February 12, 2012

For Rick Santorum …

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 1:40 pm

this may eventually be seen as proof that the tide decisively turned last Tuesday.

Hope so.

Share

9 Comments

  1. SANTORUM VOTED FOR SOTOMAYOR IN 1997 – EVEN RINO MCCAIN DID NOT!

    Pop quiz: Which Republican presidential candidate supported the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor? — Hint: It’s the same one who endorsed a pro-abortion-rights presidential candidate in an earlier campaign.
    When Bill Clinton picked Sotomayor in June 1997, many conservatives believed her confirmation would put her in a fast track to the Supreme Court. The Wall Street Journal editorial called her a liberal judicial activist. Rush Limbaugh said Clinton was putting her on a rocket ship to the Supreme Court. A vote to confirm her to the Circuit Court, many Republicans believed, would make it hard to vote against her if she was nominated to the Supreme Court.
    Republicans, led by Majority Leader Trent Lott, delayed Sotomayor’s confirmation vote for more than a year. When the vote finally happened, 29 Republicans — including most conservative stalwarts like Mitch McConnell, Phil Gramm, Jon Kyl and even John McCain — voted no.
    Santorum joined every Democrat in the Senate and 24 other Republicans in voting yes.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/which-republican-presidential-candidate-supported-sotomayor/

    JUST MORE PROOF THAT SANTORUMANIACS WHO THINK RICK IS A MORE RELIABLE CONSERVATIVE THAN MITT ARE MISTAKEN.

    SANTORUM WAS AN EARMARK KING WHO LAVISHED PORK ON HIS CAMPAIGN DONORS.

    “… an examination of Mr. Santorum’s earmark record sheds light on another aspect of his political personality, one that is at odds with the reformer image he has tried to convey on the trail: his prowess as a Washington insider.
    A review of some of his earmarks, viewed alongside his political donations, suggests that the river of federal money Mr. Santorum helped direct to Pennsylvania paid off handsomely in the form of campaign cash.”
    MORE:

    How bad was Rick Santorum’s record on pork? I look at that in my homepage piecetoday:
    There’s no way to know for sure how many earmarks Santorum requested, since lawmakers weren’t required to attach their names to earmark requests until 2007. (Santorum served in the Senate from 1995 to 2007.) The Club for Growth, in its presidential white-paper series, claims that Santorum “requested billions of dollars forpork projects,” while the Perry campaign is alleging that Santorum requested over $1 billion in earmarks. Steve Ellis, vice president ofTaxpayers for Common Sense, views the $1 billion–plus figure as a plausible estimate. “As a matter of fact, I would probably peg it probably a little higher,” he says.

    Comment by reliapundit — February 12, 2012 @ 3:59 pm

  2. #1, and your favored candidate is ….?

    Also, some people learn. Others don’t. Romney has regressed. Santorum has arguably progressed. I welcome evidence to the contrary.

    Comment by TBlumer — February 12, 2012 @ 5:05 pm

  3. romney was to the right of mccain in 2008 and has moved more to the right; he has not regressed.

    i supported mitt in 2008 and perry this time – until he started campaigning.

    i’d prefer daniels or demint or jindal – or cheney if he was healthy! liked barbour until the clemency crap.

    like christie – but he’s more centrist than mitt.

    mitt has the executive experience to run the WH and executive branch and is deeply conservative in personla ways and ever more conservative in public ways, political ways. with a gop senate and house i think we will be in good hands if mitt is in the WH.

    with the chinese bubble bursting, the eu falling apart, and our economy and budget and financial sytem teetering, i think we need a man of mitt’s knowledge and experience.

    besides. throwing red-meat to the base won’t win the general election – where we need women and independents and moderates to defeat obama.

    neither rick or newt can do that.

    the polls that currently showing rick doing well are just like the ones that a month ago showed newt doing well.

    neither could beat obama in the general.

    only itt can raise the money and run the organization needed to defeat obama.

    imho.

    :)

    Comment by reliapundit — February 12, 2012 @ 6:00 pm

  4. Re Romney, two inarguable, indisputable words: Objectively. Unfit.

    Proof.

    If you don’t think serially violating the oldest Constitution in the land and the sacred oath of office taken to uphold it (and promising that you will violate that constitution while campaigning) makes a candidate objectively unfit, I can’t help you.

    On a composite basis, Romney is not and never has been to the right of McCain.

