Santorum is a Fake Conservative

[Rizzo]

Excellent video:

http://youtu.be/fdTfvLFlz-c

 

[hoosierdoc]

IS this another Ron Paul-named media production that he didn't read or fact-check? Of course I'm talking about the decidely racist Ron Paul Letter...

 

[Expat]

Why does Ron Paul continue attacking every other GOP candidate but Romney? There has to be some kind of deal that has been made.

 

[Paul]

Why does Ron Paul continue attacking every other GOP candidate but Romney? There has to be some kind of deal that has been made.

Because Romney doesn't call himself the most conservative running person on the ballot, and also Ron Paul had adds on Romney. Santorum does and is a hypocrite.

 

[Paul]

IS this another Ron Paul-named media production that he didn't read or fact-check? Of course I'm talking about the decidely racist Ron Paul Letter...

How about you actually read what Ron Paul is about? I just finished reading a 2nd book by him. Know the facts about the man before you bash.

 

[88GT]

I can't watch the vid now, but if this is a Ron Paul production and it does specifically target Santorum, one has to wonder why he feels it's necessary to trash the other candidates? Is his message not strong enough to stand on its own?

 

[CampingJosh]

I can't watch the vid now, but if this is a Ron Paul production and it does specifically target Santorum, one has to wonder why he feels it's necessary to trash the other candidates? Is his message not strong enough to stand on its own?

Every debate has a rebuttal. Santorum has tried to portray himself as the fiscal conservative, and this advertisement lists a few instances where that is decidedly inaccurate.

I think it's a false dichotomy to speak of "positive" and "negative" campaign ads. If the information presented is true, why should it be off limits?

 

[jayhawk]

Is conservativeism the new McCarthyism? Who isn't a "fake" conservative?

 

[rambone]

Why does Ron Paul continue attacking every other GOP candidate but Romney? There has to be some kind of deal that has been made.

I think the strategy makes sense.

At least supporters of Santorum and Gingrich might reasonably be misinformed about the anti-conservative nature of their candidates. These candidates somewhat carry the air of being conservative. There is a chance that some could be swayed toward someone who is shown to be more conservative.

Romney just reeks of anti-conservatism. Ron Paul must think that there is little to be gained from the ranks of Romney supporters who are dense enough to pick Mitt as their 1st choice.

Its all about wisely utilizing time and resources. The strategy is to create a 2-man race between Romney & Paul. Romney is the final target.

 

[jgreiner]

How about you actually read what Ron Paul is about? I just finished reading a 2nd book by him. Know the facts about the man before you bash.

I have. His old newsletters are "quite" informative. That is why I won't be voting for him in this lifetime.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I think the strategy makes sense.

At least supporters of Santorum and Gingrich might reasonably be misinformed about the anti-conservative nature of their candidates. These candidates somewhat carry the air of being conservative. There is a chance that some could be swayed toward someone who is shown to be more conservative.

Romney just reeks of anti-conservatism. Ron Paul must think that there is little to be gained from the ranks of Romney supporters who are dense enough to pick Mitt as their 1st choice.

Its all about wisely utilizing time and resources. The strategy is to create a 2-man race between Romney & Paul. Romney is the final target.

What strategy makes sense? Distort your opponent's records while lying about and hiding your own?

This is the way I see it. Santorum has cast votes for (and against) bills where I strongly disagree with his vote. I think he is qualified and well-intentioned, but not always on the right side of the issue. Ron Paul best represents my fiscally conservative nature, but I will not vote for him in the primary because of his worldview. Gingrich is too unpredictable and smart for his own good. He's probably not as bad as he's made out to be, but his downfall is his own mouth. Romney is a Democrat running as a Republican.

On balance Santorum seems to represent more of my views favorably than unfavorably. I am less afraid of him getting the 3AM phone call than any of the others. I think that character and morals matter. He'll probably be my choice in the primary.

I am less likely to look at a 20 year old voting record than statements made yesterday.

The bottom line is that I will vote for whomever gets the Republican nomination. Any of them is a far sight better than Obama.

 

[rambone]

I think that character and morals matter. He'll probably be my choice in the primary.

He was listed among the most corrupt members of Congress by a watchdog group in 2006.

I am more likely to look at someone's actual record over their flimsy campaign rhetoric.

To each their own.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

He was listed among the most corrupt members of Congress by a watchdog group in 2006.

I am more likely to look at someone's actual record over their flimsy campaign rhetoric.

To each their own.

And I prefer to synthesize my own decisions with unfiltered information rather than regurgitate the unsubstantiated, unexplained and contextless utterings of others. To each their own indeed.

 

[Ogre]

And I prefer to synthesize my own decisions with unfiltered information rather than regurgitate the unsubstantiated, unexplained and contextless utterings of others. To each their own indeed.

So, if you aren't using his voting record, and you aren't using the "utterings" of others, then with what information are forming your opinion? Just on the face value of what Santorum has said this election cycle?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So, if you aren't using his voting record, and you aren't using the "utterings" of others, then with what information are forming your opinion? Just on the face value of what Santorum has said this election cycle?

A 20 year old voting record means nothing. Decisions aren't made in a vacuum. They are made based upon circumstances on the ground at a certain point in time. For example: Would I support bombing Iran back to hell today based upon the potential they might get a nuclear bomb? No. Would I have supported bombing them when they took our Embassy in the late 70s? Yes. Different times, different circumstances, different information leads to different decisions.

You look at his core philosophies. There are things that he says and does that are unwavering and that define him. Individual votes don't phase me until there is a pattern.

For example I don't like the PATRIOT Act. I thought it was wrong, but I understand where it came from. It was proposed by the people whose job it is to protect this nation. It was proposed by people who thought they needed it to do their jobs better. It wasn't sitting on the table in the basement at the UN waiting for some grand conspiracy to knock our financial center to bits. There was little debate. There was a pass it or we'll suffer more attacks mentality. It was kneejerk, and hasn't really helped do anything to protect us.

Most people, even very smart people, don't know how politics works nor they have ever seen the sausage-making process. They think you just go vote your concience and that's it. They have a very naive and myopic view. I understand it. I've live it. I've seen legaslators agonize over a vote, and cast a vote one way when they really wanted to vote another.

As much as I don't like the PATRIOT Act I don't think everyone who voted for it is a statist pig. I think some are. I think most were being told they needed to support the law for either political or security or any of a hundred other reasons. Almost everyone supported that piece of legislation (yeah I know Ron Paul didn't). I'm willing to give a pass where I might not otherwise had the circumstances been different.

 

[Paul]

I have. His old newsletters are "quite" informative. That is why I won't be voting for him in this lifetime.

Have you read his books? I would say not because he clearly is not racist.

 

[Expat]

Have you read his books? I would say not because he clearly is not racist.

Maybe he isn't but he has shown a willingness to pretend to be one to drum up business from people that are racist.

 

[rambone]

You look at his core philosophies. There are things that he says and does that are unwavering and that define him. Individual votes don't phase me until there is a pattern.

What philosophies has Santorum not wavered from?

 

[Cpt Caveman]

I can't respect a guy that wears eyebrow rugs. I mean COME ON!
If it wasn't for his wack job isolationism and his anti Israel-ness I could probably get behind him....that is if he embraced his old man eye brows....

 

[level.eleven]

What philosophies has Santorum not wavered from?

Excellent follow up question. If you waver, its not really a principle now is it?