Share This Article with a Friend!

ConservativeHQ Chairman Richard Viguerie Endorses Santorum

Upon returning from a meeting of some 150 leaders of the conservative movement hosted by longtime social conservative leaders Nancy and Paul Pressler at their ranch outside of Houston, Texas, ConservativeHQ Chairman Richard A. Viguerie issued the following statement endorsing former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum for President.

“This past weekend I attended a meeting of some 150 conservative leaders, convened primarily by leaders of the social conservative movement, to assess whether social conservatives and other conservative movement leaders and activists might coalesce behind one Republican candidate for President.

“Contrary to some media reports of bitterness, suspicion and acrimony at the meeting, in my 50-plus years in conservative politics at the national level I have rarely seen a gathering conducted in such a spirit of good will. While many of the participants came to the meeting strongly, even passionately, committed to one or another candidate, all of us participated in the meeting with the greatest mutual respect and in the prayerful hope for a positive outcome.

“My definition of a positive outcome from the meeting was that the conservative movement would coalesce behind a good candidate. I went to the meeting supporting Rick Santorum, but was prepared to support and work for the consensus candidate, whoever that turned-out to be. The strong support shown for former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, whom I have concluded is the most electable conservative seeking the Republican nomination for President, is a positive outcome.

“After two ballots the group had narrowed the field to former Senator Rick Santorum and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich with Santorum leading. On the third and final ballot a number of Gingrich supporters, in a principled effort to achieve unity, switched their support to Rick Santorum. This resulted in a strong 75 percent consensus of the group in support of Senator Santorum’s candidacy.

“This was not an anti-anyone meeting. Everyone there was united in their commitment to find the best candidate to defeat Barack Obama. We are long past trying to find the perfect candidate who achieves 100 percent on every conservative scorecard. Each of the major Republican candidates had their articulate advocates, but after the third ballot it was clear that there was a strong consensus behind Rick Santorum.

“The group consensus was based on Rick Santorum's character, his principled stands on the issues of life, family, and the conservative agenda in general -- and most importantly on his judgment. I urge you to join me in supporting Rick Santorum as the most electable conservative in the race for the Republican nomination for President.

Share this

Meaning of "Neocon" in response to dcfriedm

I have many issues with your comments, but the only one to which I will respond is the inaccurate definition you gave the term "neocon".  This is in NO WAY a code word for jew.  It is a term that describes in one word a philosophy influenced by Leo Strauss and promoted by his intellectual followers.  Ron Paul discusses neoconservatism in his book "Liberty Defined" within the chapter titled "Noble Lie".  His belief is that the ideas stemming from Strauss' influence "are quite frightening and when accepted can only lead to consequences that are hazardous to morality and political stability.  These views are based on absolute rejection of trust in free society.  Unless they are refuted, only tyranny can result."  Dr. Paul goes on to give specific examples of the ideas the permeate the neoconservative philosophy:

"*The elite have a responsibility to deceive the masses; *Rulers are superior and have a right and obligation over those who are inferior; *A cynical use of religion is important for delivering the message to a compliant society, arguing that his prevents individuals from independent thinking; *External threats unite the people; fear is a necessary ingredient for success.  According to Machiavelli, if an external threat does not exist, the leaders must create one; *This unites the people and they become more obedient to the state.  Neoconservatives argue that this is in the best interest of the people since individualism is basically evil and the elite must meet their obligation to rule the incompetent; *Religion, lies, and war are tools used by the neoconservatives to suppress individualism and fortify a ruling elite.  These views in various degrees and on certain issues is why individualism is under constant attack and why the philosophy of the Founders has been so severely undermined.  Neoconservatives will always deny they believe in these principles (part of their noble lying) since it would blow their cover; *They actually do the opposite, claiming title to superpatriotism, and anyone who disagrees with their wars and welfare schemes is un-American, unpatriotic, nonhumanitarian, against the troops, and on and on."  pgs. 214-215 

Your criticism of Ron Paul and attempt to label him an anti-semite is disgusting.  You really have no right to criticize anyone else for their passion considering the immorality of your ad-hominim attack.

As far as Richard's endorsement of Santorum goes, I disagree with him and believe he has made a mistake.  I love this publication, though, and appreciate his fairness and the quality journalism provided by both him and the staff.



I have to say that reading the comments here has been an appalling experience. As usual, the Ron Paul supporters are the nastiest, not seeming to understand that berating and attacking people is not the way to get them to your side. The worst of all was the evident anti-Semite who accused Rick Santorum, a Catholic, of being a "neo-con" (code word for Jew) and an "Israel-firster." Such comments demonstrate the accuracy of the belief that a large chunk of Paul's supporters are anti-Semites.

One of the few good comments was the extensive list of Rick Santorum's non-conservative votes. I would quibble with two or three of the items on the list, but that still leaves dozens of indicators that he is not a small government conservative.

The criticism of Sarah Palin for teaming up with RINO John McCain and suggesting that Rand Paul would never do something like that demonstrates a total lack of understanding of how politics works and a demand for ideological purity at the expense of success. Does anyone doubt that even McCain would have been better than Obama? And if he had won, then Palin would have been positioned to become the GOP nominee for president in either 2012 or 2016, becoming only the fourth conservative nominee since Calvin Coolidge (Landon, Goldwater, Reagan).

The anger in these comments is really noteworthy. None of the current candidates for president is a conservative. The only two who were were Bachmann and Cain, so whomever you are supporting is a compromise. It's a bit ridiculous to get so angry at people for making a different judgment of how that compromise should be made.

It is true that for libertarians, Ron Paul does not represent a compromise, unless you are a libertarian who believes in a strong national defense. But getting nasty towards those who have a somewhat different view from you accomplishes nothing. Libertarians tend to insist (oddly) on ideological purity with their interpretation of libertarianism, one of the reasons I left the LP and now call myself a libertarian conservative (think Goldwater).

