Santorum Missed His Chance to Land Knockout Punch on Romney
by AWR HawkinsBy now everyone has read news and commentary coverage of some of the most exciting debate moments in recent history: the exchange that took place between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney concerning Romneycare. And perhaps many of you, like me, watched the debate and saw the exchange as it happened. If you did, I’m guessing those among you who are conservative found yourselves cheering for Santorum as he took it to Romney on what is surely the most dangerous aspect of a possible Romney candidacy—Romneycare.
It’s dangerous for the reasons Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh have indicated by predicting that Obama can’t wait to face Romney because Romney WILL NOT be able to go after Obamacare with any moral integrity. As soon as he brings it up Obama will just say: “All I know is that while you were Gov. in Massachusetts, you implemented the plan we followed in designing our Health Care reforms.” And that will end the debate on Obamacare.
Santorum proved this during the debate in Florida on Thursday night, by explaining that just as Obamacare requires everyone to buy health insurance or pay a fine to the government, so too Romneycare requires Massachusetts citizens to do the same or pay a fine to the state. In other words, both plans carry a personal mandate which forces citizens to buy healthcare (or pay a fine) whether they want to or not. And when Romney responded to Santorum by saying he was proud of what they’d done in Massachusetts and the people of Massachusetts seemed happy with it too, Santorum offered a foretaste of the way Obama is going to take Romney apart on this issue. Said Santorum:
“What Gov. Romney just said is that government-run, top-down medicine is working pretty well in Massachusetts and he supports it. Now, think about what that means.”
Romney’s position here is simply indefensible, and although Santorum is the only one to call him out so clearly to this point, Santorum will certainly not be the last. And this is why Santorum kept saying, “We cannot give the issue of healthcare away in this election.” Dan Riehl made this point clear in his post on Big Government January 27, when he quoted Paul Begala as saying that on the issue of Romneycare v. Obamacare, “Mitt still doesn’t have a straight answer. Rick Santorum skillfully dissected Romney on the topic. If Romney is the GOP nominee, you can be sure Barack Obama will do the same.”
Which brings me to my central point: Namely, that for all the good Santorum did with his line of questions and his relentless regurgitation of the facts against Romney, he still passed on his chance to throw the knock-out punch.
(I’m not intimating that he passed on purpose, only that he did miss the chance to finish his impressive flurry with a knee-buckling uppercut.)
When he had Romney up against the ropes and Romney said, “It’s not worth getting angry about,” Santorum should have countered with: “Are you seriously saying that a freedom killing individual mandate and government-run, top-down medicine aren’t worth getting angry over?” Had he done this, I honestly believe we would have witnessed something similar to what we used to witness when Mike Tyson, in his prime, refused to pass up the chance to deal the knockout blow. But instead, Romney’s one counterpunch—and the statement about anger was a desperate counterpunch—worked, and Santorum didn’t throw his uppercut.
I’m not criticizing Santorum. Far from it, I’m encouraging him not to hold back on the knockout blow if he gets Romney the ropes again during this primary season. Because you can bet the farm that Obama won’t pass up on the chance to hit Romney where it hurts and that point, the match will be over, and Obama will be choosing White House draperies for four more years.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
135 Comments
I like Santorum. I agree with almost everything he says.
Santorum has a great message and he walks the walk.
However, he appears angry, not righteously outraged, not ' a man with a vision for America '. Just angry. And irritated.
Presentation needs work.
That's exactly what I thought.
It IS something to get angry about! Thousands of US citizens got angry and tried to stop it. Guess what, WE'RE STILL FRIGGIN ANGRY ABOUT IT!
Santorum is at the top of my list [and has been for a while now].
Don't for get about all the other elected positions though. From Senator to dogcatcher. They all make a difference.
Romney has three options regarding ObamaCare.
1. Ignore it …..and lose the Republican base.
2. Tell people how wonderful it worked after he implemented it….and lose the Republican base.
3. Capitulate that Obama is right and …lose the election.
Newt is fading badly in Fl… perhaps it's time for him to get out, and allow Santorum to have more time to go one on one with Lame Mc Flip. Newt is supposed to be the great debater, but Romney stared a hole in him, and he turned away… WTH was the purpose of that? Refusing to face his accuser caused him to look weak!
Santorum had a reason to be ANGRY… In that last debate, too much time was wasted on Gingrich and Romney going at one another for their campaign adds.
If Newt will get out, perhaps there will be time for Rick to answer the questions he will need to, to put us at ease as to his position supporting UNIONS in PA. That is in the past, I want to know how he feels about the UAW's slice of GM, and what they are doing with that power…
None of them are perfect, but if Santorum will go Bob Dornan, and name names, and tell tales on the crooks he worked with in the Senate, we might have a good old-fashioned house cleaning come Nov! He was there long enough to know where the bodies are buried.
