PDA

View Full Version : Santorum surging in Polls



BonMallari
12-30-2011, 02:39 PM
is the social conservative wing of the R party starting to flex its political clout..Polls seem to suggest that Rick Santorum is surging as high as 3rd in some polls...As much as I consider myself leaning more socially conservative than many, I just dont want the socially conservative issues to over shadow the economy...IMHO social conservatives forget that in order to make the changes that they want to see,they have to win the WH and control both Houses of Congress along with maintaining a conservative slant to SCOTUS...

charly_t
12-30-2011, 03:07 PM
I'm fairly sure that I read that PETA and other animals rights group really like him........for what that's worth. I also heard that one "group" of animal rights people gave him a good donation.

This is one sight where I read a little last night not sure if this one is the right one and I'm too lazy ( death in the family last evening ) to hunt them all up again.

http://www.sleddogcentral.com/legislative/us_paws.htm

May not be current info however.

Nor_Cal_Angler
12-30-2011, 03:18 PM
is the social conservative wing of the R party starting to flex its political clout..Polls seem to suggest that Rick Santorum is surging as high as 3rd in some polls...As much as I consider myself leaning more socially conservative than many, I just dont want the socially conservative issues to over shadow the economy...IMHO social conservatives forget that in order to make the changes that they want to see,they have to win the WH and control both Houses of Congress along with maintaining a conservative slant to SCOTUS...

Not true....

We can do without a President......(not that I want that)

We only need both house's controlled............

Jake

BonMallari
12-30-2011, 03:53 PM
Not true....

We can do without a President......(not that I want that)

We only need both house's controlled............

Jake

not with the Veto power of the WH...could you ever see the scenario of BHO nominating a conservative jurist to SCOTUS, no way in Hades....

Nor_Cal_Angler
12-30-2011, 05:40 PM
not with the Veto power of the WH...could you ever see the scenario of BHO nominating a conservative jurist to SCOTUS, no way in Hades....

You miss the point and give the Presidency to much credit....

Sure he can veto bills,

AHHHH but alas....with control of both houses THEY CAN TOO.....

His agenda goes NO WHERE!!!!!

Stalemate regards,

Jake

Eric Johnson
12-30-2011, 10:51 PM
I'm fairly sure that I read that PETA and other animals rights group really like him........for what that's worth. I also heard that one "group" of animal rights people gave him a good donation.

...

May not be current info however.

A member of an email list that I am on concerning animal law has a member named Frank Losey. Frank is a retired AF colonel lawyer who is very active in Washington DC and has made a personal battle the defeat of the HSUS. Here's Frank's story about Senator Santorum and the PAWS bill...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

To all who have responded to my Calls to Action in the past, I wish to express
my heartfelt "THANK YOU!!!!!!"

And to those who are discouraged that all they receive are "boilerplate"
non-responsive responses, do not be discouraged. They have built a base upon
which "Tides may be Turned." Sometimes light bulbs will go off, and even some of
the Members of Congress who have co-sponsored or sponsored Bills pushed by the
HSUS may have unexpected "Epiphanies."

Allow me to share a form of a Christmas Story from 2006:

In 2006, the then Senator Santorum had held a hearing on the PAWS Bill that he
sponsored. He was in a Leadership Position in the Senate at the time and could
have pushed the Bill to a vote. But he didn't! And he let the Bill die!!!!!!!!
Why?

As Paul Harvey would say, "And Now the Rest of the Story!"

Earlier that year I had developed a professional working relationship with the
key staffer who was working the PAWS Bill for the Senator. Consequently, I had
the ear of that staffer, who had the ear of Senator Santorum. It took me a year,
but I finally convinced the Missouri Pet Breeders Association (MPBA) to Publicly
Condemn substandard kennels. When I shared this condemnation with the Staffer,
after the Hearing, he asked me if he could share the public condemnation with
the Senator. I said, "Why in the Hell do you think I am here? Of course you may,
and when you do, would you share with the Senator that every time he uses the
"PM" phrase, it is an affront to the overwhelming majority of breeders who are
responsible breeders who truly care about the health and welfare of their
puppies and dogs, and when they hear anyone use that phrase, responsible
breeders consider it to be the equivalent of an ethnic or racial slur. A week
later, Senator Santorum issued a Press Release and stated that the intent of
PAWS was not to adversely affect the overwhelming majority of responsible
breeders who care about the health and welfare of their puppies and dogs. AND HE
NEVER AGAIN USED THE "PM" PHRASE IN PUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A week later, Sara
Amundson, who at that time was the Chief Spokesperson for the Doris Day Animal
League, and now serves as the Executive Director of the Humane Society
Legislative Fund, and the Director of HSUS Stop Puppy Mills Campaign met behind
closed doors with the Senator, and "demanded" that if the Senator did not add
additional Provisions in the PAWS Bill, they would withdraw their public
support. To the credit of Senator Santorum, who was impressed with the MPBA
public condemnation, he told them that he would not add any other provisions,
and if they decided to withdraw their support, that was their call. They
withdrew their support, and the Senator let the Bill die.