I don't particularly support any of the remaining candidates, because none of them excites me. I was enthusiastic (with reservations) about Cain, satisfied (with reservations) with Bachmann, and dissatisfied with the rest of the field. If Richard Viguerie wants to support Santorum, there are arguments for that, as well as arguments against. I'm not sure what I would do if I needed to support someone publicly.

Think Goldwater? The guy who

Think Goldwater? The guy who said in effect that extremism in defense of liberty is not a vice. Meaning do not compromise or dilute or fade away or flip-flop or play the game.  

Santorum is nothing but a RINO!

Santorum is no more "conservative" than Newt, Mitt, or any other RINOs trying to pull the wool over our eyes again. This is potentially THE most important election in a hundred years, and it's time to quit having to choose between the "lesser of two evils!" Because EVIL  is still EVIL! Electable? Just because a bunch of Evangelical RINOs inTexas think he's a "real conservative?" ROFLMAO!

OMG... This is the funniest joke column on the internet!!

You mean Santorum - who a great majority of people HATE so much that they successfully redefined his name?! Santorum who polls the worst in general election polls against Obama?! Santorum - who can't even win in a state he went to EVERY SINGLE COUNTY in?!?! 

LOL... Richard... this is absurd.

Ron Paul is the only true constitutionalist - Ron Paul is the only true conservative.

A Conservative keeps his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution - Only Ron Paul has a career proving this.
A Conservative holds true the values of the founding fathers - George Washington clearly pointed out that interventionism would lead to trouble and the past 100 years have proven him right; only Ron Paul sticks to this value.
A Conservative believes in Strong National Defense - the National Defense under Ron Paul would remain strong while ending the waste of money and precious life that weaken it.
A Conservative believes in a limited federal government and empowered local governments - only Ron Paul's policies would return the nation to those values.

I could go on - but anyone who's honest with themselves about these issues would see the truth.

Besides - how the hell can you support one of the most corrupt politicians in congress? 

Just before the voters of PA kicked him out of office, Santorum accepted more money from lobbyists than anyone else in congress. In his final year, he got more than Hillary Clinton and Tom Delay combined!

Rick Santorum was one of The Most Corrupt Politicians in Congress according to CREW - on that SAME list there were multiple Democrats, proving CREW was not a democrat-biased organization!

11 Pages of Hard Evidence of Rick Santorum's Corruption in Congress:

Taking money from corporations to pass bills, Being a Senator in Pennsylvania and living in virginia, Taking money from schools to put his own children through private school, etc. etc. 

Ron Paul

Hey Mr potatoe head, r.paul is a crackpot definitely NOT a Constitutionalist and you are just as screwy as he is.  


When are all of you stupid Paulites going to be honest and admit that Ron Paul is not a conservative but rather a libertarian. Paul has admitted so himself in the past several times. We conservatives are absolutely sick of all you Paulites trying to hijack our conservative movement with your libertarianism. Just as Buckely threw out the Birchers in the 1960s from the conservative movement, the same thing now needs to happen with syncophant Paulite libertarians. Get the hell out of our movement! You don't belong here!

Get Out!

It would be better to start including people if you want to build support. It's rather difficult to convince people to support a cause (your cause or anyone else's) by throwing people out of a movement (your movement, our movement, my movement, anyone's movement).

Thank you for being so polite.

"The heart of conservatism is libertarianism" Ronald Reagan

Apparently, conservatism now means "fight unwinnable wars against undefined enemies until we go bankrupt, with the option of indefinitely detaining the people when they protest their hunger and loss of freedom."

We libertarians, the ones who still believe in the vision of the founders and the Constitution you so love trampling, we who heard and understood Ron Paul's call to return to a Constitutional Republic, want no part of what you now call conservatism.

Good luck ever getting elected again without us.

PREACH, Pepper...

I agree; Conservatisim IS Libertarianism.  The Republicrats & Neocons, with the overwhelming help of the mainstream tv and radio 'news' media, have hijacked and redefined the term for their own political ends, but the essence of it falls squarely in the LIBERTARIAN catagory.  I've never, EVER met a Republican Conservative, and it irks me no end when some leftist Democrat says "You Conservatives..."when they mean Republican Neocons, and some hawkish Republican Neocon says "We Conservatives..." when they mean Republicrats.  It makes me crazy sometimes.

I don't get Richard...I thought he WAS Conservative.  But to support the likes of, I just don't get it.  He definitely threw me for a loop on this one.  I'm very disappointed in him; it appears that he's bowing to the "Anyone But Obama" syndrome without considering that Sanitation will be AS  BAD as Obama.  Perhaps worse. 

One thing's for certain: If Sanitation is the Republican Nominee, Conservatives will abondon the party en masse.  Obama will win inna cake walk.

Joke, right?

You are kidding, right?  Santorum?  Oh well, so much for HQ being conservative.

Rick Santorum?

Rick Santorum? I guess I misunderstand the meaning of conservative. All these years of thinking I was a Republican. I have been a dutiful veteran of the armed services and loyal constitutionalist. I am now learning that my belief system is a myth. I almost fell from my chair the first time I heard Dr. Paul speak. I didn't know that there was a Politician out there that thought the way I did. Now I have come to realize that being a conservative isn't what I though is was. Just as everything else I always believed to be true, is false, so too is my political belief system. Once more, a trip to the polling place to vote for a repugnant choice of the lesser of two evils?  Dole or Clinton, Bush or Clinton, McCain or Obama. Santrorum? This is wrong.

More of the Same

You can only think that this meeting in Texas was of people who have adopted the title Conservatiive like Socialists call themselves Democrats, It's typicalo aftyer seeing the defense fundung bill discussed at last night's debate and not one candidate, even Ron Paul, pointyedc out that rthe b ill violates and changes the Constitutuon and, as a result, is null and void. Think about how stupid the average voter is and then realize that half of them are stupider than that. Nothing illustrates this more than this endorsement.

