Skip to comments.Problems With the Truth: Confessions of a 22-Year Rick Santorum Observer
Posted on 04/05/2012 8:17:49 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Ive known Rick Santorum for 22 years, having first met him in 1990 before hed won his first campaign for Congress. I interviewed him on WORD-FM, an evangelical Christian radio station where I was a frequent guest host (and eventually a full-time host) early in his campaign.
If I was not the first media personality to interview Rick, I was one of the first. I had Rick as a guest at the request of my friend, Mark Rogers, who was running Ricks campaign. Over the years I interviewed Rick at least a dozen times and debated him several times as well. I personally knew most of his staff, almost hired one member of his staff as the research director of a think tank I ran, and eventually did hire another of his staff members as my administrative assistant.
As I mentioned before, I was friends with the man who ran his first campaign and who ended up being Ricks chief of staff when Rick was in Congress. I was best man at the marriage of a Santorum staff member and one of my closest friends. This couple may well be my wifes and my closest friends. Ive had dealings on more than one occasion with a media/public relations firm run by John Brabender, who has done most of Ricks media campaign work.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Devastating stuff from Mr. Bowyer, the former head of a conservative think-tank around here and former local radio talk show host.
Thanks again for reminding me on the opening day of baseball season how they did an end-run around the clear expression of the voters to build those stadiums with public money anyhow.
Claimed it would make the Pirates competitive. In 1999.
Some of us have been posting the facts here about Santorum from the start, only to be attacked as evil people who hate a “godly man,” which is apparently his latest reinvention of himself once he found that it worked to get votes.
“Wish I’d known this before I voted for Santorum last Tuesday.”
And why do you assume that this article is being entirely honest? After all, all of these alleged problems have been around for years, but now they are just being revealed? I love these last minute revelations - like the idiot article that kept being posted about how Santorum was really, secretly pro-abortion.
Forbes, like the rest of the establishment media is in the tank for Mittens. You are “being played”, and now, because of credulous people like you, we will end up with Mittens, whom we of course know is an honorable man and conservative with deeply held conservative convictions.
Santorum isn’t my first choice - or even my second or third. Maybe not even my fourth choice. Nevertheless, with whatever policy faults he has, he is vastly better than Mittens.
The establishment is scared silly of someone form there is at least one issue where compromise is out of the question.
Any candidate who said what Santorum said about George Zimmerman without any facts is a LOSER of the first order!
You knew this information before you voted for him, didn't you?
I don’t support Rick Santorum. I find him as pasty and boring and uninspiring as this, uh, what is this? An article? An Opinion? Some ramblings? I could hardly read this dribble. It is written like they guy is sitting on his toilet with his iPad in hand after waking up in the middle of the night because he is constipated. He seems to be half asleep.
So, why don’t you rebut what Bowyer says with specifics instead of calling Forbes a rag and bashing local talk show hosts?
Then, I might believe you. But not now.
After reading the article, all I’m going to say is that I’m a Newt supporter until the end, and I have no regrets about that.
I forgot about that one, I’m sorry to say. However, I wasn’t going to vote for Mittens or whatever obscene nickname he has now. I wasn’t going to vote for Newt because he’s married to his mistress. (Yes, I know that’s horribly judgmental in an era where Clintonian Republicans get a pass, but I don’t care.)
That left Paul and Santorum. Paul actually appealed more to me, based on his ideas, but I could not forgive his associations with people such as Stormfront folks, so I voted for Santorum. So there.
Santorum has one leg in the past and one in the future. He is out of step in war advocacy as our solution for peace. But Santorum’s social message is ahead of the times. He is a pioneer like Goldwater. As the moral greed and selfishness of the country increases, the moral awakening will resonate more. ‘Greed is good’, but doing good is better.
He’s this campaign season’s Huckabee, trotted out there to siphon off just enough conservative votes to secure the nomination of the establishment selected candidate. The same people fell for it last time, and fell for it again.
The MSM would never broadcast such damaging information while the lightning rod was was doing its job. Only now, when his usefulness is extinguished, do they let the information flow.
This is mere confirmation of facts that have been shown previously. It will be funny to continue to read the passionate and angry defenses of Little Saint Ricky from the willfully blind who have supporting him.