The bottom line is that we have NOT ONE CANDIDATE with both character and cajones! WHERE IS A LEADER WHEN WE NEED ONE? And talking about LACK of leadership why haven't these people –all of them–gone after Obama? He is destroying the country. The tea party started because of Obamacare and you're telling me that only in the 11th debate they're talking about it? And then about Romneycare—instead of Obamacare? WHO the hell are their advisers? (Charlie Crist–who flunked and Norm Coleman another flunkee?) 'For all of Romney's money he doesn't seem to have picked wise advisers—one of the most important jobs of a President. Are they just stupid or has the left infiltrated the process more than we know.? Conspiracy theory? Just saying…….
Santorum did not pull his hay-maker, Wolfe pulled mittens out of the ring watch the end Santorum was TEARING HIM UP and Wolfe saved the media darling mittens. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N89LGhm-Ztc&fe...
He has good talking points…. too little, too late perhaps.
Santorum is clearly the best of the candidates, but the GOP establishment is statist and it wants a big government Bush-like Republican and Romney fits the bill and he has the Ken doll looks that appeal to women. Romney will entrench Obamacare. The country will probably be just as doomed with Romney as it is with Obama.
I think Santorum could have gone for the knockout punch had the moderator not been interrupting and cutting in continuously at that point. He should have been allowed to finish but of course his is not the "airtime" those in the media want. We wouldn't want the viewers to actually hear the truth.
You can bet Gingrich won't hit Romney on Healthcare. He supported the individual mandate as well. It's 2008 redux with no good choice for conservatives again.
I guess I'll be voting against Obama again.
Few problems with this.
Newt has too big of an ego to just drop out. If he didn't drop out when nearly everyone was abandoning ship over the summer, it'll take a HUGE push to kick him out, and I just don't see it happening till he does or doesn't get the nomination. Also, the media just looooooooves the Mittens/Newt fighting. It weakens the GOP by exposing these two and distracts people from how much more horrific the dems are.
I hope Santorum wins, but he got ground to cover. Hopefully the slow and steady will win this race.
I say Mittens needs to drop out, he is out of his league the media can barley keep him propped up.
If Santorum can't handle Newt then its Newt if he can then its Santorum.
Hell a Newt/Santorum or a Santorum/Newt ticket sounds rather nice.
As of now it looks like an Obama win and America defeated for good.
There is only one candidate that actually wants to shrink government and bring back Constitutionalism, but so called "conservatives" refuse to accept him. Instead they just want a guy who "takes it" to the media and blabbers the usual GOP slogans about beating the Democrats and Obama. They're more comfortable with business as usual then actually fixing this country.
These are dark, depressing times.
Santorum is definitely the turtle in the race, but I respect what he says, in the limited time he has to say it. Since the field has narrowed he is making some damn good points. I've always thought he knew his "stuff". He is the only one that is giving practical answers to the questions, when he gets a turn. Flip and The Lizard have their scripted crap to spew, and mostly refuse to deviate.
Oh, man, how I loved ol' B-1 Bob! His one-minute speeches on C-SPAN were the best thing on television.
These debates have shown us one thing clearly. We do not have a fighter with message to go against the liar in chief.
Newt looks(ed) strong and now he is fading as well. Mittens is really the same ol dem. we have seen and are trying to get rid of. Did I say dem,? well he really is.
Rick has a good message, is more conservative and if he would grow a pair could be a fine candidate. His baggage is minimal and he is likable.
Can he win? That is what I care about most. ABO
Nobama 2012
Presidential Candidates and your gun rights!
http://www.nationalgunrights.org/potus2012/
Romney is dangerous. Here's the Florida AG on Romney's health care plan. RomneyCare nation-wide?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/were-scre...
Y'all are gettin' a bit antsy….huh? I think Santa will deliver the gift that keeps on giving soon enough…probably after Febuary is over and done and mittens risen as far as he can. Newton is beating Mittens up pretty good right now….
The dark horse will ride…..and the Leftists don't have much to fight him with
I listened to his radio program for a few years after he was cheated out of his congressional seat by that whore, Loretta Sanchez. The RINO Elite Ruling Class hated him, and eventually were able to get him shunned by the LSM. He was one STRAIGHT talking feller, and I grew to value his wisdom and respect his bravery a great deal.
Get Mitt
Nice, pleasant people got us where we are. I WANT angry. We already have the vision – God-given personal liberty, protected by the Constitution I want that preserved, and if it takes anger to accomplish that, so be it. I am angry that people keep telling us to be good little boys and girls and let the government give it to us up the backside.
I'm voting for Santorum now here in Florida. I can't stand Romney's pandering and now the GOP brass in Florida are trying to push Santorum out of the race in favor of Romney. To hell with them. If we get Romney, we get Obamacare no matter what happens.
I am undecided between the top 3 (won't vote 'till June and exclude Paul) but the premise here is flawed. Regardless of what Romney did in MA with healthcare, if he emphatically proclaims he will do everything to stop/repeal Obamacare does it make a difference? We can only trust that any candidate will do what they say they will do. So all the candidates are equal on this point.
I agree with all of your comment, but would have to add that if I was standing in Rick's place, watching Newt and Mittens conducting their petty little 2 man circular firing squad, and knowing a nation was watching and thinking "THIS is the Republican party?"……I'd probably look angry too. I can not believe those two went for Blister's so very obvious attempt to get them to do exactly what they did.