We Shall Defend Conservatisim or Live a Libertarian Nightmare

Thank God, Richard.  I was convinced that your site was a tool for Libertarian ammoral idiocy, judging by the consistant robotic "support" for Ron Paul -- an egotistical phony "conservative" in need of a straight jacket and a padded cell.  His minions obviously dominate this supposedly conservative site, and so much so that I was just about ready to delete my account. Nobody in their right mind would want that libertarian fool anywhere near real power.   Santorum is not perfect, but he is good enough to do the job -- and he actually holds moral principles -- unlike Paul and his pathetic followers.

No country, no government, no society—and no individual—may claim the authority to divorce personal morality from government.  While individual human beings each possesses free will to choose right from wrong, yet none may ever claim a "right" to choose wrong, no matter the circumstance.

Morality and civics are inseparable.  Both are requisite aspects of the temporal order, as ordained by Divine authority.  Each requires the other’s spirited participation; else chaos and societal collapse soon prevail.   Human society is only as good as the individuals that form its lesser parts.  If in any culture where the people are morally corrupt, those faults overshadow, and eventually seduce the society as a whole.   Under such conditions the government of that society must fall, for it is no more than a composite of the individual parts.

Many participant writers to Conservative HQ promote or condone moral indifference towards principals that are fundamental within the greater conservative movement.  They foment resistance to objective cultural norms.  Their rationale is that moral imperatives must be subordinate to fiscal concerns.  However, this is opposite to the truth: objective morality is necessary to right fiscal chaos.   Prudence, and regard for the right order of human society, demands we not ignore the divinely ordained restraints on personal and public behavior.  History proves the root cause of national distress is the moral decay of the culture.   Almost without exception, moral bankruptcy precipitates financial collapse, and therefore objective norms of morality must take precedence in civil deliberations, no matter their context.  History consistently teaches this axiom:

 "But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint." –Edmund Burke

"Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith."Alexis de Tocqueville

"The fool who has not sense to discriminate between what is good and what is bad is well nigh as dangerous as the man who does discriminate and yet chooses the bad."Theodore Roosevelt

A  Catholic attorney correctly summarized the failings of the libertarian philosophy thus:  Libertarianism has to do with maximum individual freedom, without restraint or limitation.  The libertarian principle is thus antithetical to the concept of morality.  This is not to say that individual libertarians are not moral people; but they are moral people only insofar as they are acting inconsistently with libertarianism.  They are good folks because they are bad libertarians.

Edmund Burke understood quite that liberty – not license, but true liberty – was connected to moral order, to the linking of people together by the bonds of custom, tradition, religion, fellow-feeling and virtue.  Absent those qualities, individuals are incapable of governing themselves and the state must rise to provide order and security for the populace.

Burke's point is that morality – embraced by the individual but also reflected in the public institutions and laws of a given culture – must have a role in the public square, otherwise tyranny will lurk at the door until an opening arises.   Libertarianism makes this situation more likely, not less.  Rather than being a guard against tyranny, libertarianism makes the collapse of freedom more likely, not less, by replacing liberty with license and eroding the connections between people that are essential for both personal and private morality.

In this, libertarianism shows forth its origins as an ideological movement, grounded not in the preservation of rights and duties traditionally understood, but rather the dogmatic erosion of civic community and social order necessary for the concepts of rights and duties to exist within the interactions of human beings with each other. 

The entire idea of libertarianism is self-refuting.  Again, this is not to say that individual libertarians are incapable of virtue or devoid of moral conduct.  It is to say that insofar as they are virtuous and moral, it is because they are not really libertarians.

End citation.

Ron Paul and his followers shun transcendent imperatives in favor of a nebulous “fiscal conservatism,” their libertarian vision of utopia that is in truth liberalism; but objective morality is nonnegotiable.  The irony of Paul is that his abandonment of its principles works to embolden those individuals whose bad actions will precipitate further fiscal disruption!    Paul imagines will he restore free market capitalism, if only genuine conservatives will shut up and remain complacent to a further subversion of America’s cultural mores—those limits that constitute the very requisites for ordered liberty, and thus prosperity.    How then shall our markets remain “free” without a public bulwark of moral restraint?   By such rationale slavery and human trafficking must have free reign, for they might serve some sector of the market.  Ron Paul – champion of unfettered prostitution, drug use, sodomy and abortion—claims these destructive practices an issue of states’ rights.  A more profound absurdity was never so boldly asserted.

This pursuit of moral severance, advanced by Paul and his cadre of libertarian “revolutionaries,” while calculated to defeat those who openly desire our enslavement, will prove to impose further bondage on American society; because such severance fails to recognize and uphold the immutable laws prescribed by the Divine author of all human society.   In effect, Paul and his minions kill the spirit that the body may live – and yet, without the animating moral spirit, the body dies.   

The failure of an allegedly conservative site to defend objective moral principle, pretending that the Constitution can operate in a moral vacuum, is intellectually dishonest at best, and suicidal at worst.   When the conservative hierarchy is willing to tolerate opinions as deranged as those of Congressman Paul, then a fatal flaw in discernment exists in its leadership. This error, unchallenged and unchecked, will affect such a pernicious influence as to eventually undermine the Constitution.  The irony is tragic.

You are an ignorant twit

.. in DESPERATE need of reading the constitution - OUR LAW.

I'll give you just ONE example of your failure to understand reality THAT MORALITY IS NOT LAW IN THIS NATION:

Article 6, final line:
"but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. "



This post is absolutely so correct and brillant. Thank you for heading the nail on the head when it comes to the difference between conservatism and libertarianism.

Thank you, sir

Mr. Viguerie:

Thank you, sir, doing the right thing in supporting Rick Santorum for President.  I'm sure you, like me, have a number of reservations about Rick - but there are no perfect candidates in this race.  Rick comes the closest to the Constitutional Conservative principles that I (and you, I believe) have supported since the day of Ronald Reagan, when I first joined the fight.  

I'm sure you expected the backlash from the Paulites.  Often, I have found that Libertarians  cannot see past their own interpretations of philosophy and history - or simply their desire to indulge in their own vices.  It is a weakness that separates them from Constitutionalist Conservatives - on both accounts.  I know your dedication to smaller government, and your principled commitment to the defense of this nation as well.  Constinue to stand firm on those precepts.


