•Santorum was a serial earmarker, requesting billions of dollars during his time in the Senate, and not reversing his position on earmarks until he was out of Congress in 2010. As recently as 2009, Rick said, “I’m not saying necessarily earmarks are bad. I have had a lot of earmarks. In fact, I’m very proud of all the earmarks I’ve put in bills. I’ll defend earmarks.”
I have always been a Newt fan!
And Huckabee is a conservative?
get ready to rumble with the Rick fanboys on FR (snicker)
See post 152. I forgot to ping you to it.
The hue and cry that's emerging in these quarters over the vetting of Santorum's Senate voting record is astounding to me. It would be more honest if his supporters would admit that he's a 'compassionate conservative' like Bush (which is little different than the nanny state libs we're trying to defeat), but they don't do that. They shoot every messenger they run across, with both barrels.
Anyone who thinks Earmarks are the hottest issue this year, really is not paying very close attention.
McCain ran against Earmarks because, well HE HAD NOTHING ELSE!
Have you all noticed? Newt Gingrich in South Carolina brought along massive gains in turnout – record turnout, in fact. The Jan. 21 South Carolina primary drew about 602,000 voters, a 35% increase over 2008. The enthusiasm was there.
In Florida the turnout was low - less than 1.65 million versus 1.95 million in 2008. In Nevada the turnout was almost 50% lower than in 2008. The caucuses turnout were catastrophic. The enthusiasm was NOT there.
Republicans have NEVER fared well when nominating a moderate-to-liberal presidential candidate, ex: Sen. Bob Dole and Sen. John McCain. If any of them, would become the nominee, Santorum (who doesn’t fare well among independents) or Romney (the Teleprompter candidate II), easily could be to the 2012 presidential race what Mr. Dole was in 1996 or Mr. McCain was in 2008.
If the Republican voters don’t defeat the GOP establishment now, it’s unlikely they will be able to do that in the future. In 2010 they fought, elected and sent a strong majority in the House. Once in Washington, WHAT exactly has that majority done? Other than giving Obama a pass, voting three times to increase the debt limit?
What’s more, even if either Santorum of Romney “win” in November, I don’t think that you can count on a Republican Congress to stop their cronyism with lobbyist sharks, and the companies bailed on American people’s money. They would accommodate the actual system, rather than profoundly changing it.
It’s enough to read their plans for the future of America.
“You know, economics is my profession, and I’ve specialized in it all my life, especially public policy economics. I feel sort of like a doctor in a hospital, choosing which surgeon is going to operate on my child. And, you’ve got a bunch of good candidates out there but Newt Gingrich has done it before. His plan is pure and simple supply-side Reaganomics all the way.” — Art Laffer, former Ronald Reagan’s economic adviser.
Ed Rollins, National Campaign Manager for President Reagan, sets the record straight about Newt’s work with Reagan:
“I’m going to straighten it out once and for all: Gingrich was a very important congressional ally. Congressmen aren’t in the White House all day long, and they’re not basically giving advice. But he and Jack Kemp and Trent Lott and others were among 10 or 12 most important players and most loyal to Ronald Reagan.”
There is a chasm between Newt and the other contenders. No one can hold him a candle as far as intelligence, knowledge and experience are concerned. He has been preparing himself for the task of reestablishing America prosperity and greatness for years. Just read his “ The 21st century Contract with America”, released in September 2011.
http://www.newt.org/news/why-we-need-21st-century-contract-america
He knows what is need to be done decisively and fast to launch the American people on the prosperity path once again. He has the knowledge, experience and dedication to do it.
Newt is the American president the country needs NOW.
“Gena, and I were on the campaign trail backing former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee for president”
You had all the RINO’s at Huckabee.
I would rather someone request an earmark, than co-endorse a radical liberal with ACORN., Make a Global Warming commercial with San Fran Nan, and propose MIRRORS IN SPACE.
Earmarks were how Congress worked.
Were they worthwhile or did he build bridges to nowhere?
"McCain fires at Gingrich for earmarks" - usatoday Excerpt:BUT.. more importantly, without knocking Chuck Norris's endorsement of Gingrich, I'd take his knocks against Santurom with a grain of salt. Why? Because among Norris's long bulleted list of charges is the following boldfaced lie:"Overall, though, earmarks about doubled during the time Gingrich led the House, based on statistics compiled by the taxpayer watchdog group Citizens Against Government.""Palin's earmark requests: more per person than any other state" - seatletimes Excerpt:"Just this year, she sent to Sen. Ted. Stevens, R-Alaska, a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million — more, per person, than any other state."
• Santorum opposed the tea party and its reforms in the Republican Party and conservative movement just a couple years ago saying, “I have some real concerns about this movement within the Republican party … to sort of refashion conservatism. And I will vocally and publicly oppose it.”Norris's edit (the above "..."):
Norris did not merely take this out of context, but deliberately removed the heart of the quote to reverse its meaning."this movement within the Republican party …"
is actually
"this movement within the Republican party AND THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT"
As for the context here's what Santorum said just before this quote, that clearly states which movement he is concerned about:
"I fight very strongly against Libertarian influence within the Republican party and Conservative movement"See "Rick Santorum's "Real Concerns"
I would never have thought Chuck Norris capable of such a despicable lie. Whose influence is he under?
Personally, I have no problem with earmarks. I don’t want to send my tax money to Washington in the first place. If my congressman or senator can bring it back to my state to spend instead of spending it on Solyndra in Calif or on a high speed rail in Calif, then I’m just fine with that.
Better that I’d get tax cuts and didn’t have to send them anything.
Santorum was endorsing Romney when the other choice was John McCain. Santorum had worked with McCain. It seems he didn’t like him.
So, Santorum was trying to defeat McCain who he saw as a loser. Turns out he was right.
How could he say that Romney was “conservative”?
There is no way. I assume he was lying and knew he was lying...all for political purposes.
My position on earmarks is that they really OUGHT to be the way Congress passes budgets, as opposed to the idiotic methods of giving vast departments huge pools of money to divvy up as they choose. The problem with earmarks is that they are used to barter with other Senators/Congressman in a “you vote for mine if I vote for yours” manner.
I don’t believe that “voted for earmarks” should be considered disqualifying for any candidate.
For better or worse, the GOP won’t nominate a candidate for the top spot whose only elective experience is in the House. They do better with governors, historically, or generals than with Senators. The two best governor/ex-Governor possibilities aren’t currently in the race (no, I don’t mean Daniels and Christie) so we’re left with Santorum. More nominatable than Newt, more electable than Paul, much better than Mitt.