PDA

View Full Version : Santorum: Might as well have Obama over Romney



Hawkgirl
03-23-2012, 01:10 AM
SAN ANTONIO – Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday said Republicans should give President Barack Obama another term if Santorum isn't the GOP nominee and for a second day compared rival Mitt Romney to an Etch A Sketch toy.
Santorum reiterated an argument he has made before: The former Massachusetts governor is not conservative enough to offer voters a clear choice in the fall election and that only he can provide that contrast.

<snip>


Romney, who made no public appearances Thursday, issued a statement expressing disappointment "that Rick Santorum would rather have Barack Obama as president than a Republican."
"This election is more important than any one person. It is about the future of America," he said. "Any of the Republicans running would be better than President Obama and his record of failure."

Rival Newt Gingrich tweeted: "Rick Santorum is dead wrong. Any GOP nominee will be better than Obama."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/22/santorum-might-as-well-have-obama-over-romney/?test=latestnews

This is a disappointment Rick. I will throw my support behind Romney without hesitation.

m00
03-23-2012, 01:20 AM
Romney, who made no public appearances Thursday, issued a statement expressing disappointment "that Rick Santorum would rather have Barack Obama as president than a Republican."

Okay, so lets say hypothetically President Obama had a little "R" by his name instead of a "D." Would this, and this alone, make him a better president?

MountainMan
03-23-2012, 09:31 AM
Okay, so lets say hypothetically President Obama had a little "R" by his name instead of a "D." Would this, and this alone, make him a better president?

No, but I don't believe for a second that they are even comparable. If anything, Romney is even more conservative this time than in 2008.

I find it funny and sad that someone who obviously leaned more towards liberalism in his past and has obviously converted more towards the conservative side over the last 10-15 years is viewed as the same as Obama. According to some around here and unfortunately on talk radio as well, unless you are born citing quotes from Reagan, Hayek and Buckley you must be a RINO.

And lets not forget that Reagan was once a Democrat too but I guess we only allow that in our party once every hundred years or so as well.

Arroyo_Doble
03-23-2012, 10:03 AM
No, but I don't believe for a second that they are even comparable. If anything, Romney is even more conservative this time than in 2008.

I find it funny and sad that someone who obviously leaned more towards liberalism in his past and has obviously converted more towards the conservative side over the last 10-15 years is viewed as the same as Obama. According to some around here and unfortunately on talk radio as well, unless you are born citing quotes from Reagan, Hayek and Buckley you must be a RINO.

And lets not forget that Reagan was once a Democrat too but I guess we only allow that in our party once every hundred years or so as well.

Reagan has been deified. He is the Republicans' FDR and his sins against dogma (amnesty, raising taxes, deficit spending, ect ...) are ignored.

As far as Romney, he will say what he has to to get the nomination. I am expecting the Etch-A-Sketch moment to come soon.

AmPat
03-23-2012, 10:26 AM
Reagan has been deified. He is the Republicans' FDR and his sins against dogma (amnesty, raising taxes, deficit spending, ect ...) are ignored.

As far as Romney, he will say what he has to to get the nomination. I am expecting the Etch-A-Sketch moment to come soon.
Reagan's deification came after many years of looking at his record, good and bad, and their overal positive results. O Blah Blah was deified preemptorily and to this day is deified IN SPITE OF his miserable record of failure and march toward Marxism.
I suppose this was another of your lame attempts to make a moral comparison? Nice try.:rolleyes:

Arroyo_Doble
03-23-2012, 10:30 AM
Reagan's deification came after many years of looking at his record, good and bad, and their overal positive results. O Blah Blah was deified preemptorily and to this day is deified IN SPITE OF his miserable record of failure and march toward Marxism.
I suppose this was another of your lame attempts to make a moral comparison? Nice try.:rolleyes:

I suggest we play Fanfare for the Common Man on our march toward Marxism.