Ron Paul is conservative as

Ron Paul is conservative as long as he is talking about the US economy. When he gets to foreign policy he is way left of Obama. His foreign policy views are childish and silly. Therefore he is not fit to be President of the US. Newt Gingrich, even though I don't like all about him, is the best and I believe the most electable of all the candidates. He is without doubt the strongest debater of everyone including Obama, who can't speak without a TelePrompTer. He articulates my beliefs much better than the rest, and there is no doubt but that he is far better than what we have now. Therefore, I support Newt over the rest. Romney is the establishment darling, which will, in the long run, not be much different than what we have now. The establishment has the notion that he will gain more Dumbocrat votes than the rest thereby not only helping him but hurting them at the same time. The end result, though, is that you wind up with a lot of the same mess we now have. What we need to do now, IMO, is to elect Newt and a majority in the Senate and extend our majority in the House, and those we elect should be strong patriotic conservatives like the other Tea Party elected people, for the most part, are.


Richard,besides being voted in the top three corrupt Senators two years in a row,the guy wants to attack Iran.China and Russia have stated unequivocally that they will defend Iran if they are attacked.In your mind,what other countries would also come to the aid of Iran,or at least send troops?We do not need some hothead starting Wold War three!We are crippled economically,our education system is in chaos,and one or two generations with no work skills because all the jobs have been outsourced.

Keep repeating the liberal talking points

So you are good at repeating the talking points from CREW and other Soros-funded groups -- No soap here, pal.

CREW Listed Corrupt Democrats as Well

Why not try doing some actual research into what you're being fed before you vomit it back up like the worthless bile it is.

Read the following ELEVEN PAGES of hard evidence of Rick Santorum's corruption - and if you can tell me still that you believe he's not corrupt... well I've got 11 acres of ocean-front real estate in colorado to sell you.


So you were toying with us

So you were toying with us all this time Richard?  How pathetic.                                                              

  "Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein."    ~Proverb

Once Again

conservatives have been betrayed

Disagreement with Your Endorsement of Santorum

Dear Richard and Staff:

     I disagree with your endorsement to the extent that it does not take into account the future general election against President Obama and his re-election team with all its incumbent power its power to propagandize and its proven unsavory if not potentially criminal efforts they will twist, distort and ultimately subject the nation to abuse in continuing their blind pursuit of power. 

    I support former Speaker Newt Gingrich. I think your Santorum endorsement is short-sided and myopic in its search for the "purest" conservative. While you may believe that the lilly-white Santorum is a winner based on his "consistent" conservative values he proported exudes, I believe he is not tough enough nor articulate enough to make this case to the larger public.  While he may be the darling of the pure right and those who police the politicization public religeous faith,  American politics is about a) a concrete and scholarly prepared vision for the American future; b) being able to communiticate this to the public not in esoteric or epheminal terms or in simple concrete paractical terms and as such be able to win the so-called "communication's battle" or contest of propaganda and counter-propaganda; c)  more so, the boxing ring aspect or tug and pull --tournement toughness and iron jaw needed to fight in the political arena and finally d) the ability to execute and implement the concrete  policy of the campaign in the context of the normal political culture and insitutitonal rigor of the American system of politics---convert the campaign promises into law within the civil rule of law without value compromise or surrender in the process. 

    In each case I believe in the main, Newt Gingrich has proven abilities to capture and exceed perfromance na executionof all these above four principles...and as such deserved far greater consideration for your endorsement. You have obviously endorsed Santorum for his evengelical qualities and are obviously punishing Gingrich for his personal life..... You cannot challenge me on these points I make.   In particular I argue that Santorum is a late-comer to the process and lacks concrete ideas which are pre-prepared. For example US energy policy in my opinion trumps eveangelical appeal.  What is Santorum's energy policy ? Newt identified this a national securilty long agao (like 2006) endorsed an open race for energy self-sufficency in the same year or by 2007;  for example he was the first in SPring 2007 to endorse the neophyte Sarah Palin as an energy policy-maker long before the rest of the nation knew who she was.  There are many issues like this and education freedoms and equal treatment protection policy issues of slight but in reality profound contrast in conservatism between theroy and practice and between Santorum and Newt. 

   As to b),  Gingrich outpolls all the candidate on his ability to articulate an speak. Your lack of endorsement displays a shortsided ness on this.. Yes Santorum is the "perfect conservative; but Gingrich can articulate conservative prinicples much better in a much more mature veterab style.  Santorum has stuck up for conservative values; I believe ginrgrich has a better record in active practical politics than the Fmr PA Senator.  (An example of what I mean is the difference of a Ronald Reagan or a Mark R. Levin in articulation conservative and cosntitutional principles relative to a William F Buckley--the later, whose massive ego and desire to impress and mark every exchange with his mastery, or show off his vast intellect often convoluted, confused, lost or clouded clear cut issues and made it in his lifetime conservatism and consitituionao conservatism unintelligible and on face snobish, non-conformist, uncomfortable or kooky to the vast uninteeligent mass of body politic) . Further Santorum "is shrill" and "looks green" and lacks the rhetorical firepower in debate and in speach....I am reminded of the initial (first an last) appearence in debate of fomr Rep. Rick Lazio versus Mrs Hillary R Clinton in the NY Senate campaign and his "sign this pledge" stalking of Mrs Clinton and shrill performance which was mocked by her outright and continually over the campaign and immediately condemned in the media---in short Lazio lost his race right there.  Santorum appears quite ripe for the same  performance and treatment literally being mocked by the Satan-like Obama and his followers. I understand this is a close call on record of conservatism, but I go with Gingrich's razor sharp articulation ability as compared to the inexperience of the less crafty Santorumm. In short on this point Gingrich may not please you in perfect conservative rhetoric but hes not doubt the closest thing to a practicing conservative ingovernment since the days of Reagan and say a Jack Kemp or other figure of that era.  

