The Right Scoop
No where near as accurate as Duh Bumbler boasting an 8.3% unemployment rate. Can you say COOKING THE BOOKS?
Oh right, you're not too good with numbas.
Great idea, but it will never happen. The people that can fix it are part of the problem.
This was a great speak....Rick Santroum really fired me up!
Go Santorum go!
I can really see why he is 17 point over Romney.....Now if only the other Republicans would see the RINO Romney is, as George Soros puts is, really no different than Obama.
The GOP needs to put a Conservative as head of the ticket not some moderate like Romney.....that will just be another McCain or Dole....DOOMED TO FAILURE.
http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/commentary/7-responsibilities-you-have-as-an-american/
This article comes from a site for middle school/high school students, but considering that our Presidents SOTU address was aimed at 8th graders, I don't think RS readers will have any problems relating to it.
Our nation is on a slippery slope to entitlement and it MUST stop here! This election will determine our future. So, do your homework, don't wait around for the media to do it for you. Get educated! Know your candidates! Be a RESPONSIBLE voter.
This article in the Harrisburg, Pa. Patriot News back in January, might be a reason to wonder if Rick could win his home state. I heard Terry Madonna who is the Director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College say, who ever the nominee is, they will have to carry PA to beat Obama.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/01/pennsylvania_gop_leaders_santo.html
Of course, the RINO state party thinks that. They were against Santorum from day one, and don't forget they never wanted Toomey either. They were trying to recruit Tom Ridge instead ... these people are country club through and through, and its amazing that R's are even elected here in PA, that's how inept these "leaders"/ GOP party hacks are, trust me on this. I have seen it first hand, they have no idea what GOTV is, and are usually out manned by the Rendell ground operation.
I agree with you in part. But, there are many conservatives/tea party people who became upset with Santorum as well, because of poor choices in the past.
I always admired his stand on the moral issues, but question his judgment on other issues.
As I said I'm not thrilled with any of the four candidates remaining, it will come down for me where they stand today, not their past baggage--the one with wisdom in knowing how to lead as the President of our country today.
You are right, but remember there will never be a perfect candidate. That's the stuff of unicorns and rainbows.
Michelle Malkin outlined it well.
"republican" "leaders" like state GOP chairman gleason have this attitude but in my opinion grass root republicans, conservatives and tea party supporters will definitely get behind Santorum if he is the nominee.
This is how conservatives and tea party folks are treated in PA republican circles:
Dear Conservative,
If I told you that the Pennsylvania Republican Party threw members of the Tea Party out of the PA State Convention, threatened those Tea Partiers with arrest, threw their petitions in the trash, and then endorsed a recent Democrat who voted for Obama as our candidate for Senate, you wouldn't believe it.
But that's exactly what happened last weekend at the Pennsylvania Republican Convention.
You see, here in Pennsylvania, the GOP often makes a formal endorsement before the Primary. Essentially, they try to tell primary voters who to vote for. Then they deny all the other candidates access to party voter lists and opportunities to speak to or to circulate literature at party events. They even use party money to run negative ads against other “non-endorsed” Republicans that dare to run against them. Worst of all, the Republican County Committees are told that if they don't enforce all of this, they'll have their charter revoked from the Republican Party!
For America,
Sam Rohrer
Conservative Republican, Pennsylvania
He is absolutely right about when th majority of the country recieves benefits from the government that is all they will care about and will vote that way. Once that happens the decline of America is almost guaranteed.
To bad that as a Senator...he did not practice what he is preaching now. I just can not trust this guy.
I wish there was someone else running. How sad.
WOW big crowd and a standing O !
Rick is doing his thing .
He is reaching the people who so desperately want America's restoration
Clark Durant, candidate for US Senator from Michigan, said pretty much the same thing last night at our local Tea Party meeting. This election is about freedom. We the people are responsible for electing, or not doing enough to prevent the election of, big-government politicians from both parties. We need people with the courage that Santorum displayed in that speech. People who will tell the truth about the entitlement-craving society we have become and willing to fight the battles when they get elected.
We have a train of folks declaring with gusto that Santorum just isn't much of a conservative, and he's a really a, a.. Big Spender, and, and why, he's almost as bad as can be!!
What are they basing it on? Simple... the usual dreck any member of congress faces after a long career. Specifically: cherry-picking votes that make him look HoRrIbLe and somehow managing to overlook the vastly bigger set of votes that confirm the reputation the man has already earned.
"Why, this horse has dirt under his hooves!"
Here's the big set of problems you "Santorum isn't conservative" folks have failed to overcome:
1) His well-earned reputation as one of the most conservative members of congress. Hey, don't take our word for it. Just google "Santorum" and see who hates the man for being such a "far right" conservative.
