Rick Santorum Thread

[qui_est_ce]

But I will Be Mailing in for my New ID Card next month & going & Voting For Rick Santorum .

I’m going to make my first political donation ever today.

 

[_Abyssinia]

South Carolina’s Top Pro-Life Lawmaker Backs Rick Santorum:

lifenews.com/2012/01/12/south-carolinas-top-pro-life-lawmaker-backs-rick-santorum/

 

[kubark]

There certain parts of Paul’s message I agree completely and wish the rest of the nation would also listen to - especially about the Fed, national debt, and the limited scope of government. However, reading past issues of Ron Paul’s newletter makes me question how he even retains his House Seat.

What is with this nonsense about the Ron Paul newsletter. Why are so many parroting the government-media complex talking points?

The Ron Paul newsletter issue was a dead issue in 1996, when Ron Paul made it clear that while he did not write the “offensive” remarks, he did take responsibility for them since they were written in his name.

How this is even news is beyond me.

The thing about Ron Paul that scares so many liberals and big government Republicans (like Santorum and the other candidates and Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly, etc.) is that Ron Paul’s principles and adherence to the Constitution would end our illegal and unjust foreign interventions, would make real progress in ENDING (not just tinkering around the edges) legal abortion, and save this country from economic ruin. Of course, there are so many vested interests with a stake in keeping those issues alive and unsolved, that Ron Paul is really too “dangerous” and “racist” and “anti-semitic” for them.

 

[kubark]

*** I trust a well formed Catholic conscience regarding the life issue, which is Santorum, not Paul. I also trust a well formed Catholic conscience regarding traditional marriage, which is Santorum, not Paul.

*** They are equally pro-constitution, though I believe Santorum’s foreign policy knowledge is very current and excellent.

*** I believe Paul is too extreme for the majority.

*** Sadly, I believe that Paul is too old for the majority.

Voting for Santorum because he is “Catholic” is sort of like voting for Obama because he was an “African American.”

“Trust” should have nothing to do with it. Evidence based on voting records and understanding of the Constitution, should be the deciding factor.

Santorum demonstrates a glaring lack of “foreign policy knowledge” with respect to Iran and the Middle East. His “knowledge” is neither “current” nor “excellent.” When it comes to foreign policy, Santorum is either ignorant or deliberately lying. Santorum also seems to place his loyalty to Neoconservatism above his loyalty to the Constitution and academic honesty.

Ron Paul is too “extreme.” Sometimes the truth does seem extreme to those who have been living in a self-delusion.

Too old? I’d rather have a grumpy “old” man telling the truth than a young, charming liar. He is actually in great shape for his age.

But I still never got an objective answer to my original question: How is Santorum more pro-life, pro-constitution, pro-America than Ron Paul?

 

[estesbob]

Interesting that every single canidate thread turns inot a “Ron Paul” thread

 

[rlg94086]

interesting that every single canidate thread turns inot a “ron paul” thread

spam.

 

[SamH]

What is with this nonsense about the Ron Paul newsletter. Why are so many parroting the government-media complex talking points?

The Ron Paul newsletter issue was a dead issue in 1996, when Ron Paul made it clear that while he did not write the “offensive” remarks, he did take responsibility for them since they were written in his name.

How this is even news is beyond me.

.

I didn’t know who Ron Paul was in 1996, nor did I really care. While he may not have written the “offensive” remarks he was indeed responsible for them (even if his admission was in the Clinton manner of “I take full responsibility but it’s not my fault”). The remarks that appeared in his news letter were not “unpleasant truths” or simply statements that appeared “bad” in writing or even inadvertent “slips” made in haste. These were edited to appear exactly as written in a bold manner designed to attract attention to a little known congressman.

As the father of a black child and person that makes judgments based on content of character I feel putting Dr. Paul in the highest office of the land would be a huge mistake.

 

[kubark]

I didn’t know who Ron Paul was in 1996, nor did I really care. While he may not have written the “offensive” remarks he was indeed responsible for them (even if his admission was in the Clinton manner of “I take full responsibility but it’s not my fault”). The remarks that appeared in his news letter were not “unpleasant truths” or simply statements that appeared “bad” in writing or even inadvertent “slips” made in haste. These were edited to appear exactly as written in a bold manner designed to attract attention to a little known congressman.

As the father of a black child and person that makes judgments based on content of character I feel putting Dr. Paul in the highest office of the land would be a huge mistake.

“Little known congressman.” Well, to you anyway, which you readily admit.

But you keep brushing over the fact that Ron Paul didn’t write the offensive remarks. They don’t fit his writing style or his philosophy. In his interview with Haaretz, Ron Paul made it clear that:

“…my message is based on the rights of all people to be treated equally. Any type of racism or anti-Semitism is incompatible with my philosophy. Ludwig von Mises, the great economist whose writing helped inspire my political career, was a Jew who was forced to leave his native Austria to escape the Nazis. Mises wrote about the folly of seeing people as part of groups rather than as individuals. Therefore, for me to advance anti-Semitism in any way would be a betrayal of my own intellectual heritage.”

