Rick Santorum - Stuck in 1985

poopshovel wrote: Personally, the only person I think has a shot at picking up independent voters is Newt. I'm dumbfounded as to who the hell is voting for Romney or Santorum. Certainly no one I know, which was also the case with McCain.

This.

I'm curious as to how intelligent people can reach the conclusion that Romney = Obama. Granted, neither is a small-government guy, but c'mon, they hail from entirely different backgrounds and influences.

We know which one actually knows how the economy works, how businesses operate and how to promote an atmosphere for pro-growth. The other guy doesn't, has profferred his third consecutive budget with a trillion dollar deficit and has abused the power of the Executive Office even more than the last resident.

Honeslty, I'll take Romney with all his faults in lieu of a pompous professor who surrounds himself with a cadre of propeller-beanied theoriticians - any day......

oldsaw wrote: ....Honeslty, I'll take Romney with all his faults in lieu of a pompous professor who surrounds himself with a cadre of propeller-beanied theoriticians - any day......

Ah come on now! You really think that is going to change?

Almost no one would call Bush and Obama similar in almost any way, yet both of them hired essentially the exact SAME people in their financial positions (heavy ties to large financial firms).

If Romney gets elected, there will be plenty of propeller hats being handed out. Same as with Newt or (gag, frothy, gag) Santorum.

neon4891 wrote: It is up to the independents of BATTLE GROUND states that decide. Namely PA, OH, and FL, the 3 largest. Take a look. Electoral map/poll.

Cool link, thanks...

...makes you not want to even bother voting...

.. but thanks.

aircooled wrote:

oldsaw wrote: ....Honeslty, I'll take Romney with all his faults in lieu of a pompous professor who surrounds himself with a cadre of propeller-beanied theoriticians - any day......

Ah come on now! You really think that is going to change?

One thing I'm confident about is that a Republican will address economic issues in manners that instill confidence that the gummint is not an overbearing overseer of its' private enterprise plantation.

This election is about the economy, regardless of all the distractions thrown in the face of potential voters. This thread is a good example of that kind of mis-direct.

ymmv...........

aircooled wrote:

oldsaw wrote: ....Honeslty, I'll take Romney with all his faults in lieu of a pompous professor who surrounds himself with a cadre of propeller-beanied theoriticians - any day......

Ah come on now! You really think that is going to change? Almost no one would call Bush and Obama similar in almost any way, yet both of them hired essentially the exact SAME people in their financial positions (heavy ties to large financial firms). If Romney gets elected, there will be plenty of propeller hats being handed out. Same as with Newt or (gag, frothy, gag) Santorum.

Truth.... Romney offers same amount of spending IMHO.

Also I have yet to meet any Romney fans. They may exist but there aren't a lot of them that I have seen or met. It reminds me of Kerry running against Bush. A lot of people hated Bush and a lot of people loved Bush but no one loved Kerry. Romney reminds me of that.

neon4891 wrote: It is up to the independents of BATTLE GROUND states that decide. Namely PA, OH, and FL, the 3 largest. Take a look. Electoral map/poll.

Probably, but according to your link, Mr. Obama would not need any of them to win.

Note: NO ONE is gonna win with the independents without carrying the base of one of the 2 majority parties, INCLUDING Ron Paul.

Independent votes will not determine the outcome. The major party candidate who ALSO carries the majority of the independents will be the likely winner.

Don't alienate the base.

I think your point if valid if you are talking about an independent candidate (which is effectively what Paul is), but for one of the big two I don't think so. Unless you are implying that the BASE of either side would actually vote for the other side in protest. That seems VERY unlikely.

They pander to the base in the primaries because generally only one side can vote. Come general time, you will see the banter shift.

oldsaw wrote: One thing I'm confident about is that a Republican will address economic issues in manners that instill confidence that the gummint is not an overbearing overseer of its' private enterprise plantation.

At the risk of drawing ire, which isn’t my intention, I'm curious about something. Yes, you're right about regulation, which I assume is what you mean by "overbearing overseer". But when we dug this hole, wasn't it under a Republican president with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress? It's kind of hard for me to understand why everyone now thinks what we need to solve the problem is more Republicans. Please, hear me out before you respond.

