Should we consider Santorum given that Newt and Romney make us vomit?

[Daniel Michael ben Avraham]

Given the sad state of affairs with the current lineup of Republican candidates I have decided to take a look at all of them on equal footing again.  I am no longer going to consider the "electability" factor that so many take into account first.  At this point I truly do not trust the electability of the so called front runners; besides, don't Newt and Romney both make us want to vomit.  Will we be able to honestly cast a vote for either of those candidates and sleep at night.  The honest answer to that question is simply HELL NO.  The truth is the most important issue is Israel.  There is no greater litmus test of a candidates morality than their support for Israel.  They either stand with Hashem or they do not.  Support of the Jewish people and not necessarily the government of Israel is what tells me what type of person they truly are.  Consider the following videos and tell me what you think.  I believe Santorum is the only candidate other than Huckabee that has ever expressed the kind of pro Jewish view we are looking for in a candidate.

[Daniel Michael ben Avraham]

Here is another one to take a look at.

[cjd]

Given the sad state of affairs with the current lineup of Republican candidates I have decided to take a look at all of them on equal footing again.  I am no longer going to consider the "electability" factor that so many take into account first.

What good is a candidate that has no chance of gaining the nomination or office.

[Rubystars]

I wish we had a really right wing possibility but we don't.

[Daniel Michael ben Avraham]

If the front runner is going to be a RINO or something like a Newt are you honestly prepared to cast that vote for their nomination?  I will not.  Besides things have swung so far one way and the other that I do not believe in the electability of any of the so called front runners.  It seems like a big media smoke screen to me.  Remember what happened with BHO.  Who would have thought that a socialist leftist black muslim of the appeasement type would have won after 911, but it happened.  Do will not count any of them out at this point.  If they stay in the fight who knows what can happen.

[Rubystars]

If the front runner is going to be a RINO or something like a Newt are you honestly prepared to cast that vote for their nomination?

My vote doesn't count in the primaries. By the time it gets to Texas, the nominee will already be decided. If one of them is a sure win already I may just vote for Bachmann since it won't matter anyway. Or if there's still a contention, which is very unlikely, I'll vote for whoever of the Rinos is least horrible if I can figure that out.

I will not.  Besides things have swung so far one way and the other that I do not believe in the electability of any of the so called front runners.

I will vote for the Republican nominee.

It seems like a big media smoke screen to me.  Remember what happened with BHO.  Who would have thought that a socialist leftist black muslim of the appeasement type would have won after 911, but it happened.  Do will not count any of them out at this point.  If they stay in the fight who knows what can happen.

It's really sad that the American people are so stupid as to vote in a Muslim.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

It's not that they're stupid so much as they don't care.

[Daniel Michael ben Avraham]

My vote doesn't count in the primaries. By the time it gets to Texas, the nominee will already be decided. If one of them is a sure win already I may just vote for Bachmann since it won't matter anyway. Or if there's still a contention, which is very unlikely, I'll vote for whoever of the Rinos is least horrible if I can figure that out.

I will vote for the Republican nominee.

It's really sad that the American people are so stupid as to vote in a Muslim.

I didn't mean not voting for the Republican nominee once selected.  I meant not voting for the supposed front runner Republican nominee for the Republican candidate elections not the presidential elections.  Gosh, I would never vote for BHO!

[Baltimore]

At this point Santorum has no chance. Unless the Trump debate really happens and he does well he will continue to have no shot and he will drop out after Iowa unless he comes in 3rd.

It is nice to see that the recent Gingrich news has increased the traffic on the English forum!

[Rubystars]

I didn't mean not voting for the Republican nominee once selected.  I meant not voting for the supposed front runner Republican nominee for the Republican candidate elections not the presidential elections.  Gosh, I would never vote for BHO!

My state has very little power in deciding this, most of the runners will drop out of the race before it gets here.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

I don't see how Santorum is any improvement at all.

[Daniel Michael ben Avraham]

I don't see how Santorum is any improvement at all.

So, you didn't view the videos then. 

View the videos and explain to me how his views on Israel are not a vast improvement over what the other candidates are touting.

[Dr. Dan]

So, you didn't view the videos then. 

View the videos and explain to me how his views on Israel are not a vast improvement over what the other candidates are touting.

Santorum says nice things and even said in the debate that the "West Bank" is still Israel's sovereign land.  The problem with him is that he has lost a lot of elections.  He is not electable.

[Daniel Michael ben Avraham]

Well, at least he can be supported by merit of his principals.  I just do not like the idea of supporting a candidate that has questionable principles simply because the media thinks they are "electable."  It gives me a bad taste in my mouth (so to speak).

