search
top

SoCos Line Up Behind Santorum

It looks like Rick Santorum is gearing up to be the Huckabee of 2012. I’m sincerely hoping it ends in the same manner. What a disappointing primary. I thought it couldn’t get worse after 2008, and it turns out I was wrong. When Ron Paul starts looking like a reasonable choice, things have seriously gone off the rails. Santorum is just not acceptable to me at all. I’ll show up in the primary just to vote for Romney if that’s the only choice I have left by the time Pennsylvania’s primary rolls around.

65 Responses to “SoCos Line Up Behind Santorum”

  1. David says:

    The most important thing of 2012 is making BHO a one term debacle.

  2. Wes says:

    Ron Paul wants to end the income tax, end the fed, end the NDAA, end the Patriot Act, end the ATF, cut five departments, cut a trillion dollars year one, secure the U.S.’ borders, has never voted for a tax increase, has never voted for an unbalanced budget, is the most pro-Second Amendment candidate running, etc, etc, etc.

    But, nah, let’s vote for the big-government guy who bans “assault weapons” and raises the poll tax on gun ownership permit cards instead. What’s the name of this blog again?

    • Panamared says:

      In the real world the people that truly decide the Presidential election are the moderates. If you think that Ron Paul can bring in the moderate vote, then by all means vote for him.

      “A Representative Republic may be the worst form of Government in the World except for all the other ones.” Mark Twain I believe.

      • MicroBalrog says:

        In the real world, keeping the base turning out is as important as winning the moderates.

        Besides Ron Paul is running neck and neck with Obama in the polls.

      • NUGUN says:

        I believe based on the exit polls Ron Paul has garnered a large portion of the independent vote. Often termed the moderate middle.

    • Sebastian says:

      I’ve just never dug Ron Paul, for various reasons. Right now I think he’s doing well because his name isn’t Mitt Romney.

    • Sebastian says:

      And Ron Paul isn’t going to be able to do any of those things, because he’s not a dictator. Congress would have to go along, and Congress won’t.

      • mike says:

        And Ron Paul isn’t going to be able to do any of those things, because he’s not a dictator.

        But doesn’t that undermine most of the criticism against Paul?

        • Sebastian says:

          Not really… my biggest beef with him is on foreign policy, and the President does have a great deal of power to decide that.

          • Sebastian, I keep hearing people say that, but what, specifically about Ron Paul’s foreign policy platform do you disagree with?

            No more foreign aid?
            No more meddlesome warring?
            No more destined-to-fail nation-building/regime-change?.

            What?

            • Sebastian says:

              Ron Paul is an isolationist. I am not. I support the various free trade agreements, and Ron Paul does not. Ron Paul wouldn’t even have killed Osama Bin laden, but rather believes we should have respected Pakistan’s borders and user Pakistani authorities (who were hiding him) to get the job done.

              And it’s not just foreign policy. Paul doesn’t believe in the 14th Amendment, which is probably why he did not cosponsor or cast a vote in favor of HR822.

              • Jake says:

                Well, crap. That just killed any possibility of my supporting him.

                The bill that article links to would have been a disaster on many fronts, and in one aspect for me personally (by invalidating Lawrence v. Texas).

              • Wes says:

                Maybe that’s the problem — you think Paul is an isolationist instead of a non-interventionist.

                It’s the non-free trade isolationists right now who are pushing Iran into doing something that gives the U.S. an excuse to start a war with them. It’s the non-free trade isolationists who sanctioned Iraq and killed some reports say half a billion Iraqi children. Those are the same sanctions bin Laden cited as a motivation for 9/11 and a big terrorist recruiting tool.

                Paul voted to go after bin Laden 10 years ago. He just didn’t think it’s a good idea to violate Pakistan’s borders and assassinate one of their residents.

                Republicans (and Dems) have now given the President the power to assassinate anyone, even American citizens. It’s strange how Republicans don’t trust the government with health care, but they’ll trust the government with the power to assassinate even U.S. citizens without a trial.

                • Sebastian says:

                  I’ve heard that line from Paul supporters before, but I have a hard time discerning the difference between non-interventionist and isolationist. I’m not even sure I understand your definition of isolationist. So neocons are non-free trade isolationists?

              • Wes says:

                Ronald Reagan ultimately promoted a non-interventionist foreign policy after failures with his interventionist one. He said the U.S. should only get involved in the middle east under very strict conditions, and recommended future Presidents learn from his mistakes. He said his policy that got those 241 Marines killed in Beirut was the greatest regret of his presidency.