This background is shared for two reasons. First, it captures the spirit of Hope
that is part of the Christmas Celebration. Second, it gives me this opportunity
to share with those on the PetLaw List that I have launched a new Call to Action
that does not mention Animals. Its focus is on bringing to the attention of
every Member of Congress the fact the the HSUS and its Senior Leadership are in
violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 because it and its Senior
Leadership have never registered as a Lobbying Organization or as Lobbyist, as
they are required to do. In short, they are in violation of the Law. The ASPCA,
which does less lobbying that the HSUS, has registered itself with Both Houses
of Congress. So why has not the HSUS?!?!?!?!?!?

And if enough constituents raise this issue with their respective Members of
Congress without ever raising the Issue of PUPS or any the animal related Bill,
it may place Members of Congress in an awkward position of trying to explain to
their constituents why no one is enforcing the Lobbying Disclosure Act. Yes, a
number will give "boilerplate, nonresponsive responses, but eventually a light
bulge will go off!!! And it might even result in a Few Members urging the HSUS
to register with Both Houses of Congress. But OOOOOOOOPS, if the HSUS were to do
so, will that fact be brought to the attention of the IRS or the Department of
the Treasury which has assigned a Case File Number to the Fraud Waste and Abuse
Complaint that it has received?!?!?!?!?!?!?

As soon as the Call to Action is posted on the Cavalry Website, I will post the
link, with a fervent request that if you have never responded to any of my prior
Call to Actions, this one should be given special attention.

Merry Christmas to One and All!!!!!!!!

Frank

charly_t
12-30-2011, 11:07 PM
Eric, many thanks for posting that. It does give a person some hope. I have written, called and e-mailed in the past. I hope that people are listening.

paul young
12-31-2011, 03:27 AM
You miss the point and give the Presidency to much credit....

Sure he can veto bills,

AHHHH but alas....with control of both houses THEY CAN TOO.....

His agenda goes NO WHERE!!!!!

Stalemate regards,

Jake

if you have been paying attention the last year or so, that's what is going on in DC now...... great, aint it!

careful what you wish for.......-Paul

Cowtown
12-31-2011, 09:00 AM
if you have been paying attention the last year or so, that's what is going on in DC now...... great, aint it!

careful what you wish for.......-Paul

I'll take a stalemate over socialism, skyrocketing debt and taking from producers and giving to degenerates any day.

Franco
12-31-2011, 09:17 AM
I'll take a stalemate over socialism, skyrocketing debt and taking from producers and giving to degenerates any day.

I'll second that!

Maybe one day we can have Free Markets and Capitalism too.

Uncle Bill
12-31-2011, 12:07 PM
Eric, many thanks for posting that. It does give a person some hope. I have written, called and e-mailed in the past. I hope that people are listening.


My thanks as well. It's clarified many of my thoughts on the subject. I too was into the 'letter' writing campaign to educate Then Senator Santorum about his 'lumped' thinking...putting conscientious puppy breeders in with the "puppy-mill" crowd. I got a similar answer from him.

Quite frankly, I believe his 'lagging' in the numbers is mostly due to his endorsement to his elder Pennsylvania Senator, Arlen Spector. Among the conservatives, he was a pariah. Other than name recognition, that 'might' be a reason for his lack of popularity. But then, as I listen to him today, he says primarily what I like to hear from a candidate, so I would gladly vote for him, should he make it through the primary. I'm not interested in his past 'baggage' as much as I am in his current views about what must be turn to turn this country around.

UB

paul young
12-31-2011, 12:09 PM
glad to hear that you and Cowtown like the status quo so much that you would enjoy another 4 years of it.

so, if it goes down that way......no bitc$ing!-Paul

Hew
12-31-2011, 12:19 PM
Paul, do you truly believe that an economic turn-around for the better will come as a result of something that politicians in Washington will do?

