Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: JediJones; ansel12; b9; CAluvdubya

Teamed with Barbara BOXER for “ PROTECTING OPEN SPACE” = YIKES!

5 posted on 02/19/2012 12:14:10 AM PST by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: onyx

Had to look it up what they meant by “open space”. Basically, “open space” regulations are designed to prevent designated undeveloped areas from ever being developed, no matter who owns them. So much for property rights.

Federal land grabs- protecting open space by forcing States to cede teritory to D.C.


Some quotes from Santorum about these ads from a CNN interview...

CROWLEY: Let me take a trip down memory lane with you and play a 2006 ad that you ran in what was ultimately a losing battle to keep your Senate seat. Let me play it just a second.


SANTORUM: To get things done, you’ve got to work together. I teamed up with Joe Lieberman to make college more affordable for low- income families, and Barbara Boxer and I wrote a law protecting open space. I’m even working with Hillary Clinton to limit inappropriate material in children’s video games.

(END VIDEO CLIP) CROWLEY: I want to pair that up with a statement from someone who was present at some kind of meeting with you at CPAC where you assured them that you would not move back to the center were you to become president of the United States.

So where is the Rick Santorum that paired up with Joe Lieberman, Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton? He just won’t be there if he becomes president?

SANTORUM: Well, a lot of the things I was just talking about, I mean, protecting kids on the Internet is a conservative thing to do. I mean, Hillary Clinton came on our side on that. And the things I worked with Joe Lieberman, the same thing. You know, these are things that we worked on that we could find bipartisan accommodations. Open space was a very, very important issue in suburban Philadelphia, as it is out here in California. And this was an opportunity for — to really work with local communities who wanted to preserve that space, particularly in urban areas.

So again, this is — these are not big government programs. This is actually working with local communities, working with libraries, working with parents’ groups to make sure that children aren’t exposed to inappropriate material on the Internet and in schools. This is — this is, again, consistent with the values that I hold.

CROWLEY: OK. And let me play you another that came from the same era, this 2006 campaign.


SANTORUM: This paper, they say “The real problem with Rick Santorum is he’s too liberal.” They didn’t like my legislation calling for a raise in the minimum wage. And the White House probably called me a lot of things, but I fought their efforts to cut Amtrak funding.


CROWLEY: So if you should get to the White House, would you entertain raising the minimum wage? Would you continue to protect and raise funds for Amtrak?

SANTORUM: Well, on the issue of the minimum wage, if you go back and look at my record, I voted against the minimum wage increase many, many times, but when the minimum wage gets to the point where it truly needs to be raised because it’s now — you know, I think the number, historically, is below 7 percent of the workforce is now being paid the minimum wage, I do support a minimum wage.

I do not support what Governor Romney has suggested, which is indexing the minimum wage. That is a very bad idea that will lead to wage inflation. But when the minimum wage drops as the economy improves and inflation eventually creeps up, to set a basic minimum wage at the federal level, I have supported throughout my political career, yes. But I don’t support anything in the minimum wage that would be an inflator of wages. And that’s the real big difference between the two. And as far as Amtrak funding, you know, look, I represent Pennsylvania. That ad was run in Philadelphia. That’s an important piece of —


CROWLEY: So an important Amtrak place.

SANTORUM: — of the economic viability. Yes. The economic viability of that very busy and congested corridor. So what I have said is that, you know, that, look, we need to look at all things in government. Amtrak would be one. I’m convinced now that Amtrak is something that, you know, should not be funded by a federal level. We’re in a very, very different time —


SANTORUM: — now and the — and the economy of this country and the budget deficits. and Amtrak funding would be one of those things that’s just going to have to go.

CROWLEY: And yet Mitt Romney is criticized by you and others when he says, listen, I did what was best for my state when I went — you know, signed health care into law for my state. It was not a federal thing. You know, I will repeal ObamaCare, but you all hit him, and he was representing his state at the time. What’s the difference here?

SANTORUM: Well, I think there’s a big difference between funding a program that’s been funded a long time (ph) OK, Amtrak, which does — you know, look, it’s — you make the argument, as I have, that funding Amtrak, which is a passenger rail service, is in many respects like funding a highway system.

That you know, that provides interstate transportation between the — between the — between the states and something the federal government does and really and it’s in the Constitution to do so.

It’s very different than having the government mandate that you buy health insurance, or the government pay and trade a right, as we’ve seen just this week, when the government creates a right to health insurance, they create the right to be able to tell you how to exercise the provision of that insurance, as we saw with the Catholic Church.

That’s a very different thing than a transportation program. There are certainly legitimate arguments whether we should fund Amtrak or not, but that is a very different thing that a fundamental takeover of a sector of the economy.

CROWLEY: OK. Senator Santorum, I have got to leave it there. Thanks for joining us this morning.

8 posted on 02/19/2012 12:30:36 AM PST by JediJones (Just say NO to the MittRick system! Disenfranchise the establishment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: onyx

PSSSSST ricky you aint sposed to work WIF ‘em yer supposed to work AGIN ‘EM and their wacky ideas....the only reachin across the aisle we’re interested in is a wack alongside the noggin so some sense gets in...and no sittin on no sofa with no lib either....carry on small grasshopper...

19 posted on 02/19/2012 1:10:52 AM PST by flat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

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