I'm kinda torn here. I was glad to see Santorum surge to the front, but this comment disturbed me. We don't need a "team player", we need a leader. The "team" has destroyed the Republican party and has made it liberal-lite. Politics and party power have become more important than the country, and the McCain's and Boehner's have thrown conservatism under the bus in the name of "getting along" and "working with" the Democrats and the moderates in order to get something done.
If you don't like the bill, don't vote for it...period. The bills are stuffed with poison and the only way to change this behavior is to start rejecting them.
When the poison is being stuffed in by the opposing party it changes things a bit, because if you vote against it because of the add-ons the libs have another method of stopping a bill. Stuff it with crap we don't want and it won't pass. Line item veto.....we need it.
I listened for about 100 u secs, before I muted his trash. You take a oath. You swear to you constiuants you will vote for their interests. If you don't, you are a liar and a thief. Sanitororium is just a gutless wonder. Oh, yeah, discredit the patroits, and push your idiot. I know Mark loves the guy, okay. Rich, I quit listening to you, your first vast history lie. Mark, even the great one can be fooled. One of the major faults in our system, is the lying politicians, 'who make deals'. America, make up your mind. Get a Christian leader, with guts, or just go to sleep, they will be at your, door soon enough.
I didn't have to listen at all. I agree with almost everything you said except when you say "You swear to your constituents you will vote for their interests."
Politicians should be elected on their principles and then use those principles to vote, even if the vote is against what your constituents want. But that's why we have a republic and not a true democracy. Voting on principle is when we will get politicians that think about the big/long term picture. All the big government spending benefit constituents today, but only at the detriment of future constituents, and that's the difference.
Santorum's excuses for voting against Right to Work are what initially got me thinking that he's not a principled man. This last debate performance sealed that impression for me. If you vote on principle, you don't have to give excuses later, you stand up for what you believe in.
Here's another conspiracy theory; this one is Santorum and Romney backed out of Georgia debate because it could only benefit Gingrich:
CNN missed a golden opportunity by deciding not to sponsor the final Super Tuesday debate with the GOP Presidential candidates. It reportedly made that decision after being informed that both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum had decided to withdraw from the debate, and Ron Paul was feeling iffy. After an unprecedented 20-plus debates already this election season, Santorum and Romney (who are friends offstage) had privately decided that the debate would serve only the purposes of Newt Gingrich.
Santorum is being interviewed on Beck:
Rush made a mistake today.
We already have a person in the white house who always needs pundits, media, or whomever to explain what he meant, what he was feeling, what his in depth meanings truly were. Give me a break. You will never see commentators explaining what Newt Gingrich said, because you know what he said.
I do not want team player in the white house. I want a man that has a steel spine, a great mind, and the ability to defend his own words, feelings, etc. I want a man that if need be he will fight Goliath with a sling shot and a stone, regardless of what the mob is saying. (Great story from the Bible).
My take on Santorum is he is deal maker. His team is a team of 1. He was willing to make a deal with Spector, (as the story is told) even though he had to compromise his principles on abortion. He did it again on another vote on no child left behind.
We already have a deal maker in the white house. Please lets not fall for this again.
I thought when Newt sat on the couch that he was history as far as I was concerned. But he won me back with a Strong Platform, and his ability to explain his ideal and the reason he believes in them and does it in simple terms (he makes it easy for my simple mind to grasp).
You got me thinking when you said "You will never see commentators explaining what Newt Gingrich said," but I have heard numerous pundits and personalities come to the defense of statements made by all of the other candidates.
They all have warts, but I get the feeling that Newt is the LAST person the pundits and personalities want to see win.
The constitution, is for the common man, just like the bible. If you cannot understand it, it is your fault, and NO ONE can explain it to you. Newt, not my first choice, is at least in tune, with the common man. It infuriates the media, good. He told you how he will work. If that doesn't make you vote for him, I guess, you will vote for the, uh, change.