              • First, isolationism isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There are more than a couple of economists who feel this way. Besides, why should China (face it, that’s who you’re talking about) be able to impose import duties on our goods and the US not reciprocate? Equality of opportunity, not result.

                Second, I’m not sure I don’t agree with Ron Paul about the 14th amendment, at least as currently applied. Note that Alan Gura in McDonald was ready to argue the case on the most constitutionally solid grounds, that is the P&I argument, but Scalia and Roberts let him know quickly that to allow the P&I argument to stand would require the reversal of several years of feel-good (as opposed to constitutional) jurisprudence, and … so … shut up!

                Third, I do disagree with him on Bin Laden. It’s my belief that Ron Paul, in a non-interventionist US policy would have started dropping nukes on the offenders after 9/11 and left it at that, but that’s not the world we live in right now.

                Fourth, as a former Marine and Desert Storm veteran, I can’t agree more with Paul’s non-interventionist policies. There are ample arguments that GW saw 9/11 as an opportunity to finish the unfinished business in Iran, resulting in how many lost American servicemens’ lives? For what?

                A democratically elected theocracy? Like Syria? Like Nazi Germany? No thanks …

                And why should we intervene in any country’s desire to have nuclear weapons? Be careful, because at it’s heart, this is the gun control argument writ large. You can’t prevent nuclear ambitions unless you engage in pre-emptive force.

                The bottom line on Ron Paul is that I don’t give a rat’s ass what his views on blacks, Israel, commerce or the 2nd amendment, because he rightly understands that the federal government has no business meddling and damned little authority to intervene in American’s daily lives absent certain constitutional requirements (declaring war for example).

                And that’s really why Republicans can’t stand him; because he’s not the other side of the statist coin. All the candidates save Ron Paul have the statist disease to one degree or the other. Getting rid of Obama is a worthy goal but I cannot, and will not give any candidate but Ron Paul the legitimacy of my vote.

                PS Sorry about the rantedness of the post … I haven’t had my anti-depressents today!

                • Sebastian says:

                  And why should we intervene in any country’s desire to have nuclear weapons? Be careful, because at it’s heart, this is the gun control argument writ large. You can’t prevent nuclear ambitions unless you engage in pre-emptive force.

                  Because the regime is an avowed enemy of the United States and has our destruction as one of its core tenets. This isn’t individual rights we’re talking here. Governments don’t have rights, so I’m quite comfortable with the idea of the Iranian government not being permitted to acquire or develop nuclear weapons.

                • mike says:

                  Because the regime is an avowed enemy of the United States and has our destruction as one of its core tenets.

                  So I guess you think we should pre-emptively attack North Korea before they get nukes too? Oh, wait..

                • Sebastian says:

                  I don’t necessarily support invading Iran to prevent them from getting nukes, nor invading North Korea before they had them. But that’s due to pragmatic concerns rather than moral ones. In principle, I think intervention is an option.

                • mike says:

                  China has nukes, and is probably our greatest military threat. Iran, possibly getting as many as one (1) nukes is a joke. Especially since poor, defenseless Israel is chock full of them. But why aren’t we fighting with China? Because trade makes peace. China is a trading partner, and trading partners don’t try to kill each other.

                  Instead of fighting Iran, we should be trading with them. Instead, we’re pushing to trade less with them. Basically, we’re doing the exact opposite of what we should be doing in order to maintain peace. But that kind of trade doesn’t fuel the defense industry, so instead we have calls for more wars we definitely cannot afford.

                  I wonder what effect all this war debt will have on our national defense when people are rioting in the streets here like they are in Greece. Because it’s coming sooner or later, and Iran will be the least of our worries when it happens. IMHO.

      • Jeffrey H says:

        Even if Congress doesn’t go along at least you know Ron will appoint good judges on the 2nd Amendment. Even if you don’t like his foreign policy it is worth considering voting for him in the primary to really show the republicans that people are serious about wanting less government. Even if Romney ends up the candidate at the end he is going to have to look at all the delegates Ron pulled in and appease those people if he wants their support in the general.

        For a 2nd Amendment Blog you and Bitter seem to like to hate on the best 2nd Amendment candidate. In Polls only Ron and Romney poll favorably against Obama, none of the rest do. Ron is winning with the youth vote and independents 2 key pieces of Obama’s win the first time around. Even with many Republican’s not liking Ron I think they would go anyone but Obama over staying home. Social conservatives I would think would take Ron over Obama. To me the numbers in the general on his side, if he could win the primary (an extreme long shot).