    More over, I argue if conservativism and constitutional conservatism indeed wins the day  you need the best legislative leadership in place to undo all of Obama's and his regime entrenched and stealth policies. Gingrich is tough enough to fight this fight and purge the government of all fat and decay of the past.  He knows how to navigate major legilsation and consitutionally. Santorum as perfect as his rhetorical or theretical conservatism may be to you evangelicals.....his sole contribution would be Newt's ability to manage the legilsative and court fight and winn the communications war after election.

     I understand the turmoil the you and the group of evangelicals went through to emerge with this endorsement ( this has been repoorted publically with those in that meeting on like-minded media sources for ex. Laura Ingraham).  I am praying for this nation also.....But you need a good general and good leutenants.  This single minded endorsement and its timing is suspect.  You want your side to win; likewise I folloinwg Gingrich since his days at America Solutions years ago, respect and want I only hope this doesnt preclude their support of  a Gingrich candidacy should he emerge victorious..  

   I am in fear that your single minded or deterministic apporach that only the most evangelical  person can lead is dangerous in this most important election. It frankly reminds me of blind faith ideologues in economic determnism which has blinded the right and elft in to horrible practical reality when place in political-insitituional terms like Commmunism and/or Corporatismm, Facism or Islamic Jihad in the extreme. Im sorry I but as a loyal consitituonal conservative I disagree with your choice.....   


Gingrich & Santorum = jump ball

Gingrich & Santorum both have itchy hair-fingers when it comes to nuking Iran.  During the several debates they appear to be the 'Bobsi-twins' as they are so similar in their views.

Newt Gingrich has belonged to the socialist CFR which is working to achieve a NWO as long or longer than Alan Greenspan, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Rupert Murdoch & George Soros.  Neocon Newt is about as conservative as RINO's Juan McCain, Dick Lugar, Orin Hatch or Lindsey Graham... the same for Santorum.

Hence it'd be a jump ball to decide between voting for Gingrich or Santorum.

Face it, there's only one candidate who's a constitutional conservative who can back it up via his record... and that's Ron Paul. 


You MUST now take down the banner at the top of the page "The online news source for conservatives and tea partiers commited to bringing SMALL GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTIONAL conservatives to power". RICK SANTORUM??? BIG SPENDER, BIG GOVERNMENT SANTORUM?!?!? You have completely discredited yourself Richard.

I don't get it

"ConservativeHQ Chairman Richard Viguerie Endorses Santorum"

Who gives a rats ass who Richard Viguerie endorses, or who anyone else endorses?

There are some really important issues that only the right person that you vote for has to overcome, so you better decide for yourself based on his/her history, not on a group of sheeple who get together to decide who is electable.

If you want more of what has been going on in the Whitehouse, House, and Senate, then listen to the sheeple who more often than not have an agenda that makes their decisions for them, and give endorsements to make their personal agendas come true.

Speaking of agendas, I guess I have one also. A president who will:

Make decisions, and actions based on the Constitution

Eliminate the Federal Reserve, and back our money with Gold

Eliminate the deficit - Curtail wasteful spending -

Stop being the worlds policemen - minding our own business - Bringing the troops home to defend our shores and at the same time save the lives of the men/woman who serve.

Send the Czars to the unemployment line - Eliminate agencies that take our freedom to decide what we eat - grope us and our children at airport check stations - Harrass farmers, and other food producers for selling food that isn't injected, infected, and stuffed with homones and antibiotics.

Eliminate the NDAA which allows citizens to be detained without cause.

Eliminate big government altogether - Recognize states rights

Much more, but you get the picture. Now think in those terms for picking a president who will do what is needed.

Which of the candidates based on his history, and voting records would qualify?

There is only one, and mainstream media has been trying to block him out.

WTFU, this isn't a class president election, your future depends on it.




Santorum and the CHQ staff

As I sit here writing this response, I am mystified by the right hand column that plainly says "Reclaim the Constitution." The irony of your supposed support of our Constitution, while endorsing more big government and an undoubted expansion of the unconstitutional powers of POTUS that Santorum espouses, is beyond comprehension. I am a Viet Nam vet, I served as a Hospital Corpsman attached to the Marines for 13 months, was awarded two Purple Hearts, and watched way too many of my friends die in my arms because I couldn't patch the holes fast enough. Santorum has never been in combat but is all too willing to offer up the lives of our people in more undeclared, unconstitutional conflicts, just like Viet Nam. We lost over 58,000 of our people based on a lie and Santorum seems to want to top that egregious total in the Middle East, and it would seem you do as well. Our government has sacrificed somewhere between 500,000 to 1,000,000 children in the Middle East in the building of this unconstitutional empire and the powers that be seem to believe that that is ok, per Madeleine Albright. Santorum wants to expand that number exponentially, and it would seem that you do as well. His willingness to sacrifice our troops and the lives of more kids over there does not seem to be pro-life to me, which you purport to be, but that must be a lie as well, given your current stand. I’ve been a member of this forum for a while now, you have had some posts in the past that I didn’t necessarily agree with, but this is the first time that you have totally disgusted me. I believed in your Constitutional stand on our government, so I am truly sorry you have lost your stomach for defending us and our Constitution.

You need to take down Reclaim the Constitution! Hypocrisy

I am totally dumbstruck. Mr. Viguerie, you have totally abandoned your return to true Republican principles for our country or were they ever a genuine part of you or just lip service?

Santorum is 100% big government and against the Constitution and all for continuing the imperial march of nation building and soi much more. We finally have a true patriot and one who will win our country back and not only do you abandon him, but actually put a knife into the back of every patriot with your sold out endorsement of Santorum.

How sad!!

Jaime Álvaro Burbano Cuellar
American patriot in Colombia, SA

Is Rick Santorum a Natural Born Citizen? Only he knows!

But the question remains and Rick won't say, "Did his dad become a U.S. citizen, i.e. naturalized, before Rick was born?"  If not, Rick's NOT eligible to become President and shouldn't be wasting his time and every voter's time as well!!!

