Posted on 04/03/2012 11:21:31 AM PDT by Lazlo in PA
Yep, and he’s not remotely clean either.. he got sent packing for very good reason, and those that argue otherwise are just fools.
He may yet drop out if it seems to him he may not do well in Pa. Rick will protect his political career rather than take another hit on top of the loss he had in Pa. before. Interesting read from the Hill:
from Senate Appropriations Chairman Jake Corman in a story in The Hill claiming that the ‘possibility’ of a loss in PA. April 24 might force Rick to drop out of the GOP race sooner rather than later :
Santorum has managed to resurrect his political career after this 2006 loss to now-U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa. A loss in Pennsylvania could undo that work, they say. That’s sparked speculation that if Santorum doesn’t like his chances in Pennsylvania, he might drop out.
“If he loses Pennsylvania twice, that’s going to really hobble him in the future. That’d be very hard to live down,”
I don’t live in PA. Your own words now you want to disown and pass it to another. LOL!
I've been around politics long enough to know that something like the article caww cited didn't come out of nowhere. It's virtually tailor-made to damage Rick Santorum in his home state with his core constituency of conservative Christians. While I am not going to criticize the motives of the author and am inclined to take him at his word about his reasons for writing and maybe even his own timing, the timing of the article's prominent appearance in a major conservative magazine like Forbes is pretty likely intended by the Romney campaign to attack Santorum and is likely part of an effort to knock Santorum out of the race by wrecking his polling numbers in Pennsylvania.
I know nothing about the author or his background as an Christian broadcaster or his credibility in Pennsylvania. I also don't know local issues. What I do know is this article has to be rebutted by the Santorum campaign, and rebutted quickly.
I see at least two potential problems with the article. There may well be others which I have not noticed because I don't know Pennsylvania politics, and what I write here is tentative. Somebody from the Santorum campaign needs to write a much better response.
First, the article uses the “lie” word in ways which are questionable at best. That is a very, very serious charge. That word needs to be used very rarely and only when it can be proved that someone has deliberately stated things he knew to be false with an intent to deceive. Most statements by political figures are made carefully enough that they can't be caught in a deliberate lie, so even if I think an elected official lied, I usually can't prove it, and if I can't prove it I'm not going to make the accusation.
In this specific article, while I think some of the accusations (i.e., the charitable giving) are potentially capable of being proved to be deliberate lies, I'm not at all convinced the article has proved that Santorum lied even about that, and much less so the other accusations. I don't recall any case where I have accused Gingrich or even Romney of lying, and the evidence the author cites is weak in at least some of the situations he cites. I'm not saying it's wrong, only that the evidence isn't there.
Second, I am not at all convinced that Santorum backing a proposal to use government funding to keep professional sports teams is a good example of his supposed “big government” views. Do I like such things? No, but the reality is that I live in an area where the entire future of our community depends on Department of Defense spending, and where things like TIFs and CIDs and NIDs and other things of that type are standard engines of economic growth which the broadcaster dismisses as Keynesian economics.
I think it's clear that Pennsylvania is far from the only area where governments have spent tens of millions of dollars to keep a professional sports team in town, or to provide some other incentive to a private business to keep its owners in town or convince its owners to move to town or expand an existing operation. We can say Santorum was wrong to do that, and that's fine, but blaming Santorum for doing what his constituents wanted, especially when what they wanted has become standard practice in economic development, is asking Santorum to be the sort of elected official who probably can't get re-elected in a moderate-to-liberal state.
If that's the worst example the author can come up with of Santorum’s supposed “big government” views, I think the author is proving only that Santorum is from a northern “rustbelt” state where the government has been involved in providing incentives to business for at least a century. I also think it wouldn't be too hard to find lots of conservative Southerners who support the same or similar incentives to business. Feel free to disagree — that's a fair question — but those who disagree would have been in a very small minority of people in government until the current economic crisis in which lots of people agree staving off bankruptcy needs to be the key priority.
So, since the ACU has an objective method of summing up respective records by the same criteria I tend to trust their assessments.
According to them, Santorum, while not as good as some, is a better conservative choice than most.
Anyway its true all this is increasingly moot.
As the Primary now turns toward Rick's homestate there is no doubt the Romney camp will be in full swing to upset his chances. However there are also those in Pa. who have not forgotten why Rick was booted before and are not about to be taken in by him again. So we'll be seeing more articles from authors etc. who might very well be airing their own opinion for that. It's no secret the idea is to prevent Romney taking the state...though it's almost too late for that. I will soon be voting and though not in Santorums court if he looks to take the state over Newt then I will vote for SAntorum to keep Romney out. But not happy to do so.
Thank you for posting this article, caww. When life deals me a lemon, I like to make lemonade.
Look at this item later in the article you posted from Politico. It looks to me like you've pretty much proved that Santorum is not an establishment Republican candidate and is coming under pressure by party leaders to pull out.
