Skip to comments.Palin says Santorum is not a ‘threat’ to Romney
Posted on 02/12/2012 2:35:54 PM PST by VinL
click here to read article
Your statement was that Sarah Palin knew Santorum, and to know him was to NOT like him.
OK, I guess that could be read as your opinion that she must not like him, but it sure sounded like you were saying that she didn’t like him.
I apologize for taking that leap, but it didn’t seem so far to jump.
Rick Santorum seems to have excelled at it. I've challenged Santorum supporters to post his pro-conservative voting record, and all I ever get in return is snark and childish arguments.
Michael Tanner writing in NRO online:
"...the Tea Party and 2010 elections were largely about economic issues and the desire to limit the size, cost, and intrusiveness of government. And those issues are not Santorums strong suit.
There is no doubt that Santorum is deeply conservative on social issues. He is ardently anti-abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, and no one takes a stronger stand against gay rights. In fact, with his comparison of gay sex to man on dog relationships, Santorum seldom even makes a pretense of tolerance. While that sort of rhetoric may play well in Iowa pulpits, it will be far less well received elsewhere in the nation.
At the same time, on economic and size-of-government issues, Santorums record is much weaker. In fact, Eric Erickson of Red State refers to Santorum as a pro-life statist.
When Hillary Clinton was justly excoriated by conservatives for her book It Takes A Village, which advocated greater government involvement in our lives, Rick Santorum countered with his book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, which advocated greater government involvement in our lives. Among the many government programs he supported: national service, publicly financed trust funds for children, community-investment incentives, and economic-literacy programs in every school in America (italics in original).
Santorums voting record shows that he embraced George Bushstyle big-government conservatism. For example, he supported the Medicare prescription-drug benefit and No Child Left Behind.
He never met an earmark that he didnt like. In fact, it wasnt just earmarks for his own state that he favored, which might be forgiven as pure electoral pragmatism, but earmarks for everyone, including the notorious Bridge to Nowhere. The quintessential Washington insider, he worked closely with Tom DeLay to set up the K Street Project, linking lobbyists with the GOP leadership.
He voted against NAFTA and has long opposed free trade. He backed higher tariffs on everything from steel to honey. He still supports an industrial policy with the government tilting the playing field toward manufacturing industries and picking winners and losers.
In fact, Santorum might be viewed as the mirror image of Ron Paul. If Ron Pauls campaign has been based on the concept of simply having government leave us alone, Santorum rejects that entire concept. True liberty, he writes, is not the freedom to be left alone, but the freedom to attend to ones duties to God, to family, and to neighbors. And he seems fully prepared to use the power of government to support his interpretation of those duties."
(more at the link)
Wow! If Rick is that bad on guns, Newt must really suck since both the NRA and GOA rank Santorum higher than Gingrich!
Santorum is a lawyer, and I think that might make him less critical about judges; certainly though in the 90s things hadn't deteriorated to the point we are today.
Santorum voted against the bills that raised spending, and he voted YES to pay the debt we accrued through that spending. I know that nowadays people think that not raising the debt ceiling is a fiscally responsible thing -- but seriously, the fiscally responsible thing is to not vote to spend the money, not to vote to not pay the credit card bill.
Things have gotten so bad that some now think that holding the debt ceiling is the only way we can stop spending. But it isn't fiscally responsible, it's a desperation move, maybe necessary, but it is the end result of the failure of our elected representatives, and a profound failure to live up to our obligations.
I'll have to read your posts, to check links and find out if what you are saying is true or not. That is the sad fact -- I'd love to ignore your posts, but they might be spreading lies, and I can't at this moment trust that you are doing a good job of research.
I'm not voting against a good conservative because he didn't vote no on a multi-billion-dollar appropriations bill because of a few extra million of NEA spending. Every republican budget that had NEA spending had the votes of the republicans.
I've got a question, which I don't know the answer to. Did Newt Gingrich's congress ever send the appropriations bill to the president that had no NEA spending in it? Did we ever actually pass such an appropriations, so Santorum could vote yes on it?
Don’t forget the 90 million Santorum, Liberman and Hillary voted for to study how watching tv effects children.
Santorum is supposed to be a conservative..at least on social issues so how could a conservative lawyer ever go along with a radical left wing judge? it opened the door for her and we know where she sits now.
A few million here...mega millions there are killing our economy. I want it to stop. I am tired of giving congress more of my tax dollars to throw to the wind. There is never any end in site. We need a break!
Just me, but a very conservative woman here and I would be most happy to vote for Newt. Somebody said, “Judge not lest ye be judged.” or some such thing...