Richard A. Viguerie Endorses Big Government Santorum

Now that it is clear that the lead person of the so-called "Conservative Headquarters" is really a RINO neo-con sock puppet, I will cancel my subscription!  Ron Paul is the only true small government, pro constitution, real conservative in the race and all others are Globalist New World Order plants like Romney and Gingrich , or just simply car salesmen flipflopper RINO's. Santorum being one of the biggest of these. Either way we will never get back to the basics of our small government Constitutional Republic with a liberal, big spender used car salesman, like Santorum.

Liberty is the Goal! Republicrats onlt want World Governance!

Michael McCotter


How you can foresake your conservative principles and go for a big government, RINO like Santorum is a real head scratcher! Except for his social consesrvatism, he's a LOSER! Let's face it.....this is a weak Republican field, just like the last bunch we've been forced to vote for over the past 20-years. Ron Paul was made to look like a fool by Newt, and I'm not entused by Newt either. We always seem to lose, when we vote for the lesser of two evils! That goes for when we win, as in W's two terms and 41's single term!

Santorum Endorsement

Rick Santorum is anti Second Amendment! His stands are also close to Obama's. Is this the best Republicans have to offer? Shame on Viguerie for endorsing him! I thought he was a true conservative.

Everyone has a right to their

Everyone has a right to their opinion....however what pushes or encourages that decision?  Is it lobbyist pressure?  Money?  Values? Kickback?

From what I see and from what he says, Rick Santorum is just another fish in the bucket.  Easily caught and if he doesn't taste good there are plenty other easy catches in the pail.  Raised and molded to obey the mainstream and serve the status quo. 

He pushes for war and assisnations at any cost and throws in the odd budget and financial quote that his PR team writes out for him.  Better descriptive would be a puppet.  Aside from his Catholic upbringing and beleifs I really don't think he thinks on his own outside of that.  But I find it sad and disappointing that a Catholic will push for so much war so easily AND laugh and smirk when Ron Paul mentioned the Golden Rule and the crowd boooed.  VERY un-christian like Mr. Santorum, but I'm sure your pockets will be lined nicely after your job to dilute the vote is complete.

"the most conservative that can win", by default.

Judging by the comments on this posting I would say that there is a separation between the "real politic" people and the Libertarian faction of the right siders. Ron Paul was influenced 10 years to late by Rand in his political presentation, both his personal presentation as well as his framing the issues. This was particularly apparent in his foreign affairs pronouncements. If Rand had gotten hold of him back in January Ron would be considered an electable candidate. I think that Gingrich and Romney factions occupy the liberal big government wing which is unelectable to conservatives. That leaves us with Santorum being "the most conservative that can win", by default. We must admit that there is no ideal small government, low taxes candidate, states’ rights candidate this cycle. It's time to move on and get behind the most electable this go around.

SIDE NOTE: Heaven forbid Romney's the candidate, the only hope would be a Rand Paul VP. This would be the only way to bring the constitutional fiscal and social members of the Republican party together. This would be the McCain/Palin situation all over again. The big difference is that Rand is much better prepared for the national and international issues and the rough and tumble, since he's been in the fray all year (in the Ron Paul camp)

Rand Paul Veep?

I would suspect that Rand Paul is just as principled as his Dad.   He wouldn't take to running with a RINO  the way that Palin did.   Sounds like you would like to revisit the 2008 GOP strategy.

You are getting it all wrong.   Any candidate other than Paul insures that the GOP will NOT win.  Paul has a draw from the Independents and they (as well as I) do not want another George Bush (or John McCain for that matter).

Santorum Will Never Win - Thank God!

"We must admit that there is no ideal small government, low taxes candidate, states’ rights candidate this cycle."

Actually, there is.  His name is Rick Perry.  He successfully governs the state of Texas which has the 13th largest economy in the world and an unmatched JOBS record.  The economy/jobs is Obama's Achilles Heel. Perry's successful record would provide a sharp contrast to Obama's failures.

I respect the Ron Paul supporters because they want a candidate who is even more Libertarian than Perry. But the rest of you have no excuse for not supporting Perry.  You claimed it was because he wasn't a good debater.  However, in all of the recent debates and forums he has proven that he is now one of the best debaters in the field.  Yet you continue to allow yourselves to be manipulated by the media and the Establishment as they attempt to marginalize Perry.

This reminds me of the 1976 campaign when the media and many Republicans ridiculed, demeaned and dismissed Reagan.  You're no better. 


Now we know that you are "One of Them"!!! The new world order, neocons, builderburg, trilateral comm., councilon foriegn relations, ETC. They are all out to destroy all of us, they'll keep just enough to do thier bidding ( feed them, polish thier shoes, sweep thier floors, etc.) sanitorium will follow clinton, the bushes & bomba. They are all the one & same. Dr. Ron Paul is the only one for WE THE PEOPLE...

Some Leaders Say the Vote Was Rigged

Leaders who did not back Santorum "said they were conned into leaving after the second ballot on Saturday. They said pro-Santorum participants [then] held a third ballot which Mr. Santorum won...." 

As far as I'm concerned, you've all lost credibility.  Trying to convince us that a big-government insider is a conservative.  Guess what?  We're not sheep and we're not buying it.  Your move will ultimately help Romney because Santorum can't beat him - or Obama, for that matter.  I'm a conservative and I would NEVER vote for this guy who thinks he should be allowed to use the power of government to impose his beliefs on the rest of the country.


Santorun Carries Globalist Technocrat Agenda

Rick Santorun carries a Globalist Agenda, hidden from the people! He has not shown his true colors to the public!

I certainly do not condone this endorsement by Viguerie, why he is not standing behind the Constitutionalist Ron Paul tells me he is for Global Governance!

Most people ( Conservative- Libertarian ) are not aware that that Rick Santorum campaigned in favor of partial abortion for Council On Foreign Relations Member Christine Todd Whitman and Governor of New Jersey!

Basically the man his Pro-CFR, which goes hand and hand with elitism and on top of that he is a Technocrat, which fits right in with the Globalist Technocratic agenda of a Scientific Technocratic controlled "One World Government", on top of all that he is a hawk which the Military Industrial Complex will appreciate!

Rick Santorum is known as a fast talker, whatever he is I know he is not  for the people!

