women fantasize about gang rape. OOPS, sorry, that was Bernie Sanders! But wait, that silly woman Carly Fiorina chuckled and bragged about her ability to get a 12 yo rape victim’s predator off the hook. Or maybe I’m thinking of Hillary Clinton…

Anyway, pass the popcorn, Bird…

 

[CaptFun]

MSNBC’s MORNING JOE 5/29/15
Santorum: ISIS is serious about killing Americans

msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/santorum–isis-is-serious-about-killing-americans-453880387598

Former Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., joins Morning Joe to discuss his 2016 bid for the White House and why he’s in favor of raising the minimum wage. Duration: 8:35

I am a bit surprised to see MSNBC correspondents so respectful to Santorum and going a whole 8 minutes without an obligatory gotcha question to see if he will depart from some tenet of his faith. :tiphat: to the Morning Joe show for a good interview. Not softballs either though, as he is asked about his (rather untraditionally conservative) support for a modest raise in the minimum wage.

Santorum’s expertise per his longterm service on the Armed Services committee was cited by one of the reporters (! not Santorum himself) in a respectful way. Which morphed into an overall critique of the present administration’s foreign policies (or lack of same) in the Middle East, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe.

WHY this is? Maybe Fox’ lopsided ratings edge? Maybe Santorum’s ready accessability versus the “rarely speaks to the press” habits of President Obama and (so far) candidate Hillary Clinton? Or is it because Santorum has spoken on MSNBC many times before and now has a bit of a personal relationship (versus a political one) with some of the MSNBC reporters?

Whatever the reason, MSNBC, or at least the Morning Joe Show, just gained some credibility in my eyes. My expectations from them was – some news, always peppered with some PC spin by a commentator at the end of a segment.

Sometimes I enjoy being wrong. Or at least pleasantly surprised.

ADD SANTORUM, ISIS April 3, 2015 Christianpost.com

ISIS Features Rick Santorum In ‘Words of the Enemy’ Propaganda Article; Former Sen. Says ISIS Quoted Him More Accurately Than The NY Times

Read more at christianpost.com/news/isis-features-rick-santorum-in-words-of-the-enemy-propaganda-article-former-sen-says-isis-quoted-him-more-accurately-than-the-new-york-times-136854/#8fhyRYsxuMlWJxaa.99

In the newly released edition of the Islamic State’s monthly English-language magazine, the terrorist group featured and quoted three American “crusaders,” including potential 2016 presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who have consistently voiced their concerns with the jihadists’ rise and ambitions.

The Dabiq article titled “In the Words of the Enemy” features photos of Santorum, Virginia state Sen. Richard Black and former CIA officer and author Gary Berntsen, who are all quoted at length in the article on their various warnings about the group’s abilities to expand its caliphate …

… The Dabiq article quoted the 56-year-old “Catholic crusader” as asserting that strong action needs to be taken by the U.S. and its allies to eliminate the group, or else ISIS will continue to grow.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Isn’t that what you said when you referred to the GOP being at odds with the Latino vote ? As if Latinos all agree on immigration ?

At odds with a majority according to polling I’ve seen on MSNBC :yup: but certainly not all.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I watched an interview of Huckabee on the Chris Wallace Fox News Sunday show (that right wing pro-Republican network). Huckabee came across as very ignorant of the constitution and to me he would be a very bad candidate who would probably lose in a landslide, while appealing to all the evangelicals. Unfortunately the country is not made up of all evangelicals. (fortunately?). Same for Santorum and even Jindal who has spoken out against evolution, e.g.

Ishii

I do think Huckabee with his Southern Baptist background and Santorum as a Catholic Republican appeal to evangelicals but aren’t a lot of IA Republican caucus goers on the evangelical side?

I was looking at the RCP polling avg from earlier this mo and saw the anti-labor union governor from neighboring WI in first in IA Republican polling with Huckabee 3rd and Santorum in the distance at only 3%. In NH, Jeb led. So I suppose there’s still a chance Huckabee could sneak by in IA if others divide the vote enough. And if Jeb announces he’s joining the field and does well in NH and wins the FL Republican primary, there’s also still a path for him I suppose to end up with the nomination as Romney and McCain did. But I recall in 2012 there was a new favorite Republican flavor it seemed like every mo leading up to the caucus and primaries. Also saw the 2016 IA straw poll isn’t drawing much interest this year from candidates and is becoming irrelevant.

 

[ishii]

I do think Huckabee with his Southern Baptist background and Santorum as a Catholic Republican appeal to evangelicals but aren't a lot of IA Republican caucus goers on the evangelical side?