    Comment by TBlumer — February 12, 2012 @ 8:31 pm

  5. THIS COMMENT BY YOU IS A LAUGHER:

    On a composite basis, Romney is not and never has been to the right of McCain.

    OH SURE.

    THAT’S WHY HE WON THE ENDORSEMENT OF RUSH AND LEVIN AND HANNITY IN 2008.

    I GUESS YOU ARE CORRECT AND THEY ARE WRONG.

    AND I GUESS BOLTON AND THUNE AND ODONNELL AND MCDONNELL AND HAKEY AND AYOTTE AND COULTER ARE WRONG, TOO.

    SHEESH.

    Comment by reliapundit — February 12, 2012 @ 9:33 pm

  6. THE BEST YOU CAN SAY ABOUT SANTORUM IS “HE’S NOT PERFECT.”

    YOU FAIL TO COMMENT ON ANY OF THE FACTS I POSTED.

    SOTOMAYOR.

    EARMARKS TO DONORS.

    ETC.

    HOW CONVENIENT.

    I BETCHYA YOU LIKE CAIN’S IDIOTIC 999 PLAN, TOO.

    AM I WRONG?

    Comment by reliapundit — February 12, 2012 @ 9:34 pm

  7. Uh, kindly can the 100% upper case if you want future comments posted.

    You’re stating facts I don’t dispute, which is why I have said (update: elsewhere, and now here; sorry for not noting that) that Santorum is not perfect. I don’t have to regurgitate them. GMAFB.

    I stand by Romney being to the left of McCain, by a mile, in at least six ways (without even breaking a sweat):
    - McCain has been prolife his entire career; Romney had an “epiphany,” and AFTER it signed RomneyCare which has $50 copays for abortions.
    - McCain has always been against same-sex marriage; Objectively Unfit Mitt Romney imposed it in Massachusetts, illegally and unconstitutionally while violating his own oath of office. (Should I assume you agree with me because YOU haven’t responded to that self-evident assertion?)
    - McCain opposed nationalizing health care; Romney created the lab experiment for national health care known as RomneyCare and gave it undeserved legitimacy, making its passage more possible.
    - McCain as far as I know opposes an individual mandate in any federal legislation relating to health care. Romney thinks it’s a core requirement for people to demonstrate personal responsibility.
    - McCain gets a C+ from the NRA. Romney allegedly gets a B. In practice, Romney has been all over the place, and has said and done things McCain would never say or do.
    - McCain opposed the original Bush tax cuts; so did Romney. McCain supported their extension, twice (actually 3x., counting 2010). It’s very questionable whether Romney would have supported an extension in 2006. He would have had to see which way the wind was blowing. We do know that Romney raised taxes in Massachusetts while he was governor.

    Mitt Romney is so obviously to the left of McCain that you and Romney’s other supporters embarrass yourselves immensely by claiming otherwise (see: Mark Levin skewering Ann Coulter). In reality, RomneyCare’s inherent socialism in health care and the damage it is on the verge of doing to this nation, plus his proactive implementation of same-sex marriage, which has given that issue momentum in several states which never would have come about if he had merely followed his state’s constitution instead of serially violating it, make other matters relatively unimportant. On these two critical issues, this nation’s legal makeup has moved significantly to the left, and Mitt Romney is indisputably the root cause of that movement in each instance.

    Comment by TBlumer — February 12, 2012 @ 9:56 pm

  8. As to the 9-9-9 plan, it’s so crazy that Arthur Laffer, supply-side guru himself, has ridiculed it mercilessly …

    Oh, wait a minute. Laffer ENDORSED IT:

    “Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan would be a vast improvement over the current tax system and a boon to the U.S. economy,” Laffer told HUMAN EVENTS in a statement. “The goal of supply-side tax reform is always a broadening of the tax base and lowering of marginal tax rates.”

    Added Laffer: “Mr. Cain’s plan is simple, transparent, neutral with respect to capital and labor, and savings and consumption, and also greatly decreases the hidden costs of tax compliance. There is no doubt that economic growth would surge upon implementation of 9-9-9.”

    Laffer also said that “such a system provides the least avenues to avoid paying taxes, yet also maintains the strongest incentives for work effort, production, and investment.”

    Other than that, it really stinks. (/sarc)

    Comment by TBlumer — February 13, 2012 @ 8:38 am

  9. [...] 2: I thought it would be a good idea to post the last portion (with minor revision) of a more detailed comment I put up last night after another gentleman tried to claim that my assertion that “On a [...]

    Pingback by BizzyBlog — February 13, 2012 @ 11:21 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.