Best News Story to Search:  Ron Paul Tied With Romney As Most Electable Republican

I'm Disappointed in Viguerie!

Santorum is just another big-spending, big-government Republican.  Shame on you, Mr. Viguerie, for endorsing him!  Now I suppose if you think "gays" are the biggest threat to our nation, then he's the guy.  But if you're like the rest of us who are concerned with out-of-control government spending, crushing debt, and government intrusion into our lives, then he is most certainly not the right candidate!

Take a quick look at his RECORD outlined in the attached article and then try to make the claim that he's a conservative!  I have lost a great deal of respect for Viguerie.  It's bad enough that you put perceived "electability" above principles, but then you support the candidate who is the LEAST ELECTABLE in the General Election.  We need to attract independent voters to win.  They tend to be fiscally conservative and socially moderate.  Santorum is fiscally moderate and socially extreme.  Brilliant move here.  Not.

Santorum is a big government statist as is Viguerie

Santorum is a big government statist as is Viguerie (and the 150 conservative leadership). Neither understands the meaning of liberty or the real principles on which this nation was founded.

Cancel my subscription

With Mr. Richard A. Viguerie

With Mr. Richard A. Viguerie it's not a question of him being a slow learner, or that he needs to read more facts about Santorum, Gingrich, Perry or Paul, because Viguerie has always been more or less a sort of "Tricky Dick." He's endorsed neocon RINO Santorum out of the four to challenge neocon RINO Mitt Romney.  Should it come down to Paul vs Romney the wise bet would be "Tricky Dick" will endorse Romney.

You see, Mr. Viguerie is a lot like Levin, Hannity, O'Reilly, Hume & Limbaugh as he cloaks himself in constitutional rhetoric, labels himself a "conservative"...... but somehow in the end makes a "error" and supports a neocon RINO candidate.  It's not a mistake or error.  Like Sean Hannity, Richard Viguerie is a Judas goat.


Richard, my old friend - I am disappointed to learn that you have endorsed Rick Santorum in such a public way, but not surprised. I've been expecting this for some time.

Rick Santorum holds the most anti-conservative, anti-Constitutional values imaginable. There are people who trust your opinion; and when Santorum implodes -- as he is sure to do in a very short time now -- you will be left holding a much lighter bag of goodwill from conservatives across the country.

Santorum voted to double the size of the Department of Education… He voted to expand Medicare and add free drugs for senior citizens and he has voted for foreign aid. Those are not conservative principles. Seventy-seven percent of the American people are opposed to foreign aid and Rick Santorum has voted for it every time it’s come down.
Rick Santorum voted with Barbara Boxer with this: S Amdt 3230 – Gun Lock Requirement Amendment 

Rick Santorum voted for H J Res 47 – Debt Limit Increase Resolution – Key Vote

Rick Santorum voted for taxes in the Internet Access Tax Bill

Rick Santorum voted for HR 1 – No Child Left Behind Act

Rick Santorum voted to confirm President William J. Clinton’s nomination of Alan Greenspan to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a fourth four-year term.

Rick Santorum voted for HR 3448 – Minimum Wage Increase bill which allows punitive damages for injury or illness to be taxed.

- Allows damages for emotional distress to be taxed.

- Repeals the diesel fuel tax rebate to purchasers of diesel-powered automobiles and light trucks.

Rick Santorum Voted to confirm President William J. Clinton’s nomination of Alan Greenspan to be the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the third four year term.

Rick Santorum voted for the protection of Abortion Clinics

I would add that this list just scratches the surface of Santorum’s career-long liberal voting record. A few more things big-government Santorum has done:

Voted for taxpayer funding of the National Endowment for the Arts.
Voted against a 10% cut in the budget for National Endowment for the Arts.

Voted for a Schumer amendment to make the debts of pro-life demonstrators not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Defense and Foreign Policy
Voted for the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
Voted against requiring the President to certify that the CWC is effectively verifiable.
Voted against requiring the President to certify that that Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, China, and all other countries determined to be state sponsors of terror have joined CWC prior to submitting the instrument of ratification.
Voted for the START II Treaty
Voted to allow the sale of supercomputers to China.
Voted to ban antipersonnel landmines
Voted against increasing defense spending offset by equivalent cuts in non-defense spending.
Voted to require that Federal bureaucrats get the same payraises as uniformed military.
Voted to allow food and medicine sales to state sponsors of terror and tyranical regimes such as Libya and Cuba.
Voted to limit the President’s authority to impose sanctions on nations for reasons of national security unless the sanctions were approved by a multilateral regime.
Voted against requiring Congressional authorization for military action in Bosnia.
Voted to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea
Voted to weaken alien terrorist deportation provisions.   If the Court determines that the evidence must be withheld for national security reasons, the Justice Department must still provide a summary of the evidence sufficient for the alien terrorist to mount a defense against deportation.
Voted against delaying the India Nuclear until the President certified that India had agreed to suspend military-to-military exchanges with Iran.
Voted against the Conventional Trident Missile Program

Voted for Richard Paez to the 9th Curcuit (cloture)
Voted for Sonia Sotomayor, Circuit Judge
Voted for Richard Holbrooke to be Ambassador to the UN
Voted for Margaret Morrow to be District Judge
Voted twice for Marsha Berzon to the 9th Circuit
Voted for Mary McLaughlin to be District Judge
Voted for Tim Dyk to be District Judge
Voted for James Brady to be District Judge

Voted against National Right to Work Act
Voted against Real of Davis-Bacon Prevailing union wages
Voted for Alexis Herman to be Secretary of Labor
Voted for mandatory Federal child care funding
Voted for Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Voted for Job Corps funding
Voted twice in support of Fedex Unionization
Voted against allowing a waiver of Davis-Bacon in emergency situations.
Voted for minimum wage increases six times
Voted to require a union representative on an IRS oversight board.
Voted to exempt IRS union representative from criminal ethics laws.
Voted against creating independent Board of Governors to investigate IRS abuses.

