• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Conservative Disclaimer (re: Romney)

ksu_aviator

Democrats are the fascists
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
7,414
Reaction score
2,761
Location
Your Head
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
As much as I would prefer either Santorum or Gingrich over Romney, it appears that Romney will win the nomination and the Presidency. In the event that that is the case, I'm creating a disclaimer for all conservatives. Think of it as a way of separating our ideals from his.

As a conservative I hereby acknowledge that my political values do not align with Mitt Romney (here in after referred to as Obama Lite). I will stipulate that some of Obama Lite's actions and some of Obama Lite's aspirations have a conservative lean. However, no conservative would ever sign a piece of legislation that forced citizens of a state, county, city or the United States to participate in an industry against their will, as has Obama Lite. Nor could a conservative ever claim that the right to life of any individual is subjugated to any other individual pending the arrival of a birth date. In light of such actions and the pending election of Obama Lite, I retain the right to only agree with Obama Lite on the issues where he is actually right. I also retain the right to exclude his term as President of the United States from any discussion of the effects of his policies with regards to conservatism. Obama Lite is not a conservative and I will not recognize him as such.
 
As much as I would prefer either Santorum or Gingrich over Romney, it appears that Romney will win the nomination and the Presidency. In the event that that is the case, I'm creating a disclaimer for all conservatives. Think of it as a way of separating our ideals from his.

Who exactly does this appear to?
 
As much as I would prefer either Santorum or Gingrich over Romney, it appears that Romney will win the nomination and the Presidency. In the event that that is the case, I'm creating a disclaimer for all conservatives. Think of it as a way of separating our ideals from his.

"As a conservative I hereby acknowledge that my political values do not align with Mitt Romney (here in after referred to as Obama Lite). I will stipulate that some of Obama Lite's actions and some of Obama Lite's aspirations have a conservative lean. However, no conservative would ever sign a piece of legislation that forced citizens of a state, county, city or the United States to participate in an industry against their will, as has Obama Lite. Nor could a conservative ever claim that the right to life of any individual is subjugated to any other individual pending the arrival of a birth date. In light of such actions and the pending election of Obama Lite, I retain the right to only agree with Obama Lite on the issues where he is actually right. I also retain the right to exclude his term as President of the United States from any discussion of the effects of his policies with regards to conservatism. Obama Lite is not a conservative and I will not recognize him as such. "
Okay... first off, you sound like an uninformed whack-job... so I am probably wasting my words here... but I will give you the benefit of doubt, and suggest to reason with you about your response.

It shocks me that you would profess to be a "conservative", and prefer Santorum or Gingrich to Romney based on that principal.

For Santorum, he voted in favor of numerous tax raises, and for the creation of several key spending programs, the worst of which was likely his active support to pass Medicare Part D, which has cost the US Taxpayer dearly. Medicare Part D is one of the major reasons that the debt has grown faster under this president than any other. Santorum as well backed his buddy, Arlen Spector, the liberal. Santorum, despite espousing numerous narrow-minded social views (like women shouldn't be allowed to serve in combat), etc., is not actually a conservative. His recent comments against Puerto Rico becoming a state if it didnt declare English it's official language only show his complete ignorance as far as the Constitution goes. You would think as a lawyer he would know better. Furthermore, English is an official language in Puerto Rico. However, his stupid inflamatory comments just essentially all but alienated the Puerto Rican vote in Florida, and ceeded FL to Obama in the general election. Great move sweater vest... :roll:

Gingrich likewise came into a balanced budget, and instead the size of that budget increased every single year of his tenure, before stepping down in scandal. The Gingrich Congress was known for inaction, and only to step in to waste taxpayer money fighting Clinton over a BJ... He has been traveling the country promising the moon, citing JFK as an inspiration, and proposing big spending program after big spending program while attempting to pander to local audiences. This current $2.50 cent gas ploy is as ridiculous as it gets, since there is no way the president could set gas prices... It's a free market entity, unless Gingrich once again has let the cat out of the bag, that he prefers government intervention instead of free market principals. Gingrich is no conservative, he only calls himself one. Unlike Santorum he can't even claim the "social conservative" thing, since we've all seen his behavior with the women he has associated with.

Romney on the other hand has consistently over his career, including his time as Governor of MA, cut spending, increased private sector growth, downsized government, cut taxes, balanced a budget, fired numerous useless executives and eliminated their positions from the government, etc. Romney has an actual record of conservatism to run on.