ErinsEdge
12-31-2011, 12:38 PM
Eric, thank you for posting that. I wrote letters against the Paws bill and remember Santorum was the sponsor. I couldn't understand how anyone could team up with HSUS and PETA and sponsor bills without looking into who and what they were and stood for.

paul young
12-31-2011, 01:02 PM
Paul, do you truly believe that an economic turn-around for the better will come as a result of something that politicians in Washington will do?

i think it's happening now. i admit that i thought it would "only" take 2 years, but i'm glad for any improvement. there are many good people and their families who need just a little improvement in the economy to make a big difference in their personal financial situation, so i am hopeful that recent gains will begin to build towards more substantial ones in 2012.

is it because of or in spite of what is going on in D.C.? i really can't say either way.

unfortunately, many on here DO NOT want things to improve in the near term so that their candidate has a better chance to succeed in the elections ahead. that's probably because most of us that post here are in pretty good shape financially and can weather a listless economy for another year or two.

vote any way you ( not referring to you personally, Hew) see fit, but don't wish continued hardship on people that are struggling just to further a political agenda.-Paul

M&K's Retrievers
12-31-2011, 03:03 PM
i think it's happening now. i admit that i thought it would "only" take 2 years, but i'm glad for any improvement. there are many good people and their families who need just a little improvement in the economy to make a big difference in their personal financial situation, so i am hopeful that recent gains will begin to build towards more substantial ones in 2012.

is it because of or in spite of what is going on in D.C.? i really can't say either way.

unfortunately, many on here DO NOT want things to improve in the near term so that their candidate has a better chance to succeed in the elections ahead. that's probably because most of us that post here are in pretty good shape financially and can weather a listless economy for another year or two.

vote any way you ( not referring to you personally, Hew) see fit, but don't wish continued hardship on people that are struggling just to further a political agenda.-Paul

I find it hard to believe that anyone would want people to suffer continued economic hardships just to get rid of the current POTUS as well as Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, etc. but I guess that element does exist. My fears reach far beyond just the economy. At 63, I'd like to think that they can't do much to me but those 5 grand kids that have been here this week may not enjoy the way of life we have all enjoyed if the current socialistic ideas are allowed to continue.

Nor_Cal_Angler
12-31-2011, 03:15 PM
I'll take a stalemate over socialism, skyrocketing debt and taking from producers and giving to degenerates any day.


I'll second that!

Maybe one day we can have Free Markets and Capitalism too.

Thank You....

Paul,

The point is not about keeping status quo with regards to the economy....but preventing status quo with regards to the socialist movement this president has...

A president will not be able to affect economic policy without one of the houses...

so I suggest...give me a republican president with one house....

or give me both houses with repubicans...

or hell give me a clean sweep!!!!!!!

either way status quo of this president will be done with!!!!!!!!!!

It isn't as if the REPUBLICANS have not submitted budgets, they have and have submitted substancial cuts to adjust for the budgets....

it is this TWO headed monster the Dem. Senate and Dem President that have controlled the outcomes.

Jake

BonMallari
12-31-2011, 03:28 PM
the next Presidential term will have at least TWO Supreme Court holes to fill (Ginsburg, Kennedy) does anybody really want to see BHO have the privilege of having FOUR SCOTUS members on his administration

if this court is unable to overturn the current Health Care law, then we are going to be stuck with it, just like Roe vs Wade....and then look out for the all out attack on the 2nd amendment

anything short of sweeping the WH, and both Houses is unacceptable...at least that what my vote will reflect

Hew
01-01-2012, 06:48 AM
i think it's happening now. i admit that i thought it would "only" take 2 years, but i'm glad for any improvement. there are many good people and their families who need just a little improvement in the economy to make a big difference in their personal financial situation, so i am hopeful that recent gains will begin to build towards more substantial ones in 2012.

is it because of or in spite of what is going on in D.C.? i really can't say either way.

unfortunately, many on here DO NOT want things to improve in the near term so that their candidate has a better chance to succeed in the elections ahead. that's probably because most of us that post here are in pretty good shape financially and can weather a listless economy for another year or two.

vote any way you ( not referring to you personally, Hew) see fit, but don't wish continued hardship on people that are struggling just to further a political agenda.-Paul
At a cost of $1 million + for every job created/"saved" by all of the stimulatin' that came out of Washington, I think it is safe to say that this administration specifically, and government in general, doesn't know dick about righting an economic ship. At minimum, had we (as in the govt.) done nothing at all, the economy would be no worse and we would have saved a few trillion dollars. "The best government is that which governs least." As true now as when Thoreau wrote it.

As for the rooting for economic failure....I don't see that from anyone but professional politicians/commentators. And if it is happening, that's certainly not any worse than those professional politicians who were rooting for our failure in Iraq.

Uncle Bill
01-01-2012, 04:49 PM
Much as I suspected, Rick Santorum's lack of 'enthusiastic' support is part of his history in backing Specter. Now that he's having a "surge" of sorts, the media is quick to point it out.

