Posted on 12/29/2011 7:08:41 AM PST by BigEdLB
4 years ago today McCain was 4th in Iowa in the polls, and ended up being the nominee. However, McCain only had 10 points.
Erick Erickson of Red State (except for Pro-Life) doesn’t view Santorum as a consistent conservative.
Take a look here:
Excerpt:
Let’s remember Rick Santorum could not even win re-election in his home state of Pennsylvania.
Rick Santorum also supported Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey in the U.S. Senate back in 2004.
But most damning to me is Rick Santorum’s actual record in the Senate and House of Representatives. I keep hearing him say he was such a paragon of fiscal conservative virtue, when he was anything but that. He was as go along to get along as all the other Republicans who led to our downfall.
Making Santorum worse, he was always the guy saying, “I had to do this, but wait till I get to leadership. I’ll be there for you in leadership.” It’s what he is saying now. Only it isn’t true and never was.
He supported steel tariffs in Pennsylvania, which did him little good in his own re-election effort.
He supported No Child Left Behind.
He supported the prescription drug benefit.
He supported the Bridge to Nowhere. In fact, according to Club for Growth, “Santorum had the audacity to vote to continue funding the Bridge to Nowhere rather than send the money to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.”
Santorum decided, after leaving Congress, to oppose earmarks, but he sure did love them while he was there. He voted against the Farm Bill in 2002, but he voted to extend milk subsidies to save the poor Pennsylvania farmer.
In the House, Santorum opposed NAFTA and offered legislation to impose steel tariffs. He wanted to tax imported honey and Chinese imports.
Throughout his career, Santorum has tried to have it both ways. For example, as the Club For Growth documents
He voted NO on raising the minimum wage in 1995 and 2005. But on the same day he voted NO in 2005, he sponsored an amendment that would increase the minimum wage, which he later boasted about to skeptical voters in a 2006 campaign brochure he released called “50 Things You Didn’t Know About Rick Santorum.”
In other words, the Santorum I have observed for a decade is the Rick Santorum on the campaign trail now — a guy trying to have it both ways through too clever by half stunts like voting against the minimum wage while authoring a bill to raise the minimum wage so no one can pin him down on his record.
Who ever told you Rick Santorum was “such a paragon of fiscal conservative virtue”? While most applaud his social conservatism, I don’t think much of anyone ever saw Santorum as a fiscal conservative, and he certainly was not touted as virtuous while he was actually IN Congress.
In fact, Santorum has also had some “personal” fiscal policies have raised some eyebrows. He received more money donations from lobbyists than ANYONE else on Capital Hill in 2006 election cycle - http://newsbusters.org/node/3588 and took oversight for the Republican K Street Project after they lost Tom Dulay - http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/598/326/050/
I have always like hearing Rick Santorum give a speech. I read somewhere they he even used to be labeled as similar to Winston Churchill as he speaks, and he does seem to be a social conservative, but I would not think anyone would ever label Rick Santorum a fiscal conservative, and I’m not sure who told you that, dear child!
While Bachmann is clearly the more “conservative,” IMO she flamed herself by allowing the Gardasil to become a political Tar Baby. Bad judgment there. Moreover, Santorum has a far better grip on foreign policy and the need to drain the swamp at the DOS than does Bachmann.
If it were a certainty that Gingrich could win, there would have been no Santorum “surge” this late in the IA race.
I have voted for Perry six times in TX; this year I am for Santorum, the other Rick.
Per CPTClay: Santorum- 21
Romney - 19
Paul - 18
Gingrich- 17
Perry - 16
Bachmann- 8
I those numbers were right and there was no Bachmann, Santorum would have nearly 30. I’m surprised Perry has that much.
I don’t think Santorum is personally wealthy, is he? He tried to get all those special interest contributoipms to compete in a liberal state. But I can see how that would trouble you. It would be hilarious if he were nominated, that PA voted him down, but he won anyway!
Santorum has about as much chance of winning the Republican nomination as Lady Gaga.
No, I don’t think Rick Santorum is personally wealthy, at least not that I know of. Even the $500,000 mortgage he got years ago would purchase a house in Northern Virginia that would appear extremely modest looking for a Senator. I lived in Northern Virginia for 25 years as a military family on a housing allowance, and I can tell you $500,000 in his specific area of Northern Virginia could be anything from a nicer (not the best) townhouse to an older, simple home (if he’s lucky to find a single family house there at that price). But whatever he purchased for that $500,000 there, it would not have been anywhere as nice as most other Congressmen and lobbyists live in.
And I know those earmarks were not going to HIM but to his state.
I think you seem to see what does bother me, but to make sure, I don’t like the system of taking more tax payer money to dole out to the Congress to let them then use to get back to their states, depending on how much they need to build support back home or to pay a favor back to another friend in Congress or how much they listen to lobbyists from their home state or whatever.
When I say I’m a fiscal conservative, I mean that from the get go, and I would rather just let the states themselves function and be competitive (or not-competitive if that is their choice) instead of taking citizens’ tax payer money from across this land to give to the federal government first so they can divide that money out on a big-government level BACK to states. How inefficient is that!!!! LOL
And Senator Santorum trying to peg that as a 10th Amendment right is absolutely CRAZY. When you are taking more money than need be to give to Congress to decide what to do with it, we have basically left the 10th Amendment room! :)
I suppose perhaps one could say Rick Santorum was simply using the broken system that was there to give his political life an edge in a blue-learning state, but he used that broken system more than many others and still says even today that doing it that way (earmarks from Congress back to the states) is a good thing.
We are in a new age now, one where America doesn’t want stuff like that going on anymore, one that is willing to make some changes after the changes we have gone through under an Obama administration. If there was any other time we could change a big government broken process like earmarks and unfiltered and unchecked lobbyist influence, this is it! It doesn’t sound like Rick Santorum has any problem with that broken system. He still LIKES having earmarks which, in essence, requires taking the extra tax dollars from citizens across the country so Congress can see fit as to how they want to give that additionally collected revenue back to different states’ special interests through the earmark process.
For the life of me, I just can’t see how Rick Santorum would go for taking money FROM citizens of The United States to give to the federal government so the federal government can then give BACK to some states as they see fit (or as the Congress needs for politics). That’s big government in my mind.
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.