Romney's plan CommonwealthCare is often misunderstood as being a Government run healthcare system... Don't let idiots like Rush Limbaugh and his little pet Rick Santorum fool you. It is clearly not! Romney's plan was about reducing a Free Care coverage pool which was costing taxpayers $715M annually. What his plan said, is that you're not gonna sit around and not have health coverage, then suddenly when you get sick go to the hospital and stiff taxpayers with the bill. His plan increases personal responsibility and private health coverage. Those are conservative principals. The alternative was the government paying for free loaders. When CommonwealthCare was instituted as Romney designed it, that $715M uncompensated care pool was eliminated, and the new fund which was reduced by $300M.

Despite Santorum's persistent claims, it is not top down government run healthcare. It is slight government oversight of a private based personaly owned private health coverage system, w/ the addition of potential to buy into a partially government subsidized healthcare collective if you make under like $17K/yr, or $23K/yr if you have children (they continually keep changing the numbers on that so dont quote me there).

Despite Santorum's persistent claims that he is the "true conservative", he clearly is not, as he has his seat handed to him on a platter in the Arizona debate. The "true conservative" in the race is Ron Paul, who espouses every conservative principal.

However, as many of you would indicate, you are more than likely to the left of Ron Paul on the political spectrum. Thus, it seems so shocking then that you're willing to go after Romney for not being an ultra-conservative, because he has broad appeal and reaches out to mainstream Republicans not just the vocal right wing that only represent 12%.
 
As much as I would prefer either Santorum or Gingrich over Romney, it appears that Romney will win the nomination and the Presidency. In the event that that is the case, I'm creating a disclaimer for all conservatives. Think of it as a way of separating our ideals from his.

As a conservative I hereby acknowledge that my political values do not align with Mitt Romney (here in after referred to as Obama Lite). I will stipulate that some of Obama Lite's actions and some of Obama Lite's aspirations have a conservative lean. However, no conservative would ever sign a piece of legislation that forced citizens of a state, county, city or the United States to participate in an industry against their will, as has Obama Lite. Nor could a conservative ever claim that the right to life of any individual is subjugated to any other individual pending the arrival of a birth date. In light of such actions and the pending election of Obama Lite, I retain the right to only agree with Obama Lite on the issues where he is actually right. I also retain the right to exclude his term as President of the United States from any discussion of the effects of his policies with regards to conservatism. Obama Lite is not a conservative and I will not recognize him as such.

No one cares about your bull**** pledge, or your bull**** pet names. Sorry.

Here's a news flash, you're so partisan and political that you think you have to put out a statement where you retain your right to your own thought. Really? Am I to take this to mean all the other times you stated an opinion or supported a candidate that it wasn't your own thoughts you were sharing, that it wasn't your own opinions? Congratulations you're a drone.

You've always had the ability to think or disagree with your party, the fact that you feel you need to lay out a statement when you disagree as if it is something special or rare makes me think you can't think for yourself. Why don't you break your attachment to the party line and star thinking for yourself.
 
Romney on the other hand has consistently over his career, including his time as Governor of MA, cut spending, increased private sector growth, downsized government, cut taxes, balanced a budget, fired numerous useless executives and eliminated their positions from the government, etc. Romney has an actual record of conservatism to run on.

Ah, well, not quite. Romney did not cut taxes overall. What he did was drastically jack up fees (a form of taxes) to make it appear that he wasn't raising taxes, which resulted in an overall tax hike. Romney hiked fees faster and farther than any governor in the country and second place wasn't even close. Did he balance the budget? Yes, like every MA governor he was required to by law. I agree that Romneycare is the same thing as Obamacare, but I don't think that conservatives will take solace in that.

Was Romney opposed to cap and trade as you suggested in another thread? No, not really. He was very involved in the creation of the NE cap & trade program. He backed out at the last minute ... after he had decided to run for President. Did he back out because he thought it would be too expensive, as he claimed? Or because he knew it would be toxic in the Republican primaries? That's a matter of opinion.

In terms of job growth, MA was 47th in the nation during Romney's tenure. Not exactly something to brag about.

Other hot-button issues: Romney campaigned on, and signed into law an assault weapons ban. He also doubled the fee for gun permits. On abortion, he said that he was personally opposed to it, but that he would not seek to impose his views on the electorate.