It was a lack of oversight which he took responsiblity for in 1996. I ask again: how is this a relevant issue? If you still think it is a relevant issue, your task is to: 1. Either make a compelling case that Ron Paul did write the offensive remarks or 2. Demonstrate how a man who takes responsibility for a lack of oversight (note: the offensive newsletters represented about 2% of all the newsletters that were ever published; notice the media is not talking about the 98% of good things that were written) is lacking “content of character” and not fit for office.

Now, back to Rick Santorum. It was reported (nolanchart.com/article9242-the-real-dirt-on-slick-rick-santorum.html) that in New Hampshire, Santorum made a statement about giving money to “black” people that drew accusations of racism. In an interview, Santorum said that what sounded like the word “black” was actually an accidental mumble (“blah”). He said that he doesn’t even refer to that demographic as “black”, but as “African Americans”. However, by the end of the interview, Santorum had used the term “black” three more times, not once having used the phrase “African Americans” in his dialogue. There is also an interview on Youtube where Santorum tries to sidestep and deflect this issue.

So, note the irony: Ron Paul doesn’t write offensive remarks yet takes responsibility for them, and is demonized. Santorum actually USES offensive racial language, and crickets.

Also, let me get this straight: you actually think the newsletter issue is comparable to the “Clinton” issue that you reference above?

 

[jediliz]

Rick Santorum is the most pro family candiate on the GOP side we have. Pro Life (no exceptions for abortion, no saying that banning not caring for babies that survive abortion attempts undermines a woman’s “right to choose”) and pro traditional marriage; He passes all the 5 non neogtiables!

There were people afraid that Kennedy would be forcing the USA to bow down to the Pope if elected. Santorum would not do that either.

The next president has the potential to put at least one more supreme court justice on the SCOTUS and if a Democrat wins, we won’t be getting a pro traditional marriage, anti abortion justice, you know that!

 

[Sonic]

Interesting that every single canidate thread turns inot a “Ron Paul” thread

Seems that way… doesn’t it?

 

[SamH]

It was a lack of oversight which he took responsiblity for in 1996. I ask again: how is this a relevant issue? If you still think it is a relevant issue, your task is to: 1. Either make a compelling case that Ron Paul did write the offensive remarks or 2. Demonstrate how a man who takes responsibility for a lack of oversight (note: the offensive newsletters represented about 2% of all the newsletters that were ever published; notice the media is not talking about the 98% of good things that were written) is lacking “content of character” and not fit for office.

Even you repeat that he accepts responsibility but it’s not his fault. We already had Clinton as president.

 

[SamH]

Now, back to Rick Santorum. It was reported (nolanchart.com/article9242-the-real-dirt-on-slick-rick-santorum.html) that in New Hampshire, Santorum made a statement about giving money to “black” people that drew accusations of racism. In an interview, Santorum said that what sounded like the word “black” was actually an accidental mumble (“blah”). He said that he doesn’t even refer to that demographic as “black”, but as “African Americans”. However, by the end of the interview, Santorum had used the term “black” three more times, not once having used the phrase “African Americans” in his dialogue. .

And?

 

[Sonic]

Jake Morphonios wrote:

“As part of his opposition to Iran, Santorum recommended that America fight for “a strong Lebanon, a strong Israel and a strong Iraq.” "

source: nolanchart.com/article9242-the-real-dirt-on-slick-rick-santorum.html

The source for this statement is cited as coming from a blog post from the Wall Street Journal about Mitt Romney, which briefly mentions statements by Rick Santorum.

blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/01/01/romney-santorum-warn-voters-on-iran/

The Wall Street Journal states Santorum’s comments thus:

Earlier in the day, former Sen. Rick Santorum, who is surging in polls here, said that as president he would bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities if Tehran didn’t open them to international inspectors.

“You can’t go out and say, ‘This is what I’m for,’ and then do nothing,” Mr. Santorum said during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “You become a paper tiger.”

The article links Santorum’s statements to the Meet the Press debate Sunday January 8, 2011.

msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

You can find the transcript from the debate linked here:

msnbc.msn.com/id/45917518/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/

Unfortunately, Santorum’s “paper tiger” statement cannot be found in the debate transcripts mentioned in the article.

Santorum’s statements were mentioned in a USA Today article citing a Meet The Press Interview from January 1, 2012:

content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/01/rick-santorum-momentum-iowa-meet-the-press-/1

On other topics in his only talk show interview today, Santorum took a tough stand against Iran and explained some of his past votes and political positions that his GOP rivals are now attacking. Some highlights:

IRAN: He said he would launch airstrikes if Iran did not open its facilities to inspection for nuclear weapons development, and blasted President Obama for failing to support the pro-democracy movement there.