If I'm not mistaken, W-76, this translates into, Vote for Ron Paul. period.
All I am doing is just providing information, so everybody will be able to make an educated choice. The choice is all yours!
I want to hear more about his plan to increase the tax credit for each child you have. I'd like some more informatiion about how this would be payed for and why. Would taxpayers be on the hook for paying for others to have children because of their personal or religious beliefs not to use abstinence or contraception? How does this make Santorum a "true conservative"? Sounds like he is also stomping on "healthcare rights" to me. Not much different than Obama or Romney as I see it.
Newsters don't get discouraged by the polls
ALL of the polls were wrong in South Carolina……..way off
Polls are merely propaganda that hopes to influence the electorate rather than measure their opinions
When the pollsters favored candidate isnt winning , they make up results
When they are winning they do do a real poll……like they did in NH with Romney
Here are the SC polls……
Gingrich-Romney
Rasmussen 33% 31%
Politico/Tarrance 30% 37%
NBC/Marist 24% 34%
CNN/Time 23% 33%
Monmouth/SUSA 22% 33%
IPSOS/Reuters 12% 37%
The were ALL wrong and way off. We have no idea who is in the lead. Make sure you call your Florica relatives and get them out to vote for Newt
The only poll that matters is in the voting booth
Well done, and the choice is as obvious as the nose on the other candidates farces, pardon the pun. Paul ain't gettin no play in the press which should only make us tea partiers more determined. His name is not "Rodney" Paul!
The good news about Florida is that it's a closed primary., which means that the Democrats and "independents" can not vote and it's past the date which they can changed their voter registration
Although this might leave some Tea party people out too if they are registered Independents instead of Republicans
He did not support an indvidual MANDATE
He supported the idea with an OPT OUT, which was ……..wait for it…………..personal healthcare accounts. Yes, the surety bonds that make up the conservative position
They all need to get out – it is easy to describe how Obama will obliterate all four.
We need a conservative Voter Revolt and soon.
Rather than accept the weasel, the snake, the skunk, or the rat how about we find ourselves an eagle?
It is very early in the process and there is no reason whatsoever that someone new cannot get it.
My first choice would be Steve Largent.
The only way Romney could possibly defuse this quite possibly fatal liability is to strongly, clearly and completely repudiate RomneyCare. And I have grave doubts that even that would be enough.
You're right Shawn, data can and is distorted, we must all find out for ourselves.
2012 will be the most important election of our times, I believe it will be historic. We the people will decide if we're to remain the land of the free and the home of the brave?
Or
Are we the people going to allow America to be "fundamentally transformed"?
Into what?
We've never been told.
We, the former silent majority, the people who make up America. The everyday people who the politicos consider fly overs, sub humans, not fit to make decisions for ourselves, that's why we need them. All of us Americans who've been lied to stolen from, and made fools of for a long time. This by the ones we send to speak for us to our government. These career politicians have set up their good old boys club pretty good, for them and the rest of the lawyers.
Ask yourself this, was Congress ever meant to be a career?
Did the founders envision Congress run by mostly lawyers?
They write laws we must obey or face punishment, yet they exempt themselves from those laws.
They write their own ticket and are more than fairly compensated, yet they trade their, NO our votes like baseball cards, or behind closed doors, like some thief. How much more does it take than the former Speaker of the House, told the American public, with a straight face, that "we had to pass the bill to find out what's in it" , and we the people were again ignored. The career politician who is only interested in their next election. These weasels have conned us into believing that you must have little letters after your name to serve in Congress.
Joe the plumber is running. Great, we need more plumbers, and librarians, and homemakers, and iron workers, and steamfitters, and carpenters and shop keepers, and… Well, you get the picture, we need to revert to the model the founders left us, citizen government. Encourage neighbors and friends to look into serving in government, for a time, then return to civilian life and their family. We must demand an end of the lobby, take the money out of politics and see how fast the job market would open up.
We have been duped for too long, the party must stop. We the people must put and end to the career politician.
Funny you mention an eagle–eagles are weak, easily frightened scavengers that need to be protected by the Federal Government. The only good thing about the eagle is that it looks pretty. Sounds a lot like Romney.
We need an ugly wild turkey–go Ron Paul.
I don't see why Romney can't make health care a State vs Federal Government issue. It can be right for a State to do something of that nature but still be beyond the scope of the Federal Government.
I like your style. I am glad you too support Ron Paul. Go Ron Go–the dark horse awaits!
umm, wrong. We can only judge a candidate based on what they have done. Take a page from the Good Book–base a man by his actions, "a tree by its fruit." Only one tree provides the sweet nectar of JUSTICE and LIBERTY!!! Go Ron Paul!
Not voting for Romney under any circumstances. I ran out of clothes pins for my nose at the voting booth.
So you agree with current jurisprudence which says that the Federal Government cannot be a totalitarian state but thanks to how they interpret the Tenth Amendment, the state and local governments can be totalitarian states?
I don't agree with that viewpoint.
And what did Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have to say about Romneycare? No knockout punches for them either?
This is NOT a coincidence.
