Santorum's Conservative Credentials Not Spotless

Rick Santorum is a faithful husband and devoted father.
Mitt Romney is a faithful husband and devoted father.

Rick Santorum supported a massive expansion of NATIONAL Goverment healthcare - Medicare Part D.
Mitt Romney supported a massive expansion of STATE Government healthcare - "Romneycare."

Rick Santorum opposes abortion and worked on the partial birth abortion bill in the US Senate.
Mitt Romney opposes abortion and as governor refused to sign a Massachusetts bill that would have allowed embryos to be created solely to be destroyed for medical research.

Rick Santorum openly campaigned against a true conservative in PA, for a liberal (Specter) whose victory and defection to the Democrats resulted in Democrat control of the Senate.
Mitt Romney campaigned as a moderate in order to bring some conservatism to a staunchly liberal state, MA, but as governor campaigned fiercely for conservative governors nationwide.

Rick Santorum supported voting rights for felons.
Mitt Romney supported permanent stripping of voting rights for felons.

Rick Santorum worked as a DC lobbyist for a giant health insurance company immediately after losing his reelection bid in PA.
Mitt Romney has never been a DC lobbyist.

Santorum is a good man and has worked for many conservative causes.  However, as the list above illustrates, GOP conservatives rallying to him are glossing over his liberal dalliances, much as they initially downplayed Newt Gingrich's open marriage proposals and philandering.  Why?  Because he is not Romney.

Perhaps conservatives should dig a bit deeper into Santorum's conservative credentials, and compare them with Romney's.  The contrast is not nearly as stark as the "he's not Romney" mob attempts to portray.

Clint Eastwood Uses Filmmaking Skills for Obama Infomercial

This morning I watched the Clint Eastwood Obama/Chrysler Bailout infomercial run during last night's Super Bowl.  I was horrified.  After a lifetime of conservative politics and active participation in Republican policies and elections, Clint is now shilling for President Obama in a campaign year, and using his considerable filmmaking skills and iconic voice to convince America that the current administration deserves another "half" in which to do more "rescuing" like the Chrysler bailout.

It is that bailout message that sickened me.  The portrayal of the bailout as some sort of national rally to rescue Detroit from a knockout financial blow was artful deception in devious form.  Most of us don't remember it that way.  There was no charity drive politely asking us to willingly donate to the Chrysler charity fund.  No one came to my door soliciting charitable donations to rescue our suffering "neighbors" in Motown.

No, the Government took our tax money and invested it in two car makers that most of us would not choose to invest in because they were failures.  Most of us would not willingly invest in car companies that make inferior products and then, not surprisingly, teeter on bankruptcy because of those inferior products and the financial strangulation of labor unions who make them.  Yet we all "rallied together" to save Chrysler?  Rallies require willing participants.  Taking our tax money and propping up companies that deserve to fail in a competitive market is forced investment, not a touching rescue effort. Clint, you helped make an Obama campaign propaganda ad.  How do you sleep at night?

Meanwhile, better-run American car companies, like Ford, that make higher quality products (see www.consumerreports.com) WITHOUT begging for taxpayer bailouts, are at a competitive disadvantage, paying for their own Super Bowl ads and investing their own capital into their product development and labor costs.  I watched Clint trying to sell the idea that the bailout was a good thing for Detroit and for me as a taxayer, and I was not buying it.  No one should.  I was severely disappointed that a Republican would support an Obama infomercial.  Not even Clint will ever convince me to buy from any company that needed taxpayer bailouts to avoid collapse and bankruptcy.

Pres. Obama to give Huge Swath of Permanently Occupied U.S. Back to Spain, Mexico.

@CapitalCloak: Israel should return to pre 1967 war border lines when the US returns to its pre-Spanish-American & Mexican-American war border lines. Shared via TweetCaster

As absurd as it may sound, yesterday President Obama urged Israel to give up land it won in the 1967 war from the host of nations and peoples who jointly attempted to wipe Israel from the map.  Never before in American history has a President given a speech containing more historical ignorance and word choice so blatantly designed to appease radical Middle Eastern anti-Semite regimes.  The President who thumped his chest in pride over making the "tough" decision to raid Bin Laden's compound a few weeks ago, has now embraced violating America's long-standing policy not to negotiate with terrorists.

The lead Palestinian organization, Hamas, is an avowed terrorist group, whose self-proclaimed mission is the destruction of Israel.  Yet, through his speech yesterday, President Obama has sided with Hamas against Israel by in effect demanding that Israel give the Hamas terrorists (and Fatah, and Hizbollah, and al Qaeda, etc) the land they've been suicide bombing Israel to cede for decades.  Giving terrorists what they want, after terrorists have been terrorizing Israel through suicide bombings and rocket attacks into civilian neighborhoods for so long, is worse than negotiating with terrorists.  It is surrendering to them.   In a few short weeks, President Obama has squandered the deterrent factor from a great victory over a terror mastermind, and is now jumping into bed with the terror mastermind's Palestinian cohorts. 

The U.S. has no record of giving our occupied territory back to nations we defeat in wars.  The Western U.S. was added after the Mexican-American War.  Wars with Native American Indians transferred more occupied land to the U.S. Government.  The Spanish-American War added territories and island protectorates to U.S. territory.  An American president demanding that tiny Israel, surrounded by hostile nations that want to see it eradicated, give fairly seized land back to the nations that attacked it in 1967 is more than a little ironic.  Has President Obama forgotten that Israel did not invade its neighbors in 1967?  Israel was the victim.  Israel pushed invading nations back behind their own borders and then maintained possession of the strategic border areas to be in better position to defend itself from future unprovoked invasions.

Terrorists will be emboldened by President Obama's mention of Israel's 1967 borders as a basis for a two-state solution with Palestinians.  The idea that the U.S. supports the notion of Israel being forced to cede lands it acquired during a war of self-preservation, will encourage Hamas and like-minded terror organizations to strike Israel with impunity, especially in these controversial border areas.  President Obama has invited attack on Israel, and Prime Minister Netanyahu rightly rejected Obama's short-sighted terrorist appeasement plan as "indefensible."

President Obama and Neville Chamberlain, separated by nearly 80 years, faced historic encounters with and stared down radical leaders and nations bent on annihilation of the Jews.  Both men blinked.  Both men appeased.  Both men suffered from delusions that appeasement brings peace in our time, or in any epoch of time.