AmPat
03-23-2012, 10:58 AM
I suggest we play Fanfare for the Common Man on our march toward Marxism.
Hmm, not familiar. Does it have a German circa 1930's flavor or is it more Bolshevik sounding?

Stoic
03-23-2012, 11:00 AM
This should be raising some eyebrows about Rick Santorum. Anyone?

m00
03-23-2012, 11:06 AM
This should be raising some eyebrows about Rick Santorum. Anyone?

Not to defend Santorum here, but what sort of substantive policy differences do you see between the Obama administration and a hypothetical Romney administration? (based solely on the record of Romney, unless you want to argue that politicians keep promises that are a complete departure from their record)

Rockntractor
03-23-2012, 11:11 AM
:deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadh orse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:: deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadho rse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::d eadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhor se::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::de adhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhors e::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::dea dhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse ::deadhorse:
Not to defend Santorum here, but what sort of substantive policy differences do you see between the Obama administration and a hypothetical Romney administration? (based solely on the record of Romney, unless you want to argue that politicians keep promises that are a complete departure from their record)

If Mike 128 deserves this so do you.

m00
03-23-2012, 11:17 AM
If Mike 128 deserves this so do you.

So let me get this straight. It's not a dead horse when one talks about how Romney should be supported over other candidates because he's inevitable, is the only one to beat Obama, and can be somehow forced into conservative positions. It only becomes a dead horse when I ask what their policy differences will be?

I didn't start this discussion, and I didn't start this thread. But I'm on one side of it. Obviously, you're on the other. I guess it's only a dead horse when the side which opposes your side posts.

Molon Labe
03-23-2012, 11:18 AM
Okay, so lets say hypothetically President Obama had a little "R" by his name instead of a "D." Would this, and this alone, make him a better president?

to many....yes..that is all that it takes.

Stoic
03-23-2012, 11:21 AM
Not to defend Santorum here, but what sort of substantive policy differences do you see between the Obama administration and a hypothetical Romney administration? (based solely on the record of Romney, unless you want to argue that politicians keep promises that are a complete departure from their record)

Don't like Romney myself; definitely not my first choice. However, at least we can say that, per his much-maligned religious affiliation, he hypothetically shares some conservative values. If you disagree, look at politics in Idaho and Utah--the influence of the LDS church is exactly what you're seeing.

ANYONE (at least on the repub side) is better than Obama, and it seriously makes me wonder about Ricky that he's denying that. Smacks of desperation and political expediency to me.

Like it or not, Romney is probably going to be the guy. It's time to get over all this "my guy or the highway" BS. Obama must be stopped.

AmPat
03-23-2012, 11:29 AM
Okay, so lets say hypothetically President Obama had a little "R" by his name instead of a "D." Would this, and this alone, make him a better president?
Abstract constructs aside, the R behind a name usually means more "R's" appointed and elected. More "R's" means less "D" influence. Less "D" influence means less Marxism.

"R's" generally caucus with "R's" and "D's" generally caucus with "D's", simple politics.

Voting for a candidate has consequences. Witholding your vote also has consequences. You may feel free to stand on principle, but don't dare bitch about the results unless you had a stake in the outcome. Standing on the sidelines and hurling invective after the fact is pathetic.

We have a few on this site that feel morally superior because they didn't dare damage their precious political purism by voting for the milguetoast "R". No, they stand back and thump their pathetic bird chests in their self-satisfying, smug, I told you so attitude while the Marxist In Chief sells us out daily.

Zathras
03-23-2012, 11:30 AM
:deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadh orse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:: deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadho rse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::d eadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhor se::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::de adhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhors e::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::dea dhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse ::deadhorse:

If Mike 128 deserves this so do you.

Actually Rock, M00 doesn't deserve the same treatment as DUmbass128. Unlike DUmbass128, M00 can discuss other topics in a rational and calm manner and doesn't come off as a raving loon that's frothing at the mouth like DUmbass128 when talking about Romney.

m00
03-23-2012, 11:35 AM
Obama must be stopped.