Romney's asking to be kicked in the family jewels on the issue of Romneycare, literally begging at the top of his lungs and NOBODY bothers to do it?
Sorry to disagree, but we have plenty of "wellfare babies" being born every day. As a parent who actually pays taxes, this does not happen to be an issue for me. He is a true conservative due to his actual beliefs and PLANS to decrease the size and reach of this current government. Healthcare is not a RIGHT, so if he stomps on the government and/or state plans, so be it. He brings facts and studies to the debate, as he did the other night. Obama and Romney bring unsubstantiated numbers and insults to the debate.
You are correct in your assessment of the current situation. But the problem is Romney and Gingrich have so many recorded instances where their word is not worth much except whatever particular audience they are speaking to. So far as I can see Santorum has a lot less of this baggage and that in turn lends a lot more credence to what he has to say. He also seems to come to the fight with actual plans and facts, whereas the other just seem to blow smoke (not unlike their Democratic counterparts). Unfortunately they're all "politicians" though.
http://articles.mcall.com/1994-05-02/news/2979474...
Do you support the individual mandate like rick did in 1994?
http://articles.mcall.com/1994-05-02/news/2979474...
rick santorum supports individual mandate in 1994.
The sound in both Florida debates have most like been rigged.
In the first, the audience was not allowed to make any noise. That was ridiculous. That worked to Gingrich's disadvantage.
In the second, the auditorium was obviously packed with Romney supporters. It also sounded like Paul forces have combined with Romney to make it appear that Gingrich and Santorum were commanding less respect in Florida than Romney and Paul.
Possibly the most important part of all this nonsense is the chldish way Romney taunted Gingrich about not being able to take the heat when both Florida debates were wildly out of whack with audience responses. This shows that Romney is willing to sell us any mocking crap that we will listen to, especially when he tries to deflect truth with something that sounds cool when it comes from the Homecoming stud. He's good looking, but to be honest, the guy is a smug, sneaky punk.
If Romney wins, watch closely what he politically gives to Rand Paul because that is, IMO, explains the out of proportion cheering. IMO, Paul's people were jumping in with their audience responses against Gingrich. Ron is most likely trying to set up his son gain power, not necessarily because the people want him but because of an alliance with the most powerful politician in the world – the position every American president achivers.
Now hold on a minute…..
Santorum lit Romney up one side and down the other, read him the riot act and left Romney throwing a wide, looping haymaker that misses so badly it makes #Occupy look intelligent and somehow Santorum messed up?
Hardly.
Apparently, Romney missed the ANGER of oh so many people about Obamacare – ANGER that came from all over the country! Romney, with that attempt to attack the messenger – who's message was flaming Romney with straightforward facts – alienated ever lover of Liberty who is indeed angry about the overstep of government in forcing people to spend their own money on insurance.
Santorum did knock out Romney, with a flurry of punches that even Roy Jones Junior would be proud of. Romney didn't offer a counterpunch, what he did was go "thud" on the mat with dizzy ridiculousness.
Sorry to disagree also. I too am a parent that pays taxes and never have I received any welfare assistance. I do believe in helping others that are down on their luck to get them back on their feet. I beg to differ that he is a true conservative if in one of his speeches that he wants to TRIPLE the tax credit deduction for each child. I'm thinking that does not reduce government.
This guy is a loose cannon! Pouty and passive one time and then hollaring and angry the next.
So then, personal savings accounts being mandated is what he supported.
Glad you cleared that up…..
Sheesh.
I like that he once supported "ideological diversity" since liberals often use physical "diversity" as an excuse to keep out all people who disagree with them in any way. And also end up being racists who divide people up, exclude all different opinions, and mind control minorities rather than looking at Americans as one people.
Argues many points well if joylessly.
Like Bachmann, for the Presidential nominee I do wish he'd governed something or led something.
Santorum? The guy who claims the pursuit of happiness is harmful to America? That as a society we should be devoted to the "common good" instead of pursuing to live our life as we see fit? The guy who blasts Romney for RomneyCare as unnecessary gov't intrusion into our lives yet wants laws against contraceptives, adultery and has stated that the right to privacy doesn't exist in the US Constitution? Yeah, I'm all set with him.
"clearly" the best of the candidates? Rick Santorum? The guy who claims the pursuit of happiness is harming America? That as a society we should be devoted to the "common good" instead of pursuing to live our life as we see fit? The guy who blasts Romney for RomneyCare as unnecessary gov't intrusion into our lives yet wants laws against contraceptives, adultery and that the right to privacy doesn't exist in the US Constitution? Yeah, I'm all set with him.
Santorum has a lot less baggage? Maybe, but his baggage is certainly on par w/ Gingrich or Romney. Don't forget that Santorum is the guy who claims the pursuit of happiness is harming America. That as a society we should be devoted to the "common good" instead of pursuing to live our life as we see fit. He's the guy who blasts Romney for RomneyCare as unnecessary gov't intrusion into our lives yet wants laws against contraceptives, adultery and that the right to privacy doesn't exist in the US Constitution. Yeah, I'm all set with him.