“You can’t go out and say ‘this is what I’m for’ and do nothing,” Santorum said about Obama’s stand on Iran. “You become a paper tiger … and allies don’t trust you.”

Here is the transcript of the January 1, 2012 Meet The Press interview showing what Santorum actually said:

msnbc.msn.com/id/45840626/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/meet-press-transcript-jan/

FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: Well, we know by the Israelis. We, we don’t have any evidence–if you look at what’s being done, most of the evidence actually trails back to the Israelis and the methodologies that they use. There’s no evidence the United States is at all complicit in working at that. That’s what–I would be very direct that we would, in fact, and openly, talk about this.

Why? Because I want to make sure that Iran knows that when I say that Iran is not getting a nuclear weapon, that we will actually effectuate policies that make that happen. This president has not done that. He has opposed tough sanctions on Iran, on their oil program. Why? Because he’s concerned about this–the economy and his re-election instead of the long-term national security interests of this country. I would say to every foreign scientist that’s going into Iran to help them there’s–with their program, you’ll be treated as an enemy combatant like an al-Qaeda member. And then finally, I would be working openly with the state of Israel and I would be saying to the Iranians, you either open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and, and make them available to inspectors, or we will degrade those facilities through airstrikes and make it very public that we are doing that. The president has done none of those.

MR. GREGORY: So you would lay out a red line and if they passed it, airstrikes by President Santorum.

FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: Iran will not get a nuclear weapon under my watch.

MR. GREGORY: Well, two previous presidents have said that. You would order airstrikes if it became clear that they were going to…

FMR. SEN. SANTORUM: Yes. That’s, that’s the plan. I mean, you can’t go out and say–this is, this is the problem with this administration, you can’t go out and say this is what I’m for and then do nothing. You become a paper tiger and people don’t respect our country and our allies can’t trust us. That’s the problem with this administration.

Once again we return to the statement in the Morphonios article and wonder where it came from.

As part of his opposition to Iran, Santorum recommended that America fight for “a strong Lebanon, a strong Israel and a strong Iraq.”

These statements are actually from a Washington Post Gazette article dated Friday, July 21, 2006:

post-gazette.com/pg/06202/707588-177.stm

Here is what Santorum actually said:

WASHINGTon – Sen. Rick Santorum yesterday said Islamic fascism rooted in Iran is behind much of the world’s conflict, but he is opposed to military action against the country.

Instead, the Republican is advocating the passage of legislation to punish countries that aid Iran’s nuclear program and to encourage pro-democracy groups in Iran.

“I think it’s important for us in Congress and the president to indicate clearly what our objective is there. I think it sends a clear message to the people of Iran,” Santorum told reporters after speaking at the National Press Club.

Iran is at the center of the problem because it created Hezbollah and is the driving force behind Hamas, Santorum said.

“I believe we must fight for a strong Lebanon, a strong Israel, and a strong Iraq,” Santorum said. “That requires effective action against Iran.”

 

[Sonic]

A correction on my previous post. I wrote Washington Post Gazette when I meant to write the Pittsburg Post-Gazette.

Jake Morphonios wrote:

“In 2006, Santorum was named the “Most Corrupt Politician” by a political watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. The Pittsburgh Post Gazette reported that Santorum took the most cash from corporate lobbyists of any other politician in Washington, adding that Santorum “has a black belt in hypocrisy” (10/22/2006).”

source: nolanchart.com/article9242-the-real-dirt-on-slick-rick-santorum.html

Jake Morphonios sources from this message board… the post links to the CREW press release from 2006.

godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1744609/pg1

You can find CREW’s allegations against Rick Santorum on pg 207- 218 of their 2006 report here in a pdf file:

citizensforethics.org/index.php/press/entry/crew-releases-second-annual-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report/

It’s strange that Jake Morphonios didn’t just link to the CREW Press release directly.

The footnote that cites the Pittsburg Post Gazette Article reads:

1. Some of Santorum’s five children began attending the charter school during the2003-2004 school year. Eleanor Chute and and James O’Toole, State Agrees to pay Penn Hills Scools for Santorum; Accord Doesn’t Address Residency, Pittsburg Post-Gazette, september 2, 2006. (Exhibit 3)

The citation was used to establish the fact that Santorum’s children attended school from 2001 to 2005.

Page 206,

From 2001 to 2005, five of Sen. Santorum’s six children attended a Pennsylvania cyber charter school in Penn Hills, PA, at an estimated cost to local taxpayers of $72,000.