Romney had an approval rating in the low 30s when he left office.
 
Romney is, on the other hand, the poster boy for conservative economic principles.
 
Romney is, on the other hand, the poster boy for conservative economic principles.
That is BS! Is having a trade war with China, conservative economic principles? Is increasing taxes and spending like he did in Massachusetts, conservative economic principles? Is Romneycare conservative? Is increasing spending, and increasing deficits at a national level like Romney wants, conservative economic principles?

An economic conservative would want to reform entitlements, so we can get people off entitlements. An economic conservative would want to reduce costs for mandatory programs, such as medicare and medicaid. An economic conservative would want to reduce costs of the health care system, so more people can afford buying health care themselves. An economic conservative want to liberate trade, not restrict it.

What does Romney want? Romney is just the poster boy for the 1% and the current GOP establishment.
 
Last edited:
The repubs collectively have sour themselves in the foot too many times over the last 3 years. once the final nominee is decided the Obama campaign machine simply has to go on the offensive like they did in 08 and the masses will east it yup AGAIN

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
Ah, well, not quite. Romney did not cut taxes overall. What he did was drastically jack up fees (a form of taxes) to make it appear that he wasn't raising taxes, which resulted in an overall tax hike. Romney hiked fees faster and farther than any governor in the country and second place wasn't even close. Did he balance the budget? Yes, like every MA governor he was required to by law.
Romney cut taxes. He cut spending He cut the size of the government.

As a MA state worker we are still cutting the size of the government today to comply with Romney's standing executive order for consolidation of resources.

Yes, he updated the fees for government services. He didn't raise them. What he did is apply the same fees that were applied long ago to match current inflation, going back in some cases to 1974 without being raised. Thus the same fee was applied as it was initially intended when the service fee was created. The state was losing money because the costs had risen with inflation, but fees had not. Thus, he was closing loopholes and getting rid of freeloaders.

Dont give me this required by law BS, you can be required by law to do it, but several before and after him had failed at the proposition. He accomplished the feat in 2 yrs, turning a $2B deficit into a $2B surplus.

You act like, oh since he wont be required to do so as President that he wont... Of course he would apply the same principals to do both. Though, we all can agree the federal debt is a much larger piece of work than a $2B deficit. I dont think he will have it eliminated in 2 yrs, but we can both be fairly certain that a Romney presidency would include straightening out the US spending, eliminating the deficit, and attempting to pay down the debt.

I agree that Romneycare is the same thing as Obamacare, but I don't think that conservatives will take solace in that.
I dont agree that CommonwealthCare is the same thing as Obama Care. CommonwealthCare was designed as a means of combating a federal regulation which required them to provide service, but did not necessitate health coverage. It did so legally, forcing private responsiblity. When put in place it was going to save taxpayer money. Obamacare is a violation of the US Constitution. It is also going to be a huge cost expenditure, in a time when we are infinancial crisis.

I have no doubt that Romney would try to repeal Obama Care, even if just nominally on the grounds that he knows how much of an expense it is going to be in the budget he will be attempting to balance...

However badly Santorum wants to point to RomneyCare as goverment run healthcare, his active participation in creating Medicare Part D will cost the US taxpayers FAR more in government run healthcare than ObamaCare and CommonwealthCare combined.
Was Romney opposed to cap and trade as you suggested in another thread? No, not really. He was very involved in the creation of the NE cap & trade program. He backed out at the last minute ... after he had decided to run for President. Did he back out because he thought it would be too expensive, as he claimed? Or because he knew it would be toxic in the Republican primaries? That's a matter of opinion.
That's not factual. Someone Romney appointed to look into envronmental means of stimiluating economic growth suggested and worked out the deal for cap and trade. Romney has never been in favor of Cap & Trade, even in his most liberal of moments. Romney is the son of a Detroit auto-maker. He was not going to come out in favor of capping emissions on manufacturers in a time when growth is needed. Only Romney's opponents have conjured up this scheme that he only changed his mind on it later on when looking nationally. He had already looked nationally when he ran against Kennedy in 94! He never said, go try and work out a regional cap and trade program for New England.

In terms of job growth, MA was 47th in the nation during Romney's tenure. Not exactly something to brag about.
The only positive numbers for job growth in MA in a 12 year period were under Romney. Both his predicessor and his successor have lost jobs.