Well, go check out Newt's voting record and let us know what you find.
Such an important election-—they all say-— yet NONE are willing to commit.
Friday, 30 September 2011 16:19
Prior to the Republican Revolution of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America. But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.
The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban. And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.
His promise didnt hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped like a lead sinker to a D. In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the gun free school zones act, creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal. Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.1
The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing ones Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.2 Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home -- and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.
While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996. Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was a very reasonable position.3 He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress -- despite repeated requests to do so.4
Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions. For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.5 (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.) Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to centralize Federal, State and Local police.6
Let's see what the interest groups have to say:
The Reagan coalition consists of social, fiscal, and national security conservatives. No one disputes that he is socially conservative, so I won't bother posting what social issues groups say about him. On national defense issues, as i posted before, the Center for Security Policy gave him a rating of 94% in 03-04. Here is what some interest groups relating to fiscal issues say. AFL-CIO gave him a lifetime rating of 13%. SEIU gave him 0% in 2005. United States Chamber of Commerce in 2005 gave him 100%. The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council gave him 95% in 2005 and 100% in 2004. Americans For Tax reform gave him 95% in 2005. On gun issues, I already mention that the NRA rated him as A+. On immigration issues, the Federation for American Immigration Reform gave him a rating of 93% for 2005-2006. On environmental issues, the League of Private Property voters gave him 89%, 83%, and 100% in 2006, 2005, and 2004, respectively. Republicans for Environmental Protection gave him 0 in 2005, and the American Wilderness Coalition gave him 0% in 2005.
Sounds like a pretty conservative guy to me.
Alright, but unlike the Rick rollers, I'll admit that Newt ain't been perfect on every single vote. That said, he left Congress with a 100% ACU rating, while Santo left with a score of 88%.
Santo also didn't have a leadership roll in Congress, like Newt did. Newt's got some actual accomplishments under his belt, and they were large. Ricky? Not so much. Not even close.
I am merely presenting information about candidates past records so voters can make an informed decision.
The opinion of Club For Growth is not necessarily mine. I just quoted them. I have also in the past quoted the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
Charles, Santorum voted against an amendment that specifically would have eliminated funding for programs and activities carried out by the National Endowment for the Arts.
According to the ACU:
Rick Santorums Senate voting record:
Voted for taxpayer funding of the National Endowment for the Arts.
Voted against a 10% cut in the budget for National Endowment for the Arts.
Voted for a Schumer amendment to make the debts of pro-life demonstrators not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Defense and Foreign Policy
Voted for the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
Voted against requiring the President to certify that the CWC is effectively verifiable.
Voted against requiring the President to certify that that Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, China, and all other countries determined to be state sponsors of terror have joined CWC prior to submitting the instrument of ratification.
Voted for the START II Treaty.
Voted to allow the sale of supercomputers to China.
Voted to ban anti-personnel landmines.
Voted against increasing defense spending offset by equivalent cuts in non-defense spending.
Voted to require that Federal bureaucrats get the same pay raises as uniformed military.
Voted to allow food and medicine sales to state sponsors of terror and tyrannical regimes such as Libya and Cuba.
Voted to limit the Presidents authority to impose sanctions on nations for reasons of national security unless the sanctions were approved by a multilateral regime.
Voted against requiring Congressional authorization for military action in Bosnia.
Voted to give $25 million in foreign aid to North Korea.
Voted to weaken alien terrorist deportation provisions. If the Court determines that the evidence must be withheld for national security reasons, the Justice Department must still provide a summary of the evidence sufficient for the alien terrorist to mount a defense against deportation.
Voted against delaying the India Nuclear until the President certified that India had agreed to suspend military-to-military exchanges with Iran.
Voted against the Conventional Trident Missile Program.
Voted for Richard Paez to the 9th Curcuit (cloture).
Voted for Sonia Sotomayor, Circuit Judge.
Voted for Richard Holbrooke to be Ambassador to the UN.
Voted for Margaret Morrow to be District Judge.
Voted twice for Marsha Berzon to the 9thg Circuit.
Voted for Mary McLaughlin to be District Judge.
Voted for Tim Dyk to be District Judge.
Voted for James Brady to be District Judge.
Voted against National Right to Work Act.
Voted against repeal of Davis-Bacon Prevailing union wages.
Voted for Alexis Herman to be Secretary of Labor.
Voted for mandatory Federal child care funding.
Voted for Trade Adjustment Assistance.
Voted for Job Corps funding.
Voted twice in support of Fedex Unionization.
Voted against allowing a waiver of Davis-Bacon in emergency situations.
Voted for minimum wage increases six times here here here here here and here.
