Guess the Liberal!








This is a game of GUESS THE LIBERAL. Read the votes below and see if you can guess who the liberal is who casted all of the following votes. Hint: this particular liberal is fairly prominent in the national news and mainstream media. If you watch at all you hear this liberal’s name every day right now.

I have selected a SMALL sub-set of this liberal’s liberal votes.  There are far, far more and they are all cross referenced and linked to voting history!  … as you will see under the link provided below.

The answer is at the very bottom of this post. BUT DONT CHEAT!
Make sure to scan all these votes and guess the liberal before you look at the answer.

★Defense and Foreign Policy
-Voted to allow the sale of supercomputers to China.
-Voted to ban antipersonnel landmines
-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 give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea
-Voted against the Conventional Trident Missile Program

-Voted for Richard Paez to the 9th Curcuit (cloture)
-Voted for Sonia Sotomayor, Circuit Judge  (<— WOW!!!)
-Voted for Richard Holbrooke to be Ambassador to the UN
-Voted for Mary McLaughlin to be District Judge

-Voted against National Right to Work Act
-Voted against Repal of Davis-Bacon Prevailing union wages
-Voted for mandatory Federal child care funding
-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 twice for a Congressional payraise.
-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 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 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 for $2 billion for low income heating assistance.

-Sponsored An amendment to increase Amtrak funds by $550 million
-Voted to increase NIH funding by $1.6 billion.
-Voted to increase NIH funding 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 against transferring $20 million from Americorps to veterans.
-Voted for the $140 billion asbestos compensation bill.
-Voted to increase community development programs by $2 billion.

★Spending and Entitlements
-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 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 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.

The name of this liberal is RICK SANTORUM.

This link contains more of his liberal votes as well as linked proof for each of them.

Teaparty, y’all!



  1. And voted for Medicare Part-D along w/ JD Hayworth, where is he BTW?

  2. LOL – I guessed Senator Hillary Clinton!

    I guess Santorum and Clinton’s (well Rodham’s) families both come from PA. Is it a PA think a la DEMOCRAT Arlen Spector? (who Rick Santorum also supported?)

    Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed!

    The one attacking pro-life activists really suprised me though – I have to say.

  3. And what about this oldy but goldy?
    Paul Kucinich Duo

    • It’s a great photo of Paul being presidential. Perhaps you are unaware of the source of that picture. It was a tribute to our fallen troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      Please note no other presidential candidate has given ANY tribute to our lost troops other than Ron Paul.

      Perhaps that is why the military, both active and retired, supports Ron Paul with their presidential campaign contributions more than ALL OTHER CANDIDATES COMBINED.

      Shane, our military must know something about Ron Paul that you dont.

  4. I know liberals, liberals are friends of mine, and MadArizonan, Rick Santorum is no liberal.

  5. Conservative American says

    Which of the potential Republican presidential candidates do you see as most Conservative, MadArizonan?

  6. Santorum is the most conservative candidate we have. :Paul is a Libertarian for open borders, legalization of drugs, anti-second amendment and anti-military; Romney is the true liberal in the bunch who created ORomneycare, supported by McCain, Sproul, Driggs, Stapley, Flake, etc., and Newt is just Newt – the smartest person in the room who has alienated his own base and is unelectable. 99% of the crud you list were part of budget bills and nearly none of the stuff you list were stand-alone bills. Get a life and stop spinning. You are proving that your pseudonym is an accurate description of whom you are.

    If I picked thirty Omnibus or other cherry picked bills that he signed, Reagan would look like the most liberal President of the 20th Century.

    Santorum is pro-life, pro-family, pro-balanced budget, pro-border security, pro-employer sanctions, pro-second amendment, pro-religious freedom, pro-Constutution, pro-Party Platform, pro-lower taxes, pro-smaller government, pro-federal marriage amendment, pro-parental choice in education, pro-balanced budget amendment, etc. Those are just a few of the reasons I am pro-Santorum.