I read the whole thing... Jerry Bowyer excoriates Santo on several “things” BUT not on being a Union stooge.. Bowyer must also be a Union stooge.. Which is Santo’s greatest FAULT..
Romney is also a Union stooge, you know, like OBAMA..
Funny most people are seeming to miss the main reason Santo Romney or anyone else SHOULD NOT BECOME President..
Being a GOON for the Unions.. or supporting federal givernment power for Unions.. Unions of every type and parasitic agenda.. Federal and State power for an inside group, a cabal of Vampires.. UNIONS.. all of them..
Bowyer missed all that.. ON PURPOSE.. much as Bill O’Really and all of FOX News misses it for the same reasons.. A brief look at Wisconsin will show why? Unions are parasitic and a political disease.. Unions are buried so deep in Chicagos political machine they are one and the same as the democrat party.. and the republican party AS WELL...
ONLY NEWT has “hinted” at destroying the Unions power base..
That is, Local, State and Federal Givernment support..
Only “right to work” laws can allow FREEDOM to exist..
NO “right to work” NO FREEDOM.. some States are NOT Free..
The people of PA apparently got sick enough of him to toss him out on his ass in 2006.
Interesting. I didn’t find it to be “dribble.” Which part is drivel? This wasn’t opinion. Bowyer listed Rick’s “lies” very clearly and then elucidated.
Do you have anything specific to rebut what Bowyer says? You can convince me with facts. As it is, I had heard about Rick’s house-buying deceit. In my opinion, Santorum is just another dxxxed politician.
Not that you’re not entitled to your opinion, but mega-barf.
I rest my case.........Now some of you can see why I have fought so hard to get the truth out about this impostor and fraud.
I am not a Santorum supporter and I go along with all of this except the real estate issue.
The people of Pennsylvania can’t really expect that their senators and congresscreatures will physically live in PA and put in a four-hour one-way commute to Capitol Hill every work day. Those who work on Capitol Hill have to live within reasonable commuting distance, which means northern Virginia or close-in Maryland (= 45 + minutes drive time, depending on the state of the nightmarish traffic). Those are staggeringly expensive areas. A house in towns like Bethesda, Chevy Chase, Great Falls, McLean, or Alexandria suitable for a senator or congressperson to do professional entertaining will definitely cost upwards of a million dollars. If he can afford it, why not? And if he wants to enroll his kids in a cyber school under the supervision of their mother, as many homeschool families do, why not do that too? I see that as being better than enrolling them in local schools in Virginia.
Everything else in the article, yes.
Ouch. This is going to leave a mark.
That's not a reason to ignore the allegations though, is it? The author writes about lies Rick Santorum told when he was a Congressman and Senator for Pennsylvania. Since PA was Santorum's home state for most of his political career and the PA primary is April 24th, Santorum's record and statements as a representative of PA are relevant.
I suspect that had Rick Perry been the chosen candidate of the Christian Right, his record and statements would have been scrutinized just prior to the Texas primary in May. And that would be relevant also, IMHO.
The piece is full of things like this: "Not long after that I was summoned to Ricks office for an alleged reconciliation meeting, where I was lectured about how he really was a true conservative and that people like me should not be sore winners and should line up in support of him again.
"Summoned" by who? "Lectured" by who? When did this happen? Around 1997 it seems?
There are a lot of words in this thing that was written but not much to chew on. Not a great deal of supporting facts that I see. Not that I care. As I already said, I do not support Santorum.
I've been following all this left-wing attacks on Santorum, and that is virtually the only one where he actually said what they say he said. He screwed up big time on that one. But it's an exception. All the other attacks, on examination, took his words out of context and lied about what he actually said.
Typical is the headline currently on Drudge, one of the giants of the Romney Lie. Rick is taking a four-day weekend from the campaign trail, and with it is a picture of some kind of comic puppet.
Well, those four days happen to be Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Easter. A lot of us will be taking the time to observe Holy Week, I would imagine. Even the banks and the markets are taking an extra day off. But Drudge makes it seem as if it's Rick's comical cave=in to Drudge's gay god, Mitt Romney.
So, you’ve decided to skip the “lies,” and focus on minor details. Not convincing.
You would have to really wonder about anyone who would willingly form an alliance with former Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy.