You have to figure a whole different dynamic in MA. The cost of living is so high, since its such a thickly settled and well established area. Add in the weather trouble.

The people who are boasting job growth in their states are in places like North Dakota, Utah, Texas, NC, etc. Where land is dirt cheap and there werent all the existing declining markets in place when new jobs were created.

You look around the state, and most of the cities were founded on industries which have long since faultered. Textile Mill manufacturing, Ship building, whaling/fishing, arms manufacturing, etc. Then when you look to the financial firms who all moved much of their basic operations to the midwest where land is cheaper, you can see why many jobs were being lost.

However, what really killed Romney's administration was a backlash against "liberal MA" in the selective process of base closures. Much like Nixon tried to punish MA by closing the Charlestown Naval Base, Rummsfeld hated MA and closed 5 bases in MA, and many bases all around NE. The economy had recovered for the most part in MA, then suddenly the base closing left so many veterans out of work, and those who serviced the veterans who inhabited those areas as well.

Still, under Romney's watch, the two numbers which were major crisis numbers when he arrived were the loss of population and the loss of jobs. He stemmed both those tides, leveling out in the first year, and then even recovered positive numbers.

Other hot-button issues: Romney campaigned on, and signed into law an assault weapons ban. He also doubled the fee for gun permits. On abortion, he said that he was personally opposed to it, but that he would not seek to impose his views on the electorate.

As he shouldved. Theres a real problem with urban violence in many areas across this country. Boston, Springfield, New Bedford, Brockton, Lowell, Fitchburg, etc. (you know the mill cities which no longer have working mills) all have problems with increased gang violence. Theres a huge difference between a right to bear arms, and actively killing innocent civilians. Those are criminals, and that's a way to pursue criminals for their actions. I agree that is not the most conservative stance, but I never once said he was the most ultra conservative human ever created. He is a moderate conservative for that and many other reasons.

As far as not seeking to impose views on an electorate, that's what the constition states as his purpose, as the executive. It's also the true conservative principal. Conservative = less government intervention, not government intervention when it suits someone's beliefs.

However...

THOSE ARE NOT HOT BUTTON ISSUES ATM... THE HOT BUTTON ISSUE RIGHT NOW IS THE MOUNTING FINANCIAL CRISIS!!!

Perspective here... atm, who cares about any of these social agenda issues that Obama and Santorum want to distract people with. Priority number #1 is relaxing government restrictions to promote growth. #2 is fixing the budget deficit, #3 is paying down the debt... I can't even see for 1 second where any of these side distractions matter in comparison.

Romney had an approval rating in the low 30s when he left office.
Romney's low approval rating was because 1) MA Repubs thought he was focused elsewhere on a national race, and 2) this is liberal MA, where 70% of the population persistently votes democrat.

However, you saw what occured during the primary when he won with 72% of the vote. Thats a clear indication of what conservatives in MA think.

Let's also keep another point of perspective here.

The race isn't who is the most conservative candidate. The race is who can best defeat Obama, and who can best turn around the problems the country is facing.

Romney consistently proves he appeals to a far broader audience than any of his opponents. That's what will also be of assistance to him in the general election.

He also consistently shows up as the best performing Republican against Obama, thus, if you want to get a conservative in the White House, you better get behind Romney, in order to oust the communist in chief, Premier Obama....
 
Okay... first off, you sound like an uninformed whack-job... so I am probably wasting my words here... but I will give you the benefit of doubt, and suggest to reason with you about your response.

It shocks me that you would profess to be a "conservative", and prefer Santorum or Gingrich to Romney based on that principal.

For Santorum, he voted in favor of numerous tax raises, and for the creation of several key spending programs, the worst of which was likely his active support to pass Medicare Part D, which has cost the US Taxpayer dearly. Medicare Part D is one of the major reasons that the debt has grown faster under this president than any other. Santorum as well backed his buddy, Arlen Spector, the liberal. Santorum, despite espousing numerous narrow-minded social views (like women shouldn't be allowed to serve in combat), etc., is not actually a conservative. His recent comments against Puerto Rico becoming a state if it didnt declare English it's official language only show his complete ignorance as far as the Constitution goes. You would think as a lawyer he would know better. Furthermore, English is an official language in Puerto Rico. However, his stupid inflamatory comments just essentially all but alienated the Puerto Rican vote in Florida, and ceeded FL to Obama in the general election. Great move sweater vest... :roll:

Gingrich likewise came into a balanced budget, and instead the size of that budget increased every single year of his tenure, before stepping down in scandal. The Gingrich Congress was known for inaction, and only to step in to waste taxpayer money fighting Clinton over a BJ... He has been traveling the country promising the moon, citing JFK as an inspiration, and proposing big spending program after big spending program while attempting to pander to local audiences. This current $2.50 cent gas ploy is as ridiculous as it gets, since there is no way the president could set gas prices... It's a free market entity, unless Gingrich once again has let the cat out of the bag, that he prefers government intervention instead of free market principals. Gingrich is no conservative, he only calls himself one. Unlike Santorum he can't even claim the "social conservative" thing, since we've all seen his behavior with the women he has associated with.

Romney on the other hand has consistently over his career, including his time as Governor of MA, cut spending, increased private sector growth, downsized government, cut taxes, balanced a budget, fired numerous useless executives and eliminated their positions from the government, etc. Romney has an actual record of conservatism to run on.

Romney's plan CommonwealthCare is often misunderstood as being a Government run healthcare system... Don't let idiots like Rush Limbaugh and his little pet Rick Santorum fool you. It is clearly not! Romney's plan was about reducing a Free Care coverage pool which was costing taxpayers $715M annually. What his plan said, is that you're not gonna sit around and not have health coverage, then suddenly when you get sick go to the hospital and stiff taxpayers with the bill. His plan increases personal responsibility and private health coverage. Those are conservative principals. The alternative was the government paying for free loaders. When CommonwealthCare was instituted as Romney designed it, that $715M uncompensated care pool was eliminated, and the new fund which was reduced by $300M.

Despite Santorum's persistent claims, it is not top down government run healthcare. It is slight government oversight of a private based personaly owned private health coverage system, w/ the addition of potential to buy into a partially government subsidized healthcare collective if you make under like $17K/yr, or $23K/yr if you have children (they continually keep changing the numbers on that so dont quote me there).

Despite Santorum's persistent claims that he is the "true conservative", he clearly is not, as he has his seat handed to him on a platter in the Arizona debate. The "true conservative" in the race is Ron Paul, who espouses every conservative principal.

However, as many of you would indicate, you are more than likely to the left of Ron Paul on the political spectrum. Thus, it seems so shocking then that you're willing to go after Romney for not being an ultra-conservative, because he has broad appeal and reaches out to mainstream Republicans not just the vocal right wing that only represent 12%.
He didn't say they were perfect, only more preferable because they are well, MORE CONSERVATIVE. which is a fact. Deal with it.
 
As much as I would prefer either Santorum or Gingrich over Romney, it appears that Romney will win the nomination and the Presidency.

Romney may win the nomination, but he won't win in November.

True conservatives will stay home or vote third party if Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee.
 
May I respectfully ask what a "true conservative" is that Romney is not? He seems "conservative" to me, but I've never been clear on defining what a "true conservative" is, for all I know I might be one.

Please, no anger, just an explanation. Thank you.
 
May I respectfully ask what a "true conservative" is that Romney is not? He seems "conservative" to me, but I've never been clear on defining what a "true conservative" is, for all I know I might be one.

Please, no anger, just an explanation. Thank you.

Have you ever heard of RomneyCare?

Romney has a liberal track record from when he was governor of Massachusetts.
 
OK, but surely the "true conservative" concept can't be built around a single topic like health care. If you are a "true conservative" does that mean you are against health care? That can't be (I think).

Have you ever heard of RomneyCare?

Romney has a liberal track record from when he was governor of Massachusetts.
 
Romney's low approval rating was because 1) MA Repubs thought he was focused elsewhere on a national race, and 2) this is liberal MA, where 70% of the population persistently votes democrat.

However, you saw what occured during the primary when he won with 72% of the vote. Thats a clear indication of what conservatives in MA think.

He WAS focused elsewhere. He was also a ****ing LIBERAL during his tenure as governor of this Communistwealth. We were a MORE LIBERAL state (health care and gay marriage) at the end of his tenure than we were at the beginning. The fact that you Libs didn't love him has always made me laugh. He was a better Liberal than most of the legislators you folks keep electing.