I'm not a fan of the huge debt. If you look at it historically, we started digging fast in 1980 when Reagan came into office. And yes, the economy did well. We were told not to worry about the debt because the economy would grow enough to offset the debt as a percent of GDP. Okay.

Bush I continued the trend and the debt went higher. The economy did, you know, okay until it didn't. Then we elected Clinton. For the only time in my adult life, the deficit went down and the economy took off again.

Now we're in a pretty bad economic situation. As I said, I'm not crazy about debt. We need to solve that problem- a problem brought on by Reagan and the Republican Revolution. But it seems to me the time to pull money out of the economy and get a handle on things is when the economy is doing well. It's unfortunate we didn't pay down the debt under Clinton, but we didn't explode it either. And you could reason that we may have lowered it if the conditions that existed then had continued.

I'm not an economist, but a lot of them- even Republicans- even members of Reagan's administration- say that the debt and deficit problems we have now are due, in large part, to the Bush tax cuts. That's not a really difficult position to believe. Hell, we just watched the Kabuki show where the Republicans said we couldn’t afford to continue the pay-roll tax cuts unless we found a way to “pay for them.” These are the same people who told us for decades that tax cuts pay for themselves. They do not.

Every Republican candidate for president is proposing that we not only continue the Bush tax cuts, but cut taxes even more. Well, okay- where is the Republican call to pay for them? The tax cuts are scheduled to expire- if they want to continue them, shouldn’t it be contingent on paying for them?

As for the notion that eliminating them will destroy the economy, that would be easier to swallow if the economy hadn’t performed so well under exactly those conditions.

I’m not a Reagan fan. I really believe he wrote the play book that has led us to the problems we’re currently facing. But I will say this- he may have been right about taxes. When Reagan took office the top marginal rate was 90%. The thought was that with a top rate that high, there came a point where working harder to make more money became pointless. If 90% of the extra money will go to the government, why put forth the effort? Okay. Maybe that’s right. But that’s so far away from where we are now. What is the top rate now- 35% or something? Yeah, I’ll work to make an extra million even if I only get $650,000 of it. It’s just not the situation Reagan was talking about. And even if we go back to where they were when Bush took office, if you look at it historically, top marginal rates will be very low.

Again, go back to Reagan’s ideas. Look at the Laugher curve. If that line of thinking is right, it predicts that there is a point at which lowering taxes simply destroys revenue. Just looking at the results of the last several decades, it seems like we were in a pretty sweet spot in the 90s. The thing is, when we hear calls for even lower taxes, we don’t hear any logic to explain why that is a good idea. It’s just become a very popular thing to say.

Now, I understand that some people want lower taxes and want the government to provide far fewer services. And that’s fine. But if the position is “cut spending and cut taxes” then you have to actually cut the spending. Even with all the hemming and hawing we’ve heard over the last couple of years, what significant cuts have been made? If that is your message, then sell the cuts to the public. I believe what Republicans are doing now is simply dishonest. They promise not to cut any of the programs that can possibly make any real difference. Yet they call for more tax cuts. How is that anything but irresponsible?

And, sorry, this is really long, how is it that we can’t incur debt to stimulate the economy, but we can incur debt to lower taxes and have it explained by saying that it will put more money into the economy and, wait for it, stimulate growth! Look at someone like R-money. Do you really think people in his position, with their Swiss bank accounts, will put more money into the economy if you cut their taxes? Why? How?

Sorry, and doubly so if you actually read all this.

93EXCivic wrote: Truth.... Romney offers same amount of spending IMHO.

I honestly don't think spending will change in any meaningful way no matter who is elected, for two reasons. First, there will be enough Democrats in Congress to block massive cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. Secondly, if a real push is made to cut those programs in a significant way, the public outcry will assure that Democrats will regain a majority in the next cycle. And that's why, in my opinion, the only reasonable way forward is to address taxes.

z31maniac wrote:

SVreX wrote: Looks to me like a lot of people are much more concerned with wetting their weinies in whatever way they choose then in trying to make intelligent decisions about choosing leadership.

I think most don't understand why it is anyone elses concern how I "wet my weinie," assuming one is doing nothing illegal. He should focus on: 1. Meaningful welfare and tax reform 2. Reducing regulation to get the economy growing 3. Dealing with threats such as nuclear equipped Iran http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL9HrU6Y5-s " One of the criticisms I make is what I refer to as more of a Libertairanish right. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be alone to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, that we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture." So he may not represent a "true conservative" to you, but that's HIS view in HIS words, and many vehemently disagree with it.

First off, I didn't say anything about Santorum being a "true conservative".

Secondly, your quote and your link are EXACTLY what I am talking about.

Those are NOT his words. It is an edited version of his words. Didn't you notice the edits in the Fox video link?

The correct and complete quote comes from an NPR interview of August 4, 2005 promoting his book, "It takes a Family":

Rick Santorum ACTUALLY said said: One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. You know, the left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they touch each other. They come around in the circle. This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

Here's the audio: NPR Interview

Your post, along with thousands of others, are just repeating the incorrectly edited version.

I realize that substantively the two are quite similar, and the actual quote won't change anyone's mind. But the emphasis of his actual quote was his criticism of the very radical extremes of both the liberal and conservative views, not an attack on Libertarianism, or on extent of government involvement.

I don't share his opinion. But it is not nearly the attack on the freedom loving independents that you (and Fox) make it out to be.

If we are going to use quotes from 2005, how about we mention the part where Mr. Obama said he would cut the deficit by 50% (he has DOUBLED it), or where he said he would create 5 million jobs?

SVreX wrote: Secondly, your quote and your link are EXACTLY what I am talking about. Those are NOT his words. It is an edited version of his words. Didn't you notice the edits in the Fox video link? The correct and complete quote comes from an NPR interview of August 4, 2005 promoting his book, "It takes a Family":

Rick Santorum ACTUALLY said said: One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. You know, the left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they touch each other. They come around in the circle. This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture.

Here's the audio: NPR Interview Your post, along with thousands of others, are just repeating the incorrectly edited version.

I don't see a significant change in the meaning of the quote with the additional context.

I already noted that.

In the part you edited.

Not sure about the last line on Obama, I never liked him or his policies. I consider myself a Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

And yes both parties have become extremely radical, however, to me the crux of his statement is still something that leans toward the theocratic.

"They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone."

What I take from that part of his statement is that the gov't SHOULD be involved in those issues. And that I disagree with.

Maybe you can explain it differently or more clearly? (seriously, not meant in a snarky way)

SVreX wrote: I already noted that. In the part you edited.

Then I guess I don't see the point. Are you saying he was taken out of context or not? If you're merely saying he was edited and the crux of his statement was accurately communicated then I don't understand. There's nothing wrong with that. I mean, maybe the longer quoted you posted would sound different if we listened to the entire interview. Should we have to post the entire text of the interview to make the point?

z31maniac wrote: And yes both parties have become extremely radical, however, to me the crux of his statement is still something that leans toward the theocratic. "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone." What I take from that part of his statement is that the gov't SHOULD be involved in those issues. And that I disagree with. Maybe you can explain it differently or more clearly? (seriously, not meant in a snarky way)

I'm not defending his statement, though I wouldn't use the word theocratic (since he didn't mention God at all). Sounds to me like he is advocating some level of government guidance on cultural issues, etc.

Like you, I also am no fan of that.

But let's be honest- government schools are involvement in cultural issues. NPR is involvement in cultural issues. Etc., etc.

SVreX wrote: But let's be honest- government schools are involvement in cultural issues. NPR is involvement in cultural issues. Etc., etc.

Uh. Okay.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Then I guess I don't see the point. Are you saying he was taken out of context or not? If you're merely saying he was edited and the crux of his statement was accurately communicated then I don't understand.

While I do think the tone of the quote was impacted, my point had little to do with anything he said.

My request was for decent information, and my point was how hard it is to get clean information on this candidate.

So let me give you an example...

Let's say somebody here says, "The Mona Lisa! What a piece of E36 M3!". To which I respond, "Hmmm... I'd like to look into this. Anybody got more info?"

You say, "Well here's a photocopy of her nose". I look at the nose, and decide I'd like to see more.

But every request for more information is met with more and more photocopies of noses, some clearer than others, some more distorted, but none the original.

I say, "I'm trying to get a look at the whole picture". More noses.

Someone finally tells me I can go to Paris and see it myself at the Louvre. I go and get to see the Mona Lisa, but only after digging through 500,000 photocopies of noses.

So, I'd kind of like real, source, or at least good information. I'd like to make my own decisions, not decide just how E36 M3ty something is based on all the lousy photocopies of noses that everyone is showing me.