Yes, Iowa is part of the heartland where the evangelicals / religious right is strong. I was mainly referring to the country at large, not Iowa.

I was looking at the RCP polling avg from earlier this mo and saw the anti-labor union governor from neighboring WI

His name is Scott Walker. If you want to play this game then I can think of all kinds of names for Hillary, O’Malley, and probably Elizabeth Warren too, if she runs (“hypocrite foreclosure queen” has a nice ring to it).

in first in IA Republican polling with Huckabee 3rd and Santorum in the distance at only 3%. In NH, Jeb led. So I suppose there’s still a chance Huckabee could sneak by in IA if others divide the vote enough. And if Jeb announces he’s joining the field and does well in NH and wins the FL Republican primary, there’s also still a path for him I suppose to end up with the nomination as Romney and McCain did. But I recall in 2012 there was a new favorite Republican flavor it seemed like every mo leading up to the caucus and primaries. Also saw the 2016 IA straw poll isn’t drawing much interest this year from candidates and is becoming irrelevant.

That was one of the reasons why Romney won: lack of a unified, single conservative alternative to him. Instead it was “flavor of the month” and even though Santorum won Iowa, it wasn’t enough. I suppose Jeb is hoping that the conservative candidates will divide the conservative leaving him as the winner. That is why it bothers me that people like Ben Carson who have no chance of winning (and who isn’t really qualified) is running and will muck things up. Santorum is a decent man, but I think he’s yesterday’s candidate.

I think Bobby Jindal is arguable the smartest guy of the bunch, but I doubt his campaign and speech skills. Moreover, I don’t like him pandering to the fundamentalists with his comments on evolution.

Ishii

 

[CaptFun]

What does Santorum have that the other candidates don’t have? What sets him apart?

dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2098547/10-advantages-Rick-Santorum-Mitt-Romney.html

^ This article from 2012, from England’s Daily Mail, named 10 advantages Santorum had over Mitt Romney. It was written just as Santorum was hitting his peak and came up short in the Michigan primary despite a last minute surge there. Some of what they cite is still the case IMO.

• I have some different ideas on your (very good) question (below)*

Defense: Santorum has actual long term experience as a long time member of the Armed Services Committee. (Agrees with the Mail’s 2012 take that the "issues may be moving Santorum’s way). PERHAPS he is the most experienced GOP candidate in this area … but more important are his stands.** Allies:** Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, the Kurds, Ukraine, and the former Warsaw Pact countries which are now “free”. **Suspects: **Radical Islamic terrorists - foreign or domestic, Iran, Putin’s Russia, China, N. Korea (and their U.S. political apologists, appeasers).

Fiscal Conservative Credentials: When in office he got a 96% rating from the National Taxpayers Union. Rhetorically at least he says he favors a flat tax and a rollback in the powers now wielded by the IRS.

**Social Conservative Credentials: ** Authored and shepherded the ban on partial birth abortion through the House and Senate, including garnering enough votes from sitting Democrats to override Bill Clinton’s veto of it. Perhaps the most important pro-life victory in my ponderously lengthy lifetime . Is leading the fight on “Religious Freedom” – from outside of the Senate now - but while he was in, even worked with Senator John Kerry on trying to get that (still not adopted) legislation passed.

There ARE a lot of other GOP candidates that have the same positions as Santorum on matters like Immigration, Gun Control, true the vote, tax relief, health care, the US accessing its own energy and jobs (as you seem to point out); but Santorum might be a more zealous fighter, or more committed, to his issues than many of the present, less well known candidates.

"Moderate" Credentials: What? Rick Santorum acceptable to moderates?

He has “moderated” at times – at other times convinces moderates to come his way. His “Blue Collar Conservative” populist stance addresses a different segment of the middle class than the (also at risk) small businesspeople and entrepenuers the GOP generally champions. He supported Bush (especially) and Mc Cain and Romney … enough that Romney gave him a speaking spot at the GOP convention.

Romney gave the keynote speaking slot to Chris Christie … a “more moderate than Santorum” supposedly guy. Christie’s 11th hour lovefest with Obama just prior to election night looks enough like a stab in the back to some, I think, that “rival” Santorum looks more the loyal supporter of the ticket (albeit that he too criticized Romney - though mostly for being too soft on Obama after a dynamic Romney’s acknowledged “win” in their first debate).