I reject this logic. And anyone about to angrily hit the reply button, just make it to the end of the post first.

Obama is not a mystical being with magic power. He is not an incarnation of evil. He's not a force of nature. He's just a President that makes really, really bad policy (in my humble opinion). Now stay with me here. What must be reversed is Obama's bad policies. Not just stopped, but reversed. Note that reversing policy is subtly different from not being a specific person. This is the logical flaw with ABO... because it presupposes that any arbitrary person who is not Obama necessary fulfills the requirement of both being willing and able to reverse Obama's polices.

In my mind the case to make is not that Romney isn't Obama (obviously he isn't). In my mind the case to make is one of comparison between Obama's existing policy and Romney's likely policy.

I think what Santorum is saying is that if we elect someone that cannot or will not reverse Obama's policies, then there is no point to all of this. It doesn't matter who is the most electable, what matters is who is the most electable from the set of people that will actually reverse Obama policy. And in Santorum's mind, Romney either cannot or will not reverse Obama's policies. Whether or not you agree with him, I think it's a logical argument.

Gentleman Pirate
03-23-2012, 11:50 AM
My god, you're still here? Well I guess when you're from Tacoma you have to find an escape somehow.

m00
03-23-2012, 12:07 PM
My god, you're still here? Well I guess when you're from Tacoma you have to find an escape somehow.

???

Rockntractor
03-23-2012, 12:14 PM
Actually Rock, M00 doesn't deserve the same treatment as DUmbass128. Unlike DUmbass128, M00 can discuss other topics in a rational and calm manner and doesn't come off as a raving loon that's frothing at the mouth like DUmbass128 when talking about Romney.

True he does discuss other topics but if he doesn't understand how each of us view Romney he hasn't read any of our replies to his posts for the last two weeks.

Stoic
03-23-2012, 12:21 PM
Obama is not a mystical being with magic power. He is not an incarnation of evil. He's not a force of nature.

Nobody said anything about Obama being any of those things, although honestly, I'm not sure I agree with the second one. (I'm joking, calm down.)


He's just a President that makes really, really bad policy

This I have to disagree with. There is a tolerance for bad policy...but everything this man does is catastrophic. It can't be anything but engineered--and that's exactly what the evidence has shown all along. And whether you agree with "the birthers" or not, you can't deny that there is something...off...about this administration. Everything this administration does is an attack on the freedom of Americans. Disagree? What about Fast and Furious? The deliberate, illegal distribution of weapons by a government agency WITH MALICIOUS INTENT TO MANIPULATE AMERICAN POLICY. And it directly resulted in the death of American Citizens. That's not bad policy--it's criminal, straight up. Treason. High crimes and misdemeanors stuff. Is there ANY question in ANYBODY's mind that F&F went straight to the top? I quote, "We're working on some things behind the scenes."

So, I reiterate--Obama must be stopped. Or, if you want to be picky, the liberal machine that produced Obama must be stopped.

Yes, his policies need to be reversed, obviously. But really, how much of that responsibility resides with the president, and how much of that responsibility resides with Congress? Some of it with each, but a LOT of it rests with Congress, so let's not let the congressional elections slip either, okay?

Like I said, I think Santorum is just pissed that things aren't going his way, and he's willing to say just about anything--and has.

rjas77
03-23-2012, 12:28 PM
My god, you're still here? Well I guess when you're from Tacoma you have to find an escape somehow.

Actually, Tacoma's become a better place to live than Seattle...

Hawkgirl
03-23-2012, 12:30 PM
Romney was not my first choice, or second choice. I liked Cain and even donated to his campaign. I voted for Santorum in Florida.
However; when it comes to the national election, I WILL "pull the lever" for the republican candidate, and if that republican candidate is Romney, I will vote for him. I do not know if he will repeal Obamacare; but we expect him to. The last I heard, on news radio is that he is going to offer a "opt out" like Obama did to several unions and his inner circle. We can hope he defunds the plan, but will need Congress' help to do so. If companies, groups and/or individuals can use waivers to opt out of Obamacare, chances are, unless you are already indigent and already on Government plan, you will opt out...

