Skip to comments.Can we stop pretending that Rick Santorum is a fiscal conservative?
Posted on 02/15/2012 12:10:39 PM PST by NoPinkos
...Jonah Goldberg explained that Mike Huckabee's brand of conservatism was inconsistent with traditional conservatism, in that the former Arkansas Governor believes that government exists, not to protect individual liberty, but to make people live moral lives in accordance with his personal beliefs....
While Rick Santorum doesn't have the record of supporting tax hikes that Tax Hike Mike had or some of the other points listed above--though some of the do apply, he certainly has a record of backing certain social policies based upon the notion that government exists to ensure a certain behavior from its citizens....
On the fiscal and regulatory side of the equation, Santorum doesn't even come close to having a record worthy of Tea Party support....
The only two conclusions I can draw from this is that the anti-Romney faction in the Republican electorate will so blindly follow whoever is deemed to be their "guy" at the moment that they don't care about his economic statism....
The other is that the Tea Party movement has been completely overrun with social conservatives. If that's the case, Republicans will lose this election, and lose it badly. That's not to say that social conservatives can't be fiscal conservatives, rather fiscal issues must come first in this election....
Santorum's social conservatism is going to turn away independent voters. For example, his strange rant against contraceptives is going to sound nutty and unserious to many on-the-fence voters in swing states. And national polls show that voters are now supportive of gay marriage, which Santorum vigoriously opposes.
This is the bed that Republicans have made. The idea that Santorum would be any better on fiscal issues than Romney is absurd. They're both fiscal moderates that aren't going to change the culture of waste in Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at unitedliberty.org ...
Me too, I beginning to think that a brokered convention is the only answer.
Oh, nicely done.
Seeing as how hits on “SoCons” is utterly mythological, since this isn’t actually a social vs fiscal conservative issue, I’d say your post and a good portion of that article are irrelevant.
Since both candidates have the same “social” positions, it can’t be an issue between Social vs Fiscal conservatives.
Like I said before. It is a situation where we have a group of people who basically have failed to vet their own candidate, and have fallen inlove with the religious/social arguments that their candidate uses to cover up his lack of a platform and fiscal record. Apparently, they identify religious arguments with “true conservatism”, and so they project all their hopes and dreams on him.
Fact is, conservatives have been doing this with just about every candidate who gets his “flavor of the month” time. It’s just the bandwagon effect over and over again, and conservatives voting for phantoms and images. Which is why they can support one candidate one day, and then switch to the other. No principles are actually determining their choices. Just image, emotional arguments, and perception.
In other words, the same stuff that got Obama elected.
And as for Santorum again. It is very much a perception issue. The perception is driving his favorability, and the perception is what is putting people into denial about his character, record and plans. And so they latch on to whatever they can do hold on to their delusions, which just happens to be the social issues.
Compared to whom?
ObaMao? He most definitely is.
Romney? Gingrich? At least equal.
Ron Paul? Not so much. But you have to cut Santorum a little slack considering his view of military strength isn't stuck in the last century like Ron Paul.
That’s been argued about, but I believe he did. Do you have proof he didn’t?
I agree. Our candidates beat each other up so badly that none of them is in a position to win. Santorum may be able to beat Romney, but neither of them will beat obama. Gingrich isn't gaining traction and is lagging behind Ron Paul. We can't win if we continue to split the vote. I agree that we need a fresh face. Paul Ryan has the smarts and knows how to best articulate our fiscal position.
Constant castigation with no regard for circumstantial considerations such as poisoning of legislaton by liberals with extreme treachery over one or two terms in office can completely discolor a reps reputation in office.
Single issue, or narrow scope voters then email and blog all the negatives with complete impugnity with no recourse by the elected official. Nobody said it was going to be fair, but conservatives should be considerate, if not compassionate!!!
A brokered convention doesn’t strike me as favorable in any way. What makes you think that a bunch of delegates, who none of us know, are going to support a conservative candidate? The pressure will be on to settle on a compromise candidate. In other words, another RINO.
Not credible. Rick Santorum bears the burden of offering proof when asked. He can not prove he opposed TARP because he didn’t. I was against slavery too. Upps, I was not alive, my bad.