I remember when I was in the Navy. We had an aircraft that needed a fuel control change. Maintenance Control told me; 99.9% you don't need to verify if it works because it will. I said; well; that small percentage might come true so I need to take it to high power to make sure it works as advertised. They said; don't you want to be a "team player" and they added that didn't you just get a Navy achievement medal for the good work you've done? I left and went to my rack and threw my NAM on the desk and said! You can have this back! I cannot rely on past experience. I have to make sure the aircraft is "SAFE FOR FLIGHT"! So, I had to make adjustments to the fuel control and the aircraft was safe for the aircrew to proceed. I HATE THE WORD "TEAM PLAYER". To me, it means you will compromise safety! BS!
I was plane captain to 6 Navy fighter jets. Anyone who tried to hurry me, or get me to just sign off, to be a 'team player', caught hades. If the COB told me to move or get the aircraft shoved over the side, I said go ahead. At least the pilot won't die. Never had a failed aircraft. Got promoted ASAP. Either do it right, or get out of the way. Team players not wanted.
Rick Santorum is a really nice guy. I would like him to be my friend. However, his problem is that he almost always feels a need to answer everything that is asked of him seriously and completely. In that respect he is just like me and I like him for that.
However in this environment he needs a little more practice at derision. He needs to stop defending himself and deride the questioner more for asking "unimportant" things. Something that I can't do in a million years which is why I'm not running for President.
Santorum is the kind of person I wish we could have for President. However Gingrich is the kind of person we NEED for President. The man who can knockout the media instead of pushing them back. Anybody can win against Obama, the problem is that the Republican candidate must first knockout the media to even get to Obama.
"Team player" sounds like a lame excuse for not standing up for what he claims to believe in. "Team player' explains Santorum's endorsement for Arlen Specter. I appreciate his honesty, but his decision remains inexcusable. It is not a selling point, and is an example of the problem. Santorum's confession provides a strong reason to seek an alternative.
Every time I see the santorium, I see more focused answers.
how he described his desire in one word "courage."
I'm sure he's the best candidate from those who have faced.
The comment from Santorum is not going to change my support. The man is trustworthy and he understands what needs to be done NOW-without a doubt he gets it. Unlike some of the others, no names mentioned who seem to be in pandering mode still....jmo.
Not to mention-the image of a strong pro-life, christian home-schooling 7 seven children in the White House will send a very POWERFUL message to the WORLD. and the enemies of America.
I support Santorum. His responses still seemed to be a little weak imo. However, he answered them the best he could - honestly and off-the-cuff. But of course, the media and moderate candidates are going to rail him on this - rightly so; it's all part of the vetting process. And to stand alone like Bachman does in Washington... well, we see what it got her. Allen West has one or two controversial votes... but he's still a superstar. Reagan had a few bad bills and raises to the debt ceiling... but he's still the best president of the last century. Rick also made some good calls and some bad ones while he was a Senator.
He had his first debate in the limelight and he got beat up. Agreed, if he provided shorter, more concise responses to this stuff, it would help - and then move on. He's not the same sort of political animal that Romney is... which is part of why I like him. But he has to have his A-game out now... he's in the big leagues now. And he's still my guy.
Yeah but Newt has more fire in the belly...more donuts too :-)
The left and the establishment right, know that Newt will upset the proverbial applecart. DC would be one huge apple cobbler by the time Newt got through with it. It would be much more efficient, and much more geared to doing what is good for our country.
Newt ist gut!
(gut, is pronounced goot, and means good in German.)
Could someone please tell me why I should not say the following:
This "team" business is why some Republicans have been primaried. Shouldn't the team actually be the people, i.e., the constituents, and shouldn't that which they must get done at least be beneficial to this country? Team schmeam! The team sucks, have sucked, and still sucks.
If you have to compromise your deeply held beliefs to go along with the party, something's wrong with the party.
There is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't say this. I tried to say the exact same thing. The "team" has ruined the Republican party and are now liberal lite. It says something about the party when you have the establishment types of McCain bashing the people for electing real conservatives. I thought Republicans were supposed to be conservative, but they aren't. It's about party power now, not about the country or us.
Hmmm NO, sounds about right to me.
Going along to get along team player doesn't sound like a strong personality.
I think what Newt said in one of the interviews or speeches he gave fits in on this topic.