2) Context is everything - Part A. Since you know so very much about the man that you are dying to tell us, you must also know that he represented a majority Democrat, Pittsburgh area district while in the house. Tell us that means nothing. Go ahead. We need the laugh. (Hint: he won election there over a seven term Dem incumbent).
3) Context is everything - Part II. He won his Senate seat running as a conservative in a state that is very competitive, but predominantly votes Democrat in Presidential elections since 1960.
5) About that "hasn't fought corruption" claim: "As a freshman congressman, Santorum became part of the so-called "Gang of Seven" of new GOP lawmakers (as did future Speaker of the House John Boehner); the group made its reputation by fiercely attacking corruption in the Democratic-controlled House, focusing in particular on the House banking scandal and the Congressional Post Office scandal."
So go ahead and tell us how very "progressive" the man is. It's good, clean fun.
I may still vote for Gingrich. I don't know. I think Newt would do better, warty excrescences, alligator baggage, and all. But I promise you the claims Santorum isn't conservative enough will have nothing to do with my decision, other than to make me laugh.
Great pots K-Bob. He had tons of votes that earned him his rep. Here are some on taxes:
Voted NO on the Clinton tax hike in 1993
Voted YES on the capital gains tax cut in 1997
Voted NO on a cigarette tax hike in 1998
Voted YES on repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax in 1999
Voted YES on the 2001 Bush tax cuts
Voted YES to repeal the Death Tax in 2002
Voted YES to the 2003 Bush tax cuts
Voted YES to extend the Bush tax cuts in 2006
Social Security - constant advocate of personal savings accounts and overall SS reform
Supported and voted for Welfare Reform
Ethanol subisides - mixed - pre 9/11 he was against. post 9/11 he was for. draw your own conclusions
Education - FOR school choice, sponsored bills to do so. For getting rid of DOE (in fairness, he used to support DOE and he did vote NCLB--but has moved position on both).
Excellent Free Trade record
AGAINST McCain-Feingold, TARP, Dodd-Frank, ObamaCare
FOR - Drilling in ANWR and offshore, Keystone, Tort reform, reform Fannie/Freddie
In all, he has HUNDREDS of votes that people can cherry pick. Has he earned his reputation as a conservative? YES. Has he made some mistakes? who hasn't?
I think the Republicans who voted for the Ethanol subsidies were caught up in a rush of fake science (understandable back then, but NOT now), and the general fear of drilling in the face of enviro-activism. So they did like John McCain and glommed on to alternative energy as a way to try and "do something."
Now things are different. Anyone for ethanol subsidies today needs a thorough head exam.
Santorum voted to decrease your freedom repeatedly while a member of the Senate. From voting to create the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA to voting for the largest entitlement program since the days of LBJ (Medicare Part D) to the Patriot Act, Rick Santorum has diminished your freedom. He is a big government candidate masquerading as a conservative. Obama will expose him. It is too easy.
So, Obama plans to expose Santorum for voting for Medicare Part D? How does that fit in to Obama's playbook of "Rebublicans don't care about old people"? Obama would have a better shot if Santorum DIDN'T vote for it.
My point is that whether or not it is policy or spending, Obama will try to have a field day with whatever record is in front of him. He could find dozens of ways to tear down Paul.
We can't sit here and argue about how "Obama will do..." whatever with the candidate. That's ridiculous. He would have equal red meat with Romney, Newt, and Paul if not more.
I realize I've been harsh in this thread. No disrespect intended. It's just that I watched the video above of Santorum speaking, and knowing his record in Congress, my head exploded with incredulity. This forum is full of smart people who I know genuinely love this great country. I know I have been blunt, but I think I have struck a nerve with many because Santorum is the one most here are rallying behind and I am going after him (based on his record alone, not personally).
Ron Paul is 76 currently, and would be 77 upon inauguration next January. That is fairly up there chronologically, but if you have seen his answers in the debates, particularly on the subject of economics, it is clear he has full acuity upstairs. Physically, he is an exercise junky, which is why nobody took him up on his offer to ride 25 miles in Houston in the middle of the summer. :)
I can respect the support for Ron Paul. I can't respect how his followers come out guns blazing on anyone who stands in his way. Ron Paul supporters could use a lesson in respect for others and a little fairness in judgement. I've met a few, by the way, that do just that...and I have very enjoyable and educational conversations with them.
on the lighter side...do you think he could hack two terms? He would be nearly 90 by then, wouldn't he? If he actually got the nomination, I could see the ageists coming a mile away.
You're wasting your time. Paul is unelectable unless you're an ostrich and think that sticking your head in a hole will keep you safe.
No voter in either party will doubt that Rick Santorum is infinitely better than Obama on both controlling spending and government intrusion issues--the recent assault on the Catholic Church and religious liberty more generally being only one current example where Santorum will easily outshine Obama...