The article from the Pittsburg Post Gazette reads:

Sen. Santorum has a bigger problem. This self-described fighter has a black belt in hypocrisy. The issue of his non-residence in Pennsylvania is rooted in his slamming of Rep. Doug Walgren 16 years ago for moving to Washington, D.C. The hypocrisy got worse when Mr. Santorum, the alleged champion of taxpayers, stuck the public for the bill to educate his children in a cyber school when his residence in Penn Hills is just a legal fiction.

source: post-gazette.com/pg/06295/732138-192.stm

It will be up to the reader to evaluate whether CREW’s allegations are true or not.

The transcript from the ABC January 7, 2012 debate in New Hampshire provides Santorums answer to the corruption charge:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Take your time.

SANTORUM: Let’s talk about the corruption issue. The person who – the group that called me corrupt was a group called CREW. If you haven’t been sued by CREW, you’re not a conservative. CREW is this left-wing organization that puts out a list every election of the top Republicans who have tough races and calls them all corrupt because they take contributions from PACs. It’s a ridiculous charge. And you should know better than to cite George Soros-like organizations to say that they’re corrupt. So that’s number one.

source:washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/2012-abcyahoowmur-new-hampshire-gop-primary-debate-transcript/2012/01/07/gIQAk2AAiP_blog.html

Edit: I should point out that Santorum did not appear in the recent 2011 CREW report, which can be downloaded here:

crewsmostcorrupt.org/mostcorrupt

 

[Dirt]

News story relating Rick Santorum’s links to Opus Dei. You may want to put sharp implements down before you read. Tipical secular slant.
news.yahoo.com/opus-dei-influenced-rick-santorum-201937160.html

"Some of that isolation is on display when Santorum says things that show a way of thinking pretty unfamiliar to most Americans. Example: On birth control: “lt’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

It is somewhat chilling to know that i am not “most Americans”.

 

[kubark]

Even you repeat that he accepts responsibility but it’s not his fault. We already had Clinton as president.

No, I said that Ron Paul DID accept responsibility for a lack of oversight. He admitted in 1996 that this lack of oversight WAS his fault. Dead issue. In 1996.

Now, back to this “Clinton” nonsense.

Clinton committed perjury. He lied while under oath. He committed a felony. That’s a tad incy wincy different than Ron Paul’s lack of oversight on the 2% of newsletters that went out under his name, wouldn’t ya say?

 

[kubark]

STEPHANOPOULOS: Take your time.

SANTORUM: Let’s talk about the corruption issue. The person who – the group that called me corrupt was a group called CREW. If you haven’t been sued by CREW, you’re not a conservative. CREW is this left-wing organization that puts out a list every election of the top Republicans who have tough races and calls them all corrupt because they take contributions from PACs. It’s a ridiculous charge. And you should know better than to cite George Soros-like organizations to say that they’re corrupt. So that’s number one.

So, instead of responding with facts to CREW’s allegations, the best Santorum can muster is “left-wing” “ridiculous” and “George Soros”.

Still waiting for an academically honest rebuttal, Santorum.

 

[oldcelt]

So, instead of responding with facts to CREW’s allegations, the best Santorum can muster is “left-wing” “ridiculous” and “George Soros”.

Still waiting for an academically honest rebuttal, Santorum.

You won’t get one. Having interviewed the ex-senator from the great State of Pennsylvania, I can only relate my impression.

He was and remains an empty suit. His 15 minutes are long over.

John

 

[kubark]

And?

You don’t see the point?

The point is that Santorum agrees that “black” is an inappropriate term. Now, we all know that “black” is no more offensive than “white” and has been turned into an “offensive” term by the politically-correct speech police. I mean, I refer to myself as a “white” person, because my skin appears to be “white.” I don’t feel the need to refer to myself as a German-American - I just say that I’m an American.

But back to Santorum. So, the first mistake he makes is agreeing that “black” is “offensive” (even while he continually uses “black” in the course of his attempt at damage control) and the second mistake he makes is trying to pretend that he didn’t use the “offensive” term (just go to Youtube to see Santorum try to wiggle his way out of this mess, if you don’t believe me). He says that he really said “blah.” Now, this would really be quite funny if it were not coming from the mouth of candidate for the office of President.

Now contrast Santorum’s handling of what should have been a non-issue from the start, to Ron Paul’s handling of an issue that actually involved offensive remarks: Santorum makes excuses while Ron Paul accepts responsibility for words he didn’t write.

 

[kubark]

You won’t get one. Having interviewed the ex-senator from the great State of Pennsylvania, I can only relate my impression.

He was and remains an empty suit. His 15 minutes are long over.

John

I used to believe Santorum’s propaganda. After all, I am Catholic and I do live in Pennsylvania. But over time I came to realize that he was a warmongering fraud. His pandering to Neoconservatism and his endorsement of Arlen Specter over the pro-life Pat Toomey, finally convinced me that I had been taken by Slick Rick.