"Do you think you will change Washington with some kind of mild mannered timed manager, you can manage the decay, you need a real LEADER TO BREAK-OUT of the DECAY"
There is a part of me that wonders what I would do in those situations. If you don't play ball with the team, you don't play ball. That's how it is. It is an expectation that one (Rep or Dem) should be a team payer at some level. If you aren't, then you aren't helping the overall cause.
I think what you are questioning is whether the cause itself was on track. We probably both agree that it was not on domestic spending. It was off the rails. However, in both the Specter and the NCLB decisions, I don't think Rick thought he was doing anything seriously wrong at the time. When NCLB was put forward, there was bipartisan consensus (we can argue how retarded that there was consensus) that accountability was needed in education. Anybody that gets within spitting distance of the public education system agrees with that. Most of us conservatives know it is a union problem. So, to sum it up, I think he and other conservatives made a vote with good intent but didn't think through the unintended consequences that come from top-down federal control even though it should have been plain to see. The Specter endorsement wasn't about Specter. It was about holding a leadership seat. Again, side with the conservative challenger or save the country from at least 2 years of Democrat leadership control? Which is the greater cause for good? Not sure there.
I'm not being disagreeable. I just think that when you dedicate yourself to a cause bigger than yourself, you have to make decisions based on the cause--not yourself.
This is what I want to destroy in politics...."politics as usual". The establishment is about party power and not about principle or ethics....or us. McCain has openly remarked on how terrible it is that tea party candidates are being elected and how they will destroy the country. Really? By being conservative? It's the "team player" mentality that passes bad bills because it helps the party. They are selling us all down the river and driving us bankrupt because they want to "spend" their way continued power.
I think it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the cause is big or little. It has to do with right or wrong causes. The difference between right and wrong should be stark. If you are right and your party is wrong, you should either convince them or part ways with them with your vote.
There is also that part of the lawmaking process where exactly what you might want is in the same bill which includes something you cannot stand. This is a problem with the system itself.
I understand what you are saying though.
Yeah, like giving Planned Parenthood money in a defense appropriations bill. I don't know if that specifically has happened, but you know what I mean.
In my opinion, this is the main reason that politicians cannot do anything to save the country. Bush signed many a bad things stuffed into defense appropriations bills, but he wanted our troops to be funded. The libs took advantage and put things in that would never, ever pass on their own.
They need to enact laws that prevent them from doing this...on both sides. Bills should stand entirely on their own and never be attached to unassociated bills.
Exactly right. The U.S. suffers now only because those who pretend to conservative values do, in contrast, value their party more than their professed principles.
Well, initially that was my rub against Gingrich. I thought he was "party first". I think I might be wrong about him because he's been saying all the right things lately imo. He may have truly changed.
My heart of hearts says that if someone is party first, then they aren't America-first, which there has been a considerable lack of since Reagan.
I think the Specter issue is a small one - getting conservative justices in the Supreme Court is a must-have. I think the earmark issue is a small one - he did what they all did back then when earmarks weren't used as a cussword (for the record, I hate earmarks). Rick still needs to stand firmly and pominantly against public sector unions and big government - which he has been positively addressing more and more lately.
If this is the worst they find on him, then I'm cool with him winning the nomination. He does still need to clearly shed the party-first stigma... that will drag him down.
I disagree with you on earmarks. Every last dime of the budget should be earmarked so we will know how our tax dollars are being spent. Without earmarking the executive has too much discretion in how our money is spent.
I'm fine with earmarks simply going away. I agree with your post.
In Rick's case, I don't think it was as big of an issue as the opposition is trying to make out of it. And even if it was, I think he's a different man now.
Yeah, but they put so many thousands of earmarks in that we never really know what they're doing with the money anyway. If Congress doesn't spend it the President will. Well, how about NONE of them get it? Or, ban earmarks for pet projects and BY LAW apply the money to the deficit?
These rulers (not governors) have too much money to fiddle with. They are spending most of it on bullcrap that only strengthens the parties and hurts the country. They need to be required to only spend on certain things and all other things banned. Good things like roads, military, and everthing directly attached to a basic structure. No money to special interest groups, no money towards pet projects, no money for unions, no money for NPR, etc.