Voted to require a union representative on an IRS oversight board.
Voted to exempt IRS union representatives from criminal ethics laws.
Voted against creating independent Board of Governors to investigate IRS abuses.
Voted to require pawn shops to do background checks on people who pawn a gun.
Voted twice to make it illegal to sell a gun without a secure storage or safety device.
Voted for a Federal ban on possession of assault weapons by those under 18.
Voted for Federal funding for anti-gun education programs in schools.
Voted for anti-gun juvenile justice bill.
Voted for funding for the legal services corporation.
Voted twice for a Congressional pay raise.
Voted to impose a uniform Federal mandate on states to force them to allow convicted rapists, arsonists, drug kingpins, and all other ex-convicts to vote in Federal elections.
Voted for the Specter backup plan to allow campaign finance reform to survive if portions of the bill were found unconstitutional.
Voted to mandate discounted broadcast times for politicians.
Voted for a McCain amendment to require state and local campaign committees to report all campaign contributions to the FEC and to require all campaign contributions to be reported to the FEC within 24 hours within 90 days of an election.
Voted against increasing the number of immigration investigators.
Voted to allow illegal immigrants to receive the earned income credit before becoming citizens.
Voted to give SSI benefits to legal aliens.
Voted to give welfare benefits to naturalized citizens without regard to the earnings of their sponsors.
Voted against hiring an additional 1,000 border patrol agents, paid for by reductions in state grants.
Voted against a flat tax.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for Medicare prescription drugs.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to fund health insurance subsidies for small businesses.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an $8 billion increase in child healh insurance.
Voted to increase tobacco taxes to pay for an increase in NIH funding.
Voted twice for internet taxes.
Voted to allow gas tax revenues to be used to subsidize Amtrak.
Voted to strike marriage penalty tax relief and instead provide fines on tobacco companies.
Voted against repealing the Clinton 4.3 cent gas tax increase.
Voted to increase taxes by $2.3 billion to pay for an Amtrak trust fund.
Voted to allow welfare to a minor who had a child out of wedlock and who resided with an adult who was on welfare within the previous two years.
Voted to increase taxes by $9.4 billion to pay for a $9.4 billion increase in student loans.
Voted to say that AMT patch is more important than capital gains and dividend relief.
Voted against food stamp reform.
Voted against Medicaid reform.
Voted against TANF reform.
Voted to increase the Social Services Block Grant from $1 billion to $2 billion.
Voted to increase the FHA loan from $170,000 to $197,000. Also opposed increasing GNMA guaranty from 6 basis points to 12.
Voted for $2 billion for low income heating assistance.
Sponsored an amendment to increase Amtrak funds by $550 million.
Voted to use HUD funds for the Joslyn Art Museum (NE), the Stand Up for Animals project (RI) and the Seattle Art Museums Olympic Sculpture Project (WA).
Voted to increase spending on social programs by $7 billion.
Voted to increase NIH funding by $1.6 billion.
Voted to increase NIHnding by $700 million.
Voted to for a $2 million earmark to renovate the Vulcan Monument (AL).
Voted for a $1 billion bailout for the steel industry.
Voted against requiring that highway earmarks would come out of a states highway allocation.
Voted to allow Market Access Program funds to go to foreign companies.
Voted to allow OPIC to increase its administrative costs by 50%.
Voted against transferring $20 million from AmeriCorps to veterans.
Voted for the $140 billion asbestos compensation bill.
Voted against requiring a uniform medical criteria to ensure asbestos claims were legitimate.
Voted to increase community development programs by $2 billion.
Spending and Entitlements
Voted to make Medicare part B premium subsidies a new entitlement.
Voted against paying off the debt ($5.6 trillion at the time) within 30 years.
Voted to give $18 billion to the IMF.
Voted to raid Social Security instead of using surpluses to pay down the debt.
Voted to allow states to impose health care mandates that are stricter than proposed new Federal mandates, but not weaker.
Voted twice for Federal mental health parity mandates in health insurance.
Voted against allowing consumers the option to purchase a plan outside the parity mandate.
Voted to increase Federal funding for teacher testing.
Voted to increase spending for the Department of Education by $3.1 billion.
Voted against requiring courts to consider the impact of IDEA awards on a local school district.
Voted to allow the President to designate certain sites as interim nuclear waste storage sites in the event that he determines that Yucca Mountain is not a suitable site for a permanent waste repository. Those sites are as follows: the nuclear waste site in Hanford, Washington; the Savannah River Site in South Carolina; Barnwell County, South Carolina; and the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee.
Voted to make fuel price gouging a Federal crime.