Murphy is a singularly dishonest and unlikeable character.
In case you didn't notice, that was almost entirely the fault of Bush and Rove. The Democrats swept the country in 2006, and built their congressional majority that year. Pennsylvania is a swing state, and not an easy victory for a conservative Senator, especially with a strong opponent who was a very good liar and also had the sympathy vote. Bush won big in 2004, but over the next two years he disappointed his base and threw it all away. 2006 was a disaster over most of the country.
Rick did endorse Specter, for several reasons: Because Bush and Rove, not yet discredited, said they needed him to put through more pro-life SCOTUS nominees like Clarence Thomas, who never would have made it without Specter's powerful support. And indeed Specter did push Roberts and Alito through, before he went south again. Also, because Specter had endorsed Santorum earlier, so he owed him. Although Specter then betrayed Rick and turned his back on him.
Pennsylvania happens to be a swing state, and without Specter's support, plus the base voters who were foolishly angry about the Specter endorsement earlier, plus Bush's growing unpopularity, Rick was bound to lose.
It’s Bush’s fault!
If you say so.
Oh absolutely! And it's very disheartening they've learned nothing of how the game is played and only see who they might "like"....They should have seen the media 'play' in New England when they lifted Santorum to the front.....he sure didn't get it by his popularity.
They gave him the stage thereafter....and with Romney's ads in Florida we watched as they continued to push Newt off the stage.
Makes my blood boil that the best man for the job,, Newt, could not be seen thru the media blackout and the sudden appearance of Santorum....simply was a matter of the Pied Piper doing it's work and the Republicans following.....same o' same.
An interesting and telling article, but much was already known and it will not make a difference with those that support Saintorum.
-His supporters will either ignore it, attack it or make excuses for Rick... just as they have done all along.
-Any article bringing attention to his deficits are too late to stop him, and if discredited.... too late to help him.
Unless this entire mess goes to a contested convention, where a rabbit is pulled out of a hat, this game is over......meaning that Romney will get the nomination and go on to lose against Obama.
PREPARE for 4 more years of pain and suffering, because that is most likely what we are going to experience.
Well, it is a fact that the 2006 election was a disaster for the Republicans.
The 2002 midterm election went surprisingly well for the Republicans, since midterms tend to be difficult, historically, for the incumbents. And Bush did very well in 2004, with a huge turnout of Evangelicals.
By 2006, that enthusiasm was gone, and millions of Christian conservatives who turned out for Bush in 2004 stayed home.
It is certainly a fact that Santorum was not the only incumbent who was thrown out in 2006. It was a disaster over most of the country.
I'm not here trying to "convince" you. I don't care what you think about this "thing" that was written as if it is some kind of thunderclap. It has the word "confession" in the title but the guy is not someone that is on the inside of anything that I can see. His views are external to his subject. He does not "confess" anything other than what one might read in some response to a google inquiry. Even he says he is an "observer". Well, I have observed the Pope but I can't "confess" a darn thing to you about him. My point is that this is a lighweight piece with not much to get excited about. Just some stuff stitched together then he speaks in a very serious manner. LOL!
Again, I don't care about Santorum. Frankly, I find him kind of creepy. So that is my "confession". I declare Santorum creepy after observing him. Maybe I should write a piece about that and send it to Forbes because it seems they need any kind of content filler they can get...
“Now some of you can see.....”
Deer see the headlights of a car coming at it at 70mph.... they either freeze and do nothing, run off into the woods and hide or jump in front of the car.
If this one video didn’t make folks realize that Saintorum was unfit for the job, nothing else will. After all, he was once an alter boy.
Here is the only real conservative in that has been in the race... and he loves the constitution:
Well, I guess what I’m doing is begging someone to prove to me that there is a candidate for me to vote for— to prove to me that one or the other should be Obama’s opponent.
I’ll hold my nose and vote for the Obama’s opposition, and I don’t think that will be Santorum. But, if it is, I’ll vote for him.
I then added some very inappropriate comments about the OP’s motives for which I have apologized. CAWW has since made clear that he agrees Romney needs to be stopped; beyond that, I don't want to speak for him and run the risk of saying things he would not say.
