Rick Santorum is resurrected as the conservative alternative

[Guest ThePunisher]

I don't this election is about change, it's about stopping.

Seriously, if you want to stop the current attack on liberty and freedom you really need to vote for the nominee to make sure BHO can't continue his agenda.

I agree.

I'm just curious if there is anyone in the country that everybody could possibly get unified behind to beat Obama? It appears that the republican voters are so splintered in their social political views that no one candidate can meet everyone's expectations. What would it take to get the R's unified behind someone to make Obama a one term president. I am coming to the conclusion that Bush will be the last of the republicans to ever get elected POTUS. It looks like the republican voters are going to piss this election down the drain along with their liberties and freedoms.

[RobertNashville]

I feel good about Santorum...of the three candidates I've given money to this year, he's the last one still in!

Looks like I need to get out my checkbook again.

[Dennis1209]

Do you really think in this day and age of politics, where lobbyists out number Congress 10-1, we're getting anything the status quo doesn't want for a nominee? This political process has become corrupt to its' core.

It takes tens of millions of dollars to run for president. Where does the majority of that money come from? Corporate campaign contributions, the government and meager individual contributions. The majority of campaign contributions comes via corporate interests and special interest groups. Do they throw money at these individuals for a tax write off or expect something in return?

Unless you live under a rock, you know the news media (news papers, television, "movies") are liberal and extremely bias. Name one, just ONE major news outlet that is not liberal and bias? And IMO, FOX news does not qualify anymore.

The hippy, draft dodging, pot smoking, experimental drug guru college students have come to age and infested our universities, public schools and government with liberal thinking. Check all the liberals from Ted Turner to Jane Fonda, Donald Trump to George Clooney to Alan Greenspan. They do nothing but further the liberal agenda.

It would be interesting to know the percentage of liberals (takers), and their off spring, that honorably served in combat positions in the military, to defend this great nation.

My way of thinking is; a liberal (Democrat) wants to take what you earned by the sweat of your brow, and give it to his choice of beneficiary who didn't earn it for votes, and call it an entitlement. A conservitive (Replublican) wants to do it also, but under the guise of more rules.

Sorry about the rant. I just don't like it when the government dimishes my ability to provide for myself and my family through hard work. And gives a large portion of my labor to the morbidity obese lazy welfare entitlement receipients, driving a better car than I do, buying things I can not afford to buy in my budget.

[daddyo]

I must repeat:

One flaw with the plan. You have to live with the 2-4 Supreme Court justices that O puts in. For the next 25 years.

They'll be bad enough regardless, but if GOP doesn't get the senate, they'll be so far left you'll need binos just to see 'em. (just like the two he's already installed, or likely worse).

- OS

I have no faith in any of the GOP candidates to do the right thing as it applies to the SCOTUS.

[Oh Shoot]

It takes tens of millions of dollars to run for president.

Tens of millions might get you a decent run for governor. In some states. Think 500 million and up for Prez. O's going for a billion, might not make it though.

Anyway, it will continue to just be an American Idol contest unless we do the right thing and quit allowing the populous to elect senators and presidents.

- OS

[Raoul]

Tens of millions might get you a decent run for governor. In some states. Think 500 million and up for Prez. O's going for a billion, might not make it though.

Anyway, it will continue to just be an American Idol contest unless we do the right thing and quit allowing the populous to elect senators and presidents.

- OS

Ah, just the right people get to vote?

[Oh Shoot]

Ah, just the right people get to vote?

No, nobody votes. We should not be electing president. Nor senators, as Constitution originally was written.

- OS

[BryanP]

Meh. The realistic view is that no vote in the primary or the presidential election matters here. We will have little or no influence on who gets the GOP nomination, and whoever wins the GOP nomination will win Tennessee in the general election. I'll be paying closer attention to other races.

[56FordGuy]

Anybody else coming around to supporting Santorum?

That said, I don't think his campaign has much chance at a national level when his staff can't even come up with an appropriate strategy to get enough news out there that even on the morning after three primary wins, 6 out of 10 of the top sites in Google when you query his last name are related to sodomy and beastiality.

No Santorum support here. Highly unimpressed by Captain Ass Splatter. If he can't figure out this new 'internet' thing, how can he lead a country? Besides, his complete disregard for personal freedoms gets on my bad side real fast.

As much as I want to agree (and I understand the sentiment), all that tactic will accomplish is to put BHO right back in the White House-and that will be really bad for the country.

You know what? I would almost prefer that to some RINO. The Democrats may well run this country into the ground, but at least they're honest about what they intend to do. The current crop of Republicans seem far too willing to piss on my back and tell me it's raining.

Ah, just the right people get to vote?

Originally, I believe it was only land owners that had the right to vote, because they had a vested interest in the country. Wonder how a proposal like that would fly now, since half the country just votes for whoever promises to give them more of the other half's stuff?

Mm. May not hold my breath on that one.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Meh. The realistic view is that no vote in the primary or the presidential election matters here. We will have little or no influence on who gets the GOP nomination, and whoever wins the GOP nomination will win Tennessee in the general election. I'll be paying closer attention to other races.