        • Sebastian says:

          Generally speaking, by the time PA has its primary, the race is already generally decided. I expect not to really have a choice by then. But if it comes down to a choice between Ron Paul, Romney, and Santorum, I may just skip that primary ballot. I don’t really have a desire to vote for any of them.

          And I don’t consider Paul to be that strong on the 2nd Amendment, because he doesn’t believe in the 14th Amendment, which is what protects against state interference with the right. You will note he was not a co-sponsor of HR822, and I would not expect him to support other legislation that exercises Congress’ section 5 powers in order to enforce the Second Amendment.

          • mobo says:

            Sebastian, it is true that Ron Paul takes a much narrower view of the the scope of the 14th amendment than the mainstream, but I think you miss the mark by a bit.

            The (paleo)libertarian view is that *only* congress has been given the power to intervene in state affairs (per section 5 of the 14th amendment), not SCOTUS. The only role for SCOTUS is to police the boundaries of the actions of Congress, and not to directly strike down state laws (again, in this view, not necessarily mine). In the absence of any action by congress, state laws would remain in force under this view. This is basically the modern extension of the Jeffersonian/decentralist/antifederalist camp. [Abel P. Upshur’s “A Brief Enquiry…” is an excellent read on this subject, although written prior to the 14th amendment’s ratification, it gives you a good idea of what was going on around the time of the tariff crisis and a clearer look at the old idea of vertical separation of powers.]

            While it is true that Ron Paul will not support intervention within the states, this does not necessarily mean that he doesn’t believe that congress has this power, only that he chooses not to excercise that power as a member of congress.

            His support for the 2nd amendment remains strong and intact with regard to the federarl government. Those of us in Pennsylvania would look to our own constitution for remedies. NJ residents would just be fooked.

            • Sebastian says:

              Why wouldn’t the SCOTUS have the power to interpret the 14th Amendment just as it has the power to interpret all the other provisions of the Constitution? Maybe paleolibertarians want to revisit Marbury v. Madison, but I sure as hell don’t. I get nervous when I hear that kind of rhetoric from conservatives.

              • mobo says:

                The following is my understanding of the situation from the paleolibertarian point of view:

                Section 5 gives congress (and *only* congress)the power to intervene within the states. The power of Judicial Review gives SCOTUS the power to check that exercise of power by congress, should congress stretch that power too far. In doing so, SCOTUS would be interpreting the breadth of the powers granted to congress by sect. 5 of the 14th amendment. How is this view inconsistent with Marbury?

                Again, enforcement powers of all the provisions in the 14th amendment were given to congress, not SCOTUS.

                Now, me personally, I prefer the outcome that the McDonald case brought us, and support Gura’s line of attack. But my understanding of the original intent is much different from today’s reality.

                And you are 10000000% right to point out that Ron Paul is *NOT* the guy you want if you are a NJ or MD gun nut (for example), where no hope exists for in-state remedies.

                • Sebastian says:

                  OK… I see what you are saying, and that’s pretty much how the Section 5 powers work. But there are other clauses of the 14th Amendment that are actionable in Court, such as being deprived of equal protection, or due process of law. The intent in Section 5 was to give Congress and independent power to enforce these provisions, which they have often exercised. The Courts still have the power to hear cases or controversies arising from the 14th Amendment through the judicial powers.

                • Wes says:

                  Plenty of selfish gun owners in NJ and MD are more than happy to potentially throw all other gun owners under the bus because their states suck so much on gun laws that they want the federal government to stick its big nose into things.

                  Similar can be seen from many hunters who throw CCW and “assault weapon” people under the bus. If people hate their state laws so much, then either take it to court, vote in politicians that don’t suck, or move. Stop being selfish and screwing over the rest of the country.

                  May as well be a lefty liberal who votes his state into oblivion and then when it’s time to reap what he sowed he just moves to a different state and keeps voting the same way to screw up that state too.

          • Wes says:

            Plenty of pro-gun people think HR822 is a bad idea. Just because it’s possible for Congress to twist the Commerce or some other clause into something it’s not meant for, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea.

            I think it’s barking up the wrong tree to say Paul isn’t that strong on the 2nd because of such a heated topic even among gun rights people.

  3. Panamared says:

    It seems to me that it’s time to look at marking a ballot with multiple choices 1st 2nd 3rd choice and so on. If one candidate gets 50%+1 vote it’s over, if not then start eliminating candidates and distributing votes according to secondary choices until someone wins. Maybe that would whittle down the choices to a Romney, and a Non Romney. At least then the survivor would have the strongest support from the party as a whole.