Does a "true conservative" believe that the pursuit of happiness is harming America? Does a "true conservative" believe that the US Constitution does not offer individuals a right to privacy (as if our rights come from gov't to begin with)?
Try that again. This time, however, make sense.
We have differing definitions of "knock out". Funny how readers of this website are getting excited over speeches.
Ignore the pointless jibber jabber of the debates and compare records and past deeds.
Romney gave his state Romneycare (Obamacarelite) and Newt–well Newt stands for everything and nothing at the same time. Santorum does a lot of crying, supports RINOs, and is a big fan of government spending. That leaves….
Go Ron Paul.
You had me until you said "Santorum". We currently have laws against contraceptives and adultery and there is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution (not arguing that it shouldn't be in there–its just not. It took creative writing for the Supreme Court to find that "scintilla" of evidence suggesting that a right to privacy exists.)
I am all for a Constitutional Amendment that explicitly grants a Right to Privacy–but until then, it ain't there. (the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee a right to Privacy–only a right from unreasonable searches and seizures, or a judge says cough it up.)
Until then. Go Ron Paul.
There are federal laws against contraceptives and adultery? I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of that, but that doesn't make RS's position tolerable. While I understand it's not explicitly in there, but the right to privacy is included in the Bill of Rights through the things it does explicitly protect — privacy of beliefs (1st), privacy of the home from housing of soldiers (3rd), and though you dispute it, I'd say privacy of persons and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures (4th), privacy of personal information (5th).
But yes, go RP
John, thank you very much for articulating what I did not. Santorum talks about Obama/Romney Care infinging on peoples' healthcare but what is Santorum doing? He is intruding on other peoples' beliefs and values. This is what I don't understand when they talk about being a true conservative.
In the Republican primary, I can understand how RomneyCare and ObamaCare are going to be linked together by all the non-Romneys out there, particularly due to the individual mandate. I get that.
However, there are substantial differences and in the general election, and Romney could draw distinctions, even if the individual mandate is a common thread between the two:
- In terms of cost and exection, something done at the state level is very different than at the federal level. The bill in MA was 60 pages long. ObamaCare is 2100 pages. One word: Bureaucracy.
- ObamaCare is MUCH more intrusive into corporations than RomneyCare, such as reporting, forcing companies to pay for 26 year-olds at home, etc.
I beleive that Romney will work to repeal ObamaCare, and will be able to more than defend himself in a debate on the topic. Obama can attack the other candidates MUCH more than Romney. "What have YOU done to solve the heatlh care issues in the country?" Independents and others will care about that, and for them, RomneyCare would be an asset to Romney's general election campaign, assuming the base at least will vote no on Obama.
These polls cannot be trusted for another reason Gingrich and Santorum voters in Florida have probably unplugged their phones at this point to avoid the Romney robo calls.
Boo and Yah. I always like making up new words–"Constitutionalism"–very Texas like. Ron Paul's problem is he ain't pretty. The people on this site are vain. They like pretty. They also like politicians who use big words. Words that make the Romneys, Gingrinches, and Santorums sound like they have "smarticles". Forget the fact that the words they spew make no sense–just as long as they are big and sound intellectual.
I am still waiting for these Conservatives on this site to define "conservative". I think the definition they come up with may sound like——————-RON PAUL.
remind me again why moderates would vote to change horses since there is no significant difference between them?
That don't make no sense. Current jurisprudence states that the 14th Amendment makes amendments 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 applicable to the states. It's called Selective Incorporation.
Otherwise, there are State Constitutions in place–please read yours–that provide a social contract limiting the powers of the state. Too many people confuse the purpose of the Federal Constitution. It is a document that bestows a limited amount of power upon the Federal Government.
In reference to Digit's comment, the reason Romney can't make that argument is because Romney believes in the power of Obamacare. He and Newt are in favor of a National, single-payer health care system. Just listen to how he sang its praises in the clip above.
Ron Paul isn't the one to task with carrying the football and the biscuit.
Huh? there is so much fodder against Santorum regarding his propensity for expanding the size of government and this is your complaint? How does increasing a tax credit lead to an expansion of government?
I agree with you that Santorum is pandering, but pick a better example.
Get Mitt what? A position to stand on? Some conservative values? Stronger hair gel? Ron Paul to pick him as his VP?
Aren't you as angry as him…and I am…and millions of other Americans are? And, if not, why not?
Everyone should be angry at what has happened to this once great and respected nation…EVERYONE!
So don't chide him for being angry…join with him in being angry to the point of voting for the only 'real' conservative in this race…to remove the fraud that is making us all angry!
Get it? Because "I" am mad as hell!
GOD bless you for being angry enough to vote RIGHT!
Yes, someone on this site who has actually read the Constitution–at least part of it. Sweet. And of course, that person is a Ron Paul fan.
See people…this is what happens when you read the document you claim to support. You find yourself voting for the mack daddy Ron Paul.
I still disagree with your interpretation of the Bill of Rights, but we share similar values.
Nothing is sacred in your home if the judge signs a warrant–all they need is probable cause or exigent circumstances.