Bottom line — the Santorum campaign **MUST** respond to this. The article is damaging. I believe it can be responded to, but I'm the wrong person because I don't know Pennsylvania politics, and in any event, I'm not in any way formally connected with the Santorum campaign and Santorum’s people, not just his supporters, need to respond to an article capable of causing this magnitude of damage.
59 posted on Wed Apr 04 2012 13:06:55 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by caww: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2012/04/04/problems-with-the-truth-confessions-of-a-22-year-rick-santorum-observer/
I've been around politics long enough to know that something like the article caww cited didn't come out of nowhere. It's virtually tailor-made to damage Rick Santorum in his home state with his core constituency of conservative Christians. While I am not going to criticize the motives of the author and am inclined to take him at his word about his reasons for writing and maybe even his own timing, the timing of the article's prominent appearance in a major conservative magazine like Forbes is pretty likely intended by the Romney campaign to attack Santorum and is likely part of an effort to knock Santorum out of the race by wrecking his polling numbers in Pennsylvania.
I know nothing about the author or his background as an Christian broadcaster or his credibility in Pennsylvania. I also don't know local issues. What I do know is this article has to be rebutted by the Santorum campaign, and rebutted quickly.
I see at least two potential problems with the article. There may well be others which I have not noticed because I don't know Pennsylvania politics, and what I write here is tentative. Somebody from the Santorum campaign needs to write a much better response.
First, the article uses the lie word in ways which are questionable at best. That is a very, very serious charge. That word needs to be used very rarely and only when it can be proved that someone has deliberately stated things he knew to be false with an intent to deceive. Most statements by political figures are made carefully enough that they can't be caught in a deliberate lie, so even if I think an elected official lied, I usually can't prove it, and if I can't prove it I'm not going to make the accusation.
In this specific article, while I think some of the accusations (i.e., the charitable giving) are potentially capable of being proved to be deliberate lies, I'm not at all convinced the article has proved that Santorum lied even about that, and much less so the other accusations. I don't recall any case where I have accused Gingrich or even Romney of lying, and the evidence the author cites is weak in at least some of the situations he cites. I'm not saying it's wrong, only that the evidence isn't there.
Second, I am not at all convinced that Santorum backing a proposal to use government funding to keep professional sports teams is a good example of his supposed big government views. Do I like such things? No, but the reality is that I live in an area where the entire future of our community depends on Department of Defense spending, and where things like TIFs and CIDs and NIDs and other things of that type are standard engines of economic growth which the broadcaster dismisses as Keynesian economics.
I think it's clear that Pennsylvania is far from the only area where governments have spent tens of millions of dollars to keep a professional sports team in town, or to provide some other incentive to a private business to keep its owners in town or convince its owners to move to town or expand an existing operation. We can say Santorum was wrong to do that, and that's fine, but blaming Santorum for doing what his constituents wanted, especially when what they wanted has become standard practice in economic development, is asking Santorum to be the sort of elected official who probably can't get re-elected in a moderate-to-liberal state.
If that's the worst example the author can come up with of Santorums supposed big government views, I think the author is proving only that Santorum is from a northern rustbelt state where the government has been involved in providing incentives to business for at least a century. I also think it wouldn't be too hard to find lots of conservative Southerners who support the same or similar incentives to business. Feel free to disagree that's a fair question but those who disagree would have been in a very small minority of people in government until the current economic crisis in which lots of people agree staving off bankruptcy needs to be the key priority.
I'm 100% with you on that!
PING for later.
Except who did he actually siphon votes from?
Back in Iowa, he ended up winning, and for all we know if he hadn’t, RIck Perry might have been that dark horse rising from Iowa. That would have changed things greatly.
He certainly didn’t siphon votes from Gingrich.
Ditto that ...
The whole thing stinks to high heaven IMO....we have been boxed in and barely with a fight. If this does not go to convention then I’m genuinely done with politics altogether.
Primarily because even when we get our guys in office they quickly lay their gloves aside....and doing so sets us, in the field, back years of what might otherwise be.
Sometimes the idea of the whole system crashing is not hard to imagine as a good thing....and may take just that for Americans to ever really wake up. Too many are still far to comfortable in their lifestyle and it won’t be until they see a tornada actually take thier home will they rise to the occassion....if that.
I know and it deplorable to say without knowing the facts! What else does Santorum say and do without knowing the facts???