The race isn't who is the most conservative candidate. The race is who can best defeat Obama, and who can best turn around the problems the country is facing.

Romney consistently proves he appeals to a far broader audience than any of his opponents. That's what will also be of assistance to him in the general election.

He also consistently shows up as the best performing Republican against Obama, thus, if you want to get a conservative in the White House, you better get behind Romney, in order to oust the communist in chief, Premier Obama....

The race is most definitely about who is the most Conservative candidate, because if the Republican Party does not nominate a Conservative, they will lose the National election in a landslide unlike anything we've seen since Reagan. Romney would simply be another version of Obama. He has ZERO Conserservative credentials. The fact that he has broad appeal tells me that there is nothing about him that I could ever agree with.

If Romney is nominated, the Republican Party will be dead in the water.
 
OK, but surely the "true conservative" concept can't be built around a single topic like health care. If you are a "true conservative" does that mean you are against health care? That can't be (I think).

It means you are against the Government being involved in health care. It's a PRIVATE issue, not a Government issue.
 
I understand but surely health care isn't the only subject. Could you be for government health care but otherwise greatly conservative? I'm trying to understand what conservative means overall. Is Ron Paul Conservative? Is Santorum Conservative? Is my question making any sense ;-) ?


It means you are against the Government being involved in health care. It's a PRIVATE issue, not a Government issue.
 
As much as I would prefer either Santorum or Gingrich over Romney, it appears that Romney will win the nomination and the Presidency. In the event that that is the case, I'm creating a disclaimer for all conservatives. Think of it as a way of separating our ideals from his.

This is always so humorous. It really does prove it is irrelevant what a politician does, only what he says at the moment. Santorum in his past and voting record is actually the most liberal of the 4. He voted for the federal government to outlaw all state right-to-work laws playing kiss-ass with union bosses, voted for deficit increased budgets over 2 dozen times. He never voted to cut the budget. 100% of the time he voted to increase the cost and size of the federal government. He originally was pro-choice. He voted to double the size of the Department of Education. He voted to expand Medicare. He has voted for foreign aid.

Those are not conservative principles and exactly opposite what he SAYS he will do. In short, Santorum now rages that he won't be the politician he always has been.

Santorum, the conservative? What a joke. He claims he is exactly the opposite of exactly how he always voted in the Senate, spouts of extreme religious rightwing slogans, and everyone agrees he's ultra conservative.

Santorum reproves P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute." It now would appear that most of those become Republican.
 
I understand but surely health care isn't the only subject. Could you be for government health care but otherwise greatly conservative? I'm trying to understand what conservative means overall. Is Ron Paul Conservative? Is Santorum Conservative? Is my question making any sense ;-) ?

True Conservatism is a Pass/Fail concept. One cannot be Liberal on any particular issue and still be a Conservative. It's a 100/0 issue. Santorum is closer to being a Conservative but neither of them is truly a Conservative.
 
joko, Santorum is the closest to being a Conservative that the Republican Party is offering at the moment. He is not a True Conservative, but he is as close as the party is offering. That means most of the conservatives in the party will support him. Of course those of us who are True Conservatives won't support any of them.
 
Romney may win the nomination, but he won't win in November.

True conservatives will stay home or vote third party if Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee.

The Republicans have made it impossible to win the White House in November.
 
joko, Santorum is the closest to being a Conservative that the Republican Party is offering at the moment. He is not a True Conservative, but he is as close as the party is offering. That means most of the conservatives in the party will support him. Of course those of us who are True Conservatives won't support any of them.

He is quite the skillful salesman anyway, a real con artist.

Ron Paul is certainly the most "fiscal conservative," to his extreme degree. Within normal range, though, it certainly is Gingrich and he has the record to back that claim up. Santorum has used "social issues" (ie religion) to divert from his actual record quite skillfully.
 
I think this is why I am confused about being "conservative". If I had to define myself, I would say that I might be a "fiscal conservative" but I'm also a "Social Liberal". We really need a third party, don't we?
 
Okay... first off, you sound like an uninformed whack-job... so I am probably wasting my words here... but I will give you the benefit of doubt, and suggest to reason with you about your response.

It shocks me that you would profess to be a "conservative", and prefer Santorum or Gingrich to Romney based on that principal.