Even if you characterize Mitt as "moderate" (which I disagree it, given how many areas where he's further right than Newt and Santorum, such as immigration and free enterprise) there is still a SUBSTANTIAL difference between Obama and Romney. Are you kidding me? Obama has helped push the most liberal agenda of any president we've ever had. Even taking health care off the table, the list is long where the candidates will differ: free enterprise (Dodd-Frank for example), government spending, defense, entitlement reform, environment (Romney would have moved forward with Keystone for example), and on and on. At least moderates will consider Romney, at least independents will consider Romney. Both of those groups (and women across the board by the way) CAN'T STAND Gingrich. Romney has also had a very different career path: private sector and executive (meaning execution) experience. Obama had never run anything in his life until Jan, 2009. There are many, many stark differences, in spite of what the non-Romneys believe. Taking health care off the table (which I believe are different anyway) tell me one substantive area where Romney and Obama have the same viewpoint?
So please tell me this.
If I have property rights, why are there zoning codes and building codes where the government gets to tell me what to do, how to do it, when to do it?
If I actually OWN my property, why does the government have the right to kick me out of my property if I'm not paying my property taxes? Property taxes are rent.
If I have the right to due process under the law (which includes meaningless things such as having the right to confront my accuser, having proper rules of evidence) why do states and local government have the right to use administrative hearings where I cannot confront my accusers, and have a lower standard of proof (I'm presumed guilty until proven innocent through me jumping through a higher bar than in a criminal case)
If I have the right to privacy and cannot be forced to self-incriminate, why am I required to give a breathalyzer test or else I'm punished by law in a DUI case?
And seriously, do I have to bring up the Nanny State Awards? Look at all the local governments going off the deep end.
The Tenth Amendment has been interpreted by courts to mean that state and local governments can become totalitarian.
So, what's a Constitution?
Because? Give me one good reason your candidate is more conservative that Ron Paul and more trustworthy on both domestic and foreign policies and I'll support him.
The problem with blanket assertions is they lack the substance to keep you warm.
Breath. Ah. Feel better? Good.
The Federal Constitution is a contract with the Individual/States and the Federal Government. The Individual is presumed to be Sovereign. However, long ago, when the 13 nations (States) were founded, the citizens of those nations (which we now call States) ceded our sovereignty to the State. We formed State Constitutions that granted them certain powers. These powers are articulated in the State Constitutions. Different states have varying degrees of powers. Florida, the state in which I reside, have fairly strong individual rights when it comes to property rights.
Now, in 1792, and subsequent years, the various states agreed to vest some of their rights to the Federal Government. The states formed another social contract called the U.S. Constitution. The Tenth Amendment (and the 9th Amendment) have been interpreted to mean that any rights not specifically granted to the Federal Government, belong to the States. Those that do not reside with the State, remain with the People.
There are protocols and rules that limit the power of the State–and they are often times substantial. However, If you do not like the amount of authority that the people of your state have granted to the State government, then I recommend you either start a State Constitutional initiative or move to states like Nevada or Florida.
I do not disagree with any of the points you make. I only want to point out that it is easier to make changes at the State level than at the National one.
Romney is a Marxist, and is PROUD of Obamacare. After all, he's the grandfather of it.
One cannot be a governor of a leftwingwacko dominated state without bowing down and kissing the ground in front of leftwingwackos. Romney is NOT a moderate!
exactly where in my above comment did I say anything about supporting the old grey mare? That guy is a frikken squirrel on steroids. Yeah, some of his ideas (such as ending the FED) have merit, but his borderline Tourrets syndrome- like behavior and idiotic isolationism/non-interventionism is beyond belief….if we were some socialist european nation perhaps. America must promote freedom for all and if that means we need to depose some azzhat tin pot dictator, then so be it.
I assume you're kidding. If not, then dude, you need to get off those drugs. Now you're saying Romney isn't even a moderate? Wow.
I guess as conservatives, we should simply give up on all the left-leaning states, you know, important ones like New York, Illinois, California, and Massachusetts where our larges cities, best universities and highest potential business opportunities are. So any Republican who's a governor of these states is a Marxist?
Look at the type of impact that Chris Christie has had on New Jersey. A moderate Republican in office is FAR better than a far-left liberal in ANY state, and at ANY level of government. Mitt Romney winning in Massachusetts was a tremendous coup for the Republican party even if he did run from the center, which you simply have to do. I lived in Massachusetts and could hardly find a Republican on the ballot to vote for, so even having only moderates in office there does a lot more for our movement than having a "pure" conservatives that will not have an opportunity to make any sort of conservative impact on the state.
Bob Dole, Bush, McCain – they've infiltrated all right. There are some smart, seemingly-ethical potential candidates out there but the press immediately destroys anyone who cares a whit about the constitution.
Well from where I sat the anti Romney people can point to that ridiculous repetitive charge against Romney even after Romney answered the question some four times and still Santorum kept repeating himself like if he wasn't listening to what was being said by Romney to where Romney finally blew him off. If you anti Romney people think that was debate acumen well….
Woohoo. Yeah!!! World Police!! You're darn tootin!! Send our troops to Somalia, Sudan, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Liberia, China, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, Paraguay, Guatemala, Pakistan, and Egypt.