Is the concept of the Manchurian President becoming a reality in our country? A lot of people think of Obama as the Manchurian President.

[BryanP]

Is the concept of the Manchurian President becoming a reality in our country? A lot of people think of Obama as the Manchurian President.

I'm not sure what that has to do with my comment as it had nothing to do with Obama, but the short answer is "no", and "yeah, a lot of gullible birther twits buy into that theory" respectively.

[Guest ThePunisher]

I'm not sure what that has to do with my comment as it had nothing to do with Obama, but the short answer is "no", and "yeah, a lot of gullible birther twits buy into that theory" respectively.

My aim was to point out that the powerful and wealthy are the ones that control who gets elected, and it seems to be very true nowadays.

Edited February 9, 2012 by ThePunisher

[Grunt67]

Not really thrilled with any of the GOP candidates. Right now, the wife & I are both leaning toward

Santorum. Regardless, it's ABO all the way.

[Guest HvyMtl]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/08/opinion/avlon-gop-turnout-down/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Um. This is not good. If they cannot get the people in for the primaries, how will they for the main event?

[kieefer]

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2

Um. This is not good. If they cannot get the people in for the primaries, how will they for the main event?

]

Maybe folks were disgusted with Romoney and felt it was sewn up? With the MSM promotions and his negative ads in previous primaries this could be an explanation.

Or, like just about everyone here, they are not impressed with the current crop.

Edited February 9, 2012 by kieefer

[Guest nicemac]

With all due respect, I don't think my ONE vote will put BHO back in the WH. I'm SICK of holding my nose while I vote.

That is exactly what happened with Ross Perot back in 1992. He drew just enough conservative votes to get Clinton elected. I voted for Perot. My ONE vote, plus plenty of others who "voted their conscience" got Clinton elected. I will not make that mistake again.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_t2

Um. This is not good. If they cannot get the people in for the primaries, how will they for the main event?

The article seems to think that too many R voters are not happy that the primary field is not conservative enough, but the field is so conservative that any possible winner will be too conservative to win in the general election.

The definition of conservative has got so distorted that it is meaningless.

Those same folk were complaining that McCain was too conservative. That McCain was a kewl guy but swerved "too far right" to win the nomination and then may as well have been extremely to the right of Goldwater in the general election. How far left do you have to be in order to see things thataway?

Even if Romney wins, that segment of the press will depict Romney as more raving right-wing than George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and David Duke combined.

Then again, maybe it is my definition of conservative which is at fault. I never thought that a person who wants to make war with Iran and suppress personal liberties would match the definition of "conservative" but apparently many right-wingers think that is the epitome of "true conservative". So maybe the Moral Majority and the Left-Wing Press really are talking about the same thing, and I'm the one woefully misunderstanding what the term ought to mean.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[kieefer]

Then again, maybe it is my definition of conservative which is at fault.

I never thought that a person who wants to got to war with Iran and suppress personal liberties would match the definition of "conservative" but apparently many right-wingers think that is the epitome of "true conservative". So maybe the Moral Majority and the Left-Wing Press really are talking about the same thing, and

I'm the one woefully misunderstanding

what the term ought to mean.

I believe that to be the case, but that's just me.

I doubt anyone can change your interpretation so I won't attempt but I suspect he MSM and the left will construe and spread these same thoughts.

Off your subject but somewhat related to conservatism;

Gov. Rick Snyder, a first-term Republican in Michigan has turned things around in that state, and the world didn't collapse and Grandma wasn't thrown off a cliff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/us/surplus-surprises-michigan-but-is-it-safe-to-spend-again.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY

This may be good for Rick.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I believe that to be the case, but that's just me.

I doubt anyone can change your interpretation so I won't attempt but I suspect he MSM and the left will construe and spread these same thoughts.

Yeah, my conception of conservative is hopelessly skewed. Conservatism which doesn't go to great efforts to fix what ain't broke. Not afraid of change but respectful of prior methods which worked just fine for a long time. For instance a conservative engineering design might make innovation where needed, while taking into account real-world proven methods and built more durable than an anvil. Not necessarily flashy or relying too heavily on yet-unproven tech. In cases where you do use unproven tech, test the crap out of it before you let it get out into the real world.

The USA seemed to bumble along not too bad for quite a while without abridging personal freedoms or picking fights on the other side of the world. Live and let live and leave people alone. At least in theory.

After the revolution, some of the religious-established colonies were kinda uptight on social issues, but generally the place was pretty loose. Lots of people drank like fish, carried on scandalous personal lives, cooked their own booze and grew their own tobacco. They could build a house where they wanted without a zoning permit. Somehow the nation survived for about 150 years with no war on drugs and minimal picking fights with remote places, unless the remote place started it.

The uptight moral majority didn't get oppressively involved trying to run folks lives until the mid-19th century, and they've been incessantly pushing that button ever since. The progressives were religious-based for a long time but even after they shed the religion except in lip-service, it is the same thang from the other side. Progressives are just moral majority personality types who stopped attending church. Same kind of meddlers, just meddling in different causes.

