Skip to comments.Rick Santorum, Earmarxists, and the Pro-Life Statist
Posted on 12/30/2011 7:59:00 AM PST by wolfman23601
Rick Santorum participated in raiding the federal treasury as an earmarxist, perfectly happy to pork away on Pennsylvanias behalf. He did not join conservatives who fought against No Child Left Behind. He did not join conservatives who fought against the prescription drug benefit.
Rick Santorum was part of the problem in Washington. He was one of the Republicans the public rejected in 2006. The voters in Pennsylvania rejected him in 2006 because of his and the Republicans profligate ways. Along with Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum led the K Street Project, which traded perks for lobbyists for money for the GOP funded with your tax dollars through earmarks and pork projects.
Sure, you can say 2006 was a bad year for Republicans, but in 2006 Rick Santorum fell 18 percentage points behind his Democratic rival and his defeat and terrible campaign can be linked to the loss of four Pennsylvania house seats.
That was not a defeat for Rick Santorum. It was punishment. He is a pro-life statist and I see nothing in his career since leaving Washington that shows he has changed his ways.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
A supposedly Small Government Conservative using Big Government Statism to promote one’s values is not a virtue or Conservative.
Karl Rove did cost O’Donnell and the GOP that senate seat.
You’re starting to get it now.
Rove is scum.
I am a Newt supporter, but a conservative first.
Everyone not a liberal rino Romney-bot should throw their support behind Santorum to keep both Romney and Paul from winning Iowa. The media will crown Romney if he is permitted 2 victories in a row.
Once we get to South Carolina, then the luster will come off of Mitt Romney.
“Santorum took one for the team with Specter, and his conservative base got hacked off. Obviously, that was a mistake, but the base made an equally terrible mistake.”
I disagree. When your child does something bad and you choose to not punish him for it, what does that teach him?
No, would you care to answer my question?
Santorum's voting record on spending isn't good. It's idiotic to ignore those specifics.
Gingrichs team is quietly affirming that their candidate will not win in Iowa.
Speaking of smears, your above statement is highly suspect. Document your claim.
Wrong analogy. When your child makes a mistake and you can keep him or trade him for a kid from the crack house, you don’t trade him for the kid from the crack house.
Too many parents over-punish their kids AND end up punishing themselves in the process.
Listen to them on TV. They are putting their firewall up in South Carolina.
I think they’re correct, but that doesn’t mean we want to hand Iowa to Romney.
If Santorum can defeat Romney in Iowa, then I’m a 1000 percent behind him.
And Santorum is not a big-spending liberal. He has an 88% CONSERVATIVE voting record AND he comes from a blue state. Do you have any idea how many times his voting decisions actually cost him support?
There he was plugging away doing the right thing, and conservative-state senators were voting rino and getting re-elected by the clowns who give Santorum a hard time.
There is NO BETTER pro-life supporter than Rick Santorum. Period.
Conservatives NEED Santorum to win Iowa and stop the media from crowning Romney. Romney is a failed, one-term governor who ran to the left of Ted Kennedy.
Do you have any “attack Romney” lines to throw in here, or are you content to let Romney win with Gingrich coming in 3rd or 4th?
You nailed it, man! Romney’s minions went after Palin the day after McCain announced her selection, going so far as to tell their buddies in the MSM that she voluntarily should stand down and let Romney take the VP slot.
Here is Santorum's record:
Voted NO on the Clinton tax hike in 1993
Voted YES on the capital gains tax cut in 1997
Voted NO on a cigarette tax hike in 1998
Voted YES on repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax in 1999
Voted YES on the 2001 Bush tax cuts
Voted YES to repeal the Death Tax in 2002
Voted YES to the 2003 Bush tax cuts
Voted YES to extend the Bush tax cuts in 2006
Add to that excellent track record on taxes Santorum's penchant to be a strong supporter of spending restrictions the first 4 years of a Senatorial term and then easing up the final 2 years with an eye toward re-election in a blue state. He did that twice.
It is understandable, even if "political".
Personally, I have no problem with a politician trying to get my tax money spent in my state rather than in some other state. I'd rather not have to send it at all, BUT, IF it's going to be spent someplace, then I'd prefer it come back to help my local area.
Red State has been relentless in its criticism of Romney.
No it's not. You cherry pick Santorum's good conservative votes and you ignore Newt's good conservative votes.