  4. HerrBGone says:

    I live in Marxistchusetts so I have first hand knowledge of former Governor Mitt. His politics have been called “Obama light.” I’m not so sure about the light part. He’s the author of Obamacare which is a scaled up version or Romneycare. He signed into law the permanent ban on modern sporting rifles that look all scarey and black and military. He’s no friend of Constitutionally limited government. And unlike Obama, he has real-world executive ability and can get things done. As president Mitt Romney would be an absolute catastrophe – unless you want an Obama with a work ethic…

  5. Arnie says:

    I am pretty sure Mr. Santorum would appoint Constitutionalist judges.

    I am not sure, but I have been told by conservative friends that Mr. Romney would appoint Souter-types.

    To me, that is the most critical issue. Its the one thing Mr. Bush did right – after Harriet Meyers, that is.

    • Sebastian says:

      Everyone thought Souter was a conservative when he was nominated. He was chosen because he didn’t have much of a paper trail for folks to get upset over during confirmation. It ended up being he was a liberal, which few people knew at the time.

  6. ExurbanKevin says:

    My faith has led me to travel all over Latin America. I’ve gone to Bible school and I spent five years working for a missionary agency, so I’ll put my faith up against anyone this side of Charles H. Spurgeon.

    And people who connect with a candidate because of similar beliefs scare the crap out of me. Competency first, faith second. I’m not looking for a Pastor-In-Chief, I’m looking for a temporal leader. I’ll leave the religious leadership for my pastor.

    • Alpheus says:

      Who here is talking about supporting Romney because of similar spiritual beliefs? I happen share spiritual beliefs with Romney, and I still find his politics to leave much to be desired…and so far, all I’ve seen here is discussion of Mitt on his (lack of) political merits.

      Indeed, so far I’ve only seen comments of the effect “I won’t vote for him!” vs. “well, if he makes the nomination, I’ll vote for him, but all the Republican other candidates are icky too, but I’ll vote for them if I have too!”

  7. mike says:

    I have one simple rule: Never vote for a gun banner.

    I wish more gun owners (and gun bloggers for that matter) had that rule too. It’s hard to see much of a difference between Romney and Obama. That is, except that the GOP would probably fight tooth and nail against any anti-gun moves Obama makes, but will happily go along with them if they came from Romney.

    If Romney gets the GOP nod, it looks like I’ll be voting 3rd party. I’m not voting for Obama (R) to get rid of Obama (D).

  8. mobo says:

    I don’t think I’ll be voting at all for a president this time around.

    • ecurb says:

      Same. I just can’t swallow hard enough to choke down any of these bozos.

      • Thomas F says:

        +1
        Find and support the most conservative representative you can, The president can’t sign a law that the HoR and Sen don’t pass…..

        Send money to who ever runs against…

        Olympia Snowe…..
        Bob Menendez…. in primary and or genral general….

        Who ever runs conservative in Nebraska….

        I’ve got my own muck raking to do in JJJr district I’m switching parties to vote against him in the primary..

  9. Brad says:

    “It looks like Rick Santorum is gearing up to be the Huckabee of 2012.”

    I’m afraid the link does not explain the quote to me. What the heck are you talking about? It can’t be that Santorum is a cultural conservative like Huckabee, we’ve all known that from the beginning. So what are you getting at?

    When you say, “gearing up to be the Huckabee”, the first reaction I have is that you are accusing Santorum of acting as some kind of spoiler candidate. But there is no evidence at all of such of a thing, so that can’t be what you mean. Does it?

    • Sebastian says:

      The SoCos lined up behind the Huckabeast in 2008, and he won several states with SoCo backing. But they weren’t enough to win the nomination. I’m not saying he’s a spoiler candidate, I’m saying he’s the SoCo candidate.

  10. Drifter says:

    Perhaps you PA folk could cue the rest of us into why you like Romney (the albino Obama) better than Santorum.

    Romney has banned some types of guns and his healthcare program was the inspiration for Obamacare. Yes, Santorum’s a social conservative, but he can’t get any of that agenda past Congress. Is there something more to Santorum that I’m missing?

    • Sebastian says:

      I’m not betting on him not being able to get a SoCo agenda through Congress, especially if he coasts to victory on being a SoCo candidate. I am willing to ally with Social Conservatives on some issues. I’m definitely not willing to do it with Santorum. Anyone who believes the government belongs in people’s bedrooms, which Santorum said in his book, is just not someone I can support.

      • Santorum has expressed his opinion that Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) was wrongly decided. I think it reached the right result, but by a very incorrect methodology. Subsequent decisions based on Griswold‘s bogus “right to privacy” have reached increasingly incorrect results.