I'm really waiting for Hades to be raised at the convention! Maybe something radical will happen which will dismantle the whole republican rino establishment.
As convoluted as this may sound, Romney might be the nominee, and if he is I hope he beats Obama, but I won't vote for his sorry rino ass!
Iowa. Just like Huckabee...
Both Perry and Gingrich are both far superior candidates than Little Saint Ricky, yet do not mercilessly flog their faith in everyone’s face. Evidently, enough voters see this as a plus, and not a flashy curtain obscuring utter vapidity on nearly all matters pertaining to governance that this charlatan was able to stay in the race.
It also helps that the MSM went total blackout on Newt after Florida, instead only reporting on the “two front runners” in Mittens and Little Saint Ricky. Newt was too effective against them, so they shut him up.
With Little Saint Ricky and Mittens, the Establishment wins either way. Both are big spenders and will further the expansion of Big Government. Slower than Il Douche, but expansion nonetheless.
Santorum’s last minute surge in Iowa started when the media started putting forward the narrative that Santorum would get a “second” look..... He was a desperation vote since Cain was gone and Newt took damage, and Ron Paul was possibly going to take the win.
And the author is to be trusted? Forbes? How about NBC or CNN?
At this point, I think the timing of the allegations is a good reason to treat them with extreme scepticism. People don’t have to invent things to have something to criticize Santorum over.
Unfortunately, no sitting politician has a record that is entirely wart free. Mittens’ handlers have been very good at getting conservatives to devour their own while he stands on the sidelines. Now all the geniuses here who posted with vitriol against Perry, Cain, Santorum, Newt, RP, and Bachman get Romney.
The Rs aqren’t called the stupid party for nothing.
The point was that the establishment is petrified of anyone with a backbone. Since Santorum is avowedly against abortion, I don't think it needs further proof.
OK, since people asked. I don’t really care myself, and I don’t have time for detailed analysis, but I’ll take a stab.
“Lie 1” - raise local taxes or teams would leave”. I am wary of ever calling future predictions “lies”, because nobody can tell the future. In this case, the taxes weren’t raised. But we don’t know whether the teams would have left, because they found a way to get alternate tax money without a local tax increase; although it did bankrupt the city, it seems to have saved the teams. Now, was Santorum “lieing”, because he didn’t know they’d bankrupt the city and raise state taxes to save the team? Did it turn out better for Pittsburgh to be bankrupt than to have the tax increase? I’m not going to argue in support of taxes paying for stadiums, but that is a policy question. I judge that there is no lie here.
“Lie 2 : No Plan B to save teams”. Author provides no evidence there was a plan. When taxes were rejected, a new plan became known, but for all we know that plan started formation when the tax increase failed. And since that plan bankrupted the city, it wasn’t a very good plan, and one could say it wasn’t a “plan” so much as the inevitable consequence of the tax rejection. Again, this was no Lie.
“Lie 3: (2) Where Santorum Lived” - this story is well-known, and the author shows no indication of a lie. Santorum attacked the previous office holder for not living in the district, and said he would, but again, this is a prediction of the future. He owned a residence which is what many in DC do to maintain a legal residence, so that wasn’t a lie. He wasn’t found liable for the cost of the charter school, and the whole “cost” thing is one of those fictions of government accounting, as they pass fake money around and pretend they are spending it. Who thinks it really cost and extra $100,000 because Santorum’s kids took online courses that already existed? The programs were paid for, the computers were operating, the teachers were being paid whether there were 5 extra kids or not.
“Lie 4: He claimed he wanted to live in Pa, but then didn’t when he was fired” — once gain, this is a future prediction problem. That he didn’t move back to Pa in 2006 doesn’t show that in 2004 he wished he could. Maybe getting soundly beaten in an election made him change his mind about where he lived. When my son asked if i wanted to do a C&O Canal bike trip, I said no way. We just did it — does that mean I lied? No, I changed my mind. Did Santorum ever promise that he’d be a life-long Pa resident? no.