If a candidate uses as adjective to modify “conservative,” experience has shown time and time again that that candidate is no conservative at all. “Fiscal conservatives,” “compassionate conservatives,” whatever; they are all socialists at heart.
If a candidate is not deeply troubled by moral crises in America, and doesn’t understand that these moral crises jeopardize both our economic health and our freedom, he is either an unserious, unreflective candidate, or the enemy.
When a candidate starts campaigning to oppose behavior that is inherently private (skipping mass, masturbating, etc.), you can come talk to me about how that candidate’s “social conservatism” is at odds with traditional conservatism. But public behaviors like gay marriage, abortion, and trafficking pornography aren’t merely spiritual issues, they are public, legitimate issues. The only grey area I have seen emerge yet from “social conservatives” deal with people growing marijuana for their own, personal use. I would argue that a democracy does have an interest in preventing behavior that is both addictive and self-destructive, but I understand that there is a legitimate diversity of opinion on whether marijuana is addictive and self-destructive in a way that masturbation, for instance, is not.
Voted YES on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)
Voted YES on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)
Rated 81% by NTU, indicating a "Taxpayer's Friend" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
If that record isn't fiscally conservative, what is it?
How about cosponsoring an economy0-destroying environmental bill with Nancy Pelosi in 1989. That bill alone should disqualify him for running for dog catcher as a Republican. And there was no reason for him to do it. No pressure from the caucus. That bill was way way ahead of it's time. The fact that he would cosponsor that communistic bill for no reason is a major black mark against him. I can't think of a single excuse why he'd be party to that.
Some would argue (Goldberg et al) that Romney is a fiscal conservative; so, I will grant them that possibility; since I don't really give a d@mn ...I will never vote for “Myth.”
If you can make a well documented, concrete case for the fact Romney is a fraud even as a fiscal conservative; more power to you!
If you document your comments on the Romneycare and other charges you made, I will be more than happy to quote and endorse you to that effect.
Hope that helps!
Keep trying my friend. If Rick Santorum is a fiscal conservative then Bill Clinton did not have sex with that women after all. Rick is a SOCIAL conservative and a NATIONAL SECURITY conservative, and I will vote for him if he is nominated. But please don’t tell me he is a fiscal conservative because IT IS NOT TRUE.
How about you "proving" you're a fiscal conservative. Did you vote for George W.Bush twice when openly ran on his Medicare prescription drug plan and compassionate conservatism?
Conservatives elected Bush, knowing what he was, and gave him a mandate, one most Republicans went along with. If you voted for Bush, you gave him that mandate and you shouldn't be complaining conservatives in Congress almost universally went along with it.
One reason I trust Santorum more fiscally, is he would have to listen to conservatives if elected. His survival would be contingent on it. Gingrich would owe conservatives nothing, and he does what he wants, no matter what conservatives think. Even Bush had to back down to conservatives in the Harriet Myers case. Santorum would be constrained. Gingrich will do whatever he feels like.
No one would use that as a platform.
Just for the record, Newt is - although I am rethinking my priorities - my first choice. Why? Because I thought he had the best chance to defeat OHOMO, which is really turning out be a real "Satan" when it comes to my values. For that reason, although far from perfect, I am with Newt... but I was NEVER against RS and at no time I felt he should quit, because for me, as a person who cares for moral "values" it would unthinkable to abandon him.
But, I NEVER expected he would be doing so well as he is now... never. So?... Of course I am happy and delighted, that at least many of my "social conservative" counterparts, finally found enough spine, wisdom, conviction and hold their cards tight, until something happened such as what is going on now.
As to NEWT? I am waiting for him to make his move!... Nothing would please me more than to have Rick and Newt at the top and see Romney and the "rest" disappear. If RS is doing it, why not NEWT?... We all know Newt is super intelligent and creative, etc. I frankly don't know why Romney ate him alive in FL!... but just like RS, Newt should reset, recharge and keep fighting... and get back on the race!
You got that right! Santorum voted not only to fund but to increase funding for the National Endowment of the Arts; voted to raise the debt ceiling 6 times; voted for a 90 million dollar study on the affects watching tv has on children; voted for govt control of wages and on and on.
