What's this? A Republican candidate that actually WANTS to win rather than be considered nice or respectable by the MSM? Perhaps the crude taunting over the untimely demise of his little two hour old baby and his family's utterly human response to the tragedy has driven him over the edge.
Whatever it was, he's come out sufficiently strongly on the immigration issue to push himself from a D all the way to an A-, stronger than even Bachmann, who has dropped out of the race. With Huntsman out as well, the Republican field has marched in our direction a fair bit.
Santorum as a Senator had a B- overall, so this is, I suppose not a radical departure for him and apparently he has butted heads on occasion with the Catholic hierarchy over this issue.
Here's one recommendation for Mr Santorum: dial back the militancy of your rhetoric as regards foreign policy, especially on Iran. You don't have to go as far as Ron Paul, although I'd suggest you actually consider it, but I'd invite you to consider this question:
When was the last war that the US got itself involved in that was good for Christians in the area of conflict, before, during, or afterwards?
Iraq? No, Afghanistan? No....Libya or Egypt? Are you kidding me? Bosnia?
No, near as I can tell, the impact on Christians in the areas of conflict that the US chooses to involve itself in are almost invariably negative, generally amping up the level of persecution, sometimes to the point of near annihilation.
South Korea I think was the last conflict where the US getting involved actually helped Christians in the area of conflict. There's also this: Iran is a conflict that would have extremely grave repercussions on the global economy if it ignited with the strong potential for undesired escalation. Such affairs should be handled carefully because they carry the possibility of turning into genuinely existential matters.
Romney also appears to have inched upwards to a C+. This too is an encouraging development. Hopefully Gingrich and Perry will fall by the wayside soon.
Love is love?
1 day ago
I suspect some political bias on the part of NumbersUSA. Someone back there, behind the curtain, wants to influence the primary race and get a non-libertarian 'conservative' the nomination. They see Santorum's chance, and they have awarded him an 'A', hoping that buys him votes. Is that possible?
Also, they give Ron Paul an 'F', which is a bit unfair, and again I would float the idea of political bias against libtertarianism as a possibility.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who says he would work to end birthright-citizenship. Ron Paul clearly would not use the federal apparatus to bully Arizona (etc.) to repeal or severely curtail enforcement. He has repeatedly called for securing the border. And, significantly, Ron Paul would not start or continue wars or occupations that would lead to significant inflows of the conquered people ('imperial backwash'). Ron Paul looks to me like the best candidate on immigration, to me.
This man has an 'F' on immigration?
NumbersUSA grades Paul down significantly for not supporting either walls or E-verify. They give him points for birthright citizenship, which is one area where only he has a positive rating. On bullying states, pretty much only Gingrich is likely to do that (well, him and Obama). The Ron Paul of the 90s was considerably more solid, and was rated a lot better by NumbersUSA.
Has not Rick Perry come out in favor of the Bush-Obama-Gingrich Amnesty, too? He seems like the type to shove around the little [white] guy [trying to stop demographic disaster].
Rick Perry is awful on the immigration issue, think Bush 3.0. He pissed me and a lot of other folks off when he dropped the shaming language on the immigration issue on those of us who actually want to see the laws enforced. Fortunately, he just dropped out of the race today.
Update: As of the SC debates, Ron Paul has moved up to a D- per NumbersUSA. We'll see if things continue moving in the desired direction.
Post a Comment