Financial Backing and Organization: The main complaint and prophetic conclusion of the above “Mail” article in 2012; Santorum now has much more money behind him and a national organization. Not the money of Romney … nor Trump, but enough to compete with many of the rest of the GOP field. He could do just passably well in Iowa and New Hampshire … and pick up support from some of the marginal candidates whose financing will not survive anything but an early primary win or strong numbers.

**An Acceptable Compromise Candidate?: ** He was acceptable to conservatives as an alternative last time. That could happen again. He’s taking issue with Rand Paul on foreign policy, and made broad comments warning against GOP “bombthrowers” (rhetorical ones I hope ). But mostly he’s a happier warrior this time out.

As he picked up support from former Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, Cain, Fred Thompson and Evangelical Christians last time … he could again. And this time so far there’s no Romney whose long preparation, money and organization has some primaries already wrapped up.

**He Doesn’t Have Some “Advantages” Others Do: **He isn’t hispanic or latino or married to one (like Rubio, Cruz, and Bush). He’s not black or a woman (per those advantages with segments of the electorate like Carson and Fiorina). Or a Doctor (Paul, Carson). He was never a Governor (like Walker, Huckabee, Kasich, Christie, Pataki, Bush, Perry, Palin, or Jindal).

**Other Qualifications He Does Share: **He was a Senator (like Rubio, Cruz, Paul) and a powerful one. He was a congressman and helped correct the House Banking Scandal of the '90s.

He is a CEO (of a smaller company than Trump’s or Fiorina’s), though his Family Film Company Echolight is on the upswing financially, and makes a nice product (IMO). At least once Trump had a company in bankruptcy, and Fiorina (who’d engineered an HP merger with Compaq ) was forced out as CEO in 2005.

Santorum famously lost re-election to the Senate in 2006 – after having won twice as a Congressman and twice as Senator (though in all five elections Democratic registration statewide and in his district was lopsided against him).

In the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections featuring big GOP gains, Santorum campaigned across the country for party candidates … in the primary and general elections. He therefore has contacts and friends everywhere which may (again) lead to “surprising” showings in the actual primaries, IMO. * Surprising* because usually accurate polls somehow often underestimated Santorum’s support in 2012.

 

[ishii]

 [dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2098547/10-advantages-Rick-Santorum-Mitt-Romney.html](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2098547/10-advantages-Rick-Santorum-Mitt-Romney.html)

^ This article from 2012, from England’s Daily Mail, named 10 advantages Santorum had over Mitt Romney. It was written just as Santorum was hitting his peak and came up short in the Michigan primary despite a last minute surge there. Some of what they cite is still the case IMO.

• I have some different ideas on your (very good) question (below)*

Thank you CaptFun, but in what other ways?
ha- just kidding. Thank you for the comprehensive post about Santorum.

Let me say at the outset: I think Santorum is a good, decent man who is qualified to be president. That said: your post about Santorum and the link, seems to focus more on why he was successful in 2012 and one of my points is that 2016 is nothing like 2012. Consider:

2012 candidates: Romney, Santorum, Newt, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul. Say what you want, but I think that was a pretty weak group of candidates.

2016 candidates: Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal (possibly). Huckabee, Perry, Santorum and Ben Carson as well.

Quite simply, in Rubio, Walker, Christie, Cruz, Paul and Jeb Bush, I think we have the GOP bases covered. (all apologies to the rest of the candidates). ***For every strength of Santorum, there is a candidate with the same strength or better. *** I think it is less likely that a candidate will sneak in because of a distaste for two other candidates (as Santorum seemed to do in 2012).
CaptFun;13012832:

Defense:

Certainly Jeb Bush and Rubio have this cornered.

Fiscal Conservative Credentials

:

Scott Walker.

**Social Conservative Credentials: **

Cruz, Jeb Bush, Rubio, Paul, maybe all the candidates this time. There doesn’t seem to be a candidate whose social conservatism is suspect as Romney’s was in 2012.

"Moderate" Credentials:

What? Rick Santorum acceptable to moderates?

Chris Christie. Jeb Bush.

Romney gave the keynote speaking slot to Chris Christie … a “more moderate than Santorum” supposedly guy. Christie’s 11th hour lovefest with Obama just prior to election night looks enough like a stab in the back to some,

Which I almost never forgave Christie for.

Financial Backing and Organization:

Jeb. Rubio.

**An Acceptable Compromise Candidate?: **

This is interesting. What if the nomination comes down to like, Cruz and Jeb or Paul and Jeb, and a compromise candidate comes in. Romney? (I hope not). Maybe Santorum. Maybe someone else.