    • Dean Ouellette says

      Great Points ben, well said. Make sure you join the Santorum Arizona Facebook group

    • I’m sorry, but this statement is a BLATANT lie:
      “Paul is a Libertarian for open borders, legalization of drugs, anti-second amendment and anti-military”

      a) Paul is a 12 term sitting REPUBLICAN congressman
      b) Paul is and has been for ***40*** years the foremost conservative Republican in congress preserving national sovereignity and warning against any and all incursions against it incl illegal immigration and open borders
      c) Paul personally is AGAINST legalization of drugs. His position which is correct is that the constitution confers no power to the federal government to regulate drugs and, therefore, the federal government DOES NOT HAVE that power – it is a matter for the states.
      d) He is the single most pro 2nd amendment candidate – all others have voted for restrictions (as you can see above with Santorum)
      e) Paul gets more campaign contributions from active and retired military than ALL OTHER CANDIDATES COMBINED by a magnitude of 4.

      So, the military apparently knows something you dont about Paul and they are supporting him.

      Get your facts straight.

  7. Glad Im voting for Dr Ron Paul!

  8. Ron Paul on illegal immigration 02/01/12:

    (…At a senior center in East Las Vegas, the Texas congressman told about 100 Hispanics that they have been unfairly made “scapegoats” for the country’s economic troubles. He said it’s “part of human nature” for newcomers to be shunned, but that prejudice toward outsiders worsens when unemployment is high. He said that illegal immigrants were being scapegoated in a manner similar to Jews in Nazi Germany because of tough economic times. When things go badly, individuals look for scapegoats,” he said. “I just do not believe that barbed-wire fences or guns on our border will solve any of our problems,” he added…)

    A wussified LIBertarian if I ever saw one. The furor over illegal immigration has been stirring for over a decade and has little to do with the economy as Paul pukes. This is just one reason he is at the bottom of the septic tank.

    Santorum talks a good game on illegal immigration, but up until a month ago his Numbers U.S.A. rating was D- until Roy Beck catapulted him to an A- allegedly over his rhetoric in the debates and speeches. This tells me that Number’s rating system is a sham and leaves Santorum’s real position on the Mexican invasion worrisom at best, as is Romney’s.

    • You haven’t proven that Paul is Open Borders. You haven’t proven that he’s pro-illegal immigration.

      All Paul’s comments reveal is that he opposes those who think you have to demonize immigrants in order to legislate against unlawful immigration.

      Paul has it right: if those who oppose illegal immigration spoke of it in truthful terms, without resorting to bigotry-tinged declarations and without telling demonstratively false statement, most Americans would be on our side.

      Paul was chastising those who do think the illegals are behind the bad economy. Zoo claims to agree that immigration concerns have little to do with the economy. Nonetheless, ZOO takes offense to Paul’s comments. WTH? The rational opponent to illegal immigration would agree with Paul, but then augment his comments with VALID reasons for stemming illegal immigration all the same.

      Just because you oppose illegal immigration does not mean you have to be a supporter of every negative statement made about them. Indeed, when you mindlessly endorse all the outlandish lies, you simply lose credibility, and when you lose credibility you lose votes, and when you lose votes you lose elections.

      Paul opposes illegal immigration, supports tighter border controls and increased penalties for interlopers. He just thinks he can do all that without telling lies and without demonizing Hispanics.

      Zoo – are you really intending to communicate your disagreement with Paul on this issue? Is your position that we must demonize the immigrants and tell whatever lies we can think of? How is that consistent with conservative values?

  9. Chandler Right says
  10. Conservative American says

    There is an issue which is conspicuous by it’s absence; marriage.

    Ron Paul believes that government should get out of the “business” of marriage and that the issue of homosexual “marriage” should be decided by each state in accordance with the 10th Amendment.

    Rick Santorum states that there are limits to the 10th Amendment and that marriage should be defined by federal laws as the union of one man and one woman. Santorum has also stated that homosexual “marriages” should be dissolved by federal law.

    This is one of the reasons why the left and those who are left leaning are so down on Santorum. Homosexual “marriage” would not fare well under a President Santorum.

    Rick Santorum, along with Gingrich and Romney, has signed the “Marriage Pledge” of the National Organization for Marriage but Ron Paul has refused to do so. The provisions of the pledge are as follows:

    “Support sending a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the states for ratification.”

    “Nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court and federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and to applying the original meaning of the Constitution, appoint an attorney general similarly committed, and thus reject the idea our Founding Fathers inserted a right to gay marriage into our Constitution.”

    “Defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act vigorously in court.”

    “Establish a presidential commission on religious liberty to investigate and document reports of Americans who have been harassed or threatened for exercising key civil rights to organize, to speak, to donate or to vote for marriage and to propose new protections, if needed.”