[Dr. Dan]

Well, at least he can be supported by merit of his principals.  I just do not like the idea of supporting a candidate that has questionable principles simply because the media thinks they are "electable."  It gives me a bad taste in my mouth (so to speak).

You are right.  However, even chaim says he's a fraud. 

If we wanted to support someone on their principles for this election, Bachmann would be the person we would have endorsed.  However, you weren't here on this forum earlier in the year when we decided that it was better to go for someone that was also electable and halfway decent.  At that time we thought it was Perry until he imploded in the debates.

This late in the game, the truth is, we simply don't know for sure who to endorse.  It has changed direction a few times on JTF.  Chaim said that he will put up a poll later and gather a majority from the forum on which stance we should take.

At this point, after hearing the debate with Gingrich, I was impressed and pleasantly surprised by his stance on the middle east.  Again, can we trust him?  Is he even electable? 

The reality is, whomever the GOP will choose, we will endorse...because the goal is, for now, for Obama to lose.  The reason we aren't taking any strong stances on anyone at this point is because they all stink.

[briann]

Santorum has no money and no election savy, and unfortunately, that means he will not be a contender.

An Obama second term would be the most awful scenario imaginable, so we can't take any chances here, and we have to focus on whoever has the best chance to beat him.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

If I had to back a no-chance candidate it would be Bachman, not Santorum.

[Daniel Michael ben Avraham]

You are right.  However, even chaim says he's a fraud. 

If we wanted to support someone on their principles for this election, Bachmann would be the person we would have endorsed.  However, you weren't here on this forum earlier in the year when we decided that it was better to go for someone that was also electable and halfway decent.  At that time we thought it was Perry until he imploded in the debates.

This late in the game, the truth is, we simply don't know for sure who to endorse.  It has changed direction a few times on JTF.  Chaim said that he will put up a poll later and gather a majority from the forum on which stance we should take.

At this point, after hearing the debate with Gingrich, I was impressed and pleasantly surprised by his stance on the middle east.  Again, can we trust him?  Is he even electable? 

The reality is, whomever the GOP will choose, we will endorse...because the goal is, for now, for Obama to lose.  The reason we aren't taking any strong stances on anyone at this point is because they all stink.

Has Bachman made comments that are pro-Jewish like the ones I posted of Santorum or that were posted of Huckabee when he said there were no fakestinians?  I would like to see them.  I did not realize that Chaim said he was a fraud.  It would not surprise me, I was simply looking at the candidates pro-Jewish stance.  That is, a candidate that is against a fakestinian state in an form.  Is there any chance that we will ultimately see the Republican candidate hold that ground?  I hope so.  Of course I agree that right now the goal is to rid ourselves of BHO.  That goes without saying.  Of course I would vote for my cat rather than him, so that is a no-brainer.

[Dr. Dan]

Has Bachman made comments that are pro-Jewish like the ones I posted of Santorum or that were posted of Huckabee when he said there were no fakestinians?  I would like to see them.  I did not realize that Chaim said he was a fraud.  It would not surprise me, I was simply looking at the candidates pro-Jewish stance.  That is, a candidate that is against a fakestinian state in an form.  Is there any chance that we will ultimately see the Republican candidate hold that ground?  I hope so.  Of course I agree that right now the goal is to rid ourselves of BHO.  That goes without saying.  Of course I would vote for my cat rather than him, so that is a no-brainer.

For me, it is more important that Israelis decide their fate and not rely on what the united states thinks.  What is important for America is that its leaders bless Israel...if they curse Israel, America will be cursed. And Gd will choose His curse appropriately.  The only reason I would want an American leader that is truly pro-Israel is for America's sake and not Israel's sake.  Israel only has to rely on Hashem to be protected. 

[Daniel Michael ben Avraham]

Well spoken and true indeed, but it sure wouldn't hurt.

I agree completely, if the U.S. turns its back on Israel then this country is DONE.  That is a sad fact that I hope the citizens of the U.S. avoid.  It is within their power to choose right over wrong and I hope they do.

[Dr. Dan]

Well spoken and true indeed, but it sure wouldn't hurt.

I agree completely, if the U.S. turns its back on Israel then this country is DONE.  That is a sad fact that I hope the citizens of the U.S. avoid.  It is within their power to choose right over wrong and I hope they do.

The truth is that Israel doesn't need America nor any other country...it's the other way around.

[eb22]

I don't see how Santorum is any improvement at all.

