Posted on 10/15/2011 8:50:18 PM PDT by Lazlo in PA
Rick Santorum raised $704,000 for the third fundraising quarter that ended in September, his campaign said, adding that most of it was raised in the final three weeks of that period.
But he also spent $743,000, leaving his account with $189,000 in cash on hand. Continue Reading
Santorum has been running a by-the-bootstraps effort that focuses heavily on Iowa and scoring among the top finishers in the Iowa caucuses. And he's been using the debates to try to vault himself ahead.
UPDATE: Santorum also has just over $70,000 in debt.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
“I think he will become a perennial primary runner (like Lyndon Larouche), but never a winner.”
Like Harold Stassen. He had been a Republican governor of Minnesota and worked for Eisenhower. But he was most famous for always tossing his hat in the ring for the GOP nomination. 1948, 1952, 1964, 1968, 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1992.
Oh, yes...I had forgotten about Stassen.
George Bush needs to clarify what happened there. Santorum says one thing, Specter says another. Santorum says we got Alito and Roberts out of it, “pro-choice” Specter (the guy who borked bork) denies this. If what Santorum says about it is true, then Bush is being pretty flaky in not confirming that’s what happened. If he remains silent and it isn’t true, he is still being flaky because then there is absolutely no mitigating circumstances and Santorum is feeding folks a line of bull.
I’m not sure I like the argument even if it is true, but if it is I can see that getting Alito and Roberts vs. Toomey is a hard choice.
Freegards
Larouche? Let’s give him a little more credit than that. He will be more the Harold Stassen sort of candidate. Rick is a GOP’er after all.
Thank you for telling me that. Was not aware of it. It is disappointing, to say the least.
Santorum still has my vote for Vice President. His strength is social issues (other than, apparently, how to deal with the children of illegals wrt to funding their education!) and foreign policy — a perfect complement to Cain’s economy-focused strengths.
And don’t forget that Specter had strongly backed Santorum in his previous 2 elections for Senate which were close - a lot more than just the tepid endorsements in a released statement ‘moderates’ normally give when the dreaded conservative manages to win the primary over their preferred “moderate” candidate. It would have required a lack of integrity on Santorum’s part to not return the favor when the person who had helped him so much now needed his help - essentially saying “sucker!” In the end, we all know that Specter ending up stabbing Santorum and everyone else in the back - ironically, even himself - instead of bowing out gracefully and ending a long Senate tenure in a respectful manner, he pulled that stunt with the party switch to avoid being defeated in the primary, only to end up with the same result and looking rather silly in the process...and Toomey has his former Senate seat.
Windcatcher, you might want to check out post #38.
Thanks for the info. but as for: “If your payroll tax of 15.3% on your GROSS paycheck disappears, ..” half of that is paid for by the employer now, wouldn’t we just get half of it?
“In the House of Representatives, Santorum played a key role in exposing the House Banking Scandal. That scandal cost incumbent Republicans reelection, but Santorum was rock-solid on integrity. Santorum is, in short, just what we want: a conservative who puts principles above power.”
excerpt http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/santorum_2012.html
There are many great perks in running for president. For example Santorum just collected $750,000 campaign cash. He can spend it any way he likes so long as it is remotely connected to running for office. And he is not required to spend any of it and can hang on to it indefinitely.
Then he gets almost free publicity, which can help in selling books. After losing by 20% margin in PA, Santorum was fading fast from news. Not any more.
That 7.65% your employer must contribute to keep you employed makes you a burden for him. It discourages him from hiring more people. It is a burden on his cash flow since he has to pay IRS every quarter his share of payroll tax in cash.
If his share gets abolished by the 9-9-9 plan, your job is more secure, and the employer can use that 7.65% saving to reduce selling price on his goods -or- he can just give you that as a raise to you without costing him anything, and he gains your enhanced satisfaction with the job.
Even if you do not get that 7.65% raise, note that you are getting immediate 7.65% tax reduction on your GROSS paycheck. That 9% sales tax is not on your GROSS paycheck. All your recurring bills (mortgage, rent, prop tax, state tax, city tax, car payments etc.) reduce the NET amount you have available to spend on NEW stuff considerably.
Thanks for your response.
“Even if you do not get that 7.65% raise, note that you are getting immediate 7.65% tax reduction on your GROSS paycheck.”
