Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can we stop pretending that Rick Santorum is a fiscal conservative?
United Liberty ^ | 2-15-12 | Jason Pye

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 ...

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: biggovernment; bigspender; ricksantorum; santorum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-226 next last
To: NoPinkos

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.

61 posted on 02/15/2012 12:58:20 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dt57
Sure, Rick Santourm, fiscal conservative. 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?

62 posted on 02/15/2012 12:58:20 PM PST by Kazan (Mitt Romney: The greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright
I think you are being fair, but I don't think you are taking into account all of Gingrich's votes when you compare their votes. Gingrich has some doozies in his background.

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.

63 posted on 02/15/2012 1:00:25 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: NoPinkos; KC_Lion; upsdriver; FrankR; RightOnline; NTHockey; Gene Eric; dixiechick2000; ...
I'm starting to think that a deadlocked convention turning to someone who isn't currently on the stage is the only hope for the party.

64 posted on 02/15/2012 1:01:20 PM PST by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Patlin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan
You're asking the wrong guy; I'm not a Romney supporter. That's why I used the qualifier; “at best” ...that's not really an endorsement on my part. (smile)

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!




65 posted on 02/15/2012 1:01:37 PM PST by Ozymandias Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

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.

66 posted on 02/15/2012 1:01:52 PM PST by dt57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: NoPinkos
Santorum is NO fiscal conservative! An antitax advocacy group zinged Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s 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.” Sntorum and earmarks Bridge to Nowhere project in Alaska; $522,000 for cranberry and blueberry disease and breeding in New Jersey, and $1 million for a Woodstock museum, honoring the 1969 music festival in upstate New York. Senators Propose Redundant Media Research Study (Washington, D.C.) - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today criticized Senators Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), and Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) for reintroducing the Children and Media Research Advancement Act (CAMRA), which will set up a $90 million program to research what countless other studies have already documented the effects of television viewing and other media on children. CAGW named Sen. Lieberman Porker of the Month when he introduced the same legislation in August, 2004. “This proposal is just one expensive rerun,” CAGW President Tom Schatz said. “For decades this issue has been studied to death, always yielding the same results. Calling for yet another taxpayer-funded study belittles the ability of parents to use common sense in deciding what shows are appropriate for their children.” 1. Santorum joined Sen Hillary Clinton, Sen Lieberman, Sam Brownback in introducing the CHILDREN AND MEDIA REASEARCH ADVANCEMENT ACT which allocated a 90 MILLION dollar program to research the effects that watching tv has on children. This was a call for ANOTHER taxpayer funded study that thinks the govt knows better than parents on what is appropriate for their children to view. 2. Santorum voted to raise the minimum wage and to have the govt be allowed to set wage regulations. 3. Santorum spent more than 1 billion on earmarks including..., Pennsylvania in 2005 received $483 million in earmarks for 872 projects, including $5.4 million for an igloo upgrade for an Army Depot and $5 million for a new visitor center at Gettysburg. Senator Santorum voted on raising the debt ceiling 6 times. Five of those times, he voted in favor of raising the debt ceiling and once he voted against it
67 posted on 02/15/2012 1:02:10 PM PST by katiedidit1 ("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dt57
Rick Santorum bears the burden of offering proof when asked.

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.

68 posted on 02/15/2012 1:04:43 PM PST by Kazan (Mitt Romney: The greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: dt57
So your argument is Santorum supported TARP because he didn't vote for 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.

69 posted on 02/15/2012 1:05:04 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600

No one would use that as a platform.

70 posted on 02/15/2012 1:05:56 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600
...The fact of the matter is, Newt Gingrich, the “fiscal conservative” choice, is also pro-life and holds all the same social positions...

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!

71 posted on 02/15/2012 1:06:05 PM PST by ElPatriota (The SILENCE of the Catholic Church in protecting our culture from perversion is ** DEAFENING **)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: dt57

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.

72 posted on 02/15/2012 1:07:06 PM PST by katiedidit1 ("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600

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.

73 posted on 02/15/2012 1:07:53 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kazan

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

74 posted on 02/15/2012 1:10:28 PM PST by dt57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: onyx

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!

75 posted on 02/15/2012 1:13:15 PM PST by KC_Lion (I will NEVER vote for Romney, the GOP will go the way of the Whigs if they nominate him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

NO, my argument is that he never once publically denounced it until after he started running for President. Hmmmm.

76 posted on 02/15/2012 1:13:25 PM PST by dt57
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

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.

77 posted on 02/15/2012 1:14:37 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: dt57
Yes, I voted for George W. Bush

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.

78 posted on 02/15/2012 1:15:45 PM PST by Kazan (Mitt Romney: The greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp

Amen. It’s one thing to look them over and vet. It’s another to never find anyone quite perfect enough.

79 posted on 02/15/2012 1:17:41 PM PST by brytlea (An ounce of chocolate is worth a pound of cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: NoPinkos
Can we stop pretending that Rick Santorum embraces the tenets of conservatism: fiscal discipline , low taxes, small spending, small government and freedom for people in the pursuit of their individual happiness?

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 shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t 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 can’t go it alone...”

80 posted on 02/15/2012 1:19:53 PM PST by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 221-226 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson