How come Conservatives aren't behind Santorum

[Avatar4321]

No idea. Doesnt make much sense for the Tea Party to be supporting Newt when there are candidates like Santorum and Bachmann around.

Santorum and Bachmann have no chance in the general election. Why they are running is a mystery.

Obama has no chance in the general election and he's still running. I don't see why they can't as well.

 

[Avatar4321]

Santorum and Bachmann have no chance in the general election. Why they are running is a mystery.

Because neo-con and progressive liberalism hasn't worked... so why not actual conservatives?

Look. I don't buy into labels. I don't care who is popular. I despise candidates that always say the "right things" or try not to piss people off.
Quite frankly none of these people representing the GOP have got the goods.
MY ideal candidate would be a no nonsense socially right leaning moderate and fiscal low tax limited government conservative. One who is as strict about the US Constitution as possible without being radical.
One that would freely admit that "as your President, some of you will be disappointed or upset. My job is to do what the American people who voted for me demand I do, take care of the nation as a whole."

How can you support being strict about the US Constitution and not be a radical in this climate? The progressive idealogy has so corrupted our society that liberty and a Free Republic are radical ideas.

 

[EriktheRed]

Not a flame thread - just honest answers and not leftist trolling answers, please spanx

How come liberals aren't behind Bernie Sanders?
Not a flame post - just honest answers and not riightist trolling. Answers please.........

I'm totally behind him as far as policy goes.


Thing is, he's not running for Prez, so your example makes no sense here.

 

[Douger]

Not a flame thread - just honest answers and not leftist trolling answers, please spanx

How come liberals aren't behind Bernie Sanders?
Not a flame post - just honest answers and not riightist trolling. Answers please.........

Because Sanders in intelligent. murkins aren't.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Because neo-con and progressive liberalism hasn't worked... so why not actual conservatives?

Look. I don't buy into labels. I don't care who is popular. I despise candidates that always say the "right things" or try not to piss people off.
Quite frankly none of these people representing the GOP have got the goods.
MY ideal candidate would be a no nonsense socially right leaning moderate and fiscal low tax limited government conservative. One who is as strict about the US Constitution as possible without being radical.
One that would freely admit that "as your President, some of you will be disappointed or upset. My job is to do what the American people who voted for me demand I do, take care of the nation as a whole."

How can you support being strict about the US Constitution and not be a radical in this climate? The progressive idealogy has so corrupted our society that liberty and a Free Republic are radical ideas.

Good question for those who dispense political correctness.

 

[G.T.]

Intwesting

 

[editec]

There is nothing remotely conservative about invading people's private lives.

Rickey will be a great tool for big capital, but he's not remotely a classic conservative.

 

[usmcstinger]

Not a flame thread - just honest answers and not leftist trolling answers, please spanx

He is damaged goods He lost his senate seat by one the largest margins in US History.
I am a Conservative and losers rarely become winners.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Big Government Conservative is an oxymoron so I would call him a status quo politician. His agenda isn't necessarily the same as liberals but he is for more regulations and more laws and restrictions on personal liberty. Any politician that wants to get elected to use government as a tool to enforce their own agenda is a a part of the problem. Our liberty is like a sandbar in a river, being eroded from all sides. I don't even believe that he believes half the crap he says. He is attempting to appeal to a demographic. He probably has consultants that tell him what to say. He speaks in sound bytes and speaks out against issues that appeal to the religious right. He is the perfect example of what politicians have become in this country and I will never understand why people can't see that. When I listen to him he just oozes sleaze. He will never have my vote.

 

[Claudette]

I'm anti-statist, anti-big government, pro choice all accross the board, but i don't fear a Rick Santorum presidency. If he's elected, he won't be able to stop Gay Marriage from happening, he won't be able to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he won't be able to reinstate DADT. He might try, but he won't be able to do it.

I doubt he will try.

I'm a fiscal conservative and thats about as far as my conservatism goes.

 

[Meister]

Big Government Conservative is an oxymoron so I would call him a status quo politician. His agenda isn't necessarily the same as liberals but he is for more regulations and more laws and restrictions on personal liberty. Any politician that wants to get elected to use government as a tool to enforce their own agenda is a a part of the problem. Our liberty is like a sandbar in a river, being eroded from all sides. I don't even believe that he believes half the crap he says. He is attempting to appeal to a demographic. He probably has consultants that tell him what to say. He speaks in sound bytes and speaks out against issues that appeal to the religious right. He is the perfect example of what politicians have become in this country and I will never understand why people can't see that. When I listen to him he just oozes sleaze. He will never have my vote.

Santorum reaches the top of the heap and now it's his turn for the shredding machine, huh?

I sure wish the same type of vetting was done with Obama.

 

[HoosierJoe]

Not a flame thread - just honest answers and not leftist trolling answers, please spanx

Don't understand the premise of the question. Obviously conservatives in IA were behind Santorum more than the other conservatives.

I haven't been "behind" any of them. I always found Santorum and Bachmann to be the most conservative candidates, but I have not thrown full support behind any candidate. Why? Because our primary here is not until May.

 

[Zander]

Santorum was rejected by the people of Pennsylvania by an 18-point margin in 2006 - I think that's a record!

 

[Charles_Main]

Not a flame thread - just honest answers and not leftist trolling answers, please spanx

For me he is to focused on Social Conservative Issues. I like Newt, or even Romney because of their Experience. I could give a rats ass about Social Issues, I want someone who can fix our problems. And most Importantly I want someone who can win.

 

[WatertheTree]

Not a flame thread - just honest answers and not leftist trolling answers, please spanx

Maybe because there is nothing conservative about him?

 

[Article 15]

Big Government Conservative is an oxymoron so I would call him a status quo politician. His agenda isn't necessarily the same as liberals but he is for more regulations and more laws and restrictions on personal liberty. Any politician that wants to get elected to use government as a tool to enforce their own agenda is a a part of the problem. Our liberty is like a sandbar in a river, being eroded from all sides. I don't even believe that he believes half the crap he says. He is attempting to appeal to a demographic. He probably has consultants that tell him what to say. He speaks in sound bytes and speaks out against issues that appeal to the religious right. He is the perfect example of what politicians have become in this country and I will never understand why people can't see that. When I listen to him he just oozes sleaze. He will never have my vote.

Santorum reaches the top of the heap and now it's his turn for the shredding machine, huh?

I sure wish the same type of vetting was done with Obama.

Meister, this idea that Obama wasn't run through the ringer in 2008 is just silly.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Because neo-con and progressive liberalism hasn't worked... so why not actual conservatives?

Look. I don't buy into labels. I don't care who is popular. I despise candidates that always say the "right things" or try not to piss people off.
Quite frankly none of these people representing the GOP have got the goods.
MY ideal candidate would be a no nonsense socially right leaning moderate and fiscal low tax limited government conservative. One who is as strict about the US Constitution as possible without being radical.
One that would freely admit that "as your President, some of you will be disappointed or upset. My job is to do what the American people who voted for me demand I do, take care of the nation as a whole."

How can you support being strict about the US Constitution and not be a radical in this climate? The progressive idealogy has so corrupted our society that liberty and a Free Republic are radical ideas.

I refuse to accept a defeatist mentality that we cannot elect statesmen rather than politicians.
I do not think going back to the basics of government is radical at all.

 

[Sallow]

Not a flame thread - just honest answers and not leftist trolling answers, please spanx

And you put "behind" and "Santorum" in the same thread and not expect a flame?

Come on.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Big Government Conservative is an oxymoron so I would call him a status quo politician. His agenda isn't necessarily the same as liberals but he is for more regulations and more laws and restrictions on personal liberty. Any politician that wants to get elected to use government as a tool to enforce their own agenda is a a part of the problem. Our liberty is like a sandbar in a river, being eroded from all sides. I don't even believe that he believes half the crap he says. He is attempting to appeal to a demographic. He probably has consultants that tell him what to say. He speaks in sound bytes and speaks out against issues that appeal to the religious right. He is the perfect example of what politicians have become in this country and I will never understand why people can't see that. When I listen to him he just oozes sleaze. He will never have my vote.

Santorum reaches the top of the heap and now it's his turn for the shredding machine, huh?

I sure wish the same type of vetting was done with Obama.

I am not trashing him because he is on top of the heap I am trashing him because thats how I feel about him. I said just as much last week before he was even on the radar. I generally don't like to trash candidates because I try to find positive things about them even if I disagree with them over all but some of them just deserve to be called out.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No idea. Doesnt make much sense for the Tea Party to be supporting Newt when there are candidates like Santorum and Bachmann around.

Santorum and Bachmann have no chance in the general election. Why they are running is a mystery.

Because neo-con and progressive liberalism hasn't worked... so why not actual conservatives?

I will not support candidates that think they need to get into bed with Bible Thumpers in order to win elections.
I states this because I believe religion to be a private matter that has no place in or around government.
I believe our laws and society are based on Biblical teachings. Our traditions and culture is Judeo-Christian dominant. However, I think religion should be kept at bay in matters of government.