UB

Santorum Haunted by Support of Pro-abortion Specter



Saturday, 31 Dec 2011 07:06 PM
By Jim Meyers



http://www.newsmax.com/App_Themes/Newsmax/images/articlePage/clear.gif





Rick Santorum's endorsement of Arlen Specter, a strong supporter of abortion who gave President Barack Obama the key Senate vote to pass Obamacare, is becoming a key issue as the Iowa caucuses near.

Polls show that Santorum is seeing a last-minute surge in Iowa, but pro-lifers and pro-Christian groups are seeing red.

According to press reports, critics of Santorum have been handing out fliers and putting them on cars outside of Santorum events claiming that the former Pennsylvania senator is a "Pro-Life Fraud." The organization publishing the fliers identifies itself as "Iowans for Life."

A devout Catholic, Santorum has been a consistent advocate for pro-life issues, but he backed pro-abortion candidates in key political moves that could have benefited his own career.

The pro-life flier notes that Santorum has "a long and storied history of campaigning for radical pro-abortion candidates,” mentioning Santorum's strong endorsement for former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman and former fellow Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter.

Santorum seems most haunted by his 2004 decision to back the pro-abortion Specter in a Republican primary. Specter won narrowly, defeating his pro-life opponent Pat Toomey, and Santorum's support of Specter was cited as a key help to the liberal Specter.

“Santorum’s recent interventions on behalf of Arlen Specter are so bewildering,” Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, wrote in 2004 on National Review Online.

“Toomey’s voting record, especially on economic-growth issues, is very similar to Santorum’s and is as impressive as Specter’s is dreadful.”

Noting that the Citizens Against Government Waste ranked Specter as the “Pork Spender of the Year,” Moore wrote that, nevertheless, “Santorum is actively working to undermine Pat Toomey’s candidacy. He has discouraged donors from contributing to Toomey. He has cut TV ads for Specter that portray the senior liberal senator as a friend of the taxpayer.”

Santorum’s support for Specter proved crucial in the primary, in which Specter defeated Toomey with just 50.8 percent of the vote.

Conservative criticism of Specter appeared justified. Specter backed Obama's healthcare program — giving him the swing vote to pass the legislation in the Senate.

In 2009, Specter faced likely defeat in the GOP primary, once again challenged by Toomey. Specter decided to leave the Republican Party and ran for re-election as a Democrat. Obama backed him strongly.

Specter was defeated in the Democratic primary by Rep. Joe Sestak, who then lost the general election to Toomey.

Santorum paid dearly for his support of Specter, most observers agree.

In 2006, he ran for re-election and squared off against State Treasurer Bob Casey. Casey, a Democrat, received 59 percent of the vote to Santorum’s 41 percent — the largest margin of defeat ever for an incumbent Republican senator in Pennsylvania.

Some pundits said that Santorum's strong support for Specter, one of the Republican Party's most pro-abortion senators, had cost him his job.

Conservatives evidently have not forgotten Santorum’s perceived betrayal of their cause. Santorum has been dogged for weeks at campaign appearances for his support of Specter.

At a campaign appearance in Sioux Center, Iowa, in early December, fliers criticizing his candidacy were scattered around the site.

The flier read: “Why Rick Santorum is not fit to serve as President of the United States.”

It further stated: “It is well established that Rick Santorum aggressively campaigned for now-Democrat U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, one of the most pro-abortion Senators in the U.S. Senate — over a strongly pro-life primary opponent.”

Santorum told the gathering he supported Specter because he was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and promised Santorum that he would help usher in President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, according to Yahoo News.

However, Specter has flatly denied that he assured Santorum he would vote for Bush’s Supreme Court nominee in exchange for Santorum’s endorsement, saying “I never made any promises to Senator Santorum.”

Specter has been a consistent Senate supporter of abortion rights over several decades. Santorum himself has acknowledged that the endorsement was a mistake. At the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in April 2010, Santorum “apologized" for his support of Specter.

As Santorum's star has risen in Iowa, his conservative record has come under more scrutiny.

This past week, Texas Gov. Rick Perry began airing an ad attacking Santorum for being one of the biggest earmarkers in the Senate, even supporting the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere."

Eric Erickson, the head of the conservative blog Red State, has described Santorum as a big spender in the Senate, saying his record proved him to be a "big government conservative."





Read more on Newsmax.com: Santorum Haunted by Support of Pro-abortion Specter (http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Santorum-Haunted-Pro-abortion-Specter/2011/12/31/id/422684?s=al&promo_code=DD35-1#ixzz1iFWEFeEP)