If by, "left with" you mean their respective ratings for their last year in office you're right. That's like saying Hank Aaron "left MLB with" 10 home runs (1976, his last year).
IMHO, a more realistic use of the term "left with" would be their aggregate lifetime ratings for their congressional careers which puts Newt at 90% and Santorum at 88.1%. Given that Newt was a Representative from a safe conservative district, and Rick was a Senator from a swing state, the only really shocking thing about that comparison is why Newt's wasn't much higher....
I guess those interest groups have no idea what they are talking about then...
Thank you for a specific reference. For the record, this is not the bill referenced in your previous post, or the vote. This vote was on amendment 1626, as you mentioned. This is the congressional record for that amendment:
SA 1626. Mr. REED (for Mr. KOHL) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; as follows:(Sorry for the long link, but it's important to read the text of this particular amendment in full, to understand both the limits of it's scope, and the advantages confered.SEC. 5. CHILD SAFETY LOCKS. (a) SHORT TITLE.--This section may be cited as the ``Child Safety Lock Act of 2005''. [Page: S9193] GPO's PDF (b) PURPOSES.--The purposes of this section are-- (1) to promote the safe storage and use of handguns by consumers; (2) to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access to or use of a handgun, including children who may not be in possession of a handgun; and (3) to avoid hindering industry from supplying firearms to law abiding citizens for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting. (c) FIREARMS SAFETY.-- (1) MANDATORY TRANSFER OF SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.--Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following: ``(z) SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.-- ``(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided under paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun to any person other than any person licensed under this chapter, unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device (as defined in section 921(a)(34)) for that handgun. ``(2) EXCEPTIONS.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to-- ``(A)(i) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the United States, a department or agency of the United States, a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or ``(ii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off duty); or ``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty); ``(C) the transfer to any person of a handgun listed as a curio or relic by the Secretary pursuant to section 921(a)(13); or ``(D) the transfer to any person of a handgun for which a secure gun storage or safety device is temporarily unavailable for the reasons described in the exceptions stated in section 923(e), if the licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer delivers to the transferee within 10 calendar days from the date of the delivery of the handgun to the transferee a secure gun storage or safety device for the handgun. ``(3) LIABILITY FOR USE.-- ``(A) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, and who uses a secure gun storage or safety device with the handgun, shall be entitled to immunity from a qualified civil liability action. ``(B) PROSPECTIVE ACTIONS.--A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court. ``(C) DEFINED TERM.--As used in this paragraph, the term `qualified civil liability action'-- ``(i) means a civil action brought by any person against a person described in subparagraph (A) for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the handgun by a third party, if-- ``(I) the handgun was accessed by another person who did not have the permission or authorization of the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun to have access to it; and ``(II) at the time access was gained by the person not so authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage or safety device; and ``(ii) shall not include an action brought against the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun for negligent entrustment or negligence per se.''. (2) CIVIL PENALTIES.--Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and (B) by adding at the end the following: ``(p) PENALTIES RELATING TO SECURE GUN STORAGE OR SAFETY DEVICE.-- ``(1) IN GENERAL.-- ``(A) SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF LICENSE; CIVIL PENALTIES.--With respect to each violation of section 922(z)(1) by a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer, the Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for hearing-- ``(i) suspend for not more than 6 months, or revoke, the license issued to the licensee under this chapter that was used to conduct the firearms transfer; or ``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount equal to not more than $2,500. ``(B) REVIEW.--An action of the Secretary under this paragraph may be reviewed only as provided under section 923(f). ``(2) ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.--The suspension or revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty under paragraph (1) shall not preclude any administrative remedy that is otherwise available to the Secretary.''. (3) LIABILITY; EVIDENCE.-- (A) LIABILITY.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to-- (i) create a cause of action against any Federal firearms licensee or any other person for any civil liability; or (ii) establish any standard of care. (B) EVIDENCE.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with the amendments made by this section shall not be admissible as evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or other entity, except with respect to an action relating to section 922(z) of title 18, United States Code, as added by this subsection. (C) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to bar a governmental action to impose a penalty under section 924(p) of title 18, United States Code, for a failure to comply with section 922(z) of that title. (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.--This section and the amendments made by this section shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
As you can see, this amendment did require that guns being sold have child locks or some other lockable storage device included with the sale. It then gave immunity from prosecution to people who used these devices if their gun ended up being used to commit a crime.
Now, I could certainly MAKE the argument that forcing a gun dealer to provide gun locks with their sales does infringe on the free contract between private entities. However, the safety devices were already required under a different section of the law, so this bill was making sure that people who purchased guns would have the devices necessary to secure the guns.