Santorum is the type of big govt spender the Tea Party folks fought hard to get rid of!
and with his endorsement of Romney (socialized medicine and pro abortion at the time) and Spector (voted for Obamacare)..I am begining to question Santorums judgement on social issues.
Even the president does not act with complete power. There are geopolitical and other realities that constrain a president. Even if Ron Paul were elected, things would change far less than you might think.
Yes, I voted for George W. Bush, just like I will vote for Rick Santorum if it gets that far. But listen, I am not running for President, so I don’t have to offer proof, but Rick does. It is the price you pay for the that priviledge
I truly Pray for that Onyx, I know the Conservative Rank and File, and even the Average Republican Voter would be behind that, however the GOP-E don’t have no brains at all, but on the other hand they know if they chose Mittens than we will kick their ass to the curb, so we need to keep fighting, the L-rd helps those who help themselves!
NO, my argument is that he never once publically denounced it until after he started running for President. Hmmmm.
It’s funny how often I hear that from Santorum supporters.. and ONLY from Santorum supporters. This must be the official answer to those who point out Santorum’s lack of a platform. “Well, he doesn’t need one, since not much will get accomplished anyway.” I’d rather have an active campaigner in office than the Pope.
So, you, along with just about everyone else here that was eligible to vote in 2000 and 2004, gave him the mandate to push the Medicare prescription drug plan and compassionate conservatives. So, why are you bashing Santorum for going along with something YOU gave Bush a mandate for?
How many Republicans in Congress didn't go along with the Bush agenda from 2000 to 2006? Not many. Is everyone that did go along with bush disqualified from being considered a fiscal conservative? Not in my estimation.
Amen. It’s one thing to look them over and vet. It’s another to never find anyone quite perfect enough.
Pro-big government Santorum in 2005: they have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do. Government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulation low and that we shouldnt get involved in the bedroom, we shouldnt get involved in cultural issues, you know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world, and I think most conservatives understand that individuals cant go it alone...
I am not bashing mr Santorum, I said I WILL VOTE FOR HIM, dang it. Ease up. He is not a fiscal conservative. Maybe I am not either under you criteria. Rick has risen to the top because in many opinion, because of Newt’s past transgressions he is disqualified. Rick Santorum is at best a second tier condidate in a very weak field. Again, I WILL VOTE FOR HIM. He just can’t be Obama. YES, my opinion. Newt has real solutions and real experience changing washington.
Yes, interesting that. I was prompted by this thread to take a poke around the internet to find video from that time period of Santorum opposing TARP and could find nothing. "He wasn't a political office holder at the time!" some say? Huh. Newt wasn't in office either and I managed to find THIS VIDEO from Hannity and Colmes calling TARP, among other things, "...about as bad as anything I've seen in economic policy since I've been active in public life."
Oh and wait, didn't Santorum accuse Newt of (like Romney) supporting TARP? He wouldn't LIE would he?!
And NO I am not a hater or unspiritual. I can have an opinion. and this is my opinion, Rick Santorum is a big government republican when it comes to fiscal matters. Personally, not sure I care if he was a team player. People say I am not a team player, maybe that is not always a bad thing.
Well, he DID support it at one point.
Thank you for the link, I’ve bookmarked and will read more in depth tomorrow (on my way to work presently). From a quick skim it seems that while instinctually opposed, he changed his mind after some in business spoke with him about it. I would love to know who they were and what was said!
Thank you! I have asked Santorum supporters to explain to me how a Senator, who could not withstand the pressure to endorse Specter, would have been able to stand against the all the “end of the world” wailing that was going on and vote against TARP.
What's your source?
Do you have proof he didnt?
You mean, can I prove a negative? Of course not.
I have no proof that he didn't say the following, either:
"The tragic death of Whitney Houston has soured me on contemporary R&B."
"You know what goes really good with a peanut butter and banana sandwich? A nice orange Shasta."
You can attribute any quote to anyone.
The question is: what grounds do you have to assert that he said this? The answer is: none.
It's not good practice to go around putting words in peoples' mouths.