Voted to require pawn shops to do background checks on people who pawn a gun.
Voted twice to make it illegal to sell a gun without a secure storage or safety device
Voted for a Federal ban on possession of “assault weapons” by those under 18.
Voted for Federal funding for anti-gun education programs in schools.
Voted for anti-gun juvenile justice bill.

Voted for funding for the legal services corporation.
Voted twice for a Congressional payraise.
Voted to impose a uniform Federal mandate on states to force them to allow convicted rapits, arsonists, drug kingpins, and all other ex-convicts to vote in Federal elections.
Voted for the Specter “backup plan” to allow campaign finance reform to survive if portions of the bill were found unconstitutional.
Voted to mandate discounted broadcast times for politicians.
Voted for a McCain amendment to require State and local campaign committees to report all campaign contributions to the FEC and to require all campaign contributions to be reported to the FEC within 24 hours within 90 days of an election.

Voted against increasing the number of immigration investigators
Voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive the earned income credit before becoming citizens
Voted to give SSI benefits to legal aliens.
Voted to give welfare benefits to naturalized citizens without regard to to the earnings of their sponsors.
Voted against hiring an additional 1,000 border partrol agents, paid for by reductions in state grants.

Voted against a flat tax.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for Medicare prescription drugs
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to fund health insurance subsidies for small businesses.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an $8 billion increase in child healh insurance.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an increase in NIH funding.
Voted twice for internet taxes.
Voted to allow gas tax revenues to be used to subsidize Amtrak.
Voted to strike marriage penalty tax relief and instead provide fines on tobacco companies.
Voted against repealing the Clinton 4.3 cent gas tax increase.
Voted to increase taxes by $2.3 billion to pay for an Amtrak trust fund.
Voted to allow welfare to a minor who had a child out of wedlock and who resided with an adult who was on welfare within the previous two years.
Voted to increase taxes by $9.4 billion to pay for a $9.4 billion increase in student loans.
Voted to say that AMT patch is more important than capital gains and dividend relief.

Voted against food stamp reform
Voted against Medicaid reform
Voted against TANF reform
Voted to increase the Social Services Block Grant from $1 billion to $2 billion
Voted to increase the FHA loan from $170,000 to $197,000.  Also opposed increasing GNMA guaranty from 6 basis points to 12.
Voted for $2 billion for low income heating assistance.

Sponsored An amendment to increase Amtrak funds by $550 million
Voted to use HUD funds for the Joslyn Art Museum (NE), the Stand Up for Animals project (RI) and the Seattle Art Museum’s Olympic Sculpture Project (WA)
Voted to increase spending on social programs by $7 billion
Voted to increase NIH funding by $1.6 billion.
Voted to increase NIHnding by $700 million
Voted to for a $2 million earmark to renovate the Vulcan Monument (AL)
Voted for a $1 billion bailout for the steel industry
Voted against requiring that highway earmarks would come out of a state’s highway allocation
Voted to allow Market Access Program funds to go to foreign companies.
Voted to allow OPIC to increase its administrative costs by 50%
Voted against transferring $20 million from Americorps to veterans.
Voted for the $140 billion asbestos compensation bill.
Voted against requiring a uniform medical criteria to ensure asbestos claims were legitimate.
Voted to increase community development programs by $2 billion.

Spending and Entitlements
Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies an new entitlement.
Voted against paying off the debt ($5.6 trillion at the time) within 30 years.
Voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
Voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.

Health Care
Voted to allow states to impose health care mandates that are stricter than proposed new Federal mandates, but not weaker.
Voted twice for Federal mental health parity mandates in health insurance.
Voted against a allow consumers the option to purchase a plan outside the parity mandate.

Voted to increase Federal funding for teacher testing
Voted to increase spending for the Department of Education by $3.1 billion.
Voted against requiring courts to consider the impact of IDEA awards on a local school district.

Voted to allow the President to designate certain sites as interim nuclear waste storage sites in the event that he determines that Yucca Mountain is not a suitable site for a permanent waste repository. Those sites are as follows: the nuclear waste site in Hanford, Washington; the Savannah River Site in South Carolina; Barnwell County, South Carolina; and the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee.
Voted to make fuel price gouging a Federal crime.

If you're truly looking for a strong Christian believer who puts Biblical values into action in his public service, and will do the same as President, look no further than Dr. Ron Paul. He is the ONLY true conservative in this race, and he deserves your endorsement and support.

Richard, I hope you can see why your endorsement of Santorum troubles me so deeply. Perhaps it's not too late to change your mind, but I would do it quickly and publicly if I were you.

It's a dark day for conservative values.

Bill Greene

It's a Dark Day for Conservative Values Indeed, Bill!

And when Santorum implodes these former "leaders" of the conservative movement will no longer have credibility or much of a following.

Shame on Richard Viguerie!

Santorum is NOT a CONSERVATIVE but another NEOCON RINO!  Sir, I have lost ALL respect I had for you and this forum!

Santorum is yet another Israel-Firster and already commented about bombing Iran! I thought this site was about true adherence to Constitutional principles. It shows me that the NEOCONS  have managed to co-opt the now so-called NEO-CONSERVATIVE HEADQUARTERS!!  A pox ON YOUR HOUSE!

Santorum will not become POTUS

Even if big government "conservative" Santorum did make the GOP nomination which I seriously doubt he will, he has no support with independents or cross over dems. We have seen since at least 2004 that you need the independent vote to win an election. The only candidate who is for TRUE limited government and can pull the independent vote as well as dems is Ron Paul. He is the only candidate who will restore us to a Consitutional Republic, not a global empire.

Mr. Conservative

Mr. Conservative just did a back-flip in his grave yesterday.

ONLY ONE candidate running for office could say this today with a straight face:

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."  

Sen. Barry Goldwater, The Conscience of A Conservative (1960), p. 15

Reagan broke with Goldwater, and so did the party of Bush, Dole, and McCain: the 3 reasons why I left the GOP. Gov't can't get ANYTHING right. PS--New CNN Poll says Paul beats Obama. 

And you trust CNN?

And you trust CNN?


ok, no, i don't fully trust the clinton news network