The purpose of the bill was to limit liability for gun manufacturers. The amendment offered liability to gun owners who used locks, and ensured that gun owners would have the locks necessary.
The bill itself required secure storage: Requires all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices (Sec. 5).
So this amendment was a minor revision, to ensure secure storage was provided to purchasers, and to then provide purchasers (owners) with immunity.
Here is what the NRA said about S397: Victory in Senate (09/2005 - S397):
When the U.S. Senate voted 65-31 to pass S.397 - the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - and end predatory lawsuits against our firearm industry, gun owners scored their greatest legislative win since enactment of 1986`s Firearms Owners` Protection Act.So, the complaint against Santorum in THIS comment is that he voted for an amendment to a bill he got passed, for which the NRA specifically called him out for special recognition. I don't think this is the anti-gun vote you were looking for.
Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania were also vital members of this winning team, working with their colleagues to make sure the bill would come up for a vote before Congress left for its August recess.
They don't mention the child lock amendment, so I don't know if they counted that as an "anti-gun" vote, or just a necessary part of getting a filibuster-proof majority to support this bill. Santorum, as a leader, would have been expected to support deals that would have brought the necessary senators to vote yes on the final vote, allowing other more at-risk senators to vote no and maintain a more "pure" voting record.
Anyway, that's the history of this amendment, which again is not the vote that was linked to in your previous post that I complained about.
No, you're intentionally ignoring the fact that Santo didn't vote like a conservative, no matter what district he came from. That's why HIS rating wasn't higher when he left office. Franky, with his record, I don't know why he rated as high as he did.
I have no idea what sort of intangibles those 'interest groups' use to come up with their assessments of politicians, or how they may otherwise be influenced.
I do know what Rick's voting record says. That's not intangible, and it's what I'm judging the man on.
As I said, I’m not picking my President over a vote on NEA funding that has been included in every appropriations bill passed by a republican house and senate, a minor part of huge appropriations bills. Especially not on votes that won by a 76-22 margin.
Santorum has said that he voted on some things in the Senate based on what he knew the people he represented would want. I’m not sure I agree with that, and I know others want more conservative purity from their candidates, but it is a sound principle of representative government. I have no idea why he voted the way he did on this particular issue, but I bet if he was given time to refresh his memory, he’d answer the question, whether we liked the answer or not.
It’s a fool’s errand trying to explain every vote taken by a senator over their career. Individual votes can be found and spliced together. Santorum apparently voted conservatively enough during his time in office that he ended up with a lifetime 88.1 ACU rating, only 1.9 points less than Gingrich, who I am assured is a solid Reagan conservative. Organizations know which votes were important, and which were not, and are often better at judging and rating candidates.
LOL...first you cherry pick the ACU ratings for a single year snapshot to support your point, then when you're called on it, and it's pointed out that their aggregate lifetime ACU ratings are quite close (88.1 vs. 90) you question the validity of the ACU assessment (for Santorum).
You sound like a cheap defense attorney hedging his bets. "Your honor, my client did NOT kill that man, but if he did, it was self defense!"
The man was in Congress for a sixteen years and has many more votes than the ones you have posted. You’re posting a cherry-picked “record” that omits his conservative votes and does not provide context for any of his apparently non-conservative votes.
You can vote for a candidate based on anything that you want Charles. I didn't even bring up the subject about the NEA. I'm just responding to your comment pointing out what is fact.
And the fact remains that the vote wasn't on a full appropriations bill containing NEA funding. Instead is was an amendment to specifically eliminate NEA funding (and exchange it for park funding).
Santorum voted "no" on it.
There is a logical difference between a person who votes for a full appropriations bill that may contain something undesirable and a person who specifically votes against defunding a undesirable item in a separate amendment.
LOL! Has to be the first in the known universe Newt Gingrich has ever been compared to The Fonz.
Of course, Newt voted to raise the debt ceiling too. However, Santoum never co-endorsed a candidate for Congress with ACORN.
Wow. This is not Sesame Street. lol. I just don’t know what to tell you except maybe go find a nicer site. lol
Watch the video... Sarah did not say it in a negative way... she was actually reacting to the question and seemed to think using the words “ a threat” was not a good way to say it... she instead thought Santorum was a good competitor...
Watch and listen to the tone.... I think this is being spun as a shot at Santorum and it definitely is not.
Nice try for some in media who want to cause friction. Too bad the tape is there for us to watch.
No, I’m starting to think that if Rick is seriously challenging Milt, they (the money and ground support) will come! And he is. Bob
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.