    “Advance legislation to return to the people of the District of Columbia their right to vote on marriage.”

    Social issues are the elephant in the living room. The left has been attempting to get Conservatives to abandon social and family issues. Many on the left have been claiming that they are Conservatives but they are careful to call themselves “fiscal” Conservatives. There is no such thing. Conservatives are both fiscally and socially Conservative. The schism is an artifical one fabricated by the liberal left in an attempt to split and to weaken Conservatives.

    All of this is what is unspoken and “between the lines” regarding the vehemence against Rick Santorum. It’s the “social issues”.

    • Con Am wrote: “There is an issue which is conspicuous by it’s absence; marriage. Ron Paul believes …”

      It’s an article about “liberal” votes cast by Santorum, not about what Ron Paul believes. Do try to stay on point.

      Con Am wroteL “All of this is what is unspoken and “between the lines” regarding the vehemence against Rick Santorum. It’s the “social issues”.”

      Why is it always about black-helicopters with you? Why is everything some unspoken truth – in opposite to the actual spoken words? Why can’t a person’s motive ever be what they claim it to be: they don’t think Santorum is a principled conservative given his voting record?

      I like Santorum as an individual. His dedication to his family and the recognition of his deceased son is particularly moving. I also don’t think these votes are a fair indication of his positions. Omnibus bills being what they are, a person will vote, from time-to-time, for discreet items he doesn’t support. That is the life politic.

      However that does not mean that every attack on him has a hidden meaning beyond basic politics.

      This election is coming down to two factors: who is the true conservative and who can be elected. Santorum has taken the lead in claiming that he is the true conservative, but he faces significant electability issues.

      Attacking his conservative bona fides, as this author is doing, is to be expected.

      Sometimes a cigar is just a smoke. Sometimes an attack on Santorum’s conservative nature is just that. Don’t go making everything a hidden-truth conspiracy.

      The more prinicpled argument would be to comment on how meaningless that attack is. And such an attack, I would be your ally.

    • Ghost of Friedman says

      I missed the day when the gods of Conservatism knighted you and declared you the arbiter of what a “conservative” truly is. Must have been a nice day for you.

      I have no problem with you defining conservatism as you see it, but you don’t get to define what “conservative” means for everybody else. Sure, there are plenty of conservatives who are both fiscally and socially conservative. There are plenty who are one way and not the other. That doesn’t make the pawns of a malicious, secretive liberal attempt to divide conservatives. The GOP is, and has been for quite some time, a big tent, letting in both social and fiscal (and both) conservatives alike.

      In fact, if you want to be truly accurate, the socially conservative element in the GOP is fairly recent historically. It wasn’t until the Red Scare that conservatism added a moral/religious element to it. Before that, it was the party of limited government across the board, on foreign, social, and economic policy.

      I personally think Paul has this one right. Each state should decide–on its own–the types of marriages it will allow. I can find no constitutional justification for federal involvement in marriage. What provision do you think allows Congress to regulate marriage? It sure must be nice to support a limited federal government when it suits you, but to ignore those limitations when they don’t further your own ends.

      • Ghost of Friedman says

        That was meant for Con Am.

      • Social conservatives actually turn traditional conservative ideology on its head.

        Whereas tradittional conservatives want limited government, social conservatives favor “a form of authoritarianism often associated with the position that the national government, or the state, should have a greater role in the social and moral affairs of its citizens, generally supporting whatever it sees as morally correct choices and discouraging or outright forbidding those it considers morally wrong ones.”

        Further, rather than respect the traditional conservative effort to preserve state rights, social conservatives gravitate towards the “notion that the federal government should bear the responsibility to overrule the states in order to preserve their stated ideal of traditional values.”

        This is why social conservatives remain, in essence, a break-out group at the (R) conventions. The reason they have their own “summit” and “convention” is because they are, as yet, outside the core (R) philosophy. They have a fair amount of power, and they have a shared sense of morality and traditional values with traditional (R), but they advocate more extreme, intrusive large-government solutions than a traditional conservative, versed in the twin pillars of state rights and limited government, ever would.

        See also:

Speak Your Mind


judi online bonanza88 slot baccarat online slot idn live situs idn poker judi bola tangkas88 pragmatic play sbobet slot dana casino online idn pokerseri joker123 selot slot88