I can add to your list Newt's good votes and I can document for you Santorum's (and Newt's) bad votes.
The bottom line is that they both have a long record of voting 9 parts conservative and 1 part liberal.
That is the record.
Personally, I have no problem with a politician trying to get my tax money spent in my state rather than in some other state.
Earmark spending isn't conservative and earmark spending is the least of Santorum's spending problems.
Would you like me to doucment them for you??
Listen to them on TV. They are putting their firewall up in South Carolina. I think theyre correct, but that doesnt mean we want to hand Iowa to Romney.
You are handing Iowa to Romney by switching form one 90% conservative candidate to another 90% conservative candidate one week before the caucus.
What we have now is an anti Romney split, with Romney now in the lead.
You are doing exactly what the liberal media wants you to do.
Do you have any attack Romney lines to throw in here, or are you content to let Romney win with Gingrich coming in 3rd or 4th?
Don't post that crap to me.
FWIW, I’m a conservative who has beens supporting Newt for a while now. That doesn’t mean I want a Romney win in Iowa.
While I have a bit of a disagreement with the way the polling firms are conducting their research in Iowa, I accept that Newt has slipped to about 3 or 4.
It is far better for Newt to have Santorum win in Iowa than for Romney.
You acknowledge those are good votes by Santorum, and as I ALREADY mentioned, Santorum had some weak votes in the final 2 years of each of his 6 year terms. They were made for political reasons.
And, I simply disagree with you about a congressman bringing our tax money back to our state GIVEN THIS SYSTEM. Give me a different system in which we fund only constitutional programs, and I’ll have a different conclusion.
But, at this point, I want as many of my dollars spent in south Ohio as possible. That seems conservative to me.
I have not switched candidates. Gingrich, starting with S Carolina, is going to bounce back.
In the meantime, we make a terrible mistake giving ANY momentum to Romney, and especially since the media is solidly in his corner, and this includes FoxNews and many supposed conservative columnists and commentators.
I don't want to give him an inch.
If that means promoting Santorum in Iowa, then let's do it. Santorum would be an awesome VP candidate alongside Gingrich (or vice versa, for that matter.)
The polls tell you what you need to know. If I said to you that Gingrich as talked down possibilities in New Hampshire you'd readily agree with me.
I can only assume you are not hearing it about Iowa. I am.
Gingrich Internal Memo: We Will Outlast Romney
Des Moines, Iowa -- Newt Gingrich predicted he would finish maybe third or fourth in Iowa, but he didn't expect the possibility of fifth place.
A new NBC/Marist poll in Iowa shows Gingrich at 13 percent behind Mitt Romney at 23 percent, Ron Paul at 21 percent, Rick Santorum at 15 percent, and Rick Perry at 14percent. Only Michele Bachmann, also a former frontrunner, is behind him at 6 percent
Still, even before the NBC poll was released, senior strategist Kevin Kellems circulated an internal memo reassuring the staff that they are "about where we always thought we'd be at this point in the race. In fact, we are in a stronger position than necessary at this stage."
The memo, obtained by Fox News, underscores what the campaign considers Gingrich's "long-term brand strength" as the reason he will prevail to win the nomination.
"We have a strategic advantage over the rest of the field, including Romney - due to Newt's long-term brand strength as well as regional strength in South Carolina and Florida," Kellems wrote. "He's been around long enough and has been tested; people know Newt. Note, for example, that he was the only man among the GOP presidential candidates to make Gallup's annual short list of most admired Americans, which was released this week."
In the days before the Virginia ballot fallout, Newt Gingrich painted an elegant picture of his path to the nomination.
Gingrich said that after finihing in the top "three or four" in Iowa and "top two" in New Hampshire, he would go on to win South Carolina and Florida.
"From that point on I think it becomes a pretty easy race," he said.
Kindly explain to me how Santorum could have been punished by the constituents that he ticked off in a way other than to fire him?
Hi Grunthor. Happy New Year!
As to your question, I worship the Lord.
You replace him in a primary election or at least let him know he has made a mistake by opposing him in the primary.
You don’t desert a conservative in the general who has an 88 ACU rating and replace him with a liberal whose life-long rating is 7.
Santorum ran UNOPPOSED in the primary. If you’re mad at him, let him know there.
Good point. They should have primaried Toomey against him.
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.