That part I like, and I agree with most of your post.
But I really can’t see any employer I’ve ever had keeping me on because of the 7.65% they won’t have to pay. If they needed me, they needed me, and the 7.65% wouldn’t make a difference for most employers, imo.
I was as upset about Senator Santorum’s 2004 endorsement of Specter over Toomey in the GOP Senate primary as anyone. This is the text of a letter I e-mailed Santorum back then:
“Dear Senator Santorum:
Let me begin by saying that I am not a resident of Pennsylvania, so I am not technically your constituent. But as a member of the Republican leadership in the Senate, you represent Republicans throughout the nation, and as such I feel at the liberty to drop you this friendly note.
I am an active participant in the conservative movement, and regularly mention your name not only as an example of the type of leadership, platform and voting record Republicans need to get elected in competitive states and districts, but also as my preferred candidate for President in 2008. I defended you when you were unfairly attacked for your foresighted criticism of the pro-sodomy arguments in the Lawrence case, and I am certainly proud to have someone like you in the Senate to speak out and act on issues near and dear to me, such as opposition to abortion and judicial activism and support for tax relief and national defense. But I am at a loss for words when someone asks me why you are actively supporting the reelection of Senator Arlen Specter, who disagrees with us in every single one of those important issues.
I know that tradition dictates that incumbent Senators not oppose the reelection of their colleagues from the same party, especially when they represent the same state. And as Republican Conference Chairman, it would be unbecoming for you to actively campaign for the defeat of a Republican colleague. But is it really necessary for you to run commercials supporting Arlen Specter’s candidacy when he is running against Congressman Pat Toomey, a true conservative Republican from a blue-collar Democrat district (just like a certain Congressman Santorum from a decade ago) who can lead the party to a statewide victory?
I am especially disheartened by your claim that Arlen Specter votes with conservatives “on votes that matter.” When the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, which you had been fighting for years to pass, got to the floor last year, it was nearly derailed by a sham substitute amendment by Dick Durbin that would not have prohibited a single abortion so long as the doctor stated that the mother’s health (including mental health) may be in danger. You know better than I that passage of the substitute amendment would have signaled the defeat of the PBA ban, and would have been a major setback in the pro-life movement. I remember that you spoke eloquently on the Senate floor as to why the sham substitute had to be defeated, and that the only way to end that heinous practice was to vote against Durbin’s substitute amendment. Wouldn’t you call that a “vote that matters”? I sure do. And, in case you’ve forgotten, Arlen Specter voted in favor of Durbin’s sham substitute, and the only reason it failed was because a few Democrat Senators, most of whom were up for reelection in 2004, voted against the amendment. Arlen Specter can only fool ignorant pro-lifers into believing that he supported the PBA ban, since he voted for its final passage, the results of which were a foregone conclusion. (Why, even Tom Daschle voted for the final bill! I hope that, in his Senate race against John Thune, Daschle doesn’t run ads saying that he supported President Bush’s agenda “on votes that matter.”) But most pro-lifers are not that ignorant, and we will not support someone like Arlen Specter for reelection.
I could go on for paragraphs about Specter’s voting record, the dangers posed by someone as unreliable as him serving as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee (had Specter not opposed Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade would have been overturned in Planned Parenthood v. Casey back in 1992, which would have saved millions of lives), the fact that Governor Rendell would name Specter’s replacement in case he can’t serve out his entire six-year term, and how Specter’s proven inability to attract votes from blue-collar Democrats in the Pittsburgh area and in the “T,” not to mention the fact that he cannot rally the conservative base, will make him more vulnerable to a challenge from Congressman Hoeffel (who will not allow Specter to win by his usual margins in the Philly metro area) than would Pat Toomey (who would defeat Hoeffel by winning votes from pro-life, pro-gun, pro-defense Democrats, the group that gave you two House victories and two Senate victories), but I know that you already know all of that. My plea to you is that you think about these things, and reconsider your participation in an active campaign to defeat Pat Toomey in the GOP primary. If, God forbid, Specter defeats Toomey, then it would certainly be acceptable for you to campaign actively for Specter’s reelection. But now is not the time to go wobbly.
I hope that you receive this note in the spirit with which it was intended, and that, after meditation and prayer, you do the right thing.