The problem is that, while I don't have a problem with what RP is doing, it would be easy to portray him as a hypocritical porkbarrel spender in a 30 second Obamabot ad spot. If he got a chance to explain in the language I just did, such as in a debate, I think he could help people understand where he is coming from. But you don't get that chance in smear ads.
LOL, would this be classified as "Release 22" ? Because if I understand this correctly RP is doing the opposite of "Catch 22".
It is a very large "error" and a significant factor in the economic destruction of our republic. He may sincerely regret his vote, but to correct it will require either eliminating the entitlement he once voted to create, or raising taxes significantly to pay for it legitimately.
That is a fair enough question, FreeMan. Ron Paul does request earmarks within appropriations bills (spending bills) for his district. He argues that ALL spending should be earmarked, because if it isn't, it goes to the executive branch where it is spend by the administration on things like Solyndra. He reasons that earmarks, which do not add any additional spending to an appropriations bill, represent transparency in government.
You are also correct that he votes against the entire appropriations bill. He does this because he does not find authority in the Constitution for the bill. His reasoning for requesting (earmarking) money within the bill he votes against is that it is his duty to represent his constituents and get as much of their hard-earned money back from the federal bureaucracy as possible, and if his colleagues in Congress pass the unconstitutional spending bill, at least his constituents will see some of the money back rather than it going to Obama and his bureaucratic minions.
Grizz, I haven't researched this because all-in-all I don't think Dr. Paul will go very far, but it has been pointed out several times that Paul loads up bills with PORK & BEANS for his district he knows will pass then votes against the bill.
How will a record like this not receive the same scrutiny showing blatant hypocrisy?
An embarrassing time indeed for the Republican Party. I think several if not many of them have seen the error. Santorum has said as much.
You act as if M part D was led and sponsored by Santorum. Not hardly, and the true costs were hidden from the legislators by the ones that actually were leading it who then jumped ship and became high-paid pharma lobbyists. It doesn't excuse the vote, but I hardly think Obama is going to go after the medicare benefit. Not in his game plan.
"Considerable," my eye. We aren't nominating a Saint. We don't have Saints running. And Sainthood isn't on the list of useful requirements at this point in time.
It's all relative. Newt and Rick have congressional baggage, as would any member of congress. Ron Paul's own collection of hypocritical votes are evidence of this. Mitt has progressive-itis, and can't seem to shake it (because he won't). And Ron Paul is still Ron Paul.
From that list, I see Newt and Rick as the only possible candidates that can beat Obama. The good news is, they are both solid, movement conservatives.
No need for namecalling.
"The unfunded portion of Medicare part D, which was rammed into law by George W. Bush and a Republican Congress in 2003, is also covered by general revenues under current law and has a present value of $15.5 trillion or 1.2% of GDP forever (p. 127).
Thus federal income taxes for every taxpayer would have to rise by roughly 81% to pay all of the benefits promised by these programs under current law over and above the payroll tax."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/14/taxes-social-security-opinions-columnists-medicare.html
Really, Santorum's vote cost us 16 trillion? You're and idiot. At best or worst that's a projection over some number of years. Whereas Du Bumbler has spend how many trillion in 3 years?
Need some help with the numbas?
I don't disagree that it is ridiculous for Obama to call anybody out on spending, but that won't stop his nasty machine from ripping Santorum apart on his considerable hypocrisy (as they will with Romney or Newt as well).
I have a big problem with basing anything on GDP, given it is a very misleading and generally worthless statistic. Did you know GDP was made up by a Russian during the FDR era?
Now that's funny! Obama, discredit someone on spending?
Right up there with "pull my finger," that is.
The issue for anyone with principles is always hypocrisy--especially according to the left.
But these issues won't help Obama one bit.
Newt would be great at restructuring government, and Santorum wants to cap spending at 18% of GDP--no problem with that...
The issue for Santorum is the hypocrisy. He is portraying himself as a fiscal conservative and defender of freedom, but his record says the opposite.
Obama wants to spend more, not less....
Who are those (imaginary) voters that Obama gains by attacking Santorum on spending,... of all things?
I beg to differ. Santorum's vote for Medicare Part D alone ($16 trillion unfunded) is hardly a drop in the bucket. Santorum does not have the record to back up his rhetoric, and Obama (and his ruthless attack machine) will capitalize on that weakness.
I don't think Obama will purposefully go into the debt battle, even if he did, Santorum would still cream him on the issue. His spending was a drop in the bucket compared to Obama's
Why would they? All Obama has to do to discredit Santorum on controlling spending and government intrusion is hammer on his voting record as a Senator.
![[EXTENDED VIDEO] Heartwarming moment when old woman finds dog ALIVE in rubble](http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/plugins/special-recent-posts/cache/MTI1MTAwbm9vbGR3b21hbl9mb3VuZF9kb2dfYWxpdmU=.jpg)
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.