It has become nothing but "party first" and it's disgusting.
I don't understand the argument Santorum used as a reason to support Specter over Toomey. Santorum acted as if some of the justices on the Supreme Court are only there because of Spector. Really? Wouldn't Toomey have voted for conservative justices, also? I hate Spector and always have. He's a turncoat...twice. You can never trust a turncoat because he has proven he will support anything as long as he stays in office.
What they don't spend in the earmarks goes to the President's slush fund. I'd rather the states get it back via earmarks instead of it going to Obama. I just wish they'd spend the money more wisely and for it to be spread fairly among the states. Better yet, the money should stay in our pockets and NO ONE in government have access to it.
I'm still behind Santorum, but this put a damper on it. Also, he needs to keep a lot of his religious opinions to himself instead of intentionally making everything a moral discussion. I'm not voting for a minister, I'm voting for a President.
Don't get me wrong...I am not offended by Santorum's beliefs and I believe he is a good man. We can't, however, focus on Obama and all the bad things his administration has done if we are focusing on Santorum's religious beliefs....which I think aren't important other than showing he has good character.
Just so you know I'm not down on him because of his beliefs.
Well, I don't think he's preaching or shoving his morality on us... but others had mentioned the same thing. I'm fine with his moral compass as it is.
He's not my first pick either in a perfect world. I would happily and enthusiaticall back Jim Demint, Duncan Hunter, Allen West, and even Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan and perhaps Sarah Palin. But this isn't a perfect world, so I'll pick from the scraps. Rick isn't all that bad... but there are certainly others I'd rather be backing.
Lol, I'm barely in his corner....and that's only because of who else is still in the race. He puts his religious beliefs on the forefront and then he has to constantly explain that "I won't force that personal belief into my decisions". Well, how about you shut the eff up about it then?
But, Gingrich is a scumbag that will say anything to get elected. When he started attacking capitalism and saying he's an "outsider", I disregarded him as a fake.
Romney says a lot of the right things, but his rhetoric doesn't match his record and he still defends a lot of his very liberal decisions.
Paul is great until you mention foreign policy.
So...Santorum is only getting my support because of the lack of good candidates in the race. He's about to lose it if he doesn't stop making his religious beliefs the center of everything. Romney is Mormon but you don't see him making that the cornerstone of his arguments.
I hear ya Kong.
From the explanations I heard from Beck and Rush - sorry, I don't have the links - I feel Santorum did the right thing (as detestable as it was) and that siding with Toomey wouldn't have garnered enough demoncratic votes to get those judges sworn in.
I agree with you 100% on the earmarks.
Santorum's bad choices in the past have finally come to light since he's a legitimate contender now. I think he, for the most part acquits himself very well. And where he can't slip the rap, he admits his mistakes and I think, turns the corner.
Glad you're on his side. Me too.
On the whole, I like this comment, however, I despise Arlen Specter. I could have a pair of snakeskin boots made out of that rascal, but then I'd probably be dragging my feet like a slippery, slithery, legless lizard.
Besides, I prefer Ostrich or Kangaroo.
I prefer baby seal. - Alright, I'm kidding! I was going for shock value. Just joking...
I have HUGE contempt for Arlen Specter... he's a weasel and a low-life. Santorum must have had to do a "Crying Game shower scene" to wash the stank off of him after that unholy alliance.
Missed the debates and only heard bits and pieces of Rush today but think I've heard enough to piece it together. I was disappointed in what I heard from Rick and Rush.
You are either principled or you're not. This go-along to get-along stuff has to stop.
I feel like a woman without a candidate and without a choice today.
This happens here in Canada all of the time-under the Parliamentary system, for a particular vote on something extremely important. The party Whip will force you to vote the party line-if you don't, you face sanctions. Makes me wonder why people even bother to go into politics if they can't stand behind the courage of their convictions.
Santorum supported Specter, Romney supported Scott Brown.
Disqualifies both men as Conservatives and the nominee.
Both displayed lack of integrity.
Rush is spinning, spinning, spinning. Anything to protect Romney. Sure sounds desperate!