“Lie 5 : Santorum said he was underwater” — This is the first lie where there is some actual evidence. Except the evidence is a newspaper attempt to assess the value of a “2 million dollar home” in a collapsing real estate market. Actually, here in Northern Virginia house prices bounced back somewhat pretty quickly. My house was once listed at $500,000, and later was around $220,000, and then some around me sold for $350,000. If my loan was $300,000, and I said in one month I was underwater, and a paper came 3 months later and saw the recent $350,000 sale price, they would conclude I wasn’t underwater, but I might have been when I said it. I might have still been, because who knows if I could actually sell my house. Certainly not a “lie”.
“Lie 6: Santorum said his child cost a lot so he gave little” — Actually, the author never refutes that claim, he just says it doesn’t actually explain low giving. But it certainly could explain the low giving in that year. If I never gave any money and instead bought pizza every day, and then one year I couldn’t buy pizza because I spent all my money caring for my sick wife, and then I was asked why in that year I didn’t give more money, it wouldn’t be a lie to say that I could not give more money because I spent it all on my sick wife.
“Lie 6: He said he gave more in earlier years, when tax returns show he didn’t”. This is the first lie that appears to have merit, if you assume the story is correct about the tax returns. I don’t have time to research tax returns. The family might also have still had major expense; 7 kids and a mortgage on a 2-million-dollar house is a big deal. Note that the author plays class warfare while pretending not to. Anybody can own a 2-million dollar home, you just have to find someone stupid enough to lend you 2 million dollars. Having bought a 2-million-dollar home (which btw isn’t exactly the upper crust home in Fairfax, as I said I own a pedestrian home in Prince William that was appraised at half a million at the height of the bubble (4 bedroom, 1/3rd acre in an older community with no sidewalks or curbs, and the home is poorly built), Santorum had a huge monthly mortgage, so maybe he couldn’t afford to give money. I don’t excuse his not giving, because charity is a calling of God. But it might not be a lie to say he had no money to give. Still, I won’t reject this one — so that’s one lie in the 1st 6 attempts.
“Lie 7 : (4) - disparagement of a pollster” - I guess if we are going to call attacking pollsters for bad polls “lies”, we’ll have to call all politicians liars. I’ve heard every candidate say the polls were bad, sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. Now, can I do research to find out how well the pollster does? I don’t have the time, but I will note that the author didn’t give any evidence to show the pollster was accurate, beyond stating that the pollster managed to release at least one poll in each of Santorum’s senate runs that correctly showed who would win. Well, I would note that the poll Santorum was complaining about actually showed Santorum winning Pennsylvania, so if Santorum wins the poll would be “correct”, and the argument was over the percentages. In order to show that Santorum was exagerating or lying about hte pollsters accuracy, the author needed to show that the pollster consistantly got the PERCENTAGES right in Pennsylvania races. I will say it is the responsibility of the person claiming a lie to SHOW it is a lie, not my burden to prove it isn’t a lie. I reject this pollster claim as a lie of any consequence, and note the author was REALLY personally upset about this comment, and said this was the entire reason he wrote the article.
(WHich means the author, who claims Santorum is a serial liar, was HAPPY to let all of us vote for him in ignorance, until his personal friend was attacked, and THEN he decided to tell the truth. What kind of guy lets the world be mislead as it is of no consequence, only to lash out because he is personally angry?)
So there you have it. The entire article is an opinion-based attack, so I have used an opinion-based response. By my reckoning, without spending a lot of time on it, I can rationally and logically dismiss 6 out of the 7 claims of “lies” as being something other than a lie. Only one case, that of the charitable contributions, appears to be a lie, and maybe a better study of the facts might also show that to be tenuous.
This CERTAINLY is no knock-out blow, or a definitive show of the lack of moral character of Rick Santorum.
Rick is in a hard race, and he’s getting frayed nerves, it appears. He’s saying things in frustration and desperation, and it isn’t pretty (his George Zimmerman comments were worse than anything in this article). He lashed out at a poll because at the moment he was asked, it was an outlyer, and a candidate has to build momentum by claiming things are looking up. That caused this article’s author to get angry and lash out in a personal attack against Rick Santorum.
If Rick was doing better, he would be calmer and would have found a better way to speak to the polls, and this article wouldn’t have been written. If you want a guy who is pretty calm and is unlikely to say rash things about Zimmerman or pollsters, that unfortunately is Mitt Romney, because he’s doing well enough he isn’t frazzled like Gingrich was after Florida or Santorum is now.