The Right Scoop
Santorum is following GW Bush's lead in "refashioning conservatism". The libertarian movement Santorum will fight against is the very "heart of conservatism" (Ronald Reagan). Santorum is a neoconservative and regardless of what he says now, his record is terrible.
All I know is that Santorum's RECORD certainly isn't in line with Tea Party principles. This guy is a big-spender. Take a look at some of his less-than-conservative positions here: www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/
Have you seen the original video source? because if you haven't that is clearly a biased view made with partial facts.
I gotta say, I don't agree with Santorum on much but do I really like what he's saying about earmarks and how ridiculous it is that they've been so thoroughly vilified.
His facts are straight. Ron Paul found an ongoing parade, and attempted to jump in front of it. The resulting wreckage draws the gawkers. But the parade passed him by, and he's well out of it.
He left the Libertarians and is stuck in limbo between the libertine lefties and the anarchist rightwingers.
Whatever...
So, whatever Santorum says, he's wrong and Paul is right.
Ok... whatever... but, how about some truth to correct your Paulinista revisionism.
The TEA Party was NOT "formed out of the Ron Paul 08 campaign" as you assert.
How do I know?
Well, consider this.
If it was, the Ron Paul "formed" TEA Party would NOT have welcomed Sarah Palin with open arms as the "we the people" TEA Party did.
Art
Palin and Bachmann are both out.... for now. If either one gets back in... I'll fight to the end for them. As of this moment in time, Rick Santorum is the man. I've already sent my donation. Just look at the remainder of the pack. Seems like a no-brainer to me. But what do I know?
"... this movement within..."
The "context" is NOT the Republican Party OR the "Taxed Enough Already" TEA Party movement, but "this movement" that is working "within" both.
It is a reference to the Libertarian effort to co-opt the grassroots TEA Party and "refashion conservatism" from a "limited" government to a libertarian "less... and less... and less..." government ideology.
Art
Art... It is interesting that you're supporting Santorum's fight against libertarianism. Ronald Reagan said the very heart of conservatism was libertarianism. Traditional conservatives have always been closely associated with libertarians. You should really look into libertarianism to understand what that really means.
It is Rick Santorum and the new right wing statists called "neoconservatives" that are refashioning conservatism. Paul is not in that camp and to say that the "tea party" is in that camp is disingenuous at best.
For those Santorum fans I think you ought to figure out how he is going to get the nomination since he will be missing on a number of ballots, short a lot of delegates:
After late surge, Rick Santorum could miss state ballot deadlines
“In all, Santorum could miss out on up to 200 delegates from four states (and D.C.) before the contests are held.”
I'm glad Rick Santorum is now being heard. In the first debates, the media side-lined him and didn't let him speak. Afterwards, when he went downstairs to the 'spin rooms' he was relaxed and articulate and his strained expression on stage disappeared.
In 3-4 videos, Sarah Palin has consistently praised Rick Santorum. In fact, he's the only one she has outright praised.
The Arlen Specter endorsement was Santorum making a deal to get conservative Justices on the SCOTUS. Since Specter was one of the chief men who got SC justices approved, Santorum got Specter to pledge to approve Bush's appointments if Santorum endorsed Specter. So we got two lifetime conservative Justices, Alito and Roberts out of the deal and Santorum sacrificed politically (possibly his own re-election) for the sake of possibly overturning Roe vs Wade.
Even though this is a hacked video...I saw and heard nothing but Conservative ideas and positions coming from Rick Santorum. Entitlements are not earmarks. It is the job of Congress as the nations purse keeper to distribute earmarks. That's their job!
As to the 1964 civil right bill it would have been nice to hear the rest of the answer other than cut it out at ''no''.
As to Conservatives taking on Libertarians in the Republican party....RIGHT ON! No government is anarchy and that is flat wrong!
Go Santorum Go!!!!!
True, but earmarks are still a big problem that leads to more runaway government spending and a process of corruption among our politicians. It needs to be addressed.
I must agree with you. The process of political corruption is bad among politicians and money as they say is the root of all evil. However it is the job of Congress to plan and distribute the nations funds as the keeper of the national purse. I think Rick Santorum lays out a good position concerning earmarks and what should be done. Take a look.
"I’ve got some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement to sort of refashion conservatism."
This is the kind of sentence I have my son read and comprehend when doing grammar. The above sentence could be taken as it was claimed, that Santorum has concerns with the Tea Party. But when you listen to the video, and read the transcript, it says, "the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement to".
If Rick was saying or including the Tea Party with the libertarians, he would have said, "I've got some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party "COMMA" and the Tea Party movement... listening to the video, he would have had a slight hesitation between the words "Party" and "And". Meaning that he was saying the Tea Party alone was trying to refashion Conservatism.
Sorry- not really a great example of grammar, but I stand with Scoop on his take on this. :-D
"I’ve got some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement to sort of refashion conservatism."