Let's kill all of those dictators. And when their people replace them with another dictator–like in Egypt, Libya, and Iran. We can go back in and kill them again. Great foreign policy. I say–if intervention has proven to work in the past, lets do it again. Just like Europe did in the 1800's.
Yeah–go team U.N.!!! We've got plenty of troops and cash to burn!!
I don't see how Obama can "win the argument" on ObamaCare by claiming Mitt's plan was similar. Mitt will rightly say it was a state level plan and Obama's top-down federal solution should be repealed. End of argument. It isn't like Obama can trash the plan itself.
The voters will have 2 choices, a guy who gave them ObamaCare and wants to keep intact or a guy who implemented something similar to it in one state that wants to get rid of it. Clearly Mitt is the better option in that case.
As for Santorum, he has said the same thing about Romney relative to ObamaCare about 20 times. That seems to be his main line of attack but it is losing impact the more he repeats it. His general demeanor is awful, he is about the most unlikable guy you can imagine.
Yes Newton fans…ignore the polls–just like you ignore the doublespeak that comes out of Newt's mouth. Newt, the inventor of everything great. The only historian I know that is worth millions of dollars to a mortgage financing corporation.
The man who would have us believe Cap and Trade is the answer. The man who supported and pushed for a single payer, government run insurance program. The man who sat on a couch with Nancy Pelosi. The man who called the House budget "right wing social engineering". The man who was best friends with Reagan–when he was bashing him and declaring the age of Reagan dead. The man who wants to solve the illegal alien problem by making them all legal. The man who is the definition of a Washington Insider!!
If you aren't discouraged by what Newt says and does, then you have no reason to be discouraged by the polls. And why not, Calista wasn't discouraged by Newt's repeated indiscretions. Newt, Mr. Family Values!!!
Go Team Newt!! and curse logic and common sense to hell!!
Because there is a significant difference between them. Obama and his minions will be more than happy to point that out too. Romney is promising to repeal ObamaCare. Even if you don't trust him to do that you KNOW for a fact that Obama won't repeal it. So if you are a moderate you might as well go with Romney in that case because at least with him there is a chance of repeal. In terms of economic policy, the difference between Romney and Obama is enormous. Romney also won't be passing any trillion dollar "stimulus" plans.
Right. Gingrich and Mitt are diametrically opposed on healthcare. You might want to tell that to Newt…
According to the all knowing Newt: (written in April 2006)
"The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system.
We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans. Individuals without coverage often do not receive quality medical attention on par with those who do have insurance. We also believe strongly that personal responsibility is vital to creating a 21st Century Intelligent Health System. Individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance and simply choose not to place an unnecessary burden on a system that is on the verge of collapse; these free-riders undermine the entire health system by placing the onus of responsibility on taxpayers.
The Romney plan attempts to bring everyone into the system. The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle"
see http://web.archive.org/web/20060822061158/http:/w... for the entire statement.
Since you don't bother giving a direct quote, it's kind of hard to debate you. Your comment sounds a bit like the typical liberal comment where made up crap is thrown in, and how does one debate that? There can be no doubt that what you say Santorum said about "the Pursuit of Happiness" is distorted and misconstrued. The "Pursuit of Happiness" does not cover every deviant and depraved thing under the sun and that's probably where your argument is founded.
There is something collective about "We the People of the United States". Are you familiar with those words?
Romneycare is an unnecessary government power grab of rights and freedom.
States do have a right to ban contraceptives. I don't recall exactly what Santorum said about that, but the state handing them out and promoting them to school children is reprehensible.
Adultery is a violation of an oath and contract. You think it should be legal? Then what's the point of having the oath and contract of marriage?
And no, I don't recall seeing a right to privacy in the Constitution, nor is there to be seen a right to abortion. Those are just made up 'rights' magically divined from the Constitution by the crazy left.
Angry does't win votes, not his type of anger.
Of course I feel the same way on most issues.
And I feel Santorum is most stable on the important issues.
The problem is the way he projects himself during the debates.
You have to be able to do more than hit with zingers. You have to hit with zingers, always truthful, AND be able to go from indignation to leader, without making me feel like that you will always be in a bad mood.
I will be looking at the next president for 4 years and I want someone who can not only be a conservative but how is pleasant to watch. f
Santorum seems frustrated, and leaders don't show frustration, they find a way to use the frustration and work thru it.
Again, it is not the message, it is the presentation.
Angry does't win votes, not his type of anger.
Of course I feel the same way on most issues.
And I feel Santorum is most stable on the important issues.
The problem is the way he projects himself during the debates.
You have to be able to do more than hit with zingers. You have to hit with zingers, always truthful, AND be able to go from indignation to leader, without making me feel like that you will always be in a bad mood.
I will be looking at the next president for 4 years and I want someone who can not only be a conservative but how is pleasant to watch. f
Santorum seems frustrated, and leaders don't show frustration, they find a way to use the frustration and work thru it.
Again, it is not the message, it is the presentation.
As someone already said, New's ego will not allow him to drop out. He will leave when he runs out of money.
Romney is fine on money.
.