What you (or at least the avowed Romney backers quoted in the article) meant as part of an anti-Santorum narrative looks like it could be a pretty good argument for voting in favor of him.
By the way, you are still a Gingrich backer, right? Would you like to explain to us how Romney winning Pennsylvania will help Gingrich defeat Romney? If you're simply providing information, that's certainly a good thing, and I'm glad to read these articles. But I can't see how it helps Gingrich to harm Santorum in Pennsylvania -- looks to me like a Romney win in Pennsylvania hurts Gingrich and Santorum both by continuing to add to Romney's delegate count.
_____
Santorum has managed to resurrect his political career after this 2006 loss to now-U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa. A loss in Pennsylvania could undo that work, they say. That’s sparked speculation that if Santorum doesn’t like his chances in Pennsylvania, he might drop out.
“Former Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.), a Romney backer who managed Santorum’s first House race in 1990, called the results “stunning.”
“He’s done nothing to repair the damage that was created in the lead-up to 2006, and a lot of it was self-inflicted,” said English, who praised Santorum for his strong campaign but warned that if he continued to run the GOP establishment might blackball him in the future, which could severely limit his influence within the party.
“I supported Rick Santorum every time he ran for office and was thrilled he did as well as he did … but Rick Santorum has already effectively lost the nomination,” he said. “The question becomes, does he have any role in the future of the party?”
Your last post prior to mine (#68) says this: “It's no secret the idea is to prevent Romney taking the state...though it's almost too late for that. I will soon be voting and though not in Santorums court if he looks to take the state over Newt then I will vote for SAntorum to keep Romney out. But not happy to do so.”
I can and do respect that position. I have just publicly questioned your motives and I need to think more carefully before I do that or something similar in the future.
Again, I apologize. I was wrong, and I'm sincerely sorry.
Most of what I wrote was legitimate, but this paragraph was both unnecessary and inappropriate: “By the way, you are still a Gingrich backer, right? Would you like to explain to us how Romney winning Pennsylvania will help Gingrich defeat Romney? If you're simply providing information, that's certainly a good thing, and I'm glad to read these articles. But I can't see how it helps Gingrich to harm Santorum in Pennsylvania — looks to me like a Romney win in Pennsylvania hurts Gingrich and Santorum both by continuing to add to Romney's delegate count.”
Assessing motives is very difficult. I know better than to do that, and my post was out of line.
Thinking before typing is good for the same reasons aiming before firing is good. If I don't have the time to think through what I'm writing, then I need to wait until I have that time.
Again, caww, my apologies. I blew it.
Over and out for a while.
Rick is by no means the ideal candidate and I have many reasons why I would much rather support Newt...immensely so. But it is a game and even the voter has to gage what all this is really about....and it's about stopping Romney... so far it isn't working as well as hoped with the Media block out of Newt and any favorable spots for Santorum. Therefore the voter has to discern where his vote will count most.
As for how Romney and Santorum and the GOP play this state remains to be seen...but it will likely get hot before it's over....the question in my mind would Santorum step out if he thinks he's chances are growing slim, in order to save his political career?
.
- BREAKING NEWS:
Santorum may actually win a primary against another Republican in his own home state.....
So what?
.
That is right. You know why earmarks are good? Because actual ELECTED officials distribute the money as opposed to nebulous Federal Agencies. Elected officials deciding where dollars are spent is actually covered in the CONSTITUTION.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
If you don't like how your legislator is spending money, you can vote him out. Apparently there wasn't much issue with Santorum on the stadium because he beat Klink 52 to 45 in a blue state.
On the other hand, I cannot find in the Constitution where the House can set up a bank where the members can involve themselves in steeling cash through check kiting schemes. Is that under the "Crooks and Liars" clause or the "Lying Thieves" Amendment?
He didn’t get break 50 percent either. I guess getting two whole states is better than winning 11 states in your delusional world.
I’m not a big romney fan, but Rick needs to drop out now, it’s rediculous at this point, he’s lost, it’s not going to be a brokered convention, period. So he’s making our side spend more more fighting each other instead of the already “known” winner focusing on obama. Rick at this point is helping obama, that is the plain ol’ truth.
Santorum may actually win a primary against another Republican in his own home state.....
So what?
Oh brother. We had to listen for months and months about how great Newt was going to do in Georgia and God forbid someone say “but it is only his homestate.” You guys are so hypocritical it is laughable.
Baloney. Read the article at this thread. It shows how incredibly weak and damaged Romney is. He is the biggest thing hurting the GOP right now and it is all his own doing. Rick needs to keep challenging Milt right up until he hits the delegate number, IF he hits the delegate number.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2868242/posts
Whatever, it really doesn’t matter, Obama’s going to win, it sucks, but I’ve already started the greiving process, I’m already over it, sad for my kids that they won’t get to live free, but we have God, and they can never take Him away from us.
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.