This is the kind of sentence I have my son read and comprehend when doing grammar. The above sentence could be taken as it was claimed, that Santorum has concerns with the Tea Party. But when you listen to the video, and read the transcript, it says, "the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement to".
If Rick was saying or including the Tea Party with the libertarians, he would have said, "I've got some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party "COMMA" and the Tea Party movement... listening to the video, he would have had a slight hesitation between the words "Party" and "And". Meaning that he was saying the Tea Party alone was trying to refashion Conservatism.
Sorry- not really a great example of grammar, but I stand with Scoop on his take on this. :-D
I think it's clear he was talking about the libertarian part of the tea party, even the question in the beginning was about a section in the 1964 civil rights bill be open for review, a libertarian position, and which Ron Paul believes restricts liberty, so if people want to discriminate for whatever even race, they have that right.
The statement "I’ve got some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement to sort of refashion conservatism. I will vocally and publicly oppose it and do my best to correct the record." does not seem edited to me and it pretty clear that he is an establishment guy. IMO
Exactly. It's clear he IS talking about the Tea Party. Let's be honest, the Tea Party ideology is not compatible with Rick Santorum. His voting record makes that abundantly clear.
He wants to Cut Taxes and Entitlement reform how is that not compatible with Tea Party?
No doubt, as every GOP candidate says they are. But he does have a long Senate voting record that can be scrutinized. He's voted for much garbage and we're all aware of the earmarks. He's not Harry Reid and he's not Jim Demint. He's a bit to the right of the middle of those two. I think it can safely be said that average Tea Party supporters aren't enthusiastic about Rick Santorum.
Exactly. It's clear he IS talking about the Tea Party. Let's be honest, the Tea Party ideology is not compatible with Rick Santorum. His voting record makes that abundantly clear.
Libertarians don't believe in no government either. Stop equating anarchism with libertarianism. They are not the same concept. Our view of government is similar to that of Thomas Paine, meaning it is a necessary evil in its best form, an intolerable evil in its worst.
The premise that libertarians are trying to "refashion conservatism" is bunk unto itself. The Tea Party movement originated with libertarians and the Libertarian Party. Google it. Libertarians don't want to refashion conservatism because we won't be able to and we know we won't be able to. Libertarianism was never conservatism to begin with, but originated from classic liberalism before liberalism was refashioned by progressives and socialists, so if we were going to try to refashion anything, it'd be liberalism back into classic liberalism.
Any perception that libertarians are trying to "refashion conservatism" is simply because we have a two party system and libertarians either get elected under one of the two parties or, seemingly, not at all. Plus given the growing prevalence of libertarianism with each passing year, it's either run within the two parties that are prevalent or split them, which is a growing concern with one particular candidate this blog and other conservatives prefer, to borrow my own words from another comment, crucifying as if he was Pontius Pilate in a past life.
Thomas Paine said, "In America, the Law is our King."
Not Obama's agenda that he's been ignoring the Constitution to follow or Romney using executive fiat to establish same-sex marriage in MA overriding the State Law.
That wasn't executive fiat that established same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. That was the Massachusetts Supreme Court declaring that a prohibition on same-sex marriage violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
To be totally fair to Santorum I have to point out that the executive editor of Town Hall and Town Hall Magazine is Hugh Hewitt. He is a passionate Romney Supporter. Hewitt wrote "Mormon in the White House" back in 2008 to help make the case for Romney.
On the other hand...
Santorum has not been embraced by the Tea Party. There is no sign in the polls that the Tea Party is shifting into his column.
As I mentioned earlier, Santorum loves working with the "Democrat" wing of the GOP. He loves working with Dems as well. Santorum has always been a GOP Party Guy" who has never challenged the party establishment.
there's no real sign? the conservatives of tea party are split between Santorum and Gingrich, I think it's obvious, I don't think they are hiding behind Romney, as I heard one tea party leader say 'I don't know any tea party member that doesn't despise Mitt Romney.'
You're conveniently overlooking the other 16 candidates who did go on to win the nomination since 1948.
George W. Bush and Bob Dole lost NH and won the nomination. If Romney loses South Carolina and Florida he lost his cake walk to the nomination
Call it what you will. Nearly every candiate who wins NH goes on to win the nomination.
That's New Hampshire, isn't the one of the most, if not the most liberal states in the union? It would be a surprise if Liberal Mitt Romney wasn't leading there.
Funny you should ask. In NH you have this:Romney still underperforms among conservative voters, Tea Party supporters and evangelical Christians in the state — but not to the extent he did in Iowa.
Indeed, he leads among very conservative voters (getting 30 percent to 27 percent for Santorum), Tea Party supporters (35 percent to Paul’s 25 percent) and evangelical Christians (31 percent to Santorum’s 30 percent).Source: HotAir.com
So if this is true who do you think the tea party support is polling to?