Overall, I think that the 2016 field of candidates makes it harder for Santorum to stand out. I also think we need a governor, not a senator (in Santorum’s case, former senator). Maybe a mixed, Governor / senator ticket. I just don’t think Santorum is it this time around, and probably got lucky going as far as he did in 2012. I can just see now the questions he would get if nominated: “are you for outlawing birth control?” etc. He would play right into those questions. Perhaps he’d be a formidable debater of Hillary. That would be interesting to watch.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Anyway, do you have an idea who you’re going to support? I’ve been thinking about either Marco, Jeb, or Rick. It’s still early though, so we’ll see how this plays out. A lot can change in several months. Newt Gingrich was once considered a front runner in the last primary. Rick Perry was another one. But it was a different Rick who was the last serious contender that fell (well, technically Newt and Ron Paul were still running after Rick dropped out, but at that point, it didn’t really matter).

I have always been intrigued by Marco Rubio because he is probably the most solid, all around communicator among the GOP contenders. I am a bit wary of his previous support for amnesty / playing right into the hands of the Democrats whose amnesty position is a crass, cynical attempt to create more Democrat voters. I am also wary of his foreign policy views which could mean more marching into the middeast to nation build. I have the same concerns toward Bush, but probably X 2. I really do not want to see Jeb Bush as the nominee, nor do I think he is the man we need to turn this country around. So I like Rubio, Walker, maybe Chris Christie. But I am not enthusiastic about any candidate at this time. If you want to know the truth I am pretty disappointed in Republicans right now.

In a sense, politics is kinda like football. You can start trying to predict who’s going to the Super Bowl during the pre-season, but a lot of things can change. Some people ended up thinking that the Saints were Super Bowl contenders while the Cowboys would have a losing record; the exact opposite happened. Hope my football analogy makes sense.

Did you have to bring up the Super Bowl? All they had to do was give the ball to Marshawn Lynch. But no…

Ishii

 

[ishii]

video.foxnews.com/v/4263491965001/rick-santorum-sounds-off-on-iraq-crisis-immigration/?#sp=show-clips < video

Rick Santorum sounds off on Iraq crisis, immigration
May. 28, 2015 - 3:32 - Republican presidential candidate discusses 2016 plans on ‘The Kelly File’

An instructive look at the candidate, especially for those who have only heard him field the MSMs questions about birth control, gay rights, abortion for rape victims and other queries that by themselves paint Santorum as “just a social conservative” or a doctrinaire Catholic.

Story in the Washington Times:

"Rick Santorum On Immigration: America is worth the wait"

His comments are very, very on the mark at least in terms of identifying the reasons for Demcrats’ and business’ support for amnesty:

“Hillary Clinton and big business, they have called for a massive influx in unskilled labor,” he said Wednesday. “Business does it because they want to control costs. Hillary does it, well, she just wants votes. Their priorities are profits and power. My priority is you, the American worker.”

Brilliant. “Hillary Clinton and Big Business” vs. Rick Santorum and the American Worker. Now imagine if we had an honest and fair media which did not do the bidding of the Democratic party. I think many Americans particularly the middle class would be very receptive to what Santorum is saying. Instead we will have a conversation about the dangers of condoms being outlawed, and a war on women should Santorum’s campaign gain steam.

Here is more:

“Look, ISIS is talking about bringing a nuclear weapon, they believe they can smuggle it through our southern border — we need to have a much more secure border not just for immigrants who want to come here illegally, but for other people who want to do other things that are very dangerous to this country,” he said.

Bravo, Rick! While Hillary panders to the Hispanic vote by promising more amnesty, Santorum correctly points out the national security component of immigration policy.

But will anyone listen to Rick?

If we had a fair media Santorum’s ideas would be given consideration, but unfortunately Santorum is the “right-wing traditional Catholic” candidate with 8 children who would likely outlaw contraceptives if elected! In our current climate, Santorum’s views will not be given a fair shake, I’m afraid. He has a lot to say on a whole host of issues but I’m afraid he will always be considered the “social conservative candidate.” Which is too bad. He is currently hovering around 1.7% in the polls.

Anyway, Santorum is the only candidate talking about immigration in terms of national security AND the American worker (to my knowledge).

Ishii

 

[Denise1957]

If we had a fair media Santorum’s ideas would be given consideration, but unfortunately Santorum is the “right-wing traditional Catholic” candidate with 8 children who would likely outlaw contraceptives if elected! In our current climate, Santorum’s views will not be given a fair shake, I’m afraid. He has a lot to say on a whole host of issues but I’m afraid he will always be considered the “social conservative candidate.” Which is too bad. He is currently hovering around 1.7% in the polls.