Sincerely yours in Christ,”
That being said, it is possible for Santorum to claim that “we got Alito and Roberts” thanks to Specter’s reelection even if Specter did not specifically agree to push all of President Bush’s SCOTUS nominations through the Senate Judiciary Committee (which, knowing Specter, he did agree to do, but didn’t really mean it). Santorum was afraid that Pat Toomey would lose to Joe Hoeffel and that, with a couple of more net pickups by the RATs, the GOP would lose control of the Senate and imperil President Bush’s future SCOTUS picks. But Specter won, and Roberts and Alito got confirmed, so Santorum feels that’s all that matters. So I don’t think it’s really “he said, she said,” but different views of causality.
You write good letters!
I don’t know what to think about it, but a conservative replacing O’Connor was huge considering who is in the white house now. Politics is a dirty game, and Specter was a snake. I know who I would generally believe between the two of them, even if Santorum is running for pres. and liable to say anything.
Like I said, what does Bush say?
Freegards
President Bush won’t say a word; he’s not that type of person. Besides, irrespective of what he said, it would make him look bad in the eys of some (either “Bush supported a liberal who could have derailed his appointments!” or “Bush engaged in an unethical quid pro quo to buy votes!”).
Sure, in hindsight, Specter helped Roberts and Alito get confirmed. But if we’re going to have the benefit of hindsight, then we should remember that the GOP had 53 Republican Senators after the 2004 elections, so had Toomey defeated Specter in the primary we would have had at worst a 52-48 Senate majority when Bush nominated Roberts and Alito, and the Judiciary Chairman would have been Senator Jeff Sessions, whose support for conservative nominees would be unquestionable.
|
|
Column A This Period |
Column B Election Cycle-To-Date |
Column C |
|---|---|---|---|
| I. Receipts | |||
| 16. Federal Funds (Itemize on Schedule A-P) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 17. Contributions (other than loans) From: | |||
| (a) Individuals/Persons Other than Political Committees | |||
| (i)  itemized | 503248.00 | 945509.00 | 0.00 |
| (ii)  unitemized | 127947.75 | 267534.42 | 0.00 |
| (iii) Total contributions | 631195.75 | 1213043.42 | 0.00 |
| (b) Political Party Commitees | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| (c) Other Political Committees | 30982.12 | 31232.12 | 0.00 |
| (d) The Candidate | 42021.50 | 45199.02 | 0.00 |
| (e) Total Contributions (11(a) + (b) + (c) + (d)) | 704199.37 | 1289474.56 | 0.00 |
| 18. Transfers From Other Authorized Committees | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 19. Loans Received: | |||
| (a) Loans Received From or Guaranteed By Candidate | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| (b) Other Loans | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| (c) Total Loans (19(a) + (b)) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 20. Offsets to Expenditures (Refunds, Rebates, etc): | |||
| (a) Operating | 0.00 | 250.00 | 0.00 |
| (b) Fundraising | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| (c) Legal and Accounting | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| (d) Total Offsets To Expenditures (20(a) + (b) + (c)) | 0.00 | 250.00 | 0.00 |
| 21. Other Receipts (Dividends, Interest, etc) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 22. Total Receipts | 704199.37 | 1289724.56 | 0.00 |
| II. Disbursements | |||
| 23. Operating Expenditures | 741257.29 | 1097667.62 | 0.00 |
| 24. Transfers to Other Authorized Committees | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 25. Fundraising Disbursements | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 26. Exempt Legal and Accounting Disbursements | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 27. Loan Repayments Made | |||
| (a) Repayments of loans Made or Guaranteed By Candidate | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| (b) Other Loans | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| (c) Total Loans (27(a) + (b)) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 28. Refunds of Contributions To: | |||
| (a) Individuals/Persons Other Than Political Committees | 2500.00 | 2500.00 | 0.00 |
| (b) Political Party Committees | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| (c) Other Political Committees | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| (d) Total Contribution Refunds (28(a) + (b) + (c)) | 2500.00 | 2500.00 | 0.00 |
| 29. Other Disbursements | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 30. Total Disbursements | 743757.29 | 1100167.62 | 0.00 |
| III. Contributed Items (stock, Art Objects, Etc.) | |||
| 31. Items On Hand To Be Liquidated | 0.00 |
|
|
Interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.