        Santorum has stated that he thought Griswold was wrongly decided, but that he opposes states passing birth control laws.

  11. Tom says:

    Having lived in upstate NY all of my life , I have one rule for presidential elections. I will NEVER vote for anyone that has won statewide office in Mass, NY, NJ, Ca.

    • Thirdpower says:

      You should probably add IL or at least Chicago Metro Area to that list.

    • ExurbanKevin says:

      You realize that Ronald Reagan was Governor of (wait for it…) California, correct?

      • Brad says:

        I thought of the same Reagan fact, but didn’t post it. Because it is not a fair criticism, it’s only snark.

        California of 2012 is a far different animal from the California of 1970 when Reagan was last elected governor of California. California today has a quite liberal electorate.

        In fact so much of a liberal electorate, that if you removed all the votes of California from the presidential election of 2000 Gore would have lost the national popular vote by 800,000 instead of winning it by 500,000.

    • Like Governor Reagan of California?

  12. Mike123 says:

    I’m going to vote in the Dem primary. I’m writing in Hillary! Operation Chaos Part Duex.

  13. Dannytheman says:

    I will vote my heart in the Primary. In November I will vote for anyone but Obama. I think the Republicans will take back the Senate, and be stronger in the House with more Tea Party elected folks. That in itself, will help get good conservative judges nominated to sit on the Supreme Court. But NOT if Obama is in there.

    Remember when Ross Perot got in on Bush 41? I do, it let Clinton in with only 42% of the vote. Never forget this. If Paul and Romney/Santorum are both on the NOvember Ballet, Obama wins. Simple math.

    • mike says:

      Romney nominated 75% Democrat judges when he was Gov of MA. If you think Romney wouldn’t nominate leftist (much less gun hating) judges to the supreme court, you’re fooling yourself.

      If you wouldn’t vote for Romney, then don’t vote for Romney. Just sayin’.

      • Sebastian says:

        Romney had a left-wing Democratic legislature. Democrats were probably all that were going to get confirmed.

        • mike says:

          And when he signed the AWB in MA, was that the legislature’s fault too? How about Romneycare? While it is true that he had a left-wing legislature, he was a left-wing governor. So of course he chose leftist judges.

          Left-wing presidents choose leftists judges too – even if they have an (R) after their name.

          • Dannytheman says:

            Reagan was from Kalifornia!! Don’t forget!!

          • Sebastian says:

            See Bitter’s latest post about the AWB issue. There’s been a lot of bad information floating around out there in regards to it. Romney’s record on guns is not stellar, but nor is it as bad as folks think it is.

            • mike says:

              Yeah, I did. Romney wants to ban more guns:
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Ygw9CQ9po

              I’m not concerned about his past (I know it sucks). I’m concerned about his plans for the future. And Mitt Romney says he has no problem banning guns. Not voting for that. He’d be able to ban guns all by his lonesome (like GHWB did in 89).

        • Dannytheman says:

          Also, there are ZERO conservative judges to choose from in Massachusetts. Again, Senate and House is Republican, infused with freshly elected Tea Party types? Then we will get Conservative judges.
          You are a fool if you let Obama get elected for a 2nd term over ill informed principles. You don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater!

          • mike says:

            I don’t know that my one vote will ensure anyone’s election success. I’m just not voting for a gun banner. If the GOP fronts one, then I certainly can’t vote for him now, can I?

            At least those Tea Party types would fight against Obama. I doubt they’d put as much of a fight up against Romney when he institutes the same exact policies.

            Anyone who sees Romney and Obama as two different people is a fool, IMHO. The same media that loves Obama is selecting Romney for us. Think about that.

    • Alpheus says:

      There are two things we forget when Ross Perot got involved in those elections.

      First, the Republicans, to a certain extent, brought it upon themselves, by not fielding strong Conservative candidates. If they had better candidates, Ross Perot wouldn’t have had the influence he did.

      Second, while it’s true that Clinton got in with only 42% of the vote, his influence was tempered by the weaker Congressional support he received. After all, those who voted for Perot were still more likely to vote for Republican congressmen.

      There’s another aspect: Clinton was more like Romney, in that he was a politician who sought enough approval to stay in the White House. As a result, he was willing to bend closer to the will of the people.

      Does this mean it would be a good thing if Mitt Romney replaced Obama? I don’t know. At best, we can expect the situation to be unpredictable, with it likely favoring us rather than hurting us…but the future, it is always in flux, and thus difficult to see.

top