People have been fixing what ain't broke for a little over half the lifetime of the nation.

Describe a war on drugs or a multinational police action to the typical citizen of the first few generations-- Describe the gov either promoting or forbidding birth control-- Describe a medicare prescription drug boondoggle-- Describe "compassionate conservatives" handing out tax money to churches. They would most likely stare in amazement and say, "What the hell are you thinking?"

For instance, economist Milton Friedman is supposedly a paragon of conservatism, and the dude had some good ideas. But if you read much of the dude, you notice that he was a pretty big-gov kinda guy. He just wanted the big-gov to have different policies, and not be QUITE as obese as the Keynsian ideal. So dunno even how "truly conservative" some of the paragons really are.

[Oh Shoot]

That is exactly what happened with Ross Perot back in 1992. He drew just enough conservative votes to get Clinton elected. I voted for Perot. My ONE vote, plus plenty of others who "voted their conscience" got Clinton elected. I will not make that mistake again.

That's certainly true in TN and seems true nationwide. If everyone who voted for Perot had voted GOP, Bush the Elder would have won.

(by percent of vote)

TN:

Clinton: 44.55

Bush: 42.43

Perot: 10.09

Nationwide:

Clinton: 43.01

Bush: 37.45

Perot: 18.91

Yes, it could happen again.

- OS

Edited February 9, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest Lester Weevils]

That's certainly true in TN and seems true nationwide. If everyone who voted for Perot had voted GOP, Bush the Elder would have won.

(by percent of vote)

TN:

Clinton: 44.55

Bush: 42.43

Perot: 10.09

Nationwide:

Clinton: 43.01

Bush: 37.45

Perot: 18.91

Yes, it could happen again.

- OS

Hi OS

That may be correct analysis, but it assumes that only likely-republican voters would have voted Perot.

At that time I hadn't found out about a libertarian party, and was operating under the seriously stupid error of believing that the democrat party was the closest thing to a libertarian party. I didn't vote for Reagan or Daddy Bush, and would not have voted for Daddy Bush the second time if Perot had not been on the ticket.

At that time I was still nominally a democrat, but was just as fed-up with democrats as republicans, so it was a no-brainer to vote Perot compared to more-of-the-same version 1 vs more-of-the-same version 2.

I'm guessing that if Perot hadn't been in that contest, it would have turned out about the same, because Perot was drawing pretty equally from both sides.

[Dennis1209]

It's never going to happen but, what I would like to see on at least the primary ballot is, "NONE OF THE ABOVE"! If 20% or more of the primary voters vote none of the above, do it all over again until an acceptable canidate is chosen by their party.

Like it's been previously stated, I hate to waste my vote knowing either a Republican or Democrap will become president. With all the other parties, i.e., green, conservitive, constitution, libertarian, etc. I'm of the opinion these parties generally diminish the votes the Republicians would otherwise receive.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

It's never going to happen but, what I would like to see on at least the primary ballot is, "NONE OF THE ABOVE"! If 20% or more of the primary voters vote none of the above, do it all over again until an acceptable canidate is chosen by their party.

Like it's been previously stated, I hate to waste my vote knowing either a Republican or Democrap will become president. With all the other parties, i.e., green, conservitive, constitution, libertarian, etc. I'm of the opinion these parties generally diminish the votes the Republicians would otherwise receive.

Maybe, but I suspect that greens mainly pull from democrats, plus some people who would otherwise be too disgusted to vote. Constitution party mainly pulls from republicans, plus some who would otherwise not bother. Libertarian party pulls from dems and publicans, plus some otherwise seeing no sense in voting. Libertarians may pull a little more from republicans but I'd not risk money in a bet.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[JPR1959]

I will not vote for Obama. He is a horrible president, and just wait until ObamaCare kicks in full time. Our national debt will skyrocket even faster than it is now.

In 1992, I voted for Perot. I was fed up with Bush and despised Clinton. Perot's ideas were right on target, and would have had our nation out of debt by now. In 1996, every citizen was so mad at government, the throw the bums out motto ruled. We saw a conservative Congress for the first time in 80 years. What did that get us??? In part, a vigorous economy, a more balanced budget, and hope.

I just want to see 4 years of conservative government, if for no other reason, to see if they can do what they claim. We know after the past 80 years the liberal/socialist agenda is a miserable failure. I will not sit by and hide my head in the sand because my favorite candidate (Newt) isn't going to win. It is un-American and unpatriotic to NOT vote. Take a stand and stand by your convictions, right or wrong. If you don't want to vote, then move to China where you can't!!!

[Guest nicemac]

Libertarians may pull a little more from republicans but I'd not risk money in a bet.

I would. How in the world could a libertarian vote for a Democrat? I mean, Republicans these days aren't much better, but for the most party they are not openly socialist like the Dems. Libertarianism is about as far from socialism as you can get.