For Santorum, he voted in favor of numerous tax raises, and for the creation of several key spending programs, the worst of which was likely his active support to pass Medicare Part D, which has cost the US Taxpayer dearly. Medicare Part D is one of the major reasons that the debt has grown faster under this president than any other. Santorum as well backed his buddy, Arlen Spector, the liberal. Santorum, despite espousing numerous narrow-minded social views (like women shouldn't be allowed to serve in combat), etc., is not actually a conservative. His recent comments against Puerto Rico becoming a state if it didnt declare English it's official language only show his complete ignorance as far as the Constitution goes. You would think as a lawyer he would know better. Furthermore, English is an official language in Puerto Rico. However, his stupid inflamatory comments just essentially all but alienated the Puerto Rican vote in Florida, and ceeded FL to Obama in the general election. Great move sweater vest... :roll:

Gingrich likewise came into a balanced budget, and instead the size of that budget increased every single year of his tenure, before stepping down in scandal. The Gingrich Congress was known for inaction, and only to step in to waste taxpayer money fighting Clinton over a BJ... He has been traveling the country promising the moon, citing JFK as an inspiration, and proposing big spending program after big spending program while attempting to pander to local audiences. This current $2.50 cent gas ploy is as ridiculous as it gets, since there is no way the president could set gas prices... It's a free market entity, unless Gingrich once again has let the cat out of the bag, that he prefers government intervention instead of free market principals. Gingrich is no conservative, he only calls himself one. Unlike Santorum he can't even claim the "social conservative" thing, since we've all seen his behavior with the women he has associated with.

Romney on the other hand has consistently over his career, including his time as Governor of MA, cut spending, increased private sector growth, downsized government, cut taxes, balanced a budget, fired numerous useless executives and eliminated their positions from the government, etc. Romney has an actual record of conservatism to run on.

Romney's plan CommonwealthCare is often misunderstood as being a Government run healthcare system... Don't let idiots like Rush Limbaugh and his little pet Rick Santorum fool you. It is clearly not! Romney's plan was about reducing a Free Care coverage pool which was costing taxpayers $715M annually. What his plan said, is that you're not gonna sit around and not have health coverage, then suddenly when you get sick go to the hospital and stiff taxpayers with the bill. His plan increases personal responsibility and private health coverage. Those are conservative principals. The alternative was the government paying for free loaders. When CommonwealthCare was instituted as Romney designed it, that $715M uncompensated care pool was eliminated, and the new fund which was reduced by $300M.

Despite Santorum's persistent claims, it is not top down government run healthcare. It is slight government oversight of a private based personaly owned private health coverage system, w/ the addition of potential to buy into a partially government subsidized healthcare collective if you make under like $17K/yr, or $23K/yr if you have children (they continually keep changing the numbers on that so dont quote me there).

Despite Santorum's persistent claims that he is the "true conservative", he clearly is not, as he has his seat handed to him on a platter in the Arizona debate. The "true conservative" in the race is Ron Paul, who espouses every conservative principal.

However, as many of you would indicate, you are more than likely to the left of Ron Paul on the political spectrum. Thus, it seems so shocking then that you're willing to go after Romney for not being an ultra-conservative, because he has broad appeal and reaches out to mainstream Republicans not just the vocal right wing that only represent 12%.

1. I never claimed Gingrich or Santorum are perfect, just that I would prefer them to Obama Lite
2. Obama Lite usurped the rights of the citizens of Mass. for the will of the government. That is unforgivable.
 
It is foremost local, county and state government that pays for indigent medical care now. ANYONE can go into the primary hospital emergency room and receive free medical care. There already is free universal medical care for that reason. However, while the federal government requires this, the federal government doesn't pay for it. So local and country government pays for it by adding it to property taxes of homeowners and commercial property owners.

Actually, what he tried to do (and failed) was to take the tax burden for indigent medical care from being solely paid via property taxes - as ALL states have free indigent care and it is paid for (that local/county level) by property taxes. Many jurisdictions even have a special line for "hospital district" on their property tax statements and that can be thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per year. The goal (again failed) was that people would pay for their OWN health care (ie insurance) rather than force others (ie property and homeowners) to pay for other people's medical care.

However, if you are a socialist and believe people wealthy enough to own a home or commercial property should be forced to pay for everyone else's free medical care, yes you would hate what Romney tried to do.
 
Back
Top Bottom