I also agree that I would like MUCH more debate time for Santorum and Paul.
Newt jumped the shark with the Moon Colony, so lets give more time to the other guys. I want to hear what they say. Santorums statement on how religion will affect his decisions in the office was spot-on. Very well done and didn't seem rehearsed, that seemed to be the most natural serious answer of the debate. gotta love that Ron Paul, tho!
Tennessee and Florida and Alaska do not have state income taxes.
Tennessee has a version of state healthcare called TennCare.
In some states you are able to get married at 18, some 16 and some, believe it or not, 14.
The point: different states have different rules for THEIR residents. Those differences give us freedom and personality. I like the South, I like Tennessee better than Kentucky or Georgia (no offense meant). Tennessee even passed a law that says it is legal to scoop up and eat road kill! Yep, that's my kind of state, but that is another story…..
.
States are SUPPOSED to make laws that work for the residents of that particular state. If the MA healthcare program was supported, voted on and passed by MA, and it applies only to MA, then the state has done its job.
The same program may not work in any other state, but that is not the point. Different states are different, with different priorities and needs. "Romneycare" is of no concern to me. It is not Romneys fault that Obamacare has incorporated parts of the MA law.
Direct quote? Fine.
So "freedom" to Rick Santorum is doing whatever promotes the common good. If you agree with RS, then answer me these 2 questions — Who determines what the common good is? If I'm beholden to working towards that common good, is that not slavery?
The "Pursuit of Happiness" does not cover every deviant and depraved thing under the sun and that's probably where your argument is founded.
Could you point out for me where the exceptions are written?
There is something collective about "We the People of the United States". Are you familiar with those words?
Are you serious? Are you really claiming that the founders were collectivists? That the desires of the group should outweigh the rights of the individual? This country was founded on individual freedom, so collectivism would seemingly be the antithesis to that.
Romneycare is an unnecessary government power grab of rights and freedom [...] States do have a right to ban contraceptives.
You see the contradiction in those statements, do you not? If States cannot pass RomneyCare, how can they pass a ban on contraceptives?
Adultery is a violation of an oath and contract. You think it should be legal?
Marriage is a civil contract between 2 individuals. No one should ever go to jail for breaking a civil contract. That's not to say there shouldn't be any punishment for breaking that contract, but punishment should be in the form of financial penalties.
And no, I don't recall seeing a right to privacy in the Constitution
No, it's not explicitly written, but the idea is there. The right to privacy is included in the Bill of Rights through the things it does explicitly protect — privacy of beliefs (1st), privacy of the home from housing of soldiers (3rd), privacy of persons and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures (4th), privacy of personal information (5th).
Too bad he's crazy.
Angry DID win votes two years ago. If people are still as or more angry now than they werre two years ago – after yet another set of broken promises – there is going to be another bunch of big-spending letist incumbents tossed out of office. Illinois union guys ought to be boiling mad that Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky has defended the Keystone pipeline cancellation, saying the 20,000 immediate and more than 55,000 indirect jobs it would create were "not that many." The president has declared all-out war on our energy industry, our health-insurance industry and people here are telling us to support a GOP version of the same thing? WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH PEOPLE?
THIS is what happened when people were nice and complacent.
Point well made……………Its nothing to get angry about……………..Excuse me? Anger dosen't even come close to the temprement out in the great unwashed areas of the Nation. We already are witnessing the changes in store for the medical professions. Many facilities are already limiting admission of new medicare patients. AARP is backtracking faster than an under attack boxer, claiming they weren't really in the tank. You can bet the next go-round of debates this issue will not be tip-toed around.
I think that Romney could lay out what the Democrats proposed in MA, and how he cut it down and used his veto powers to take a lot of the bite out of what they wanted. I think that he used his veto on some stuff, but they out-voted him. Maybe he isn't saying that because it makes him look weak (he lost the fight?) Or maybe he is saving it for the debate with Obama? I am not sure…but he needs to be spinning this a LOT better than he is.
Re: Ron Paul: I think it is an interesting theory, but love or hate Ron Paul, he has been pretty consistent thoughout his political career. I doubt that he would throw that away now…it's not his style. He is significantly more useful to Rand as the steadfast guy that he is than he would be as a Romney supporter.
I love a good consipiracy theory, but in this case, I don't see it.
I think that if Romeny wants to win, he needs to argue what you state in your last paragraph. When he ran Massachusettes, he catered to his constituents – who were largely liberal. It can be a strength, if he explains it properly – he can say to the moderates, "Hey, I was a conservative leader in a liberal state, and it worked. I can and will listen to ALL sides before doing what is best for the country."
The problem, as I see it, for Romeny is that I have not heard that message.
Get Mitt out of the race, crush him, attack every Progressive aspect of his history, identify it, harp on it, make Romneycare the issue, until we call it Obama Care.
Santorum voted for Medicare Part D. Why would he honestly have any problem with yet another government health care program, Romneycare or Obamacare?
Oh yeah, I forgot. It's an election year.
Of course, there is one candidate that you would never have to worry about creating any government health care program, but you folks can't seem to come around to him.
You must be logged in to post a comment.