Not Romney, Not Rick Perry (He had it but Bombed it in the Debates), Not Huntsman, Ron Paul is getting the libertarian tea party support, So it's down to Santorum and Gingrich right now getting the tea party support and there are also a lot of social conservatives and evangelicals in the tea party
They are looking at his record. He has no record of being a small governemnt guy. He's a typical establishment Republican.
It's all academic.
New Hampshire: Romney 44, Paul 20, Gingrich 8, Santorum 8
When Santorum was Office. Where was the Tea Party back then?
The Tea Party exists now, does matter and is important. It is pushing the Republican party where they need to be and I think Santorum's campaign is more in line with the Tea Party than frontrunner Mitt Romney.
Where's the demo analysis?? Santorum is getting the evangelicals and Social Conservatives not the Tea Party.
The Tea Party is not impressed with him.She said that Santorum would appeal to some socially conservative voters but that he violated the core tenet of the Tea Party — fiscal responsibility — during his tenure in the Senate.Source: USAToday
New Rasmussen National GOP Poll:
Romney 29%, Santorum 21%, Gingrich 16%
New Rasmussen Poll South Carolina Primary:
Romney 27%, Santorum 24%, Gingrich 18%
BTW: Here's what the Tea Party has to say about Rick SantorumShe said that Santorum would appeal to some socially conservative voters but that he violated the core tenet of the Tea Party — fiscal responsibility — during his tenure in the Senate.
Kind of like that "black" comment that he "didn't" make. Good grief, how many times are you people goig to try and cover up for this big gov't big spender.
You might actually try doing some research on the guy, perhaps you might find his actual voting record confirms he is another big gov't pseudo conservative;
What A Big Government Conservative Looks Like (Santorum)
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/06/what-a-big-government-conservative-looks-like/
You might also find if you open your eyes long enough, that Santorum is no stranger to lobbying either;
Rick Santorum, 'Stealth Lobbyist'
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/rick-santorum-stealth-lobbyist/story?id=15298204#.TwYXU_ncBnQ
"He has been, essentially, a stealth lobbyist," said Bill Allison, editorial director for the Sunlight Foundation, a watchdog group. "He has been hired to try to influence policy on behalf of his clients without crossing the thresholds that would require him to report what he's doing."
And I am wondering... who among them can cast stones? Who? You people are looking for perfection in the MOST UNLIKELY places... government. What the hell do you want, anyway? Oh, that's right... the same "American Dream" Obama spoke of? Yep, we're getting a crappy president then in 2012 and beyond since nonya goofballs have a better candidate to throw up there. Ron Paul, et al, are NOT by ANY MEANS even close to being acceptable either. So now what, smarty-pants people?
"BIG GOV" vs. "Big Gov" vs. "small big gov"...
Look at it this way, Bzip.
Conservative Rick Santorum is for constitutional "limited Big Gov"... NOT for Obama style "unlimited BIG GOV" and NOT for Paul style "less... is best... small big gov"
vs.
Libertarian Ron Paul is for "less... is best... small big gov"... NOT for Santorum style constitutional "limited Big Gov" and NOT for Obama style unconstitutional "unlimited BIG GOV"
vs.
Obama is for unconstitutional and "unlimited BIG GOV"... NOT for "limited BIG Gov" and NOT for "less... is best... small big gov"
What's the difference?
Libertarian Ron Paul is for the traditional libertarian "less... and less... and less... is best" and contradictory "small big gov"
vs.
Conservative Rick Santorum is for the constitutional and traditional conservative "limited Big Gov".
Now, what's the difference between Paul and "less... and less... and less... is best... small big gov" and Santorum and constitutional "limited Big Gov" and Obama and unconstitutional "unlimited BIG Gov"?
Santorum -
Unlimited freedom with a restraining "Big Gov"
vs.
Paul -
Unlimited freedom with NO restraining "small big gov"
vs.
Obama -
Limited freedom with totally restraining "BIG GOV"
The Santorum conservative protect private property "limited Big Gov" is constitutional.
The Paul libertarian "less... and less... and less... is best... small big gov" is contradictory and will NOT protect constitutional private property possession.
The Obama progressive redistribution of wealth "unlimited BIG GOV" is communistic... elimination of private property.
Santorum and Paul are NOT for communistic "unlimited" BIG GOV
Santorum and Paul do NOT differ on the meaning of communistic "unlimited BIG GOV" but on the meaning of of constitutional "limited Big Gov"
Constitutional "Big Gov" protects the rights of private property possession
vs.
The contradictory libertarian "small big gov" that will weaken the right to possession of private property.
Weaken rights? How?
A Ron Paul libertarian "weak" small big gov will NOT withstand enemies, foreign OR domestic.
Art
I'm not covering up for this guy. He didn't say what people think they heard and I'm clearing the record.
But thanks for impugning my motives.
McLame Endorsement: Rips corruption in earmarks then promptly says Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum doesn’t “share that view” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ovqv0SV2EY
Idiot.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.