Ishii

My memory may be faulty here, but didn’t Santorum come in close behind Romney in the primary in the last election?

 

[ishii]

My memory may be faulty here, but didn’t Santorum come in close behind Romney in the primary in the last election?

Yes. He was the last “anyone but Mitt” guy standing toward the end and won a few primaries. I do not think that success translates into 2016 success but who knows. He has tried to remain relevant since 2012, appearing on news shows, interviews, etc. but I don’t see that it has had any effect of keeping him up in the polls.

Ishii

 

[InigoMontoya]

Yes. He was the last “anyone but Mitt” guy standing toward the end and won a few primaries. I do not think that success translates into 2016 success but who knows. He has tried to remain relevant since 2012, appearing on news shows, interviews, etc. but I don’t see that it has had any effect of keeping him up in the polls.

Ishii

+1

He has a long road ahead if he wants to mount a significant challenge.

 

[boar2roar]

He’s my personal candidate that I support. He’d be a great president unlikely as it is. Oh well I’ll support and vote for him once my state primary comes around.

 

[boar2roar]

Thank you CaptFun, but in what other ways?
ha- just kidding. Thank you for the comprehensive post about Santorum.

Let me say at the outset: I think Santorum is a good, decent man who is qualified to be president. That said: your post about Santorum and the link, seems to focus more on why he was successful in 2012 and one of my points is that 2016 is nothing like 2012. Consider:

2012 candidates: Romney, Santorum, Newt, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul. Say what you want, but I think that was a pretty weak group of candidates.

2016 candidates: Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal (possibly). Huckabee, Perry, Santorum and Ben Carson as well.

Quite simply, in Rubio, Walker, Christie, Cruz, Paul and Jeb Bush, I think we have the GOP bases covered. (all apologies to the rest of the candidates). ***For every strength of Santorum, there is a candidate with the same strength or better. *** I think it is less likely that a candidate will sneak in because of a distaste for two other candidates (as Santorum seemed to do in 2012).

Certainly Jeb Bush and Rubio have this cornered.

Scott Walker.

Cruz, Jeb Bush, Rubio, Paul, maybe all the candidates this time. There doesn’t seem to be a candidate whose social conservatism is suspect as Romney’s was in 2012.

Chris Christie. Jeb Bush.

Which I almost never forgave Christie for.

Jeb. Rubio.

This is interesting. What if the nomination comes down to like, Cruz and Jeb or Paul and Jeb, and a compromise candidate comes in. Romney? (I hope not). Maybe Santorum. Maybe someone else.

Overall, I think that the 2016 field of candidates makes it harder for Santorum to stand out. I also think we need a governor, not a senator (in Santorum’s case, former senator). Maybe a mixed, Governor / senator ticket. I just don’t think Santorum is it this time around, and probably got lucky going as far as he did in 2012. I can just see now the questions he would get if nominated: “are you for outlawing birth control?” etc. He would play right into those questions. Perhaps he’d be a formidable debater of Hillary. That would be interesting to watch.

Ishii

I think you are using “social conservative” to loosely. I don’t think Jeb and Paul are any more socially conservative than Romney. Jeb is a moderate country club type similar to Romney and Paul is libertarian-esque just with supposedly somewhat pro life views. Neither of them seem likely to champion socially conservative issues in the white house. Cruz (that super republican), Santorum, Jindal, Huckabee are the social conservatives of this race and like last time they aren’t getting the serious look treatment. Rubio is kind of a moderate and walker can be added along with paul and Jeb into the suspect category.

You think defense is an edge for Jeb? The Iraq war still hangs over him and whats he going to say about Obama given his family history. Will he say boots on ground back to the Mid east back into Iraq? Obama is too soft to Putin and lets, lets, lets… fight a proxy war? Lets bomb Iran? Could you imagine the ads about Iraq 2 if he starts talking about foreign policy in an aggressive way.

He’s very similar to Romney, its just that he perhaps has the name and these things tend to run in cycles so it might be the republicans turn again ( I hope).

 

[ishii]

I think you are using “social conservative” to loosely. I don’t think Jeb and Paul are any more socially conservative than Romney. Jeb is a moderate country club type similar to Romney and Paul is libertarian-esque just with supposedly somewhat pro life views. Neither of them seem likely to champion socially conservative issues in the white house. Cruz (that super republican), Santorum, Jindal, Huckabee are the social conservatives of this race and like last time they aren’t getting the serious look treatment. Rubio is kind of a moderate and walker can be added along with paul and Jeb into the suspect category.