I'm willing to take the chance and see if Romney can deliver. Voting for Obama or sitting out the election is not an option for me...and as someone here already said, don't bitch about government if you plan on sitting home with your thumb up your a$$ on Election day.

Gentleman Pirate
03-23-2012, 12:34 PM
Actually, Tacoma's become a better place to live than Seattle...


You must have attended joke kill university. :livid:

Odysseus
03-23-2012, 02:33 PM
Okay, so lets say hypothetically President Obama had a little "R" by his name instead of a "D." Would this, and this alone, make him a better president?

On domestic issues, Romney is a wild card. He has governed all over the map, and his philosopy of government is not necessarily conservative, but he is not a socialist and he does not subscribe to the extremist ideologies that Obama espouses. He wouldn't have tried Fast and Furious, for example, and he'd have appointed an AG who would actually enforce the law. It's unlikely that he'd have prosecuted states that passed their own immigration laws or tried to undermine the rule of law within them. His judicial appointments would be more likely to be conservatives in the mold of Scalia, Thomas (Bush 41), Roberts (Bush 43) and Alito (Bush 43). True, Bush 41 also gave us Souter, but Obama is guaranteed to appoint far left radicals like Kagan and Sotomayor. Romney's experience at Bain Capital makes him far more likely to look for spending cuts and departmental elimination than Obama, although this is far from guaranteed, but with Obama, multi-trillion dollar deficits are going to be the norm, and if he is reelected, he will almost certainly double down on failure.

On foreign policy, Obama will continue to alienate allies and suck up to enemies. He has already floated the idea of providing the Russians with classified information regarding our missile defense systems, which means that he is giving them to Syria, Iran and North Korea by proxy. He will continue to gut the military and attack us with PC idiocies in lieu of doctrine, while tying our hands with Rules of Engagement that would hamstring a Pre-K teacher. Romney knows who our enemies are, and is far more likely to be willing to fight them, and he won't be bowing to Saudi kings or Japanese emperors.

The absolute worst that a Romney administration could be would be Bush 43 lite, which is still a far sight better than Obama.

BTW, the one thing on Romney that would turn me into an enthusiastic supporter would be if he came out and announced that he intended to repeal Obamacare because he doesn't make the same mistake twice, and anybody with a brain can see that Romneycare failed to reign in costs, expand coverage or maintain free choice. Somebody who can admit a mistake and promise not to repeat it is somebody that can learn from mistakes. That would tell me that he's not flip-flopping, but has made a real conversion to a conservative principle, and if it can be done there, it can be done on other issues.


Reagan has been deified. He is the Republicans' FDR and his sins against dogma (amnesty, raising taxes, deficit spending, ect ...) are ignored.

As far as Romney, he will say what he has to to get the nomination. I am expecting the Etch-A-Sketch moment to come soon.

Reagan succeeded in turning the economy around and defeated the Soviets in the Cold War. His policy errors, such as amnesty, tax hikes and deficit spending were the result of accepting deals with Democrats which they never kept. For example, the tax hike was part of a deal in exchange for spending cuts, but the Democrats in congress never kept their side of the bargain, and the cuts were never put into the budget.


I suggest we play Fanfare for the Common Man on our march toward Marxism.

One does not march towards Marxism, at least not by the end. When we finally arrive there, we will be crawling, and if there is a band, it will be playing an appropriate dirge.

Hawkgirl
03-23-2012, 04:59 PM
Update:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/rick-santorum-gop-nominee_n_1375208.html?1332519048&icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl21|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D146048

In a statement released Friday, Santorum said: "I would never vote for Barack Obama over any Republican and to suggest otherwise is preposterous. This is just another attempt by the Romney Campaign to distort and distract the media and voters from the unshakeable fact that many of Romney's policies mirror Barack Obama's."