Even under the assumption that Rick Santorum is an improvement,    the following article demonstrates that when push come to shove,    Rick Santorum is closer to Mitt Romney when it comes to political correctness than he is to Newt Gingrich.   Santorum's response in the debate was also along these lines.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/santorum-calls-gingrichs-palestinian-comment-provocative-106754.html

Santorum calls Gingrich's Palestinian comment 'provocative'
/10/11 1:36 PM EST Rick Santorum, at an appearance pre-debate in Iowa, jabbed Newt Gingrich for his "invented" Palestinians comment, per POLITICO's Ginger Gibson:

Taking questions from the three reporters who attended the event, Santorum carefully responded to Newt Gingrich's recent remarks that Palestinians are an "invented people."

Santorum said the U.S. should continue to be a strong ally of Israel.

"It doesn't mean we should do something provocative that makes it harder for them to get an agreement with the folks they're negotiating with," Santorum said, referring to "people" and "folks" and avoiding the term "Palestinian."

Santorum has hardly been dovish, and his remarks illustrate the extent to which Gingrich's rivals see an opening over his comments aired Friday in advance of the anticipated slugfest at Drake University tonight.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Exactly, which is why I was left scratching my head as to why Daniel supports him.

[eb22]

Exactly, which is why I was left scratching my head as to why Daniel supports him.

There's someone who I know and respect who also is a strong supporter of Rick Santorum.   Granted,    on the surface,   Santorum makes some good statements.     He also seems to have good positions on the Iran issue:     But when push came to shove in 2004,     Santorum showed that he wasn't a true Conservative.    He supported Arlen Specter for re-election in 2004 instead of supporting a much better Republican candidate in Pat Toomey.    Thankfully,   Toomey defeated Specter in the Republican primary in 2010.     But in part because of Santorum,    Specter had 6 more years to cause damage in the U.S. Senate:



http://libertylinked.com/posts/7872/remembering-rick-santorum/View.aspx

REMEMBERING RICK SANTORUM, ARLEN SPECTER, AND PAT TOOMEY -- BY DONNA GARNER -- 7.30.11
Blog Entry in Donna Garner's Blog

“Remembering Rick Santorum, Arlen Specter, Pat Toomey”

by Donna Garner

7.30.11

 

Here is what really happened in the 2004 Pennsylvania U. S. Senate race between Arlen Specter and Pat Toomey. 

 

Toomey had been a proven conservative member of the U. S. House (1999-2005) and had a 100% pro-life record as well as being considered an expert on fiscal responsibility.  (He later became the president of Club for Growth -- 2005-09.)

 

Arlen Specter was a RINO of the worst order and was pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-amnesty, pro-gun-control, and pro-affirmative action.  Specter voted against the confirmation of Judge Bork (1987), one of the greatest legal scholars in America and a judge who believed  in relying upon the original intent of those who wrote the U. S. Constitution.   

 

Specter also voted against the impeachment of President Clinton (1999) even though clear evidence was presented that showed Clinton had perjured himself and had obstructed justice.  The House voted to impeach Clinton, but the Senate Democrats joined by such RINO’s as Specter voted against impeachment. 

 

The other U. S. Senator from Pennsylvania between 1994 - 2006 was Rick Santorum. In 2004, even though conservatives from Pennsylvania and from all across the country begged Senator Rick Santorum to support Pat Toomey for Specter’s U. S. Senate seat, Santorum decided to support Specter for re-election to the Senate, following the lead of President G. W. Bush and Karl Rove.  Toomey lost by a mere 1.7% margin. 

 

If Santorum, Bush, and Rove had supported Toomey, he would undoubtedly have been elected Senator; and Specter would never have become the chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 

 

Several days after Specter won his re-election to the Senate, basking in his upcoming appointment as chair of the Judiciary Committee, he announced that he would use a litmus test to block any pro-life federal judges; and he did just that.

 

What this whole incident involving Santorum taught me is that when it came time to support conservative principles during a very high-profile, “crunch-time” or else to go along with the Republican political machine, Santorum chose the latter.  I cannot seem to wipe this out of my memory about Rick Santorum. 

 

I want to support a conservative candidate for President who will have the courage to stand no matter what the polls say, no matter how the “wind blows,” no matter what the Republican political machine may say, no matter how difficult and impossible the task ahead may look. 

 

I need to see actions instead of rhetoric.  My candidate for President must have a record of success showing that he or she will not back down on those important conservative principles that must not be compromised away.  Yes, there is a time to compromise but not when compromise will destroy the basic tenets upon which our nation is founded.

 

A dear friend once said, “I have never yet seen a RINO who will stand up to the Democrats.”

 

Donna Garner

[email protected]

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Arlen Sphincter was worse than most Democrats. A real piece of camel excrement.