You think defense is an edge for Jeb? The Iraq war still hangs over him and whats he going to say about Obama given his family history. Will he say boots on ground back to the Mid east back into Iraq? Obama is too soft to Putin and lets, lets, lets… fight a proxy war? Lets bomb Iran? Could you imagine the ads about Iraq 2 if he starts talking about foreign policy in an aggressive way.

He’s very similar to Romney, its just that he perhaps has the name and these things tend to run in cycles so it might be the republicans turn again ( I hope).

Hello Boar2roar,

I was commenting on the social conservatism of the 2016 candidates compared to 2012. In 2016, while some may be technically “suspect”, and some might be considered a little more “bona fide” socially conservative, there is NOT the contrast that there was in 2012 when you had Mr. Social Conservative (Santorum) running against the guy who proudly said he was pro-choice only a few years earlier (Romney). Quite simply that stark difference does not exist in 2016. Regarding Jeb and social conservatism, I think you forget how much Jeb was on the social conservative side during the Terri Shaivo affair while he was governor. He is solidly pro-life and Catholic. I don’t think anyone can call his social conservative credentials suspect.

Regarding defense, Capn Fun was pointing out Santorum’s foreign policy / defense credentials earned while a senator. I believe that Santorum is every bit as hawkish as Jeb and Rubio are, even going so far as to take on Rand Paul with his recent comments about ISIS. But you’re right: Jeb would be at a disadvantage perhaps a little, while all the candidates will be grilled as to whether they would go to war again. This will set up Rubio, Jeb and, yes, Santorum for criticism that they will be continuing the nation building policies which some believe got us into the Iraq mess in the first place. I guess I wasn’t so much saying that Jeb has the “edge” on defense, just that Santorum does not necessarily have the edge.

Anyway, all the candidates can claim to be socially conservative much, much more credibly than Romney was able to, and certainly more than Newt (considering his extra marital past). I don’t think 2016 is like 2012 at all in this case.

Thanks for your comments.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

He’s my personal candidate that I support. He’d be a great president unlikely as it is. Oh well I’ll support and vote for him once my state primary comes around.

Its frustrating isn’t it. I agree that Santorum would be good in many ways. Much of what our country needs is moral and spiritual leadership. I think Santorum would perhaps help Americans re-think what is important. And he’s not merely pro-life in lip service: he walks the walk and is a powerful testimony to the importance of God and family in our society. He doesn’t come across as angry or judgmental either.

Ishii

 

[jeannetherese]

Huckabee is undoubtedly going for broke that he’ll emerge in Iowa with his folksy, heartlandish demeanor. Santorum is counting on winning Iowa again as well. All they wiil do is siphon votes from Walker in Iowa and help Bush win the nomination.
.

I wouldn’t anticipate Mr. Santorum siphoning votes from Mr. Walker as Mr. Santorum is much more friendly to labor.
I’m grateful to see Mr. santoru and Mr. Huckabee campaigning as they tend to be much more vocal in support of the working class.
I’m looking for a pro-Life pro-Labor candidate -long overdue.

 

[ishii]

I wouldn’t anticipate Mr. Santorum siphoning votes from Mr. Walker as Mr. Santorum is much more friendly to labor.
I’m grateful to see Mr. santoru and Mr. Huckabee campaigning as they tend to be much more vocal in support of the working class.
I’m looking for a pro-Life pro-Labor candidate -long overdue.

Oh, Scott Walker is definitely friendly to workers / labor. Please do not conflate support for public sector unions (and the sweet deals they get) with being pro-worker. Requiring that public state employees contribute to their retirement and healthcare like all the non-government workers is not anti-worker, it is fairness. In fact, it is pro-worker. Allowing government workers the ability to collectively bargain, when they can just tax the citizens to increase salary, healthcare benefits, and pensions is the height of fiscal irresponsibility and greed. The reason why Scott Walker is a top candidate for president is because he opposed this nonsense and changed the laws to stop this.

The thing is, knowing how much of a threat Scott Walker is to the gravy train known as the public sector, they threw everything they had at him and tried to kick him out of office. They brought in people and protesters from out of state, and certainly $$ from out of state. But they failed because truth prevailed. And so Scott Walker is a presidential contender as a result.

Scott Walker took on the left and won. That is something Rick Santorum cannot claim to have done, although he has been involved in some debates in the senate which had not consequence whatsoever.

Ishii