"I was simply making the point that there is a huge enthusiasm gap around Mitt Romney and it's easy to see why - Romney has sided with Obama on healthcare mandates, cap-and-trade, and the Wall Street bailouts," he continued.
<snip>
When pressed on whether his position ran counter to GOP unity behind the party's nominee, Stewart said, "Rick has made it abundantly clear once a nominee is chosen he'll stand behind the nominee and do everything we can to replace Barack Obama."


I'm glad he changed his tune...and has clarified his statement...It will still leave a sour taste though.

Arroyo_Doble
03-23-2012, 05:06 PM
Update:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/rick-santorum-gop-nominee_n_1375208.html?1332519048&icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl21|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D146048

In a statement released Friday, Santorum said: "I would never vote for Barack Obama over any Republican and to suggest otherwise is preposterous. This is just another attempt by the Romney Campaign to distort and distract the media and voters from the unshakeable fact that many of Romney's policies mirror Barack Obama's."

"I was simply making the point that there is a huge enthusiasm gap around Mitt Romney and it's easy to see why - Romney has sided with Obama on healthcare mandates, cap-and-trade, and the Wall Street bailouts," he continued.
<snip>
When pressed on whether his position ran counter to GOP unity behind the party's nominee, Stewart said, "Rick has made it abundantly clear once a nominee is chosen he'll stand behind the nominee and do everything we can to replace Barack Obama."


I'm glad he changed his tune...and has clarified his statement...It will still leave a sour taste though.


Remember Carville wearing Puma's back in 2008?

Don't worry. Eventually, they all smile for the camera.

Elspeth
03-23-2012, 07:27 PM
In Santorum's defense, he was misquoted in a big way. The media both skewed his words and his intention:


http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/03/22/santorum-might-as-well-have-obama-over-romney/

“You win by giving people a choice,” Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas. “You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there. If they’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future.”

Those are his exact words. What is he trying to say is that if you're just going to put up an unknown with no principles, and not give people a real alternative, you might as well stay with the devil you know and not vote for the (Etch-a-Sketch) devil you don't know.

That's much different than Santorum telling people to vote for Romney if he (Santorum) doesn't win the nomination. He's just trying to say that elections really don't matter if you don't have a real choice. You'll just get one devil or the other in the end.

mike128
03-23-2012, 11:34 PM
I seriously doubt that Santorum really believes that Obumbler would be better than Romney. If anything, Romney would drive this country over the cliff slower than Obumbler would, but either way, this country would still be headed over the cliff. Which is why Romney should not be the nominee.

Rockntractor
03-23-2012, 11:44 PM
I seriously doubt that Santorum really believes that Obumbler would be better than Romney. If anything, Romney would drive this country over the cliff slower than Obumbler would, but either way, this country would still be headed over the cliff. Which is why Romney should not be the nominee.

You might have taken a small almost imperceptible step in the right direction.
I'm going to have to turn this over to a lab for study.

mike128
03-24-2012, 12:19 AM
You might have taken a small almost imperceptible step in the right direction.
I'm going to have to turn this over to a lab for study.
I think we all agree that Romney is not as bad as Obumbler. But the difference between the two is so minimal, that it's not worth it for me to waste my vote and my time on Romney just to get Obama out. If Romney is the nominee, and Obumbler loses, fine. But it will be done without my vote. Trading Obama for Obama-lite is no reason to celebrate.

Rockntractor
03-24-2012, 12:24 AM
I think we all agree that Romney is not as bad as Obumbler. But the difference between the two is so minimal, that it's not worth it for me to waste my vote and my time on Romney just to get Obama out. If Romney is the nominee, and Obumbler loses, fine. But it will be done without my vote. Trading Obama for Obama-lite is no reason to celebrate.

Go back to posting on the Etch A Sketch.