“Santorum is NO fiscal conservative! An antitax advocacy group zinged Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorums tax plan, giving him a grade of D+ grade and the dubious honor of proposing what may be the worst idea of any of the Republican candidates.
” Im rather tired of all the people who dont like Romney trying to claim Rick Santorum is not a big government conservative, or not a pro-life statist. I would support him before I would support Romney too, but I have no intention of giving up ideological and intellectual consistency in the name of beating Mitt Romney.
Rick Santorum is a pro-life statist. He is. You will have to deal with it. He is a big government conservative. Santorum is right on social issues, but has never let his love of social issues stand in the way of the creeping expansion of the welfare state. In fact, he has been complicit in the expansion of the welfare state.” - Erick Erickson
Anyone who raises spending is actually raising taxes, to support his high spending. And Santorum was NEVER shy in raising spending. In his Congressman career he sponsored or co-sponsored FIFTY-ONE spending bills.
Individual freedom and limited government, are the true values that made America great. The welfare, nanny state that Santorum strongly supported, is certainly not what the US was founded on.
We do not need the government to tell me how to live and to give me values, I can do that on my own just fine.
Santorum thinks he is the man, who hold all the truth, and that he and his government have the “obligation” to impose it on people.
Yeah, that’s what I got out of it. I think all of these politicians play politics.... It’s what we’re stuck with. And yes, wouldn’t you like to be a fly on the wall? Of course, if we were we would probably never vote again. I am not 100% opposed to Newt or Santorum. I am not thrilled with our choices, but they are better than what we have in office now. We need a conservative Congress regardless.
Simply not true.
The AFL-CIO scorecard, as disclosed on their website, consists of a list of votes on specific bills (looking over their scorecards about 15-25 per session) that they consider important for "the labor movement."
It is not a list of all bills voted.
Thanks for all the stuff to read, and more importantly, THINK ABOUT... now if we could get the Tea Party types to look at him clearly... there is still time.. Thanks!
I never said it was a total bills voted ledger - but it is not just labor bills. Far from it. “Important to labor” means a lot of things to labor union liberals and if you go thru and link to some of the bills, you will find out that many have nothing to do with labor per se.
There are some problems in his voting record, but it is statistically slightly more conservative than Santorums - which is ironic - because many of Santorum’s followers and Santorum himself wants folks to believe he is actually far more conservative than Newt. That’s my main point with that.
And Santorum did get more and more liberal the longer he stayed in congress (first the House then the senate).
I have looked at him clearly and judged him to be a better choice than Mr. Gingrich. I wish we had those two choices, without the distraction of Romney and Paul.
And Santorum did get more and more liberal the longer he stayed in congress (first the House then the senate).
I think the difference is that those who believe Santorum more conservative look at the post-Congress and pre-Contract years for Gingrich and compare them as a whole.
What “past transgressions disqualify” Newt ?
Newt is the MOST qualified candidate for the office of president, and the other contenders including Obama, cannot hold a candle to him, as far as their accomplishments are concerned.
And I tell you from the start, DON’T even dare bring the divorce matter on the table, I won’t even listen to them. If you elected a candidate for sainthood, then you could make a point, but as you elect the president, his past personal life is a moot point. Playing into the leftists’ hands, who never gave a damn that the democratic presidents from Roosevelt, Kennedy to Clinton, entertained their multiple mistresses in the White House, but are rediscovering their “puritan side” when they point their “horror” in face of two divorces in 50 years in a man’s adult life. It would be funny as hell to see all those Obama supporters - Hollywood stars rising this topic.
Other than that, his private life, which is none of your business, you have NOTHING against Newt. His 20 years record in the House speaks for itself - 91% conservative voting record , 98.7% pro-life voting record.
You guys, you tire me with the mantra that “Newt is disqualified”. He’s the BEST Republican candidate in the past 25 years.
I agree that’s what they do - I just don’t think it’s that valid - since most of them overlook or have no idea how Santorum was getting more and more liberal the longer he stayed in congress and they have no idea how incredibly liberal is last campaign was in 06.
I also submit they have set a high bar for themselves by sniping at other candidates while pretending to be pure. Very off putting.