Additionally, the quote is from 2005. Is there nothing the guy has said worth repeating in the last 7 years, or is this just the juicy one everyone likes to toss around?

I posted, as did someone else, the entire NPR interview. He wrote a book. I mean, he's not exactly hiding in a cave. He's got this web site:

https://www.ricksantorum.com/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=1&gclid=CMTzyMSLn64CFeUaQgodEB_8-w

He's been in all the debates. I'm sorry, I just don't know what you're talking about. What do you want to know?

Here's what he thinks about various issues:

http://www.ricksantorum.com/issues

Interestingly, he chose to start that page with "Enforcing Laws Against Illegal Pornography". Okay, illegal pornography is bad, to be sure, but the #1 issue to address on your web site? That tells you a bit there.

Some of his voting record:

http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/27054/rick-santorum

Here's an article about him called Republican voters guide to Rick Santorum:

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/republican-voters-guide-rick-santorum

How he compares to the other major Republican candidates:

http://downloads.frcaction.org/EF/EF11L04.pdf

There's plenty of information out there. Not at all hard to find. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply. Do you think there's a conspiracy to keep his message a secret? Google Rick Santorum and you get more than 28 million results. So, you know, read up and make your own decision already. I'm not sure what you want.

You don't have to fly to Paris, you're sitting in a room with the thing four feet away from you saying "Where, where is it? Where's the painting? Why is the liberal media trying to cover it up?!"

And for crying out loud, you're seriously bent out of shape because of seven year old quotes? Obama had to produce his BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Thank you for responding to the question I asked on PAGE 2 of this thread. Those links are helpful and useful.

If you posted the link to the NPR interview earlier, I apologize for missing it. I have not followed every link in this thread because frankly, I don't have time to wade through that much E36 M3. It was not heard through the noise (which has been my point since I started posting in this thread).

If you look at the comments in this thread alone, they completely support what I am saying.

I don't use the phrase "liberal media". I find Fox equally offensive.

And I am neither bent out of shape, nor did I ever ask for anyone's birth certificate. I couldn't care less.

oldsaw wrote: I'm curious as to how intelligent people can reach the conclusion that Romney = Obama. Granted, neither is a small-government guy, but c'mon, they hail from entirely different backgrounds and influences. We know which one actually knows how the economy works, how businesses operate and how to promote an atmosphere for pro-growth. The other guy doesn't, has profferred his third consecutive budget with a trillion dollar deficit and has abused the power of the Executive Office even more than the last resident. Honeslty, I'll take Romney with all his faults in lieu of a pompous professor who surrounds himself with a cadre of propeller-beanied theoriticians - any day......

Considering that I work in an industy that is one of the most regulated on the produced products, yet since 2009, we have been expanding, I consider the economic theories of the current administration to be better than the alterntative.

The only major part of the economy that is still in the doldrums is housing/construction. But after a decade of bad loans, expansion that had nothing to do with real demand, and expanding prices that had nothing to do with a shortage of space, that's going to take some time. Even though the banking industry was first to be bailed out.

I'm more willing to put some taxes on people who don't earn the money. It's about time to level out all sources of earning. That will quickly eliminate a deficit.

alfadriver wrote: <The only major part of the economy that is still in the doldrums is housing/construction. But after a decade of bad loans, expansion that had nothing to do with real demand, and expanding prices that had nothing to do with a shortage of space, that's going to take some time. Even though the banking industry was first to be bailed out.

That is the truth. There are several housing developments around here that stalled. I know of one with about 2 dozen homes that were in the middle of being built when all work ceased... If there had actually been a need (not a want) for these mini mcmansions, I am sure they would have been finished and sold by now

I know of a local housing project that ran out of money.....the streets are in, but no houses.....it has lots of tire rubber. Cones occasionally materialize there, too.

I work with subdivision and land developments. I see the flow, and meet the developers.

The smart ones (usually younger folks) are building apartments closer to the urban core.

The not so smart ones (usually older folks) are still building subdivisions in farmer's fields 35 minutes away from the nearest grocery store.

Also I have yet to meet any Romney fans. They may exist but there aren't a lot of them that I have seen or met.

Anyone care to start a thread to this effect? If I do it, it will be "on the radar" and therefore locked by page 3.