Zathras
03-24-2012, 01:56 AM
I think we all agree that Romney is not as bad as Obumbler. But the difference between the two is so minimal, that it's not worth it for me to waste my vote and my time on Romney just to get Obama out. If Romney is the nominee, and Obumbler loses, fine. But it will be done without my vote. Trading Obama for Obama-lite is no reason to celebrate.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/HeroesAtWork/deadhorse.jpg

AmPat
03-24-2012, 11:27 PM
I think we all agree that Romney is not as bad as Obumbler. But the difference between the two is so minimal, that it's not worth it for me to waste my vote and my time on Romney just to get Obama out. If Romney is the nominee, and Obumbler loses, fine. But it will be done without my vote. Trading Obama for Obama-lite is no reason to celebrate.

Then you're a fool and a fake. The most conservative response in any emergency would be to stop the bleeding. If you withhold your vote it makes it that much easier for O Blah Blah to have an unfettered, four more years to destroy the country.

As a life long aviator, I have lived through crashes and several near misses and emergencies that would make most people crap their pants, by flying the aircraft as long as possible and as deep into the sequence as it would allow.

Thump your bird chest over your futile ideological purity when O Blah Blah is your master for another four years and see if you crow about how thankful you are that "at least it wasn't Romney."

mike128
03-25-2012, 09:59 PM
Thump your bird chest over your futile ideological purity when O Blah Blah is your master for another four years and see if you crow about how thankful you are that "at least it wasn't Romney."
This has nothing to do with ideological purity. It has to do with having a standard set of core principles, and the ability to tell the truth. Romney has neither. He has been on every side of every issue, depending on his audience. He will say anything to get elected. Why does everyone somehow think that (wink wink, nod nod) Romney will somehow transform into this "conservative" once he is in the White House? If anything, he won't even give people like us the time of day, and go back to being the Massachusetts liberal that he really is. Thanks, but no thanks.

Hopefully, the Republican Party will be smart enough to nominate someone other than Romney at the national convention in Tampa.

AmPat
03-25-2012, 11:11 PM
This has nothing to do with ideological purity. It has to do with having a standard set of core principles, and the ability to tell the truth. Romney has neither. He has been on every side of every issue, depending on his audience. He will say anything to get elected. Why does everyone somehow think that (wink wink, nod nod) Romney will somehow transform into this "conservative" once he is in the White House? If anything, he won't even give people like us the time of day, and go back to being the Massachusetts liberal that he really is. Thanks, but no thanks.

Hopefully, the Republican Party will be smart enough to nominate someone other than Romney at the national convention in Tampa.

My response was not about Romney. It was about you. If you fail to vote for whoever wins the GOP nomination, you are assisting the other side. That makes you complicit in a potential and surely disastrous O Blah Blah second term.

If it is between O Blah Blah and Donald Duck, I'd vote for the duck.

Rockntractor
03-25-2012, 11:15 PM
My response was not about Romney. It was about you. If you fail to vote for whoever wins the GOP nomination, you are assisting the other side. That makes you complicit in a potential and surely disastrous O Blah Blah second term.

If it is between O Blah Blah and Donald Duck, I'd vote for the duck.

Vote for the duck he gives a ...........http://gfxlovers.com/smilies/imgs/happy/happy014.gif (http://gfxlovers.com/smilies)

JoeKwonDo
03-25-2012, 11:51 PM
I think we all agree that Romney is not as bad as Obumbler. But the difference between the two is so minimal, that it's not worth it for me to waste my vote and my time on Romney just to get Obama out. If Romney is the nominee, and Obumbler loses, fine. But it will be done without my vote. Trading Obama for Obama-lite is no reason to celebrate.

Bullshiite - actually the almost perfect match is in the whining and blaming everything else you see in BHO and the Sanitorium. Is there anything the two pussies won't cry about... tooo much money, Bush's fault. But for all of them - I want to see one of them stand up, hike up their balls and say - If you elect me president, from the day I am inaugurated EVERYTHING is my responsibility - period. I will suck it up and vote for Rickie if I have too, but I would almost rather stay home. Give me Mitt anyday.